Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: dannychopoes on March 29, 2006, 10:11:50 AM
-
I wish we had the ENGLISH JET, it owuld be so much better than the ME-262 altogether, please take this into account, i will email them to ask for it.
any questions on this plane, ask me and i will be glad to answer any question, thanks.
Dannypoo.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.redarrowssquadron.piczo.com
(H2H only)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
whats a jet?
-
If you have ever flown the ME-262, it is just like that plane, it does not run on propellors.
-
:lol
danny, this is about the 10000th time the meteor has been requested. it never saw combat, and so wont be put in game, not yet anyways. search the forums for other reasons why
i'd love to see it too, but there are far more planes that need to be added before this
-
if it doesnut run on propellors, how does it run? :confused:
-
Originally posted by Furball
if it doesnut run on propellors, how does it run? :confused:
i think i once learned that you fart out the back, but the guy was drinking out of a bottle called jack daniels, so i dont know if that's right ;)
-
Jet Engines 2 of them
-
:rolleyes:
:lol :lol :lol :lol :lol
what kinda age to kids learn about sarcasm again?
-
world war 1 didnut have jets, silly!!! :lol :lol :rofl :mad: :mad:
-
i know, but this a WW2 game divvy
-
:rofl
too funny.
-
it is???
then why do we have sputfiars? :mad: :furious :mad: :furious
-
if there wernt any jets in WW1, the why do we have Me-163 (jet), the Me-262)jet and also a jet bomber??????
-
they arnt jetrs!!!!
they just have rilly small prupellors!!!!!!!!!
:mad: :furious :mad: :furious
world war 2 and korreya had jets!!!!1
:furious :furious
-
OMG
:rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl
Bronk
-
Danny you might not know this but Furby's seriously yanking your chain.
Chances are we won't ever get the Meteor.
Furby never changes :rofl
And shame shame, the rest of you folks! You've all been new here at least once.
-
i would NEVER do such a thing!
-
it got hilarious after the first few posts. we were letting on that we were kidding, but he still didnt realise :)
poor danny, he's a nice guy really, met him in the TA, just not used to big mean furbies and pootards messing with him;) :lol
welcome to AH danny. and yeah, like krusty said, dont hold your hopes on getting a meteor anytime soon lol
-
Originally posted by Furball
they arnt jetrs!!!!
they just have rilly small prupellors!!!!!!!!!
yah! see! the 163 had a propeller!
(http://airpower.callihan.cc/images/ww2axis/Me163/04USAFM-ME163-2.jpg)
-
Originally posted by Pooface
:lol
danny, this is about the 10000th time the meteor has been requested. it never saw combat, and so wont be put in game, not yet anyways. search the forums for other reasons why
i'd love to see it too, but there are far more planes that need to be added before this
Never saw combat, guess the RAF museum is lying then.
http://www.rafmuseum.org.uk/gloster-meteor-f8.htm
-
Originally posted by Kev367th
guess the RAF museum is lying then
It says right there, "Post WWII."
The 163's prop is modeled in AH as well. :D You can see it best when the engine is off.
-
Originally posted by Kev367th
Never saw combat, guess the RAF museum is lying then.
http://www.rafmuseum.org.uk/gloster-meteor-f8.htm
Hate to sound like Bill Clinton, but it depends on what your definition of "combat" is:
Originally posted by Wikepedia
The first aircraft were delivered to the Royal Air Force on July 12 to No. 616 Squadron, 1944 and one was also sent to the US in exchange for a Bell YP-59A Airacomet for comparative evaluation.No. 616's Meteor Mk. I's saw action for the first time on July 27, 1944 against the V1 Flying Bomb ultimately destroying 14 flying bombs. The Meteor never saw aerial combat against the Luftwaffe despite flying limited missions over Germany from January 1945, using the Mk. III variant from bases in Belgium.
My personal opinion is no air-to-air combat, thus should not be added.
-
Originally posted by dannychopoes
if there wernt any jets in WW1, the why do we have Me-163 (jet), the Me-262)jet and also a jet bomber??????
yeaaa danny don't you know in WWI there weren't any jets much less planes at all really and danny man this is WW2 when they started jets but it was Korean War where they played a major role. So when will you realize what sarcasim is when they post...
