Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
The reason why that War wasnt won was because of political interferance...
-The US had enough time to finish of that war and use their logistic superiority, before politics came in-
This is quite true, but whats ur point??? Production is not in question here... Do u honestly believe that the 262 made more of a difference in WW2 than the C-47 did???
-No not during WWII- but it set a milestone in future airforce layouts.
I hope not cause u are very misinformed then... Read this whole thread if u havent....
-Dont get it sorry-
As for having something in common, the c-130 took over the role of primary transport from the c-47, and used the lesson learned to make a better aircraft...
We agree? I never said in my post that the Me-262 was the best aircraft of WW2.
By the way Wespe whether you wish to realize it or not the C-47 influenced all post war transport aircraft from the way the intereriors were designed to the cockpit layout.
Right, but I think u ar downplaying the role the C-47 had in the C-130's developement...
I'll try to find one...FBJ do you by any chance have any tables showing the ammount of cargo, number of troops and so forth that was carried by the C-47 in WW2?
WRONG!!!! The set up of crew positions, the location of power levers and propeller controls, feathering buttons gages on the co-pilots side and even a specialized cargo door, all refined in later models such as the C-87 and later the C-130 but all descendants from the C-47. Just on reliability and fulfilling it's designed mission the C-47 has any WW2 fighter beat hands down. If the Me 262 had a 25% FMC rate at any given time I'd be surprised. There's not much you could do with a bomber destroyer that has 25 or 50 hour engines on it and that's not taking anything away from the -262, it was a great and innovative aircraft. You have to look at the whole picture. Even in it's earliest form, I'd like to see an Me 262 fly a non precision approach with 1 mile visibility...
And the Me-262 had a desisive impact on the layout of any post war airforce.
It was the upcomming of the German jet fighter Me-262 that made props fade away into history.
So both are right in their opinion, right ?
Wespe
Especially when coming from a noob...In this forum buddy you have to come up with hard facts to prove a point...
I stated that the Me-262 is to me the greatest aircraft of WWII, because it marked a new era in aeronautics and future layouts of modern air forces, therefore it moved the props into history.
The jet didn't make "props" obsolete, if anything it enhanced the propeller/ turbine combination. The Jet made the reciprocating engine obsolete (in some cases). "Props" are still around for a reason and I don't think you fully grasp how propulsion systems evolved and are actually used today. With that said and again repeating the C-47 introduced a cockpit layout, systems and functions that are the design norm in ALL aircraft today - that's one of the things that make it the greatest aircraft of WW2 and of all time...I stated that the Me-262 is to me the greatest aircraft of WWII, because it marked a new era in aeronautics and future layouts of modern air forces, therefore it moved the props into history.
NO - although innovative, as a safe reliable combat aircraft it was crap. Had the war progressed and engineers had the ability to fine tune some of the idiocyncracies, the Me 262 might of been competitive with even 2nd generation jet combat aircraft (Mig-15, F-86, etc.). It was too little too late to make any real difference but it's psychological impact would be it's biggest achievement.
So according to that post - there shouldn't be any military prop driven A/C in use today. That's odd, because off the top of my head I can name the E-2, C-12, C-130, T-34, T-6, MV-22 (proprotors), P-3, T-44... and I'm probably missing some. Props did not fade into history due to the turbojets, and certainly the 262 didn't move them into history.
You're missing all the guys' arguments. Try thinking what A/C was the most influential in the role it played in WWII. The Me-262's actual contribution to the war effort was overall rather small, and certainly pales in comparison to that of the C-47.
50 hour (if you were lucky) engines, and airframes with dissimilar metal construction, (if you even know what that is) little or no corrosion control process during construction and no I really wouldn't want to have flown on in its WW2 combat form. BTW I have flown jets and know what it takes to maintain and operate them. Can you say the same?I wouldn't say that the Me-252 was a crap. I wonder if you have flown one.
Wrong again pal, if you read my earlier post you would find I have nothing but admiration for German WW2 aircraft which I know were superior to many allied birds.But even if you did I would surmise that the 262 you'd be flying would be a degraded one. Negative statements about the plane would be highly suspicious for it would surely come from Allied propaganda since it first flew until the present time, just as the Allies have done with the Bf-109.
Read my post again pal, there was a lot more than that which was needed to make it a safe reliable combat machine - it was too little too late. For a noob here I suggest you read several threads on get your facts straight about what some of the membership have said earlier in this thread, let a lone our backgrounds in aviation....From what I understand the only real problem with the jet was its steel turbine not made of titanium alloy which required it to be replaced every few hours of operation. The jet was really capable, it was not just a bluff machine.