Author Topic: Meteor mkIII vs. Me262 vs. He162  (Read 4763 times)

Offline GScholz

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8910
Re: Meteor mkIII vs. Me262 vs. He162
« Reply #30 on: May 26, 2013, 12:35:23 PM »
I totally agree with that.
"With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censored, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably."

Offline LCADolby

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7321
Re: Meteor mkIII vs. Me262 vs. He162
« Reply #31 on: May 26, 2013, 12:47:47 PM »

Just because you fly 460 wirbirds or whatever his official figure is, doesn't mean your the master of your trade. Look at his opinion of the 190 vs the 109 - he preferred the 190 yet why does all the german aces prefer the me109 over it? I guess a hundred aces can't be all wrong and eric brown right.


A very famous German ace said at the time that 109 production should be halted for 190s..
JG5 "Eismeer"
YouTube+Twitch - 20Dolby10


"BE a man and shoot me in the back" - pez

Offline GScholz

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8910
Re: Meteor mkIII vs. Me262 vs. He162
« Reply #32 on: May 26, 2013, 12:52:54 PM »
Here's what Eric Brown had to say about the 109G that he tested:

"Longevity of service has never characterised the fighter. Indeed, until the last decade or so it was possible to count the years in the firstline lifespan of the average fighter aircraft on the fingers of one hand. Tending to prove the rule have been the few noteworthy exceptions to be found in the annals of fighter development, perhaps the most outstanding of these being Professor Willy Messerchmitt's Bf 109. There was, in fact, nothing mysterious about the Bf 109. It was simply a well-conceived, soundly designed fighter that maintained during maturity the success that attended its infancy. The blind flying panel appeared somewhat better equipped than that of the contemporary FW 190. The auxiliary services were mostly electrical apart from the undercarriage and radiator, which were hydraulically operated, and the flaps which were directly connected to a manually-operated handwheel and in consequence, tediously slow to lower. At its rather disappointing low-level cruising speed of 240 mph (386 km/h) the Gustav was certainly delightful to fly. This was then Gustav. By the time the evolution of Willy Messerchmitt's basic design had reached the G-series, it was no longer a great fighter, but it was still a sound all-rounder and the Bf 109G had greater flexibility from some aspects than preceding sub-types."

Hardly a damning or biased conclusion.
"With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censored, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably."

Offline Butcher

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5323
Re: Meteor mkIII vs. Me262 vs. He162
« Reply #33 on: May 26, 2013, 01:13:59 PM »
This is my problem with Brown's credibility, he flew a 109G/U2 fitted with Gondolas in mock combat - he's basing his comments on a few hours in a Me109 - just as most of the aircraft he flew. How does his opinion justify vs someone who flew hundreds of hours in a 109? Spitfire? 51? Mock combat, not exploited as the veteran pilots did.

Quote
By the time the evolution of Willy Messerchmitt's basic design had reached the G-series, it was no longer a great fighter


Sure, any fighter that has to have gondolas under it (in an attempt to adapt to new roles, is not going to be a very good aircraft) But do you base your opinion on one airframe or all of them?

I wonder why he shrugged off the P-47, In terms of adaptation it was on par with the Fw-190, Able to adapt to every new role given to it - long range escort, ground attack - something many airframes like the Spitfire simply could not do (or P51 for that matter).

In my opinion both the FW-190 and P-47 were on par if not the best two fighters to come out of World War two based on the adaptation of roles - there was nothing neither plane couldn't do. The Spitfire on the other hand, adapted to new engines and weapons - but in the end it really didn't change much from its intended role as it simply couldn't as the Me109.
« Last Edit: May 26, 2013, 01:15:40 PM by Butcher »
JG 52

Offline GScholz

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8910
Re: Meteor mkIII vs. Me262 vs. He162
« Reply #34 on: May 26, 2013, 01:20:37 PM »
There is nothing wrong with Eric Browns credibility. Your's however is waning with every post I'm sorry to say.
"With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censored, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably."

Offline Karnak

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 23047
Re: Meteor mkIII vs. Me262 vs. He162
« Reply #35 on: May 26, 2013, 01:20:46 PM »
Was that the only time he flew a Bf109G?
Petals floating by,
      Drift through my woman's hand,
             As she remembers me-

Offline GScholz

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8910
Re: Meteor mkIII vs. Me262 vs. He162
« Reply #36 on: May 26, 2013, 01:26:36 PM »
No he also flew several E models and an F.
"With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censored, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably."

