PDA

View Full Version : P-80 and the Me 262 - just some info.



FuryFighter
01-13-2004, 03:12 AM
Just some interesting notes I've gathered on the 262, and the P-80's

(Just so you all know, the P-80 stats refer to the P-80A verion and the 262 is the standard 262A-1a)
-------------------------

P-80A is faster at sea level by 44 mph (P80A - 558mph, Me - 514mph)
As altitude increases, the Me 262 gains then exceeds the P-80A's speed by a comfortable margin - 532mph at alt for the 262 and 492mph for the P-80A.

P-80A is superior in climb and range, range more comfortably. Climb of 1200m per min for 262 and 1400m in P-80A.
-------------------------

Engines - The first P-80A was powered by a British engine, the US were behind in jet technologies, they needed the P-80A to catch up and thier first attempt was inferior to contemporary props.

Engine stats.

One General Electric J33-GE-11 or
Allison J33-A-9 with 3,850 lb S.T. (1,746 kg).

Junkers Jumo 004B-1 axial flow jet 1986lb (900kg) static thrust
-------------------------
The P-80A airframe all up is smaller however, all up take off weights are remarkably close. 6387kg for the 262A-1a and 6350kg for the P-80A. The 262 has 2770 liters of fuel on board with the P-80A ranging from 1609 to 3350.
-------------------------
In terms of firepower.. the winner there is obvious. Few planes had the sort of firepower of the Me 262 located in such a tight group.
4 30mm Mk 108A-3 cannons compared to 6 .50 cals. The P-80A's weapons are still to be feared, for they are also grouped in the nose.
both aircraft could carry extra ordnance, but the P-80A has better load carrying abilities.
-------------------------

Well... theres just some random notes I've gathered on the 262 and the P-80A. What I'm interested in.. is specific performance comparisons between the 2 aircraft. If anyone can supply, that would be great. Maybe even throw the Meteor into the topic with revelant data for comparison.

all the info I have noted comes from aviation-history.com (http://www.aviation-history.com/lockheed/p80.html)
and The Illustrated Encyclopediaof Aircraft volume9 issue 101. - The Worlds Greatest Aircraft - Messerschmitt 262.

http://www.angelfire.com/space2/messerschmitt262/sig_test.jpg

FuryFighter
01-13-2004, 03:12 AM
Just some interesting notes I've gathered on the 262, and the P-80's

(Just so you all know, the P-80 stats refer to the P-80A verion and the 262 is the standard 262A-1a)
-------------------------

P-80A is faster at sea level by 44 mph (P80A - 558mph, Me - 514mph)
As altitude increases, the Me 262 gains then exceeds the P-80A's speed by a comfortable margin - 532mph at alt for the 262 and 492mph for the P-80A.

P-80A is superior in climb and range, range more comfortably. Climb of 1200m per min for 262 and 1400m in P-80A.
-------------------------

Engines - The first P-80A was powered by a British engine, the US were behind in jet technologies, they needed the P-80A to catch up and thier first attempt was inferior to contemporary props.

Engine stats.

One General Electric J33-GE-11 or
Allison J33-A-9 with 3,850 lb S.T. (1,746 kg).

Junkers Jumo 004B-1 axial flow jet 1986lb (900kg) static thrust
-------------------------
The P-80A airframe all up is smaller however, all up take off weights are remarkably close. 6387kg for the 262A-1a and 6350kg for the P-80A. The 262 has 2770 liters of fuel on board with the P-80A ranging from 1609 to 3350.
-------------------------
In terms of firepower.. the winner there is obvious. Few planes had the sort of firepower of the Me 262 located in such a tight group.
4 30mm Mk 108A-3 cannons compared to 6 .50 cals. The P-80A's weapons are still to be feared, for they are also grouped in the nose.
both aircraft could carry extra ordnance, but the P-80A has better load carrying abilities.
-------------------------

Well... theres just some random notes I've gathered on the 262 and the P-80A. What I'm interested in.. is specific performance comparisons between the 2 aircraft. If anyone can supply, that would be great. Maybe even throw the Meteor into the topic with revelant data for comparison.

all the info I have noted comes from aviation-history.com (http://www.aviation-history.com/lockheed/p80.html)
and The Illustrated Encyclopediaof Aircraft volume9 issue 101. - The Worlds Greatest Aircraft - Messerschmitt 262.

http://www.angelfire.com/space2/messerschmitt262/sig_test.jpg

zodicus1
01-13-2004, 03:40 AM
cool tahnks for the info. should be fun DF'ing in these two planeshttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

ElektroFredrik
01-13-2004, 08:11 AM
Interesting info, tho I don't have any numbers
I can share this little quote from http://www.faqs.org/docs/air/avme262.html

Quote:
The Me-262s were then shipped to the US on the
Royal Navy "jeep" carrier HMS REAPER for
further evaluation at Wright Field in Ohio. The
tests there included a competitive fly-off
against a Lockheed P-80 Shooting Star jet
fighter that demonstrated the general
superiority of the Me-262.

Unquote

General superiority of the 262 http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

http://fanart.lionking.org/imgarchive/FanArt/NisseNjursten/profile.jpg
"What I study is sex and squirrels"

SpremeCommander
01-13-2004, 11:40 AM
The Me262 could go 540mph @ 19,685 ft. This is over 6,000 meters. If the 262 stays high, really high, it will have an advantage. I would expect the P-80 to have better high-speed handling due to its laminar-flow wings. Also, the 262 has immense firepower, but the P-80's should be of equal threat to the 262, since the 262 is a flying gas can.

Gibbage1
01-13-2004, 01:17 PM
OK. Here is my thoughts.

Yes, the Me-262 has greater firepower, but cant place it well. The P-80 has 6 .50 cal's grouped in the nose. THese guns have MUCH MUCH better accuracy and at a greater distance. Also a higher ROF and more trigger time. Plus with the lead computing gunsight, you can place the .50 cals a lot more accuratly then the Mk-108. So in a fighter-2-fighter dogfight, my choice is the P-80. Firepower is NOT everything. Being able too place them is.

2nd, we are getting the YP-80 with a lesser engine. But it should still be very compairable. The P-80 has a much higher altitude ceiling, and the early axial engines suffered greatly at high alt. The P-80 should have the advantage up high also.

The swept wings did not make for a good turn fighter on the 262 http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif The P-80 will be able to turn better, and roll better without two large engines on the wigns slowing it down.

Durability should be better then the 262. Centrafugal engines were a lot tougher then Axial. Plus the P-80 was a typical US fighter. Over built http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif But I doubt it would take more then 1 Mk 108.

Thats my 2 cents.

VW-IceFire
01-13-2004, 01:18 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ElektroFredrik:
Interesting info, tho I don't have any numbers
I can share this little quote from http://www.faqs.org/docs/air/avme262.html

Quote:
The Me-262s were then shipped to the US on the
Royal Navy "jeep" carrier HMS REAPER for
further evaluation at Wright Field in Ohio. The
tests there included a competitive fly-off
against a Lockheed P-80 Shooting Star jet
fighter that demonstrated the general
superiority of the Me-262.

Unquote

General superiority of the 262 http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

http://fanart.lionking.org/imgarchive/FanArt/NisseNjursten/profile.jpg
"What I study is sex and squirrels"<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Which version of the P-80 did they test the Me 262 against? It was demonstrated in another debate that the flyoff was against a prototype which was then redesigned and rebuilt to represent the P-80 that became the production model which had better performance. By all rights, the production models of both airplanes in 1944/45 should be very close in performance...with the more minor differences in roll rate, firepower, and climb rate.

- IceFire
http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/spit-sig.jpg

KGr.HH-Sunburst
01-13-2004, 03:48 PM
great info,cant wait to fly the YP-80

one question tho,wich of the 2 had better accelleration from lets say 400kph to 600kph ?

thanks

http://www.warhawks.tk/
http://www.digital-d.nl/fotos/sunburstsig.jpg

Gibbage1
01-13-2004, 03:55 PM
Well the spooling time for centrafugal engines are longer, but the Me-262's Axial engine was just trouble. In the game, you cant punch the Me-262's engines. I dont know if the YP-80 will be the same way. If it can, that will deturmin the accelleration more then anything. Plus the P-80 is more aerodynamic at the same weight and with more power. So my money is on the P-80 even with the centrafugal engine. We will see.

Gib

MiloMorai
01-13-2004, 04:17 PM
Gib, the P-80A *sed the same engine as the YP-80s, the J33-A-9/GE-11 of 3850lb.s.t. The J-33 was the prod*ction designation of the I-40. The P-80A had some minor differences b*t the biggest change was the addition of an *nder f*selage dive-brake.

The P-80 has a ceiling advantage of 2300m(7550ft) over the Me262. (13,700m - 11400m)

At SL, the P-80 is ~ 60kmh faster than the Me262.

data is for the J 33 A-11 engine

tagert
01-13-2004, 04:34 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gibbage1:
OK. Here is my thoughts.

Yes, the Me-262 has greater firepower, but cant place it well. The P-80 has 6 .50 cal's grouped in the nose. THese guns have MUCH MUCH better accuracy and at a greater distance. Also a higher ROF and more trigger time. Plus with the lead computing gunsight, you can place the .50 cals a lot more accuratly then the Mk-108. So in a fighter-2-fighter dogfight, my choice is the P-80. Firepower is NOT everything. Being able too place them is.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Agreed 100%! On that note, *they* tend to forget, by the time they stopped trying to make the 262 into a fighter-bomber the LW needed a bomber-interceptor... not another fighter. The big 30mm are great for big slow moving targets like B17s.. but not as good againts fast moving and manuvering fighters like the P51 etc. The P80.. like the rest of the USAAF was fist and formost a fighter-vs-fighter.. In that the USA had no real threat from long range bombers.. we didnt need big guns to take down big planes. On top of that the 0.50 was perfect for fighter-vs-fighter and just fine for most bombers the axis had online anyways. Had they ever got round to even getting close to the homeland Im sure we would have fitted some big guns onto our fighters... In a way.. the USN had this threat... they were protecting ships that were within range of axis bombers... hence they dabbled with the idea of 20mm on the likes of the F4u. They never give much credit to the idea of more guns, faster ROF, and more ammo... the multiplying effect of more guns times rof of each makes it very hard for a figher to not get hit.. Granted, it wont blow it into a millions bits.. but gravity will take care of that when it goes into an uncontroled spin due to an elevator being shot off.. end result is the same.. one less aircraft! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

TAGERT

SkyChimp
01-13-2004, 04:51 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ElektroFredrik:
Quote:
The Me-262s were then shipped to the US on the
Royal Navy "jeep" carrier HMS REAPER for
further evaluation at Wright Field in Ohio. The
tests there included a competitive fly-off
against a Lockheed P-80 Shooting Star jet
fighter that demonstrated the general
superiority of the Me-262.

Unquote

General superiority of the 262 http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

http://fanart.lionking.org/imgarchive/FanArt/NisseNjursten/profile.jpg
"What I study is sex and squirrels"<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That comparison was between the Me-262 and the XP-80. The comparison is partially summarized in the 4th volume of Me-262(Smith and Creek).

The XP-80 was not the YP-80A, or the P-80A. The XP-80 was a dimensionally smaller plane, with a much less powerful engine than the standard production unit.

Here is a chart (ubiquitous by now) that compares the Me-262 and the P-80A (The YP-80A in the FB add-on is virtually the same plane). You can see that the P-80A holds the advantage in alomost every area of performance:

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/comparison.JPG

In terms of manueverability, the P-80A should far exceed the Me-262, given it's better wing loading and thrust to weight ratio. In terms of roll, the P-80A was as fast as the Fw-190, achieving 165 degrees per second at 250 mph IAS @ 35,000 feet (without wing tanks). That's a fast rolling plane.

Regards,
SkyChimp
http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/skychimp.jpg

tagert
01-13-2004, 04:51 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by FuryFighter:
Engines - The first P-80A was powered by a British engine, the US were behind in jet technologies, they needed the P-80A to catch up and thier first attempt was inferior to contemporary props.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Behind? Well maybe... but when you consider the fact that Hitler knew long before the rest that he was going to war with the world.. And thus started the German RnD for war way back in 1936 a good 5 years before the USA was even in the war... And that the Germans were dabbling with jets for most of that time... I think it is pretty impressive that the USA RnD machine not only closed the gap but surpased the Germans not only in JETS but just about EVERY other catagorie in less then 3 years i.e. we did in 3 what took them 8! About the only area the Germans were way ahead in was rockets... But I think it is because we realised that it was a waste of time and only a good terror weapon due to the fact that the tech needed for a guidence system was just not there... So we diverted our resorces to things like the A-bomb.

TAGERT

[This message was edited by tagert on Tue January 13 2004 at 04:05 PM.]

SkyChimp
01-13-2004, 04:57 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gibbage1:
Well the spooling time for centrafugal engines are longer, but the Me-262's Axial engine was just trouble. In the game, you cant punch the Me-262's engines. I dont know if the YP-80 will be the same way. If it can, that will deturmin the accelleration more then anything. Plus the P-80 is more aerodynamic at the same weight and with more power. So my money is on the P-80 even with the centrafugal engine. We will see.

Gib<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think you are wrong here, Gib. Centrifugal engines generally spool up faster than axial engines. That can be seen in a comparison between the MiG-15 and F-86. the MiGs centrifugal engine spooled fast than the Sabre's axial engine, resulting in faster acceleration.

Regards,
SkyChimp
http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/skychimp.jpg

faustnik
01-13-2004, 05:01 PM
Please keep repeating Mig-15 and F-86 around Gibbage as much as possible. It might give him an idea the next time he has a free weekend. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com)

SkyChimp
01-13-2004, 05:03 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by FuryFighter:

Engines - The first P-80A was powered by a British engine, the US were behind in jet technologies, they needed the P-80A to catch up and thier first attempt was inferior to contemporary props.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The US wasn't behind in jet engine technology, they were behind in implementing them into a production jet fighter. But that's not a comentary on US capability, just poor decision making on the part of the heads of the armed forces.

