PDA

View Full Version : P-80 vs Me262



Hortenbrothers
09-14-2004, 08:21 PM
is it just me or does the P-80 seem to go a hell of a lot faster then a me262 in a dogfight?

Hortenbrothers
09-14-2004, 08:21 PM
is it just me or does the P-80 seem to go a hell of a lot faster then a me262 in a dogfight?

Korolov
09-14-2004, 08:27 PM
Depends on the fuel load - if the 262 is running 50% or 25% fuel, it will have a easy time vs. the P-80. At full fuel it ought to have more endurance than the P-80, but it becomes slower and performance suffers.

http://www.mechmodels.com/fbstuff/klv_sigp38shark1a.jpg

SkyChimp
09-14-2004, 08:34 PM
It should go faster. The YP-80A was faster at all altitudes.

Regards,
SkyChimp
http://members.cox.net/us.fighters/SkyChimp_flying.jpg

Tooz_69GIAP
09-14-2004, 08:39 PM
I stuck 4 P-80s on average against 4 Me-262s on Vet and the P-80 owned!!!! In 5 or 6 runs at differing altitudes and maps I think I shot down at least 2 Me-262s, and about 4 times got I got em all.

I didn't try the 262 right enough. Maybe I ought to do that and see if the P-80 is that much better.

whit ye looking at, ya big jessie?!?!

http://www.baseclass.modulweb.dk/69giap/fileadmin/Image_Archive/badges/69giap_badge_tooz.jpg (http://giap.webhop.info)
Executive Officer, 69th GIAP
Za Rodinu!
Petition to stop the M3 motorway through the Tara-Skryne Valley in Co. Meath, Ireland (http://www.petitiononline.com/hilltara/petition.html)

VW-IceFire
09-14-2004, 09:17 PM
Probably the YP-80's won because of their better turn abilities. The Me 262 is a bit, in comparison to the YP-80, like flying a FW190...you stay flat and level and you out zoom your opponents.

In a fight between experienced Me-262 and YP-80 pilots the results are near even. Difficult for either to score if flown properly.

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/tmv-sig1.jpg
RAF No 92 Squadron
"Either fight or die"

WUAF_Badsight
09-14-2004, 11:11 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Korolov:
if the 262 is running 50% or 25% fuel, it will have a easy time vs. the P-80.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

oh man are you ever blowing

the 262 has nothing on P-80s except for firepower

its not even a comparison

.
__________________________________________________ __________________________
actual UBI post :
"If their is a good server with wonder woman views but historic planesets...let me know!" http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Korolov
09-14-2004, 11:13 PM
You don't fight in jet matches very much, do you Badsight?

http://www.mechmodels.com/fbstuff/klv_sigp38shark1a.jpg

WUAF_Badsight
09-14-2004, 11:15 PM
all the time & made specific coops & done loads of testing

the P-80 has it over the 262 soooo badly its no comparison

to say the 262 has superior DF abilitys is simply false

FB im talking . . . . . not RL

.
__________________________________________________ __________________________
actual UBI post :
"If their is a good server with wonder woman views but historic planesets...let me know!" http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Korolov
09-14-2004, 11:20 PM
My experiences, based on DFs mainly, suggests that while the P-80 has better manuverability, the Me-262 well outperforms it on a climb and speed basis. This advantage becomes nullified as soon as the 262 is required to take a lot of fuel. The P-80 of course can take less, but the effect seems less pronounced since the P-80 doesn't carry as much fuel.

http://www.mechmodels.com/fbstuff/klv_sigp38shark1a.jpg

WUAF_Badsight
09-14-2004, 11:25 PM
the 262 has to keep away from the P-80 ,

mixing it with the P-80 will end with its 6 being owned

if its 2 pilots who know how to fight the P-80 guy has massive DF performance over the 262 guy

overheat doesnt hurt the P-80 as bad as it does the Schwalb

wing snap can be a regular in P-80s tho without caution

DM (engine fires) way in the P-80s favour

i LOVE jet fights & ive made loads of coops & training runs , you have got to love the Schwalbs firepower

i made 3600 points on one ammo load in a certian training mission i made , insane

