A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Military Aviation
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

#1 Jet of World War II



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old July 3rd 03, 12:19 PM
Christopher
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default #1 Jet of World War II

Hi the Meteor was used to shoot down V1 missiles it was quite good at it!
too so it was band from front line service i think until the end of the war.
"Gordon" wrote in message
...
They were so confident
in the Meteor that they wouldn't put it in combat against the 262.
I have read that the British were afraid the Germans might gain the
advanced technology if one was shot down. I've alway wonder what
advanced technology was being referred to.


Agree, Walt! The Me 262 A-1a with 24 R4Ms and an EZ42 revi installed was

a
monster in comparison to the Mk 1 Meteors. No RAF pilot I have spoken

with has
expressed doubts in this regard, including men who flew both.

v/r
Gordon
====(A+C====
USN SAR Aircrew

"Got anything on your radar, SENSO?"
"Nothing but my forehead, sir."



Ads
  #2  
Old July 4th 03, 02:57 PM
The Revolution Will Not Be Televised
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On 29 Jun 2003 15:59:14 GMT, nt (Gordon) wrote:

They were so confident
in the Meteor that they wouldn't put it in combat against the 262.
I have read that the British were afraid the Germans might gain the
advanced technology if one was shot down. I've alway wonder what
advanced technology was being referred to.


Agree, Walt! The Me 262 A-1a with 24 R4Ms and an EZ42 revi installed was a
monster in comparison to the Mk 1 Meteors. No RAF pilot I have spoken with has
expressed doubts in this regard, including men who flew both.


Did the Mk III's with 616 Squadron in Belgium in 1945 have Wellands or
Derwents? (I know the first few Mk IIIs had Wellands, but some of them
were re-engined later). It's not really a fair comparison to use the
Mk 1 (20 produced, only ever used for anti-V1 patrols operationally)
against the 262. The RAF were prepared to use the Mk III over German
territory in April 1945, so there was a point at which they were
prepared to risk contact with the 262. It might, just, possibly have
been an engine issue (why give the Germans engines with the compressor
blades and rare alloys they needed when the inevitable losses took
place?), but that's speculation on my part.

The war was almost over whatever happened with one or at most two
squadrons of Meteors amongst the hundreds of allied piston-engined
fighters roaming over German territory. In that respect, I personally
believe blue-on-blue was a bigger risk than the 262 or anything else.
The one time 616 Squadron did move into position to attack some 190's,
they attracted unwelcome attention from some Spitfires doing the the
same thing.

Nobody could guarantee meeting the 262 in combat: the RAF didn't see
much of them in general, so the real risks to the Meteor were from
German piston-engined fighters and most of all, flak. It certainly
didn't have the range to go beyond the normal Spitfire operational
radius, so I don't think it would have met anything other than what
the other conventional fighters of 2 TAF encountered. On those
grounds, I doubt the British restricted it's use on the grounds of
prestige, but it's a possibility.

On another subject, you couldn't give me a realistic cruising speed
for B.IX/B.XVI mossies in '44'45, could you? I mean a real one,
including bombload, etc? Many thanks if you can, if not don't worry
about it.

Gavin Bailey
--

"...this level of misinformation suggests some Americans may be
avoiding having an experience of cognitive dissonance."
- 'Poll shows errors in beliefs on Iraq, 9/11'
The Charlotte Observer, 20th June 2003
  #5  
Old July 4th 03, 05:36 PM
ArtKramr
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Subject: #1 Jet of World War II
From: "Peter Glasų" [email protected] broadpark.no
Date: 7/4/03 9:14 AM Pacific Daylight Time


just read "War in the air" by Stephen Coonts,in it is a chapter where
Adolf Galland describes his last sortie of the war - leading 6 Me-262s
against a formation of Mauraders on April 26.


