# Best Jet of WW2?



## bronzewhaler82 (Feb 23, 2004)

There were a suprising number of Jet aircraft developed during WW2, question is...which was the best?


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Feb 23, 2004)

The Schwalbe of course. 8) and the Ohka aint a jet its rocket propelled like the ME163 and it isnt reusable lol but for the matter they were developing a turbojet powered version which was never used (too late for service) which in my opinion would be a huge waste of engines but for the Jap jets you could say the Kikka or mandarin orange blossom which was a lightly modifed me262 with straight wings diff guns less armor and a wee bit more speed but it only became operational in the last week of the war so we can pretty much count out the japs in the jet department


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 24, 2004)

i know the 262 will probably walk away with this, so ill be different and go for the arado 8)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 24, 2004)

> the Ohka aint a jet its rocket propelled like the ME163


yeah, i don't hink them two should be there
and the metoer, while not the best, is my favourite


----------



## kiwimac (Feb 24, 2004)

There was also the Heinkel 280 which first flew in 1941. 









> Origin: Ernest Heinkel
> Type: Single-seat fighter
> Engines: two 1,852lb (840kg) thrust Junkers Jumo 004A turbojets
> Dimensions: Span 12m; Length 10.20m; Height 3.19m
> ...



Source: http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/LRG/he280.html

Kiwimac


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 24, 2004)

wow, that looks and sounds pretty cool 8) you would think it'd be more widely recognised with a history like that


----------



## nutter (Feb 24, 2004)

262 for me
did the Yokosuka Ohka ever fly in ww2?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 24, 2004)

very few sucessfull flights, the problem was that their launch ships were often shot down before their launch


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Feb 24, 2004)

I will admit ignorance on my part about the Jap Ohka 'jet' and it shouldn't really be on there BUT the Me163 was undoubably a jet fighter and it DID have some sucess so i still think that one should be up there


----------



## Archer (Feb 24, 2004)

No, the Me163 was definately rocket propelled and _not_ jet propelled.


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Feb 24, 2004)

about the me163... it was an interceptor not a fighter and like u said archer its completly rocket powered and he280 never entered service so thats y it isnt well known


----------



## Hot Space (Feb 24, 2004)

The Arado Ar 234 8) 8) 

Hot Space


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Feb 24, 2004)

yes that was a good one but i prefer schwalbe and not just cuz that wins by majority but because its very nice looking and goes very fast has four BIG ASS guns and twelve or twenty-four rockets and still kills stangs and b17s


----------



## kiwimac (Feb 25, 2004)

Hey I _like_ the HE 280. It was a better dogfighter than the 262 and potentially was available much earlier. God alone only knows why the Reich Air Ministry didn't want it.

Kiwimac


----------



## nutter (Feb 25, 2004)

the me163 only got about 7 kills in ww2 compared to loads by the 262


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 25, 2004)

woo im not alone on the arado  8)


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Feb 25, 2004)

You're just a fan of bombers really aren't you? When i first got into aircraft when i was about 8 or 9 years old my dad bought me a book about the Vickers Wellington (i was too young to appreciate any of the info on it but i loved the pictures) I was totally hooked after that - but i still have a big soft spot for good ol' 'Wimpy'


----------



## Anonymous (Feb 25, 2004)

I'm glad to see the American Aircomet only got one vote - it was a crap! and i DO know that  I just put it there to keep the Americans sweet (we brits are good at that cos our prime minister is a coward   )


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Feb 25, 2004)

Anonymous said:


> I'm glad to see the American Aircomet only got one vote - it was a crap! and i DO know that  I just put it there to keep the Americans sweet (we brits are good at that cos our prime minister is a coward   )



That was me by the way, i forgot to log on (Doh!  )


----------



## kiwimac (Feb 25, 2004)

I note also the Campini-Caproni








> 500 km/h is already passé; in a few years, it will be common to all planes. We are so sure of it that we are looking even further? (Italo Balbo, 1931).
> 
> This declaration perfectly recaps the spirit which brought about, a few years later, the first Italian jet. Since 1931, Secondo Campini, an aeronautical engineer, had shown to the Ministry of Aeronautics his studies of a new kind of engine, which promised higher speed and greater elevation. In brief, the schema proposed called for the dynamic collection and compression of air, which, subsequently, would be further compressed by a mechanical device, heated and then expanded through a jet to generate thrust.
> 
> ...



Source: http://www.regiamarina.net/arsenals/planes_it/jet/jet_us.htm

Kiwimac


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 26, 2004)

> You're just a fan of bombers really aren't you? When i first got into aircraft when i was about 8 or 9 years old my dad bought me a book about the Vickers Wellington (i was too young to appreciate any of the info on it but i loved the pictures) I was totally hooked after that - but i still have a big soft spot for good ol' 'Wimpy'



was that comment aimed at me?


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Feb 26, 2004)

Yep 8)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 26, 2004)

i like the wimpy to, one of me faves


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 27, 2004)

in that case, yes i do like bombers the most, theyre far more interesting than fighters etc 8) yeah i like the "wimpy" as you call it too 8)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 27, 2004)

yeah, lots of planes had funny nicnames, i'll tell you them on monday...........


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 27, 2004)

ok 8)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 28, 2004)

what, no argument, how unlike you.....................


----------



## GregP (Feb 29, 2004)

The P-80. Yes, it was a WWII jet. Some were even deployed to Italy before the end of the war.


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Feb 29, 2004)

no not really it wasnt operational in time and why would they send them to italy if Ve-Day had happened already? y not japan? exactly


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 29, 2004)

he's right, it didn't see servise in WWII......................


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Feb 29, 2004)

In 1944 the army began gunnery trials in Nevada with the Lockheed P-80 Shooting Star, a combat aircraft that promised to revolutionize warfare.
The P-80 was the first fully operational jet in the U.S.--an innovation already familiar to German and British scientists.
The U.S. rushed four P-80s to Europe, two each to England and Italy.
They were hours from entering combat when World War II ended.

That's the story, so GregP you were partially correct in saying that they were deployed to Italy.


----------



## Hot Space (Feb 29, 2004)

8) 

Hot Space


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 1, 2004)

that's close......................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 2, 2004)

yup 8)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 2, 2004)

thank you for backing me up C.C........................


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Mar 2, 2004)

no actually thats the truth i copied that directly by hand no copy and paste because its from a book and i have no scanner


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 3, 2004)

i know its the truth 8) we never questioned you


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 3, 2004)

me neither, we were just amazed it missed my that little!


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Mar 3, 2004)

Surprising that the 'Shooting star' isn't widely publicised...i've seen a few books on the subject of Jets during and after WW2 and i must say i've never heard of the P-80 before (not saying i don't beleive you)


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Mar 3, 2004)

There were quite a few planes that missed the war by a few days - the Japanese heavy interceptor fighter 'Magnificent Lightning' missed the war by 12 days exactly....now thats frightening


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 3, 2004)

i had heard of the p-80, its in my pack of naff top trumps 8)


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 4, 2004)

the junkers ju-287, a heavy jet bomber  has to be the weirdest plane ive ever seen


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 6, 2004)

ha! jokes on you, the pic doesn't work hehe


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 6, 2004)

damn  well, it looks weird anyway 8)


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Mar 6, 2004)

yes what with it being an FSW (forward swept wing) plane and all....


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 7, 2004)

mmmmmmmmmm, i'll have to look it up..............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 20, 2004)

Here it is, the ju-287, not that anyone cares....


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 20, 2004)

you mean it actually flew!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## ahanswurst (Apr 21, 2004)

The ME-163 komet is credited for shooting down 16 airplanes during the War according to an article I just read. I would have thought that more bombers met their fate then 16. One of the ME-163 Pilots was still alive and living in Dayton Ohio. You have to give the German aircraft designers credit for doing the impossible with as few resources as they had. Lucky for us they did not fly more of them. The article said they flew 5 minute missions because of fuel shortages.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 21, 2004)

they had enough fuel for a 7.5 minuite burn, but after that it acted as a high speed glider...................


----------



## Gemhorse (Apr 22, 2004)

Probably the best jet was the Meteor, but I voted the Ar234* as it's my favourite. I feel that they were in a class of their own, and it had terrific potential for further development. Like all German jets it suffered from Hitler's pre-occupation with bombers, bombers, bombers - It was a wicked 'Blitzschnell' bomber at that time of the War, but the old ' too little, too late ' doomed it's true development potential. I would have liked to have seen some serious forward-firing armament on them and improvement on their low-altitude performance, but they were excellent high-altitude reconnaissance aircraft and bomber- [only a 1000kg.]. They also may have been a handful for the Mosquitos too, if they'd had forward-firing guns [only 2x 30mm rear-firing installed], although not as manoevrable. They were IMHO the most well-developed and potentially reliable jet in the Luftwaffe, but by that stage of the War the factory workmanship was deteriorating beyond redemption...*


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 22, 2004)

i like the meteor to, one hell of a plane...............


----------



## Gemhorse (Apr 22, 2004)

It's one aircraft I haven't studied much, but I do like them - I'm also very fond of Vampires, having grown up close to Ohakea Air Base where we had some, years ago, and they were often jockeying around the region on training flights.- Both aircraft have very similar nose cockpits with the 4 x 20mm cannon, set-up underneath like the Mosquito FBVI's...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 23, 2004)

there's only four jet planes i can really say i like, and the meteor is one of them...............


----------



## Gemhorse (Apr 24, 2004)

Keep talking, I'm coming round...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 24, 2004)

what, you wanna know more about the meteor or my list?


----------



## Gemhorse (Apr 24, 2004)

Well, truthfully, I haven't read much about them, but that's the great thing about this, er, 'Interest/ Hobby/ Obsession'; there's always more to learn. I know our chaps flew them and they came into service very late in the War...I don't have quite the same passion for jets as WWII piston-engined fighters. It's always struck me how ironic it was to have won the War in the face of the late German jets, and that both sides never really 'duked' it out with jets...Everytime one hears the sound of a piston-job, you're curious, whereas jets sound rather the same...but I am keen to learn more of the War...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 25, 2004)

ironically the meteor never saw combat with a 262, it would be interesting to see which would come out on top, but after the war the meteor went on to break numerous world speed records, and was the first plane to reach 600mph and 1000kmph...............


----------



## Gemhorse (Apr 26, 2004)

It was definately a better-designed aircraft, and far more reliable...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 27, 2004)

but the egines couldn't produce as much thrust to begin with................


----------



## Andrew (Apr 28, 2004)

I will have to vote for the ME262, although I hate to say it, the ME262 was a much better fighter than the Gloucester Meteor.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 28, 2004)

nope its still the arado for me 8) ( i know it aint a fighter btw  )


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 28, 2004)

i still like the meteor...............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 28, 2004)

i find it quite patriotic that the lanc only really like british planes, apart from the naval fighters obviously and the tank busters, but his favourite plane in every other category is british (i think) 8)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 28, 2004)

brittish, does that include northern irish planes 

but the fact that most of my favourite are brittish wasn't planned, it was just that we made the best planes of the war...............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 29, 2004)

i wouldnt say the best planes


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 29, 2004)

most of the best.............


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 1, 2004)

nope, i still disagree


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 2, 2004)

Of the jets that saw combat it's gotta be the Me-262, hands down. Now if the Gotha Go-229 got into action . . . 4 x 30mm, 600+ mph speed, and a limited about of stealth . . . it would have been the best of the war.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 2, 2004)

but as with many german projects, they weren't as good as they said they were, allot of them were made to sound better for propergander..............


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 2, 2004)

no but the go. 229 nearly made it, it would have seen service had the war not ended when it did 8)


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 2, 2004)

So let's be thankful the war ended when it did. It would be another 6 or 7 years til the Allies had anything that could have matched the Go. 229.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 2, 2004)

but even if the Go.229 had entered service during the way, it would have been to late to change anything..................


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 2, 2004)

Would it have changed anything? Probably not. Would it have killed a lot of Allied airmen? Probably so.


----------



## brad (May 3, 2004)

meteor


----------



## plan_D (May 3, 2004)

So, it doesn't really matter if the plane had come in or not, because we'd have still won it when we did. There were many things that the Germans had that we stopped with ending the war, now if the Germans had got their A10 ICBM into action New York would have been having their own experiences of German rockets...


----------



## brad (May 3, 2004)

meteor rules


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 3, 2004)

There were several piston engined fighters that could have outrun the early versions of the Meteor. The speed of the Me-262 was decisive. A Post-war Meteor might have been a match for a 262, but what would the German jet have been like if it had an extra 3-4 years of development?


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 3, 2004)

i reckon that if the 262 had continued after the war, it would have officially reached 600mph before the meteor did and could have been developed into a mightily effective fighter, once they had sorted out the stability problems 8)


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 3, 2004)

Exactly my point. The 262 was the best jet fighter of the war and would have held onto that title after the war if had received the same development time that the Meteor did.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 3, 2004)

then again, the germans had hundreds of planes that could have been great had development continued 8)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 3, 2004)

na, a post war meteor would still beat a post war 262 easily, remember, some countries did use 262s after the war...................


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 3, 2004)

The 262 was used after the war. But they were flying what was basically a wartime fighter. If the engines, armament, and avionics of the 262 had continued to have been developed, it would have remained superior to the Meteor.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 3, 2004)

yup 8)


----------



## plan_D (May 4, 2004)

No, British engines were (and still are) the best in world, they would have beaten the 262 in the engine department, and that counts for a lot on the aircrafts performance.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 4, 2004)

I maybe wrong on this, but I was under the impression that post-war engine development of all the Allies (including the British) was heavily influenced by the examination of captured 262s.


----------



## plan_D (May 4, 2004)

Of course they studied captured 262s and their engines but the British engines had more advantages than disadvantages to the German counter-parts. The main ideas gained off German technology was structure design, like swept back wings are much better for an aircraft at Mach 1.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 5, 2004)

did you know the airframe of a spit could take the strain of mack 1.3 before breaking up, if you could power it to that speed.............


----------



## plan_D (May 5, 2004)

Really? That's pretty good, but without specially designed props, prop aircraft cannot break the sound barrier.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 5, 2004)

i know, that's why i said if you could power it to that speed, and did you know you can't break the sound barrier if you're not making any sound............


----------



## plan_D (May 5, 2004)

That seems sensible enough to me, how would you create the sonic boom if there was no sonic.


----------



## brad (May 6, 2004)

nooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11111111111111111111111111111 the meteor cos of its engins it would have reached 600 first


----------



## brad (May 6, 2004)

wups tuck my finger of the shift key


----------



## plan_D (May 6, 2004)

So what if it did? This better not be about the sound barrier because at any altitude the speed of sound isn't 600 mph. I think the Ta183 is the best designed in World War 2 because it became the Mig-15 and as much as American propaganda still claims they shot down 700+ the Sabre got at most 400+ combat kills, and that isn't all Migs.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 8, 2004)

> nooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11111111111111111111111111111 the meteor cos of its engins it would have reached 600 first



would have been the first? it was the first..............


----------



## brad (May 8, 2004)

well sorry smart s**t


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 8, 2004)

no need to get insulting.............


----------



## brad (May 8, 2004)

sorry :fist:


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 9, 2004)

that seems to loose all meaning with the little figure............


----------



## plan_D (May 9, 2004)

He takes getting corrected well, doesn't he?


----------



## R Pope (May 9, 2004)

Where did you get the idea that you can't break the sound barrier if you're not making any sound? That's just silly. Bullets don't make any sound (of their own)and they don't seem to have much trouble going 3 or 4 times Mach.And where did the bit about the Spitfire airframe being able to stand supersonic speed come from? You guys need to research your facts a little better.


----------



## plan_D (May 9, 2004)

No, he said that you don't hear the Sonic Boom. He said nothing about it not being able to break the sound barrier, you need to read better. And bullets don't go Mach 3-4 they go about Mach 1.1 just over the speed of sound, maybe you should research better. 

I said the Spitfire couldn't because of the props, I never said anything about the Spitfire airframe being able to do so. But since they tested the Spitfire to try and break the sound barrier, I imagine they also thought it to be possible.


----------



## plan_D (May 9, 2004)

But with that, I've been informed that you still do hear a sonic boom. A gathering of sources is required...


----------



## brad (May 10, 2004)

fly to aout 15000ft and go down till you get over the speed of sound oh and a bullet travlles at mach2.2 so you are both rong


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 10, 2004)

doesnt the speed of the bullet count on the type of gun?


----------



## brad (May 10, 2004)

no way ho say


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 10, 2004)

hmmm, fine  8)


----------



## plan_D (May 10, 2004)

The speed of a bullet does depend on the gun, but there is little change in statistic terms, but it makes a lot of difference when it hits something. Also the size of round affects the speed, a 5.56mm round goes faster than a 7.62mm round for example. 
Even with that most bullets go around, and above Mach 1, but only just. Depending on your altitude it changes what speed (mph or km/h) Mach 1 is, but it is still refered to as Mach 1 even if at sea level it is 760 mph but at 20,000 ft it is 730 mph (not the real figure).


