PDA

View Full Version : Your favorite rocket/jet aircraft? PLEASE ANSWER!



BrewsterPilot
03-25-2006, 02:39 PM

BrewsterPilot
03-25-2006, 02:39 PM

VW-IceFire
03-25-2006, 02:48 PM
YP-80 is just such a pure joy to fly. The gyro gunsight, roll rate, turn rate, and cockpit visibility make it my prefered choice when flying a jet fighter. The 6 rapid firing .50cals make a huge difference when trying to dogfight other jets as well.

Badsight.
03-25-2006, 02:54 PM
i like the stability & ammo load of the 4 cannon Me-262 . the Go-229 has awesome guns - but it wanders all over the place & is low powered

if you want to win a Jet versus Jet DF - you use the American plane

GerritJ9
03-25-2006, 02:59 PM
For me a toss-up between He-162 and Me-262. 229 has poor visibility from cockpit, YP80 has sluggish acceleration and lacks gunpower, and Me-163 has no endurance. Only disadvantage of He-162 is low ammo load.

Capt.LoneRanger
03-25-2006, 03:05 PM
Go229 - but just because it looks cool and the cannons sounds awesome. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Friendly_flyer
03-25-2006, 03:14 PM
I'm just an off-liner, but I do best in the salamander. The YP-80 lack gun-power.

danjama
03-25-2006, 03:16 PM
My fave jet has to be this monster http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

http://www.vflintham.demon.co.uk/aircraft/lightning/xr749i.jpg

In game is the Me262, thats one legendary plane!

Waldo.Pepper
03-25-2006, 03:20 PM
Heinkel! But to be honest I would like the He-162A1 best of all. If only!

bienenbaer
03-25-2006, 03:32 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BrewsterPilot:
So? For me it is without douubt the flying wing Gotha-Go 229. What do you prefer? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Me-163 Komet.

Two reasons:

1. It has the sharpest mission profile: First pure excitement when closing in on Lastwagen (aka bommber) at 900 km/h ... and then sheer horror when trying to escape the Indianer (aka Mustangs, ...)

2. It's the only plane I can safely land, because of its skid. My laptop has 1st generation 16 Mb Mobility Radeon, giving 6-8 fps. I tend to crash the usual gears, becasue I never know how close the tarmac really is ...

---------------------------------------------
EDIT ... err ... that applies mostly for the planes with tail-wheel. Those wonderplanes with nose-wheel seem to have the easier FM ... I can land almost everywhere ...

http://rapidshare.de/files/16494087/at_ze_gate.ntrk.html

FI-Aflak
03-25-2006, 03:36 PM
the 262 because it was the first legendary jet.

kearsarge007
03-25-2006, 03:47 PM
Well my favotite is ME-262...after all It is the father of all modern fighter jets! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

http://www.daveswarbirds.com/glennill/images/me-262.jpg

One of ME-262s features that the USA missed on the P-80 is the [Swept wing]and after the americans copied it from blue prints on F-86 the russians has similar documents about swept wing & they used it on MIG-15.During the korean war the USAF was so surprised to see the migS.

It is fair to say that the german scientists during WW2 pioneered all the almost all the aspects of Jet technology & most important of all "Rocket science"....But the americans pioneered the nuclear age http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

BorisGruschenko
03-25-2006, 03:59 PM
The 163 is among my favourite rides because of its "abandon all hope ye who enter here"-conception. A
bird to perform your personal downfall in, following the signs of the times. That´s final immersion in a WW-II sim - for germans in particular, I suppose.

Sergio_101
03-25-2006, 04:04 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BorisGruschenko:
The 163 is among my favourite rides because of its "abandon all hope ye who enter here"-conception. A
bird to perform your personal downfall in, following the signs of the times. That´s final immersion in a WW-II sim - for germans in particular, I suppose. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

German fantasy.
Swept wings have been around since the Wrights
first ever powered flight.

EVERYONE experimented with swept wings.

Sergio

Feathered_IV
03-25-2006, 04:16 PM
If I'd had my pick of the Luftwaffe X-planes, I would have loved to try the Bachem Ba349 Natter.

http://www.kheichhorn.de/assets/images/siebert.gif

PraetorHonoris
03-25-2006, 04:40 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Sergio_101:

German fantasy.
Swept wings have been around since the Wrights
first ever powered flight.

EVERYONE experimented with swept wings.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Cool, name some Allied "experiment" with swept wings, that was produced in a number of 1500 and had hundreds of combats, if not more - in or pre WWII.

Badsight.
03-25-2006, 06:30 PM
here we go . . . . http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

just name your favourite jet & why & IGNORE the sergio trolls

WOLFMondo
03-25-2006, 06:36 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by danjama:
My fave jet has to be this monster http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

http://www.vflintham.demon.co.uk/aircraft/lightning/xr749i.jpg

In game is the Me262, thats one legendary plane! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

The Lightning was the last great British aircraft. Not forgetting the incredible Buccaneer.

http://www.avcollect2.co.uk/AvCollect/buccaneer/332gm.jpg

ATLAS_DEATH
03-25-2006, 07:35 PM
well... I'd call the me262 the father of jet powered aircraft.. not modern fighter jets...

wayno7777
03-25-2006, 09:04 PM
262 cause of the 30mm's and that I'm getting used to it....

Daiichidoku
03-25-2006, 10:00 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Sergio_101:
German fantasy.
Swept wings have been around since the Wrights
first ever powered flight.

EVERYONE experimented with swept wings.

Sergio </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


is that why there are so many swept wings at Reno?

Skycat_2
03-26-2006, 12:29 AM
What if I like the Me-163 but I don't like the BI-1?

darkhorizon11
03-26-2006, 12:45 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by kearsarge007:
Well my favotite is ME-262...after all It is the father of all modern fighter jets! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

http://www.daveswarbirds.com/glennill/images/me-262.jpg

One of ME-262s features that the USA missed on the P-80 is the [Swept wing]and after the americans copied it from blue prints on F-86 the russians has similar documents about swept wing & they used it on MIG-15.During the korean war the USAF was so surprised to see the migS.

It is fair to say that the german scientists during WW2 pioneered all the almost all the aspects of Jet technology & most important of all "Rocket science"....But the americans pioneered the nuclear age http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The big push was for the rockets. The Germans were ahead of the Allies in jet technology but the Allies had also made significant advances. Remember the British and Americans were flying jets well before the war was over. It was the axial flow technology that was the big advance.

I remember once reading a LW pilot's quote that the best jet of the war would have been an Me-262 with Rolls Royce engines.

Phas3e
03-26-2006, 12:55 AM
I've allways loved the 262 but picked the He162 because its so fun to potter around with ingame.