-
:lol :lol :lol :lol :lol ROTFLMAO AT furball and this guy:lol :lol :lol :lol :lol
-
evil bastages.
:lol
-
Originally posted by OOZ662
It says right there, "Post WWII."
That is because it is a Meteor F.8 and the Meteor F.8 was postwar.
The Meteor I and Meteor III were operational in the second world war. The only reason they did not see air to air combat is because the LW was decimated at the time.
From January 1945 the RAF had Meteor III's operating on the continent looking for a fight - they just couldnt find one. They did operate as ground attack and V1 chasing though. (not to mention training the USAAF bomber/fighter crews on tactics how to defend against jet aircraft)
It should be in the game as much as the 163, TA-152 is in the game. It would also be a very good alternative to the Me-262. I cant see it being added any time soon as there are far more important types to add, but i still think it deserves a place here from a gameplay and historical point of view.
If it was an American plane we would be getting weekly requests on BBS about it.
-
yeah, it did see proper operational service, which is more than we can say about some of the planes that have been requested. id love to see a meteor added, but i know the reason why it wont be added too soon. i hope one day to see it though...
-
Originally posted by Kev367th
Never saw combat, guess the RAF museum is lying then.
http://www.rafmuseum.org.uk/gloster-meteor-f8.htm
kev all the poor thing ever got to do was shoot at doodlebugs :(
it was in operational service i know, but it never got to fight any manned aircraft, which is a shame really :(
i really want to be able to kick german efficiency in the arse with my meteor, but i know that HT wont add it until he's done with other things
-
That prop on the front of the 163 is for powering the elcetronics inside the cockpit
-
electronics wasnt discovered in the 1940's. silly. :mad: :mad: :furious :lol
-
in electronics I mean the lights and some of the instruments
-
163 doesnt have lights, what does it need lights for? to see where ther driver is goign?? :lol :rofl
-
inside the cockpit jackprettythang
-
:rofl :rofl :rofl
Furby, STFU, leave the noobs alone!!!!!!!!!!!
:D
-
so the pilot can see himselve and put his makeup on?? :rofl :lol :rofl
-
no you stoopid head!!1!1!111!
it is for teh kickarnold sound systemz in teh back of teh rocket planez! with teh german deth metal!! L33t!!!!
-
What kind of Subs did they have?
MTX Jackhammers?
-
OMFG LMAO
-
Furby are you forgetting to take your pills again before you post? :lol
-
he didnt forget, i took them.
-
I don't know what yall are talking about my 109 G-2 comes with a 30 inch sub woffer so when im playing In Stereo by Fort Minor I point it out the back and its an instant RATO baby!:O :p :lol :rofl :O
-
(http://www.rafmuseum.org.uk/milestones-of-flight/aircraft/images/1945/1945-6100-1-G-Meteor-III.jpg)
-
Originally posted by Furball
(http://www.rafmuseum.org.uk/milestones-of-flight/aircraft/images/1945/1945-6100-1-G-Meteor-III.jpg)
far purtier than that 262 junk :D
-
"it never saw combat"
How many enemy planes did the Ar-234 shoot down?
-
Originally posted by Westy
"it never saw combat"
How many enemy planes did the Ar-234 shoot down?
true, but i think it did actually do some damage. im really not sure though. bombers are going to be diffeent to fighters, and we need a perk bomber. i dunno. maybe some day but the idea's been turned down so much:(
-
im not sure but i read the gloster actually flipped over some uzz bombs or something not real combat but it did something. then again spitties would go up to them and hit them with their wing.
-
Whether or not Ar234s got kills is one thing, but they WERE killed themselves, which is the same as combat. Hell even the He163 Salamander got shot down at least once! That qualifies as "combat" -- hey, nobody said it had to win the combat lol.
-
So I guess the pilot who risked his life killing buzz bombs don't count as combat. Guess he was just up for a joy ride then.