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 11, 2004)

i said it's tecnicaly impossible, you can go faster then the speed of sound if you're not making any sound, but you can't break the sound barrier, i hope that clears things up.........


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 11, 2004)

I'm not sure that's cleared anything up.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 11, 2004)

im just gonna keep outta this...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 12, 2004)

> I'm not sure that's cleared anything up.



how, hopefully i can shine some light on it if you don't understand, but it's pretty hard to explain................


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 12, 2004)

Well, I did some numbers crunching and 3,000 fps (a not unatainable speed for a rifle bullet) translates to somewhere around Mach 3 (depending on altitude).


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 12, 2004)

Mach one's about 760mph.............


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 12, 2004)

At sea level. It drops off to below 700 at altitude.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 12, 2004)

it always changes at different altitudes, the speed of light doesn't however........................


----------



## plan_D (May 12, 2004)

Yes, the speed of sound does change at altitudes, the speed of light also changes but not with altitude (or not that I know of). The speed of a bullet at sea level goes about Mach 1. 
If a person is like a mile away, shoots, and you see the flash you can avoid it (You have to be quick though, I wouldn't advise trying  ). At Mach 3, you couldn't.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 12, 2004)

At low altitude, a 3000fps bullet would be Mach 2.7. Which is still really fast. And according to Einstein, the speed of light is the only true constant in the universe.


----------



## plan_D (May 12, 2004)

Never did Physics? Refraction ring a bell? Shine a beam of light through glass, it refracts because it slows.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 12, 2004)

Actually I did a lot of physics. But you are right. But that is a change caused by medium rather than altitude. I believe that Einstein was refering to light in a vacuum but I'm mostly guessing now.


----------



## plan_D (May 12, 2004)

Yes, but I did actually say not with altitude. Speed of sound wouldn't change in a vacuum. The only reason it changes because of altitude in the atmosphere is because the air particles density changes.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 14, 2004)

no, the speed of light mener changes....................


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 14, 2004)

> mener



is that supposed to say...never?


----------



## plan_D (May 14, 2004)

Lanc do you ever listen in class? Ask your Physics teacher, the speed of light does change that's why it refracts.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 15, 2004)

i thought so 8)


----------



## brad (May 15, 2004)

> Mach one's about 760mph.............


the speed of sound is only 630 my teacher told me so nereand he has flown at mach2 and that was 1260


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 15, 2004)

> the speed of light does change that's why it refracts.



no, refraction is all to do with the angle of incidence..............


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 15, 2004)

The speed of sound changes with altitude. It may be 630 higher up, but Plan_D is rigth about the lower altitudes.


----------



## brad (May 15, 2004)

i guess im not the only won who cant spell


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 15, 2004)

everyone makes mistakes, some a little more than others 8)


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 16, 2004)

Sorry, but my education isn't in language (and certainly not spelling).


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 16, 2004)

ive only seen you make a couple of mistakes, i think brad was referring to the lancs strange spelling of "never" 8)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 16, 2004)

how do you know i didn't mean to say mener?


----------



## plan_D (May 17, 2004)

The speed of sound is 760 mph at sea level, my dad was an aircraft technician for 24 years, he knows what he is talking about. Plus the fact, I already knew it was anyway. 

The speed of light changes when it goes through a different medium, it goes slower through water than air, and slower through glass than air. The angle of which the light enters the glass decides which angle it will come out at. 
At 46 degrees and above it is total internal reflection which reflects the light instead of refracting, the light still changes speed. Ask your teacher.


----------



## Erich (May 20, 2004)

back to the original post I would have to say because of it's combat experience, the Me 262A-1a. Especially in the night fighter role with Kommando Welter. Nothing could touch it at night ! Though almost unknown in this role it may well have been the finest short range night fighter of the war...............

E ~


----------



## plan_D (May 20, 2004)

We already got through that the Me-262 'Swallow' was the best jet, well the majority said so. Nice contribution though, and welcome to the site.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 20, 2004)

i preferred the ar-234 8)


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 20, 2004)

Ar-234 had inferior performance (on more thrust), had 0 ability to defend itself, and wasn't even as effective a bomber as the 262.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 20, 2004)

on paper it looks good though, 530mph, 1013miles range, payload just under 5000, 36,000ft ceiling 8)


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 20, 2004)

In real life it flopped. Too slow (with a bombload) to avoid Allied fighters, unable to defend itself with intercepted, unrealiable engines.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 20, 2004)

oh dear  i still like it though 8)


----------



## Erich (May 20, 2004)

As a recon machine it was one of the best and that was it's primary intention..........as quoted by FAGr 5 pilots that lost their Ju 290A's and formed a very small staffel of Arado's in March-April of 45.

v/r

E ~


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 20, 2004)

of course! i forgot it was used for recon too


----------



## Erich (May 20, 2004)

a couple of missions in fact were flown over the Normandie beachhead.........


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 20, 2004)

it made a beter recon plane than a bomber............


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 20, 2004)

wow cool 8)


----------



## Erich (May 20, 2004)

without a doubt Lanc and it also gave US P-51 pilots much frustration. Friend Don Bryan in a lengthy interview told me of just this type of frustration diving on three of the twin engine jobs in his P-51 on three seperate missions and only on another occassion did he get "his" jet. The Arado was flying ahead and below him and he dove on it as the jet was making a bomb run on the Remagen bridge, but the jet pilot made the error by going under the bridge and then climbing and turning hoping he could make the clouds, but Don cut him off turning some pretty incredible G's to close the gap and then he ripped the jets engine's to shreds while flying almost upside down. don is still living and quite a character of the 352nd fighter group, the blue-nosers of which I am a friend.............

E ~


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 20, 2004)

cool  youre gonna be great to have around


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 20, 2004)

so how do you know these people??


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 20, 2004)

he helps collect information or books, am i right?


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 20, 2004)

*for


----------



## Erich (May 20, 2004)

laughing icon extreme !

Guys I have been doing this since the early 1960's when I was in the 6th grade. I had an uncle serve as a lt. colonel in the US Air Force in Wiesbaden. things developed since he was in a flying club with former German Luftwaffe perosnell such as Erich hartmann, The Prinz Krupinski, Günther Rall and others. He became friends of course chatting about the old days and modern flying techniques while flying bi-plane trainers and gliders; gliders was my uncles love when he returned to the staes in the 1970's. anyway he got me in touch with several veterans and this developed as I got older interviewing local veterans in the US air Force. two good friends now deceased served in the German Heer on the Ost front.
all came together as I approached college and my interests grew even further as my "GErman" relatives wished me wwell and told me of two relatives on my mothers side that served in the day and night fighter forces. Both killed in action.
as I pursued more data into my data bases I became a member of the US 339th, 352nd and 355th fighter groups as well as the now defunct US night fighter association. I keep in touch with several US fighter pilot vets of these groups. In addition I have interviewed over 50 US bomber crewmen of the 8th, 9th and 15th air forces. 1 particular friend was a pilot of a B-26 in the 394th bomb group and remains one of my best customers. another P-51 pilot friend served in the Pacific with the US 8th photo recon, first lflying un-armed and unarmored P-38's on high altitude recon.
and not to drag this out too long but I am personal friends with at least 5 former German ngiht fighter pilots, 3 of them I keep in close contact by email. with the many associations I have been involved with the last 15 years I have quite a large German Luftwaffe adresse base............

cheers friends ! 8) 

Erich


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 20, 2004)

> *for



that's cheap spam, you know as well as i do there's a edit button on your last posts you could've used..............


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 20, 2004)

who edits their posts 

and erich, you lucky sod


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 20, 2004)

> who edits their posts



as a mod usrely you should be setting an example.............


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 20, 2004)

*surely..............


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 20, 2004)

oh ha ha  most of the people on the site are accurate typists though so ha 8)


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (May 20, 2004)

Erich said:


> laughing icon extreme !
> 
> Guys I have been doing this since the early 1960's when I was in the 6th grade. I had an uncle serve as a lt. colonel in the US Air Force in Wiesbaden. things developed since he was in a flying club with former German Luftwaffe perosnell such as Erich hartmann, The Prinz Krupinski, Günther Rall and others. He became friends of course chatting about the old days and modern flying techniques while flying bi-plane trainers and gliders; gliders was my uncles love when he returned to the staes in the 1970's. anyway he got me in touch with several veterans and this developed as I got older interviewing local veterans in the US air Force. two good friends now deceased served in the German Heer on the Ost front.
> all came together as I approached college and my interests grew even further as my "GErman" relatives wished me wwell and told me of two relatives on my mothers side that served in the day and night fighter forces. Both killed in action.
> ...


Erich, do you live in CA? Because if my information is correct, there is a German Veterans club fairly close to where I live...
Oh, und wilkommen! (Ich nur spreche kaum Deutsch)


----------



## Erich (May 20, 2004)

vielen Dank GrG. bist du Deutsch ?

I am aware of an American aces group that meets in southern California about twice a year, but not the German vets group. Could you send me a private on this bitte ?

I live in southern Oregon actually.

Are you familiar with the Me 262 recon a/c on display at Chino airprot, California. About two years ago friend Hans Busch had a mini seminar in his time with KG 51 and his bombing days flying the Me 262A-2. About 350 of us were present an drooled over the wonderful 262 as it was pulled out of it's narrow waiting area onto the Tarmac. On the other side of the barrier wall sat 3 gorgeous P-51's and across the field was a wonderful B-25. A great time especially after the attendance left and around 5pm Hans got a chance to sit in the cockpit of the Chino warbird and gave us (about 6 of us) a full flight description and ready to take off just like 60 years ago all in Deutsch. Great to relive the past............well almost.

thanks for the greetings

Erich ~


----------



## plan_D (May 21, 2004)

Please don't start speaking German, I hate it when people speak German for one reason; in school I always said I'd never need it, and when people speak German those words come back to haunt me.  

Erich, you're a very lucky man. I don't know anyone that was in World War 2, let alone in any AF. Well, I tell a lie, my Great-Uncle was a mechanic in the RAF and served on Malta.


----------



## Erich (May 21, 2004)

thank you .............but since you live in the UK you have the prime oppourtunity to check on and with your local museums to seek out living RAF veterans if this is your interest. You maybe surprised when they roll out a Lanc or another of the RAF's finest and see whom may show up. Take the books, and notepad in hand and take copius notes...........many a friendship has started up this way.....

two cents of thought for ya

E ~


----------



## plan_D (May 21, 2004)

I just might do that. I don't really visit museums often though, I'll have to next time I go though.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 21, 2004)

I know a couple of gentlemen who served on B-24s. One was a navigator in the 15th, wounded by flak. The other was a flight engineer/ top gunner in the Pacific. His plane made a 600 mile trip back to base minus the tail turret. I've got a copy of his memoirs around here somewhere.


----------



## Erich (May 21, 2004)

LG is he still alive and kicking ? if so grab him and finish up any type of interview that is in the back of your mind. these vets are falling to fast and that portion of history is lost forever............

v/r

E ~


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (May 21, 2004)

Erich said:


> vielen Dank GrG. bist du Deutsch ?
> 
> I am aware of an American aces group that meets in southern California about twice a year, but not the German vets group. Could you send me a private on this bitte ?
> 
> ...


I CANT REMEMBER WHAT VIELEN DANK MEANS!!!! IT DRIVES ME CRAZY!!!
Anywho, nein, ich bin Hollandisch und Brazilianisch. I didnt know about that reunion group, could you send me a pm on that? About the vet's club, my mom told me, and she got it from #411 or operator and thats not always reliable. I've searched online and have found nothing out. I guess I'll just have to loiter around the doors someday soon.


----------



## Erich (May 21, 2004)

Guten Abend.

many thanks is the translation. there is a group of US vets that meets at Chino annually. One of the largest groups is the all black Tuskegee airmen of the 15th US air force. Great guys I would love to meet.
Call up the Chino airport for dates and times. Gnerally at least once a year there is a meeting of US veterans/ air force in northern California and also in southern California. Will have to look for the information but I do think there is a web site associated with web-birds.com

could be wrong on that


----------



## plan_D (May 22, 2004)

As long as the German stays simple, I'll be able to understand as well. I've written off to the RAF records on the operational history of my Great-Uncle, he is still alive but I don't know where he is. None of my family does because they never used to get along, typical. Anyway, thankfully my Grandmother had his service number, with my Grandads.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 22, 2004)

i don't suppose anyone knows of any veterans in the south west of england??


----------



## Huckebein (May 25, 2004)

Hmm, a bit late, I am. I went for the Arado - the most successful of all the types up there in its intended role - it was all but invulnerable on operations. By way of comparison the Meteor only really proved much use as a V1 catcher (until the F.III very late on), and the '262 had a very stop-start career, sometimes savaging American raiding forces, sometimes being knocked out without landing a blow themselves.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 25, 2004)

yes! screw you lanc, the meteor is down in 3rd where it should be


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 25, 2004)

> I went for the Arado - the most successful of all the types up there in its intended role



it was designed as a bomber but it was pretty crap at it, it made a better recon plane...................


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 25, 2004)

I believe the 262 was considerably more successful than the Arado in it's intended role. For that matter, the 262 was probably a better bomber than the Arado.


----------



## Huckebein (May 26, 2004)

I don't think the Arado _was_ crap as a bomber at all! It was used more often as a recce plane because it was the _only_ type that could get through and take the photos. When they were occasionally used as bombers they did as well as could be expected under the circumstances they were forced to fly in. In fact small groups of Arado 234s in service with KG76 were flying small, 6-8 aircraft raids on areas such as railyards and factory facilities as early as 23rd December 1944, and were achieving what would have been, in any other circumstances, notable results, with the only loss in the first spate of attacks being one Arado forced to crash land at its base due to damage done by a Tempest in a fleeting head-on attack.
The Me 262A-2 Sturmvogel was notoriously useless and innaccurate as a bomber, partly due to the altitude restrictions placed upon it and partly for want of a bombsight. If you read up on it you'll find countless reports that the Allies didn't even notice that the '262s were at work most of the time, and that even if they did the '262s did hardly any material damage to the Allies whatsoever.


----------



## Erich (May 26, 2004)

ah but you are not speaking of the Soviets friend. the 262's flying out of Czechslovakia both had to endure the pressures of the western and Easterna allies and were drawn thin. the 262 units taking part in both bomber intercepts as well as ground attack/bombing missions. this from former Pilot of KG 51, Hans Busch. And yes the units jets were effective, it is just they were dog meat in the air vs US P-51's making long range flights.

E ~


----------



## Huckebein (May 26, 2004)

Yes, but the Arados were more effective as bombers, no?

That was my point - that they were more successful as bombers than '262s were as fighters - even though their exploits were less spectacular at a time when fighters were more important to the Luftwaffe. The '262's successes and failures are very well known because it's such a well known aircraft, the Arados didn't have any failures (that I can think of), and were very good at their jobs.


----------



## plan_D (May 26, 2004)

The Meteor being only good for V1 interception isn't really fair, had it been delivered to continental Europe squadrons it would have been an asset to the fighter command. 
The Arado may have been good, but a bit worthless in the Luftwaffes, and German situation. The 262 was more useful to Germany, and therefore more effective.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 26, 2004)

yes, but if they didnt have the 262 there were Ta-152's and 109 K-4's to go round, but if there was no arado what are you going to use for recce, a storch?


----------



## Erich (May 26, 2004)

Arado's were shot down just like any other German a/c. I have the first hand docs to prove that. The Arado was best suited as a recon a/c and second as a bomber. Still as the 262 eninge failures were ever present. I do feel though that the 262 has been given the lime-light due to the fighter vs fighter and bomber ops and much has been written on the Schwalbe do to this.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 26, 2004)

> yes, but if they didnt have the 262 there were Ta-152's and 109 K-4's to go round



but they weren't as good at intercepting as the 262................


----------



## Erich (May 26, 2004)

we will never really know. the Me 262 fighter was to take on US and RAF heavy bombers. The K-4 was to be a fighter pure and simple as was the TAnk which was to be the high altitude counterpart of the P-51H, but since the latter never occurred in aerial combat that is just supposition........


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 26, 2004)

It should also be noted that, the opinions of Hitler notwithstanding, Germany had a much greater need for fighters than bombers at the time these jets were coming into service.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 26, 2004)

yes, the germans didn't really bomb in the west after '41 did he??


