Best Jet of WW2? (2 Viewers)

[Anonymous]

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]

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]

Maybe that kinda thing turns him on

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

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

Just checking

 

[KraziKanuK]

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

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]

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

 

[mosquitoman]

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]

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

 

[mosquitoman]

If only it had the range!

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

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

 

[delcyros]

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]

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]

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]

All in all I think it was a great improvement.

 

[Anonymous]

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]

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

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]

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

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

If the 177's engines didn't explode.

 

[delcyros]

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

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Yes it would have.