Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
What are you saying the T33 with the Nene wiped out any other version of the T33 /F80 and it the nene was in use until the 90's if not stillHalf of the stuff you're using as props for your "argument" are flawed as hell, like the British Nene engine...it was a problematic design, and they shelved it after a short life in favor of the Avon.
.
Tempest, you're beating a dead horse here...
Half of the stuff you're using as props for your "argument" are flawed as hell, like the British Nene engine...it was a problematic design, and they shelved it after a short life in favor of the Avon.
Although Me262 wing has a swept angle, it's NOT swept design.
With regard to F80 v Me262, F80 can outturn and outroll Me262, F80's engine's reliability is better than Me262's.
Climb rate and level accelaration are roughly equal.
Me262's Dive/speed advantage is not obvious.
F80's engine could be ungraded to higher performance than Me262's because of excellent UK engine tech such as Nene in 1946.
So I prefer F80 to Me262 without hesitate.
Rolls-Royce Nene RB.41-1 Meteor, Vampire F.2, XP-80, SO 6000
Rolls-Royce Nene RB.41-2 Canberra B.1, I.Ae.33
Rolls-Royce Nene RB.41-3 Mk.101 Attacker F.1/FB.1, Sea Hawk prototype, Br.960-1 Vultur prototype
Hispano-Suiza Nene RB.41-3 Mk.101 Br.960-1 Vultur prototype
Rolls-Royce Nene RB.41-6/21 G.82
Rolls-Royce Nene RB.41-10 CT-133 Silver Star
Rolls-Royce Nene Mk.102 Attacker FB.2, Sea Hawk F.1/F.2/FB.3/FGA.4, Ouragan A, Mystère I prototype
Rolls-Royce Nene Mk.103 Sea Hawk FB.5/FGA.6
Hispano-Suiza Nene Mk.103 Br.960-2 Vultur prototype
Rolls-Royce Nene Mk.104 Sea Hawk FGA.6/FGA.50/Mk.100/Mk.101
Rolls-Royce Nene Mk.104B Ouragan B, Mystère IIIN prototype
According to testing done by the USAAF in 1946, the Me262 was superior to the P-80 in acceleration and speed. It also possesed a higher critical Mach number from a drag standpoint. It was also tested against the Gloster Meteor, and found to be faster as well.
This was the basis for my Nene comment.
As a WWII air combat fan with 3000+ hours of flight simulation on PC, just like many mumbers of this forum such as Kurfust, I'd like to say that US report in 1946 is far from an all-round view.
Well, that's all the proof we need!
Never mind that the United States Army Airforce was conducting the tests, and came to the conclusion that the former enemy's aircraft was out-performing thier own machine.
In the future, I'll run a combat simulator to validate an aircraft's performance instead of referring to hard data provided by an authority!
Seriously, I've been active in WWII combat flight simulations since the mid-90's, though I've never logged my time, I can well imagine I've accrued some "hours" along the way. But I would NEVER compare any simulator's aircraft performance against hard data, even AVHistory 1% aircraft models.
I enjoy a good debate, but at least bring real data to the table to discuss...really...
Until then, I think I'll run some IL-2 and start taking notes...
As a WWII air combat fan with 3000+ hours of flight simulation on PC, just like many mumbers of this forum such as Kurfust, I'd like to say that US report in 1946 is far from an all-round view.
So that report can't convince me.
Another one who bases fact on video games...
But video games do...
I'm not sure where Soren is getting this info on the 262's agility, and that comparison he sites is insubstanciated and possibly a comparison to the original Goblin-(under)powered XP-80 (2,400 lbf); a completely different design (the L140) of which only one prototype was made (now at the NASM adjacent to a Me 262 and FH Phantom), the XP-80A (L141) was a drastic improvement in aerodynamics (more streamlined with rounded wing and tail tips and thin "knife edge" wings), technology, and performance. Pluss that "comparison" he sites doesn't even say the 262 is more maneuverable, only faster and with better acceleration, climb, and crit. Mach number. (which it certainly would compared to the XP-80 which barely broke 500 mph and had fairly thick wings and low thrust/weight)
Considering that the "1945" ME-262 was basically an interceptor, snaked in the air, and had very unreliable engines, I think I would take the "1945" P-80A any day although admittedly I may be prejudiced considering I've flown a T-33 and just loved it. I think in an outright dogfight the P-80 can easily exploit the 262s weaknesses in maneuverability and actual combat performance. Although there were test conducted in the US that alleged that the 262 was better, I think that was used as a case to continue military turbine engine and aircraft development....
-----FLYBOYJ
I've read many comparation reperts of different a/c, the 1946 P80vMe262 report is just suspicious(that's XP80, not P80A?).
Information in this thread will be helpful, where FLYBOYJ, a real pilot of T33, commented that P80 is a better fighter.
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/polls/me262-vs-p-80-a-562.html
BTW,Me262 has 4 mk108, but two pairs guns alternately shoot, which means only 2Xmk108 firepower.
What book?. They were the first to use IR equipment and fielded by far the best IR imaging equipment of the war, which was used with great success in action (First April 45. Yes M_kenny, you should actually read the books, not just look at the covers).
which was used with great success in action
Lol, M_kenny read the link I gave, it hs actually got quotes from the books.
]"One SPERBER squad including their Panthers was transfered to STUHLWEISSENBURG (Hungary) in early 1945 with 6th SS-Panzerarmee, intended to support the german counterattack to secure the area of Budapest. The rest of the Kompanie followed, but without nightfighting equipment.
In 1945 the Wehrmacht planned to form 5 SPERBER Kompanies, but this concept proved to be illusory. 2 SPERBER squads joined the spontanuous formed Panzerdivision "CLAUSEWITZ", which was formed in spring 1945 on the western front. On 21st of april, these 2 squads ran down an american ambush, which has been set up at the WESER-ELBE-KANAL, and by this ensured the only documented action of the nightfighting concept SPERBER.
In march 1945 the Panzerdivision "MÜNCHEBERG" received one fully equipped Kompanie of 10 SPERBER capable Panthers and one SPERBER capable Panzer Grenadier Kompanie. The Division took part in the last fights during the battle of BERLIN. If this Division used the SPERBER concept isn´t documented.
The armoured forces school at FALLINGBOSTEL developed an even more mature solution called "LÖSUNG B - solution B" to make use of the FG 1250 device. Since the system SPERBER had the critical drawback that only the tankcommander had nightvision and therefore had to direct the driver and the gunner, experiments were made with some Panther As and Ds which were equipped with an infrared-searchlight and image converter for the driver and a periscope for the gunner. This way 3 crewmembers obtained nightfighting ability. In April 1945 some of the solution B equiped Panthers were ordered to the Division "CLAUSEWITZ". In mid april these Panthers saw their only doctumented action near UELZEN, where they destroyed a full platoon equipped with the brandnew british Comet tanks."
10,000 in store near the Rhine, ready to be issued upon the first use of IR equipment. Obviously as IR was never used there was no need to issue them!Now where were these Allied IR detectors you speak of ?