Lockheed developed a very good axial engine, the J-37 (L1000) starting in 1940. http://tanks45.tripod.com/Jets45/ListOfEngines/EnginesUSA.htm


Regards,
SkyChimp
http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/skychimp.jpg

SpremeCommander
01-13-2004, 05:08 PM
In the first jet vs. jet combat ever, in the Korean War, a P-80 shot down a MiG-15.

Gibbage1
01-13-2004, 05:57 PM
The YP-80 did NOT have the dive-brakes? CRUD! I modeled them in. Can you find a sorce and confirm this for me asap?

Its been some time since I did research on the P-80, but thank you for correcting my errors.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MiloMorai:
Gib, the P-80A *sed the same engine as the YP-80s, the J33-A-9/GE-11 of 3850lb.s.t. The J-33 was the prod*ction designation of the I-40. The P-80A had some minor differences b*t the biggest change was the addition of an *nder f*selage dive-brake.

The P-80 has a ceiling advantage of 2300m(7550ft) over the Me262. (13,700m - 11400m)

At SL, the P-80 is ~ 60kmh faster than the Me262.

data is for the J 33 A-11 engine<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

tagert
01-13-2004, 06:14 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gibbage1:
The YP-80 did NOT have the dive-brakes? CRUD! I modeled them in. Can you find a sorce and confirm this for me asap?

Its been some time since I did research on the P-80, but thank you for correcting my errors.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh leave em in... Im sure they would have added them in... just like Im sure every Bf109K had flettner tabs on the alerions! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

TAGERT

SkyChimp
01-13-2004, 06:33 PM
Gib;

Oleg has labelled your P-80 as the YP-80A. Wonder why? No matter really. The YP-80A had a slightly more powerful engine than the first production P-80As (1,814 kg vs 1,746 kg). So it would perform a wee little better than the prodution P-80A in the comparison chart I posted.

I'd prefer Oleg just call the thing the P-80A and give it the appropriate FM.

Regards,
SkyChimp
http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/skychimp.jpg

noshens
01-13-2004, 06:46 PM
I think the better match will be yp80a and He 162. What do you think?

SkyChimp
01-13-2004, 07:22 PM
Meteor vs Me-262

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/comparison2.jpg

Regards,
SkyChimp
http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/skychimp.jpg

FI-Aflak
01-13-2004, 07:38 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by yay1:
I think the better match will be yp80a and He 162. What do you think?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not so, the He-162 is kinda a last ditch effort. Pathetic range, weak armament. It was designed solely to be cheap, so many could be built to swarm incoming B-17's. It wasn't designed to be a great fighter, and had very unforgiving handeling characteristics and sup-par maneuverability. Its like comparing a Miata to a Viper and a Porsche . . .

FW190fan
01-13-2004, 07:41 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by tagert:

Behind? Well maybe... but when you consider the fact that Hitler knew long before the rest that he was going to war with the world.. And thus started the German RnD for war way back in 1936 a good 5 years before the USA was even in the war... And that the Germans were dabbling with jets for most of that time... I think it is pretty impressive that the USA RnD machine not only closed the gap but surpased the Germans not only in JETS but just about EVERY other catagorie in less then 3 years i.e.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Don't delude yourself here.

Hitler, if anything, delayed the deployment of the Me262 as a fighter despite the pleading of several members of RLM, including Adolph Galland who recognized immediately the potential of the 262 to dominate anything the Allies had in service or were going to have in service for some time. They even risked execution by trying to go behind Hitler's back and build the 262 solely as a fighter. Hitler found out about this, threw a tantrum and ordered that all existing fighters be retro-fitted as bombers.

Adolf Galland said in an interview after the war that without Hitlers meddling the LW could have had several hundred 262 interceptors available beginning of 1944.

Also, don't delude yourself into thinking the US "caught up to and surpassed the Gremans" in only three years. It's simply not the truth.

At a time when the US failed to put a single jet into combat and the British jets weren't any better than their prop-driven a/c(probably worse), Germany already had two jet interceptors (Me262/He162) in service as well as the jet powered Arado 234 Blitz, which was the finest medium bomber by far to see service in WWII. the Arado especially had absolutely nothing in it's class anywhere.

And so it was that the Luftwaffe could design and build an all-wing twin engined jet in the Go-229 that was actually too far advanced for the technology of it's day.

Messerschmitt was already working not only with swept wings, but with variable sweeping wings and fully swept tailplanes in their next series of fighters.

Sorry, but to say anyone caught up to and surpassed the Germans in the field of jet technology and high-speed flight during WWII is just fooling themselves.

http://people.aero.und.edu/~choma/lrg0645.jpg

SkyChimp
01-13-2004, 07:52 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by FW190fan:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by tagert:

Behind? Well maybe... but when you consider the fact that Hitler knew long before the rest that he was going to war with the world.. And thus started the German RnD for war way back in 1936 a good 5 years before the USA was even in the war... And that the Germans were dabbling with jets for most of that time... I think it is pretty impressive that the USA RnD machine not only closed the gap but surpased the Germans not only in JETS but just about EVERY other catagorie in less then 3 years i.e.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Don't delude yourself here.

Hitler, if anything, delayed the deployment of the Me262 as a fighter despite the pleading of several members of RLM, including Adolph Galland who recognized immediately the potential of the 262 to dominate anything the Allies had in service or were going to have in service for some time. They even risked execution by trying to go behind Hitler's back and build the 262 solely as a fighter. Hitler found out about this, threw a tantrum and ordered that all existing fighters be retro-fitted as bombers.

Adolf Galland said in an interview after the war that without Hitlers meddling the LW could have had several hundred 262 interceptors available beginning of 1944.

Also, don't delude yourself into thinking the US "caught up to and surpassed the Gremans" in only three years. It's simply not the truth.

At a time when the US failed to put a single jet into combat and the British jets weren't any better than their prop-driven a/c(probably worse), Germany already had two jet interceptors (Me262/He162) in service as well as the jet powered Arado 234 Blitz, which was the finest medium bomber by far to see service in WWII. the Arado especially had absolutely nothing in it's class anywhere.

And so it was that the Luftwaffe could design and build an all-wing twin engined jet in the Go-229 that was actually too far advanced for the technology of it's day.

Messerschmitt was already working not only with swept wings, but with variable sweeping wings and fully swept tailplanes in their next series of fighters.

Sorry, but to say anyone caught up to and surpassed the Germans in the field of jet technology and high-speed flight during WWII is just fooling themselves.

http://people.aero.und.edu/~choma/lrg0645.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


And ironically, Germany would have been better off by producing more tried and true, traditional designs than to spend precious materials and man power on planes that were difficult to produce, maintain, and were unreliable by the standard of the day.

Regards,
SkyChimp
http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/skychimp.jpg

FW190fan
01-13-2004, 08:08 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by FI-Aflak:

Not so, the He-162 is kinda a last ditch effort. Pathetic range, weak armament. It was designed solely to be cheap, so many could be built to swarm incoming B-17's. It wasn't designed to be a great fighter, and had very unforgiving handeling characteristics and sup-par maneuverability. Its like comparing a Miata to a Viper and a Porsche . . .<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Wow, there sure is alot of German jet phobia going on here http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Thank goodness we know from an experienced British test pilot how the He-162 REALLY handled.

Eric Brown in "Wings of the Luftwaffe" describes flying a captured He-162:

"Harmony of control was excellent"

"...a good gun platform. From this respect it was the best jet fighter of it's time"

"Handling at 30,000ft. still displayed very good stability and control characteristics"

"There was no buffeting or vibration, and a check on the rate of roll AT 400 MPH REVEALED THE HIGHEST RATE OF ROLL THAT I HAD EVER EXPERIENCED OUTSIDE THE REALM OF HYDRAULICALLY-POWERED AILERONS and the stick force demanded to produce these exhilerating gyrations was delightfully light"

Brown later commented again that the rate of roll was "phenominal" and the view was "perfect"

As far as the He-162 being a death-trap - that's pure BS as well. There are two known deaths in developing and flight test the He-162 and both causes are known - compare that to the development of the P-80.

As far as range goes, it range at *full throttle* is:

30 min @sl
48 min @6,000m
83 min @11,000m

I can only presume it's normal cruising endurance would be much better.

Was the He-162 an act of desperation? Sure it was. But as Eric Brown points out - sometimes desperation yeilds fantastic results.

The He-162 should be quite a match for anything Oleg ever allows to be modelled in FB.

http://people.aero.und.edu/~choma/lrg0645.jpg

Menthol_moose
01-13-2004, 08:09 PM
What was the P-80s durability like ?

especially the engines, easily damaged by gunfire ?

NegativeGee
01-13-2004, 08:09 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Not so, the He-162 is kinda a last ditch effort. Pathetic range, weak armament. It was designed solely to be cheap, so many could be built to swarm incoming B-17's. It wasn't designed to be a great fighter, and had very unforgiving handeling characteristics and sup-par maneuverability. Its like comparing a Miata to a Viper and a Porsche . . .<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The 162 certainly had many undesireable traits for a fighter, but I think your comment of weak armanent is unjustified. Two centreline MG 151/20 cannons does not constiute a weak weapon fit.... not heavy by late war standards, but certainly not weak. I would consider its firepower to be roughly on a par with the P-80's HMG fit, abeit with lower ammunition capacity.

Anyhow, on the subject of P-80s, how did the engine stand up in early types? We all know about the trouble with the Jumo axials, but how did the centrifugal type on the Shooting Star do in terms of reliablilty and ease of operation? Anyone with any info?

Cheers http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

"As weaponry, both were good, but in far different ways from each other. In a nutshell, I describe it this way: if the FW 190 was a sabre, the 109 was a florett, or foil, like that used in the precision art of fencing." - Gunther Rall

http://www.invoman.com/images/tali_with_hands.jpg

Look Noobie, we already told you, we don't have the Patch!

FW190fan
01-13-2004, 08:22 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by SkyChimp:
[And ironically, Germany would have been better off by producing more tried and true, traditional designs than to spend precious materials and man power on planes that were difficult to produce, maintain, and were unreliable by the standard of the day.

_Regards,_
_SkyChimp_


Well, I do understand your point of view but I disagree.

In fact, Gremany did what you said.

A/C production of traditional designs reached an all-time high at the height of the strategic bombing campaign.

The Me262 was the only German a/c in operational use that could have brought the strategic bombing campaign to it's knees - Mustangs or no Mustangs.

Germany would always have limited manpower(pilots) They needed a world-beater and the Me262 was it. An aircraft that didn't need to have numerical parity to badly hurt the 8th AF bombing campaign.

In the end, Germany could muster only a handful of 262s against the bombers - too little, too late.

http://people.aero.und.edu/~choma/lrg0645.jpg

TX-Bomblast
01-13-2004, 08:42 PM
In a way, I'm saddend to see the YP-80 included into FB. Still, it's another plane to fly , but at what expense? I'm sure the revisionists will say the YP-80 was the most this the most that, I can just hear them now.....
But, history can't be changed, or can it? All we can do is wait and see. I hope the YP-80 is given all the historical teething problems, and not the "Shooting Star" specs. from the Korean war. Or the "proposed" specs it should've had and didn't.

TX-Bomblast
Red3

SkyChimp
01-13-2004, 08:55 PM
Well, the P-80 had a lot of accidents, but it was in developement and testing much longer. The He-162 was quickly designed and thrust into production. Give it some time, and normal developmental accidents would have certainly occurred.

Brown was an experienced pilot - very experienced. And he may have liked it. Nevertheless, the He-162 is widely acknowledged to have been a difficult plane to fly. Aside from extreme instability in turns, lack of harmony in controls, and touchy nature when pitching, the He-162 was a step backwards aerodynamically:

"Nevertheless, the production aircraft were still very hot to handle and certainly not recommended for novice pilots. Even experienced pilots were at a disadvantage because they had to learn to use the He-162's controls in smooth, flowing movements, whereas they had been able to handle the controls more roughly when manuevering their piston engined fighters. The He-162 was to remain aerodynamically unstable, despite the aforementioned modification, and its critical Mach number was rather low at 0.75. These deficiencies arose chiefly from interference between the engine fairing and fuselage and between the wing and fuselage, at which points considerable displacement of the airflow was caused by high local air velocities." (German Aircraft Of The Second World War, Smith and Kay, page 162)

Critical mach of .75 is very low for a jet. That critical mach is about the same as the P-51D Mustang's.

Production He-162A-1s and A-2s were slower than the Me-262, but had a slightly better thrust to weight ratio, and slightly better wingloading. On paper it was probably more manueverable than either the Me-262 or P-80. But given it's severe instability in turns, especially left turns, who knows. Aside from instability, its biggest disadvantage against either the Me-262 or P-80 is its low speed and very low critcal mach. I'd think either the P-80 or Me-262 could engage in, or break off, combat at will.

Regards,
SkyChimp
http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/skychimp.jpg

SkyChimp
01-13-2004, 08:59 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TX-Bomblast:
In a way, I'm saddend to see the YP-80 included into FB. Still, it's another plane to fly , but at what expense? I'm sure the revisionists will say the YP-80 was the most this the most that, I can just hear them now.....
But, history can't be changed, or can it? All we can do is wait and see. I hope the YP-80 is given all the historical teething problems, and not the "Shooting Star" specs. from the Korean war. Or the "proposed" specs it should've had and didn't.

TX-Bomblast
Red3<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Korean War specs? I here that a lot. What is that anyway? The numbers I posted are for a P-80A. The P-80A was the first production variant.

Wanna model the P-80 ith all it's teething problems? Great! Let's do that to all the planes - including the Me-262.