Bronk
-
good god what happened here!?
i just had to add to the chaos
(http://[IMG]http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y46/b1leeb0b/nookie.gif)[/IMG]
-
Originally posted by Pooface
true, but i think it did actually do some damage. im really not sure though. bombers are going to be diffeent to fighters, and we need a perk bomber. i dunno. maybe some day but the idea's been turned down so much:(
Originally posted by SAS_KID
im not sure but i read the gloster actually flipped over some uzz bombs or something not real combat but it did something. then again spitties would go up to them and hit them with their wing.
Originally posted by Krusty
Whether or not Ar234s got kills is one thing, but they WERE killed themselves, which is the same as combat. Hell even the He163 Salamander got shot down at least once! That qualifies as "combat" -- hey, nobody said it had to win the combat lol.
Meteor's were used as ground attack aircraft when they could not find the Luftwaffe. They performed strafing missions for the 2nd TAF, and among their claims they also killed a mini sub. There is also the incident when they found some FW190's, started to engage, then got chased off by allied aircraft thinking they were german jet aircraft.
Ask the mini sub crew if the Meteor saw combat.... oh wait, you cant.
When i said earlier that Meteor III's were based on the continent looking for trouble, i didnt mean they were there to get some sunshine ;)
-
Not sure why so many people are anti the Meteor: it served operationaly with the RAF duing the war. It may not have seen air to air combat but it certainly did ground attack work. I don't think it is anything other than low priority but there is absolutely no reason why it shouldn't be included.
-
Originally posted by Furball
There is also the incident when they found some FW190's, started to engage, then got chased off by allied aircraft thinking they were german jet aircraft.
:rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl
i forgot about that lol
no, its a good point, there is no reason not to add it. its just HT seems to be concentrating on other things:( :cry
-
Originally posted by Westy
"it never saw combat"
How many enemy planes did the Ar-234 shoot down?
If I remember correctly according to my reading that the arados participated in Operation Bodenplatte.
-
Ah, but the Meteor participated in air operations over the continent in 1945.
I just have to chuckle at players like Krusty that keep moving the fieldgoal or define one that is so narrow it's beyond silly. Getting shot down is now the same as combat? lol
Or the worst being " is no air-to-air combat, thus should not be added" in which case there'd be no navy, ground vehicles, most of the bombers and certainly no C-47 in AH.
-
Originally posted by Westy
Ah, but the Meteor participated in air operations over the continent in 1945.
I just have to chuckle at players like Krusty that keep moving the fieldgoal or define one that is so narrow it's beyond silly. Getting shot down is now the same as combat? lol
Or the worst being " is no air-to-air combat, thus should not be added" in which case there'd be no navy, ground vehicles, most of the bombers and certainly no C-47 in AH.
Westy you twist things around.
I did not come up with the "It must have seen combat" rule, HTC did. Seeing combat means being in a fight (win or lose) and frankly the Meteors were never in a fight against sentient enemy aircraft. Buzz bombs don't count because there were no pilots aboard. They might as well have been shooting target drones (very fast, very explosive ones, but drones nonetheless).
I have not "moved the field goals"... I have merely restated them from the other point of view (being shot down is a part of combat, if you were shot down, you were in combat to begin with, thus any plane that was shot down could be said to have seen combat).
How the hell can you, with a straight face, say that bombers never saw air combat? That GVs never saw ground combat? That PT boats didn't see naval combat? Are you serious, or just a troll?
-
:lol
-
Actually I have never seen HTC define what "saw combat", it is players who persistantly try to wheedle it one way or another.
The one thing I recall seeing HTC say was that it had to be a production aircraft and in squadron service. The Meteor Mk I does not meet the first qualification, but the Meteor Mk III meets them both.
There may have been an added requirement for it to have been in a combat zone, which the Meteor Mk III once again meets.
-
Karnak I believe somebody at HTC made some comment somewhere. However it was about other late war planes, perhaps the bearcat or the tigercat?
-
the bearcat and tigercat are not really comparable to the meteor, as the jet was in service over a year before.
-
The MkIII was only in service for 2-3 months at the end of the war, from what I understand.
-
the first Meteor I was July 1944.
Meteor III was operational from Belgium in January 1945.
-
The Meteor I saw very little use, and was not even in squad strength, right? It was basically a year-long attempt to iron out the numerous problems the aircraft had (prolonged flight testing).