----------



## Erich (May 26, 2004)

yes Lanc, during the 44-45 battles for the Ardenne.

der Führer could not rid his mind of having a Luftwaffe bomber somewhat on par with the US/RAF. thus the experimentation of the 4 engine prototypes almost till war's end but then he saw the need for huge jet engines equipping small lighter bombers, but more of them, to attack England and even the US. And what better way to proivide escort to these jet bombers than to use updaed versions of the Me 262 and Focke Wulf testing a/c..................all Luft 46 anyway


----------



## Huckebein (May 26, 2004)

plan_D said:


> The Arado may have been good, but a bit worthless in the Luftwaffe's, and German situation. The 262 was more useful to Germany, and therefore more effective.



I agree with the first sentence here, but definitely not the second. The poll is which was the _best jet_ of WWII. Regardless of its situation, in my opinion the Arado 234 was WWII's 'best jet'. The Meteor would have been an asset, yes, but I somehow don't see it comparing very favourably against Ta-152s or Me 262s - the jets' main advantage was performance, and the early Meteors (like I said, up 'til the F.III) didn't have much of a performance advantage over the best prop-fighters.
But yeah, back to my point, just because an aircraft is 'most useful' in a certain situation doesn't mean it was _the_ most _effective_ type. The Fw 200 Condor was 'more useful' than the '109s/ '190s during the Battle of the Atlantic, but that doesn't make it a 'more effective' aircraft.


----------



## Huckebein (May 26, 2004)

Lightning Guy said:


> It should also be noted that, the opinions of Hitler notwithstanding, Germany had a much greater need for fighters than bombers at the time these jets were coming into service.



GAH! So what _is_ the question? 'Best' jet, or 'most useful' jet?


----------



## Erich (May 26, 2004)

Friend not sure if you can access older books, but try and find a copy of Jeff Ethell/Alfred Prices German Jets in combat, 1979, Janes Publishing. maybe some sort of interlibrary loan can help ? pages of the Ar 234 on 74-99. Me 262 covered on pages 8-72. Although outdated still a neat classic work.

didn't Monogram produce one on the Ar 234 recently ? A beautiful looking jet and a smart performer.

hth

Erich ~


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 26, 2004)

Well, if you wanna talk simply about 'best jet' the 262 easily out performs the Ar 234. And I think your comparison of the Fw 200 with the 109 and 190 is rather unfair, unless you are wanting to argue that they 109 and 190 made 'effective' patrol aircraft.


----------



## Huckebein (May 27, 2004)

Well that's what I'm trying to say - saying the Me 262 was a more effective aircraft because it was more useful doesn't make sense. The Ar 234 was a bomber, the '262 a fighter - you can't say that the 262 was more 'effective' just because Germany happened to need fighters more than bombers, you can _only_ say it was more 'useful'. In the same way you can't say that the Condor was more 'effective' than the single-engined types just because it was a patrol aircraft in the Atlantic, but it was definitely more 'useful' in that role.

Oh, and as I've said, I think the '234 was the 'best jet' because (in my opinion) it was more capable of performing its job well than the '262. It's a very close run thing and I must admit that the only thing that really decides it for me relates to the engines. The Jumo 004s, when treated like a fighter engine (i.e. run at high power for extended periods, frequently having their throttle settings changed) had a very short running life (about 10hrs) that drastically reduced the effectiveness of the Messerschmitt Me 262 as a fighter. In the Arado the 004s were handled very carefully and gently by default - it was, after all, a bomber/ recce plane. This lead to increased servicability, longer engine llifespans, and therefore a more effective bomber than the '262 was a fighter.

Never mind, I'm just being pedantic. I get most of my details from Alfred Price's 'The Last Year Of The Luftwaffe', but I will try and get hold of a copy of that book Erich, thanks.


----------



## Erich (May 27, 2004)

you may also want to check and type in Ar 234 books in your search engines and see what comes up. Granted in late war in April of 45 there were no more than 25 Ar 234's in service primarily due to the dwindling of special fuels and the forcement of confined airspace and airfields because of Allied/soviet pressure. but again the 234 units did their job till the last........... i.e. III./KG 76 and the small recon units

E ~


----------



## Erich (May 27, 2004)

a nice signed pic of III./KG 76 Kommandeur, Hans-Georg Bätcher


----------



## Huckebein (May 27, 2004)

Thanks Erich - the bit of the book I was mainly referring to was that concerning the 5th and 7th prototypes sent to France, the first mission being flown by Erich Sommer on August 2nd over the Cherbourg peninsula. Over the next three weeks he and Horst Gotz flew 13 recconnaissance flights, bringing the German generals detailed information of Allied forces behind the front line for the first time since the invasion. Unfortunately, by now all the thousands of photos brought back by the Arados did was provide a detailed picture of a battle already lost...

It's interesting to note that the Arados appear to have completely escaped Allied notice as they went about their business in this period - surely the highest compliment that can be paid to a recce pilot? 8)


----------



## plan_D (May 27, 2004)

Or that the Allies didn't care that the enemy was taking pictures of them, as they had already won. 
The Me-262 was the more effective in the war, this does not mean it's better. More damage done by the Me-262 means its more effective. The Fw-200 would have been more effective for the Battle of Atlantic but still not more effective overall than the 109 in the WHOLE war effort. 
When two aircraft are of different types you can't compare their ability, but you can compare their effect on the war effort of that nation, and the Me-262 was more effective because it was needed more.


----------



## Huckebein (May 27, 2004)

Fair point, but if the Allies knew they were photographing it would appear in their records somewhere - they wouldn't omit those observations simply because they didn't care. Alfred Price did a thorough search through Allied documents of the time and there is no mention made of the high-flying Arados, or any Arados for that matter until a good couple of months later. The same is almost true for the few Me 262A-2 Sturmvogels that took part in the battle in Normandy, but that is a _bad_ thing that reflects how little damage they did...

T'would have been interesting to see how the Arado fared as a night-fighter - it might have been better than the '262 in that respect (better range, weapons capacity etc.)  8)


----------



## Erich (May 27, 2004)

I think I am taking the bait here eh ? 8) 

no kills reported from nahctkommando Bonow. In fact all there are remaining is a couple of strange looking profiles. Plenty of drawings of what-ifs. Kurt Welter of Me 262 night fighter fame tested an Ar 234 but was blinded by searchlights and glare from burning buildings on one test mission of the Ar 234 as a comprable jet along side the 262 arsenal. His findings were that there had to be some sort of anti-dazzle screens fitted or the inside of the swindows painted black. Also the need of some sort of forward radar fitting and place for a radar operator. Again this was to be developed for later in 1945 with AI radar in a protected nose fitting and supplemental armament of 4 weapons in a lower fuselage gondola instead of two 2cm weapons installed. I'll do a search for the article/profiles that were sent to me from Deutschland. In any case we have some materials on this night fighter potential in our Moskito-jagd book............

v/r

E ~


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 27, 2004)

> yes, the germans didn't really bomb in the west after '41 did he??





> yes Lanc, during the 44-45 battles for the Ardenne.




sorry, i meant bombing britain...............


----------



## plan_D (May 28, 2004)

That's a good point Huckebein, it does mark a good recce plane if your enemy does not know of your operations. 

No serious bombing raid happened after the 7th May 1941. They did carry on though, I believe the last one was in November, not including the probing raids made by the Fw-190s in 1942. Which the British Intelligence said was captured French Mohawks


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 28, 2004)

why would the germans doom themself's to faliure by using french planes...................


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 28, 2004)

*themselves

i dont know, why would the germans doom themselves to failure by using french planes?


----------



## plan_D (May 29, 2004)

For a start the Mohawk isn't a French plane. They were bought by the French. Secondly, they weren't using the Mohawk, it was the Fw-190 but when the pilots reported a radial engined aicraft British intelligence said it was the Mohawk, when it was the Fw-190 which they had no clue about.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 29, 2004)

ah, thanks for clearing that up............


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 30, 2004)

you havent messed yourself again?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 30, 2004)

the best jet of the war was the meteor................


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 30, 2004)

it was a joke, obviously too advanced for you.

no it wasnt, it was the arado ar-234


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 30, 2004)

the 234 was pretty bad you know.................


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 30, 2004)

well not so long ago it was agreed it made an excellent recon plane


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 30, 2004)

no, it was just the best they had...................


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 30, 2004)

no it wasnt, you're forgetting the storch


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 30, 2004)

ah yes, storch aces of WWII...................


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 30, 2004)

not hard to be a storch ace really though


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 30, 2004)

nope, it was, after all, the best fighter of the war....................


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 30, 2004)

better than the spit?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 30, 2004)

of course..............


----------



## plan_D (May 30, 2004)

The Fi-156 wasn't that bad, really. I mean, as a recon plane, it worked. Just like any other though, if there was another plane in the sky it was screwed. 
Saying that, the PR. XI was pretty damn good. 

I'll have to say that the Me262 was the best, on the simple reason it was the most effective. The Ar234 had the potential but it wasn't enough to be worthy of the best, a great recon plane, of course but not much else.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 31, 2004)

yeah its either the 262 or or the arado, both were great in their roles, but favouritism edges me to go for the arado


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 31, 2004)

you're both wrong the best was the metoer.................


----------



## Erich (May 31, 2004)

at what ?

considering the fact that the Ar 234 and Me 262 variants served and met Allied opposition I think that you can only consider one of the two as being the top notch jets.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 31, 2004)

Lancaster just gets stuck in his ways. We've already argued the 262 v. Meteor angle to great length. Clearly the 262 was better so just as clearly the Meteor should be out of the 'best jet' argument.


----------



## plan_D (Jun 1, 2004)

And the Me-262 'Schwalbe' should be the victor of it. The first Schwalbe lost to enemy action was over Brussels on 28th August 1944 shot down by two Thunderbolts...is this true?

After the war the Allies discovered weapons about to be tested on the Me-262 weapons such as the MG213 revolver cannon, the SG117 multi-barreled gun and the X-4 guided air to air missiles...scary. 

It's good to read...


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 1, 2004)

yeah i have to agree with you on the 262 there. 262 first, then the arado, then the meteor 8)


----------



## plan_D (Jun 1, 2004)

Ar234Bs did get the Remagen bridge after many failed attempts by the Me-262A-2a of the 3/KG 51 though. Just keeping the discussion alive.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 1, 2004)

cool


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 1, 2004)

Well the Germans threw everything that had at the Remagen bridge. And I actually think the bridge finally gave out not from any one attack but from the combined effect of all the attacks as well as all of the vehicles that were driven across. 

I'm not sure about this, but a quick google search suggests that the first Me-262 to be shot down was lost to Spits of No. 401 squadron, Oct. 5, 1944. That may be a reference to first one down by Spits, or the British, or that squadron, I've got no idea.


----------



## plan_D (Jun 1, 2004)

I doubt that would be the first, and not on the basis that the Spitfire was incapable because it certainly was. The date would still suggest that the P-47 achieved the first kill, then again this could be a 'headless' claim by the pilot.


----------



## Erich (Jun 1, 2004)

there were several attacks by jets of both Me 262 and Ar 234. As said it was a combination of near misses and the weight of Allied vehicles plus it did not help to have several Falk batteries opposite side of the riover firing at the bridge while the Allies were crossing it.

have a wonderful air account by ace Don Bryan who encountered 4 Ar 234's on different occassions, the last being one of the jets that bombed the bridge, swooped out and up and that was his demise, as Don Bryan rolled pulled up some ugly g's and peppered the jets engines...........


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 1, 2004)

> just as clearly the Meteor should be out of the 'best jet' argument.



and why's that??

it was a jet, and it was the best, so there's no reason to discount it..............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 1, 2004)

but it wasnt the best, and thats the point weve been trying to get across to you for a long time 8)


----------



## rcristi (Jun 1, 2004)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> > just as clearly the Meteor should be out of the 'best jet' argument.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Bets of all WW2 jets? you're kiddin' right? If I remember well the Meteor was good only for shooting down flying bombs, this doesn't make it the best. There's no question about the best for WW2 was the 262.

Cheers


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 1, 2004)

thankyou 8) lanc, no-one agreese with you. give it up.


----------



## Erich (Jun 1, 2004)

I am quite curious as why you think the meteor is superior.......now don't have a cow, I am just asking in a civilizied way. Give some concrete reasons besides that it looks Kühl. References used ? pilot or ground crew interviews ? how many V-1's shot down ?

do some homework before you answer please...........

Erich ~


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 2, 2004)

> If I remember well the Meteor was good only for shooting down flying bombs, this doesn't make it the best



that's because it wasn't used for much else, if it had been used more as a fighter, it would have proved itself


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 2, 2004)

thats because there wasnt really any need to use it as a fighter


----------



## Erich (Jun 2, 2004)

lanc do yopu have the numbers of V-1's lost to the Meteor ? I am still interested in this..........

cheers


----------



## Erich (Jun 2, 2004)

I wonder as we get back to the topic at hand..........

for the Ar 234, would you guyz be interested in this ?

http://www.merriam-press.com/mono_200/m318.htm

E ~


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 2, 2004)

Shooting down V-1s isn't even that impressive. The P-47, P-51, P-61, Spit, Tempest, and Mossie all shot down V-1s.


----------



## Erich (Jun 2, 2004)

still curious though as to how many were downed by this little jet ....


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 2, 2004)

I don't know how many the Meteor got but I've heard the Tempest actually scored the most kills against V-1s. Between the first V-1 launch of June 13, 1944 and Sept. 1st, the Tempest had destroyed 638.


----------



## Erich (Jun 3, 2004)

that's quite a talley. I think and not having my P-61 data in front of me.........the P-61's knocked out some 20 or less. LG do you know how many were shot down by English AAA ?


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 3, 2004)

No I don't. I think the P-61 total might have been higher than that. But there weren't that many P-61s based in Western Europe, just two squadrons I believe.


----------



## Erich (Jun 3, 2004)

I'll check the 422nd and 425th records on the morrow.......... time for me to get some Zzzzzzzzzzzzzz as I am off to work at 5am


----------



## plan_D (Jun 3, 2004)

I don't know the exact number shot down by British AA but I know they found it very easy. After the first few they realised that the speed and altitude stayed the same which made easy prey for the 3.7 inch AAA. 

I've seen some really good footage of the gunners making short work of the 'doodlebugs'.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 3, 2004)

> I don't know how many the Meteor got but I've heard the Tempest actually scored the most kills against V-1s. Between the first V-1 launch of June 13, 1944 and Sept. 1st, the Tempest had destroyed 638.



that's because it was around the longest, it was the first plane to catch them................

and they figured out in the war that only one in seven V-1s actually got throught to london because of flak and aitcraft cover...............


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 8, 2004)

ohhh, the meteor's over taken the blitz bomber.................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 8, 2004)

dont know why, it wasnt better.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 9, 2004)

Well, the thing the Meteor was best at was shooting down V-1s and it wasn't even the best plane in the war at doing that so it can't possibly be the best jet.


----------



## plan_D (Jun 9, 2004)

I agree with LG. The Me-262 was better...and I will build a repilca of both the Me-262 and Meteor...and then destroy the Meteor with the Schwalbe...


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 9, 2004)

sounds like fun


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 9, 2004)

well here's the ultimate insult, i can't even be bothered to paint my model 262, but my meteor looks great, so there....................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 9, 2004)

the 262 doesnt need painting - it looks superb anyway.


----------



## plan_D (Jun 10, 2004)

That's true, the Schwalbe looks good painted or not. So you lose.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 11, 2004)

actually i don't......

you see the meteor model cost more than the 262 model, because the meteor's better, not because they're made by differant copmanies


----------



## Erich (Jun 11, 2004)

be serious Lanc can you please come up with interesting ideas as to why the Meteor in your estimation is better than the Me 262 please ?

odd that you find such pleasure in a small a/c that flew no ops other than the simple V-1 downings.

v/r

Erich ~


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 12, 2004)

you must note that it's a brittish aircraft, that may explain quite a bit..............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 12, 2004)

just because its british lanc, doesnt mean its good. if theres one thing that really annoys me, its patriotism.


----------



## plan_D (Jun 13, 2004)

Patriotism shouldn't annoy you C.C. Lying because of Patriotism, should. The B-25 Roc was British, is that good, Lanc?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 13, 2004)

most cirtainly not, i don't believe ever saying it was.....................


----------



## Stuka-99 (Jun 13, 2004)

262 totally


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 13, 2004)

yup, theres no competition for the 262.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 13, 2004)

exept the meteor.............


----------



## Erich (Jun 13, 2004)

you still have not come up with any refernces as to why the Meteor is superior because you cannot............... There aren't any !

Erich


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 24, 2004)

I just saw something very interesting on television. It was a special on the Me 262 and they had an interview with a British intelligence officer who had a chance to examine it after the war. He said it was frightening how far the Germans were ahead of them in some respects. Among the techonologies he mentioned were engines. I thought everyone would find that interesting.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 24, 2004)

but they didn't have enough of the special metals needed to produce them to last more than 10 hours......................


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 24, 2004)

Hey, I'm just the messanger. But apparently the British were impressed by at least some aspect of the technology of the German engines.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 25, 2004)

we were, but we didn't use any of their ideas, we developed our own jets....................