Offline thrila

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3190
      • The Few Squadron
Re: Meteor mkIII vs. Me262 vs. He162
« Reply #37 on: May 26, 2013, 01:27:54 PM »
Eric Brown flew 487 different mk's of aircraft and completed over 2400 deck landings, if he lacks credibility to compare aircraft then find me someone who does.
"Willy's gone and made another,
Something like it's elder brother-
Wing tips rounded, spinner's bigger.
Unbraced tailplane ends it's figure.
One-O-nine F is it's name-
F is for futile, not for fame."

Offline GScholz

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8910
Re: Meteor mkIII vs. Me262 vs. He162
« Reply #38 on: May 26, 2013, 01:29:24 PM »
Eric Brown's assessment of the 109F:

"The 109F represented a significant advance over its predecessors with its increased performance at height and its better manoeuvrabilty and firepower. When it first appeared it was almost certainly the best fighter in the world."
"With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censored, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably."

Offline Butcher

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5323
Re: Meteor mkIII vs. Me262 vs. He162
« Reply #39 on: May 26, 2013, 02:26:17 PM »
Eric Brown flew 487 different mk's of aircraft and completed over 2400 deck landings, if he lacks credibility to compare aircraft then find me someone who does.

Nobody doubts his accomplishments, they are stellar - as one source, I just won't take his word - he has how many hours in each airframe? What about those who have hundreds of hours in each airframe? Ignore them because Eric Brown flew 400+ aircrafts?
JG 52

Offline GScholz

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8910
Re: Meteor mkIII vs. Me262 vs. He162
« Reply #40 on: May 26, 2013, 02:36:17 PM »
How can an experienced [insert aircraft of choice] pilot be better at determining the relative strengths and weaknesses of two different aircraft, one of which he has never flown?
"With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censored, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably."

Offline Butcher

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5323
Re: Meteor mkIII vs. Me262 vs. He162
« Reply #41 on: May 26, 2013, 03:00:01 PM »
How can an experienced [insert aircraft of choice] pilot be better at determining the relative strengths and weaknesses of two different aircraft, one of which he has never flown?

Read this

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/interview-captain-eric-brown-7136-2.html

Appears I am not the only one with a different opinion.
JG 52

Offline GScholz

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8910
Re: Meteor mkIII vs. Me262 vs. He162
« Reply #42 on: May 26, 2013, 03:15:27 PM »
How many people agree with you on some website is hardly relevant. You still haven't explained how an experienced pilot of one aircraft can determine the aircraft's relative strengths and weaknesses compared to another aircraft that he has never flown? With a crystal ball?
"With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censored, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably."

Offline Tank-Ace

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5298
Re: Meteor mkIII vs. Me262 vs. He162
« Reply #43 on: May 26, 2013, 03:57:11 PM »
Combat pilots tend to get a feel for what the strengths are. They are typically the things that keep you alive.

Most F4F pilots didn't fly the A6M, but they knew they could out dive it, and that it could out turn them.
You started this thread and it was obviously about your want and desire in spite of your use of 'we' and Google.

"Once more unto the breach"

Offline Butcher

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5323
Re: Meteor mkIII vs. Me262 vs. He162
« Reply #44 on: May 26, 2013, 04:03:18 PM »
How many people agree with you on some website is hardly relevant. You still haven't explained how an experienced pilot of one aircraft can determine the aircraft's relative strengths and weaknesses compared to another aircraft that he has never flown? With a crystal ball?

Easy - ask every F4F pilot how they shot down Zeros, how many of them flew Zeros? None. Before the Zero was ever test flown in the united states tactics were already developed to beat the Zero, how could that be Crystal Ball? Nope its pilots like John Thach who started picking apart the Zero and eventually
the invisibility armor started falling off.

We were fortunate to have a crashed zero, however before they even tested that aircraft - veteran pilots were already reporting limitations of the zero, especially in dives - how do you think all those P-38s were shooting them down? Or Corsairs? None of those pilots flew Zeros.....
« Last Edit: May 26, 2013, 04:09:08 PM by Butcher »
JG 52