Regards,
SkyChimp
http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/skychimp.jpg

tttiger
01-13-2004, 09:45 PM
The argument really should be whether the P-80 has any business in this sim. It never saw combat in WWII, so what's the point of comparing and contrasting it with an Me-262?

Of course, if you consider it just an arcade game, yes, it belongs.

Enjoy your fantasies. I'll stick to history.

ttt

"I want the one that kills the best with the least amount of risk to me"

-- Chuck Yeager describing "The Best Airplane."

ElAurens
01-13-2004, 10:19 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TX-Bomblast:
I hope the YP-80 is given all the historical teething problems, and not the "Shooting Star" specs. from the Korean war. Or the "proposed" specs it should've had and didn't.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The YP80 will be just like every other aircraft in the sim. I.E. It will not have manufacturing defects and intermittant reliability issues. But will have normal operational characteristics.


BTW, How many He-162s actually saw service? Were they ever operationally deployed? Or were they more like the Go229, test flights only? (Honestly I do not know this).


And folks, let's not get all fired up over this. We all know that the YP80 will only be seen rarely in DF servers, just like the 262. Jets are simply too disruptive of normal "gameplay" for most hosts to allow them in the mix of prop aircraft. Although Jet vs. Jet DFs will be kinda cool.

_____________________________

http://www.blitzpigs.com/forum/images/avatars/Curtiss_logo.gif

BlitzPig_EL

MiloMorai
01-13-2004, 10:20 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gibbage1:
The YP-80 did NOT have the dive-brakes? CRUD! I modeled them in. Can you find a sorce and confirm this for me asap?

Its been some time since I did research on the P-80, but thank you for correcting my errors.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Don't know if you are being sarcastic or not.


Two sources &gt; S/S P-80 InAction #1040 and confirmed by Joe Baugher have the P-80 getting dive brakes. Now I don't care how much research you have done, I will take Joe Baugher's research over yours anyday.

[This message was edited by MiloMorai on Tue January 13 2004 at 09:57 PM.]

tagert
01-13-2004, 10:24 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by FW190fan:
Don't delude yourself here.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Didn't

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by FW190fan:
Hitler, if anything, delayed the deployment of the Me262 as a fighter despite the pleading of several members of RLM, including Adolph Galland who recognized immediately the potential of the 262 to dominate anything the Allies had in service or were going to have in service for some time. They even risked execution by trying to go behind Hitler's back and build the 262 solely as a fighter. Hitler found out about this, threw a tantrum and ordered that all existing fighters be retro-fitted as bombers.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yes we all know that story... but as Chimp pointed out.. the P80 was delayed too. The USA didn't have to rely on wizz-bang designs to try and overcome the odds.. The odds were in our favor, thus no real need to go jet... That and the methods and tactics ultimately employed of dealing with jets would have just been implemented sooner.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by FW190fan:
Adolf Galland said in an interview after the war that without Hitlers meddling the LW could have had several hundred 262 interceptors available beginning of 1944.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Enh! Granted we would have lost a lot more bombers... but the end result would have been the same... Just delayed a bit. Germany should thank god that Hitler did mess with things.. In that if the war had been delayed just a few months we would have dropped the A-Bomb on some German citys.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by FW190fan:
Also, don't delude yourself into thinking the US "caught up to and surpassed the Germans" in only three years. It's simply not the truth.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Disagree 100%! Note Im not talking about jets only here.. but the whole gamete of gadgets.. Tanks, Ships.. well Germany really didn't have much of a NAVY left to worries about.. but in every category we caught up and surpassed them... Cept terror weapons like the V1 and V2... What a waist of man power and resources.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by FW190fan:
At a time when the US failed to put a single jet into combat and the British jets weren't any better than their prop-driven a/c(probably worse), Germany already had two jet interceptors (Me262/He162) in service as well as the jet powered Arado 234 Blitz, which was the finest medium bomber by far to see service in WWII. the Arado especially had absolutely nothing in it's class anywhere.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Again... Enh! As Chimp pointed out.. Germany would have been better off making more of what they all ready had then the wizz-bang designs... The Germans hoped the wizz-bang de sings would offset the fact that they could not match us in production... but in the end it proved wrong. But.. they really didn't have much choice.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by FW190fan:
And so it was that the Luftwaffe could design and build an all-wing twin engined jet in the Go-229 that was actually too far advanced for the technology of it's day.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Just like the V2 rocket exceeded the technology to guide it... Again waste of time and effort.. but.. They didn't have much choice.. The writing was on the wall.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by FW190fan:
Messerschmitt was already working not only with swept wings, but with variable sweeping wings and fully swept tailplanes in their next series of fighters.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I agree.. they had a lot of nifty designs on napkins... but... if I was an engineer with some SS guy breathing down my neck holding a gun I too would dish out something every week to keep him off my back.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by FW190fan:
Sorry, but to say anyone caught up to and surpassed the Germans in the field of jet technology and high-speed flight during WWII is just fooling themselves.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Disagree 100%! But to qualify my statement further... Caught up and surpassed them in the field of USEFUL PRODUCIBLE stuff

TAGERT

HellToupee
01-14-2004, 01:45 AM
how dose the de Havilland vampire compare to the ME262, it first flew in 1943 but didnt enter service untill after the war.

http://lamppost.mine.nu/ahclan/files/sigs/spitwhiners1.jpg

HellToupee
01-14-2004, 01:55 AM
just a random site from google

http://www.britishaircraft.co.uk/aircraftpage.php?ID=21

the specs are for a fb 5 and the only book with info i have on it is for a fb 9. All in mph and ft which dosnt mean much to me.

Max Speed:
531 mph which is about 855kph

Rate of Climb:
4,050 ft/min at sea level
bout 1234meters per min
Ceiling:
40,000 ft
12192 meters

Range:
1,170 miles
1883km

http://lamppost.mine.nu/ahclan/files/sigs/spitwhiners1.jpg

ElektroFredrik
01-14-2004, 03:58 AM
But all the german stuff (Me-262 He-162 Go-229)
look a lot cooler than the P-80
That must be worth something http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
Not to mention the ultimate coolness of the Do-335

http://fanart.lionking.org/imgarchive/FanArt/NisseNjursten/profile.jpg
"What I study is sex and squirrels"

csThor
01-14-2004, 04:23 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Enh! Granted we would have lost a lot more bombers... but the end result would have been the same... Just delayed a bit. Germany should thank god that Hitler did mess with things.. In that if the war had been delayed just a few months we would have dropped the A-Bomb on some German citys.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The A-bomb thing is out of question (although one might argue if it would have reached its intended target - Germany wasn't as defenseless against the B-29 as Japan). But thinking of the potential effect of a large number of Me262 in early 1944 makes me shiver. AFAIR the 8th USAAF paused their daylight attacks on targets in Germany after Schweinfurt for a while (4 months ??) - imagine the long faces when not twenty or twentyfive bombers were lost on each operation but say fourty or fifty.

______________________________

http://home.arcor.de/csthor/bilder/ubi_sig.jpg
Declared Fw 190 nut ...

DaBallz
01-14-2004, 04:23 AM
I got to love this message board.
Ok, I think the Chimp has straightend you guys
out, but I will add my 2C.

The Me-262 was an excellent design for 1942
but don't get too smug about it. Those two
jet engines on the wings were there because
the engines were so un reliable and prone
to explosion they could NOT be trusted behind
the pilot in the fuselage.
Also a second running engine might save the plane and or pilot in the event of engine failure. (it happend often)
The P-80 was the wave of the future, but the
engine was only slightly more reliable than the
Me-262's engines. But after the 262 and Meteor you
never saw that engine layout on a fighter again.
The P-80 would have easily dominated the 262's for many reasons.
Superior climb rate, speed, turning, range, loiter time,
and speed along with better reliability.

Firepower alone would have offered no help to a 262
driver that could not shake that P-80 and those
six .50 cals in the nose.

Both were generation 1.5 jet fighters, the
AMERICAN fighter was far superior to the German
jet. Yes the American fighter had a British engine,
but then again we ARE allies!

D***

SpremeCommander
01-14-2004, 04:34 AM
"The argument really should be whether the P-80 has any business in this sim. It never saw combat in WWII, so what's the point of comparing and contrasting it with an Me-262?"


Well, that Russian rocket plane never saw combat, either. But it's in the game. So why not a P-80?

MiloMorai
01-14-2004, 04:55 AM
A while back I had a thread on Allied jet engines but was lost with the new format. Most of the info came from Bill Gunston.

TBO for the Jumo 004B was ~30hr while the Welland and Derwent both passed type tests at 500hrs and had a service TBO of 150hr.

Metrovick had a running axial engine in Oct. 1940. The F.2 ran in Dec. 1941. It was 2 of these engines that powered F.9/40(Meteor) DG204 on 13 Nov. 1943. Each had a st of 1800lb. By 1945 this engine was putting out 4000lb st. The F.2 was also the basis for the F.3, a thrust augumented duct fan that had 4600lb st in Aug. 1943. In 1945 the 2 stage UDF F.5 was putting out 4830lb st. GE uses UDF to-day in its designs.

Besides the Lockheed engine, GE also had the T-180 axial which ran in April 1944 at 3620lb st. This engine would become the J35.

As SC said, the Allies went for simplicity and ease of manufacturing to achieve a satifactory engine life.

FuryFighter
01-14-2004, 05:01 AM
hmmm some interesting stuff here, especially that meteor/262 comparison. The 262 is superiour to both meteot types in many ways, though the later meteor included has some advatnages of its own. What would be interesting... is to know each planes dive qualities... what tactics were those 2 P-80's that were sent to Italy to use if they encountered 262's.

And as for this sruff about nuking Germany I doubt that was feasable. From what I heard they used the equivalent of many billions of dollars to build those 2 bombs including research, development and aquisition and preparation of the materials. And as such... theyre was only 2. Maybe had Germany have held off the invaders and that till after Japan was nuked then they would needed to find another few billion to build new weapons. The nuke was just as much a wonder/terror weapon as a jet fighter or interceptor or even a bomber. The money, manpower and resources used on the nuke could have been apllied to lots of other things. The nukes on Japan weren't even as bad as the firebomb attacks on Tokyo and also, as mentioned... getting a nuke to Germany would have been a bit more of a hazardous mission given the presence of 262's and AAA and who know what other wonder weapons may have been available in 1945/1946.

We need the Meteor in this game... it is the closest contemporary rival to the Me 262 that we can get. But... heres an interesting query... why weren't the meteors deployed forward to engage the pesky German jets freeing up the stangs for killing at will ground targets(including parked planes ie 262's) and other enemy a/c? Someone mentioned earlier that the first jet vs jet combat wasn't untill Korea.... Where were the meteors???

PS.... Gibbage... I checked out your site the other day... your P-80 looks beautiful.. especially in the animation.. wow... great stuff.

MiloMorai
01-14-2004, 05:06 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by FuryFighter:
hmmm some interesting stuff here, especially that meteor/262 comparison. The 262 is superiour to both meteot types in many ways, though the later meteor included has some advatnages of its own. What would be interesting... is to know each planes dive qualities... what tactics were those 2 P-80's that were sent to Italy to use if they encountered 262's.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That was partly why the 4 a/c were sent to Europe.

JethroT
01-14-2004, 05:25 AM
&gt;Both were generation 1.5 jet fighters, the
&gt;AMERICAN fighter was far superior to the German
&gt;jet.

Thx for sharing your experience. You surely tested and compared both aircrafts extensivly. Otherwise people like me who have never flown an aircraft could be misled by windbags like Hal Watson who said:

"There was no comparison as far as I'm concerned between the operational capability of the Me262 and the P-80. There was nothing comparable with the Me262 in Britain or the US. It was another couple of years before the P-80 began to approach it."

Thx again
regards

ElAurens
01-14-2004, 05:38 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SpremeCommander:
"The argument really should be whether the P-80 has any business in this sim. It never saw combat in WWII, so what's the point of comparing and contrasting it with an Me-262?"


Well, that Russian rocket plane never saw combat, either. But it's in the game. So why not a P-80?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


We are also getting the Gotha/Horten 229, another aircraft that never flew a combat mission. In fact it barely flew at all, just some test flights.

And like I said earlier, most hosts (myself included) will severely limit the jets in their games. I will do an all jet and a Korean war scenario, but, I feel that most of us are here in the first place because we like propellor driven WW2 aircraft.

What we really need is a way to limit the number of aircraft in a server by type, so that maybe only one jet could fly. Maybe....

_____________________________

http://www.blitzpigs.com/forum/images/avatars/Curtiss_logo.gif

BlitzPig_EL

FuryFighter
01-14-2004, 07:09 AM
yeah.. the limiting aircraft type numbers would be good. 1 jet.. a few 110's and a few more 109's and 190's vs a lot of bombers P-51's P-47's and P-38's plus a range of VVS planes for the allies hehe LW pilots would be in for a hard time lol, including me hehe

http://www.angelfire.com/space2/messerschmitt262/sig_test.jpg

Boandlgramer
01-14-2004, 09:10 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JethroT:
&gt;Both were generation 1.5 jet fighters, the
&gt;AMERICAN fighter was far superior to the German
&gt;jet.

Thx for sharing your experience. You surely tested and compared both aircrafts extensivly. Otherwise people like me who have never flown an aircraft could be misled by windbags like Hal Watson who said:

"There was no comparison as far as I'm concerned between the operational capability of the Me262 and the P-80. There was nothing comparable with the Me262 in Britain or the US. It was another couple of years before the P-80 began to approach it."

Thx again
regards<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

also the "windbag" Eric Brown, who said :
in ww2 there wasn´t a allied plane comparable with the messerschmitt 262.