.
__________________________________________________ __________________________
actual UBI post :
"If their is a good server with wonder woman views but historic planesets...let me know!" http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Friendly_flyer
09-14-2004, 11:55 PM
The YP-80 and Me262 are two different aircrafts designed for two different things. The Me262 is an interceptor. It's a bit stiff on the controls and turn badly, but has geat firepower. The YP-80 is a fighter, and is fairly agile, but armed acordingly. Besides, the YP-80 is a newer design. In a 1 on 1 dogfight I would go for the YP-80, if my job was intercepting bombers (B-17s) I would go for the Me262.

If you want some good jet fun, try out the YP-80 versus the salamander!

Fly friendly!

Petter Bøckman
Norway

WUAF_Badsight
09-15-2004, 12:01 AM
the He-162 has low elevator authority & less turn than the P-80 as well

is hella fast tho & i really like the Mg151's over Mk's

.
__________________________________________________ __________________________
actual UBI post :
"If their is a good server with wonder woman views but historic planesets...let me know!" http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

3.JG51_Stecher
09-15-2004, 12:11 AM
Here are some speed trial results using v2.04.

Me 262A-1a
Sea Level - 855 km/h TAS
2500 m - 902 km/h TAS
5000 m - 892 km/h TAS

YP-80
Sea Level - 843 km/h TAS
2500 m - 889 km/h TAS
5000 m -860 km/h TAS

He 162A-2
Sea Level - 894 km/h TAS
2500 m - 943 km/h TAS
5000 m - 941 km/h TAS

By the way, the difference between 25% and 100% fuel is 1 or 2 km/h.

http://flygirl.dnsalias.com:8080/jg51/190hollandsig.jpg


3./Jagdgeschwader 51
3./JG51_Stecher
www.jg51.com (http://www.jg51.com)

Edit: Added He 162A-2 speeds.

[This message was edited by 3.JG51_Stecher on Tue September 14 2004 at 11:31 PM.]

Maple_Tiger
09-15-2004, 04:49 AM
Actual Real life Spec:

YP-80 at Sea level, 892 km/h TAS.
12,200m, 787km/h.

Me262 at Sea level 835km/h TAS.
6,000m, 892km/h.

From your tests Stecher, the ME262 is too fast in FB while the YP-80 is too slow.


Also, in rea life, the YP-80 was more manuvearable then most other jets.

Capt. 361stMapleTiger.
http://img52.photobucket.com/albums/v158/Maple_Tiger/FBAA2.gif
Proud member of the FBAA and Nutty Philosohpy Club.
-----------------------------
The more less you'r travelling, the further back in time you go.


I am hear,
but not quite there.
I am near,
Come if you dare.

Zmir88IAP
09-15-2004, 05:39 AM
P80 could also turn and roll much better. It was a "fighter-fighter" while the 262 is a heavy interceptor: The P80 should be much better in Dogfight.

But dont try to attack a group of B17!-every plane has its advantages(ok not every..).

KonstantinL100
09-15-2004, 07:38 AM
I flew some 4 vs 4 fights between Me262's and P-80's last night.

Flying as the Me262 I found the P-80 to be a very difficult opponent. The Me262 couldn't live with it's turning ability. They completely trashed my AI wingmen and I was rarely able to shoot down more than 1 P-80 per engagement due to having to dodge about 16 50 cals at any one time.

True the P80 doesn't have the heavy hitting power of the Me262 but it doesn't really need it since any sort of hit on the engine (which are pretty big targets to!) will put you in flames.

I then flew Salamanders against the P80's and while they where a bit more successful I found the P80 to be fairly resistant to the Salamanders 20mm cannons. You really need some sustained hits to damage one.

