Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Yarbles on December 18, 2008, 08:09:12 AM
-
I know this is aruable but I think it has at least as much right a the Ta 152.
Anyway my question is how would it perform. I,e Top Speed, Turn and Climb rate, how much ammo in those hispanos. Ive Looked it up but not sure what was latest in the War model.
-
The one who'd make sense is the Meteor III.
It is slower than the Me 262, yet faster than our prop fighters. 4 Hizookas in the nose makes it naughty.
Not sure of climb and turn. I've seen a Meteors doing slow aerobatics though, and was quite surprized, but it may have been a post war model.
Top speed 490 mph from the top of my head, - will try to dig up more.
Meteor into AHII? IMHO YESS!
-
The one who'd make sense is the Meteor III.
It is slower than the Me 262, yet faster than our prop fighters. 4 Hizookas in the nose makes it naughty.
Not sure of climb and turn. I've seen a Meteors doing slow aerobatics though, and was quite surprized, but it may have been a post war model.
Top speed 490 mph from the top of my head, - will try to dig up more.
Meteor into AHII? IMHO YESS!
Yeah sound about right based om my Airfix model of 35 years ago.
490 mph. Might make a good bomber especially 234 hunter and rockets for ground atack. All we have had lately are Yank planes B25, P39. Perk the Meteor between Temp and 262. What we need first though is a proper German Early war bomber for B of B.
-
wrut wrow wraggy...
I dont know for sure, but I remember the stats being compared to the Me262 as slower, tighter turning, with 160rds per cannon (4/20mm).
> Initial climb rate 2,155 ft (657 m) per minute. Source: http://www.pilotfriend.com/photo_albums/timeline/ww2/Gloster%20Meteor.htm
----------------
> Comments: The Meteor I was underpowered, had heavy controls, and pilots complained about the poor view to the sides and rear.
"The Meteor III [better engines and canopy] 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"
Source: http://www.wingweb.co.uk/aircraft/Gloster_Meteor
I looked and looked but I couldnt find a "turn rate" of any sort. The comments regarding the "vs the Tempest" are quite interesting. One could almost gather that it could turn with a Tempest or at least a Typhoon. **shrugs**
-
Some Meteor III information here http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/sl-wade.html
Neil.
-
The Meteor had weighted down ailerons due to some stability problems in wild maneuvers. The pilots complained about it being tiring to fly.
Meteor III has some 495 mph as a top speed and good ROC, SL speed is also good.
The maneuver I saw was in a formation flight with Vampires. That was at Farnborough many years back.
The Meteor did a low-level loop at quite little speed. So, I dropped a jaw ;)
BTW, the engine sound is quite bizarre, - very much different from other jet engines.
In AH, it would be a perk plane IMHO, somewhere in between the Tempest and the 262.
And (not meaning to steal the thread) as targets, the V-1 would be nice :D
-
It would need to be perked HIGHER than the Me-262.
It would be faster than everything but the other jet, a lot more maneuverable, and the gun package is easier.
-
Gives an idea of the meteor's maneuverability...
(http://www.mediafire.com/imgbnc.php/38848cc6f343c5c391e46465300c73285g.jpg)
-
Funny, it doesn't feel like the spit's turn that tight.....
Of course, it's hard to feel something in your gunsights. :lol
-
That chart has the Bf109G (I think that's a G? Maybe an F? Bit hard to read), Fw190A, and P47D (if I'm not mistaken) on the same turning circle....
:noid
-
Yeah, I'm assuming they did NOT use the G2 here.
-
NO MORE JETS!
-
NO MORE PROP PLANES! Not very helpful is it?
Much like alot of other planes *cough*B-29*cough* maybe someday after alot of other gaps.
-
Yeah, I'm assuming they did NOT use the G2 here.
More like a G-6 weighted down with gondolas and a drop tank rack.
-
Interestingly good turn rate then.
Would be the only really dangerous opponent for the 262.
Although...50 miles slower top speed, maybe less at SL, and then things like zoom, turn, dive and such are yet unknown.
I wonder about acceleration from throttling up. In a 262 you would have to be very slow.
The Meteors engines are different (centrifugal, a concept long abandoned) and here I have no clue how fast they could rev up. Didn't sound that long though.
So, lots of perks anyway...
-
More like a G-6 weighted down with gondolas and a drop tank rack.
Yep and it shows the Mustang III turning about twice as good as a 190A. When our A5 can turn with the mustang and the A8 turn radius is about 20m bigger.
-
More like a G-6 weighted down with gondolas and a drop tank rack.
IIRC it has been shown that the captured 109 used here did NOT have gondolas.