CUJO_1970
03-26-2006, 01:24 AM
This one http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

http://www.warbirdpictures.com/LCBW4/Ar234-C3-68s.jpg


Not many people know about the Ar-234C.

CUJO_1970
03-26-2006, 01:33 AM
Here's a 4-engine Ar-234C with seperate nacelles instead of paired:

http://www.warbirdpictures.com/LCBW/Ar234-V6-12.jpg

http://www.warbirdpictures.com/LCBW/Ar234-V6-11.jpg

Oops http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

http://www.warbirdpictures.com/LCBW/Ar234-V6-17s.jpg

Xiolablu3
03-26-2006, 01:34 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">It is fair to say that the german scientists during WW2 pioneered all the almost all the aspects of Jet technology & most important of all "Rocket science"....But the americans pioneered the nuclear age http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ahem, I think you will find that it was the result of Germans,British,Canadian,US and many many other scientists.

It started with a letter from a German (einstein) to the US president,

Read the first sentence please :-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manhattan_Project

ANother sentence of note :- 'While the U.S. research was pursued at a leisurely pace, work in the United Kingdom was occurring as well. In March 1940 in Birmingham UK, two more German emigrés, Otto Frisch and Rudolf Peierls calculated that an atomic weapon only needed a few pounds of uranium-235, a far smaller amount than most scientists had originally expected, which made it seem highly possible that a weapon could be produced in a short amount of time'

Matz0r
03-26-2006, 01:46 AM
Another nice one, He-287
http://www.pfy.nu/wwii/Aircrafts/Germany/Ju287/Ju287-1s.jpg
http://www.pfy.nu/wwii/Aircrafts/Germany/Ju287/Ju287-6s.jpg
http://www.pfy.nu/wwii/Aircrafts/Germany/Ju287/Ju287-7.jpg

Gibbage1
03-26-2006, 01:47 AM
Ya. America had NO idea about swept wings before the capture of the Me-262.

http://www.aviationpics.de/prev/curtiss-wright%20xp-55%20ascender%20prototype%20%7Busa%7D.jpg

http://www.nurflugel.com/Nurflugel/Northrop/xp-56/xp-56_3.jpg

Both were designed in 1939/1940 and flew in 1943.

Ya. Those wonderfull Germans invent EVERYTHING. Like liquid fuel rockets! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Before you guys get all huffy, im not claiming the US invented the swept wing, but had aircraft flying with them BEFORE they captured the Me-262. So it was not "new" tech.

WTE_Ibis
03-26-2006, 02:20 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by danjama:
My fave jet has to be this monster http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

http://www.vflintham.demon.co.uk/aircraft/lightning/xr749i.jpg

In game is the Me262, thats one legendary plane! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
---------------------------------------------

Oh what a plane

http://premium1.uploadit.org/Ibissix//Lightning.jpg

Performance comparison
The Lightning€s speed and climb performance were excellent not just by 1950s or 1960s standards but even compared with modern operational fighters. Its initial rate of climb was 50,000 ft per minute (15 km/min). The Mirage IIIE climbed initially at 30,000 ft/min (9 km/min); the F-4 Phantom managed 32,000 ft/min (10 km/min); the MiG-21 managed 36,090 ft/min (11 km/min); the initial rate of the F-16A is 40,000 ft/min (12 km/min), and the Tornado F-3 43,000 ft/min (13 km/min). Only the later F-15 and MiG-25 had higher rates of climb.


Lightning XM215 at Farnborough Air Show, England, in 1964
The official ceiling was a secret amongst the general public and low security RAF documents simply stated 60,000+ ft (18,000 m), although it was well known within the RAF to be capable of much greater heights. Recently the actual operating ceiling has been made public by the late Brian Carroll, a former RAF Lightning pilot and ex-Lightning Chief Examiner, who reports taking an F-53 Lightning up to 87,300 feet (26,600 m) at which level "Earth curvature was visible and the sky was quite dark". In 1984, during a major NATO exercise, Flt Lt Mike Hale intercepted an American U-2 at a height which they had previously considered safe from interception. Records show that Hale climbed to 88,000 ft (26,800 m) in his F3 Lightning. Hale also participated in time-to-height and acceleration trials against F-104 Starfighters from Aalborg. He reports that the Lightnings won all races easily, with the exception of the low level supersonic acceleration, which was a dead-heat.
Carroll reports in a side-by-side comparison that the F-15C Eagle (which he also flew) that:
"Acceleration in both was impressive, you have all seen the Lighting leap away once brakes are released, the Eagle was almost as good, and climb speed was rapidly achieved. Take-off roll is between 2,000 & 3,000 feet [600 to 900 m], depending upon military or maximum afterburner-powered take-off. The Lightning was quicker off the ground, reaching 50 feet [15 m] height in a horizontal distance of 1,630 feet [500 m]".
In British Airways trials, Concorde was offered as a target to NATO fighters including F-15s, F-16s, F-14s, Mirages, F-104s - but only the Lightning managed to overtake Concorde on a stern intercept.



€œThe Lightning was still a formidable opponent; even high-flying U-2 pilots became accustomed to being caught by Lightnings!€

CUJO_1970
03-26-2006, 02:25 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gibbage1:
Ya. America had NO idea about swept wings before the capture of the Me-262.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>


I'd have to agree with you here.

As would the engineers at NAA that had to completely redesign the wing of the F-86 after studying Messerschmitt.

Or wait...was it the Curtiss Ascender they studied http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Gibbage1
03-26-2006, 02:33 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by CUJO_1970:
I'd have to agree with you here.

As would the engineers at NAA that had to completely redesign the wing of the F-86 after studying Messerschmitt.

Or wait...was it the Curtiss Ascender they studied http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Are you blind? The US had swept wings before the Me-262's study. Or are you willing to ignore that fact to help supporty your idea that the Germans invented everything?

WOLFMondo
03-26-2006, 02:51 AM
The difference is, the US experimented with them, the Germans had them in service before wars end.

Gibbage1
03-26-2006, 03:03 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
The difference is, the US experimented with them, the Germans had them in service before wars end. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ya. Look how good it did the Germans. Did it turn the tide of the war? No. Lets do a comparison of what the swept wing did. It kept the COG for wing mounted jet engines. Why did the Germans put jet engines in draggy pods under the wing? Because the engine could not produce enough thrust so they had to put 2 into the aircraft.

Not lets take Locheeds approach. 1 engine, in the airframe, and standard wings. It worked, it took less then 300 days to develop and get flying, and it was better then the Me-262 that took the Germans years. The P-80 was faster with its standard wing then the mythical Me-262 with its "advanced" swept wings.

Technology is useless without the knolege to be able to use it. The Axial engine is more advanced, but the germans did not have the knolege and metalurgy to fully use it, so a less advanced centrafugal was better.

