P-80 and gloster meteor

[devil956]

p-80 and gloster meteor were in the war but very late and i think there should be an american and british jet to combat the luftwaffe me-163 and 262.

[Krusty]

P-80 was a total loss, basically. It performed far worse than single engined piston planes already in production. As for fighting the 262? Not in a million years.

The Gloster, though, has been suggested many times as a counter to the 262. Someday it'll probably find a home in AH.

[bkbandit]

where did u read that??

[Krusty]

Everywhere. The engines were expected to develop TWICE the thrust they actually did. The entire plane was designed around engines that had 2x the power available, and all of a sudden they get them in, and test them, and it's totally underpowered and nearly unacceptable. That's the reason you didn't see any at the end of the war. P51s were doing better and were already in the air in large numbers.

[captkaos]

The P-80 was actually a very successful plane.  It was produced for 15 years, had good guns, and better speed than any prop plane.  Not sure where you are reading things, but qoute a source.  The P-80 later became the T-33 trainer, and continued to serve in the Air Force until it was replaced by the T-38 (F-5).

You did not see a large number of them late in the war, because by the time the P-38 was being deployed, the Luftwaffe was all but destroyed.  No reason to rush air superiority fighters to the front when you need ground attack planes to deal with the German Army.

[Krusty]

It was produced for 15 years because it was the first production US jet plane. It was important, despite the fact that its performance was sub-par. Why were we still using P51s over Korea all those years later? Because they did about the same thing the F80 could do.

EDIT: "all but destroyed"? Sorry to break it to you, but the most lethal years of the Luftwaffe were the later years. 1944 had more planes produced by a large margin than any other year in the war, and the beginning of 1945 seemed to indicate that 1945 would produce  yet even more than '44 (had the war in Europe not stopped halfway through the year).

[CLW81Z]

P-80 never saw combat. It was however being shipped to Europe when the war ended for pilot training.

As for the meteor, they saw combat shooting down Nazi V-1s i think.

My conclusion:
Gloster Meteor: Put it in!:aok
P-80 Shooting Star: Maybe once we get all the prop planes we want:)

[captkaos]

By the time the P-80 was getting to Europe the Allies had total air superiority.  Once again, quote your source for the troubles with the P-80, that is all I ask.

In additon, you confuse the ability to produce aircraft, with the ability to put them in the air in the hands of qualified pilots.  The alies had a huge advantage in that area of the battle.  Be the time D-Day started, the allies ruled the skies.  There were still battles, and the German Air Force did what they could, but the allies had overwhelming numbers and supplies.

[Krusty]

cptkaos,

for one, I don't have to quote my sources. Almost every source I have ever heard, read, or watched, has mentioned this. You show me a source that says otherwise.

Hell even one of the people that BUILT the damn thing was in a documentary saying "Well, we were kinda wondering why it wasn't as powerful as it should have been, so we hooked a couple of huge spring scales up to it and floored the throttle, and it turns out it was only developing half the thrust it should have!".

As for the instant "show me your source" comments -- what's the deal? Some things are common knowledge. Do I need to list a source that states the 109 was a LW plane in WW2? Most folks know this. Do I need to state a source saying that the P47 was better at 30K than all 109s? For the most part, it's common knowledge. Sorry if this sounds harsh, but your immediate demand for a source also sounded harsh.

EDIT: Just had a thought, though. I googled the F80 image, and it's similar to the plane I was thinking, but I can't be sure if it's the same. The one I'm thinking of is the one they stuck a fake wooden prop on the nose so folks driving past the field wouldn't know it was a jet.

[Captain Virgil Hilts]

Are you quite certain you don't mean the Bell P-59 Aircomet?

[Krusty]

Hrm... they look somewhat similar. Side intakes, straight wings, rounded noses. It might have been the image you show. I seem to recall the plane I was thinking of was a little more squat, and the P80 seemes to sit taller in the saddle.

If that's the case then I will change all of my comments to say "P-59" instead of P-80.

