Well, there's B-29 on the front page...

[RTHolmes]

^ what he said

[GNucks]

^ what he said

Damn straight. I don't think more jets is what the game needs, but I've often thought it would be nice to have a balance of jet power in between the Axis and Allies. Even IF the Meteor didn't really have anything to do the whole war...

EDIT Correction: I meant that it never really had the opportunity to perform combat missions over enemy territory, if my memory and hasty Wiki checks are correct... 

[Krusty]

3,943 B-29s (B-29s, B-29A, B-29B) were built during World War II.

Well at least 1 book begs to differ. I understand books can be wrong (as I've presented some info on P-40s in the past quoted verbatim that was proven quite wrong with more accurate details, some years back), but a quick spot-check on the Internet seemed to support it at the time. Perhaps it was going by differing criteria (counting only those in combat? I don't know). It seemed to suggest (from memory) between 2500 and 3000 total.

[kilo2]

 

[RTHolmes]

262 vs meteor has to be the best fighter combat that never took place, a true clash of the Titans. I'd really like to find out what would have happened

[Krusty]

Which Meteor? Mk.III owns a 262 in almost every way from climb to turn radius to overall handling to gun ballistics to ability to kill things in general...


Mk.I is another question, but this really isn't about that.

[Ack-Ack]

Well at least 1 book begs to differ. I understand books can be wrong (as I've presented some info on P-40s in the past quoted verbatim that was proven quite wrong with more accurate details, some years back), but a quick spot-check on the Internet seemed to support it at the time. Perhaps it was going by differing criteria (counting only those in combat? I don't know). It seemed to suggest (from memory) between 2500 and 3000 total.

Your source might have also been referencing only the original production run of B-29s before production started on the B-29A/Bs.

ack-ack

[Krusty]

Possible but it suggested "all" -- again as noted it seems wrong now.

[jay]

in all honesty i hate the B29 but there is no stopping the trolls now 

[Yeager]

in all honesty i hate the B29 but there is no stopping the trolls now  

The B29 is many things: A fascinating piece of history.  An engineering behemoth in its day.  Both beautiful and frightening in its capabilities, complexities, and shortfalls.  A true giant of an airplane in so many ways.  This game/combat simulation could never be truly complete without it.

B29 History Trivia: The famous American actor Charles Bronson (Once Upon a Time in the West, The Magnificent Seven, The Dirty Dozen, The Great Escape, Mr. Majestyk, The Mechanic, and the Death Wish series of films) was a tail gunner on B29s serving with the 39th Bombardment Group out of Guam during WW2 and completed 25 combat missions against Japan.  He was awarded the Purple Heart for wounds suffered in combat.

[chris3]

moin

i do not understand why so many people are complainig about the B-29.
i gues it is a wonderful bird.
of corse its dadly but it will be perked, so its no problem. we will see it alot during the first weeks, but than its comes to normal.

this bird can kill alot but because its perked it will be chased by the most, so every b-29 pilot need to think about what he will do and how he will fly.
a well flown b29 mission will be hard to kill but if it is well flown i can life with that, of course a well flown interceptor mission will get the b29, if its not well planed, not.

i cant wait to fly this bird in a big b-29 mission deep into enemy teritory and i cant wait to intercept this bird with my squadys and because oft that i gues the b29 will be no problem for the blance in the MA.

cu chris3

[MrRiplEy[H]]

Which Meteor? Mk.III owns a 262 in almost every way from climb to turn radius to overall handling to gun ballistics to ability to kill things in general...


Mk.I is another question, but this really isn't about that.

You could ask which 262 or which He experimental or.. Germany was several years ahead in jet technology with only bombing stopping them from advancing.

[MORAY37]

Which Meteor? Mk.III owns a 262 in almost every way from climb to turn radius to overall handling to gun ballistics to ability to kill things in general...


Mk.I is another question, but this really isn't about that.

Hmmmm.

Looking into the archives, I keep finding descriptions of the Me262 as being light and responsive to control inputs, with the main problem being compensating for the speed of the engagement.  In fact, a few pilots learned to dogfight the 262 quite well, and killed their share of fighters.  Its' control authority was precise, and proved to be a stable platform.

In contrast,

The pilots appreciated the additional power provided by the Meteor III relative to the Meteor I, as well as the improved view with the new canopy. However, the ailerons had been deliberately wired to be "heavy" to prevent aerobatic maneuvers from overstressing the wings, and pilots complained that flying the aircraft could be very tiring; that hadn't been a problem with the Meteor I, since it hadn't been cleared for aerobatic maneuvers. Pilots also complained that the machine tended to "snake" at high speed, limiting its accuracy as a gun platform, and it tended to become uncontrollable in a dive due to compressibility buffeting. However, the aircraft was basically liked. A flight combat exercise against the excellent Hawker Tempest V piston fighter concluded:

BEGIN QUOTE:

The Meteor III is superior to the Tempest V in almost all departments. If it were not for the heaviness of its ailerons and the consequent poor maneuverability in the rolling plane, and the adverse effect of snaking on it as a gun platform, it would be a comparable all-round fighter with greatly increased performance.

[RTHolmes]

thats my understanding - heavy controls, yaw instability, slow roll and engines which take forever to spool up and then surge at full power. I suspect the meteor could be a bit of a handful in a dogfight (a bit like the previous modelled mossie perhaps?)