Bremspropeller
03-26-2006, 03:14 AM
http://www.eagle.bewoner.antwerpen.be/f16-02.jpg

...closely followed by...


http://www.swissjet.ch/1024/AIR04/Jets/20040914_Mirage2000C.jpg

Hah, a completely new approach on technology - it's not worth a mention if it didn't turn the tide of war http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif
The 262 could have been operational in 1943 if Hitler hadn't refused the offer.

BTW: get a life http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif

BorisGruschenko
03-26-2006, 03:37 AM
As soon as a german plane is mentioned some hyperactive young men appear to start one of these "my ancestors invented sliced bread" discussions. It´s hard to believe, quite entertainig to watch, but where the hell are the roots of that ? The ami invented Coke and the chrome tail fin - which spread all over the world and found warm acceptance - other than any wagnerian agony-device, no matter how advanced it might have been.

CD_kp84yb
03-26-2006, 04:32 AM
Ahh we have a winner here, geez what an ugly bird, now you see what a piece of paper, a drawingpen and experimenting with drugs and booze leads. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

http://www.pfy.nu/wwii/Aircrafts/Germany/Ju287/Ju287-6s.jpg

It remembers me of the movie "the flight of the Phoenix" where the made a plane out of a crashed plane ( no not the **** remake of that movie, why cant hollycrap leave the classic movies alone)

Regards

Meprolite
03-26-2006, 05:10 AM
In the game my fave jet would have to be the Me-163. 10 minutes of pure invulnerability as I swat bombers down left and right... followed by 10 minutes of sheer terror while I try to glide it back to base while Pony's and Jug's make passes at me.

Most fun plane in the game outside of the A6M2-N.

F19_Olli72
03-26-2006, 05:19 AM
Jets are pretty boring generally imo, but if put in the game i'd like to see the Arado:
http://www.clubhyper.com/reference/images/Ar%20234%20T9_KH%20copie.jpg
Or the Caproni of course (yes I want jet cr@pola planes):
http://oldbeacon.com/plans/resource2/images/caproni_campini_n1_photo1.jpg

F19_Orheim
03-26-2006, 05:50 AM
I concurr with Olli, The Caproni is a beautful machine--- that sweet sleek design of the 30'ies with crappy performance hehe

http://www.isoliti4gatti.com/Cc/cc3.jpg

Looks like something that could have been designed by Hergé.... it has the "tintin-look"

GerritJ9
03-26-2006, 06:51 AM
Actually, it was lack of certain strategic materials, most notably nickel, that affected German jet engines. Nickel is an important ingredient of high-temperature resistant alloys. As a result of these shortages, the Germans experimented with several substitutes including ceramics- commonplace now, but way ahead of their time in 1944/45, perhaps too far advanced in concept for that era.
And while the centrifugal compressor may have been superior temporarily, long-term the axial-flow compressor was the way to go.

Heliopause
03-26-2006, 09:43 AM
I fancy the He 162, but al jets are fun to ride...

Ooh and this arado is nice but its an Ar 234A and not a C-model as related before.
(notice the take-off trolly.)
http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b334/PauseHelio/Ar234-V6-12.jpg

Sergio_101
03-26-2006, 10:09 AM
Yes, in 1945 the centrifugal compressor was superior.
And today it's still more efficent.
Axial is superior in an aircraft for obvious reasons.
But centrifugal still lingers on in many applications
and in automotive turbocharging.

Swept wings in the 1940's were only used as a "Band-Aid"
for a badly botched CG.
Some realised the potential advantages at super sonic
speeds, but, trust me, the Me-262 was a band-aid
case. The CG was bad and the wings were
sweped to effectivly move it forward.

Oh yes, Germans pioneered the Jet engine?
Sir Frank Whittle beat the Germans by a couple
of years, he first ran his jet in 1936.

Germans invented Liquid Fueled Rockets?
BUNK!
Robert Goddard, an AMERICAN was the first.
He was flying liquid fueled rockets
long before Wherner VonBrauhn got involved.

If the engineers at GE(USA) got the idea
of placing a burner can in line between
the compressor outlet and turbine inlet
of a GE turbocharger the jet engine/gas turbine
could have been first run in the mid 1920's!

A turbocharger is nothing more than a gas turbine
with a piston engine in the place where
a burner should be.

Sergio

Founder "Boycot Sergio " club ;-) I love it?!

Daiichidoku
03-26-2006, 01:06 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Sergio_101:
Oh yes, Germans pioneered the Jet engine?
Sir Frank Whittle beat the Germans by a couple
of years, he first ran his jet in 1936. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Henri Coanda, Romanian...his jet flew dec 1910
http://tanks45.tripod.com/Jets45/Histories/Coanda/CoandaAeroplane.htm

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v479/Daiichidoku/Coanda.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v479/Daiichidoku/Coanda_1.jpg



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Sergio_101:
Swept wings in the 1940's were only used as a "Band-Aid"
for a badly botched CG. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
uh huh

http://www.lippischdesign.com/pages/collage.html

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v479/Daiichidoku/p13a.jpg

this IS only a glider, but still...
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v479/Daiichidoku/p13atestdm1.jpg



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">originally posted by Bremspropellor:
The 262 could have been operational in 1943 if Hitler hadn't refused the offer </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

perhaps...but the He 280, better than the 262, save for top speed and range, could have been in service in 43...or even 42...first flight apr 41!...He 280 had manuverability comparable to early Antons, and in a mock DF trashed one...armed with 3Xmg151 20mms, and plans were for 6Xmg151 20mm!...and no need for swept wings for this onehttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

beautiful plane
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v479/Daiichidoku/He280-V2-1.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v479/Daiichidoku/He280-V3-2.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v479/Daiichidoku/he280.gif


and a 162 for fun http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v479/Daiichidoku/he162.gif

Sergio_101
03-26-2006, 01:30 PM
****-O-Chew!
Glad you brought up Dr. Alexander M. Lippisch!
Now here was something different.

Note, not so much a swept wing but a true delta.

But still not truly original.

And as to the "Jet" of Henri Coanda, not
truly a gas turbine, but a great genius of avaition
like Dr. Alexander M. Lippisch.

Ever heard of the "Coanda effect"?
That's how aircraft wings work!

First working gas turbine is most definately
the work of Sir Frank Whittle.

Dr. Alexander M. Lippisch must have been proud
of this photo.
Swept wings were not a German invention
but here was a design that clearly used
some of Dr. Alexander M. Lippisch's ideas.

http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/research/fighter/f106a-16.jpg

Photo credit USAF Museum

Note the area ruled fuselage.
Without area ruling Dr. Alexander M. Lippisch
had a sub sonic only idea.

