What is your favorite WWII plane?

[Rune Iversen]

ORIGINAL: pauk

Why bother with him Hawker[&:] - the first sentence says enough about him. I wrote few his posts and still think that this Dane is kidding...or he is just smoking something????

Crap??? hehehe, very funny...

[Rune Iversen]

ORIGINAL: Ursa MAior

If you persist the MIG's form is a direct follower of FW Ta183 with a rolls royce nene engine (http://www.luft46.com/fw/ta183-i.html).

You are correct. But I was talking about the ME 262, which nobody semms to have wanted to copy after the war.

Dunno about the Sabre though.

Closer to the other american jet designs of the era than any of the german ones afaik.

[mdiehl]

Yes but those are indeed the observations about the ME262 that attend to whether or not it was "crap." (I think the word unduly harsh). Namely, that it required strategic materials that were in scarce supply, had poor endurance (which meant it spent most of its air time accelerating after take off or decelerating for landing and was thus very vulnerable much of the time it was in the air), had relatively weak jet engines (which is why it required two of them as compared with the P-80s one engine), had unreliable jet engines (the P-80 had similar problems and the USAAF's solution was not to deploy them into combat), and because of its outboard engine position had a roll rate that made it substantially less maneuverable than most piston driven machines and less maneuverable than the P-80A.

Plane for plane, the P-80 was a much better jet than the ME-262. Had the two met in A2A combat in late 1944 -- doable if the USAAF had rushed the P-80 into combat despite hinky engine reliability -- if ME-262s had regularly fought (and if neither were to lose engines mechanically), the P-80 would regularly have won. In late 1944, the P-80 was a better jet. Better thrust to weight ratio, better climb rate, faster speed, greater roll rate, better acceleration, longer range, longer endurance.

What did the ME-262 accomplish other than to waste resources? The FW-190 was a much more effective plane and a better plane for a German pilot to fly, IMO.

[Speedysteve]

I'll post again my thoughts on the 262 to answer queries above...........
 
The 262 was a technological step forward. It was well suited at shooting down enemy bombers due to it's heavy cannon load, R4M rockets and exceptional speed making deflection shooting by defensive gunners on the bombers much harder.

The cons of this planes though are:

1.) The sheer speed of the plane meant pilots had to be either veteran flyers OR very used to flyign the 262 to be able to fly at 90% speed towards an enemy target and successfully engage it.

2.) Not overly maneuverable. The problem here is that IF caught at lower speeds (against a Mustang or Tbolt) you could forget out maneuvering these boys. A common tactic for engaging the 262 in a2a combat would be for a US fighter jock to wait for a 262 to make it's pass at bombers and then knowing the 262 would have to slow down to turn back towards the bombers engage the 262 then = slow turning circle and vulnerable at those lower speeds. Linked into this of course was the landing pattern (an even more common attack routine for US fighter pilots) whereby Ta152's and Dora's used to fly cover for the slow Swallows.

3.) Engine complexity. Very complex engines that had to be re-built on a not-infrequent basis. They allowed limited flying time and required a lot of work by engineers.

Overall my thoughts on the 262 are:

I respect the plane. It was a step in plane evolution. It could function in a bomber killing role very well. The R4M's were DEADLY. It was basically 'immune' to bomber defensive fire. It was NOT a dogfighter though so forget it against enemy fighters unless attacking an unaware enemy that you can attack from a quick pass.

All in all. A very good plane IMO but to have any BIG war impact it would need to be mass produced along with 190D's or 152H's flown by decent pilots (to tackle the fighters) to accomplish an air war 'change' IMO.........

[mdiehl]

The deadliness of the R4M is highly questionable. AFAICt the likelihood of a hit with one of them was quite low unless the salvo was fired from close range. German claims of numerous bombers downed with them have not been closely supported by Allied loss records, and seem to indicate an overclaim factor of at least three "confirmed kills" per actual allied loss.

Deflection shooting problems were a double-edged problem. The ME262s high rate of closing and relatively low round density on target limited the 262s capability to hit bombers effectively.

