Best Jet of the War?

• Nov 26, 2004

• #141

A

Anonymous

Guest

cheddar cheese said:

And even if it did see him, it would be able to turn and evade very well because of the unstable flight characteristics.

Click to expand...

That unstablity applies even more to the attacking prop plane than the jet it is attacking. At such high speeds, most prop planes (like the spitfire) were buffeting badly. Even the P-51 would be difficult to put the guns on target at over 500 mph.

 

• Nov 26, 2004

• Thread starter
• #142

cheddar cheese

Major General

20,265

21

Jan 9, 2004

WSM, England

Yes, but it was just said that Jets cruised at roughly the same speeds as the fighters, and at that stage the P-51/Spit/P-47 had the upper hand. The advantage could only be gained by the 162 if it could the speed in time, but with a surprise attack from the rear there is only one way to describe the Salamander pilot - mullered.

 

• Nov 26, 2004

• #143

DerAdlerIstGelandet

Private Chemtrail Disperser

Staff

Mod

50,357

16,083

Nov 8, 2004

USA/Germany

Yes but that does not take from the fact that the Salamander was a bad design with the engine being above the fueslage the way it was and overall was not a very good jet fighter. It was inovative and many good design features but was overall a poor jet fighter.

 

• Nov 26, 2004

• Thread starter
• #144

cheddar cheese

Major General

20,265

21

Jan 9, 2004

WSM, England

Yup.

 

• Nov 26, 2004

• #145

A

Anonymous

Guest

cheddar cheese said:

Yes, but it was just said that Jets cruised at roughly the same speeds as the fighters, and at that stage the P-51/Spit/P-47 had the upper hand. The advantage could only be gained by the 162 if it could the speed in time, but with a surprise attack from the rear there is only one way to describe the Salamander pilot - mullered.

Click to expand...

I think the jets (262 and 162) cruised at about the top speeds of the prop fighters. Combat cruise that is, not best-fuel economy cruise. (A combat cruise is to preserve the engine).

And I agree it was not a particularly great "fighter", but neither was the 262. The 162 had the advantage of being cheap and only needing one engine. For the job it was designed to do, intercept bombers, it was sufficient.

=S=

Lunatic

 

• Nov 26, 2004

• Thread starter
• #146

cheddar cheese

Major General

20,265

21

Jan 9, 2004

WSM, England

The 262 was MUCH better at intercepting bombers though.

 

• Nov 26, 2004

• #147

DerAdlerIstGelandet

Private Chemtrail Disperser

Staff

Mod

50,357

16,083

Nov 8, 2004

USA/Germany

The 262 may have had some problems but it was still the best jet fighter of the second world war. The 162 does not even come close.

 

• Nov 26, 2004

• Thread starter
• #148

cheddar cheese

Major General

20,265

21

Jan 9, 2004

WSM, England

It's behind all the other lpanes in the poll at least.

 

• Nov 26, 2004

• #149

DerAdlerIstGelandet

Private Chemtrail Disperser

Staff

Mod

50,357

16,083

Nov 8, 2004

USA/Germany

It just was the best, in all catagories.

 

• Nov 27, 2004

• #150

the lancaster kicks ass

Major General

19,937

17

Dec 20, 2003

exept perhaps manouverability......................

 

• Nov 27, 2004

• Thread starter
• #151

cheddar cheese

Major General

20,265

21

Jan 9, 2004

WSM, England

Go on then, what jet was better than the 262 at manoevering... *sigh*

 

• Nov 27, 2004

• #152

the lancaster kicks ass

Major General

19,937

17

Dec 20, 2003

the glostor meteor................

 

• Nov 27, 2004

• Thread starter
• #153

cheddar cheese

Major General

20,265

21

Jan 9, 2004

WSM, England

And what makes you say that?

 

• Nov 27, 2004

• #154

A

Anonymous

Guest

the lancaster kicks ass said:

the glostor meteor................

Click to expand...

The P-80. Perhaps the Metor.

The 262 was not a plane that could roll well at all. The engines were so far apart and so heavy...

=S=

Lunatic

 

• Nov 27, 2004

• #155

DerAdlerIstGelandet

Private Chemtrail Disperser

Staff

Mod

50,357

16,083

Nov 8, 2004

USA/Germany

I really dont think the Meteor was all that great of an aircraft. Explain to me how it was please. From what I have read it lagged in all areas against other jet aircraft. Now maybe later varients of the Meteor were pretty good but they came in too late in the war so in my opionion they dont count. The P-80 the same way it may have been a good jet aircraft but certainly not the best. Every aircraft has areas that it is weak in but overall if you take all areas to be considered, the 262 was the best of them all.

 

• Nov 27, 2004

• #156

A

Anonymous

Guest

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:

I really dont think the Meteor was all that great of an aircraft. Explain to me how it was please. From what I have read it lagged in all areas against other jet aircraft. Now maybe later varients of the Meteor were pretty good but they came in too late in the war so in my opionion they dont count. The P-80 the same way it may have been a good jet aircraft but certainly not the best. Every aircraft has areas that it is weak in but overall if you take all areas to be considered, the 262 was the best of them all.

Click to expand...

The Meteor was probably a better "dogfighter", but it was not as fast by a significant margin, and it was even more underpowered. But it could roll and this is a huge factor in fighter-vs-fighter combat.

The P-80 was more of a traditional fighter. It had an excellent roll rate and rate of climb, and was much more of a dogfighter than the 262, and of comparable speed. Its big drawback was a defective fuel cap which would come off in flight and result in disaster.

=S=

Lunatic

 

• Nov 27, 2004

• #157

DerAdlerIstGelandet

Private Chemtrail Disperser

Staff

Mod

50,357

16,083

Nov 8, 2004

USA/Germany

I agree with what you said there. The 262 was a far better interceptor than a "fighter" in that sense.

 

• Nov 28, 2004

• #158

the lancaster kicks ass

Major General

19,937

17

Dec 20, 2003

you're right, the -262 was a better all round fighter than the meteor, but combat against V-1s proved the meteor to be very manouverable.............

 

• Nov 28, 2004

• Thread starter
• #159

cheddar cheese

Major General

20,265

21

Jan 9, 2004

WSM, England

Why would that prove it manoeverable, V1's are unmanned so they dont try and evade enemy aircraft.

 

• Nov 28, 2004

• #160

DerAdlerIstGelandet

Private Chemtrail Disperser

Staff

Mod

50,357

16,083

Nov 8, 2004

USA/Germany

V-1 were very slow targets and easy to shoot down.