LEXX_Luthor
09-15-2004, 08:26 AM
P~80 worse than 262 up high. P~80 has the most performance loss with altitude of all the FB jets. 229 the least I believe. Just give 229 time to accelerate without bleeding speed turning.

__________________
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/10.gif Flyable Swedish "Gladiator" listed as J8A ...in Aces Expansion Pack ( AEP )

"You will still have FB , you will lose nothing" ~WUAF_Badsight
"I had actually pre ordered CFS3 and I couldnt wait..." ~Bearcat99
"Gladiator and Falco, elegant weapons of a more civilized age" ~ElAurens
:
"Damn.....Where you did read about Spitfire made from a wood?
Close this book forever and don't open anymore!" ~Oleg_Maddox http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

TgD Thunderbolt56
09-15-2004, 08:51 AM
Put me down for one He-162a please. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/53.gif


Our FB server info: http://www.greatergreen.com/il2

The190Flyer
09-15-2004, 09:20 AM
I agree Badsight ill take MG's anyday,i'll also take a 162 or 262 over a shootin star, cause i love the german planes, simply suits my taste, i love Mg's over Mk's

Copperhead310th
09-15-2004, 09:25 AM
Well regardless of RL in this sim there in NO CONTEST.

even with an agerge pilot the p-80 will win 80% of the time against the Me-262, He-162& Go-229.
if you fly it right you will never die.
Stay fast, keep your E up, and use flaps in turns.
http://www.310thvfs.com/killscrn/copperhead1.jpg
as for kiiing the salamander it's easier to shoot down from dead 6 than the 262. even a marginaly good shot can hit that one big engine on top. and there's no chance of the 162 ever out truning a p-80. out running is one thing. that is where the german jets tend to have the advantage is in speed and climb. but that alone is not enough to save your skin if a good Shooting Star driver get's on you up close and personal.

http://imageshack.us/files/copper%20sig%20with%20rank.jpg
310th FS & 380th BG website (http://www.310thVFS.com)

"Thought I might get a rocket ride when I was
a child but it was a lie
that I told myself when I needed something good
At 17 had a better dream
Now I'm 33 and it isn't me
But I'd think of something better if I could..."Counting Crows

Magister__Ludi
09-15-2004, 09:25 AM
The main problem with YP-80 is the completely ridiculous climb rate and acceleration. It is 50% better than the real thing, instead of 4000fpm initial climb loaded it does 6000fpm.

Of course I would like to see the real handling problems that P-80 had (I won't even talk about prototypes problems, most prototypes crashed). Like the imposibillity to trim the plane for the wide range of speeds it could fly, or the balance problems when flying with little fuel (comming for landing).

Also it will be nice to see the fuel satiation problems of the engine modelled. Half of the losses of the A model were due to engine problems, mostly engine fires due to improper functioning of the fuel injection (too much fuel at low compressor speeds). Now only the fuel starvation is modelled.

After this is done we could have a fair comparison of P-80A and Me-262A.

Copperhead310th
09-15-2004, 09:38 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Magister__Ludi:
The main problem with YP-80 is the completely ridiculous climb rate and acceleration. It is 50% better than the real thing, instead of 4000fpm initial climb loaded it does 6000fpm.

Of course I would like to see the real handling problems that P-80 had (I won't even talk about prototypes problems, most prototypes crashed). Like the imposibillity to trim the plane for the wide range of speeds it could fly, or the balance problems when flying with little fuel (comming for landing).

Also it will be nice to see the fuel satiation problems of the engine modelled. Half of the losses of the A model were due to engine problems, mostly engine fires due to improper functioning of the fuel injection (too much fuel at low compressor speeds). Now only the fuel starvation is modelled.