----------



## Dan (Jul 22, 2004)

i would say that it would easly be the ME262(i dunno why just because) and the ME163 isn't really worth making because.........well let's just say that thought it was rocket powered there were (quite often actually) leaks in the fuel tanks and.........well think of the Challenger: yea. Not a very good aircraft at all the ME163


----------



## plan_D (Jul 23, 2004)

There's a thing I just read on British engines during World War 2 which was about Rolls Royce, who took the engine development of Whittles W.2B off Rover. They were producing it to produce 1800 lbs worth of thrust, after visiting America and realising that America were producing them at 4000lbs or more they came back and designed the Rolls Royce Nene engine from scratch which produced 5000lbs worth of thrust and it was the most powerful engine in the world. 
The same engine was used in the MiG-15. And this engine was being designed in November 1941.


----------



## NightHawk (Aug 6, 2004)

bronzewhaler82 said:


> There were a suprising number of Jet aircraft developed during WW2, question is...which was the best?


not to many to choos from but the me-262 was the most known plane and proberly the best.


----------



## plan_D (Aug 6, 2004)

There were many designs, if not many that saw service. And welcome to the site. 8)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Aug 6, 2004)

> not to many to choos from but the me-262 was the most known plane and proberly the best.



i think it's fair to say the meteor's it's only real compotition...................


----------



## plan_D (Aug 6, 2004)

The Ar234 could be put in the running. It was a very effective Recon plane, and bomber.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Aug 6, 2004)

didn't do much though.................


----------



## plan_D (Aug 6, 2004)

Except bomb stuff and do recon missions, it did more than the B-17. The B-17 just bombed stuff.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Aug 6, 2004)

what i mean is that it can't claim many achivements....................


----------



## plan_D (Aug 6, 2004)

Remagen Bridge. Oh no, LG will waffle at me now.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Aug 6, 2004)

that's one, name one other famous achievment.................


----------



## plan_D (Aug 6, 2004)

Flying over the D-Day beachhead on the 8th June 1944 without being spotted by the Allies. In fact, never being spotted by the Allies as a Recon plane.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Aug 6, 2004)

but the mossie can also claim that point................


----------



## plan_D (Aug 6, 2004)

A) The Mosquito isn't a jet. B) No it can't. As the Germans knew about the Mosquito Recon plane, and even shot a few down. There are no Allied reports of Ar-234 making recon missions.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Aug 6, 2004)

but the mossie would have made raids that went undetected.......................


----------



## Lightning Guy (Aug 6, 2004)

The B-17s fewl plenty of recon missions in the Pacific. And the B-17s certainly had more of an impact on the war than the Ar-234.


----------



## toffi (Aug 6, 2004)

Me163 and Okha were both rocket planes.


----------



## plan_D (Aug 7, 2004)

Jesus Christ, LG. IT WAS A JOKE!!!


----------



## plan_D (Aug 7, 2004)

What was the thrust on the JUMO 004s?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Aug 7, 2004)

i've got them down at 1,962lbs each.....................


----------



## plan_D (Aug 7, 2004)

HAH! Crap.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Aug 7, 2004)

what??


----------



## plan_D (Aug 7, 2004)

1,900 lbs is crap. The Rolls-Royce Nene of November 1941 was 5000 lbs.


----------



## plan_D (Aug 7, 2004)

So much for German engines being as good as ours.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Aug 7, 2004)

but look at the materials they had to work with.......................


----------



## plan_D (Aug 7, 2004)

They were developing the engine from 1938, so they were in the same situation as Britain. I use this as a point that Britain was/is the superior engine builder in the world.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Aug 7, 2004)

i'll second that, and as we're the only two people on at the moment, there's no-one to prove us wrong, untill LG comes online..................


----------



## plan_D (Aug 7, 2004)

How can he prove us wrong? When I'm right.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Aug 7, 2004)

ok then, but you just know he's gonna try and oppose us..................


----------



## plan_D (Aug 7, 2004)

I don't get why they didn't put the Nene in the Meteor. I think they had an experiment with it, I don't know how it turned out though.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Aug 7, 2004)

they tried two differnt engines in the meteor, the Mk.I with two 1,700lb Welland Is, the Mk.II with two 2,000lb Darwent Is.....................


----------



## plan_D (Aug 7, 2004)

I heard they tried the Meteor with a Nene, let me check.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Aug 7, 2004)

maybe as an experimental version, but that's as far as it went..................


----------



## plan_D (Aug 7, 2004)

My mistake, I thought they might have tested it with a Nene. They should have done, it would have been great. Even a Derwent 5 'cos that would have been superior than the German engines, it was a very reliable engine. 

Still the Meteor did see action on the Continent, in ground strafing runs. No air-to-air combat though.


----------



## NightHawk (Aug 13, 2004)

TO BAD THE HORTON FIGHTER DIDING ENTER SURVICE i think in would kick allied bat.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Aug 13, 2004)

as would most german experimental types, but that's just it, they remained experimental types.....................


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Aug 14, 2004)

plan_D said:


> Jesus Christ, LG. IT WAS A JOKE!!!



I see Friday's stress relieving mission didn't turn out that well...




And as for English engines being the best, do you have any 50,000lb thrust engines?


I know power doesn't make an engine all around better, but four of those on the heaviest combat plane ever produced (Tupolev Tu-160 ''Blackjack'' Swing-Wing Bomber) create some amazing results!


----------



## Lightning Guy (Aug 14, 2004)

Russian engines also have some notoriously short operational lives.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Aug 14, 2004)

but surely no shorter than 10 hours...................


----------



## NightHawk (Aug 14, 2004)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> as would most german experimental types, but that's just it, they remained experimental types.....................


 hell if the war would go long enough who knows what crazy thnigs they would have thought of. stalin liked to see his people geting sloughterd, for exemple take staligrad or the germen fire kklled you or you fell back and friendly fire did. in other exemples iv been told that thay would send people in front of tanks on a mein field so they will step on a mein and blow up makeing a safe pasege for the tanks. so its no wounder that there engines lasted only 10 hours.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Aug 14, 2004)

The MiG-25 Foxbat had to have its engines changed after virtually every mission.


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Aug 14, 2004)

That's a hell of a beast!


I love that plane, it's so no-frills it barely works.

The new Mig-31 is more advanced, but that's for pansies.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Aug 17, 2004)

MiG-31s would decimate MiG-25s in a head-to-head battle. The Foxhound has better sensors and better weapons.


----------



## lesofprimus (Aug 17, 2004)

I agree 100% LG...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 21, 2004)

I will have to say the Me-262. It set the standard for past jets and even set the standard for many of the first post war jets. Tha Arado was also a great plane. It was a remarkable bomber and looked awesome too. I think there were many other German X-planes that could have been great also if they had just finished them.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 22, 2004)

> It set the standard for past jets and even set the standard for many of the first post war jets



the meteor F.VIII set the standard for post war jets.............


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 22, 2004)

I disagree, so many Luftwaffe jets were the basis for aircraft used today. The A-10 and the Stealth bomber are 2 of them that really stand out.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 22, 2004)

i dissagree still.............


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 22, 2004)

Thats the great thing about this everyone can have an opinion and we can all discuss it.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 22, 2004)

Im with Adler, planes such as the 262 and Go-229 were by far the pioneers. I believe I read somewhere that the Brits studied a 262 when they were designed the post-war Meteors.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 22, 2004)

A lot of nations used the 262 as a basis. Look at the Japanese I dont know what they called there version and the russians did too, both basically copied the 262.


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Nov 22, 2004)

Lightning Guy said:


> MiG-31s would decimate MiG-25s in a head-to-head battle. The Foxhound has better sensors and better weapons.





Ehhh....



The -25 is faster, anyway...


Like I said, the Foxhound is more advanced, but I prefer the Foxbat.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 23, 2004)

The foxbat was only fast at level flight. It could not do advanced maneuvers at mach 3 so if it had to fight it had to slow down. It was a better interceptor then a fighter.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 23, 2004)

> I believe I read somewhere that the Brits studied a 262 when they were designed the post-war Meteors.



yes but if you're suggesting we used their technology that's a very common miss-conception, we did study their engines, but we carried on developing our own and used our own technology..............



> russians did too, both basically copied the 262.



the main post war russian jet was the Mig 15, i fail to see how that is similar to the me-262???


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 23, 2004)

What I was saying is that the Russians built an aircraft that was similar to the Me-262, looked just like it. I do agree though that the best post war russain jet was the Mig-15. In fact I dont think until the Sabre came out was there anything that could match it. But I dont know how you could make a post war meteor similar to a Me-262. There was no way. But either way the Me-262 was monumental in helping design post war jet aircraft for the allies. Both sides studdied it a lot, I think Chuck Yeager even flew it on several occasions.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 23, 2004)

it influenced the british deigns very little...........


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 23, 2004)

That maybe I can believe. But until they came out with the Lightning in the 50's I personally and in my opinion dont think the Brits had a very good jet fighter and neither did the Americans.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 23, 2004)

we had the hunter which is still in sevice with some air forces today..................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 23, 2004)

I dont think the hunter was in service back then...


----------



## Anonymous (Nov 24, 2004)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> That maybe I can believe. But until they came out with the Lightning in the 50's I personally and in my opinion dont think the Brits had a very good jet fighter and neither did the Americans.



Two P-80 Shooting Stars were operating out of Rome before VE day. These were competative with the Me-262, probably even superior in fighter vs. fighter combat (they were certainly more manuverable).

The P-80 was a decent Jet for its time.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 24, 2004)

The P-80 was no more than a decent attempt to service a jet fighter. I believe that had the war taken on a few more years the allies would have cought up with the germans in jet technology and I think at the current time they were not far behind but the 262 was what you compared all jets of that time too.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 24, 2004)

RG_Lunatic said:


> DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
> 
> 
> > That maybe I can believe. But until they came out with the Lightning in the 50's I personally and in my opinion dont think the Brits had a very good jet fighter and neither did the Americans.
> ...



The P-80 NEVER saw service in WW2


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 24, 2004)

I really dont know if they did or not but I dont think it was a very good jet.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 24, 2004)

i think the P-80 was to make it's first combat mission a few hours before the war's end.................


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 24, 2004)

Like I said I dont know anything about that.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 24, 2004)

i know very little about it...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 24, 2004)

Atleast were all honest about that.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 24, 2004)




----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 24, 2004)

Im confident it didnt see service. Id stake my steak on it


----------



## Anonymous (Nov 24, 2004)

cheddar cheese said:


> The P-80 NEVER saw service in WW2



That is wrong. Two P-80's and were sent to Italy and two to England late in 1944. The two in Rome flew CAP duties over Rome, I'm not sure what the two sent to England did.

The two sent to Rome were primarily there to encourage Allied pilots that the US had its own jet, but these did fly combat sorties (they were fully armed and had orders to engage if the enemy came within their combat zone), none did. At the same time pilots were being trained in the new jet stateside.

So it really depends on how you define "service". I would agree a plane that never saw action on the front lines is not much of a contender, but it depends on the criteria of the question - are we talking about technology or about effectiveness?

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 24, 2004)

I dont think the P-80 was even flying in 1944, it didnt at least take to the air in 1945.

Id like to see some evidence that backs up your statements 8)


----------



## Anonymous (Nov 24, 2004)

cheddar cheese said:


> I dont think the P-80 was even flying in 1944, it didnt at least take to the air in 1945.
> 
> Id like to see some evidence that backs up your statements 8)



http://www.nasm.si.edu/research/aero/aircraft/lockheed_xp80.htm

Also, my college roomate's uncle was one of the pilots who flew CAP over roam in a P-80. I met him once and we discussed his WWII combat experiances (mostly in the P-51B). He was pissed off because he only needed one kill to become an ace, and he was flying around for months over Rome in the hottest plane the US had to offer and he never saw a single bandit. The temptation to violate orders and cross the water to Yugoslavia, where there were pleanty of bandits, was very compelling.

As you can see from the link above, the P-80 was in the air in mid '44 and four were deployed to Europe in the fall of '44.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 25, 2004)

Ah but they were pre-production prototypes, the actual finish plane never saw service.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 25, 2004)

Thats interesting I have only talked to a few pilots from WW2 and none of them had flown Jets. It is always great hearing the stories from the WW2 vets. My grandfather was doctor and Major in the Wehrmacht on the eastern front and his stories especially about Stallingrad and then in a Russian POW camp were very interesting. My other grandfather who landed served in the US Army landed on Normandy's Omaha Beach and his stories are amazing. Unfortunatly both are dead now and so are some of the stories that they never told. It must be hard to tell some of them.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 25, 2004)

Im going on a history trip to Normandy for a week on January 31st - I miss 5 days off school and I cant wait.


----------



## Anonymous (Nov 26, 2004)

cheddar cheese said:


> Ah but they were pre-production prototypes, the actual finish plane never saw service.



Well, that is an issue of nomenclature. The same could be said of almost all 262's and Ta-152's that flew. They were undergoing constant change trying to get them to work reliably. These were not built as testing prototypes, they were early production units. They have the YP designation because they were sent to europe for combat trials.

Armed P-80's were flyig CAP over Rome and had authority to engage the enemy if the enemy approached Rome. To me that's a combat mission, but not actual combat. My point is the tech did exist during WWII, in fact pretty well in advance of VE day.

The USA was just a lot more conservative at that point than the Germans. There were still a lot of "accidents" happening with the P-80, so it was not deployed for frontline combat. The same is true of the 262, but it was deployed for combat. You have read of the terminal dive issues with the 262? Of the pilot who went up to test and document the problem, put his 262 into a mild high speed dive, and then calmly reported his observations all the way down to the instant he ate dirt?

=S=

Lunatic

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 26, 2004)

I knew the Me-262 had problems like that but I never new that someone went and did what he did just to document it.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 26, 2004)

> They have the YP designation because they were sent to europe for combat trials



Pre-production P-38's had the YP designation but were never sent for combat trials.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 26, 2004)

YP is just the designation given to a pre production aircraft. XP is given to experimental and then it goes to YP. The way it works today for instance and I will use the Blackhawk only because that is the aircraft I know the best. When the protoypes came out they were designated XH-60's. They would build several of them and try differnet things on them. Then the pre productions came out and they were designated YH-60's. The YH's were given to the Army so they could do there own testing on them, then they inturn give there evaluations to the company that builds them and they make changes. When the final product enters production it loses the Y designation and became the UH-60A. The same was for aircraft in WW2 they were XP-80, then YP-80 and then finally P-80.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 26, 2004)

I know, but he was saying that the reason they were called YP-80's was because they were sent for combat trials.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 26, 2004)

Because they were in Europe had nothing to do it.


----------



## Anonymous (Nov 26, 2004)

I'll try to find the account and post it.

He was a very brave man, but at that point in the war, I think he figured his days were numbered anyway. He hoped that by documenting it and reporting what he was experiancing clearly they might figure out what was going on. He may also have thought he was such a good pilot he would be able to pull the plane out of the dive.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 26, 2004)

Ok, cool 8) Ill look forward to that


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 26, 2004)

Me too.


----------



## mosquitoman (Jan 21, 2005)

That guy sounds a bit like an Ohka pilot, they were an incdibly stupid idea. The Americans called them Baka (Japanese for fool) which says all for my thoughts on them


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 21, 2005)

Sometimes people do amazing things for the love of aviation to try and solve problems so that no one else has to die from them. It is the same concept when we go out and do test flights, we go wiht minimal crew necessary and the point is, if anyone dies in the testing it is just us and not an aircraft full of passengers.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 21, 2005)

how many can you get in the back of a black hawk??


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 21, 2005)

With seats 11 plus 4 crew, without seats 24 plus 4 crew (crew in seats ofcourse)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 21, 2005)

you get any pics of your bird with that taxi sign on it??


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 22, 2005)

You found the one with flames on yet?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 22, 2005)

No we actually never put the taxi signs on the aircraft it is just something that we wanted to do, and to be honest I have not looked for the flames pictures but I will try and find them on my day off.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 23, 2005)

i take it it's that grey colour at the mo??


----------



## plan_D (Jan 23, 2005)

I think his will be green. Sea Hawks are normally grey, the USN Blackhawks MH-60 (Right?)


----------



## lesofprimus (Jan 23, 2005)

Yes this is true pD.....


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 23, 2005)

plan_D said:


> I think his will be green. Sea Hawks are normally grey, the USN Blackhawks MH-60 (Right?)



No the MH-60K is used by the Army and the Airforce. The Army's is used for special operations and the Airforce calls theres the Pavehawk and it is used for special operations and search and rescue. The Navy uses the SH-60B Seahawk. The armys Blackhawks are painted OD green and some of the special operations ones are painted black. The Airforce paints theres camoflaged and the Navy's are grey. The main varients of the hawk are the UH-60A, L, M, MH-60K, SH-60B, SH-60C and the Coast Guard has a varient called the Jayhawk and is painted Orange and White.