Thanks. I read that account in Galland's "The First and the Last". Good book
by. Glad it wasn't our group he hit that day.(sigh)

Arthur Kramer
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

  #7  
Old July 5th 03, 01:40 AM
Gordon
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


Hi the Meteor was used to shoot down V1 missiles it was quite good at it!
too so it was band from front line service i think until the end of the war.


True - it's straight line speed was perfect for the running chase. In this
footrace, its lack of maneuverability was not a hindrance. Later marks of the
fighter were quite an improvement and by all accounts corrected their earlier
faults.

v/r
Gordon
  #8  
Old July 5th 03, 01:44 AM
Gordon
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On another subject, you couldn't give me a realistic cruising speed
for B.IX/B.XVI mossies in '44'45, could you? I mean a real one,
including bombload, etc? Many thanks if you can, if not don't worry
about it.


If you give me some time to pull it off GEE mission logs, surely. Other choice
to ask Mark Huxtable at Mossie.org - he is building an overly large-scale Mk IX
and is quite the expert.

v/r
Gordon
  #9  
Old July 5th 03, 05:22 AM
Lawrence Dillard
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"machf" wrote in message
news
On Sat, 28 Jun 2003 14:11:47 -0500, Alan Minyard

wrote:

On 28 Jun 2003 07:07:11 -0700, (Kenneth
Williams) wrote:

The Gloster Meteor, of course!

The Jerrys may have had many of aviation's "firsts" with their jets
but lacked anything good enough to last beyond a few years. The Meteor
lived well beyond the war and established itself quite well.

Too bad you Yanks had such misfortune with that horrid XP-59 and
troublesome XP-80 aircraft.


Keith, you are not really being fair to the US jet a/c you mentioned.

Remember that the P-59 was ordered as a "proof of concept" a/c, to
demonstrate that US forms could adapt to the new technology with respect to
manufacturing procedures, etc. The P-59 was outfitted with direct copies of
a "weak" (so to speak--1st generation) Whittle turbojet. Because of its
experimental nature, it was terrifically overbuilt (and hence noticeably
overweight). If you can locate the performance figures for the 1st batch of
P-59s and compare them to the same for the first batch of "Meatboxes", you
will find close similarities. Later P-59s had more powerful engines, but
featured little or no change in weight because no effort was expended in
productionizing the bird. In short, the P-59 was never intended for combat
use. There was no "misfortune" involved with the P-59 for the USAAF,
although Bell Aircraft may have missed the boat with a too-conservative
approach to its design and development. Bell ignored suggestions to "prove
the concept" by simply fitting a pair of the Whittles to the undersurfaces
of a P-39's wings, then asking for a contract to develop a serious fighter.

I believe also that you mischaracterize the P-80. It was constructed in a
remarkable short time during 1943 to take an Halford engine, then in short
order essentially re-designed and enlarged in order to take a more powerful
engine, also adapted from the British.

The major "problem" associated with its early use was overconfidence on the
part of the first pilots who flew them. A second was a flaw in the
fabrication of early turbine blades, which came from the factory with
impurities near the tips which weakened their structure, and hence would
fail at normal operating temperatures. Another flaw was the fuel system,
again drawn from British practice, which took power via gears from the
powerplant. It was discovered that at max throttle, such as used at takeoff,
this system could not always guarantee sufficient fuel flow sustain
combustion, leading to flameouts; a simple solution was to fit an auxiliary
fuel pump, which was supposed to be engaged by the pilot prior to takeoff,
and during the landing approach, as a precaution. On a number of occasions,
crash investigation discovered that the pilot had failed to engage the aux
pump.

Meeting and overcoming unanticipated development problems is part and parcel
of making a warplane operational. The contrast in time-frames between the
Me-262's initiation and its "readiness" for combat and that of the P-80's is
remarkable. By 1945, the P-80 demonstrated docile engine characteristics,
the ability to operate at 39-40,000 ft altitude, reliable powered ailerons,
no controllability problems, high overall quality control, an efficient
laminar-flow wing, and the ability to take off on a mission, climb to cruise
altitude, fly 500 miles, drop tip-tanks, and fight at 100 per cent power for
15 minutes before having to return to base, with enough fuel remaining for
one missed approach.