RED_Boandl
http://www.707tkbn.org/members/sites/schmidt05.jpg

Willey
01-14-2004, 10:49 AM
2 times 900kg of thrust is more than the P-80's 1742kg listed in the first post. And the 262 does 420mph on the deck and 442 at altitude (7500m in FB). But don't forget the 162. 555mph on the deck, 565mph at alt. Just a tad slower than the Star down low, but better above. It's tuning better than the 162 - sure bet. The 162 is like the 109K-4 when the 262 is the A-8 with 108s.

tagert
01-14-2004, 02:11 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by csThor:
The A-bomb thing is out of question (although one might argue if it would have reached its intended target - Germany wasn't as defenseless against the B-29 as Japan).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
That reminds me of something... Growing up during the cold war in the 60s I recall some politican talking about the the subject of the USSR having more ICMBs than the USA had... He was quick to point out that yes.. they have more ICMBs than the US but the US guidence systems are much more accurate... He claimed we could hit a trash can in red square... Therefore our better accuracy makes up for the fact that they have more than we do... At first glance... and with an old mind set that answer seemed pretty reasonable... By old mind set I mean thinking in terms of us havin 10 bullets and them having 20 bullets... But our guys are much better shots... Thus we are equal... That will work when talking about trying to hit a trash can with a bullet... But when you update your mindset to a nuke.... ie a bullet that is bigger than the trash can itself... I can miss the trash can by a mile and still kill it... So the whole more accurate answer was pretty lame. As is the reaching the intended target in Germany... If a B29 found heavy resistance, dropped early, and turn around... Any nuke on Germany proper would have been noticed BIG TIME.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by csThor:
But thinking of the potential effect of a _large number of Me262_ in early 1944 makes me shiver. AFAIR the 8th USAAF paused their daylight attacks on targets in Germany after Schweinfurt for a while (4 months ??) - imagine the long faces when not twenty or twentyfive bombers were lost on each operation but say fourty or fifty.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>As I pointed out.. We would have lost more bombers... but had the Me262 showed up in numbers earlier than it did, and had the tatics of spanking them on take off and landeds not done the job.. There would have been more pressure for us to get the P80 out sooner.. And therefore we would have. As I pointed out... That pressure was not there for us, thus no real need for us... The odds were in our favor.

TAGERT

tagert
01-14-2004, 02:23 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by FuryFighter:
And as for this sruff about nuking Germany I doubt that was feasable.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Doubt all you want, but it was orginally intended to be used on Germany.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by FuryFighter:
From what I heard they used the equivalent of many billions of dollars to build those 2 bombs including research, development and aquisition and preparation of the materials.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>True.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by FuryFighter:
And as such... theyre was only 2.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Not actually... That billions of dollars devoted to research, development, aquisition, preparation of material, etc resulted in TWO TYPES of A-Bombs... Not two of the same version. So, we even had a choice in A-Bombs http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by FuryFighter:
Maybe had Germany have held off the invaders and that till after Japan was nuked then they would needed to find another few billion to build new weapons. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Maybe, but unlikly, most of the cost went into research and development... cranking out a 3rd, 4th or more wouldnt have been hard too do.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by FuryFighter:
The nuke was just as much a wonder/terror weapon as a jet fighter or interceptor or even a bomber.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>More so I would say, much more so.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by FuryFighter:
The money, manpower and resources used on the nuke could have been apllied to lots of other things.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>True... and if really needed we would have... but the need was not there, even with the drain of the A-Bomb we maintain a two front war.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by FuryFighter:
The nukes on Japan weren't even as bad as the firebomb attacks on Tokyo and also, as mentioned...
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>LOL! Never head it put like that! Im sure alot of Japanize would disagree! Granted the death count was higher in some of the fire bomb attacks due to smoke and heat... but that took many many sorties with many many B29 with many Many MANY bombs.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by FuryFighter:
getting a nuke to Germany would have been a bit more of a hazardous mission given the presence of 262's and AAA
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Enh... lower flying B17s were doing it all the time... That and the striped down version of the B29 that delivered the A-Bomb was at a pretty high alt.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by FuryFighter:
and who know what other wonder weapons may have been available in 1945/1946.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>LOL! Yes... we can play that guessing game till the cows come home... Maybe this... Or had Hitler did or not did that.. The FACT remains we had the means to build a nuke... And we would have used it had the put up a fight.

TAGERT

Bogun
01-14-2004, 02:32 PM
You keep forgetting guys that in 1944 the fate of Nazi Germany was already decided. And not in the air, but on the ground.

Nazi needed The Miracle to even bring the war to a standstill, they new it...
Like finding oil reserves within Germany proper, finding another five millions of trained solders and access to all those strategic materials they were missing...

Nazi never run out of tanks or planes - it would not meter if US and GB suspended air operations altogether. As it been said - "the best air superiority fighter is a tank parked on the middle of the runway"!

Regards,

AKA_Bogun
http://www.akawardogs.com/

http://img5.photobucket.com/albums/v22/Bogun/Sevastopol.jpg

"The best fighters I met in combat were the American P-51 Mustang and Russian Yak-9U. Both of those types obviously exceeded all Bf109 variants in performance, including the 'K'. The Mustang was unmatched in altitude performance, while the Yak-9U was champion in rate of climb and maneuverability."

- Walter Wolfrum

FW190fan
01-14-2004, 02:51 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by SkyChimp:
Well, the P-80 had a lot of accidents, but it was in developement and testing much longer. The He-162 was quickly designed and thrust into production. Give it some time, and normal developmental accidents would have certainly occurred.


OK, hold on a second here.

So what you're telling me is that because the P-80 had the luxury of being in development safely in the US, under no real pressure, with plenty of time for research and development that it was bound to have more accidents because of this???

Meanwhile, the He-162 which was developed and flown in about 90 days as an act of desperation in the chaos that was wartime Germany, using very simple methods of construction was actually less likely to suffer "normal development accidents"???

Sorry, that simply doesn't make any sense at all.

http://people.aero.und.edu/~choma/lrg0645.jpg

robban75
01-14-2004, 03:36 PM
I read in interesting article in an Aircraft Illustrated magazine about a possible reason why the Jumo jet engine was so unreliable.
The magazine had printed a story from a guy that had a close friend from Poland. He wrote that his friend told him that during WW2 he was POW and built the Jumo for the Me 262. He said that he and his comrades knew what vicious weapon the 262 was and they had to do something. They sabotaged the engine in a way that for the germans to find the problem would be close to impossible. He said something about doing a little work on one of the fan blades in every engine. With this little sabotage the engine would most likely sooner or later be destroyed.

http://members.chello.se/unni/Dora-9-3.JPG

When it comes to aircombat, I'd rather be lucky than good any day!

FW190fan
01-14-2004, 03:53 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by SkyChimp:

Brown was an experienced pilot - very experienced. And he may have liked it.
=======================================

Brown obviously liked the He-162 alot as his report on it clearly shows. And he apparently flew it "quite frequently" and his impressions of it never changed. He regarded the Allies as fortunate that Germany didn't have enough fuel for the thing.

==============================================

Nevertheless, the He-162 is widely acknowledged to have been a difficult plane to fly.
==============================================

Widely acknowledged by whom? "German Aircraft of the Second World War" by Smith and Kay?

Probably the prototypes were difficult to fly until some of the problems were worked out.

Brown comments specifically on this:

"It was soon evident that the Germans had got the original stability problems licked."(p.24)


===============================================
Aside from extreme instability in turns, lack of harmony in controls, and touchy nature when pitching
===============================================

And all of this is contradicted by Brown, who give the most detailed description of actually flying the He-162. Even at 30,000ft, handling "still displayed very good stability and control characteristics."(p.25)

"Lack of harmony in controls" is contradicted by Brown as well:

"Harmony of control was excellent with the rudder perhaps just a shade too light"(p.25)

Brown also specifically states that the He-162 was stable in both climbs and dives - in fact there was "no buffeting or vibration" even in powered dives at 400+mph(p.26)

In fact, Brown says it had "excellent directional snaking characteristics" and was the "best gun platform of any jet fighter of it's time."

That is not the mark of an "extremely instable" aircraft.

Brown regarded it as a "superb airplane in it's element". The worst Brown said about it was that it was a handful to take-off and land, and it had a "very touchy rudder" and so he wouldn't apply more than 3/4 rudder.

http://people.aero.und.edu/~choma/lrg0645.jpg

tagert
01-14-2004, 05:07 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by FW190fan:
OK, hold on a second here.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Holding....

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by FW190fan:
So what you're telling me is that because the P-80 had the luxury of being in development safely in the US, under no real pressure, with plenty of time for research and development that it was bound to have more accidents because of this???
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>The key word being time.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by FW190fan:
Meanwhile, the He-162 which was developed and flown in about 90 days as an act of desperation in the chaos that was wartime Germany, using very simple methods of construction was actually less likely to suffer "normal development accidents"???
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>The key word being chaos.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by FW190fan:
Sorry, that simply doesn't make any sense at all.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Make perfect statistcal sense! Be it an test aircraft, a production aircraft, or even my car... The longer I drive it the better my chances are I will experance an accident.

Not good enough?

Ok lets use your logic in reverse...

Sense the US had all the *time* in the world to test the P80, they had plenty of *time* to document the accidents that did happen...

Where as Germany was in *chaos* therefore they probally didnt even bother documenting accidents... And even if they did the the docments probally got burned up when we bombed the factory.

Just call me the devils advocate! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

TAGERT

SkyChimp
01-14-2004, 05:15 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by FW190fan:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by SkyChimp:
Well, the P-80 had a lot of accidents, but it was in developement and testing much longer. The He-162 was quickly designed and thrust into production. Give it some time, and normal developmental accidents would have certainly occurred.


OK, hold on a second here.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No Fw, you know what I mean. You intimate that the He-162 was somehow superior to the P-80 because it had fewer accidents in its developement stage. That's all fine and danady, but it ignores the fact that the P-80 was in developement longer, flown to extremes and under many different conditions - unlike the He-162. Subject the He-162 to the rigorous testing the USAAF did with the P-80 and it surely would have had more accidents.

Regards,
SkyChimp
http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/skychimp.jpg

GR142_Astro
01-14-2004, 05:57 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by ElAurens:

What we really need is a way to limit the number of aircraft in a server _by type_, so that maybe only one jet could fly. Maybe....


El,

GreaterGreen was doing this on a couple of maps. The key is to assign, say the jet, to one base, then limit the number of players allowed to select that base.

TX-Bomblast
01-14-2004, 06:10 PM
Sorry for the late reply, as far as teething problems, sure the Me262 had some, but it was a front line fighter/bomber. At the same time the YP-80 was more or less a moral booster for the allied military. All of us should be ashamed if the YP-80 shows up with any kind of durabillity and firepower.
Please don't miss understand what I'm saying, I'm glad we're getting more planes to fly. I'm just sad the YP-80 will be included with some sort of wonderful flying abilities when it didn't. I don't want to read some YP-80 specs either, I have plenty. History has proven that the ones sent to the ETO were nothing more than prototypes NEVER reaching their performance specs in any way. Go ahead and quote all the graphs and spec sheets you want, it doesn't mean a thing when in the end history proves you wrong.......

TX-Bomblast
Red3

tagert
01-14-2004, 06:42 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TX-Bomblast:
Sorry for the late reply, as far as teething problems, sure the Me262 had some, but it was a front line fighter/bomber.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>But

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TX-Bomblast:
At the same time the YP-80 was more or less a moral booster for the allied military.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>LOL!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TX-Bomblast:
All of us should be ashamed if the YP-80 shows up with any kind of durabillity and firepower.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>LOL!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TX-Bomblast:
Please don't miss understand what I'm saying, I'm glad we're getting more planes to fly.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>What's to missunderstand? You all for Go229, B1, and anything any German might have scribbled on the back of a napkin... but not the P80.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TX-Bomblast:
I'm just sad the YP-80 will be included with some sort of wonderful flying abilities when it didn't.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>LOL!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TX-Bomblast:
I don't want to read some YP-80 specs either, I have plenty.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>But do they mean anything to you?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TX-Bomblast:
History has proven that the ones sent to the ETO were nothing more than prototypes NEVER reaching their performance specs in any way.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>LOL! Who's history? Yours? Or just your historical specs that you have plenty of?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TX-Bomblast:
Go ahead and quote all the graphs and spec sheets you want, it doesn't mean a thing when in the end history proves you wrong.......<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Nice try... but no sale... please acept our departing gift on your way out http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

TAGERT

Xiolablu3
01-14-2004, 07:04 PM
I am also saddened to see the P-80 in FB. It never even fought in WW2.

The Meteor would make much more sense. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

Putting the P-80 in smells of money grabbing, knowing that a lot of the US players (the ones with most money) will buy the game for this.

tagert
01-14-2004, 07:08 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
I am also saddened to see the P-80 in FB. It never even fought in WW2.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Neither did the Go229 and B1.. but they are in the game...

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
The Meteor would make much more sense. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Define sense...

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Putting the P-80 in smells of money grabbing, knowing that a lot of the US players (the ones with most money) will buy the game for this.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
No actually is smells of a guy who loves this sim and loves the P80 and had the skills to do the work to draw/develop it on his own dime and own time... And did such a good job of it that Oleg decided to include it. Put another way, it smells of looking a gift horse in the mouth! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

TAGERT

robban75
01-14-2004, 07:08 PM
I'm sorry Tagert but sometimes you lay the lamest answers to other peoples posts. You're not adding anything usefull into this discussion. Prove the guy wrong instead of just going "LOL". http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

http://members.chello.se/unni/Dora-9-3.JPG

When it comes to aircombat, I'd rather be lucky than good any day!

tagert
01-14-2004, 07:11 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by robban75:
I'm sorry Tagert but sometimes you lay the lamest answers to other peoples posts.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Oh dont be sorry, I could really give a rip what you think of what I post!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by robban75:
You're not adding anything usefull into this discussion. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Disagree 100%

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by robban75:
Prove the guy wrong instead of just going "LOL".<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
LOL! Funny that is exctally what I was thinking when he went on and on making statments about *history* proving it true... but never took the time to post anything to back it up.... At least I typed *LOL* http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

TAGERT

[This message was edited by tagert on Wed January 14 2004 at 08:31 PM.]