Sergio

ARCHIE_CALVERT
03-26-2006, 02:48 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gibbage1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
The difference is, the US experimented with them, the Germans had them in service before wars end. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ya. Look how good it did the Germans. Did it turn the tide of the war? No. Lets do a comparison of what the swept wing did. It kept the COG for wing mounted jet engines. Why did the Germans put jet engines in draggy pods under the wing? Because the engine could not produce enough thrust so they had to put 2 into the aircraft.

Not lets take Locheeds approach. 1 engine, in the airframe, and standard wings. It worked, it took less then 300 days to develop and get flying, and it was better then the Me-262 that took the Germans years. The P-80 was faster with its standard wing then the mythical Me-262 with its "advanced" swept wings.

Technology is useless without the knolege to be able to use it. The Axial engine is more advanced, but the germans did not have the knolege and metalurgy to fully use it, so a less advanced centrafugal was better. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I know one thing, the Germans are excellent engineers and I would rather have something built by German Engineers than American... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Favorite... http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v187/Secudus/Javelin00.jpg

Daiichidoku
03-26-2006, 03:18 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Sergio_101:
Note the area ruled fuselage.
Without area ruling Dr. Alexander M. Lippisch
had a sub sonic only idea. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


the XF-92, the design of which Lippisch was involved, DID go supersonic without area ruling

so did the CF-100 clunk, a non-area ruled straight wing type

Daiichidoku
03-26-2006, 03:23 PM
@ARCHIE CALVERT

what is it with you Brits?

mossies, vixxies, vulcans, canberras

you guys really have hard feelings for navigators et al, dont cha? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

WOLFMondo
03-26-2006, 04:08 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gibbage1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
The difference is, the US experimented with them, the Germans had them in service before wars end. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ya. Look how good it did the Germans. Did it turn the tide of the war? No. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If the Germans had as many 262's as the allies had P51D's there might have been a bit of a problem.http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

One on one, the 262 was superior to anything the allies had.

Boyington6
03-26-2006, 05:44 PM
I like the Me-163 the best. As it's designers always intended it, I find it is an easy plane to fly - if flying is all that's required. Attacking prop planes in rockets leads much to be desired for accurate gunnery http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

PraetorHonoris
03-26-2006, 07:00 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Oh yes, Germans pioneered the Jet engine?
Sir Frank Whittle beat the Germans by a couple
of years, he first ran his jet in 1936.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Whittle ran his first jet engine - not to speak of plane - on April 14 1937.
The Heinkelstrahltriebwerk 1 worked on March 1937.
The first sole jet powered plane (Heinkel 178) had it's first flight on August 27 1939.
Some weeks later Whittle was proud to present another working engine, no plane, but an engine capable for jet plane use. That led to the Gloster E28/39, first of these manufactured 1941 more than a year after Heinkel 178.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_jet_power

KrashanTopolova
03-26-2006, 08:34 PM
My preference in game is the B1.

difficult to fly well and just a short flight time...but the glide phase of operations back to base is the most rewarding...

It has some nice flight characteristics not present in the in-game jets.

Coincidentally it had short chord wings like the US Starfighter...another rocket plane...and which Starfighter was probably the only jet fighter designer-made to pilot feedback on what they would like in a fighter.

The B1 is a historical aircraft. The first Russian cosmonaut credited the B1 test pilot with the foundation work for the historic first successful space mission.

Sergio_101
03-27-2006, 02:28 AM
Hans Von Ohain joined Ernst Heinkel in 1936 and continued with the development of his concepts of jet propulsion. A successful bench test of one of his engines was accomplished in September 1937

Sergio.....

Gibbage1
03-27-2006, 03:06 AM
Here is a nice little rocket kit that people have looked past.

http://www.centennialofflight.gov/essay/Evolution_of_Technology/flying_wing/Tech8G2.jpg

Looks German hay? Advanced design, swept wing and rocket powered! Heh. Nope! Its American! And it flew in 1943, so no. Its NOT using "captured German engineering".

How about this nice little jet.

http://www.is.northropgrumman.com/gallery/historical/images/xp-79b_45.jpg

Nope. No swastika's on that wing. Thats the Star and bar of the US of A. Designed in 42, flew in 44 unpowered due to engine development problems. First and last powered flight was in 1945.

The Germans were not the only country to make advanced designs. But they were the only country desperate enough to put them into production.

The Me-262 was a lot more costly then a 109 or 190. Also, out of the 1500 made, no more then a handfull were ever able to fly at any given time due to the engines 15 hour limitations. Those resources would of been better used putting 3000 FW-190's into the sky. Those things did a lot better then the Me-262 did. Not in terms of performance, but in terms of war effort.

woofiedog
03-27-2006, 03:55 AM
Just as soon as the IL-2 <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">Korean Addon</span> comes out...

http://www.aviationtrivia.homestead.com/files/F9F.jpg

I'll strap my backside into one of these Beauties!

woofiedog
03-27-2006, 04:00 AM
Although one of these would do Nicely also.

http://www.eichhorn.ws/assets/images/chance_vought_f7u1_cutlass.jpg

SnapdLikeAMutha
03-27-2006, 04:17 AM
http://www.thunder-and-lightnings.co.uk/victor/full/bru97127.jpg

British aircraft from the 50s/60s (you know, back when we actually *had* an aviation industry) just have this insane futuristic look about them - worlds apart from US or Soviet designs

http://www.thunder-and-lightnings.co.uk/vulcan/full/65597101.jpg

http://www.thunder-and-lightnings.co.uk/tsr2/full/dux00307.jpg

Z4K
03-27-2006, 04:33 AM
Sergio_101:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">"Note, not so much a swept wing but a true delta." </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

A delta wing IS a swept wing, just one where the trailing edge happens to be straight. Whoop-de-doo.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">"Without area ruling Dr. Alexander M. Lippisch
had a sub sonic only idea." </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah, a bit like the Bell X-1 had area-ruling applied to it http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

http://www.nasm.si.edu/galleries/GAL100/images/bellx1m.jpg


As for "the first swept wing", the English beat all your rubbish by at least 30 years:

http://www.ctie.monash.edu.au/hargrave/images/dunne_5_3v_350.jpg
-
http://home.att.net/~dannysoar/Dunn5pl.JPG

John William Dunne's D5 flew (and flew well) in 1910. Note that it was also tailless.

Heliopause
03-27-2006, 08:10 AM
First flight of Heinkel 280: march 30th 1941.

Lockheed P-80 flew with a British jet engine.