Larry: The diagram is a summary of approximate relative turn circles, not a depiction of the literal size of every turn circle. :D
It would appear that if the Meteor is modeled correctly, it will be a jet that out-turns many prop planes.
The figures I looked up bear this out. Loaded weight of 13,819 lbs and a wing area of 350 square feet, yielding a wing-loading of 39.5 lbs/square foot.
-
Guys, that chart isn't showing repective turn circles. It is just a crude indicator of which aircraft turn better, but says little about how much better.
-
The figures I looked up bear this out. Loaded weight of 13,819 lbs and a wing area of 350 square feet, yielding a wing-loading of 39.5 lbs/square foot.
Just a heads-up: By way of example, the P-51D & Dora have nearly identical wing loading (Dora w/ full internal, Pony w/ wing tank only). The Dora's wing loading is actually lower, and it has the edge in power loading as well. But IMO, that doesn't keep the Pony from easily out-turning the FW at typical combat speeds. So I wouldn't use wing loading alone as a "slam-dunk" indicator of turn performance.
-
It is a pretty good indicator though.
But a jet being that decent would be a new thing in AH.
What a terror, 50 mph faster than any propper, 4 Hizoos, and turning ability.
WHOOOFF
-
It is a pretty good indicator though.
But a jet being that decent would be a new thing in AH.
What a terror, 50 mph faster than any propper, 4 Hizoos, and turning ability.
WHOOOFF
And every lick of it streaming in at your 12-o-clock...... :rolleyes:
-
Just a heads-up: By way of example, the P-51D & Dora have nearly identical wing loading (Dora w/ full internal, Pony w/ wing tank only). The Dora's wing loading is actually lower, and it has the edge in power loading as well. But IMO, that doesn't keep the Pony from easily out-turning the FW at typical combat speeds. So I wouldn't use wing loading alone as a "slam-dunk" indicator of turn performance.
Sorry Cthulhu, but this is incorrect.
P-51D 75% (full wing tanks and a bit in the aux.)
9746lbs/wing area of 235 square feet.=41.5 lbs/square foot.
Dora, full internal, no drop.
9415lbs/wing area of 197 square feet=47.8 lbs/square foot.
(Note that the P-51D can fly farther on just the wing tanks than the Dora can on full internal.)
So there is in fact a very pronounced difference in wing-loading.
BTW, despite this, and the fact that the Dora is equipped with less efficient split flaps instead of maneuvering flaps, DokGonzo's shows the Dora actually maintaining a *smaller* sustained radius with full flaps, wtf? :huh Too bad the flaps won't deploy at a reasonably high airspeed, isn't? :D
-
FWIW, I used to play CFS3, which had some "speculative" WWII aircraft, including the 262, P-80, and Meteor. The Meteor was by far the easiest of the 3 jets to furball with, the only real "flaw" of it being that you had enough G available to easily fail the structure at normal speeds.
I cranked up Il2:1946, and oddly, they have the 262, Volksjager, P-80, Ta-183, variations upon the theme of MiG...but no Meteor. :huh
-
And every lick of it streaming in at your 12-o-clock...... :rolleyes:
Does one spend the perks on HO's?
:t
-
Does one spend the perks on HO's?
:t
No, but certain 262 pilots do...... When they aren't being used as stall bait..... :furious
-
Interestingly good turn rate then.
Would be the only really dangerous opponent for the 262.
Although...50 miles slower top speed, maybe less at SL, and then things like zoom, turn, dive and such are yet unknown.
I wonder about acceleration from throttling up. In a 262 you would have to be very slow.
The Meteors engines are different (centrifugal, a concept long abandoned) and here I have no clue how fast they could rev up. Didn't sound that long though.
So, lots of perks anyway...
The rest is cool, but centrifugal compressors are far from having been abandoned. Hell just look at the power section of a PT-6, what'd you think is driving it?
-
PT-6?
Anyway, what I remember is that at the birth of the jet engine they were used quite a bit (UK), and later on used for other purposes, such as snow blowing etc. I think they were rather reliable, but the "other" design was more advanced once the materials were good enough as well as other factors (regulator being one).
And the sound is the coolest I ever heard.
So, the Meteor gave the coolest Jet sound I heard, while a Hunter was the finest noise generator.
I miss my old days at airshows....
-
IIRC, an "axial flow" jet engine like the Germans had better thrust/drag ratio, but, had higher operating temperatures, which with the alloys they had in late WWII led to very short engine life. By comparison, I believe there are British engines from that period still running today....
PT-6?