Gibbage1
01-14-2004, 07:40 PM
I still find it funny that these people are saying "P80 bad" but ignoring the Go-229. I guess if it fly's for the Luftwaffa, its OK. Another form of Luftwhining. Have a double standard about what you want in a flight sim. Non wonder weapons for the US, but wonder weapons for the Axis is all good hay?

Gib

Xiolablu3
01-14-2004, 08:03 PM
Sense as in the fact that the meteor flew in combat in WW2 ???!!?!? It was mostly used to shoot down V1's because of its speed.


I am also saddened to see the GO229 in the normal game too. I am not 'ignoring' the GO229 at all, this post was about the P80

I suppose we can make some good 'what if' scenerios with these planes tho.

BTW why do those quotes say they were orginally posted by me, when they werent??

FW190fan
01-14-2004, 08:13 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by SkyChimp:
No Fw, you know what I mean. You intimate that the He-162 was somehow superior to the P-80 because it had fewer accidents in its developement stage. That's all fine and danady, but it ignores the fact that the P-80 was in developement longer, flown to extremes and under many different conditions - unlike the He-162. Subject the He-162 to the rigorous testing the USAAF did with the P-80 and it surely would have had more accidents.


No, I'm not intimating superiority about anything.

I'm just trying to refute all of the nonesense out there about the He-162. To do this I had to show that even though it's development was under much more difficult circumstances it was no more dangerous than the P-80 in it's development.

The other myth that really needs to be refuted about it is that it had poor handling characteristics and was "unstable." I have no doubts that the plane COULD be a handful (like any other early jet) or that the early prototypes did suffer instability.

But Eric Brown's report is the most thorough concerning the He-162 and it clearly shows the He-162 in it's production form as being both stable and highly maneuverable. And the RAF flew their He-162s quite frequently.

http://people.aero.und.edu/~choma/lrg0645.jpg

VW-IceFire
01-14-2004, 08:25 PM
I'd be upset if they put in a fully working F-15 into the game...but the fact that we can EXPLORE historical what-if situations if we so chose to do so is a fantastic feature of this coming expansion pack. But I guess some people aren't really interested in that...

Know that people like me are interested in that. I totally understand that the jets will be largely restricted in many servers general dogfight scenarios...but there is now also the posibility to have jet scenarios if you so choose to want them.

So what is sad about these things?

And another point to be made VERY clear - these aircraft were done by 3rd party modelers and accepted by Oleg (who by all intensive purposes was planning a historical what-if scenario himself but the expansion pack is much bigger than that). At no point can anyone suggest that time was wasted (like some have implied in this thread and stated elsewhere) in development cycles that should have been placed elsewhere. Did not happen.

- IceFire
http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/spit-sig.jpg

SpremeCommander
01-14-2004, 08:28 PM
"I am also saddened to see the P-80 in FB."

"Saddened" by a video game. Wow. Impressive.

FW190fan
01-14-2004, 08:35 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gibbage1:
I still find it funny that these people are saying "P80 bad" but ignoring the Go-229. I guess if it fly's for the Luftwaffa, its OK. Another form of Luftwhining. Have a double standard about what you want in a flight sim. Non wonder weapons for the US, but wonder weapons for the Axis is all good hay?

Gib<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Gibbage, first of all - you fall back on that "Luftwhiner" crutch way too much.

It's not really Luftwhining, it's 1946 whining. Some people just don't want the exotics modeled for FB.

Personally, I'm not in that camp.

I'm glad to see every new plane regardless of what nationality modeled in the sim, and I'll take joy rides in all of them.

Even the crappy P-80 http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

http://people.aero.und.edu/~choma/lrg0645.jpg

FW190fan
01-14-2004, 08:38 PM
tagert,

Sorry, I'm not ignoring you. It's just that you haven't written anything worth replying to yet.

http://people.aero.und.edu/~choma/lrg0645.jpg

Xiolablu3
01-14-2004, 08:56 PM
When I say I am saddened, I mean that time would be better spent putting more planes which actually fought in WW2 in the game rather than planes which never did.

Is this hard to understand???

TX-Bomblast
01-14-2004, 09:01 PM
For the record I don't like the Gotha flying wing, I hate the B1 russkie rocket, and Tagert you really make me laugh. All the quoting and smart alec replies can't change history. The truth is out there....when you find it let us know.
Like I said, I like the fact that we're geting new and exciting planes. Just make them what they were nothing more. I would love to see a Meteor instead of that overrated under performing YP-80.

TX-Bomblast
Red3

MiloMorai
01-14-2004, 09:12 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TX-Bomblast:
I would love to see a Meteor instead of that overrated under performing YP-80.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Proof! Proof! Proof! Where is your proof the YP-80 was over-rated and underperforming?

Gibbage1
01-14-2004, 09:23 PM
First, I have a lot more fact's too support my Luftwhiner therie. Since I am the one who did BOTH models at the SAME time, but only recieved hate mail about the P-80. Only explination is they are over zellous Luftwaffa fans (I.E. Luftwhiners).

You have been in this forum for a long time. You have seen many post's about "Why is the P-80 being added" and "Patition to stop the P-80" and other threads were the forum members with 109's in there sig sit and whine about "The P-80 never saw combat" or "this is a VVS vs Germany only sim" and other excuses NOT too have the P-80, but not ONE, NOT A SINGLE ONE THREAD ABOUT THE GO-229!!!!! Please, with your ultimate wisdome, explain that. Its not me, since I did both models, its not 1946 since both models are for the same time perioud, its not when I did the model since they were both done at the same time. What is it? The ONLY logical explination is that its because of the most vocal minority on this forum, the Luftwhiners, dont wanna see it. What explination do you have too offer?

Gib

P.S. Its ironic how steriotypes fit so well. But 90% of the people whining about the P-80 have a 109 or 190 in there sig, or a German name or Luftwaffa squad in there user ID. I have been keeping track since I started the two projects.

As for this being a "VVS vs. Ge" sim, please note that Oleg requested these aircraft to be modeled http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by FW190fan:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gibbage1:
I still find it funny that these people are saying "P80 bad" but ignoring the Go-229. I guess if it fly's for the Luftwaffa, its OK. Another form of Luftwhining. Have a double standard about what you want in a flight sim. Non wonder weapons for the US, but wonder weapons for the Axis is all good hay?

Gib<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Gibbage, first of all - you fall back on that "Luftwhiner" crutch way too much.

It's not really Luftwhining, it's 1946 whining. Some people just don't want the exotics modeled for FB.

Personally, I'm not in that camp.

I'm glad to see every new plane regardless of what nationality modeled in the sim, and I'll take joy rides in all of them.

Even the crappy P-80 http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

http://people.aero.und.edu/~choma/lrg0645.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

tagert
01-14-2004, 09:36 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by FW190fan:
tagert,

Sorry, I'm not ignoring you. It's just that you haven't written anything worth replying to yet.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>LOL! Sorry.. guess I struck a nerve using your own logic in reverse... Nice try, but, I can see your upset so I wont press you on the topic of how wrong you were with regards to the FACT that if you fly something for a longer period of time the statical probabilty goes up that you will experance an accedent.

TAGERT

tagert
01-14-2004, 09:37 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Is this hard to understand???<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Just the sad part.

TAGERT

tagert
01-14-2004, 09:44 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TX-Bomblast:
For the record I don't like the Gotha flying wing, I hate the B1 russkie rocket,<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Sure.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TX-Bomblast:
and Tagert you really make me laugh.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>What can I say... it's a gift!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TX-Bomblast:
All the quoting and smart alec replies can't change history.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Agreed 100%

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TX-Bomblast:
The truth is out there....when you find it let us know.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>LOL! I knew you were just blowing smoke!Your the one with the burden of truth to prove.. Chimp has posted not only text, but pictures of data... And others have posted data... You have posted ****! Unless you consider statements like "HISTORY PROVES" to be proof of something... So.. you say you have tons of data... but present NONE of it to support your statments... And even go on to say that you will ignore others peoples data and fall back on the "HISTORY PROVES" statment.. like some montra.

So... what should we base these Flight Models on... Your feelings? Sorry, Ill stick with the data sheets over your feelings anyday! In that it is clear to me that you have missinterpted the data and therefore your feelings are in error.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TX-Bomblast:
Like I said, I like the fact that we're geting new and exciting planes.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>You have a funny way of saying it!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TX-Bomblast:
Just make them what they were nothing more.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Who said they aint? They are based off the existing data.... OH DANG THATS RIGHT!!! YOU HAVE ALL THE DATA... BUT DONT BELIVE IN DATA!! We must build the FM around your FEELINGS... Sorry.. no sale!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TX-Bomblast:
I would love to see a Meteor instead of that overrated under performing YP-80.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Underpreforming? Based on what? HEHEHEHAHEHAHEHAE Lets see your data!

TAGERT

tagert
01-14-2004, 09:46 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gibbage1:
You have been in this forum for a long time. You have seen many post's about "Why is the P-80 being added" and "Patition to stop the P-80" and other threads were the forum members with 109's in there sig sit and whine about "The P-80 never saw combat" or "this is a VVS vs Germany only sim" and other excuses NOT too have the P-80, but not ONE, NOT A SINGLE ONE THREAD ABOUT THE GO-229!!!!! Please, with your ultimate wisdome, explain that. Its not me, since I did both models, its not 1946 since both models are for the same time perioud, its not when I did the model since they were both done at the same time. What is it? The ONLY logical explination is that its because of the most vocal minority on this forum, the Luftwhiners, dont wanna see it. What explination do you have too offer?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I think your explantion hits it right on the nose! It would be funny.. if it just wasnt so sad.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gibbage1:
P.S. Its ironic how steriotypes fit so well. But 90% of the people whining about the P-80 have a 109 or 190 in there sig, or a German name or Luftwaffa squad in there user ID. I have been keeping track since I started the two projects.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have noticed that myself

TAGERT

FW190fan
01-14-2004, 09:59 PM
OK, Gibbage, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, but bear with me here...

You have only yourself to blame http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

Yes, I've been on this forum for a long time and I remember how you introduced the P-80.

Do you?

The title of your P-80 introduction thread went something like this:

"Luftwhiners hide in fear - the P-80 is here"

(or something to that effect)

To many people it appeared that you started the whole thing off by trying to rub peoples noses in it. Now, I know that you were probably just giving people a good natured ribbing by doing this because I tend to do the same thing.

But what followed in the P-80s wake was a whole lot of one-upmanship about how the US was the greatest at absolutely everything and how they invented the jet and the Germans are all stupid and the Me262 is a great big piece of crap.

So it appeared that the P-80 was being modelled for all the wrong reasons, i.e.:

The US side (apparantly) could not stand the fact that Germany had the best fighter hands down and so we are going to model something better than you, regardless of whether or not it ever flew in WWII.

In fact, you've basically admitted as much yourself on more than one occassion - the US must have something to level the playing field, this 262 thing is not acceptable.

I'm not trying to rag on you Gibbage, I'm just telling you what I think.

And I'm the last person you have to defend the P-80s inclusion into FB for, I'm in the "more planes the better" camp.

http://people.aero.und.edu/~choma/lrg0645.jpg

FW190fan
01-14-2004, 10:11 PM
tagert :

Apart from not giving yourself too much credit, Can I ask you another favor please?

When you reply to posts, could you please not put in quotations every single paragraph from all of the other posts in order to reply with what you think might be witty one-liners?

Most of us don't like to scroll through all of that stuff needlessly to get to the relevant parts of this thread. Think of it as a way to mind your manners in a virtual sense, a "netiquette" sort of thing if you will.

http://people.aero.und.edu/~choma/lrg0645.jpg

SkyChimp
01-14-2004, 10:19 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by FW190fan:
But what followed in the P-80s wake was a whole lot of one-upmanship about how the US was the greatest at absolutely everything and how they invented the jet and the Germans are all stupid and the Me262 is a great big piece of crap.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Be fair now, FW, nobody, BUT NOBODY said that - and you know it.

I, among others, presented evidence that the P-80A did, indeed, have superior performance numbers to the Me-262. It's almost as if the Luftcamp can't stand that the Germans were not best and brightest at everything. Because when someone does point out that their favorite machine may not have been best at this or that - and backs it up with proof - it's straight to the accusations of bias they go. But fans of American planes are expected to just accept at face value the overall intellectual and technical superiority of the Germans, huh? We can't have an accurately modelled plane in the game that might debunk that myth that the Germans led the world in every facet of technological developement, now can we?



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
The US side (apparantly) could not stand the fact that Germany had the best fighter hands down and so we are going to model something better than you, regardless of whether or not it ever flew in WWII.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't think they did have the best jet fighter in WWII - just the best one in combat service. Take a look at the performance numbers again. And before anyone thinks those numbers are biased, reflect on the fact that it was a German researcher who put that chart together - for a German book.

And look again. The production P-80A was delivered to the USAAF beginning in Febuary 1945. The war wasn't over then, was it? And that was after many months of operational trials in the ETO with 4 YP-80As.



The reason why Gib modelled the P-80A should be irrelevant to anyone that is in the "the more planes the better camp." If that's really your attitude, Gib's reason is rather moot.

And please, forgive my lack of netiquette.

Regards,
SkyChimp
http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/skychimp.jpg

Gibbage1
01-14-2004, 10:40 PM
When I started that thread, the Me-262 was proposed in FB. I said I did the P-80 to help balance things. I got a bunch of BS how the Me-262 wont un-balance the game (It did) and how the P-80 did NOT belong. 1 week later I posted about the Go-229. The same people who said the P-80 did not belong because it did not fight in the war, or was not part of this front were RAVING about the Go-229. Nothing but "Wow, this will be so cool!" and stuff from the same people who said "The P-80 does not belong" and I swear everyone one of them had a FW-190 or 109 in there sig, a German name, or German squad.