WWSensei
03-27-2006, 09:10 AM
I voted the YP-80 mainly because I got a chance to fly a T-33 trainer at one time...

danjama
03-27-2006, 12:22 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by danjama:
My fave jet has to be this monster http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

http://www.vflintham.demon.co.uk/aircraft/lightning/xr749i.jpg

In game is the Me262, thats one legendary plane! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

The Lightning was the last great British aircraft. Not forgetting the incredible Buccaneer.

http://www.avcollect2.co.uk/AvCollect/buccaneer/332gm.jpg </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Aye, the buccaneer is a beautiful aircraft, another British classic.

WTE Ibis, thanks for the stats and info on the lightning, that is very cool http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

R_Target
03-27-2006, 01:16 PM
I always liked the 262.

http://1000aircraftphotos.com/401Squadron/Me262-1.jpg


And the B-58:

http://www.globalaircraft.org/photos/planephotos/b-58_1.jpg

tigertalon
03-27-2006, 02:22 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BrewsterPilot:
So? For me it is without douubt the flying wing Gotha-Go 229. What do you prefer? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Again and again: for what? For fighter dueling I'd take P-80. For lonewulfing in a DF server, Id take a heinkel. For bomber interceptions, Messerschmitt. For fancying around, Go229...

Gimme a mission and I'll choose my fav plane to do the job.

Post WW2 era, no question bout it: Tiger & Talon

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v662/aegeeaddict/tigertalon.jpg

SnapdLikeAMutha
03-27-2006, 02:31 PM
The MiG-28?!?! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

darkhorizon11
03-27-2006, 02:43 PM
I think there was just more resistance to change in the United States than in any other country. The internal combustion engine was the sole form of power for aircraft for 36 years prior to the He-178 (the Coanda aircraft iirc was a ducted fan but NOT a gas turbine).

Even in Germany there was a lot of resistance to the jets early on and it wasn't until well after the war had ended that the jet engine was truly reliable. Pistoned engined fighters still saw extensive usage into the Korean War.

The determinant in WWII was the war turning against the Germans. They were desperate and looking for any means necessary to gain the advantage. The Allies on the other hand had a huge advantage and by summer/fall 1944 they were liberating France like clockwork. Word on the front was the war would be over by X-mas. It didn't quite turn out that way but still there wasn't any apparent need (at the time) for a new jet since the piston engine fighters were getting the job done.

Remember the jets were faster but far from invulnerable from prop fighters. All Germany really had was a jet interceptor. The 262 wasn't very affective as a bomber, it couldn't maneuver with fighters. The Ar-234 was never mass produced to be affective. The rest of the German jets were all produced in miniscule numbers.

It was really necessity that gave Germany the "apparent" edge during the war. The Allies could easily have been right behind Germany in getting a jet into the war had they deemed it necessary.

Sergio_101
03-27-2006, 04:17 PM
I got news for you guys, the USAF used large
piston engined aircraft well into the 1980's!

We also had the KC-97 till late 1978.
I saw one in the flesh at HAFB Utah in ANG
markings, I believe it was spring 1979!

It's not so much that the USAF was slow to change
as it was slow to scrap useful aircraft.

A good example is the C-141. It's still useful
but it's cargo cross section is to small.
Since the mission has changed the C-141 has
been rendered obsolete.
But on the other hand the newest C-141
is 40 years old!
The last C-141 in USAF service will be retired
this year.
I doubt any will remain in the USAFRES or ANG.

I agree with the statement that the Germans put
planes into service way before they were proven
or at least reasonably safe.
Desperation has it's way of forcing rapid advancments.

Note, the perfectly safe and reliable P-51H
Mustang and F8F Bearcat both saw no combat
despite being ready in early 1945.
If that was Germany those planes would have
seen combat for sure!

Everyone used piston engined fighters, bombers and transports
over Korea in 1951. EVERYONE.

Two of the most effective ground support aircraft
of the Vietnam war were the A1 Skyraider and the
A-26 Invader, both piston engined.
Also VERY effective was the combat version
of the T-28 Trojan. Also piston engined.

=====By the way====
The Bell X1 was NOT area ruled. It had massive
rocket thrust (with no inlet drag) to force it past MACH1.
Jets needed the area rule because of the
trans sonic drag problem, partly because they have an intake.

And, yes, the Allies had operational jets before VE day.
The Glouster Meteor was definately operational
and the P-80 could have been easily.
Again, piston engined planes got the job done.

Over 90% of the air war in the west was over Germany.
That's a loosing battle at best. The Allies had
little to worry about.

Sergio

LStarosta
03-27-2006, 04:20 PM
Sergio, weren't some versions of the Skyraider turboprop? Or did I just misread that somewhere...?

EDIT: nm... The AD-3 was a proposed turboprop version, but none were built.

Sergio_101
03-27-2006, 04:26 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LStarosta:
Sergio, weren't some versions of the Skyraider turboprop? Or did I just misread that somewhere...?

EDIT: nm... The AD-3 was a proposed turboprop version, but none were built. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No operational version of the Skyraider was turboprop.
Douglas did experiment with a turboprop
attack aircraft with Skyraider wings.
It failed mainly because of the unreliable
Allison T-38/T-40 engine. The XA2D-1 "Skyshark"

http://prototypes.free.fr/a2d1/a2d1-2.htm

All combat A-1's were powered by the CW R-3350.
An 18 cylinder radial of 2,800 hp.

Sergiohttp://prototypes.free.fr/a2d1/images/a2d1_10.jpg

SnapdLikeAMutha
03-27-2006, 06:15 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Sergio_101:
I got news for you guys, the USAF used large
piston engined aircraft well into the 1980's!
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

RAF used them even longer than that!!!

http://users.bigpond.net.au/Shackleton/index_files/image004.jpg

Replaced in the AEW role by the E3 Sentry in 1991!!

WOLFMondo
03-28-2006, 02:10 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by darkhorizon11:

It was really necessity that gave Germany the "apparent" edge during the war. The Allies could easily have been right behind Germany in getting a jet into the war had they deemed it necessary. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The British had a jet in mid 1944 in operational service. Trouble was, it was outperformed by the latest piston engined aircraft like the Tempests

Sergio_101
03-28-2006, 03:03 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by darkhorizon11:

It was really necessity that gave Germany the "apparent" edge during the war. The Allies could easily have been right behind Germany in getting a jet into the war had they deemed it necessary. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The British had a jet in mid 1944 in operational service. Trouble was, it was outperformed by the latest piston engined aircraft like the Tempests </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hmmmm, I fail to see where a Tempest or Fury
out performs a Meteor........
But indeed the Meteor was in service by mid 1944.

Sergio

ImpStarDuece
03-28-2006, 03:44 AM
The first Meteor squadrons was No. 616 Squadron, which began service with Meteor Is in very late June, 1944.