The basic design, hailing from 1943, proved adaptable of taking engines of
from 4,000 to in excess of 6,000 lbs thrust; of being the basis for a very
successful two-seat land-based trainer; the basis for a two-seat
radar-equipped rocket-firing all-weather interceptor; of being adapted for
carrier-borne pilot training; and of accepting afterburning for increased
acceleration and climb. The F-80 gave excellent service in the Korean
conflict, obtaining the first victory in all-jet combat, downing a
Soviet-built Mig-15.



Kenneth Williams


Actually the P-80, in its various iterations, served quite long and
well.

I'm not sure, but I think the Bolivian Air Force still has (or had until

very
recently) its T-33s in service.

--
__________ ____---____ Marco Antonio Checa Funcke
\_________D /-/---_----' Santiago de Surco, Lima, Peru
_H__/_/
http://machf.tripod.com
'-_____|(

remove the "no_me_j." and "sons.of." parts before replying



  #10  
Old July 5th 03, 09:39 AM
The Revolution Will Not Be Televised
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On 04 Jul 2003 18:55:13 GMT, (ArtKramr) wrote:

er, if you did, and you served in the RAF in
the 2nd Tactical Air Force at the time in question, please pass on the
information.


No. I served in the 344th Bomb Group, 494th Bomb Squadron of the 99th wing of
the 9th Air force,


So you didn't serve in 2nd TAF or experience operations on the 2nd
TAF area of operations? If not, why are you commenting on such
operations which you did not personally experience, given your own
views about such an approach, as posted to this group on numerous
occasions?

But you see the Luftwaffe was a very democraticc
organization


I was unaware that the Luftwaffe was a democratic organisation.

They didn't restrict their hits to the RAF 2nd Tactical Air
Force.


Again, who said they did?

If you want to criticise the points I'm making, it would help your
case if you could discern what they were in the first place instead of
making up all these straw men of your own and attributing them to me.


In the remote chance that you actually are interested in responding to
the points I have made, I again direct you to the comments and points
you have already refused to answer in the " #1 Piston Fighter was
British" thread.

They would hit anybody any time. , The Luftwaffe was an equal
opportunity hitter.


By all means post your experience of combat with Me 262's if you want,
but if you're doing so in a followup to my post, criticising the point
about the prevalence of contact with Me 262s for the Gloster Meteors
in 616 Squadron in 1945, please reference your direct personal
experience of precisely such operations. Otherwise you're laying
yourself open to accusations of hypocrisy, just as you are when
talking about teaching Chaucer when you never personally experienced
the events involved in The Canterbury Tales or even spoke Middle
English to a native Middle English speaker.

Gavin Bailey
--

"...this level of misinformation suggests some Americans may be
avoiding having an experience of cognitive dissonance."
- 'Poll shows errors in beliefs on Iraq, 9/11'
The Charlotte Observer, 20th June 2003
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
FS: 1984 "Aces And Aircraft Of World War I" Harcover Edition Book J.R. Sinclair Aviation Marketplace 0 July 16th 04 05:27 AM
FS: 1996 "Aircraft Of The World: A Complete Guide" Binder Sheet Singles J.R. Sinclair Aviation Marketplace 0 July 14th 04 07:34 AM
FS: 1984 "Aces And Aircraft Of World War I" Harcover Edition Book J.R. Sinclair Aviation Marketplace 0 January 26th 04 05:33 AM
FS: 1984 "Aces And Aircraft Of World War I" Harcover Edition Book J.R. Sinclair Aviation Marketplace 0 December 4th 03 05:40 AM
FS: 1984 "Aces And Aircraft Of World War I" Harcover Edition Book Jim Sinclair Aviation Marketplace 0 September 11th 03 06:24 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:12 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2021 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.