This is when I started my crusade of the "Luftwhiner" because I saw how blind, ignorant, and fanatic they were. I thought they were just fans of Luftwaffa aircraft, but this double standard BS pived me off too no extent. A few of people get on me about calling people Luftwhiners, but they always have FW-190's and 109's in there sig http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

If you were in my shoes, and saw the kind of E-mails I got, you would understand.

But let me clear something up. Not every Luftwaffa pilots are Luftwhiners. Just the loud and fanatical ones who disconnect from the world and hide away in there Luftwaffa world and wont accept anything that does not support there views. One must open there ears in order to learn. Or in this case, eyes. And these people never learn. Prime example of Luftwhiner is Vs_101Isegrim. Who said the Germans invented the internal combustion engine, Rockets, flying wings, and stealth and denies that Northrup flying wing ever flew.

You on the other hand are a pilot who fly's German aircraft, and a fan of the FW-190. But on the virge of Luftwhining http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif J/K. Your at least your open. But when you do close your mind too other posibilities, you will finally slip into the dark side of the Luftwhiner. Beware the darkside.

Gib

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by FW190fan:
OK, Gibbage, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, but bear with me here...

You have only yourself to blame http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

Yes, I've been on this forum for a long time and I remember how you introduced the P-80.

Do you?

The title of your P-80 introduction thread went something like this:

"Luftwhiners hide in fear - the P-80 is here"

(or something to that effect)

To many people it appeared that you started the whole thing off by trying to rub peoples noses in it. Now, I know that you were probably just giving people a good natured ribbing by doing this because I tend to do the same thing.

But what followed in the P-80s wake was a whole lot of one-upmanship about how the US was the greatest at absolutely everything and how they invented the jet and the Germans are all stupid and the Me262 is a great big piece of crap.

So it appeared that the P-80 was being modelled for all the wrong reasons, i.e.:

The US side (apparantly) could not stand the fact that Germany had the best fighter hands down and so we are going to model something better than you, regardless of whether or not it ever flew in WWII.

In fact, you've basically admitted as much yourself on more than one occassion - the US must have something to level the playing field, this 262 thing is not acceptable.

I'm not trying to rag on you Gibbage, I'm just telling you what I think.

And I'm the last person you have to defend the P-80s inclusion into FB for, I'm in the "more planes the better" camp.

http://people.aero.und.edu/~choma/lrg0645.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

FW190fan
01-14-2004, 10:54 PM
OK, roger that SkyChimp and Gibbage but it's late here and I want to do some virtual flying tonight...

Gibbage if people sent you hate E-mails just because you decided to model a particular plane then that really really sucks man http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

http://people.aero.und.edu/~choma/lrg0645.jpg

Gibbage1
01-14-2004, 11:14 PM
Ya. What amazed me was the same people who sent me hate mail on the P-80 because "it never served combat" sent me love letters on the Go-229! Like I said, after all this, the only explanation was Luftwhiners. Don't you think you would of come too the same conclision?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by FW190fan:
OK, roger that SkyChimp and Gibbage but it's late here and I want to do some virtual flying tonight...

Gibbage if people sent you hate E-mails just because you decided to model a particular plane then that really really sucks man http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

http://people.aero.und.edu/~choma/lrg0645.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

ElAurens
01-14-2004, 11:41 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gibbage1:
I still find it funny that these people are saying "P80 bad" but ignoring the Go-229. I guess if it fly's for the Luftwaffa, its OK. Another form of Luftwhining. Have a double standard about what you want in a flight sim. Non wonder weapons for the US, but wonder weapons for the Axis is all good hay?

Gib<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Bravo!!! Gib you just nailed it.

Thank you.

_____________________________

http://www.blitzpigs.com/forum/images/avatars/Curtiss_logo.gif

BlitzPig_EL

Lewallen8579
01-15-2004, 12:39 AM
Okay, just because I can:

First, I don't buy the argument that if the Germans had had a bunch of 262s in 1944 and used them properly as the fighters they are and beaten hell out of the B-17s that we would have just nuked the Germans into submission. The Manhattan project actually culminated in the production of not two, but *three* atomic bombs (the first being used as a test in Alamagordo, New Mexico on July 16, '45), and plutonium and enriched uranium were very hard to make back then (and still are now, for that matter). I don't have specific data on plutonium/uranium production of course, but I know the next bombs weren't detonated until almost a year later in late June/July '46 and it's my *opinion* that these were probably detonated very soon after they were ready.

Further, if the Germans had been smart enough to make 262s and use them properly, they might also have been smart enough to get their own atomic bomb project on track (after all, this is all hypothetical anyway, and Germany *did* have an atomic bomb project in WWII).

Now, about the P-80. I for one am happy to see *any* new planes in this game; I don't care if it started out as VVS vs. Luftwaffe, 'cause it ain't any more and I think the game is the better for it. This is, bar none, the finest WWII flight sim currently available, and there's no sense in *****ing about this plane or that plane being included; be happy you have a flight sim at all, 'cause if it weren't for Oleg, we'd probably all be playing Microsoft CFS3 (ick, shudder).

In my deliberately non-humble opinion, if you don't like the P-80 or other jets and don't want to fly them, the answer is simple: *don't pick them from the list when you get on a server*. If you don't want other people flying them either, that's fine too: you can either join a server that does not allow the jets or start your own.

I personally love the early jets and fly the 262 almost exclusively online; it is quite simply the best plane in the game in my opinion, if it's flown correctly. I'm definately looking forward to some serious jet vs. jet dogfights when the expansion comes out, and I'm hoping that the next game Oleg puts out will be a Korean War sim to replace the great but badly aging MiG Alley.

Now, since I'm on this rant, and in light of the other posts I've seen in this and other threads, I'd like to take a moment to say that this is one of the most poorly moderated forums I've ever read. I am not taking this out personally on the moderators, as I know there aren't many of them and they must be pretty busy, but it's been a long time since I've seen a locked thread around here.

An example of a well-moderated forum is the one for Combat Mission (www.battlefront.com), (http://www.battlefront.com),) where if a post degenerates into non-specific or non-game-related whining or personal attacks (as happens *all too often* on this forum), the moderators do not hesitate for a moment to lock the thread or, if necessary, ban the posters involved. This results in a much cleaner forum where the threads stay on track and where you never ever see a post from one of the developers of the game posting about how he (or she) has gotten discoraged from all the negative posts they see which are usually the result of a small but overly vocal minority anyway. Yes, this is somewhat draconian, but there's a non-moderated Combat Mission newsgroup that people can go on and flame all they want and whatever, and I don't even bother reading it.

::deep breath:: Okay, I've had my say. Carry on.

~Sam

Boandlgramer
01-15-2004, 01:24 AM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Gibbage1:
Ya. What amazed me was the same people who sent me hate mail on the P-80 because "it never served combat" sent me love letters on the Go-229!


so please Gib, let us know , who are these hate-mailers ?
name them, they deserve it not better.

RED_Boandl
http://www.707tkbn.org/members/sites/schmidt05.jpg

Cajun76
01-15-2004, 01:37 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Lewallen8579:
Okay, just because I can:

First, I don't buy the argument that if the Germans had had a bunch of 262s in 1944 and used them properly as the fighters they are and beaten hell out of the B-17s that we would have just nuked the Germans into submission. The Manhattan project actually culminated in the production of not two, but *three* atomic bombs (the first being used as a test in Alamagordo, New Mexico on July 16, '45), and plutonium and enriched uranium were very hard to make back then (and still are now, for that matter). I don't have specific data on plutonium/uranium production of course, but I know the next bombs weren't detonated until almost a year later in late June/July '46 and it's my *opinion* that these were probably detonated very soon after they were ready.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Eh? So exactly what did the US drop on Hiroshima and Nagasaki? The US used 1 for testing, one on Hiroshima on August 6, 1945 and one on Nagasaki on August 9, 1945. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

Good hunting,
Cajun76

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."
-Aristotle

Meanwhile, in the 20th century:

BOOM! Yeah, Alright you primitive screwheads, listen up. See this? This is my T-Bolt!! It's has 8 .50cals and 2000lbs+ worth of bombs and rockets. Republic's top of the line. You can find this in the Kick A$$ department. That's right, this sweet baby was made in Farmingdale, Long Island and Evansville, Indiana. Retails for about $82,997.95. It's got a turbo-supercharger, all metal control surfaces with blunt nosed ailerons, and a hair trigger. That's right, shop smart, shop Republic. YOU GOT THAT!? Now I swear, the next one of you primates, E-ven TOUCHES me..... - Anonymous http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Lewallen8579
01-15-2004, 02:34 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Cajun76:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Lewallen8579:
Okay, just because I can:

First, I don't buy the argument that if the Germans had had a bunch of 262s in 1944 and used them properly as the fighters they are and beaten hell out of the B-17s that we would have just nuked the Germans into submission. _The Manhattan project actually culminated in the production of not two, but *three* atomic bombs (the first being used as a test in Alamagordo, New Mexico on July 16, '45), and plutonium and enriched uranium were very hard to make back then (and still are now, for that matter). I don't have specific data on plutonium/uranium production of course, but I know the next bombs weren't detonated until almost a year later in late June/July '46_ and it's my *opinion* that these were probably detonated very soon after they were ready.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Eh? So exactly _what_ did the US drop on Hiroshima and Nagasaki? The US used 1 for testing, one on Hiroshima on August 6, 1945 and one on Nagasaki on August 9, 1945. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_confused.gif
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yep, three atomic bombs, one each for New Mexico, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki. The first (Trinity) was fully assembled on July 14, 1945 and detonated two days later. It was a plutonium bomb which used up all the available plutonium until Fat Man (the third bomb) was completed. Little Boy (the second bomb) was ready in mid-May except for its uranium core, which was finished on July 3. Fat Man's plutonium core was shipped to Tinian for final assembly on July 26. This info was compiled from various subpages of http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/.

I've also found on that page some documentation that the fourth weapon could have been ready to go as early as August 20, and "that 3 bombs should be available in September, and more each month - reaching 7 or more in December." So, maybe the US *could* have nuked Germany into submission. I stand corrected.

However, since the World War II '46 scenario is fictional anyway, it makes it pretty boring if the US just nukes Berlin and the Germans surrender. That doesn't leave much room for the version of the scenario I prefer: namely, the trial by combat of WWII standards of the most advanced technology of the day. While this is not "realistic" in that it did not actually happen, it's an interesting thought- and alternate-historical-experiment to imagine what it would have been like had the war continued on without the deus ex of the A-bomb. There is also a deal of appeal in the scenario where "Patton kicks it into high gear and takes on the Rooskies" as I've heard it described. That is one that can actually be played out in Il-2 FB, and it makes for some pretty interesting fights.

BTW, that's a good sig.

~Sam

Aardvark892
01-15-2004, 03:42 AM
I left New Mexico a year ago to come to Korea. Just found out I'm going right back. Believe me, there's a very good reason the US decided to nuke "The Land of Entrapment" first!

Sorry... had to go there.

Now, as a maintainer, I'd like to point out something that I think has been overlooked in the (Y)P-80A vs Me-262 argument. The availability of spare parts and overall ability to maintain these jets. Is it safe to say that the US had the edge? Germany was hurting badly in the resources department during the last few years of the war, while the US was at a peak not seen before of manufacturing. This alone goes a LONG way towards the capability of a nation to support any new technology. My point is this: Germany, regardless of the quality of design of their aircraft, they simply could not maintain that level, therefore the US would have won the jet vs jet war if the 'star had made it into combat.

Oh yes, and Gib, btw, count this as NOT being hate mail. Your planes rock. Now just keep saying to yourself "Sabre and MiG, Sabre and MiG".

SSgt Tim Schuster, USAF
8th MXS Inspection Section
Kunsan AB, ROK

http://www.il2skins.com
http://www.uberdemon.com
http://www.mudmovers.com
http://www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com
http://www.gibbageart.com

credit for MiG-3U Avatar is Unknown (I lost the link). Please let me know if it is yours!

http://img5.photobucket.com/albums/v22/Aardvark892/PC_Stealth2.jpg

269GA-Veltro
01-15-2004, 03:46 AM
P80 is wellcome and we have to thank every day Gib for his work.....don't forget that we'll have also P 38 and Spitfire thank to him.
That it.

But in spite of this....is very hard to say that it was "better" than 262, one of the most important jet of the aviations history.
YP 80 was only a pre-serie prototipe and we don't have data about it in combat. We only know it was a very dangerous bird, able to kill the best american pilots more than to shoot down 262.
It flew only in Italy and never fought in WW2.
The others P80 models (Corea) and T33 were surly great fighters...but some years later.....

Is not possible to say that P80 was better than 262. Adolf Galland understood very soon the force of this bird but....as usual.."they" didn't hear him, and 262 became a fighter-bomber..
P80, i repeat, is wellcome but only with correct FM, it wasn't an F16 as somebody says here. Don't forget that P 51 fought against 262..not others.
At the same time i understand the english communitys position: why not Meteor? It fought in WW2...definitly it fought. But virtual english pilots prefer Tempest in FB.....and i undertand them. This is the difference i mean.....

Don't worry, in Vow we'll never had this bird: we don't have an italian map.

269GA~Veltro
http://ourworld.cs.com/VeltroF/mc202tav4.jpg

269GA-Veltro
01-15-2004, 04:23 AM
"Italian" WW2 P 80 based on the Foggia airfield.

http://ourworld.cs.com/VeltroF/p80_foggia.jpg

269GA~Veltro
http://ourworld.cs.com/VeltroF/mc202tav4.jpg

10tacle
01-15-2004, 07:28 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gibbage1:
When I started that thread, the Me-262 was proposed in FB. I said I did the P-80 to help balance things. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


The keyword is "balance" i think http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif


P80 AND Go229 have nothing to do with a WWII combat simulation.