Anyway, what I remember is that at the birth of the jet engine they were used quite a bit (UK), and later on used for other purposes, such as snow blowing etc. I think they were rather reliable, but the "other" design was more advanced once the materials were good enough as well as other factors (regulator being one).
And the sound is the coolest I ever heard.
So, the Meteor gave the coolest Jet sound I heard, while a Hunter was the finest noise generator.
I miss my old days at airshows....
-
Centrifugal turbines are still very much alive, due to the fact they are much simpler to build because they don't require complex stators for compression, especially in the hobby sector. It's a hell of a lot easier to build a turbine out of a turbocharger and a flame can than it is to build an axial compressor.
-
Looks like the Meteor would be a great addition to them game and something I would fly for instance on my Birthday as It looks as though it would have to be at least as highly perked as the 262.
In reality does anyone think we will get it in the forseeable future if at all?
If not who will specualte as to what sort of planes we will get next?
TBH honest I cant think of anything that would come close interms of interest and excitement to the Meteor :pray
-
Sorry Cthulhu, but this is incorrect.
P-51D 75% (full wing tanks and a bit in the aux.)
9746lbs/wing area of 235 square feet.=41.5 lbs/square foot.
Dora, full internal, no drop.
9415lbs/wing area of 197 square feet=47.8 lbs/square foot.
(Note that the P-51D can fly farther on just the wing tanks than the Dora can on full internal.)
So there is in fact a very pronounced difference in wing-loading.
BTW, despite this, and the fact that the Dora is equipped with less efficient split flaps instead of maneuvering flaps, DokGonzo's shows the Dora actually maintaining a *smaller* sustained radius with full flaps, wtf? :huh Too bad the flaps won't deploy at a reasonably high airspeed, isn't? :D
Here's the data I'm familiar with:
Fw-190 D-9 Aerodynamic statistics:
Wing-loading *Loaded*: 234.59 kg/sq.m. (48 lbs/sq.ft.)
Wing Aspect-Ratio: 6.02.
Airfoil: NACA 23015.3 - NACA 23009.
Airfoil Thickness Ratio: Root= 15.3% Tip= 9% .
Wing CL-max *Freeflow*: 1.52 .
Lift-loading *Loaded*: 154.33 kg/sq.m. (31.5 lbs/sq.ft.)
Power-loading *Loaded*: 1.91 kg/hp. (4.22 lbs/hp.)
P-51D Mustang Aerodynamic statistics:
Wing-Loading *Loaded*: 232.62 kg/sq.m. (47.6 lbs/sq.ft.)
Wing Aspect-Ratio: 5.81 .
Airfoil: "Laminar" NAA/NACA 45-100 - NAA/NACA 45-100.
Airfoil Thickness Ratio: Root= 14.8 or 15% Tip= 12%.
Wing CL-max: 1.28 .
Lift-loading *Loaded*: 181.73 kg/sq.m. (37.18 lbs/sq.ft.)
Power-loading *Loaded*: 2.81 kg/hp. (6.2 lbs/hp.)
As you'd expect, the descrepancy is in the Pony data, the amount of fuel carried is seldom stated clearly, so one has to figure out what *Loaded* means.
Notice the difference in CLmax for both aircraft. Laminar flow airfoils are super slick (provided you keep then spotless), but they're certainly not heavy lifters. They also have attrocious behavior at the limit, something I've never noticed in AH. The conventional wing of the Dora however seems to "cop an attitude" if you even hint at pushing it to the limit.
Anyway, this is a Meteor thread, so we should both probably shut up. :D
-
I did the figuring and that wingloading would correspond to a Pony with 100% internal fuel AND two drop tanks, :confused: so yeah, that is not really applicable. Considering it was standard practice to burn off most of the the aft BEFORE the drops, it would seem the 75% loading would correspond to the typical fighting weight of a P-51 after it went clean to engage. Hell, in my figures for the D9 I didn't even include the drop-tank rail. :D
And it is not the wing on the Fw, it is the wing-loading. Every plane in the game with big horsepower and thus big torque up front will drop a wing in an accelerated stall at high power settings.. The Dora just stalls at higher speed is all. No slats to delay the onset and keep a little airflow over the wingtips either.
Here's the data I'm familiar with:
Fw-190 D-9 Aerodynamic statistics:
Wing-loading *Loaded*: 234.59 kg/sq.m. (48 lbs/sq.ft.)
Wing Aspect-Ratio: 6.02.
Airfoil: NACA 23015.3 - NACA 23009.
Airfoil Thickness Ratio: Root= 15.3% Tip= 9% .
Wing CL-max *Freeflow*: 1.52 .