Early Tempest V and same period Spitfires (Mks VII, VIII, IX, XVI and XIV) outperformed early Meteors in many respects. They climbed faster, turned better, rolled better, handled high speeds better, had better range and accelerated better at low speeds. They were also significantly faster at some altitude bands. Even the Typhoon Ib was faster and more manouverable at some altitudes, and had the added benefit of carring a much larger war load.

The main plus of the jet powered aircraft was the fact that it kept its speed at almost all altitudes. Speed varied by barely 10mph between sea-level and 33,000 feet. The Mk I could do 400 mph on the deck but just 410mph at rated altitude, 25mph slower than the Tempest V and 35 mph slower than Spitfire XIV.

The Meteor wasn't really considered combat capable until the Mk III, which was first deployed in December 1944, again with 616 squadron. Even then there were artificial limitations placed on alieron deflection and control balance to prevent pilots overstressing the airframe in aerobatic manouvers. Even after the engine nacells were lengthened, cockpit hood and ballast re-arranged, there were still buffet and porposing problems above 500mph.

The Meteor didn't really shine until the F.4 which began testing in mid 1945. Derwent 5 engines were fitted, the engine nacelles were rearranged again, balance problems solve, control harmoinisation restored and the wings clipped to further improve rate of roll. In 1945 it quickly set several speed records above 600mph, hitting 606mph in November and then 616mph in September 1946.

WOLFMondo
03-28-2006, 03:59 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Sergio_101:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by darkhorizon11:

It was really necessity that gave Germany the "apparent" edge during the war. The Allies could easily have been right behind Germany in getting a jet into the war had they deemed it necessary. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The British had a jet in mid 1944 in operational service. Trouble was, it was outperformed by the latest piston engined aircraft like the Tempests </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hmmmm, I fail to see where a Tempest or Fury
out performs a Meteor........
But indeed the Meteor was in service by mid 1944.

Sergio </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You've evidently failed also to look at any performance charts of both active frontline aircraft in 1944.

Megile_
03-28-2006, 04:17 AM
http://nexus.polaris.net/services/image-archive/mech/f15.jpg

Die margins, Die!

Sergio_101
03-28-2006, 03:38 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Sergio_101:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by darkhorizon11:

It was really necessity that gave Germany the "apparent" edge during the war. The Allies could easily have been right behind Germany in getting a jet into the war had they deemed it necessary. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The British had a jet in mid 1944 in operational service. Trouble was, it was outperformed by the latest piston engined aircraft like the Tempests </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hmmmm, I fail to see where a Tempest or Fury
out performs a Meteor........
But indeed the Meteor was in service by mid 1944.

Sergio </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You've evidently failed also to look at any performance charts of both active frontline aircraft in 1944. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hawker Fury with Centaurus radial, 460mph claimed.

Gloster Meteor 540-606mph depending on the model.

Got the information in front of me.

The only advantage for the Fury or Tempest
is initial acelleration and takeoff roll.

All catagories, climb, top speed, payload.

All go to the Meteor easily.

Perhaps the Fury/Tempest can out turn a Meteor.
But turning is not as important as top speed.
Given the speed and climb edge the Fury or Tempest
would be at a severe disadvantage to a Meteor.

Sergio

Viper2005_
03-28-2006, 03:53 PM
English Electric Lightning for me...

Gold_Monkey
03-28-2006, 09:29 PM
Mother Jet and her babies.http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a64/Brass_Monkey_/pic2572.jpg

Daiichidoku
03-28-2006, 10:16 PM
trashy single mom


how about a nice respectable family unit, such as this idyllic scene?

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v479/Daiichidoku/vulcs.jpg

ImpStarDuece
03-28-2006, 11:15 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Sergio_101:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Sergio_101:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by darkhorizon11:

It was really necessity that gave Germany the "apparent" edge during the war. The Allies could easily have been right behind Germany in getting a jet into the war had they deemed it necessary. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The British had a jet in mid 1944 in operational service. Trouble was, it was outperformed by the latest piston engined aircraft like the Tempests </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hmmmm, I fail to see where a Tempest or Fury
out performs a Meteor........
But indeed the Meteor was in service by mid 1944.

Sergio </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You've evidently failed also to look at any performance charts of both active frontline aircraft in 1944. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hawker Fury with Centaurus radial, 460mph claimed.

Gloster Meteor 540-606mph depending on the model.

Got the information in front of me.

The only advantage for the Fury or Tempest
is initial acelleration and takeoff roll.

All catagories, climb, top speed, payload.

All go to the Meteor easily.

Perhaps the Fury/Tempest can out turn a Meteor.
But turning is not as important as top speed.
Given the speed and climb edge the Fury or Tempest
would be at a severe disadvantage to a Meteor.

Sergio </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif

Try looking up the performance of the Meteor Mk I and Mk III, these were the only Meteors that were operational in WW2. All the others were post war. The first Meteor to break 500mph was the F.4, which started testing in July 1945 and service in early 1947.

The first 20 Meteors, powered by 1,700 lbs thrust Welland Is, could only do 410 mph, or 417 mph with revised long nacelles, and didn't climb nearly as well as contemporary prop fighters.

The first 15 Mk IIIs had Wellands and the same performance as Mk Is, but with a strengthened and revised structure and many improvements such as new cockpits, more fuel and better alieron controls. The Mk III then recieved Derwent Is, with 15% greater thrust than the Wellands. Speed improved to 468 mph, and then to 490 mph when the engine and nacelle arrangements were again revised.

Until early 1945, RAF prop fighters were far superior to the Meteor. Even after that the Meteor wasn't a massive step foward over prop fighters until the heavily revised F.4 entered service almost 2 years after VE day.

darkhorizon11
03-28-2006, 11:27 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Sergio_101:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by darkhorizon11:

It was really necessity that gave Germany the "apparent" edge during the war. The Allies could easily have been right behind Germany in getting a jet into the war had they deemed it necessary. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The British had a jet in mid 1944 in operational service. Trouble was, it was outperformed by the latest piston engined aircraft like the Tempests </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hmmmm, I fail to see where a Tempest or Fury
out performs a Meteor........
But indeed the Meteor was in service by mid 1944.

Sergio </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You've evidently failed also to look at any performance charts of both active frontline aircraft in 1944. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Meteor's use was limited throughout the war. Although I don't quite see how it mattered too much beyond the propaganda smack Britian was super paranoid of one getting captured so they were limited mostly to home front use against the V1s. Some did fly to the front for strafing runs IIRC but not to the extent of its prop contemporaries.