They might be good for a fictivous '46 Session together with the XF5U-1, XP55, XB35, Ju EF128, He P.1078A, Me P.1101, or the FW "Flitzer".


He162 stands on the edge. The "I./JG1" claims a handful of victories for example 04/26/45 and. 05/04/45. So we can say, the 162 stand's in combat while testing.

http://home.arcor.de/10tacle/dott-animiert.gif

LEXX_Luthor
01-15-2004, 07:33 AM
Gibbage you may have a more Peaceful existence if you modded late 1930s Biplanes (and Ki~27 and A5M and P~26 monoplanes). http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif


__________________
RUSSIAN lexx website http://www.lexx.ufo.ru/members.shtml
Stanly is a moron, kai is a walking dead beet, Xev just want sex.

Bremspropeller
01-15-2004, 08:03 AM
Tagert, your lack of knowlege is awful.

Which *factories* do you mean ? You mean, the B-17s would've blown up a whole montain ?

Dream on http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif



http://www.brooksart.com/Longnose.jpg
"Once upon the time..there was an aircraft that ruled the skies of Europe..."
http://www.virtual-jabog32.de
http://www.jg68.de.vu

dux-1
01-15-2004, 09:18 AM
This is all so pathetic.. Please get a life..

MiloMorai
01-15-2004, 09:23 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by dux-1:
This is all so pathetic.. Please get a life..<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not even nearly as pathetic as your posting. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_eek.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

dux-1
01-15-2004, 09:24 AM
Thanks, I've a life

ElektroFredrik
01-15-2004, 09:34 AM
Now, let's study the facts here...
First the P-80
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/airdef/p-80-1_072-s.jpg

Then a BMW
http://www.scarysquirrel.org/skwerlsays/ronlacey2.jpg

BMW is (well, was in ww2) German. So is the Me-262
Do you see a squirrel on the P-80? No, you dont't.
Squirrels choose high-quality, high-performance
products. Such products can only come from Germany.
Therefore the Me-262 will be far better than the P-80

Case closed http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_razz.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

http://fanart.lionking.org/imgarchive/FanArt/NisseNjursten/profile.jpg
"What I study is sex and squirrels"

Boandlgramer
01-15-2004, 09:50 AM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by ElektroFredrik:
Now, let's study the facts here...
First the P-80
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/airdef/p-80-1_072-s.jpg

Then a BMW
http://www.scarysquirrel.org/skwerlsays/ronlacey2.jpg

BMW is (well, was in ww2) German. So is the Me-262
Do you see a squirrel on the P-80? No, you dont't.
Squirrels choose high-quality, high-performance
products. Such products can only come from Germany.
Therefore the Me-262 will be far better than the P-80

QUOTE]

that´s the ultimativ proof.
a squirrel can´t be wrong . http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

PS:
but hey, who know, maybe its a german squirrel, then your proof means nothing ).

RED_Boandl
http://www.707tkbn.org/members/sites/schmidt05.jpg

Bremspropeller
01-15-2004, 10:00 AM
Man Boandl, did you see that Oachkazalschwoaf ?

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif



http://www.brooksart.com/Longnose.jpg
"Once upon the time..there was an aircraft that ruled the skies of Europe..."
http://www.virtual-jabog32.de
http://www.jg68.de.vu

269GA-Veltro
01-15-2004, 10:03 AM
My God......UbiSoft..this is really too much..

http://store.ubi.com/item.jsp?item=008888681786&category=PC

http://ourworld.cs.com/VeltroF/pc_il2acexp_s3.jpg

http://ourworld.cs.com/VeltroF/pc_il2acexp_s4.jpg

269GA~Veltro
http://ourworld.cs.com/VeltroF/mc202tav4.jpg

ElektroFredrik
01-15-2004, 10:08 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Boandlgramer:
that´s the ultimativ proof.
a squirrel can´t be wrong . http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

PS:
but hey, who know, maybe its a german squirrel, then your proof means nothing ).

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Well, that squirrel is actually a chipmunk, and
AFAIK there are no chippys in Germany.
So my proof means somethinghttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

http://fanart.lionking.org/imgarchive/FanArt/NisseNjursten/profile.jpg
"What I study is sex and squirrels"

Boandlgramer
01-15-2004, 10:13 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
Man Boandl, did you see that Oachkazalschwoaf ?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
of course Brems, i saw not only the Oachkatzlschwoaf, i saw the whole "viech".
but our Oachkatzl are looking much better.
believe it or not .

btw. waar jo gor ned schl¤chd, wen ma mid an soichan hobe z´Minga ( schwabing) umananda farn kundd. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif aba maina frau waar des gor ned r¤chd http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

RED_Boandl
http://www.707tkbn.org/members/sites/schmidt05.jpg

Bremspropeller
01-15-2004, 10:19 AM
Des glaab i a.
I find an Z-3er eh am besten.


BTW: what was the subject ? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Oh and yes, our squirrels/ chipmunks are the best http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

http://www.angelfire.com/in2/sandpiper2/images/bazooka.jpg



http://www.brooksart.com/Longnose.jpg
"Once upon the time..there was an aircraft that ruled the skies of Europe..."
http://www.virtual-jabog32.de
http://www.jg68.de.vu

tagert
01-15-2004, 11:31 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Veltro
My God......UbiSoft..this is really too much..
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Niiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiice!

TAGERT

tagert
01-15-2004, 11:38 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Bremspropeller
Tagert, your lack of knowlege is awful.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>LOL!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Bremspropeller
Which *factories* do you mean ? You mean, the B-17s would've blown up a whole montain ?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Actually I think I was refering to the paper documents of the testing of the aircraft... Or are we to belive that they tested these things out in the *factories* which were in the *mountains*? HEHEHEHHAHEHAHEHAHEHAHAHHAA

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Bremspropeller
Dream on
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Emmmmm nah, your doing enough for both of us! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

TAGERT

tagert
01-15-2004, 11:40 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Veltro
"Italian" WW2 P 80 based on the Foggia airfield.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Niiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiice! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

TAGERT

Bremspropeller
01-15-2004, 11:43 AM
Well Tagert...go to sleep now...the sandman came at 7 o'clock...

Oh I forgot, it's not that laze at your's...

Who cares ? Sleeping is good for you beauty http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif



http://www.brooksart.com/Longnose.jpg
"Once upon the time..there was an aircraft that ruled the skies of Europe..."
http://www.virtual-jabog32.de
http://www.jg68.de.vu

tagert
01-15-2004, 11:46 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> by Aardvark892
I left New Mexico a year ago to come to Korea. Just found out I'm going right back.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Well you probally wont reconize the place... Las Cruces has changed so much in the last two years that I get lost! But.. Ol Alamogordo is the same! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> by Aardvark892
Believe me, there's a very good reason the US decided to nuke "The Land of Entrapment" first!

Sorry... had to go there.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I Believe! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> by Aardvark892
Now, as a maintainer, I'd like to point out something that I think has been overlooked in the (Y)P-80A vs Me-262 argument. The availability of spare parts and overall ability to maintain these jets. Is it safe to say that the US had the edge? Germany was hurting badly in the resources department during the last few years of the war, while the US was at a peak not seen before of manufacturing. This alone goes a LONG way towards the capability of a nation to support any new technology. My point is this: Germany, regardless of the quality of design of their aircraft, they simply could not maintain that level, therefore the US would have won the jet vs jet war if the 'star had made it into combat.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Well said, something most tend to forget... or ignor? Eitherway Agreed 100%

TAGERT

NegativeGee
01-15-2004, 11:49 AM
Hmmmm..... pity about the pi$$ing contest that has developed here.

I just wanted to say cheers FWfan.... Mr. Browns opinions on a production model 162 are quite insightful http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

"As weaponry, both were good, but in far different ways from each other. In a nutshell, I describe it this way: if the FW 190 was a sabre, the 109 was a florett, or foil, like that used in the precision art of fencing." - Gunther Rall

http://www.invoman.com/images/tali_with_hands.jpg

Look Noobie, we already told you, we don't have the Patch!

tagert
01-15-2004, 11:59 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> by Lewallen8579
Yep, three atomic bombs, one each for New Mexico, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki. The first (Trinity) was fully assembled on July 14, 1945 and detonated two days later. It was a plutonium bomb which used up all the available plutonium until Fat Man (the third bomb) was completed. Little Boy (the second bomb) was ready in mid-May except for its uranium core, which was finished on July 3. Fat Man's plutonium core was shipped to Tinian for final assembly on July 26. This info was compiled from various subpages of http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/.

I've also found on that page some documentation that the fourth weapon could have been ready to go as early as August 20, and "that 3 bombs should be available in September, and more each month - reaching 7 or more in December." So, maybe the US *could* have nuked Germany into submission. I stand corrected.

However, since the World War II '46 scenario is fictional anyway, it makes it pretty boring if the US just nukes Berlin and the Germans surrender. That doesn't leave much room for the version of the scenario I prefer: namely, the trial by combat of WWII standards of the most advanced technology of the day. While this is not "realistic" in that it did not actually happen, it's an interesting thought- and alternate-historical-experiment to imagine what it would have been like had the war continued on without the deus ex of the A-bomb. There is also a deal of appeal in the scenario where "Patton kicks it into high gear and takes on the Rooskies" as I've heard it described. That is one that can actually be played out in Il-2 FB, and it makes for some pretty interesting fights. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Welcome Back! Now that your with us... You may enjoy this? We snunk into Trity sight once... Was a hour drive threw the desert.. but worth it!

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/MeAtTrinity.jpg

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/Marker6.jpg


TAGERT

tagert
01-15-2004, 12:14 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> by FW190fan:
Apart from not giving yourself too much credit,
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>LOL!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> by FW190fan:
Can I ask you another favor please?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>You can all ways ask!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> by FW190fan:
When you reply to posts, could you please not put in quotations every single paragraph from all of the other posts in order to reply with what you think might be witty one-liners?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Could? Sure I could! But I wont.. I like to break it down, my style, if you don't like it.. Sorry bout your bad luck!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> by FW190fan:
Most of us don't like to scroll through all of that stuff needlessly to get to the relevant parts of this thread. Think of it as a way to mind your manners in a virtual sense, a "netiquette" sort of thing if you will.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>WOW! I really did strike a nerve back there didn't I? Getting all stealth personal and such now... Well try as you may but my skin is way to thick for your thinly vailed comments.. In that I really don't give a rip about what you think of me or the way I type.. But I can see your really REALLY upset, so Ill let you off the hook here and not remind you about how wrong you were about the statistic probability of an accident happen the more to test something.

TAGERT

Boandlgramer
01-15-2004, 12:57 PM
tagert, is that you on the picture ?
you are looking somehow clever . no kidding .

RED_Boandl
http://www.707tkbn.org/members/sites/schmidt05.jpg

tagert
01-15-2004, 12:59 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Boandlgramer:
tagert, is that you on the picure ?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Yupper that is me! FPic is two years oldhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Boandlgramer:
you are looking somehow clever . no kidding .
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Emmmmm why do I feel like Im being set up for a drum roll here followed by a high hat? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

TAGERT

Boandlgramer
01-15-2004, 01:19 PM
tagert,
is it still a military area ?
is there a way for tourist to visit it ?

RED_Boandl
http://www.707tkbn.org/members/sites/schmidt05.jpg

tagert
01-15-2004, 01:25 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Boandlgramer:
tagert,
is it still a military area ?
is there a way for tourist to visit it ?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Hmmmm not sure if it is part of the military base.. That is where we started.. but Im pretty sure it part of the nat park service? I know that once a year they allow people in where we were... it is a big event... but mostly protesters... We kind of snuck in that day! We were othersized to be on the base... but not sure if it was OK to drive out there... One of those situation where IF you had asked they would have said no.. So we didnt ask! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

TAGERT

Aardvark892
01-15-2004, 01:28 PM
Anyone can visit the Trinity site (the right way, shame on you Tagert... you know there's still radiation there, right?), but it's only open for one day a year... specifically because of the background radiation, I've heard. I don't know the date it's open, but I'll be back in NM with my computer working by the end of next month, so I'll update then

SSgt Tim Schuster, USAF
8th MXS Inspection Section
Kunsan AB, ROK

http://www.il2skins.com
http://www.uberdemon.com
http://www.mudmovers.com
http://www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com
http://www.gibbageart.com

credit for MiG-3U Avatar is Unknown (I lost the link). Please let me know if it is yours!

http://img5.photobucket.com/albums/v22/Aardvark892/PC_Stealth2.jpg

tagert
01-15-2004, 01:34 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Aardvark892:
Anyone can visit the Trinity site (the right way, shame on you Tagert...
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Aardvark892:
you know there's still radiation there, right?),
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Yes.. we didnt spend much time there.. ie didnt set up a picknick table or anything.. but found it funny that there were some tables out there!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Aardvark892:
but it's only open for one day a year... specifically because of the background radiation, I've heard. I don't know the date it's open, but I'll be back in NM with my computer working by the end of next month, so I'll update then
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Yah, there is a web sight somewhere that has the dates.. As you pointed out I think it is only open once a year for a day or two.

TAGERT

Boandlgramer
01-15-2004, 01:49 PM
thanks guys.

RED_Boandl
http://www.707tkbn.org/members/sites/schmidt05.jpg

tagert
01-15-2004, 01:53 PM
For those of you that may never make it out there... Or plan to have children with only 5 toes... Enjoy

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/Trinity.jpg

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/TrinityMarker4.jpg

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/TrinityMarker7.jpg

TAGERT

tagert
01-15-2004, 02:04 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> by Bremspropeller
Well Tagert...go to sleep now...the sandman came at 7 o'clock...