----------



## plan_D (Jan 23, 2005)

I knew the name, I just couldn't remember the designation.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 24, 2005)

The Navy does have aircraft called MH's the MH-53E SuperStallion.


----------



## plan_D (Jan 24, 2005)

Yes but I still failed. I'm normally good with US Helicopter designations.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 25, 2005)

I pretty much know most of them. When I was younger my father went to the US Army Flight School at Fort Rucker and became a UH-1H Huey pilot. We lived there for several years and I used to go to the US Army Aviation Museum there and look at all the helicopters. They have pretty much everything that they flew and even a lot of the experimental aircraft that never made it. Then after we left there I used to go to work with him and put his flight helmet on and sit in the Hueys and pretend to fly them. By the time I was 8 I could tell you which type it was just by the sound of the engines and blades. Now that I am in the army and flying Blackhawks I still get to keep up with it pretty much.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 25, 2005)

well i couldn't tell stuff like that but compared to most other people i know i'm an aviation god!!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 25, 2005)

I have a whole library on aviation in my house but I still dont know everything. It would probably take me a lifetime to learn everything but it is all very interesting to me and I enjoy learning what I can.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 25, 2005)

i've decieded to spend more of the time i speand readin about aircraft on my precios RAF.............


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 26, 2005)

What I think is interesting in Helo tech right now is the move to thrust vector tails instead of rotors. This appears to be much superior in many ways.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## plan_D (Jan 26, 2005)

You mean NOTOL, right? Or something like that. The Police Helicopter for South Yorkshire has that.


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 26, 2005)

plan_D said:


> You mean NOTOL, right? Or something like that. The Police Helicopter for South Yorkshire has that.



NOTAR. It means (literally) "NO TAil Rotor". Evidently most of the noise from a conventional chopper comes from the rotor.

I saw a report on these on Discovery Wings (now "the military channel") and they appear to be superior in almost every way to rotor designs, and much quieter. These are the only kind of helo's allowed inside the Grand Canyon because of the noise levels.

Here is a very nice web page on NOTAR choppers:

http://www.kulikovair.com/Notar.htm

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## plan_D (Jan 26, 2005)

Yes, and it's extremely simple. Amazing they didn't think of it earlier.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 26, 2005)

RG_Lunatic said:


> plan_D said:
> 
> 
> > You mean NOTOL, right? Or something like that. The Police Helicopter for South Yorkshire has that.
> ...



You are 100% correct. That is the main reason behind it. I am not sure too much about the tail thrust that comes with the NOTAR or the fan tail helos but I do know that the major disadvantage from earlier experiments with it was the lower tail thrust that you would get from it, but obviously they were able to get past that problem. Noise is the biggest problem with a conventional tail roter and no matter what you do with it whether you tilt it or put the blades at a 45 degree angel instead of a 90 degree angle like the Apache it will not reduce the noise signifigantly because of the fact that the the rotor wash from the main blades beats the wash from the tail blades which in turn causes the greater then wanted noise. NOTAR takes care of that problem because there is not wash from the blades since they are not there. 



Plan_D said:


> Yes, and it's extremely simple. Amazing they didn't think of it earlier.



They have actually been toying around with it and experimenting with it since the 1960's. One of the earliest aircraft to successfully employ the NOTAR system was MD-500 varients.


----------



## evangilder (Jan 26, 2005)

Interesting, although a Helicopter without a tail rotor looks strange to me.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 26, 2005)

Here is a history and some examples:



> DEVELOPMENT
> 
> Tail rotors have been a necessary evil on conventional helicopters with single, main rotors. They help counter the torque, or twisting force, applied to the airframe by the engine drive as it proceeds through the transmission to the main rotor blades. Without a counter force, especially when hovering, the airframe, or body, would tend to spin in the opposite direction to the drive rotation. The tail rotor on a conventional single rotor craft also provides directional control.
> 
> ...



And excuse me I stand corrected I said that they have been toying with it since the 1960's. The idea actually began in the 1940's but it was not until 1975 that the program was really started.


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 26, 2005)

More powerful turbines with more available exahaust thrust and improvements in non-turbulent thrust vectoring technology were needed to make NOTAR's effective. Obviously, you need to be able to vary the thrust in a very controlled manner regaurdless of engine power output levels.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 27, 2005)

Exactly.


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 31, 2005)

Last night on THC there were two documentaries. "Secret weapons of the Allies" and "Secret weapons of the Soviets".

They showed that the Mig-15 did not derive from German jet technology, it was in the works in the early 40's and they already knew about swept wings. The Russians actually had quite a jet engine project going, they just lacked the necessary alloys to make a viable combat unit till after the war.

Likewise, they showed Northrop designs that used swept wings (mostly forward edge swept but rear edge not so much) as early as 1942. Lockheed's first jet design even had an afterburner designed into it! (but was never built, it was considered too complicated and the F-80 was designed to be easier to build).






=S=

Lunatic


----------



## lesofprimus (Jan 31, 2005)

I watched both of those programs... That Russian Jet back in 1942 was pretty cool.... Finding out that at close to the speed of sound, there is a pressure buildup on the front intakes.... Killed the Test Pilot and they cancelled the project.....

Thats fast.... They said it was the fastest thing in the air during WWII....


----------



## Erich (Feb 1, 2005)

well sad for the Soviets they did not have an operational jet during the war so how could the rocket fighter designed by them be the fastest thing in WW 2. by the way German techs had developed swept and foreward wing desings in the 1930's.....I've got copies of the records....helps to work for the gov


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 4, 2005)

lesofprimus said:


> I watched both of those programs... That Russian Jet back in 1942 was pretty cool.... Finding out that at close to the speed of sound, there is a pressure buildup on the front intakes.... Killed the Test Pilot and they cancelled the project.....
> 
> Thats fast.... They said it was the fastest thing in the air during WWII....



Interesting...I thought the fastest thing in WW2 was the Bereznyak-Isayev BI-1 Rocket plane, which was also in 1942. Or are we actually talking about the same thing?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 7, 2005)

Whow now, there where we go!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 16, 2005)

What was that all about?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 17, 2005)

I dont know, just blurting things out again, its my turrets.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Feb 17, 2005)

It's a common problem. Puss bag!! PUSS BAG!!!  

See?


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 17, 2005)

Everything i say on this forum has been something ive randomly blurted out


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 17, 2005)

We can tell.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 18, 2005)

Cheek!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 18, 2005)

reminds me of a conversation i just had with a friend, different kind of cheek though...............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 19, 2005)

I hope it wasnt tongue-in-cheek


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 19, 2005)

nope, keep guessing


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 19, 2005)

Fine, dont get my joke


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 6, 2005)

Okay I wont.


----------



## jer (Mar 17, 2005)

You forgot the Lockheed P-80 Shooting Star, which qualifies as a WWII jet, since it did enter USAAF service just before the end of hostilities. The first squadron was in shipment to Europe, where it was expected to participate in the first jet vs jet combat with the ME 262, when Germany surrendered. Being too short ranged for use in the Pacific, the type did not see actual combat in WWII. Re-designated F-80, the Shooting Star did go on to see combat against MiGs in the early stages of the Korean war. Soon outclassed by newer fighter types, though, it served out the rest of that war in the ground attack role. I would say that the P-80 was hands down the best jet of WWII, since it was the last jet produced in that war and continued on into the next era of jet combat.


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 17, 2005)

Already been through this Jer.

There were two P-80's in Italy and two in Britain a month or two before VE day. There were about 50 of them by the end of June in the USA, and more rolling off the assembly lines. There is little doubt that had the War in Europe not been a done deal the P-80 would have been available even earlier, and that by the end of summer, late-fall by the latest, they'd have outnumbered the Me262 and all other German jets combine.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 17, 2005)

But how would it have stacked up against the Ho-229 and Ta-183? Both of which had a chance of seeing service, had the war gone on a bit longer.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 17, 2005)

for god's sake the Ho-229 was too unstable too be any use!!


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 17, 2005)

cheddar cheese said:


> But how would it have stacked up against the Ho-229 and Ta-183? Both of which had a chance of seeing service, had the war gone on a bit longer.



The war would have had to go on a lot longer for either of those planes to see service. The Ho-229 was probably not a viable design. And just what engine was going to power the Ta-183?

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## jer (Mar 18, 2005)

I did not mean to sound like the only one who knew about the P-80 in WWII. It's just that I am brand new to this site and the page that asks you to vote for the best jet of WWII did not include the P-80 as an option. So I thought it was worth mentioning. Now I come to find out that most everyone on this site knows as much as I do about it. Forgive me for being presumptuous.


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 18, 2005)

Jer - I agree with you, it should be listed. But for whatever reason, it is not. It seems to me that if combat usage is the criteria for inclusion, the Meteor and Aircomet should not be on the list. If those jets fit the criteria, so should the P-80. And the Me163 and Ohka were rocket planes, not jets - so they clearly do not belong in this poll.

Since the P-80 is not in the list, I've not voted.

Sorry if you got "rough housed" m8, but if you look back through this topic you will see the P-80 has been throughly argued in this thread.

Welcome to the board!

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## KraziKanuK (Mar 18, 2005)

The Meteor saw combat firing its guns in anger over the continent so I don't know why you want it excluded.

For sure, the Aircomet should not be on the list, and the Ohka and Me 163, as mentioned.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Mar 18, 2005)

jer said:


> I did not mean to sound like the only one who knew about the P-80 in WWII. It's just that I am brand new to this site and the page that asks you to vote for the best jet of WWII did not include the P-80 as an option. So I thought it was worth mentioning. Now I come to find out that most everyone on this site knows as much as I do about it. Forgive me for being presumptuous.


I agree with you that it should be included. It may not have actually seen combat before the war ended, but it was there.

Few people here are anything like experts. _I'm_ certainly not, but I do take quite an interest in the subject and enjoy reading the information presented by the more learned members of this forum. Some pretty interesting debates occur regularly.

Welcome.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 18, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> for god's sake the Ho-229 was too unstable too be any use!!



Which completely contrasts everything else ive read...


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 18, 2005)

KraziKanuK said:


> The Meteor saw combat firing its guns in anger over the continent so I don't know why you want it excluded.
> 
> For sure, the Aircomet should not be on the list, and the Ohka and Me 163, as mentioned.



I thought the only combat the Meteor saw was against V1's. ???

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 18, 2005)

cheddar cheese said:


> the lancaster kicks ass said:
> 
> 
> > for god's sake the Ho-229 was too unstable too be any use!!
> ...



But there really is no reliable source to support those claims. Furthermore, in post war flyng wing designs, involving both German documents and samples and many of the German engineers involved in the Ho-229, it was found a flying wing was too unstable to work until fly-by-wire controlls were possible. Some of the designs did fly, but that did not make them suitable for combat use, there is every reason to believe the same holds true for the Ho-229. Testing never got very far, if it had it would surely have run into the same problems Northrop encountered.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 18, 2005)

RG_Lunatic said:


> KraziKanuK said:
> 
> 
> > The Meteor saw combat firing its guns in anger over the continent so I don't know why you want it excluded.
> ...




Im pretty sure it did too. Nothing ive read says otherwise.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 18, 2005)

616 Sqn was based in Belgium for a period in 1945 in which they say some action..........


----------



## mosquitoman (Mar 18, 2005)

They were the first Meteor equipped squadron


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 18, 2005)

Well, this seems to indicate the Meteor saw no arial combat...



> A detachment of four meteors were sent to Holland as a prelude to the squadron moving into the front line. They were painted all white so as to be easily seen by the friendly troops they flew over. The aim was to familiarize everyone to the sight and especially the sound of the new aircraft with no propeller, It was done to help prevent them being shot down by friendly fire.
> 
> When the rest of the {616} squadron moved to Holland in 1945 they were immediately tasked with Ground Attack Missions however they did not get much opportunity because the war came to an end on 1945. In this short time they successfully destroyed a great many enemy convoy trucks, trains and aircraft on the ground.
> http://www.turner.force9.co.uk/616sqd2.htm



=S=

Lunatic


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 18, 2005)

which is why they were chosen to go onto the continent..........


----------



## KraziKanuK (Mar 18, 2005)

Oh, so now the jet has to be in aerial combat.  That leaves the P-80 out, for sure.

The Meteors were manuevering to engage some 190s when they were jumped by some Spits.


The Horten was a delightful a/c to fly.


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 18, 2005)

KraziKanuK said:


> Oh, so now the jet has to be in aerial combat.  That leaves the P-80 out, for sure.
> 
> The Meteors were manuevering to engage some 190s when they were jumped by some Spits.



Which would still leave it out of the running. I figure if the standard is "must have enaged in combat", only the Me262, He162, and Ar234 qualify. If the standard was "must have flown a combat sortie", then that adds in the Meteor and P-80 (which flew CAP missions over realtively safe ground, but that is still a combat sortie - it was within German range).

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 18, 2005)

I think this should be for planes that flew sorties, in which case the P-80 has to be the best.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 18, 2005)

Since when is ground combat such as destroying ground vehicals not a combat mission. Every mission I flew over Iraq was a combat mission and what was my basic threat. Ground fire, there was no arial threat. So if the Meteor did see action against ground targets, then yes it did see combat and flew combat missions in WW2 which means it should be in the poll. It saw more action than the P-80!


----------



## KraziKanuK (Mar 18, 2005)

RG_Lunatic said:


> KraziKanuK said:
> 
> 
> > Oh, so now the jet has to be in aerial combat.  That leaves the P-80 out, for sure.
> ...



You insult the memories of all those killed in a2g missions.  

If one wants to really push their imagination then the P-80 flights could be called a combat sortie. The Ar234 only dropped bombs and took photos, yet you want to disqualify the Meteor.


----------



## delcyros (Mar 18, 2005)

I would like to see the P-80 on this poll. It was the pinnacle of allied jet development and it would have seen action, sure. It would have been a close decision between He-162 and P-80 in a dogfight (if flown by good pilots). The Me-262 would have been as well, if properly improved. Back to the Ho-IX: There is a fact that indicates it´s stability. All Horten designs flow properly (except Ho-I). The Ho-VII could fly on one engine and keep cycling at treetop altitude and very low speed. You cannot compare the Horten flying wing designs with Northtrop design, because all US designs proved to lack a very important point: The bell shaped lift distribution of the wing. Horten himself tried to convince them, but they refused his help. Only a bell shaped lift distribution can make a flying wing stable enough as long as you don´t have fly by wire controlls. The Ho-II glider could do things you wouldn´t believe! (There is an analysis of the benefits of the bell shaped lift distribution of the Horten glider planes for their reconstruction in the Technisches Museum Berlin) However, the Ho-IX is a bit overrated in my eyes, it could barely have flown that fast (607 mph), that would result in compressability problems at any altitude (if Hortens estimation of critical Mach speed was correct). The P-80 was good in all points (including range for a 1st generation jet), that has to be underlined. The Meteor would have an impact, too. MK. III was no match for the Me-262 but MK.IV (yes it flown only after VE-day) would have been great! And not to forget the Vampire...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 18, 2005)

KraziKanuK said:


> RG_Lunatic said:
> 
> 
> > KraziKanuK said:
> ...



I agree with you completly. Air to Ground is just as much combat as arial. As I stated above, my main threat was from surface to air fire, there was not even an arial threat. But I guess getting shot at by SAM's and gunfire from the ground is not combat, and I guess that the meteor attacking ground convoys was not combat either. I think the meteor did see combat if it did attack ground convoys, how can you say it did not?



delcyros said:


> Back to the Ho-IX: There is a fact that indicates it´s stability. All Horten designs flow properly (except Ho-I). The Ho-VII could fly on one engine and keep cycling at treetop altitude and very low speed. You cannot compare the Horten flying wing designs with Northtrop design, because all US designs proved to lack a very important point: The bell shaped lift distribution of the wing. Horten himself tried to convince them, but they refused his help. Only a bell shaped lift distribution can make a flying wing stable enough as long as you don´t have fly by wire controlls. The Ho-II glider could do things you wouldn´t believe! (There is an analysis of the benefits of the bell shaped lift distribution of the Horten glider planes for their reconstruction in the Technisches Museum Berlin) However, the Ho-IX is a bit overrated in my eyes, it could barely have flown that fast (607 mph), that would result in compressability problems at any altitude (if Hortens estimation of critical Mach speed was correct).



On this I will agree with you completely also. Thankyou that someone else agrees with me on this matter.


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 19, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Since when is ground combat such as destroying ground vehicals not a combat mission. Every mission I flew over Iraq was a combat mission and what was my basic threat. Ground fire, there was no arial threat. So if the Meteor did see action against ground targets, then yes it did see combat and flew combat missions in WW2 which means it should be in the poll. It saw more action than the P-80!