After this is done we could have a fair comparison of P-80A and Me-262A.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

now i know you've flipped your lid.

http://imageshack.us/files/copper%20sig%20with%20rank.jpg
310th FS & 380th BG website (http://www.310thVFS.com)

"Thought I might get a rocket ride when I was
a child but it was a lie
that I told myself when I needed something good
At 17 had a better dream
Now I'm 33 and it isn't me
But I'd think of something better if I could..."Counting Crows

Red_Storm
09-15-2004, 10:08 AM
Yes, the American planes are so hard to fly now. Actually, I don't know anyone who has a speck of respect left for pilots that fly American planes online. M2 .50's hit as hard as 20mm's, P-51's outturn (and generally outdoes everything at anything at any altitude, saying this is untrue just shows your flying abilities), there's just no contest online. Everyone I know would rather fight seven La-7's than a single P-51, as German planes can at least outclimb La-7's. Me and my squadron fly FW-190's online and we're very good at it. I'd say three or four kills for each guy in each sortie. When I switched to Allied, I took up my P-51 and got five kills without breaking a sweat. Coincidence?

---

BlackShrike
09-15-2004, 10:22 AM
p51 sucks compared to spits. period

Abbuzze
09-15-2004, 10:23 AM
I think if comparing a 44combatplane vs a 45sightseeing plane, the sightseeingplane should be at least a bit superior... cause one year is a long time in fighterdevelopment in war...

I allways wonder had the P80 a bad aerodynamic or why was a plane with nearly the same thrust, but equiped with an engine in the belly not real faster than a plane with two underwing engines and a wider fuselage?

I./JG53 PikAs Abbuzze
http://www.jg53-pikas.de/

http://mitglied.lycos.de/p123/bilder/Ani_pikasbanner_langsam%20neu.gif

Magister__Ludi
09-15-2004, 10:28 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Copperhead310th:

now i know you've flipped your lid.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

what's up copperhead, are you afraid of having the P-80 corrected?
flying overmodelled planes is a noob-joy

Magister__Ludi
09-15-2004, 10:37 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Abbuzze:
I think if comparing a 44combatplane vs a 45sightseeing plane, the sightseeingplane should be at least a bit superior... cause one year is a long time in fighterdevelopment in war...

I allways wonder had the P80 a bad aerodynamic or why was a plane with nearly the same thrust, but equiped with an engine in the belly not real faster than a plane with two underwing engines and a wider fuselage?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


The reason is simple, part of the engine thrust was lost because of the P-80 long air intakes and jet pipe, around 1/4 of the thrust! This is why later first generation jets had nose intakes. Me-262, although it uses less aerodynamic placement of the engines (in wing nacelles), it doesn't loose any thrust, so the speeds remained similar. Though somewhat misleading, it's interesting to compare the Cd0 of the 2 planes: P-80 had a Cd0 around 0.014, Me-262 around 0.022. In addition the engines were far from the fuel tanks, so in case of engine fire (saddly a much too common occurence for those early jets) the plane won't explode. Also twin engine config added safety by redundancy. Me-262 was a much safer aircraft that any of the jet fighters in service in the first 5 postwar years.

Fritzofn
09-15-2004, 10:56 AM
uhm....guys...aint the P80 fitted with a puny....sucky...english Goblin jet engine????

it would have been a complete different plane if it was fitted witht the Northtrop engine it was supposed to have dont quite remember the name of it, but i think it was the L-1000....(it does exist, it's in the Northrop museum, with afterburner and all)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
When u get to HELL, Tell'em I'll sent u.....U'll get a group discount
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Maple_Tiger
09-15-2004, 02:10 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Magister__Ludi:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Copperhead310th:

now i know you've flipped your lid.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

what's up copperhead, are you afraid of having the P-80 corrected?
flying overmodelled planes is a noob-joy<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Coming from someone who said the P-47 was way over modeled in 1.01...

When its roll was incorrect and missing 300 HP.

Give you'r head a shake Huck!

YP-80 is Too slow in FB Period.