-
Originally posted by Krusty
The Meteor I saw very little use, and was not even in squad strength, right? It was basically a year-long attempt to iron out the numerous problems the aircraft had (prolonged flight testing).
616 Squadron had the Meteors, transitioning from Spits. Shot down V-1s with them, helped teach jet tactics to Allied fighter Groups on occasion, then got to the continent. Got to be friends with a former B of B vet Spit driver who flew Meteors with 616 from July 44 til the end. He was one of the first Allied drivers to fly the 262 when he and his CO went to Fassburg to grab a couple of 262s.
Definately operational.
-
Originally posted by Krusty
Karnak I believe somebody at HTC made some comment somewhere. However it was about other late war planes, perhaps the bearcat or the tigercat?
Bearcat and Tigercat meet the production model and squadron service requirements, true. They do not meet the combat zone requirement though, which the Meteor Mk III does meet.
The Meteor Mk III fired its guns in anger during WWII at living Germans.
-
"How the hell can you, with a straight face, say that bombers never saw air combat? That GVs never saw ground combat? That PT boats didn't see naval combat? Are you serious, or just a troll?"
No troll. I used the same twisted and limiting yardstick you and others tend to whip out at times to show you what a farce it is.
I certainly don't twist things around nor do I put words in HTc's mouth. As for the rest? Furball, Guppy and Karnak put the issue to rest (once again) very nicely. If it isn't then no amount of "But look at this!" will make the blind see.
-
Westy you're rather full of yourself. There never was an issue to "put to rest."
And you're simply making stupid statements and saying "using your logic" -- when you're inventing your own brand on the spot.
We already knew that the Meteor III was in operation at the end of the war. However, we also know it never shot at an enemy plane, it never fought with anything other than buzz bombs (and that was mostly the Meteor I).
The question is not "was it active in WW2" but "did it ever see action." I brought up examples of an even rarer aircraft and say "Hell, at least plane XXX can prove it was in combat -- see it was shot down at least once!" and you start saying this wierd crap about no bomber ever having been in combat, no GV or PT ever having been in combat.
If you're trying to make a point you failed, as you did not communicate it effectively. The wording or phrasing didn't translate into what you wanted, is what I mean.
-
I think the meteor is ugly & the 262 is the more graceful looking of the two myself...but that's beside the point. The meteor did see limited service in WWII as was pointed out - HTC has a lot of options for vehicles to add to this game that saw limited service & in limited quantities....but they have even more options with the ones that were far more common, I think that's what some folks are trying to say. I can see both sides; side one - something to counter the 262 - side two - more common aircraft that are not so *uber* I think the word is. There were so many exotic vehicles that saw limited action in limited numbers that you could create an entire game just around them.
Myself I'd like to see the later model Panther tanks as a "middle of the road" tank that would give good speed & good punch & be able to give the Tiger a run for it's money without costing so many perkies. But; although they were common, it's just not high on HTC's list ( like jeeps :rolleyes: apparently were for some odd reason )
-
I will point out that I am not advocating the Meteor's immediate introduction to AH. There are vastly higher priorities like the Russian and Japanese planesets as well as fleshing out the GV set.
Eventually? Sure. But it is a very low priority.
-
Originally posted by Brenjen
side one - something to counter the 262
IIRC the Meteor was both slower and a worse turner (due to the propensity of wing buffet) than the 262. Its only advantage afaik would be the better balistics on the 4 20mm hispanos vs the 262's 30mm guns. Perhaps if acceleration is better it would have a chance, but I don't know that to be the case.
In other words, if are under the impression that the Meteor out-classes the 262, you are mistaken. I don't mean to put words in anyone's mouth, just saying. . .
-
At least some of us (I know especially me) would be able to hit with the 4x20mms. The 30mms on the 262 I find very hard to hit with and planes can easily fly between the rounds.
-
Originally posted by E25280
IIRC the Meteor was both slower and a worse turner (due to the propensity of wing buffet) than the 262. Its only advantage afaik would be the better balistics on the 4 20mm hispanos vs the 262's 30mm guns. Perhaps if acceleration is better it would have a chance, but I don't know that to be the case.
In other words, if are under the impression that the Meteor out-classes the 262, you are mistaken. I don't mean to put words in anyone's mouth, just saying. . .