I didn't say it wasn't a mission. But it was not aerial combat. If a "combat sortie" is the requirement, then both the Meteor and P-80 are justified, since both flew combat sorties during WWII. I'll agree the Meteor is more legitimate than the P-80, but only just barely.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 19, 2005)

Have added the P-80 to the poll. Will do the same to the other best jet poll.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Mar 19, 2005)

Yeah, so everybody shut up!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 19, 2005)

Perhaps I should add the Reggiane Re-2007


----------



## delcyros (Mar 19, 2005)

I will go for the Shooting Star. Thanks that it is added, now!
It still had some shortcomings by may 1945 (air intake..), but it would have been a formidable and reliable air-superiority jet fighter. In an one-one dogfight I would probably choose the nimble He-162, but it missed the range of the P-80. For interceptions I would go for the Me-163 B Komet (just for fun, don´t take me serious), the Me-262 would have been the better choice for that task.


----------



## mosquitoman (Mar 19, 2005)

A Komet would be fun to fly, not fun to land though!


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 19, 2005)

delcyros said:


> I will go for the Shooting Star. Thanks that it is added, now!
> It still had some shortcomings by may 1945 (air intake..), but it would have been a formidable and reliable air-superiority jet fighter. In an one-one dogfight I would probably choose the nimble He-162, but it missed the range of the P-80. For interceptions I would go for the Me-163 B Komet (just for fun, don´t take me serious), the Me-262 would have been the better choice for that task.



Biggest problem with the P-80A was the fuel cap. Many were lost when the fuel cap was not put on properly and came off just after takeoff, spewing fule all over the rear half of the fuselage resulting in a flying fireball.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 19, 2005)

mosquitoman said:


> A Komet would be fun to fly, not fun to land though!



Yes, it would be fun to take off in one of them, have the one of the fuel tanks breeched, and be dissolved alive in the liquid.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 19, 2005)

Maybe that kinda thing turns him on


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 19, 2005)

RG_Lunatic said:


> DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
> 
> 
> > Since when is ground combat such as destroying ground vehicals not a combat mission. Every mission I flew over Iraq was a combat mission and what was my basic threat. Ground fire, there was no arial threat. So if the Meteor did see action against ground targets, then yes it did see combat and flew combat missions in WW2 which means it should be in the poll. It saw more action than the P-80!
> ...



Just checking


----------



## KraziKanuK (Mar 19, 2005)

RG_Lunatic said:


> mosquitoman said:
> 
> 
> > A Komet would be fun to fly, not fun to land though!
> ...



Methyl Alcohol C-Stoff won't do much to you but the Hydrogen Peroxide T-Stoff is another matter. 

Here is an article that should dispell some of those dumb myths about the Me163. http://www.flightjournal.com/articles/me163/me163_1.asp


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 19, 2005)

I still dont think I would have loved to have flown one. Too quick of a flight.


----------



## mosquitoman (Mar 20, 2005)

cheddar cheese said:


> Maybe that kinda thing turns him on



Doesn't do it for me I'm afraid  
It's about the closest you can get to a modern jet's performance and they look great. Still a flying bomb though


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 20, 2005)

Yup. They would have been more effective than V1's


----------



## mosquitoman (Mar 20, 2005)

If only it had the range!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 20, 2005)

Yeah the pilot just had to steer it into the target and all that volotile fuel would blow everything to hell!


----------



## delcyros (Mar 20, 2005)

I didn´t know of the P-80 problems with the fuel cap, thanks. I did noticed that they had some problems until late 1945 with the air flow seperation at the air intake. That would result in a remarkable loss of power under high-g- maneuvering or at high speeds. Nothing unsolverable. 
The Me-163 B was perhaps the most exciting plane of ww2. A danger for all. As a fast climbing interceptor it could have made better if equipped with 24 R4M missiles (like some A-models for tests) under the wings and the MK-108 removed (for installing some SG-500). Such a weaponry would allow a single attack with extreme power (the fuel consumption usually allowed only one pass, anyway): fire off the R4M salvo at 1000 m and with a little bravery of the pilot and level flight only you can hit the bombers with the SG-500. Next would be a quickly disappearing Komet. 
However, I stay with the P-80 for general use.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 20, 2005)

delcyros said:


> The Me-163 B was perhaps the most exciting plane of ww2. A danger for all. As a fast climbing interceptor it could have made better if equipped with 24 R4M missiles (like some A-models for tests) under the wings and the MK-108 removed (for installing some SG-500). Such a weaponry would allow a single attack with extreme power (the fuel consumption usually allowed only one pass, anyway): fire off the R4M salvo at 1000 m and with a little bravery of the pilot and level flight only you can hit the bombers with the SG-500. Next would be a quickly disappearing Komet.



I agree. If they could have some how given the aircraft more time on station before the fuel ran out, maybe even just 30 minutes it would have made the aircraft possibly a devistating weapon. The pilot would have to be very good though to actually hit the slow bombers at such high speeds.

The Me-263 was an attempt to do this however only 2 were built and it is highly unlikely that it ever flew under rocket power. If this aircraft had come out a bit sooner and gone into production may have been able to do something, however we fortunatly will never know.

Type: Interceptor
Origin: Messerscmitt AG
Models: A
First Flight: August 1944
Service Delivery: None
Final Delivery: None
Engine:
Walter HWK 109-509C-4 rocket
Main Thrust Chamber: 3,750 lb. (1700kg)
Cruise Thrust Chamber: 660 lb. (300kg)

Dimensions:
Wing span: 9.50m (31 ft. 2 in.)
Length: 7.88m (25 ft. 10.5 in.)
Height: 2.70m (8 ft. 10.25 in.)
Wing Surface Area: N/A

Weights:
Empty: 2105kg (4,640 lbs.)
Maximum: 5150kg (11,354 lbs.)
Performance:
Maximum Speed:
1000km/h (620 mph)
Time to 15,000m: 3 Minutes
Endurance: About 1 Hr. including 15 min. under power
Service Ceiling: N/A

Armament:
Two 30mm Mk 108 Cannon

Avionics:
N/A


----------



## delcyros (Mar 20, 2005)

The Me-263 was improved, but they still used guns, exclusively. That is hardly understandable, since the R4M was well suited for high speed interceptions. All in all even it´s flight time was only 2-4 minutes better than the Me-163. However, it´s critical Mach speed was a little better. (..and it doesn´t look so good)


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 20, 2005)

All in all I think it was a great improvement.


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 20, 2005)

What they needed to do was figure out some way to air-launch the 163 from high altitude. Starting from altitude, it would not have to climb (obviously) and thus would not need so much thrust. It could have been made smaller (6,000 lbs loaded) with a smaller rocket engine could have been used, which would have allowed more powered flight time and pleanty of speed, and perhaps another gun or two.

In my opinion, for bomber interception, the upward firing single shot 30mm's were extremely promising. These were automatically fired when the 163 passed under the target by photo sensors - I believe 2 bombers were destroyed by 163's with this armament.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 20, 2005)

RG_Lunatic said:


> What they needed to do was figure out some way to air-launch the 163 from high altitude. Starting from altitude, it would not have to climb (obviously) and thus would not need so much thrust. It could have been made smaller (6,000 lbs loaded) with a smaller rocket engine could have been used, which would have allowed more powered flight time and pleanty of speed, and perhaps another gun or two.
> 
> In my opinion, for bomber interception, the upward firing single shot 30mm's were extremely promising. These were automatically fired when the 163 passed under the target by photo sensors - I believe 2 bombers were destroyed by 163's with this armament.
> 
> ...



That is a pretty good idea, and was used by the US in its rocket powered aircraft program in the 50's and 60's. Most of them dropped from B-29's and B-52's. I wonder though if there would have been an aircraft the Germans had that could carry the Me-163 to alltitude. Maybe the Fw-200, Ju-188, Ju-288, Ju-388 or a modified Ju-88 in used in the Mistel configuration only the Ju-88 carrying the 163, probably most likely a Ju-390. Maybe the Do-317, Fw-191, Hs-130 if they had ever gone into production.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 20, 2005)

or a komet and He-177, man that'd be funny.....


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 20, 2005)

If the 177's engines didn't explode.


----------



## delcyros (Mar 20, 2005)

It would surely have been a very hot and flamable Mistel!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 20, 2005)

Yes it would have.


----------



## delcyros (Mar 20, 2005)

In general, I think it is problematic to suggest operating a smaller rocket driven plane by other planes. In the case of the Me-163 I would consider such a try very silly. It was designed to provide interception abilities at short range (Objektschutz). That would be difficult in another plane (they would need to patrol at high altitude with it´s load), a waste of fuel. There were, however, plans for such a use (Parasitjäger) with small fighters and Arado 234 C as well as other planes. The upward firing 30mm projectiles are the mentioned SG-500 Jagdfaust. They would have made a better equippment than MK 108, agreed.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 20, 2005)

I was not implying that it should be controled from other aircraft. What I am saying is that it would be brought to alltitude by tohter aircraft. Either carried under a bomber like the US did with its rocket planes or in the manner that the mistel was was carried by Fw-190's or Me-109's just using a larger plane like a Ju-88 to carry it up. A Ju-88 would probably not have the power to get one up there. But as RG said if you could do that it would save fuel and let it stay up longer.


----------



## delcyros (Mar 21, 2005)

But wouldn´t a take off by another plane reduce it´s fantastic climb abilities? Imagine: Radar detects incoming bombers (T- 40 minutes), planes will be made ready (T-25 minutes), take off (T-20 minutes), climbing to release altitude (T+10 minutes), seperation and service of the Me-163 as interceptor. The only way I can see an advantage would be in the statistics. The tactics would probably tell a different story. However, it is worth to think about it. I always wondered, how they want to use the DFS 346 experimantal plane.


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 21, 2005)

Certainly the planes carrying the rocket interceptors would have to take off early, probably before dawn, and climb to their staging areas and wait, well to the east, to be vectored toward incomming bomber formations.

The real issue is how high could such a carrier plane fly and how long could it cruise while waiting?

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## delcyros (Mar 21, 2005)

I doubt that Luftwaffe could provide enough fuel in late 1944 to field such operations in larger numbers. A He-177 could only carry one, a Ju-390 probably two but fuel consumption for such a mission would be terrible in late 1944.


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 21, 2005)

To make it work a dedicated carrier plane would have needed to be built. But, low grade fuel could be used as there is no requirement for speed.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 22, 2005)

delcyros said:


> But wouldn´t a take off by another plane reduce it´s fantastic climb abilities? Imagine: Radar detects incoming bombers (T- 40 minutes), planes will be made ready (T-25 minutes), take off (T-20 minutes), climbing to release altitude (T+10 minutes), seperation and service of the Me-163 as interceptor. The only way I can see an advantage would be in the statistics. The tactics would probably tell a different story. However, it is worth to think about it. I always wondered, how they want to use the DFS 346 experimantal plane.



Who cares about climb abilities? What would have mattered is what the aircraft would have been able to do with more time in the air.


----------



## KraziKanuK (Mar 22, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> [
> Who cares about climb abilities? What would have mattered is what the aircraft would have been able to do with more time in the air.



Even the prop jobs did not have that much air time. Usually it was climb, find the bombers, make a pass and rtb.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 22, 2005)

well that's all you need..........


----------



## delcyros (Mar 22, 2005)

Time would be still limited, even if the Me-163 was droped in 8000 m altitude. I see no way how it could reach 10 minutes of powered flight under any circumstances. And even that is too low. That makes such a try very questionable.


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 22, 2005)

I disagree. Without the need to climb a rocket engine capable of sustaining 500 mph level flight above 20,000 feet would have been much much smaller. 10-15 minutes should have been possible. 10 minutes is enough time to travel over 40 miles and engage the enemy bombers.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Gnomey (Mar 22, 2005)

ME-262, a good jet powered fighter-bomber


----------



## delcyros (Mar 22, 2005)

Okey, lets say it has an engine a little smaller, no HWK 509 A-1 (1700 kp thrust) but a HWK RII 203 (750 kp thrust, same fitted in Me-163 A). A normal equipped Me-163 B needs an average of 3 minutes and 19 seconds for a climb to 32000 ft. You could enlenghten it´s max flight time by dropping it in 20000 ft. altitude by a few minutes (max. flight time: 9 minutes and 40 seconds powered flight at 600 km/h if towed to 4000 m altitude in case of a RII 203 driven Me-163 AV-prototype). 10 minutes are possible . The Me-163 C should have a max flight time of 14 minutes (at 600 Km/h) or 19 minutes at 514 km/h. At full speed they only have around 8 minutes of powerd flight time. Max range is still 120 Km (around 75 miles) for Me-163 B and 130 Km (around 80 miles) for Me-163 C (dropped in altitude). I do not have datas for the Me-263 but it should be around the same, probably a little better. That is still too less for succesful interceptor operations. It only has one path to fire it´s MK-108, even a second is debatable. It needs a good tactician to lead the plane, it is even getting more complicated if more planes are operated in that way. And they have to return, so they cannot spent all fuel on the attack if they want to disappear safely. The carrier planes would surely soon be lost by some kind of fighter sweep or anything else. The soviets tried the same back in 1941 with an obsolete TB-3 bomber with two I-16 under the wings. Because of the losses they had to move on for I-16 bomber raids (instead of interceptions), making the hole procedure very questionable.


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 22, 2005)

The fuel burned in that 3 minutes and 20 second climb to 32,000 feet would last more than 10 minutes in level flight.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 23, 2005)

Gnomey said:


> ME-262, a good jet powered fighter-bomber



Great aircraft, very advanced and probably the best to have seen combat in WW2, but only for about 10 flight hours.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 23, 2005)

Im with Ar-234 8)


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 23, 2005)

cheddar cheese said:


> Im with Ar-234 8)



I love the 234 but she was unfortunatly not used very well.


----------



## Erich (Mar 23, 2005)

the Ar 234 very much preferable in the bomber role than the 262. the 262 was a bomber killer nothing short. On the other hand the 262 was a lethal ground attack jet fitted with R4M's.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 23, 2005)

The problem with the 234 is that they did not use it in its inteded role and used it pretty much for armed reconnaisanse and ground attack. It should have been built in large numbers and used as a bomber.


----------



## Erich (Mar 23, 2005)

Adler there were more bomber units using the Ar 234 than recon and only in the spring of 45 was this reversed and in so the Reon units only had as much as 4-5 jets on hand per staffel although they were recognized as online in the field gruppen

E


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 24, 2005)

Yeah I have gone back and checked it out what I have in my books and it says the same thing you have posted there.


----------



## KraziKanuK (Mar 24, 2005)

RG_Lunatic said:


> Last night on THC there were two documentaries. "Secret weapons of the Allies" and "Secret weapons of the Soviets".
> 
> They showed that the Mig-15 did not derive from German jet technology, it was in the works in the early 40's and they already knew about swept wings. The Russians actually had quite a jet engine project going, they just lacked the necessary alloys to make a viable combat unit till after the war.
> 
> ...



THC? OK

If the Soviets had such a jet engine program going why did their first jets use Jumo 004s and the Soviet version of it?

The Lockheed was the L1000 (or something like that) was it not? Very advanced a/c, with swept wings.


Don't forget the British jet engines. They were just as advanced or more than as anyone elses.


----------



## red admiral (Mar 24, 2005)

The Reggiane RE.2007; 1.050kph swept wings and 4x20mm cannons.

The British axial and centrifugal flow jets were as capable as the German ones. Have a look at the Avro Lancastrian post-war.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 24, 2005)

The L-1000 from Lockheed was actually the engine that was used to power the L-133 aircraft that they were working on.



> Development of the L-1000 began in 1940. It was to power Lockheed's L-133 project fighter, the design was of an advanced axial-flow type engine, when the contract for the US's first jet was awarded to Bell's XP 59, work on the L-1000 idled along until 1943 when the USAAF approved a low-priority development contract, with the engine now known as the XJ-37. However the engine was to pass though a number of companies, none of which managed to get it to work and in 1950 the J-37 was "killed off".
> http://tanks45.tripod.com/Jets45/ListOfEngines/EnginesUSA.htm



And here is info on the L-133



> Engine: 2x Lockheed L1000 J37 axial-flow turbojets
> Wing Span: n/a
> Length: n/a
> Height: n/a
> ...


----------



## KraziKanuK (Mar 24, 2005)

Adler, was not at home so could not look it up. Knew there was something weird about it.  

