KraziKanuK
Banned
- 792
- Jan 26, 2005
How would they stack up if the they had flown for the others AF?
Info on the me 264, http://www.luft46.com/prototyp/me264.html
Info on the me 264, http://www.luft46.com/prototyp/me264.html
B-29 vs Me264 (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter KraziKanuK
- Start date
cheddar cheese
Major General
The Me-264 was far better IMO 8)
the lancaster kicks ass
Major General
- 19,931
- Dec 20, 2003
very heavy though...........
cheddar cheese
Major General
So is Andy Fordham but it didnt stop him becoming World Darts Champion... 
reddragon
Airman 1st Class
It's an impressive little creature.
DaveB.inVa
Airman 1st Class
- 225
- Dec 20, 2004
I still like the B-29. Using the stated performance of the V3 at the bottom of the page the only real advantage the 264 had was in range plus a little slower landing speed. Mostly the greater range came from the 264 being a smaller aircraft.
the lancaster kicks ass
Major General
- 19,931
- Dec 20, 2003
well i'm saying it'd need a pretty damned good engine to get stats like that and there are no engine stats on there.........
DaveB.inVa
Airman 1st Class
- 225
- Dec 20, 2004
Thats true!
- Thread starter
- #9
KraziKanuK
Banned
- 792
- Jan 26, 2005
the lancaster kicks ass said:
You don't know anything about the BMW 801 engines?
cheddar cheese
Major General
lanc you know the 264 was actually built...
the lancaster kicks ass
Major General
- 19,931
- Dec 20, 2003
yes i know she was built, but did she ever get those stats on flight?? and know i don't know anything about the engine........
cheddar cheese
Major General
BMW 801's were great engines! How can you not know about them...
the lancaster kicks ass
Major General
- 19,931
- Dec 20, 2003
simple, like this.............
yes, it really is that easy!!
yes, it really is that easy!!
cheddar cheese
Major General
Fw-190A ring any bells?
the lancaster kicks ass
Major General
- 19,931
- Dec 20, 2003
indeed...........
wmaxt
Staff Sergeant
I don't see that it performed as well as the B-29 or that it had pressurization a requirement for trips up 45hrs. The B-29 often carried 16,000lb bomb load 6,000mi operationaly. For Germany at the time it was designed/built it was a great leap but it Did Not compare with the B-29, though a few years attention might have gotten it there.
delcyros
Tech Sergeant
The Me-264 could have been....
It was a pretty plane, technically. But it was the Boing which was build
in numbers (and deployed), so I would give all my credit to the B-29.
Germany could hardly support mass production of a plane of such a size. Unprobable.
It was a pretty plane, technically. But it was the Boing which was build
in numbers (and deployed), so I would give all my credit to the B-29.
Germany could hardly support mass production of a plane of such a size. Unprobable.
mosquitoman
Master Sergeant
Exactly, quantity has a quality all it's own
delcyros
Tech Sergeant
That´s what I mean, Moskitoman! Some "could have been" but some
other DID HAPPEN.
other DID HAPPEN.
Vahe Demirjian
Banned
If the USAAF deployed P-59 Airacomets fresh out of the Bell factory in Niagara Falls, New York to an air base in Long Island to intercept a German intercontinental bomber and Me 264 were used against Manhattan, how vulnerable would the Me 264 have been to enemy interception at high altitudes (like, say 30,000 feet)? I mean, the B-29's advantage over the Me 264 was being able to fly at high altitudes over Japanese cities, given that the jet powered version of the Kyushu J7W Shinden and the Mizuno Type 2 rocket fighter might have flown high enough to thwart B-29 carpet-bombing raids on Japanese territory, but also bearing in mind the fact that the production Me 264 wouldn't have flown as high as the B-29 Superfortress.