[Ursa MAior]

P-80

The first prototype (44-83020), nicknamed Lulu-Belle (and also known as "the Green Hornet" because of its green paint scheme), flew on 8 January 1944

The P-80 testing program proved very dangerous. Burcham was killed on 20 October 1944 while flying the third YP-80A produced, 44-83025. The "Gray Ghost" was lost on a test flight on March 20, 1945

Noted ace Major Richard Bong was also killed on an acceptance flight of a production P-80 in the United States on 6 August 1945

Operational history

Operational P-80Bs at Langley AFB.The Shooting Star began to enter service in late 1944 with 12 pre-production YP-80A's (a 13th YP-80A was modified to the only F-14 photo reconnaissance model and lost in a December crash), one of which was destroyed in the accident that killed Burcham. Four were sent to Europe for operational testing (two to England and two to the 1st Fighter Group at Lesina, Italy) but when test pilot Major Frederic Borsodi was killed in a crash caused by an engine fire on 28 January 1945

You are such an .... mdiehl. Better read before you post stupid things. It has nothing to do with engine it was fuel pumps and it entered service a WHOLE YEAR later than the Me 262. Thanks again for being such an easy target! Next!

[UndercoverNotChickenSalad]

ursa   Chump.  mdealio 0wns you.

[Hertston]

Spitfire. 

And anyone who thinks otherwise is blind, deaf, or both. [;)] Have you ever heard a Rolls Royce Merlin? 

[mdiehl]

Operational P-80Bs at Langley AFB.The Shooting Star began to enter service in late 1944 with 12 pre-production YP-80A's (a 13th YP-80A was modified to the only F-14 photo reconnaissance model and lost in a December crash), one of which was destroyed in the accident that killed Burcham. Four were sent to Europe for operational testing (two to England and two to the 1st Fighter Group at Lesina, Italy) but when test pilot Major Frederic Borsodi was killed in a crash caused by an engine fire on 28 January 1945

Yes. That is indeed what Wikipedia says on the matter and fwiw I think that is a decent summary. I will note with only passing irony that the same Wikipedia has presented very well researched details on the PaK38, Skoda, and M3 37mm guns that demonstrate that the M3 was substantially superior to the German and Czech weapons at all ranges.

You are such an .... mdiehl.

Such an.. datawonk? Erudite, articulate, and accurate poster of facts in re WW2? I do note that you remain demonstrably incorrect in your claims about 37mm atgs.

You weren't trolling there, were you?

Better read before you post stupid things.

The best thing about trolls like you is that it takes no time at all for your basic nature to be exposed.

It has nothing to do with engine it was fuel pumps and it entered service a WHOLE YEAR later than the Me 262.

Most people regard the fuel pump as an integral component to the engine. It's a bit like saying "it has nothing to do with the engine it was the fan blades" that failed on ME-262s. If linguistic shell games are the best you can do, you are wholly own3d.

And, yes, it entered service a year after the ME-262. Did anyone suggest otherwise? I believe the claim was that the ME-262 was the best fighter or at least the best jet of WW2, and neither of those claims are accurate. When you look at specifications, the P-80 was *substantially* superior to the ME-262 in every measurable way.

Yes, it was a difficult test plane. And yes, there were problems with the engines. The difference was that the USAAF did, in light of these problems, defer operational combat using the P-80. They could have deployed it. Even in the YP-stage and flight tests the engine problems were not frequent. And had the USAAF been in the same desperate straits as the Luftwaffe (desperately grasping at any slim chance of shutting down the Allied strategic bomber offensive) the US might have deployed the P-80 before it was fully ready, just as the Luftwaffe did in fact deploy the ME-262 before it was ready.

Fortunately for US fighter jocks, the P-51 and P-47 were so effective at eliminating all German aerial opposition that regardless of the ME-262s presence the Allies could, by mid-1944, establish air supremacy (almost) anywhere in the ETO.

Thanks again for being such an easy target! Next!

Oddly, despite your claim that I am an easy target, you keep missing. It's about what most people have come to expect of your, errm, "marksmanship."

[mdiehl]

Have you ever heard a Rolls Royce Merlin?

Sounds like a Harley Davidson with wings. Only much much much louder. Kudos to the Spitfire for looks... although I think the late clipped-wing variants lose much of the visual appeal.

Another beauty: The Bell P-39. A rotter of a plane without the turbosupercharger, but a real "wouldcacouldashoulda" crotch rocket.

For noise though, nothing beats the PW R-2800 double wasp.

[VicKevlar]

Ouch!  [:D]
 
Ursa MAior=
 

[robpost3]

P51
Crew 1,Maximum speed 437 mph, 490 mph for the P 51H
Cruising speed 275 mph, Range 1300 miles with drop tanks, Service ceiling 41,900 feet
Armaments
6 x 0.50 machine guns
10 x zero rail rockets or
2 x 1000 lbs bombs
Engine Merlin V-1650, Horsepower 1,695 hp

[Ursa MAior]

ORIGINAL: mdiehl
Yes. That is indeed what Wikipedia says on the matter and fwiw I think that is a decent summary. I will note with only passing irony that the same Wikipedia has presented very well researched details on the PaK38, Skoda, and M3 37mm guns that demonstrate that the M3 was substantially superior to the German and Czech weapons at all ranges.