Badsight.
03-29-2006, 01:36 AM
anyone got a pic of the Folland Gnat

i do , but none with a person standing next to it , if you do have one post it , because the Gnat is TINY - must be wicked fun to fly such a small Jet

WOLFMondo
03-29-2006, 02:00 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Sergio_101:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Sergio_101:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by darkhorizon11:

It was really necessity that gave Germany the "apparent" edge during the war. The Allies could easily have been right behind Germany in getting a jet into the war had they deemed it necessary. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The British had a jet in mid 1944 in operational service. Trouble was, it was outperformed by the latest piston engined aircraft like the Tempests </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hmmmm, I fail to see where a Tempest or Fury
out performs a Meteor........
But indeed the Meteor was in service by mid 1944.

Sergio </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You've evidently failed also to look at any performance charts of both active frontline aircraft in 1944. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hawker Fury with Centaurus radial, 460mph claimed.

Gloster Meteor 540-606mph depending on the model.

Got the information in front of me.

The only advantage for the Fury or Tempest
is initial acelleration and takeoff roll.

All catagories, climb, top speed, payload.

All go to the Meteor easily.

Perhaps the Fury/Tempest can out turn a Meteor.
But turning is not as important as top speed.
Given the speed and climb edge the Fury or Tempest
would be at a severe disadvantage to a Meteor.

Sergio </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Er...what ISD said.

I don't know what your reading but to that information Sergio but its very definately incorrect in reference to any Meteor that served in 1944 as stated originally. Might want to get some new text books cause that ones obviously wrong. :P

Sergio_101
03-29-2006, 02:32 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Sergio_101:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Sergio_101:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by darkhorizon11:

It was really necessity that gave Germany the "apparent" edge during the war. The Allies could easily have been right behind Germany in getting a jet into the war had they deemed it necessary. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The British had a jet in mid 1944 in operational service. Trouble was, it was outperformed by the latest piston engined aircraft like the Tempests </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hmmmm, I fail to see where a Tempest or Fury
out performs a Meteor........
But indeed the Meteor was in service by mid 1944.

Sergio </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You've evidently failed also to look at any performance charts of both active frontline aircraft in 1944. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hawker Fury with Centaurus radial, 460mph claimed.

Gloster Meteor 540-606mph depending on the model.

Got the information in front of me.

The only advantage for the Fury or Tempest
is initial acelleration and takeoff roll.

All catagories, climb, top speed, payload.

All go to the Meteor easily.

Perhaps the Fury/Tempest can out turn a Meteor.
But turning is not as important as top speed.
Given the speed and climb edge the Fury or Tempest
would be at a severe disadvantage to a Meteor.

Sergio </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Er...what ISD said.

I don't know what your reading but to that information Sergio but its very definately incorrect in reference to any Meteor that served in 1944 as stated originally. Might want to get some new text books cause that ones obviously wrong. :P </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

In dealing with fantasy I find facts to be
a good way out of a conversation.

sorry to pop your bubble, but I can find
no information about a Meteor that got into
front line service with a top speed under 540mph.
Jane's is a reasonable good reference.;-)

I would say you guys need to find better text books.

sergio

DaimonSyrius
03-29-2006, 02:46 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Sergio_101:
In dealing with fantasy I find facts to be
a good way out of a conversation.

sorry to pop your bubble, but I can find
no information about a Meteor that got into
front line service with a top speed under 540mph.
Jane's is a reasonable good reference.;-)

I would say you guys need to find better text books. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
The fact that no texbooks nor serious references can be found where current, overhauled Reno Racing planes are quoted with any front line service during WWII as such hasn't stopped you from wiggling and waggling your fantasy arguments about them, in the recent past http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

Cheers,
S.

WOLFMondo
03-29-2006, 02:57 AM
Pwned! :P

Sergio, your statement shows you know bugger all about the Meteor.

Sergio_101
03-29-2006, 02:57 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DaimonSyrius:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Sergio_101:
In dealing with fantasy I find facts to be
a good way out of a conversation.

sorry to pop your bubble, but I can find
no information about a Meteor that got into
front line service with a top speed under 540mph.
Jane's is a reasonable good reference.;-)

I would say you guys need to find better text books. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
The fact that no texbooks nor serious references can be found where current, overhauled Reno Racing planes are quoted with any front line service during WWII as such hasn't stopped you from wiggling and waggling your fantasy arguments about them, in the recent past http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

Cheers,
S. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Ok, I found a reference where the prototype
Meteor had a top speed of 414 mph.

Not a service aircraft.

Sergio

Bremspropeller
03-29-2006, 02:58 AM
Well Badsight, gotta ask Topper Harley, aye ? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

SnapdLikeAMutha
03-29-2006, 03:06 AM
"The pilots appreciated the additional power provided by the Meteor III relative to the Meteor I, as well as the improved view with the new canopy. However, the ailerons had been deliberately wired to be "heavy" to prevent aerobatic maneuvers from overstressing the wings, and pilots complained that maneuvers in the aircraft were very tiring. This had not been a problem with the Meteor I, since it hadn't been cleared for aerobatic maneuvers. Pilots also complained that the machine tended to "snake" at high speed, limiting its accuracy as a gun platform, and it tended to become uncontrollable in a dive due to compressibility buffeting. However, the aircraft was basically liked. A flight combat exercise against the excellent Hawker Tempest V piston fighter concluded:

BEGIN QUOTE:

The Meteor III is superior to the Tempest V in almost all departments. If it were not for the heaviness of its ailerons and the consequent poor maneuverability in the rolling plane, and the adverse effect of snaking on it as a gun platform, it would be a comparable all-round fighter with greatly increased performance.

END QUOTE "

http://www.vectorsite.net/avmeteor.html

ImpStarDuece
03-29-2006, 03:26 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Sergio_101:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DaimonSyrius:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Sergio_101:
In dealing with fantasy I find facts to be
a good way out of a conversation.

sorry to pop your bubble, but I can find
no information about a Meteor that got into
front line service with a top speed under 540mph.
Jane's is a reasonable good reference.;-)

I would say you guys need to find better text books. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
The fact that no texbooks nor serious references can be found where current, overhauled Reno Racing planes are quoted with any front line service during WWII as such hasn't stopped you from wiggling and waggling your fantasy arguments about them, in the recent past http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

Cheers,
S. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Ok, I found a reference where the prototype
Meteor had a top speed of 414 mph.

Not a service aircraft.

Sergio </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Meteor Performance

Source: Stewart Wilson, Aircraft of WW2

Meteor I

Powerplant: two 1,700 thrust Rolls Royce Welland I turbojest

Dimensions: Wing Span 43 ft 0in: length 41 ft 3 in, height 13ft 0in

Weights- empty 8140 lb: loaded 13,800 lb

Armament: Four 20mm canon in nose

Performance: Max. speed 415 mph at 10,000 feet, 385 mph at sea level; initial climb 3,155ft min; service ceiling 40,000 feet: max range 1000 miles

Operator: WW2- Britain

Production: 3386 of all models including 8 prototypes, 20 Mk. I and 210 Mk. III. All other postwar


From the same text:

Tempest Mk V performance: Max speed 392 mph at sea level (7 mph faster), 416 mph at 4,600ft (1 mph faster than Meteor Mk I top speed), 435 mph at 17,000 feet (20mph faster than Meteor Mk I top speed); Initial climb 4,700ft/min (over 1,500 feet/min better than a Meteor Mk I)

The Tempest V was introduced into squadron service 2 months before the Meteor. The improved Mk II was 5-10 mph faster at all altitudes.

