Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
If u want to start name calling, I will.... Ive seen pussies like u on this board before, and u know what??? They aint here anymore....At least I dont revert to name calling like you do
Have them come down here and laugh at my face...... U internet geeks amuse me to no end....I was showing my colleagues at work your posts, and they had a good laugh at you.
And???? Like u know me, or she knows me.... Ur just like the turd I flushed this morning....One of them teaches at a local college and she said she see's people like you from time to time.
U mind showing me where I said I was a know it all??? Ur the one that comes in here with all ur little statistics and so called "reference" material, and starts telling everyone ur right and all of us other "Amateurs" that we're wrong....Know it all's who get emotional when someone challenges their facts.
but i've gotta say i objected to him calling us ammatures
Unless you have a bona fide degree from a reputable college in aviation history (or in some cases, one of the many fields in aerospace),, or have actually put stick time in flying the aircraft you talk about, I dont think you could be considered an expert.
syscom3 said:Noone here has still addressed NAVAIR about his comment about horsepower requirements for 500 mph flight. He brings up some valid points and some of you act like "how dare someone question me".
Udet said:Mr. Navair:
One more thing about the Me 262: I do not doubt mr. Richard Miller is a very honorable and devoted researcher, but many, me included, will argue his comment:
The Gloster Meteor was a prototype; it did not see any action (by the way, a piece of crap when compared to the Me 262). The USA designs were located in the same category.
(It´d be interesting to know what their definition of prototype is. Tell me mr. Navair, talking about prototypes, where lies the difference between the dreaded P-51 H, N or M P-47s -which did not see action in the ETO- and the Me 262, fully operational and shooting down enemy bombers and fighters?)
That a significant number of kills achieved by the jets were/are not confirmed is true. Likewise, the bulk of such unconfirmed kills have not been discarded. To say the number of kills remained "minuscule" can be misleading.
Is it necessary to remind you a number of Luftwaffe experten -flying such an "unreliable jet prototype"- shot down more enemy planes than the vast majority of the USAAF aces attained flying their propelled craft?
A noted man -not necessarily for his exploits during the war- Mr. Chuck Yeager enjoys the chit-chat, chin-wagging very much; a complete especialist when it comes to ridicule the Germans...hold on, he was surpassed in combat and shot down by a German pilot. Well, Kurt Welter more than doubled mr. Yeager´s total bag flying the Me 262.
It is just like if i´d get in the ring, have the fight with my opponent ending with both my eyes bruised, swollen lips, bleeding nose and mauled ribs to then get the microphones and make fun on what a mediocre fighter the man that squeezed the hell out of me is.
Me 262 aces: the "they had a target rich environment" poem does not hold water. The only thing the allies have managed to admit -painfully- is that on the flat run the thing was well beyond the capabilities of anything they had. That´s about it.
Are they so sure flat speed was its sole strong point? The about complete inadequacy of the Me 262, as depicted by Mr. Muller and many others, added to the overwhelming numerical superiority of the enemy could not have produced the number of jet aces as it is now recorded.
Udet said:Also you said anyone flying virtually any plane can shoot down anyone. A wide open statement there. Correct, not entirely though. No matter how genius a fighter pilot is if complete inadequacy of his plane becomes part of the equation.
Even the Mossie, a true great plane, ended with its nuts barbecued when it met with the Me 262 of Kommando Welter.
The Ta 152. Likewise, no one´s suggested here it could change the direction of the war. Yep, only a few dozens reached service. So what?
Again, the Ta 152´s guarding jet bases or runways is another hell of a myth; it´s been duly debunked.
You make a point when stating the fight takes place where the threat is. That i fully agree.
The G-6/AS, G-10 and K-4 could comfortably perform in the altitude where the threat was flying. So why is it the allies enjoy so much the "it did not see the kind of action it was originally conceived to perform". Absolute non-sense.
Your comments on the Fw 190As are too wide and unspecified. Below 22,000 the Butcher Bird is second to none Mr. Navair.
NAVAIR said:syscom3 said:Noone here has still addressed NAVAIR about his comment about horsepower requirements for 500 mph flight. He brings up some valid points and some of you act like "how dare someone question me".
I can actually answer that question myself. I e-mailed a couple of aeronautical engineers, pals of mine, one of which ran the calculation based upon the data he has on the Ta 152H-1 and its powerplant. This gentleman is considered an expert on German aircraft technology. His reply is as follows:
"Of course, the power requirement would be highly altitude-dependend. Using Wilbus' figure of 472 mph @ 41000 ft as standard top speed, it's achieved on just 1080 hp (plus a considerable amount of exhaust thrust).
To get to 500 mph, or 106% of the original speed, you'd just have to produce 118% of the original power, or 1280 hp. Since the original power is achieved on 120 g/s GM-1 injection and the GM-1 system will yield a maximum of 150 g/s, this power increase is well in reach for the Jumo 213E.
However, 150 g/s is only cleared for 42650 ft and above, and I believe you might end up melting important parts of your engines if you engage it below that while aiming for the 500 mph mark.
There are possible explanations how a Ta 152H could have been flown at 500 mph - experimental engine, prototype with low fuel load and without combat equipment, or - maybe the highest probability guess - an airspeed reading not corrected for compressiblity error.
I agree that such a record flight would probably have been mentioned in the extensive literature on the type, and in the absence of data I'd consider the 500 mph claim as plain wishful thinking."
Therefore, if Erich has any test data showing sustained level speeds of 500 mph, it would be received with great interest by a number of people I am in communication with.
My regards,
NAVAIR
For those of us with a 8th grade math level, what are those figures in MPH???"I have never seen a 500mph Ta152. Now there is a 770kph (+) calculated chart for FW190D12 performance.
For flight tested results the FW-190D12 hit 730kph with the Ta-152C taking the top spot at 745kph."
syscom3 said:Unless you have a bona fide degree from a reputable college in aviation history (or in some cases, one of the many fields in aerospace),, or have actually put stick time in flying the aircraft you talk about, I dont think you could be considered an expert.
evangilder said:I have a couple of comments, Navair. Yes, the P-51H was in full production by the wars end, but none saw combat. It was supplied to a few units in the summer of 1945 and were still going through the process of working toward operational service when the war ended.
The P-47M would not be what I consider as having seen "significant combat". The early teething problems kep it out of service until the last few weeks of the war. A few weeks of combat against an enemy that was only a few steps away from surrender is not necessarily indicative of a great aircraft. I do believe that it was a good airplane, but I wonder how it would have faired against the earlier experten.
While I agree that there are some things that flight sims are good for, I still would not use it as a basis for performance of all aircraft. They may have "got it right" with some of the American aircraft, but how do we know about the German, Japanese or some of the more obscure aircraft? Also, no G loads or feel for the aircraft take some of the elements of flight out of it.
Knowing that there will be no physical damage to your person or anyone else on the ground or in the sky will make it easier and a person more prone to take risks that they might not be willing to take in a real aircraft. This can be good or bad. While it can make a pilot push the aircraft harder to it's limits, it may also put them into the habit of taking risky manuevers. With jet aircraft, they have to be able to know how to control the G forces on their body. Aerial combat has not only the elements of the aircraft, but the physical effects of the movements on the body. That is something that a flight sim cannot provide.