However, the instant demand for a source with nothing else mentioned sounds like a command to "agree with me or shut up" -- which is how I took cptkaos's comments. For future reference, it might seem less hostile if you were to list the stats and say "I think you've got the wrong plane" or "Well according to so-and-so it was pretty good".



As a side note, I thought this one (P-59 I guess -- I'm much better with visuals than names mind you) was the only U.S. production plane produced and used during the war.

EDIT: corrected name

[captkaos]

Krusty, just trying to find where you are reading the negative comments about the P-80, not trying to be hostile or confrontational.  All I have read differs from what you wrote.  

P-80 information is not common knowledge.

So for now, lets call a truce.  I do appologize if you thought I was being harsh.  Being an engineer, social skills are not that well developed.

PS:  I had the opportunity to help restore a T-33 (P-80) while serivng in the Air Force.

[EagleDNY]

Krusty, I'm pretty sure you are thinking of the P-59 when you are commenting on the sub-par performance.  The P-59 prototypes used 2 early american-made copies of the british whittle jet engines, and was horribly underpowered as a result.  The top speed was only a little over 400 and it sucked fuel so badly that it had a range of under 300 miles.  Given that it was a 1942 design, it doesn't really compare to the Me-262 which became operational in 44.

But what a difference a year makes - by the end of 1943 GE was static testing their Derwent variant (J33) which produced twice as much thrust (4,000 lbs static, 4,600 lbs at altitude, with an alcohol-water injection for up to 5,400 lbs) and this was the engine that they put in the P-80s.  Compare that to the Junkers Jumos in a 262 (2 x 2,000 lb thrust engines).  

The P-80 has a better thrust to weight ratio than a 262, it's straight up faster,  has a higher rate of climb, longer range, and higher ceiling.  In everything but a near-transsonic dive (where the wing sweep makes the difference), the P-80 should own a 262.  I think I'd prefer the 6 x.50 cals vs the 30mm potato guns too.

The Meteor Mk.Is were also a bit underpowered compared to a 262 (the first mks used the Wellend engines / about 1,700 lbs thrust each), but the Mk.IIIs which were deployed to the continent had improved Derwent & Goblin engines (2,300 lbs thrust each) and with 4 x 20mm hispanos they probably would've been a good match for a 262.  The Mk.IIIs also had redesigned long engine nacelles (they had to correct a high speed buffeting problem) which let the Mk.IIIs get up into the 500 mph speed range, so the 262 would probably be in the same situation and have to dive away at near transsonic speed to escape.  All things being equal, the Meteor Mk.III probably owns the 262 as well.  

P-80 vs Meteor III?  The P-80a has a higher top speed, and I'd give the maneuverabilty edge to the P-80 by a bit (a small bit) and the armament edge to the Mk.III by a good bit.  A good P-80 driver should be able to get on the Mk.IIIs tail and let him have it, but if you catch a snap shot from those 4 Hispanos, you're done (probably well-done).

As with anything, the guy behind the stick makes the most difference.  If the 262 driver gets on top and can dive through, then a couple of spuds in any of these rides is game over.  

Does it sound like I'd like to see these rides in the game?  

EagleDNY
$.02

[Widewing]

Originally posted by Krusty


EDIT: Just had a thought, though. I googled the F80 image, and it's similar to the plane I was thinking, but I can't be sure if it's the same. The one I'm thinking of is the one they stuck a fake wooden prop on the nose so folks driving past the field wouldn't know it was a jet.

You were thinking of the P-59A...

It wasn't very fast, but not any slower than the early Meteors (F. MK.I and F. Mk.III) About 413 mph @ 30k, 376 mph @ 5K. What it did have was a huge wing area and a very low wing loading. Pilots who flew it were impressed with its excellent maneuverability and gentle flight characteristics. Acceleration was rated as poor.

Myy regards,

Widewing

[Golfer]

Seconded/Thirded/Fourtheded

You're thinking the Bell P-59, Krusty.  The P-80 went on to do a fine job in Korea as well.

See...if you were to have quoted your source you would have found your own error instead of covering your ears screaming "raaraaaraaaraaaRAAARAA" when folks try to add productive information.