If you insist. I chose wiki cause it matched with what I remembered.

The Lockheed P-80 "Shooting Star" (based on the XP-80) was America's first production jet fighter and first flew in 1944. Plans had been to produce some 5,000 of the planes, but it was not ready for combat until December 1945, after the war had ended. However, the P-80 (later called the F-80) was used during the Korean War and about 1,700 were eventually built. A lengthened two-
seater F-80 used as a trainer designated the T-33A served with more than 30 Air Forces, and almost 6,000 were built.

http://www.centennialofflight.gov/essay ... Aero15.htm

Basically says the aircraft ented service in feb 45
http://avions.legendaires.free.fr/p80.php

The Army Air Force planned to build the Shooting Star in large numbers. However, only two of the machines arrived in Italy before the end of the war in Europe, and these were never used in operations. Despite the cessation of hostilities, production was continued on a reduced scale.

http://www.aviation-history.com/lockheed/p80.html

So where is the superiority in 44?

Such an.. datawonk? Erudite, articulate, and accurate poster of facts in re WW2? I do note that you remain demonstrably incorrect in your claims about 37mm atgs.

State your sources oh bearer of wisdom. I have done it. Oh it was not wiki. [;)]

The best thing about trolls like you is that it takes no time at all for your basic nature to be exposed.

What nature? That idiots like you piss me off? Well in this case you have really exposed me.

Most people regard the fuel pump as an integral component to the engine. It's a bit like saying "it has nothing to do with the engine it was the fan blades" that failed on ME-262s. If linguistic shell games are the best you can do, you are wholly own3d.

Well if it is allowed for the P-80 and it is not fore the Me? Nice unbiased judgement. As for the engine vs fuel pump you ecell at generalizing when it favours you.

And, yes, it entered service a year after the ME-262. Did anyone suggest otherwise? I believe the claim was that the ME-262 was the best fighter or at least the best jet of WW2, and neither of those claims are accurate. When you look at specifications, the P-80 was *substantially* superior to the ME-262 in every measurable way.

vs

ORIGINAL: mdiehl
Plane for plane, the P-80 was a much better jet than the ME-262. Had the two met in A2A combat in late 1944 -- doable if the USAAF had rushed the P-80 into combat despite hinky engine reliability -- if ME-262s had regularly fought (and if neither were to lose engines mechanically), the P-80 would regularly have won. In late 1944, the P-80 was a better jet. Better thrust to weight ratio, better climb rate, faster speed, greater roll rate, better acceleration, longer range, longer endurance.

How could they have met with 2 test examples produced? [8|]

Fortunately for US fighter jocks, the P-51 and P-47 were so effective at eliminating all German aerial opposition that regardless of the ME-262s presence the Allies could, by mid-1944, establish air supremacy (almost) anywhere in the ETO.

No one questuions the bravery and the skill of the US /UK airmen. Not even their numbers. [;)]

Oddly, despite your claim that I am an easy target, you keep missing. It's about what most people have come to expect of your, errm, "marksmanship."

Check replies hombre. Why is it so difficult to admit that you have missed your mark? next time you will be more careful. As simple as that.

Coup de grace. Bye bye.

[ezzler]

Posting problems getting you down?

not anymore ....
the new easy thread will allow you to join a faction and stick to the action no matter what the evidence.

Don't believe it.
Well take this 14 day ME262 posting test and find yourself saving time reading 15 pages over the next 7 days...

Simply copy Protaganist ot Antagonist into the thread and sign your own name... no rationing of thought required.

Antagonist { the ME 262 was crap }

A] under developed
B] unneccessary use of scarce resources
c] waste of research
d] Not enough trained pilots
e] can't dogfight
f] never achieved anything
g]easily destroyed at landing
h] required extensive maintenence
i] required proper airfields
j] was built by slaves
k] spoilt me 109 production
l] required scarce fuel in abundance
m] could never be built in numbers to turn the tide
n] it was a bomber first stupid
o] needed a LONG runway
p] Had a swastika on the tail
q] The Ta-152 was almost as fast
r] it was the first production jet and all jets suck
s] Low velocty cannon
t] very poor build quality
u] No ejector seat
v] No low altitude ability
w] USA is best .. so it's crap
x] ramjet technology????
y] should have been the go229 instead
z] silly camouflage scheme