Lift-loading *Loaded*: 154.33 kg/sq.m. (31.5 lbs/sq.ft.)
Power-loading *Loaded*: 1.91 kg/hp. (4.22 lbs/hp.)
P-51D Mustang Aerodynamic statistics:
Wing-Loading *Loaded*: 232.62 kg/sq.m. (47.6 lbs/sq.ft.)
Wing Aspect-Ratio: 5.81 .
Airfoil: "Laminar" NAA/NACA 45-100 - NAA/NACA 45-100.
Airfoil Thickness Ratio: Root= 14.8 or 15% Tip= 12%.
Wing CL-max: 1.28 .
Lift-loading *Loaded*: 181.73 kg/sq.m. (37.18 lbs/sq.ft.)
Power-loading *Loaded*: 2.81 kg/hp. (6.2 lbs/hp.)
As you'd expect, the descrepancy is in the Pony data, the amount of fuel carried is seldom stated clearly, so one has to figure out what *Loaded* means.
Notice the difference in CLmax for both aircraft. Laminar flow airfoils are super slick (provided you keep then spotless), but they're certainly not heavy lifters. They also have attrocious behavior at the limit, something I've never noticed in AH. The conventional wing of the Dora however seems to "cop an attitude" if you even hint at pushing it to the limit.
Anyway, this is a Meteor thread, so we should both probably shut up. :D
-
My comment was mainly about the Pony's wing @ high alpha. Removing torque from the issue (idle), I'd expect the Dora to behave itself a little better at max alpha than the Pony, but I've never really noticed the laminar wing show it's flakey side in AH like I'd expect.
-
Well, the guy who has flown a 'Stang says it gives plenty stall warning, so I'll go with that.
I can't detect much difference between what the Pony and Dora do in AHII when you stall them out at high power settings either. I think the 190 might have a touch more elevator authority in the 200-300mph range, which would make it easier to whip into a stall.
-
Cthulhu:
It also turns out the CL-max for the P-51's airfoil is apparently higher than 1.2...
NACA 829 demonstrates that the P-51's wing was not inefficient at high AoA.
See the chart below.
(http://home.att.net/~c.c.jordan/P-51-CLmax.jpg)
It sure looks like the P-51B wing is more efficient at high angles of attack than either the F4U-1 or the P-63A.
NACA 1044 shows that the P-51B's CLmax at Mach .25 was the same as the P-38.
(http://home.att.net/~c.c.jordan/P-51-CLmax.jpg)
-
I thought this thread was about the Meteor...my bad
-
we need a British plane to own dem 262's with !!!
+1
-
Yep. That would be a good idea.
Also good for scenarios, like Remagenand more.
Meteor and a V-1 please :D
-
"It also turns out the CL-max for the P-51's airfoil is apparently higher than 1.2..."
You may notice that that alpha figure is at "approximate" 60 or 80mph (fuzzy numbers), at higher realistic maneuvering speeds the supported AoA would be lower effecting the CL-max. Practically the profile used in P-51 cannot handle as high AoA's as that of FW190 series, but they do have lower drag.
I also thought about the much commented slow spooling times for 262s engines. Where and when do you need to adjust the throttle? In combat flying the fastest plane around -> Never.
The problem obviously is exaggerated due to bad survivability of 262 when taking off and landing where such behaviour would be fatal. Add the tendency of the aircraft to be reluctant to slow down so you have to come down with engines idling, plug in an immediate threat and you are pretty much screwed.
I don't know about the spool behaviour of the centrifugal engines but I expect them to be much more forgiving in this sense than the early axial flow engines.
-C+
-
Yes please to the Meteor :aok
-
The Meteor had weighted down ailerons due to some stability problems in wild maneuvers. The pilots complained about it being tiring to fly.
Meteor III has some 495 mph as a top speed and good ROC, SL speed is also good.
The maneuver I saw was in a formation flight with Vampires. That was at Farnborough many years back.
The Meteor did a low-level loop at quite little speed. So, I dropped a jaw ;)
BTW, the engine sound is quite bizarre, - very much different from other jet engines.
In AH, it would be a perk plane IMHO, somewhere in between the Tempest and the 262.
And (not meaning to steal the thread) as targets, the V-1 would be nice :D
Cool that you've seen the Meteor in real life, I've never had the opportunity to see either of those early jets up close and personal. Earlies jet I've "met" is the DH Vampire. If you look at this clip of a 262 over Berlin:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IDFeDxZlrGM
It doesn't do any loops, but makes a few fairly tight turns. How does it compare to the Meteor you saw?