Well, maybe you didn't technically put words in my mouth, but you certainly read a lot into my post. I never went into technical flight data or flight characteristics on either aircraft. I was merely making mention ( in passing at that ) to someone elses mention of using it as a counter to the 262. If I'm not mistaken, ( I could be ) the Meteor was faster than any other British prop plane, that being said, the 262's speed is it's greatest ( maybe only ) advantage. Soooo; I assume that the Meteors speed would be the "countering factor" to the 262 as it's faster than the others & therefore the best weapon to counter the 262..right?
-
The Meteor had a higher climb rate than the Me262 did, so as some speeds it would accelerate faster. It would also out turn the Me262 by a fair margin.
The Me262's high speed handling would be markedly better though and the top speed is 50mph faster.
-
so each has advantages and disatvantages. one for maneaurving and handling and one for speed. i vote it in because you could have a choice between the two flavors
-
The first operational jet fighter squadron was No. 616, based at Culmhead, Somerset, equipped with Spitfire F.Mk VIIs when its first two Meteor F.Mk Is arrived on 12 July 1944. On 21 July the squadron moved to Manston, Kent, receiving more Meteors on 23 July to form a detached flight of seven. The first operational sorties were flown on 27 July, and on 4 August, near Tonbridge, Flying Officer Dean destroyed the first Vl fiying bomb to be claimed by a jet fighter, using the Meteor's wingtip to tip it over into a spin after the aircraft's four 20 mm cannon had jammed. On the same day, Flying Officer Roger shot down a second V1 near Tenterden.
Conversion to Meteors was completed towards the end of August, and the autumn was spent preparing for operations on the continent. Between 10 and 17 October, however, four Meteors were detached to Debden, to take part in an exercise with the USAAF 2nd Bombardment Division and 65th Fighter Wing, to enable defensive tactics against the Luftwaffe's Messerschmitt Me 163 and Me 262 fighters to be devised. The first Meteor F.Mk III aircraft were delivered to Manston on 18 December, and on 17 January the squadron moved to Colerne, Wiltshire, where the remaining Meteor F.Mk Is were replaced. On 20 January 1945 one flight of No. 616's Meteors joined No. 84 Group, 2nd Tactical Air Force in Belgium, and in March No. 504 became the second Meteor F.Mk Ill unit to operate on the other side of the English Channel.
The Meteor F.Mk Ill, the second and last mark to see operational service during World War 11, had increased fuel capacity and a sliding bubble canopy in place of the sideways-opening hood of the Meteor Mk.l. Fifteen F.Mk IIIs were completed with Welland engines and 195 with Derwents, some in lengthened engine nacelles. Derwents also powered the Meteor F.Mk IV (subsequently Meteor F.Mk 4), later examples of which were modified by a 1.78 m (5 ft 10 in) reduction in wingspan. Of 657 built, 465 were supplied to the RAF, enabling Meteor F.Mk Ills to be passed to auxiliary units.
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.
-
Originally posted by Brenjen
Well, maybe you didn't technically put words in my mouth, but you certainly read a lot into my post. I never went into technical flight data or flight characteristics on either aircraft. I was merely making mention ( in passing at that ) to someone elses mention of using it as a counter to the 262. If I'm not mistaken, ( I could be ) the Meteor was faster than any other British prop plane, that being said, the 262's speed is it's greatest ( maybe only ) advantage. Soooo; I assume that the Meteors speed would be the "countering factor" to the 262 as it's faster than the others & therefore the best weapon to counter the 262..right?
I used your quote of "counter to the 262" as it was the closest to my post and the most succinct phrase of what I thought some might be thinking. Your point is well taken though -- "counter to" does not necessarily mean "superior to".
Originally posted by Karnak
The Meteor had a higher climb rate than the Me262 did, so as some speeds it would accelerate faster.
I looked at a couple sites, and both planes seem to be right at 3,900fpm climb rate. But I do not know if that is a max climb rate from level max speed, or exactly how that figure is arrived at. I know the 262 seems to accelerate slowly (during take off, for example). So is the even climb rates I have seen strictly a function of the 262's superior speed? i.e. if both started at 400mph, the meteor would climb at a markedly better rate?