By: mike currill - 29th December 2006 at 01:11
To be honest with Curlyboy The engine problems with the Me262 were worse than that. I recall reading somewhere that it was more a case of brand new to scrap in 10-15 hours. That aside it was definitely the fastest combat aircraft in use at the time as the Me163 was abandoned as a aviable aircraft by then IIRC
By: Arabella-Cox - 29th December 2006 at 00:47
As for performance, I’ve not got a clue, but for me from a personal point of view, it would be the Meteor, but then again, my love of Britain may have tainted my veiw just a little……..
I totally understand and of course we all have somekind of bias toward aircraft developed and produced in our own countries. That said, I believe the P-80 was at least as fast as the others. Also, I assume the single engined Shooting Star would offer more agility than either the Me-262 and/or Meteor. That said, we all would need much more data to make a honest appraisal…………sound like time to do a little reseach?:rolleyes:
By: peppermint_jam - 28th December 2006 at 22:45
As for performance, I’ve not got a clue, but for me from a personal point of view, it would be the Meteor, but then again, my love of Britain may have tainted my veiw just a little……..
By: JagRigger - 28th December 2006 at 22:30
Quick online trawl gives:
P-80A @ 600 mph
Meteor F4 @ 600 mph (one took record in 46 at 615 mph )
Vampire F5 @ 530 mph
Me-262 @ 541 mph
By: big bristols - 28th December 2006 at 22:25
indeed they were; why do you think watson was orded not to fly a 262 in the race?
By: Arabella-Cox - 28th December 2006 at 18:12
Let me see if I can find something to qualify that, in case it is one of those urban myths.
Bruce
Surely, both types were compared to each other at Wright Patterson after the war……….:rolleyes:
By: Bruce - 28th December 2006 at 18:03
Let me see if I can find something to qualify that, in case it is one of those urban myths.
Bruce
By: Arabella-Cox - 28th December 2006 at 17:54
Tests were carried out in the USA that showed the 262 to be faster than the P80. There was a scheme to race one of the ‘Whizzers’ aircraft against the P80 as a Thomson Trophy entrant. Once the authorities realised that the 262 would in all probability have won, this was quietly dropped.
Had the Germans had more access to suitable materials, the 262 is the simplest of all of the aircraft named so far, and by sheer weight of numbers they may well have overwhelmed the opposition.
The Meteor as a twin engined aircraft, using two of the same engines that powered the P80/Vampire would have to be faster than either of those!
Bruce
From all of the data I’ve seen over the years. The P-80A was slightly faster than the Me-262a………..I guess I’ll have to do some research as this is news to me!:confused:
By: Arabella-Cox - 28th December 2006 at 17:52
Well, I am a little lost here? What model of the Meteor in 1946 flew faster than the P-80 and/or Me-262??? It was my understand that the Meteor was much slower at least in early models…………:rolleyes:
By: Bruce - 28th December 2006 at 12:42
Tests were carried out in the USA that showed the 262 to be faster than the P80. There was a scheme to race one of the ‘Whizzers’ aircraft against the P80 as a Thomson Trophy entrant. Once the authorities realised that the 262 would in all probability have won, this was quietly dropped.
Had the Germans had more access to suitable materials, the 262 is the simplest of all of the aircraft named so far, and by sheer weight of numbers they may well have overwhelmed the opposition.
The Meteor as a twin engined aircraft, using two of the same engines that powered the P80/Vampire would have to be faster than either of those!
Bruce
By: Kernowglyn - 28th December 2006 at 12:01
Really, it comes down to the P-80 and Me-262. As the Meteor was to slow and the Kikka we just don’t know with the data available. From there I would have to give the P-80 the advantage! Of course I would have admit my American bias to be far……………:o
For the date in question the Meteor was the fastest fighter in the world. The speeds of the P-80 and the Vampire were identical.
By: Arabella-Cox - 27th December 2006 at 22:13
Really, it comes down to the P-80 and Me-262. As the Meteor was to slow and the Kikka we just don’t know with the data available. From there I would have to give the P-80 the advantage! Of course I would have admit my American bias to be fair……………:o
By: JG54 - 27th December 2006 at 20:41
In 1946, wouldn’t there also be DH Vampire, HE 162 and Horten Ho IX to factor?
In skilled hands, I think the ‘162 may have proved rather a handful and imagine a night sky filled filled with “Bremen” equipped Ho IX’s!
Horrido!
By: Arabella-Cox - 27th December 2006 at 19:42
Yeah i realised that but i was just pointing out the what if ?
But the list would have to go
1.P80 (fast, manouverable)
2.Meteor (less manouverable)
3.ME262 (no reliability but had punch)
4.Kikka (2nd hand engines from a 3rd rate source and almost no armament)
curlyboy
By: Arabella-Cox - 27th December 2006 at 15:26
Unfortunately the Axis would have quickly lost that fight as their engines had no service life (about 3 or 4 hours per strip down at best) the germans had some access to special metals to make only a limited amount of engines at best and these would have suffered the same problems.
By that point of the war Japan would have struggled to put more than a couple of aircraft in the air but their military strategy would have wasted them on pointless kamikaze attacks anyway.
The problem is with the 1946 debate is that the war was almost over bar a few last ditch efforts in Europe by 1944 and the japanese in the pacific were not prepared to fight a military giant like the US in the first place and the US had succeeded (where germany failed) in cutting off vital supplys of raw materials to its enemy.
So really the allies would have won still and all the last ditch new technologies would not have helped as lots of people believe Germany could have had an A bomb by 1946 but it would not have had a delivery system for it as the bombs would have been too big and heavy for a V2 and germany possesed no good 4 engined heavy bomber to deliver it and that is if you ignore the fact the allies had complete air superiorty over the bulk of western europe by 1944.
curlyboy
Clearly, the Axis wouldn’t have been able to stop the Allied Juggernuat even with the Wonder Weapons of Jet Powered Fighters. Yet, my posting had more to do with comparing jet vs jet if the war had went into 1946…………:rolleyes:
By: Arabella-Cox - 27th December 2006 at 08:09
Unfortunately the Axis would have quickly lost that fight as their engines had no service life (about 3 or 4 hours per strip down at best) the germans had some access to special metals to make only a limited amount of engines at best and these would have suffered the same problems.
By that point of the war Japan would have struggled to put more than a couple of aircraft in the air but their military strategy would have wasted them on pointless kamikaze attacks anyway.
The problem is with the 1946 debate is that the war was almost over bar a few last ditch efforts in Europe by 1944 and the japanese in the pacific were not prepared to fight a military giant like the US in the first place and the US had succeeded (where germany failed) in cutting off vital supplys of raw materials to its enemy.
So really the allies would have won still and all the last ditch new technologies would not have helped as lots of people believe Germany could have had an A bomb by 1946 but it would not have had a delivery system for it as the bombs would have been too big and heavy for a V2 and germany possesed no good 4 engined heavy bomber to deliver it and that is if you ignore the fact the allies had complete air superiorty over the bulk of western europe by 1944.
curlyboy
Sign In
December 27, 2006 at 3:32 am