Best Fighter III

• Apr 22, 2005

• #261

DerAdlerIstGelandet

Private Chemtrail Disperser

Staff

Mod

50,633

16,845

Nov 8, 2004

USA/Germany

Aggie08 said:

needs to take a note or two from american birds...

Click to expand...

Aside from the P-80 which I can not say because the P-80 did not see combat, the 262 was still more superior to any other jet in the sky and would even outflown P-59 in combat as long as the engines were working.

 

• Apr 22, 2005

• #262

the lancaster kicks ass

Major General

19,931

17

Dec 20, 2003

and the P-80 would struggle to fly if one of her engine had gone......

 

• Apr 23, 2005

• #263

A

Anonymous

Guest

KraziKanuK said:

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:

Yeap the biggest problem of the 262 was her engines. I dont think she could fly on only 1.

Click to expand...

They could and even landed, though as with any twin, one could not take liberties.

Click to expand...

The P-38 could do very well on one engine... it could even climb.

=S=

Lunatic

 

• Apr 23, 2005

• #264

Aggie08

Staff Sergeant

998

2

Apr 15, 2005

Texas

Yeah, that was my bad, I was more comparing the 262 to American props, a little out of line.

 

• Apr 23, 2005

• #265

Concorde247

Senior Airman

399

13

Mar 10, 2005

LONDON

mysite.wanadoo-members.co.uk

RG_Lunatic said:

KraziKanuK said:

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:

Yeap the biggest problem of the 262 was her engines. I dont think she could fly on only 1.

Click to expand...

They could and even landed, though as with any twin, one could not take liberties.

Click to expand...

The P-38 could do very well on one engine... it could even climb.

=S=

Lunatic

Click to expand...

Yes it could, heres the proof!

 

Attachments

• p38j_seeking_protection_from_bombers_from_illust_encyc_air_77_198.jpg

  57.1 KB · Views: 900

• Apr 24, 2005

• #266

the lancaster kicks ass

Major General

19,931

17

Dec 20, 2003

a P-38 being escorted by bombers, sounds about right............

and here's awartime advert from Avro showing the lanc hapilly flying on two engines with "full payload" wich we can assume is 14,000lbs in this case.............

 

Attachments

• advert_130.jpg

  36.4 KB · Views: 892

• Apr 24, 2005

• #267

mosquitoman

Master Sergeant

2,979

16

Jan 20, 2005

Saffron Walden/Sheffield

www.myspace.com

I've heard a story of a Lanc doing a low flypast on no engines before turning them all on again

 

• Apr 24, 2005

• #268

the lancaster kicks ass

Major General

19,931

17

Dec 20, 2003

yes that wouldn't suprise me given the lanc could glide at quite high speeds.........

 

• Apr 24, 2005

• #269

DerAdlerIstGelandet

Private Chemtrail Disperser

Staff

Mod

50,633

16,845

Nov 8, 2004

USA/Germany

Most aircraft with multiple engines could fly with only one functional. It was just the early jet aircraft at the time mostly due to weight issues.

Lanc sorry to burst your bubble but B-17s have done it with 2 engines and full load and done it with 3 engines gone and no load for a little bit of time.

 

• Apr 24, 2005

• #270

the lancaster kicks ass

Major General

19,931

17

Dec 20, 2003

mmmmm, a B-17's "full load" at a guess you mean the normal maximum so what?? 6,000lbs??

 

• Apr 24, 2005

• #271

Concorde247

Senior Airman

399

13

Mar 10, 2005

LONDON

mysite.wanadoo-members.co.uk

the lancaster kicks ass said:

mmmmm, a B-17's "full load" at a guess you mean the normal maximum so what?? 6,000lbs??

Click to expand...

 

• Apr 25, 2005

• #272

DerAdlerIstGelandet

Private Chemtrail Disperser

Staff

Mod

50,633

16,845

Nov 8, 2004

USA/Germany

the lancaster kicks ass said:

mmmmm, a B-17's "full load" at a guess you mean the normal maximum so what?? 6,000lbs??

Click to expand...

What I am getting at is, I dont think the Lanc could have done it with only 1 engine. The 17 was known to have flown on occasion with half of its loaded weight on only 1 engine. Naturally it would drop its weight to get back home but the 17 could do it.

 

• May 22, 2005

• #273

delcyros

Tech Sergeant

2,068

84

Mar 2, 2005

Berlin (Kreuzberg)

After the datas provided by the Rechlin test in september 1944, the Me-262 was well able to continue flying with one dead engine. Speed is rated between 420 and 450 Km/h (260-280 mp/h), depending on altitude (keep in mind that airframe quality was bad as well as the speed figure is not recalculated to INA standart day as well as the engines delivered not the same poweroutput). The excentric thrust makes maneuvering difficult but not dangerous (reducing the speed). Climbing is limited but possible up to 4 m/sec (800 ft/min) at sea level decreasing in altitude. However, with one engine out you are not able to fight anyway.

 

• May 22, 2005

• #274

Erich

the old Sage

13,023

785

May 20, 2004

Platonic Sphere

rectified at some point in the newer streamline Me 262B variants.........but of course did not see service.

Ta 152 the bst prop job ! just thought I would throw that in as a curve

 

• May 22, 2005

• #275

lesofprimus

Brigadier General

18,825

48

Jul 27, 2004

Long Island Native in Mississippi

ihatemeatballs.com

Ta 152 the best prop job !

Click to expand...

I agree...... Oh no, are we gonna go through this all over again???????

 

• May 22, 2005

• #276

the lancaster kicks ass

Major General

19,931

17

Dec 20, 2003

no it's ok, RG is no longer around to say it's the P-51.........

 

• May 22, 2005

• #277

Erich

the old Sage

13,023

785

May 20, 2004

Platonic Sphere

good ! the Ta 152 then.....

 

• May 22, 2005

• #278

Nonskimmer

Captain

8,611

9

Nov 11, 2004

Halifax, Nova Scotia

 

• May 22, 2005

• #279

cheddar cheese

Major General

20,259

21

Jan 9, 2004

WSM, England

Aha but how about the P-47N?

 

• May 22, 2005

• #280

lesofprimus

Brigadier General

18,825

48

Jul 27, 2004

Long Island Native in Mississippi

ihatemeatballs.com

I think the -47N didnt have enough combat time to make a comparison with the Luftwaffe aircraft....... Not too sure. Ill have to read up on it to be sure....