WOLFMondo
03-29-2006, 04:01 AM
Seems to be some confusion about the meteor here. I can suggest some good RAF history books for you Sergio, you need 'em.

mynameisroland
03-29-2006, 05:00 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by danjama:
My fave jet has to be this monster http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

http://www.vflintham.demon.co.uk/aircraft/lightning/xr749i.jpg

In game is the Me262, thats one legendary plane! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

The Lightning was the last great British aircraft. Not forgetting the incredible Buccaneer.

http://www.avcollect2.co.uk/AvCollect/buccaneer/332gm.jpg </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Or the Sea Harrier ?

panther3485
03-29-2006, 06:43 AM
Hi there, ImpStarDuece

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

Mate, you just beat me to it with that reference from 'Aircraft of WW2' by Stewart Wilson.

Also, from the same source:

Gloster Meteor Mk.III
Max speed 493 mph (793 km/h); initial climb 3,980 ft/min (1,213 m/min); service ceiling 44,000 ft (13,411m).

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Cheers guys!
panther3485

WOLFMondo
03-29-2006, 06:51 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by danjama:
My fave jet has to be this monster http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

http://www.vflintham.demon.co.uk/aircraft/lightning/xr749i.jpg

In game is the Me262, thats one legendary plane! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

The Lightning was the last great British aircraft. Not forgetting the incredible Buccaneer.

http://www.avcollect2.co.uk/AvCollect/buccaneer/332gm.jpg </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Or the Sea Harrier ? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I stand corrected. The Sea Harrier indeed is another great British design, with a little US input, admittedly.

MrBlueSky1960
03-29-2006, 08:04 AM
"The Meteor I was no faster than contemporary piston-engine fighters at high altitude, but unlike them it retained its speed at low altitude, and so was pressed into service to intercept German V-1 flying bombs that summer."

Source: http://www.vectorsite.net/avmeteor.html

Specifications (F.Mk I):
Engines: Two 1,700-pound thrust Rolls-Royce W.2B/23C Welland turbojets
Weight: Empty 8,140 lbs., Max Takeoff 13,795 lbs.
Performance:
Maximum Speed at 10,000 ft: 415 mph
Ceiling: 40,000 ft.
Range: 550 miles

Nice clip€¦ http://www.aviationmuseum.com.au/aircraft/documents/Meteor_001.wmv

€For the production Meteor Mk. I the engine was switched to the Whittle W.2 design, by then taken over by Rolls-Royce. The current W.2B/23C turbojet engines produced 7.56 kN of thrust each, giving the plane a maximum speed of 417 mph (670 km/h) at 3,000 m€

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gloster_Meteor

danjama
03-29-2006, 08:28 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by danjama:
My fave jet has to be this monster http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

http://www.vflintham.demon.co.uk/aircraft/lightning/xr749i.jpg

In game is the Me262, thats one legendary plane! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

The Lightning was the last great British aircraft. Not forgetting the incredible Buccaneer.

http://www.avcollect2.co.uk/AvCollect/buccaneer/332gm.jpg </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Or the Sea Harrier ? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I stand corrected. The Sea Harrier indeed is another great British design, with a little US input, admittedly. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Lets just agree that all or most British Jets are/were great! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

That really is a cool pic of the Buccaneer though, check out the jetwash behind it, and look how low it is, just so cool!

MrBlueSky1960
03-29-2006, 10:05 AM
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v187/Secudus/BV00.jpg

I wish we had stuck with this€¦

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v187/Secudus/HawkerP1121.jpg

Imagine this at an air show€¦

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v187/Secudus/Vulcan01.jpg

Bremspropeller
03-29-2006, 10:17 AM
I think the Sea Harrier's a bit overrated which has to do with it's overwhelming success at the Falklands.
However, this war was won by the AIM-9L all-aspect missile and the very skillful GCI of the Brits rather than the "unbeaten" Sea Harrier. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

telsono
03-29-2006, 11:19 AM
One aspect of the advances in jet/rocket technologies that hasn't been touched upon is which researchers inspired others.

Robert Goddard was virtually ignored by our military and received private backing. One of his finacial backers was Charles Lindberg. The German Rocket scientists read his papers and were inspired by them. They considered him as their mentor.

Jim Northrop pioneered the concept of the flying wing in the early 1930's. His writings were read by the Horton brothers and were as Goddard's papers were for the rocket researchers a source of inspiration.

There's a lot of cross pollination in aviation research. The seed produced in the USA was sprouted and grown in Germany and the fruits were brought back to the USA.

Bremspropeller
03-29-2006, 11:21 AM
http://www.sailplanedirectory.com/horten.htm#Horten%20H%20I1933

The Hortens built their own gliders in the early 30's and had experimented with the setup in the late twens.

Their inspirtion were "tailless" designs by Dr. Alexander Lippisch (the same guy who "invented" the delta-shaped wing).

Sergio_101
03-31-2006, 02:45 AM
Paper airplanes, yes, paper, made by folding paper
have been around for at least a couple of hundred years.
Folded to imitate birds and what ever.
The most common result is a delta or semi delta
shape.

Most are also tailless and or swept.

So I never think of a genius like Lippisch
or Northrop, and perhaps the Hortons as
having invented anything.

Delta wings are the oldest man made design,
just grab a piece of 8.5x11 from your printer
and do what men and kids have done for
a few hundred years, make a delta airplane.

Sergio

LStarosta
03-31-2006, 10:26 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Sergio_101:

just grab a piece of 8.5x11 from your printer
and do what men and kids have done for
a few hundred years, make a delta airplane.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So now you mean to say that women don't make paper airplanes?

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

danjama
03-31-2006, 03:51 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LStarosta:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Sergio_101:

just grab a piece of 8.5x11 from your printer
and do what men and kids have done for
a few hundred years, make a delta airplane.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So now you mean to say that women don't make paper airplanes?

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sexism will not be tolerated http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

BAN BAN BAN http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/crackwhip.gif

j/k http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif

FrancisHam2019
11-07-2019, 12:18 PM
Wer hat unter den auf dieser Website aufgefhrten Produkten das beste herausgesucht?
https://www.abdeckplanemarkt.de