OR

Protagonist

A] First production jet
B] Superb bomber killer
C] Fastest non rocket aircraft of WW2
D] very heavy arnament
E] Great colour scheme
F] developing the future
H] only hindered by strategic bombing
I] Jets worked fine with proper maintenence
J] There was NEVER a shortage of Germany aircraft . just pilots
K] There were more ME 109's in 1945 than in 1944 .. why not build 262
L] Highest altitude
M]Could out run pursuers
N] could gain altitude quickly , invaluable in attacking bombers
o] Hitler hated it so it must be good
P] Goering didn't rate it, so it also must be good
Q] Ace pilots got results from it
R] Well times were tough what else would you do ?
S] Could carry bombs as well
T] Led to all other jets
U] was a significant feat considering...
V] looked like a jet
W] swept wing theory
X] Tricycle undercarriage.. solved those dodgy Me 109 taxi problems
W] Wasn't built by slaves but high tech German engineers
x] There were more than enough resources in 1942 when it should have gone into production
Y} only Nazi interference kept it from winning the war by 1944 by ridding the skies of B17's / B24's
Z} Superplanes are just better than boring planes.

Now simply keep posting for or against until all your opponents are too tired and the last one threatens to take their ball home. 

[ezzler]

As for Favourite aircrafr. Me 110C. Looked like it would chew you up and was considered a formidable foe until it actually showed up.. shame it was such a dud.

[robpost3]

[Ursa MAior]

rob
Did it fly in WWII?[;)]

[robpost3]

only on tuesdays![8D]

[Marauders]

P-38 Lightning

[mdiehl]

So where is the superiority in 44?

When you get 'round to looking a little deeper you will note that in 1944 the USAAF tested two versions. One in January using the UK engine and one in mid-year using the Allison/GEJ33. While both variants could out turn an ME262, the real kicker was the one powered by the J33. 2 of them were shipped to the UK by year's end for in-theater trials but not deployed to combat owing to the two crashes in your aforementioned post. Two more sent to Italy.

State your sources oh bearer of wisdom. I have done it. Oh it was not wiki.

The wiki article on the PaK38 and Skoda cites Hogg, which is the source that you (claim to) have used. Given that their article gives a complete citation I'll go with their claim rather than yours. If theirs is incorrect, all you need to do to fix the Wiki article is cite the appropriate page numbers from Hogg and I am sure your corrections will stand.

My source vis the 37mm was given already. Again, Wiki cites my source and also Hogg, and still gives the US gun 50-54mm penetration vs 20 degree sloped armor at 900m. I stand by my claim that you have overstated the PaK38s and Skoda's penetration and understated the M3's penetration at 500m. Anyone who wants to can look it up.

What nature? That idiots like you piss me off? Well in this case you have really exposed me.

That when you are confronted by facts you call people idiots and you state that their opinons are stupid. What is exposed speaks for itself.

Well if it is allowed for the P-80 and it is not fore the Me? Nice unbiased judgement. As for the engine vs fuel pump you ecell at generalizing when it favours you.

What is allowed for the P-80? I've stipulated that the fuel pump is part of the engine. Likewise the fan blades are part of the engine. The only one here to suggest anything else has been yourself. I am not sure why you imagine continuing down this line of thought makes your argument any stronger.

How could they have met with 2 test examples produced?

2 in the UK, 2 in Italy, and some dozens (by July 1945) in the US. Of course, given that the USAAF's policy was to wait until the engine issues had been fully resolved, they *did not* meet in combat. Had the USAAF deemed it necessary to deploy P-80s to some forward base in France -- the only way any P-80 was going to get close to an ME-262 because there was no way any ME-262 had a chance of showing up in English airspace (other than perhaps in captured livery) -- they could have done so.

Had the USAAF done a "rush job" on the P-80 deployment they'd have faced operational loss rates comparable to German pilots and of course needed to deploy a whole new cadre of logistics people for the new type. Not worth the effort considering the plane was not needed. The Allies were easily winning. Adding risk and cost by mixing in the P-80 would not have changed the strategic picture one iota.

Had that happened one would have seen the P-80 -- a faster, more maneuverable plane, winning for the most part, IMO. The P-80 certainly had the firepower to wreck an ME-262 and could have turned with it at high speed and outrun it as well. Naturally, operational losses in the P-80 would have been higher than in Allied piston-engined types, and this more than anything was a good reason not to deploy the P-80.

After all, the P-80 wasn't needed. P-51s, P-47s, late Spitfires, Typhoons, and P-38s were wrecking the ME-262s and killing their pilots in a most satisfactory way.

Coup de grace. Bye bye.

Coup de grace indeed. It was the only thing you could do for yourself at this point.