Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
delcyros said:Ummm,
Flyboy, right we have discussed the P-80 issue, but in Korea, the F-84, F-86 and even the Mig-15 was designed in the same manner (fuel tanks in front of the engine), so they indeed have shown little differences. The enforced structure around the tanks couldn´t prevent a 20mm hit from holing. If fuel goes out it will - narly automaticly- inflame by the engine. Bad thing. The He-162, Me-262 and Meteor are designed otherwise. I also think that the Meteor- while outclassed by the Mig´s did perform very well in the ground attack role in Korea.
delcyros said:Nothing I would disagree with, Flyboy.
There were initially problems with the fuel caps and the air intake in the P-80 program but in the end they have been mastered. And I am going to underline that a radial engine is somehow less sensitive to damage than was an axial one but 20mm are anyhow a serious thread.
Wouldn´t You like to compare He-162 with the P-80? A much closer pairing, I think.
delcyros said:The He-162 ejection seat did not used compressed air as propellant. The cartridge (Schleuderkartusche HL-34-4) was filled with high propellant powder. It was manufactured by Labor Dellbrück.
Compressed air as propellent was used for some of the early ejection seats (FW-190 and He-111 testbeds as well as for a part of the He-219 and most He-280´s) but is not evident for the He-162 ejection seat.I also heard of no complications regarding the partially ejection of the seat.
At least two ejections were fatal because the canopy wasn´t released.
The Meteor III was a further development of the MkI, a proven design with some operational record (including like 13 V-1s shot down) so I'd go for the British plane, providing that it is early 1945