GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
See Greg?
Reading and quoting this drivel of thiers is two minutes of my life I'll never get back...
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
See Greg?Many German jet Pilots thought the 262 was a great dog fighter in which it was very hard to get shot down in but the guns were crap and cost one Nazi pilot his life after putting not one, but two 30 mms into a P-47, only to get hosed on the overshoot buy the 8 .50s. Most Allied and all Ruski single engine fighters only required one 30 mm hit to be shot down.
Don't be so snarky!
I think you need to tell us the page # and book, or where ever this statement was made.I only pointed out what Hartmann said; He liked the LE Slats because "He could shoot across the circle farther than other planes could".
You are also right about his being a Zoom and Boom Ace! He never Dogfighted if he could avoid it. He also preferred the Mk-151-20 over the Mk-108 for his main weapon. He thought the 30 mm gun was very hard to get hits with.
Don't hold your breath...I think you need to tell us the page # and book, or where ever this statement was made.
I have never heard of him playing golf and even if he did, why would he play golf with some random shave-tail nobody and out of the blue, discuss great in-depth personal sentiments with said shave-tail on said golf course.No book, I played golf with him three times on my first tour in Germany.
Can you give further details of the special guns that didnt work developed and fitted to the 262. Were these guns developed because of concerns over losses affecting US morale or simply to avoid four engined bombers dropping onto Gerrmany?The 262's biggest problem was not it's aerodynamic performance witch was mostly, but not completely great, was it's guns! Which were almost worthless when compared to all other guns of the war. Even the Germans knew this after some little experience.
This is why I do not have much regard for Eric Brown as a expert on the various types of WW-II planes.
Sure, he flew them all and has a huge resume', but anyone who thinks the Spit 14 was a great plane is either a Nationalistic Fan Boy, or delusional.
It was slow to service and had to have many defects fixed before it was considered safe to send out into less experienced hands.
The size and area of the Verticle fin and rudder were both enlarged two or three times depending on who said what and how much of an enlargement we are talking about.
It was too heavy and they almost universally removed two of the four 20 mm guns to aid the rate of role and rate of turn.
Most actual Spitfire pilots of the war claimed that either the Mk-V was the best of the lot in terms of how it flew, or they preferred the faster and more powerful Mk-IX even with it's snaking and poor pointability. The -IX's four bladed prop started the round of increasing the area of the tail to cure stability problems and the five bladed prop on the XIV made it down right dangerous until the "Spitful" tail was installed.
Then there is the fact that nearly, or more than, one year elapsed between the Mk-XIV's entry into service and it's first kill! If it was so great, why was that? How many pilots made Ace in the Mk-XIV? I mean during that exact same period of time that the -XIV was in service AFTER it's first kill and getting fixed, there were fifteen or twenty times as many new pilots who made Ace in the older types of Spit! IIRC only 22, or maybe 28 pilots made ace in the Mk-XIV? I've got the Osprey book on it someplace.
So, we have the opinion of a test pilot, with how many kills on the side of the Mk-XIV Spit, Vs the Opinion of Major General, IIRC, Chuck Yeager who thought the P-51 was the Cat's Meow, Vs America's top ace who thought the P-38 was it and Russia's top ace who thought the Yac-3, or P-39 was the best, or the Top Jap who shot down 86+- planes in a Zero and the top 300 Aces of all time who like the Me-109 for some unknown and totally mysterious reason! ( Given that it had less of almost everything than any of the other choises above!)
Good reply, but, in the nicest possible way, I don't know why you bothered. I'm certainly not going to
Cheers
Steve
I, for one, will take your advice and use the ignore optionGood reply, but, in the nicest possible way, I don't know why you bothered. I'm certainly not going to
Cheers
Steve
No book, I played golf with him three times on my first tour in Germany.
So, I would say that before we can judge a plane from the past, you must ask what criteria do we use to score it?
I suppose a good definition of best might be "able to carry out it's design function the most effectively", but that probably opens a whole new can of worms.