Capt. 361stMapleTiger.
http://img52.photobucket.com/albums/v158/Maple_Tiger/FBAA2.gif
Proud member of the FBAA and Nutty Philosohpy Club.
-----------------------------
The more less you'r travelling, the further back in time you go.


I am hear,
but not quite there.
I am near,
Come if you dare.

3.JG51_Stecher
09-15-2004, 02:14 PM
------------------------------
Originally posted by Fritzofn:
uhm....guys...aint the P80 fitted with a puny....sucky...english Goblin jet engine????

it would have been a complete different plane if it was fitted witht the Northtrop engine it was supposed to have dont quite remember the name of it, but i think it was the L-1000....(it does exist, it's in the Northrop museum, with afterburner and all)
------------------------------

The de Havilland H-1 "Goblin", built under license as the J36 was used in the very first XP-80 prototype. Starting with the XP-80A they used the J33 built by General Electric and Allison. We have the YP-80A which used this engine. As for Lockheed's L-1000 (J37), I've never heard it being planned for the P-80 project, but rather Lockheed's L-133 aircraft program. By the way, it was a freaking awesome looking plane, but Bell won the contract in that competition with the XP-59. Too bad because the Bell jet was largely a failure, and it would've been nice to see that L-133 flying around.

http://tanks45.tripod.com/Jets45/Histories/Lockheed-L133/L133.htm

http://flygirl.dnsalias.com:8080/jg51/190hollandsig.jpg


3./Jagdgeschwader 51
3./JG51_Stecher
www.jg51.com (http://www.jg51.com)

Copperhead310th
09-16-2004, 02:55 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Magister__Ludi:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Copperhead310th:

now i know you've flipped your lid.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

what's up copperhead, are you afraid of having the P-80 corrected?
flying overmodelled planes is a noob-joy<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No i think you've got it the other way around jack@ss. Now quite sniffing those low quailty German jet fumes and go gossestepping back to mommy before i have to give you a virtual spanking.

http://imageshack.us/files/copper%20sig%20with%20rank.jpg
310th FS & 380th BG website (http://www.310thVFS.com)

"Thought I might get a rocket ride when I was
a child but it was a lie
that I told myself when I needed something good
At 17 had a better dream
Now I'm 33 and it isn't me
But I'd think of something better if I could..."Counting Crows

WUAF_Badsight
09-16-2004, 03:01 AM
you are a doofus CH

cant handel any critisim of anything american . . . . bet your undies are Red White & Blue too

as for the P-80 vrs the 262 . . . . yes the P-80 has more DF ability

as for the P-80 vrs the Go-229 . . . . no it doesnt

the Gotha has more DF ability than the overmoddeled-in-turning-ability P-80

.
__________________________________________________ __________________________
want some Flight sim advice ? look here ~~~~&gt; complete user guide for flight sims (http://www.airwarfare.com/tech/tech_lbguide.htm#001%20Security%20Issues)

WUAF_Badsight
09-16-2004, 03:06 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Maple_Tiger:
From your tests Stecher, the ME262 is too fast in FB while the YP-80 is too slow.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

do the math MT

its bearly 2% incorrect

& what kind of load is this blanket statement ? ! ? !

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Maple_Tiger:
Also, in rea life, the YP-80 was more manuvearable then most other jets.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

do you seriously believe the P-80s turning ability in FB is correct ?

high wing loading means high stall speed means **** low & tight turn ability

not to mention the wings were laminar flow

.
__________________________________________________ __________________________
want some Flight sim advice ? look here ~~~~&gt; complete user guide for flight sims (http://www.airwarfare.com/tech/tech_lbguide.htm#001%20Security%20Issues)

Copperhead310th
09-16-2004, 08:24 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WUAF_Badsight:
you are a doofus CH

cant handel any critisim of anything american . . . . bet your undies are Red White & Blue too

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-mad.gifHey Stop peeking in my window you creep! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_eek.gif
Jeez a guy can't even change clothes anymore with out
all the candy@ss's being peeping toms. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/51.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/crazy.gif

http://imageshack.us/files/copper%20sig%20with%20rank.jpg
310th FS & 380th BG website (http://www.310thVFS.com)