Oh I forgot, it's not that laze at your's...

Who cares ? Sleeping is good for you beauty<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Huh... I mean who would have guess that a guy with a sig pic showing a DORA and Me262 and a smoking P51 would get his panties in such a wad talking about the addition of the P80? Who Knew? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

TAGERT

ElAurens
01-15-2004, 06:13 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Veltro:
My God......UbiSoft..this is really too much..

http://store.ubi.com/item.jsp?item=008888681786&category=PC

http://ourworld.cs.com/VeltroF/pc_il2acexp_s3.jpg]http://ourworld.cs.com/VeltroF/pc_il2acexp_s3.jpg

http://ourworld.cs.com/VeltroF/pc_il2acexp_s4.jpg]http://ourworld.cs.com/VeltroF/pc_il2acexp_s4.jpg

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah, beautiful isn't it.

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

_____________________________

http://www.blitzpigs.com/forum/images/avatars/Curtiss_logo.gif

BlitzPig_EL

mllaneza
01-15-2004, 08:38 PM
We need the P-80. This weekend is spent some time on a dogfight server. The 262 was enabled and the hosting squad was flying 3 or 4 of them at a time. I dodged BnZ-ing jets all the way to their airfield and caught a 262 shortly after takeoff. He was straight and level in a shallow climb, doing 300-350 kph at close to 1000m and wheels up. I dove on him and tore him to pieces straight from behind. For my trouble I was yelled at for not letting him take off.

Now let's be serious for a moment folks. It's dishonorable when I'm going 150kph faster than he is, but it's perfectly fair when he's going 150kph faster than me ? And it was an externals server, so his SA should have been a lot better - which would have enabled, oh let's call it ... dodging. And he had squadmates in the area, including another 262, so he had help available. Gotta tell your buddies that you're taking off.

Veteran - Bermuda Triangle Expeditionary Force. 1993-1951.

Gibbage1
01-16-2004, 12:37 AM
I say vulching 262's is legal, for many many reasons.

#1, you cant get them when they take off and gain speed.

#2, Oleg purposly made the engine startup and accelleration slow to help balance it out.

#3, The Me-262 has such a speed advantage if flown correctly, the only time you can take it is takeoff or landing.

#4, If your concerned about "fair play" then dont fly the 262 against props. Its not very fair! Not till we get the P-80 at least http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

I remember on Slammin's server about 5 people on a team was takin 262's. Me and about 4 others were not letting them take off! They kept crying and crying, and I kept saying "take sometihng else. We are not vulching anytihng with a prop. They just never learned. Too stubbern to give up there uber jet.

The main reason why the Me-262 was not such a powerful weapon was #1, numbers, and #2, limited time on target. Those two factors are not part of IL2 FB since #1, anyone on the team can take a Me-262 and there is no shortage of them and #2, your not flying more then 2 mins before you find a target. If it was historical, only 1 out of 1000 pilots could fly the me-262, and thats if A: the engines are back from the shop (10 hour overhaul), B: You have "scrounged" up enough fuel, and C: Your explicid orders says to attack an incoming formation of 300 B-17's. Alone. No wingman. Goodluck! BTW. Once you GET TOO the B-17's, you have about 2 passes before your out of fuel. Happy landings. Enjoy the "historical" mission.

Gib

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by mllaneza:
We need the P-80. This weekend is spent some time on a dogfight server. The 262 was enabled and the hosting squad was flying 3 or 4 of them at a time. I dodged BnZ-ing jets all the way to their airfield and caught a 262 shortly after takeoff. He was straight and level in a shallow climb, doing 300-350 kph at close to 1000m and wheels up. I dove on him and tore him to pieces straight from behind. For my trouble I was yelled at for not letting him take off.

Now let's be serious for a moment folks. It's dishonorable when I'm going 150kph faster than he is, but it's perfectly fair when he's going 150kph faster than me ? And it was an externals server, so his SA should have been a lot better - which would have enabled, oh let's call it ... dodging. And he had squadmates in the area, including another 262, so he had help available. Gotta tell your buddies that you're taking off.

Veteran - Bermuda Triangle Expeditionary Force. 1993-1951.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Bremspropeller
01-16-2004, 02:07 AM
LoL...

Let's stop this childish insults..Both of us http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif:P

But, don't you know that the Mustang's simply applying full throttle in order to flee ? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Or is it more like " hey guys...they got a P-80 here..first man home flies'er first.."



http://www.brooksart.com/Longnose.jpg
"Once upon the time..there was an aircraft that ruled the skies of Europe..."
http://www.virtual-jabog32.de
http://www.jg68.de.vu

269GA-Veltro
01-16-2004, 02:19 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gibbage1:
I say vulching 262's is legal, for many many reasons.

#1, you cant get them when they take off and gain speed.

#3, The Me-262 has such a speed advantage if flown correctly, the only time you can take it is takeoff or landing.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Agree Gib, this is correct.

P51 destroied Me262 first of all during the take off and landing operations; so 109 and 190 have to cover airfields during these operations.

269GA~Veltro
http://ourworld.cs.com/VeltroF/mc202tav4.jpg

FuryFighter
01-16-2004, 02:42 AM
wow.. who ever thought that something I post would pull so much attention... be it a flame war... which was not my intended goal... it was a simple mission to find info on late WW2 jets.... and compare that data.

And please stop posting that enormous pic of the Trinity bomb site lol... I know its interesting... but its also damn big lol. hehe thank you for your time all lol... as you were...

/me steps back to allow the conversation to continue.....

WUAF_Badsight
01-16-2004, 05:58 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tagert:
Im sure alot of Japanize would disagree! Granted the death count was higher in some of the fire bomb attacks due to smoke and heat... but that took many many sorties with many many B29 with many Many MANY bombs.

TAGERT<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


the fire bombings of WW2 were worse than the nukes dropping

in both destruction & terror inflicted

with 262s properly deployed the mass bombing of germany would have never have taken off

you can worship the allies success in WW2 all you want but the fact is in 43 & 44 the 262 wasnt used as it should have been

the success of the daylight bombing raids wouldnt have happened if it was

in a DF the P-80 holds the aces's , mainly because of maneurverability & because you dont need heavy guns to really hurt a 262 in FB

then again the 262 does real good for itself in slow turn fighting under 300 kph

hop2002
01-16-2004, 07:57 AM
The Me262 couldn't have been ready any earlier than it was. The limiting factor was the engines.

Hitler didn't even see the prototypes, and ask if they could carry bombs, until the 26th November 1943. Hitler was assured they could, but Messerschmit and Milch countinued qwork on them as fighters, and no attempt was made to convert them into bombers.

It wasn't until a conference on the 23rd May 1944 that Milch and Goering admitted to Hitler that no work had ben done on converting the 262 as a bomber; it was being produced as a pure fighter.

By this stage, less than 50 262s had been produced, all were being used in testing or training, and engine reliability was so poor operational use was impossible anyway.

If Hitler hadn't ordered the Me262 used as a bomber, there would have been a few more available in the fighter role from July 1944 onwards, not before. By late 1944 there would be no practical difference, because operationas were being curtailed by lack of spares, fuel, trained pilots etc, not by a lack of 262s.

So the total effect of Hitler on the 262 program was to reduce the numbers of 262s available for air combat July - December 1944. THe lack of effectiveness of the 262 at this time would have prevented slightly larger numbers having much effect anyway.

Bearcat99
01-16-2004, 08:35 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tagert:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by csThor:
The A-bomb thing is out of question (although one might argue if it would have reached its intended target - Germany wasn't as defenseless against the B-29 as Japan).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
That reminds me of something... Growing up during the cold war in the 60s I recall some politican talking about the the subject of the USSR having more ICMBs than the USA had... He was quick to point out that yes.. they have more ICMBs than the US but the US guidence systems are much more accurate... He claimed we could hit a trash can in red square... Therefore our better accuracy makes up for the fact that they have more than we do... At first glance... and with an old mind set that answer seemed pretty reasonable... By old mind set I mean thinking in terms of us havin 10 bullets and them having 20 bullets... But our guys are much better shots... Thus we are equal... That will work when talking about trying to hit a trash can with a bullet... But when you update your mindset to a nuke.... ie a bullet that is bigger than the trash can itself... I can miss the trash can by a mile and still kill it... So the whole more accurate answer was pretty lame. As is the reaching the intended target in Germany... If a B29 found heavy resistance, dropped early, and turn around... Any nuke on Germany proper would have been noticed BIG TIME.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by csThor:
But thinking of the potential effect of a _large number of Me262_ in early 1944 makes me shiver. AFAIR the 8th USAAF paused their daylight attacks on targets in Germany after Schweinfurt for a while (4 months ??) - imagine the long faces when not twenty or twentyfive bombers were lost on each operation but say fourty or fifty.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>As I pointed out.. We would have lost more bombers... but had the Me262 showed up in numbers earlier than it did, and had the tatics of spanking them on take off and landeds not done the job.. There would have been more pressure for us to get the P80 out sooner.. And therefore we would have. As I pointed out... That pressure was not there for us, thus no real need for us... The odds were in our favor.

TAGERT<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Just as a side note..... the whole they have more than we do was a lie. The Soviets NEVER had more nukes than we did. Our government lied to justify the buildup.
As far as the jets being in the sim goes...why not? The really nice thing about the early jets was that they had to be flown like traditional planes...not much fly by wire stuff yet. Ther more the merrier I say.

<UL TYPE=SQUARE>http://www.jodavidsmeyer.com/combat/bookstore/tuskegeebondposter.jpg (http://tuskegeeairmen.org/airmen/who.html)[/list]<UL TYPE=SQUARE>vflyer@comcast.net [/list]<UL TYPE=SQUARE>99thPursuit Squadron IL2 Forgotten Battles (http://www.geocities.com/rt_bearcat)[/list]
UDQMG (http://www.uberdemon.com/index2.html) | HYPERLOBBY (http://hyperfighter.jinak.cz/) | IL2 Manager (http://www.checksix-fr.com/bibliotheque/detail_fichier.php?ID=1353) | MUDMOVERS (http://www.mudmovers.com/)

MiloMorai
01-16-2004, 10:44 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WUAF_Badsight:
with 262s properly deployed the mass bombing of germany would have never have taken off

you can worship the allies success in WW2 all you want but the fact is in 43 & 44 the 262 wasnt used as it should have been

the success of the daylight bombing raids wouldnt have happened if it was

in a DF the P-80 holds the aces's , mainly because of maneurverability & because you dont need heavy guns to really hurt a 262 in FB

then again the 262 does real good for itself in slow turn fighting under 300 kph<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The first production 262 came off the line in March &gt; 1. From then on it was A &gt; 15, M &gt; 7, J &gt; 28, J &gt; 58, A &gt; 15, S &gt; 92, O &gt; 108, N &gt; 87, D &gt; 108 for a total of 519.

In real life the 50 cals of the P-51s and P-47s had no trouble dispatching 262s. The centralized guns of the P-80 was better with no 'convergence' to worry about.

Hitler's so-called hair-brain order to have the 262 to used as a bomber was not so bad. The LW really did not have a chance of using normal bombers in attacking Allied forces. Even the Ar234 could be caught. With the bomber 262 at least they could be used offensivly in attacks on Allied a/c which the Ar234 could not do.

tagert
01-17-2004, 11:24 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> by WUAF_Badsight:
the fire bombings of WW2 were worse than the nukes dropping in both destruction<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Well it dependson on your definition of destruction.. I clearly pointed out was it took many B29 with many bombs to equal and in some cases exceed the A-Bomb destruction. Assuming your definition of destruction is inital head count of the dead along with number of buildings destroyed. Many conventinal bombings in Japan and Europe exceeded the A-Bomb by that definition.. Now consider a little revised definition of destruction... Where you could NOT go to that spot a week after the bombing, and plant a tree or build a new building.. because the radiation will kill you.. Or start to included the people who died weeks, months, years later due to the radiation of the inital blast... Than and only then you will see how the A-Bomb was WORSE

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> by WUAF_Badsight:
& terror inflicted<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Emmmm have to disagree there... that mushroom cloud probally inflicted alot of terror for miles around.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> by WUAF_Badsight:
with 262s properly deployed the mass bombing of germany would have never have taken off
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Disagree 100%! Dont missunderstand me here.. I agree we would have lost more B17s and men... But had the Me262 come on line sooner... and the tatics we used to nuturlzie them (bounce em landing and taking off) didnt work we would have just diverted some of those B29s going to japan and sent them to Europe... All Im saying here is we would have adj to what ever the Germans did, just like we did!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> by WUAF_Badsight:
you can worship the allies success in WW2 all you want but the fact is in 43 & 44 the 262 wasnt used as it should have been<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Not really worship.. Just common sense really.. And from what I have been reading here it looks like the Me262 wounldnt have been ready any sooner anyways... On that note.. I never really thought about it like this.. I mean stop and think about it for a seconds.. The old HITLER WANTED TO MAKE IT A BOMBER.. What does that really mean? Put some bomb racks on it... Are we to belive that the Germans delayed the Me262 for years because of a few bomb racks? In light of THAT and what has been presented in this thread Im convinced the 262 would not have show up any sooner than it did.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> by WUAF_Badsight:
the success of the daylight bombing raids wouldnt have happened if it was<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Disagree 100%.. even if it could have show up eariler.. which I doubt, it would have delayed things a bit for sure... but not stopped it.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> by WUAF_Badsight:
in a DF the P-80 holds the aces's , mainly because of maneurverability & because you dont need heavy guns to really hurt a 262 in FB<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>In FB or RL

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> by WUAF_Badsight:
then again the 262 does real good for itself in slow turn fighting under 300 kph
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Agreed been there done that

TAGERT