Some British jet engines

Armstrong Whitworth

ASX 
Designed in 1942 and built in 1943. The AWX was a 14 stage axial-flow engine making around 2,600 lb of thrust. Never used in any production aircraft, how ever it was developed into a turboprop engine delivering 3760 hp, known as the ASP and given the name "Python". This engine was fitted into the Westland "Wyvern"

Metropolitan-Vickers

F.2 "Beryl" 
As far back as 1939, Metropolitan-Vickers, a Manchester firm that specialized in steam turbines, had been working on what would become the first British axial-flow turbojet engine. The company had been working on a turboprop design as early in as 1939 but this idea was proving overly complicated. By 1940 the success of the Whittle engines suggested a turbojet might be a better road to go down.. Work began in July 1940, on an axial-flow engine designed by Hayne Constantit at the RAE, with a nine-stage compressor, an annular combustion chamber, and a two-stage turbine, By November 1941, the F.2 was was producing 1,800 lb of thrust on the test bench, with flight tests beginning in the spring of 1943 with the engine fitted in to a Avro Lancaster and then into a modified Gloster Meteor DG204/G which had it's first flight on the 13/11/1943. The F.2 was refined into the operational "F.2/4", with a ten-stage compressor, single-stage turbine, with 3,230 lb of thrust. Fitted in the Sanders-Roe SRA.1.

from http://tanks45.tripod.com/Jets45/Jets45-Engines.htm

B Gunston's 'Aero Engine' book goes into more detail.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 24, 2005)

Pretty neat.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Mar 24, 2005)

Yeah, interesting!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 24, 2005)

How far do you think until someone in WW2 would have put out a turbo fan, or how long until someone broke the sound barrier in WW2. The Germans were close with the Me-163 and could have possibly done it with the P.1011 had it flown and been produced. The US did it shortly after WW2.


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 24, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> How far do you think until someone in WW2 would have put out a turbo fan, or how long until someone broke the sound barrier in WW2. The Germans were close with the Me-163 and could have possibly done it with the P.1011 had it flown and been produced. The US did it shortly after WW2.



I think the turbofan required the turbojet to be fully debugged first, but it could have been done at any time. The turbofan is a little more complicated and it is not intuatively obvious that it will give performance gains (primarily in fuel economy).

As for breaking the sound barrier, it may have been done as early as sometime in 1946. But any usuable supersonic flight was still a long ways away. Flight dynamics change drastically above the speed of sound, and materials technology, even in the USA, had to progress a bit to sustain supersonic flight. Had the P.1011 been built and been capable of supersonic flight, it would have disintigrated or melted when it achieved it. But in reality, I suspect it could not have done so, it was not going to have as high a performance as the Mig-15, it didn't have the engine for it.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 24, 2005)

I agree that a usuable turbofan was still quite a ways off but I think it could have been done in WW2

I will also agree that the P.1011 would have required better engines and the 163 was probably the closest they would have gotten to it.


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 24, 2005)

But even the 163, upon forcing its way through the mach barrier, would have been torn apart. It takes titanium alloys to withstand such speeds, or at the very least, steel. Aluminum would get soft and collapse very quickly.

And remember, above mach speed, the air acts like a solid. There was no knowlege of how to control a plane flying through "butter".

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## delcyros (Mar 25, 2005)

The Me-163 was (most probably) unable to break Mach 1. It has a critical Mach speed of 0.84 and above that speed it pitched strongly down. (that happened a few times during the test program and in almost all serial Me-163 B was a warning sound and flashing light installes if they come close to its critical Mach speed) Even the X-4 proved that tailles planes were not suited for high transsonic/supersonic speeds after the war. I think the Me-P.1101 could come much closer (0.94), but it remains still debatable if the airframe could sustain such stress. There were at least 3 tries beside of manned A-4´s and Sängerplanes (which cannot be taken for that serious) to build a supersonic plane:
Horten Ho XIIIb: 60 degrees swept back wing (but very thick) with He-S011 and rocket assistance. The unpowered testbed Ho-XIIIa was build and flew, it was used to get informations about the low speed handling of such a wing design.
Lippisch P-13: A little similar to Horten but it has a deltawing (still the profile was too thick, it would generate too much drag at Mach 0.7-1.3)-
DFS 346: A supersonic testbed. 45 degrees swept back wings (very thin) and all metal design. Powered by two HWK-109 B rocket engines it developed 4000 Kp thrust (almost 8.800 lbs) and the whole design was geometrically well suited for breaking the sound barrier (comparable to X-1, but with smaller fuselage diameter and swept back wings with higher aspect ratio). Estimated speed: 2270 Km/h at 20.000 m (1400 mp/h = Mach 2.2 at 65000 ft.). Only the V-1-prototype was nearly finished at Siebel by VE-day. It is interesting that the US had no intentions for that plane, so they left it for the soviets. After some delays it was completed by Siebels for the soviets and in mid 1946 it was together with german pilots and technicians brought into the soviet union, where it was flown from early 1948-1951 (it has to be refittetd for two HWK 109A-1, since there were no .-109B in the USSR, two more planes were build under the name samoljet 346 "airplane 346"). Ziese inofficially did succed in breaking the sound barrier with this plane (however, the left wing broke at 60000ft. altitude maybe in this flight, but I´m unsure).


----------



## delcyros (Mar 25, 2005)

a few pictures of the DFS 346 (source: J. Dresser, M. Griehl, Die deutschen Raketenflugzeuge 1939-1945, 2nd edition (Augsburg 1999), page 89-92):
Compare also http:\\jpcolliat.free.fr/trident/trident-15.htm
or www.prototypes.com/Les intercepteurs à moteur-fusée/XV. ANNEXE : le DFS 346


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Mar 25, 2005)

delcyros said:


> DFS 346/Samoljet 346 with B-29 carrierplane




Tu-4, in reality, since the DFS is in Russian custody.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 25, 2005)

and that's a B-17 in the pic not a B-29 isn't it??


----------



## delcyros (Mar 26, 2005)

Yes, Tu-4. (a soviet build licence B-29) I named that (incorectly) B-29 in order to credit it as an US design.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Mar 26, 2005)

The Tu-4 wasn't built under licence, it was copied from captured B-29's.


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 26, 2005)

Nonskimmer said:


> The Tu-4 wasn't built under licence, it was copied from captured B-29's.



Damn right. In July 1944 several B-29's based in China were unable to make it all the way to their bases and landed on a Soviet base. The Russians refused to return the planes or aircrews (who were held as prisoners - though treated relatively well, until the end of the war), on the basis that the USSR was neutral w.r.t. the war against Japan.

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/01/25/smithsonian.cold.war/

http://aeroweb.lucia.it/~agretch/RAFAQ/Tu-4.html

In my opinion, the USA should have demanded the immeadiate return of the Bombers and crews. Had the Soviets refused, the USA should immeadiately have cut off all Lend-Lease aid to the Soviets. Perhaps this should have been done without even making a demand. When the Soviets indicated their intentions to hold the bombers and crews, LL aid should have stopped, and then negotiations for return of the bombers should have been stalled till Germany was defeated. This would have been good for the USA, as it would have slowed Russia's progress against the Germans and made for a better post war position for the W. Allies. It also would have denied the Soviets much of their German technology captures, as the W. Allies would have occupied almost all of Germany proper.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## wmaxt (Mar 26, 2005)

RG_Lunatic said:


> Nonskimmer said:
> 
> 
> > The Tu-4 wasn't built under licence, it was copied from captured B-29's.
> ...



It's my understanding that to about mach 1.6 aluminum alloys are fine if the shape of the aircraft is correct. Using sweep and in early cases the area rule helped an aircraft to cross the sound barrier at least momentarily. One example was the F-86 that could in a dive exceed the speed of sound without special materials. 

The trick to controlability was the use of the stabilator or flying stabilizer to allow pitch athority which is lost when a normal elevator is behind the Sonic shock wave on the stabilizer.

By Mach 2 materials like steel are required and titanium above mach 3 then it starts getting exotic with carbon-carbon etc.


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 26, 2005)

Hmmm... It was my understanding that to sustain supersonic speed you needed to use superior alloys. Once over the sound barrier, heat will build up and makey duraluminum soft.

I agree, momentarily crossing the threshold would not imeadiately cause enough heat to cause a failure, but sustaining even Mach 1.1 for any length of time probably would. There's no real good way to vent the heat, the wing is not getting much airflow.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 28, 2005)

Okay but in that case what about the V-2 Rocket. It was not built out of any superior alloys and it easily crossed the sound barrier.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 28, 2005)

well the SR-71 is actually made from steel, purely because nothing else practical can take the heat.......


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 28, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> well the SR-71 is actually made from steel, purely because nothing else practical can take the heat.......



Umm, the SR-71 is made out of titanium!

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 28, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Okay but in that case what about the V-2 Rocket. It was not built out of any superior alloys and it easily crossed the sound barrier.



It did not cross the sound barrier on its ascent until it was high enough to be safe from friction heating.

Early V2's were found to have a tendancy to explode in flight before impact on decent. Study of recovered Peenemuende test V2's revealed that the forward hull was collapsing. An extra sheet of steel was added in the forward hull to prevent this. Also, the V2 didn't really have to "survive" it just had to hold up long enough to hit the ground, and it did not have to sustain supersonic speed very long.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 28, 2005)

damn that Mr. English!!!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 28, 2005)

RG_Lunatic said:


> DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
> 
> 
> > Okay but in that case what about the V-2 Rocket. It was not built out of any superior alloys and it easily crossed the sound barrier.
> ...




The point is, it still reached Supersonic Speeds before it collapsed or blew up. You can say "It still blew up.", however it still reached supersonic speeds without any alloy's. Besides name any early advanced projects that did not have problems. We still see it today in the Osprey program.


----------



## delcyros (Mar 28, 2005)

That is true. The DFS 346 should have an ESTIMATED (based on the wind tunnel values) top speed of Mach 2.2 at 65000ft. The actually flown speeds in the SU were much behind that. Only the top altitude of around 32000 m was confirmed (around 100.000 ft.). Speed was limited because of vibrations (probably caused by the shockwave of the stabilizer) of the tail. It could climb from 30000 ft. to 70.000 ft with a speed of 1100 Km/h IAS (ca. 680 mp/h). That is a bit suspect, since it would indicate a speed of around Mach 1.0 in this altitude (with an ucertainity because of the TAS). Drag was estimated to be very high at speeds of Mach 1.3 but there is no proof that such a Mach speed was reached (except in a dive by Ziese as mentioned above) in level speed. 
He, I found in a soviet book from A. Galai the term license build for Tu-4! Interesting, or isn´t? (then it has to be propaganda by the soviets)


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 28, 2005)

The Tu-4 was never lisensced built from what I have read. It was stolen.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Mar 28, 2005)

"Licence built" in this case means "Reverse engineered". They stole it.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 28, 2005)

Yeap sure did.


----------



## delcyros (Mar 28, 2005)

unbelievable.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 28, 2005)

The Ruskies did it a lot.


----------



## trackend (Mar 29, 2005)

Does this mean that they stole the reactive and ceramic layered armour ideas for their tanks from the west too Adler. well I never, what a suprise


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 29, 2005)

From what I can tell they pretty much stole everything in the beginning.


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 29, 2005)

Lots cheaper than doing the R&D yourself. The Soviets stole as much as they could, then still spent themselves into ruin with military spending.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 29, 2005)

but what a way to go broke..........


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 30, 2005)

Sure is.


----------



## delcyros (Mar 30, 2005)

And not to mention that the SU had no own jet development project. They got as much as they could from german research (...and british jet engineering) but they still managed innovative concepts like the project "S" which led to the MiG-15 or Lawotchkins progress to the La-150... 8)


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 30, 2005)

I thought they had a few programs for themselves, but most of there stuff was taken form others.


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 30, 2005)

Yes the Soviets did have their own jet program. It was just behind because they lacked metals technology during WWII to really pursue it.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 30, 2005)

Yeah I thought they did.


----------



## delcyros (Apr 2, 2005)

Why not give the title to the Gloster Meteor MK III? Sure, it was not as fast or advanced as a Me-262 or P-80 but it bears a very important advantage over other early jets: 
1.) ..it was produced in numbers by wars end
2.) ..it has enough fuel to fullfill different roles:
A) interceptor (against V-1)
B) air cover
C) recon
D) escort
3.) ..it was durable enough and well equipped for succesful ground attacks
4.) ...it was deployed on ETO and while it never encountered enemy jets it flew some ground attack sorties (the closest beeing an attack on an Ar-234 B airfield ). 
This is making the Meteor an excellent multi purpose plane. Not the best in anything but able to do all jobs (better ground attacker than Me-262/He-162, better dogfighter than Ar-234 and so on...) Don´t this turn the mediocre Meteor in a good one?
And with the introduction of the MK IV in late 1945 it was one of the best, a hard match for a Me-262 or He-162.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 2, 2005)

I will agree with you that it was a good multi purpose aircraft but I would not classify it as the best. I still the think the Me-262 could outmatch a Meteor and so could a P-80.


----------



## delcyros (Apr 5, 2005)

Agreed. Both could outmatch a MK III. But the MK IV could outmatch a Me-262 A easily and even a P-80 would have a hard match against the MK IV....


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 6, 2005)

agreed again............


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 6, 2005)

I just think the 262 and P-80 were technically more advanced and better aircraft than the Meteor. I think the Meteor was great for its times. Now the Vampire on the other hand I think would have ruled all 3 of them.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 6, 2005)

And the Re-2007 would have dominated. 8)


----------



## delcyros (Apr 6, 2005)

I think the Re-2007 is very much overrated. It probably lacked both, speed and range compared to other early jets. And it was years away from deployment.
the Vampire would be exceptionally good but it wasn´t deployed in numbers (as was the P-80).


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 7, 2005)

Nope sure wasn't.


----------



## delcyros (Apr 10, 2005)

By the way, what plane do you think would have been the first
to break Mach 1 (when and why)? (...a little off-topic...)
Miles M.52
DFS 346
or X-1
????


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 10, 2005)

I would go with one of the 3 here: Messerschmitt Me-263, Messerschmitt Me P.1101 or the Focke Wulf Ta-183.


----------



## delcyros (Apr 11, 2005)

Umm, I should rather say: "..in level flight.." or not?
Me-263: The soviet I-270 (modified Me-263-copy) was unable to break Mach 1, but it was also a larger, heavier design with less thust and usual wing configuration. The critical Mach figure of the Me-263 is comparably low, the tailles design would be very problematic...
Me-P1101: Lacks thrust to overcome the drag at high subsonic speeds (maybe in a dive?), but still an interesting choice.
Ta-183: Lacks thrust as the Me-P1101, taildesign seems to be critical (not sure in this) in terms of statics.


----------



## wmaxt (Apr 11, 2005)

delcyros said:


> Umm, I should rather say: "..in level flight.." or not?
> Me-263: The soviet I-270 (modified Me-263-copy) was unable to break Mach 1, but it was also a larger, heavier design with less thust and usual wing configuration. The critical Mach figure of the Me-263 is comparably low, the tailles design would be very problematic...
> Me-P1101: Lacks thrust to overcome the drag at high subsonic speeds (maybe in a dive?), but still an interesting choice.
> Ta-183: Lacks thrust as the Me-P1101, taildesign seems to be critical (not sure in this) in terms of statics.



There is a story in "Planes and Pilots of WWII" That states the F-86 prototype broke the sound barrier several months prior to the X-1 (in a dive ov course. the F-86 was "transsonic" not supersonic.).


----------



## delcyros (Apr 12, 2005)

I read it, too. There were many claims to have broken the sound barrier earlier than 1947:
1945: Highest recorded Me-163 (B) speed during interception (accidently): IAS(recorded): 1130 Km/h (in a dive, far beyond it´s critical Mach speed)
1945: Gerhardt Mutke at an Me-262 A dive, IAS(after Mutke): 1150 Km/h (also beyond it´s critical Mach speed)
late 1945: US pilots notes of the captured Me-262 include the following sentence: "...close to Mach speed you loose controll, the plane pitches down strongly. Once exceeded, you regain controll.."
1947: F-86 exceeds Mach 1 in a dive
1947: X-1 with civilian test pilot is said to have broken Mach 1

-None of these claims are confirmed by an independend source, but they remain very interestingly...-

1947: X-1, piloted by Chuck Yeager breaks Mach 1


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 12, 2005)

George "Wheaties" Welch was the guy who broke the sound barrier the days before Yeager did it. I've heard stories that "Wheaties" was always bitter about his Air Force career and kind of had a chip on his shoulder. Put him together with the outspoken Yeager and you had a set-up for an argument. When I lived close to Edwards AFB a few years ago I heard from some old timers who worked at Edwards (Muroc) during that time that Yeager and Welch couldn't stand each other! The legend has it the Welch knew about the X-1 and record attempt and he went out over Edwards in an XF-86 and purposely broke the sound barrier, just to show Yeager up. It is rumored that the air force altered XF-86 test records by 7 months! Welch died a few years later testing the F-100. Check out this link: http://home.att.net/~historyzone/Welch2.html


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 12, 2005)

delcyros said:


> I read it, too. There were many claims to have broken the sound barrier earlier than 1947:
> 1945: Highest recorded Me-163 (B) speed during interception (accidently): IAS(recorded): 1130 Km/h (in a dive, far beyond it´s critical Mach speed)
> 1945: Gerhardt Mutke at an Me-262 A dive, IAS(after Mutke): 1150 Km/h (also beyond it´s critical Mach speed)
> late 1945: US pilots notes of the captured Me-262 include the following sentence: "...close to Mach speed you loose controll, the plane pitches down strongly. Once exceeded, you regain controll.."
> ...