"Thought I might get a rocket ride when I was
a child but it was a lie
that I told myself when I needed something good
At 17 had a better dream
Now I'm 33 and it isn't me
But I'd think of something better if I could..."Counting Crows

Maple_Tiger
09-16-2004, 09:30 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WUAF_Badsight:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Maple_Tiger:
From your tests Stecher, the ME262 is too fast in FB while the YP-80 is too slow.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

do the math MT

its _bearly_ 2% incorrect

& what kind of load is this blanket statement ? ! ? !

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Maple_Tiger:
Also, in rea life, the YP-80 was more manuvearable then most other jets.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

do you seriously believe the P-80s turning ability in FB is correct ?

high wing loading means high stall speed means **** low & tight turn ability

not to mention the wings were laminar flow

.
__________________________________________________ __________________________
want some Flight sim advice ? look here ~~~~&gt; http://www.airwarfare.com/tech/tech_lbguide.htm#001%20Security%20Issues<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>



Oleg seems to beleave it was one of the most manueavrable jets in WW2. However, I wouldn't take his word for it http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/35.gif

Because it was made in America, it shoud be ****? Are you Hucks nephew?

Capt. 361stMapleTiger.
http://img52.photobucket.com/albums/v158/Maple_Tiger/FBAA2.gif
Proud member of the FBAA and Nutty Philosohpy Club.
-----------------------------
The more less you'r travelling, the further back in time you go.


I am hear,
but not quite there.
I am near,
Come if you dare.

Maple_Tiger
09-16-2004, 09:33 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WUAF_Badsight:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Maple_Tiger:
From your tests Stecher, the ME262 is too fast in FB while the YP-80 is too slow.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

do the math MT

its _bearly_ 2% incorrect

& what kind of load is this blanket statement ? ! ? !

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Maple_Tiger:
Also, in rea life, the YP-80 was more manuvearable then most other jets.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

do you seriously believe the P-80s turning ability in FB is correct ?

high wing loading means high stall speed means **** low & tight turn ability

not to mention the wings were laminar flow

.
__________________________________________________ __________________________
want some Flight sim advice ? look here ~~~~&gt; http://www.airwarfare.com/tech/tech_lbguide.htm#001%20Security%20Issues&lt;HR&gt;&lt;/BLOCKQUOTE&gt; (http://www.airwarfare.com/tech/tech_lbguide.htm#001%20Security%20Issues<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>)



If you think the Go229's maneuverablity is correct, then I think it's medication time.

Capt. 361stMapleTiger.
http://img52.photobucket.com/albums/v158/Maple_Tiger/FBAA2.gif
Proud member of the FBAA and Nutty Philosohpy Club.
-----------------------------
The more less you'r travelling, the further back in time you go.


I am hear,
but not quite there.
I am near,
Come if you dare.

WUAF_Badsight
09-17-2004, 12:01 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Maple_Tiger:
Oleg seems to beleave it was one of the most manueavrable jets in WW2. However, I wouldn't take his word for it http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/35.gif

Because it was made in America, it shoud be ****? Are you Hucks nephew?

Capt. 361stMapleTiger.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

why dont you cut the BS & go find out the planes stats

it isnt built for low speed tight turning yet its a marvel at it in FB

it climbs too fast if we are comparing it to the RL P-80

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Maple_Tiger:
If you think the Go229's maneuverablity is correct, then I think it's medication time.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

did you see anything in my post about the real Go-229 ?

did you see anything in my post about the Go-229 being correct ?

are you ******ed ?

nearly all 3 come up as a no

.
__________________________________________________ __________________________
want some Flight sim advice ? look here ~~~~&gt; complete user guide for flight sims (http://www.airwarfare.com/tech/tech_lbguide.htm#001%20Security%20Issues)