Airspeed indicators of the time were not capable of giving accurate readings at high fractions of mach. Also, when diving, the delay in the mechanism which adjusts for pressure will give a falsly high reading, since it is applying the airflow at the actual pressure to the equlibriums of a lower pressure from a higher altitude.

So these claims of high airspeeds are probably false. The pilots were not lying, the instruments were!

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 12, 2005)

FLYBOYJ said:


> George "Wheaties" Welch was the guy who broke the sound barrier the days before Yeager did it. I've heard stories that "Wheaties" was always bitter about his Air Force career and kind of had a chip on his shoulder. Put him together with the outspoken Yeager and you had a set-up for an argument. When I lived close to Edwards AFB a few years ago I heard from some old timers who worked at Edwards (Muroc) during that time that Yeager and Welch couldn't stand each other! The legend has it the Welch knew about the X-1 and record attempt and he went out over Edwards in an XF-86 and purposely broke the sound barrier, just to show Yeager up. It is rumored that the air force altered XF-86 test records by 7 months! Welch died a few years later testing the F-100. Check out this link: http://home.att.net/~historyzone/Welch2.html



Breaking the sound barrier in a dive would not really count anyway. Anyone could have done it. Just build a bullet shaped metal basket and drop it from 30,000 feet and walla - you will break the sound barrier - then release part of the basket at the nose with the weight in it, let the cockpit area slow down, and then deploy a parachute. But what would that prove?

Also, because of the airspeed indicator issues I listed above, readings in excess of mach 1 on the airspeed indicator were unreliable anyway.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 12, 2005)

RG_Lunatic said:


> FLYBOYJ said:
> 
> 
> > George "Wheaties" Welch was the guy who broke the sound barrier the days before Yeager did it. I've heard stories that "Wheaties" was always bitter about his Air Force career and kind of had a chip on his shoulder. Put him together with the outspoken Yeager and you had a set-up for an argument. When I lived close to Edwards AFB a few years ago I heard from some old timers who worked at Edwards (Muroc) during that time that Yeager and Welch couldn't stand each other! The legend has it the Welch knew about the X-1 and record attempt and he went out over Edwards in an XF-86 and purposely broke the sound barrier, just to show Yeager up. It is rumored that the air force altered XF-86 test records by 7 months! Welch died a few years later testing the F-100. Check out this link: http://home.att.net/~historyzone/Welch2.html
> ...




I disagree with your statement about those early airspeed indicators. I worked on privately owned F-86s and Hawker Hunters and the pitot static systems were very similar and although they did produce errors close to mach, the errors were usually too slow of an airspeed while getting close to trans-sonic numbers. When we flew the Hunter, we really had to watch it because once it became trans sonic, it really wanted to "pop through." The owner of the aircraft would of gotten into big trouble for exceeding mach 1 in civilian airspace. But as far as Welch, I believe his feat was still noteworthy because...

1. There were witnesses to the fact. (Sonic Booms heard across the Antelope Valley). 
2. Even though it was in a dive, it was still in an aircraft that took off and landed with a human pilot manipulating the controls, under its own power.

3. When pulling out of the dive, he was super sonic straight and level. Weather it's felt this feat is diminished because Welch did it in a dive is of ones opinion, but he must of hit a nerve with the Air Force as they were willing to at least temporarily cover the whole thing up!

Later in the same month, Welch repeated the same flight profile while being tracked from the ground using ground telemetry equipment. Although this equipment by today's standards is quite primitive, it was still pretty accurate and showed that the XF-86 did exceed mach 1. Additionally, it also showed only small errors within the airspeed indicator installed on the aircraft.


----------



## delcyros (Apr 13, 2005)

I do not question the inaccuracy of the airspeed indicators (that´s why IAS and not TAS). But I believe these flights came really close to Mach speed or even break Mach 1 (IAS wasn´t the only evidence) if it could be confirmed from independent sources. And I agree with RG that level flight should be very important for this question (otherwise we should count some Me-262 dives which ended fatal for their pilots, too). With this in mind we are back on M.52, DFS 346 and X-1. What do you think? Estimate normal (war time) development time. My choice would be the M.52 (with more powerful engines) or maybe the DFS-346 in mid 1946.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 13, 2005)

www.luftarchiv.de quotes the estimated speed for the DFS-346 at over 2200kmh


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 13, 2005)

If it was able to be documented, early encounters with Trans sonic and super sonic flight should be counted, the problem is when first encountered few lived to tell about it.

One thing that many of these early reports had in common was the reporting of the nose dipping, commonly called super sonic dip. This was common on many 1st generation jet aircraft when exceeding the speed of sound. The nose would dip, there would be a loss of elevator effectiveness, then everything would "straighten out." This was mentioned in some of the ME-262 pilot reports, both by German and American pilots. The only way you're going to experience super sonic dip is to go super sonic, or pretty darn close to it!


----------



## delcyros (Apr 13, 2005)

I disagree. The nose dip of the Me-262 occurs at speeds beyond Mach 0.86 because of the shifted center of weight (thanks to transsonic airflow on the upperside of the wing). This could be misunderstood as an supersonic dip (which could occur on 0 and 1st generation jets, also). However their is another point which implies that they really hit Mach: The controlls. Between Mach 0.88 (0.86 because of the dip) and Mach 1.0 you loose controll of the elevators (Me-262 A-1). But controlls have been regained after considerable acceleration in a dive (at full throttle in case of Mutke and US pilots). Wind tunnel testings confirms that controlls come back into effect after exceeding Mach 1 (which is confirmed by US pilots, also). The problem was that the test pilots tried to close the speed slowly in a dive (which implies really huge stress to the airframe), while some pilots accidently (Mutke) and in a rapid way accelerated. I still wonder if the airframe of the Me-262 can contain this stress (I really doubt) or is more probable to disintegrate.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 14, 2005)

Interesting stuff.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 14, 2005)

delcyros said:


> I disagree. The nose dip of the Me-262 occurs at speeds beyond Mach 0.86 because of the shifted center of weight (thanks to transsonic airflow on the upperside of the wing). This could be misunderstood as an supersonic dip (which could occur on 0 and 1st generation jets, also). However their is another point which implies that they really hit Mach: The controlls. Between Mach 0.88 (0.86 because of the dip) and Mach 1.0 you loose controll of the elevators (Me-262 A-1). But controlls have been regained after considerable acceleration in a dive (at full throttle in case of Mutke and US pilots). Wind tunnel testings confirms that controlls come back into effect after exceeding Mach 1 (which is confirmed by US pilots, also). The problem was that the test pilots tried to close the speed slowly in a dive (which implies really huge stress to the airframe), while some pilots accidently (Mutke) and in a rapid way accelerated. I still wonder if the airframe of the Me-262 can contain this stress (I really doubt) or is more probable to disintegrate.



Interesting - I flew at high mach numbers in a T-33 without tip tanks and I could tell you I thought the wings were going to shake off, the elevators seemed to buzz as well. The only other aircraft I flew in that approached and exceeded mach 1 was an F-4 - you felt nothing, just saw a slight jump in the airpseed indicator and mach meter, but that's another story!


----------



## Nonskimmer (Apr 14, 2005)

Sounds like you've been around a bit alright, FLYBOYJ.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 14, 2005)

Nonskimmer said:


> Sounds like you've been around a bit alright, FLYBOYJ.



Thanks - It's been a few years since I was close to the tomato truck! \/


----------



## delcyros (Apr 14, 2005)

Sounds interesting.  
The problems with the controlls have been a major problem to succesfully build supersonic planes (like F-4). In the timeframe between 1944 and 1947 we have seen several attempts to overcome this:
The later Spitfire incorporated free bending rudder design, which in theory greatly reduced force effects at transsonic speeds.
The Miles M.52 design used the first single part rudders (like the later F-86).
The DFS 346 used special structural reinforcement and power assist for conventional rudder design (...and still suffered from shaking much...)
Some very advanced designs (DM-1 for example) even used tailles delta wing designs...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 15, 2005)

This is off topic here (well sort of it involves a Me-262. But it seams that the Me-262 is flying again. It is a reproduction but still very interesting and it flew the last time on Mar. 9 2005.

These are all from the Stormbirds website.

09 FEB 05

STILL MORE GOOD NEWS! Yesterday turned out to be a day of significant progress for us. Following the successful "wheels up" outing, White 1 was given a thorough once-over and sent back out onto the runway for test flight number nine! 



Before this rather monumental day was through, White 1 had logged yet another 60 minutes aloft, reaching a speed of 360 knots in the bright Seattle sunshine!

08 FEB 05

MORE GOOD NEWS! Test flight number eight took place today just before 1400 hours (local time).



We are especially pleased to report that today's sortie marked our first successful "wheels up" flight in the White 1 airplane (see photo, above). To our relief and delight, the gear cycled flawlessly while aloft, validating the careful redesign and rebuild effort that had been underway since our January 2002 landing mishap. Touchdown and rollout were once again picture perfect. The aircraft also made two 90° turns at the end of the landing roll with no problems whatsoever. Today's flight was once again 50 minutes in duration. 

We can safely call this one a true milestone for the Project as we draw ever closer to completion of the FAA flight test requirement.



06 JAN 03

AVWEEK REPORT Courtesy of the Aviation Week Space Technology web site, here's how writer Jim Goodall summed up the events of our first flight: 

The first of two reproduction Me262A jet fighters flew for 35 minute on December 20 from Paine field near Seattle. The pilot, Wolfgang Czaia, said the airplane was airborne after a takeoff run of 14 seconds, lifting off at 110 knots. 

Czaia left the gear down during the flight as a safety precaution. “The airplane’s handling qualities were excellent in all three axes, and I could trim the aircraft to fly straight and level hands-off,” he said. 

"The Messerschmitt's aerodynamically-operated inboard/outboard leading edge slats worked well, fully extending at 150 knots, and retracting fully at 165 knots, and there was minimum pitch change during flap extension/retraction" Czaia said. 

Before returning to Paine Field, Czaia set up a 3-degree glide path at 140 knots to check handling on final approach, slowly reducing airspeed and increasing angle of attach until the airplane stalled at 100 knots. “There was only a mild pitch-down at the stall break and I had good aileron control at the stall,” he said. 

For landing, Czaia flew the final approach with the airplane trimmed for 125 knots, slowly reducing power to touchdown at 108 knots. Czaia said the second flight is tentatively scheduled for late this week and will include retracting the landing gear. 

Future flights will expand the airplane’s flight envelope slowly and focus on determining the Me262’s critical Mach number, which is estimated to be Mach .082. The jet is powered by two GE J-85 turbojet engines each rated at 2,859 lb. static thrust.



> THE LEGEND FLIES AGAIN!
> 
> We are delighted to announce that White 1 took off this afternoon at 1400 local on a 35 minute test flight with pilot Wolf Czaia at the controls.
> 
> ...


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 15, 2005)

Great! 8) Something about that 262 doesnt look right though. Maybe because its a two seater.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 15, 2005)

Yes it is a 2 seat varient. They have several other varients that are flying now including single seaters. Even though it is repro and uses different engines I think it is great!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 15, 2005)

You're right but with jet warbirds (even if they are a reproduction) its always desirable to go with 2 seats - many of the jet warbird owners I know provide "Introductory Jet Instruction" for a hefty fee. They do get a lot of takers, so a project like this could also be a money maker!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 15, 2005)

I think the whole idea of remaking Warbirds especially ones that no longer exist in flying condition is great. It gives a newer generation a chance to see them first hand and show them how great and graceful these aircraft are. There is a company here in Germany called Flugwerk that is making Fw-190A's and Me-109G's. They are really great and you can get them for about $500,000.


----------



## evangilder (Apr 15, 2005)

If I had that kind of money, I would buy one. Maybe not the orignal, but the history of an airplane like that would be something. Could you imagine the looks you would get after stepping out of one of those to go into an airport cafe? I would be tempted to learn German for that!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 15, 2005)

I want to buy a Me-109 and a Fw-190 from them. First I have to build my house first and then convince my wife to let me finance my life away.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 15, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I want to buy a Me-109 and a Fw-190 from them. First I have to build my house first and then convince my wife to let me finance my life away.


----------



## evangilder (Apr 15, 2005)

Well, when hell does freeze over, then we can meet some place for some schnitzel before we do some formation flying!


----------



## Erich (Apr 15, 2005)

the two seater cracked up on landing and am not sure if it has flown again. There are enough fabricated parts from the originals to create 6 a/c. The single seaters are postponed indefinately. Have been on this whole monstrous project since it's inception as I know several of the chaps that run stormbirds....

off to pay the crap tax man.....yee haw

E ~


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 15, 2005)

You could by an L-29 in decent condition for about 40K. Fuel is about $300.00 and hour


----------



## delcyros (Apr 16, 2005)

There are some interesting projects, too:
In Fürstenwalde / Berlin was a employmental project called "Historischer Flugzeugbau" (historical airplane construction), which managed to build historic airplanes, also. They started with the famous Etrich Taube of 1911, continued with a huge Farman biplane and a Albatros C-II twoseater. All was done properly, these airplanes are in flyable conditions (I think a few have been seen at ILA, too.), except maybe the Farman, there have been problems with the czech made airscrew. Next project was a Fokker D-VII, it remained unfinished (but in progressive stage of construction) because other organizations like "Flugwerke" (to name one) argued them to be kind of concurrence. By the way they introduced justice, Fürstenwalde stopped the project. It is really a shame.And it is interesting to note that this happens directly after it was known that Historischer Flugzeugbau planned to build a Focke Wulf-190 A-4. The whole airfield (including all planes of Historischer Flugzeugbau) was sold in 2002 to a very unthrusty private for no more than 50.000 ? (!). I am convinced that these planes will be seen the next months on the market...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 16, 2005)

evangilder said:


> Well, when hell does freeze over, then we can meet some place for some schnitzel before we do some formation flying!



Hell yeah I'll take the Me-109 and you can have the Fw-190. Man that would be fun, but as you said hell has to freeze over.  



Erich said:


> the two seater cracked up on landing and am not sure if it has flown again. There are enough fabricated parts from the originals to create 6 a/c. The single seaters are postponed indefinately. Have been on this whole monstrous project since it's inception as I know several of the chaps that run stormbirds....



That sucks, why has teh single seaters been postponed?



FLYBOYJ said:


> You could by an L-29 in decent condition for about 40K. Fuel is about $300.00 and hour



Is that it?  

Actually it costs us about $2000 an hour to fly our Blackhawks.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 16, 2005)

FLYBOYJ said:


> You could by an L-29 in decent condition for about 40K. Fuel is about $300.00 and hour



Is that it?  

Actually it costs us about $2000 an hour to fly our Blackhawks.[/quote]

YEP - They're pretty cheap and bullet proof. Parts aren't that expensive and there's a gut in Thermal Ca. that worked at the Areo factory, knows these things inside and out. If you're a pilot with an A&P and can half-way swing a wrench, you'll have no problem taking care of one, but again, $300.00 an hour for fuel - YIKES!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 16, 2005)

delcyros said:


> There are some interesting projects, too:
> In Fürstenwalde / Berlin was a employmental project called "Historischer Flugzeugbau" (historical airplane construction), which managed to build historic airplanes, also. They started with the famous Etrich Taube of 1911, continued with a huge Farman biplane and a Albatros C-II twoseater. All was done properly, these airplanes are in flyable conditions (I think a few have been seen at ILA, too.), except maybe the Farman, there have been problems with the czech made airscrew. Next project was a Fokker D-VII, it remained unfinished (but in progressive stage of construction) because other organizations like "Flugwerke" (to name one) argued them to be kind of concurrence. By the way they introduced justice, Fürstenwalde stopped the project. It is really a shame.And it is interesting to note that this happens directly after it was known that Historischer Flugzeugbau planned to build a Focke Wulf-190 A-4. The whole airfield (including all planes of Historischer Flugzeugbau) was sold in 2002 to a very unthrusty private for no more than 50.000 ? (!). I am convinced that these planes will be seen the next months on the market...



WOW! LET US KNOW IF YOU HEAR ANY MORE OF THIS


----------



## delcyros (Apr 16, 2005)

No problem, my father was responsible for the engine construction of the biplanes. I will check out the actual discussion tomorrow at Füstenwalde.


----------



## kiwimac (Apr 17, 2005)

Topic locked and restarted in a non-polling thread.

Kiwimac


----------