-
If we had the Meteor, Squid would be strolling on land.
-
Cool that you've seen the Meteor in real life, I've never had the opportunity to see either of those early jets up close and personal. Earlies jet I've "met" is the DH Vampire. If you look at this clip of a 262 over Berlin:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IDFeDxZlrGM
It doesn't do any loops, but makes a few fairly tight turns. How does it compare to the Meteor you saw?
Nice video of the 262!
Now on airshows, both would be doing much better than in RL WW2, since they would be much lighter.
The Meteow was in a Vic with two Vampires if I recall right, and they broke left & right high while the Meteor did this slow loop. They were very low and not so fast, so that's what dropped my jaw, - knowing he couldn't rev up that fast, I was sure he would stall.
From WW2 the 262 could not turn with any of the Allied prop fighters AFAIK, but that is from anecdotes. I did speak with a pilot who had an engagement with a 262 once, it tried to get a bead on a p51 which turned, 262 followed and was immediately outturned by the 51 and shot down.
Could have been a 65 sqn P51C, but not sure.
Anyway, you don't go turnfighting in a 262 in AH, so in our MA, a Meteor could be a scary plane :devil
-
Found this article which is pretty cool:-
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/sl-wade.html
Comparative Performance of Fighter Aircraft
By Sqdn. Ldr. T.S. Wade, D.F.C, A.F.C, R.A.F.V.R.
This is the first article of a series by former O.C. Flying at the Air Fighter Development Unit in which he will discuss the flying characteristics of modern aircraft.
(http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/wade-comp-perf-chart1.jpg)
-
Can't resist:
http://www.grapheine.com/bombaytv/index.php?module=see&lang=uk&code=a62ce201f2faf028473747cce6fd8415 (http://www.grapheine.com/bombaytv/index.php?module=see&lang=uk&code=a62ce201f2faf028473747cce6fd8415) :rofl
-
:rofl
-
And this is why you won't see it. Sorry to bust your proverbial bubble.
A few Meteor IIIs flew to the Continent in January 1945 and operated out of the Low Countries with the 2nd Tactical Air Force until the end of the war in early May 1945. They performed ground strafing attacks, but never engaged in air combat.
-
AFAIK they did go after German fighters, but were jumped by friendlies.
They also shot down V-1's.
They did kill ground targets. including aircraft.
-
AFAIK they did go after German fighters, but were jumped by friendlies.
They also shot down V-1's.
They did kill ground targets. including aircraft.
Being that it barely reached squadron service, and never engaged in combat past armed recce, I think it would be a bad addition to the set. (It would be great fun, undoubtedly...But so would a Sea Fury and the Bearcat, both of which were much closer to full deployment) A total of 4 Meteor F3's were operational in 1945, in Belgium. The rest of the squadron didn't even move into theater until April, 1945 (The end of the war)
-
Moray, V rockets are combat.
-
They DID engage in combat with 190's, that was my point. However they were jumped by friendlies who didn't know WHAT they were, so there was no kill.
But they did kill airborne V-1's by some numbers as well as strafing aircraft and other ground targets.
They fired their guns in anger and did sorties in a hostile airspace over the period of several months. IMHO this rules them in, while fine aircraft such as the F7F, F8F, and even the P-80 are out.
How about a H-162 then BTW? They did mix it...
-
They were combat sorties.. I think even if something was sent out to some combat op and the target/enemy was unexpectedly absent, it ought to be admissible.
-
Moray, V rockets are combat.
Wasn't aware they could shoot back. I'll get back to reading now.
-
Wasn't aware they could shoot back. I'll get back to reading now.
They were dangerous to shoot down and the ground attack missions flown by the Meteor did involve being shot at.
-
190's could also shoot back...
"the only air-to-air combat recorded for a single Meteor was an engagement with a German Focke-Wulf Fw 190, to which ended in a draw citing exterior circumstances."
But they destroyed some 30 aircraft on the ground...
-
190's could also shoot back...
"the only air-to-air combat recorded for a single Meteor was an engagement with a German Focke-Wulf Fw 190, to which ended in a draw citing exterior circumstances."
But they destroyed some 30 aircraft on the ground...
The meteor clearly was in action though in very small numbers, Does anyone know what the exact rules are on this if any. TBH I dont see a problem if the perk is high enough but I am not sure of the exact position on this.
-
The meteor clearly was in action though in very small numbers, Does anyone know what the exact rules are on this if any. TBH I dont see a problem if the perk is high enough but I am not sure of the exact position on this.
Squadron strength as I understand it, and yes, the Meteor Mk III meets those requirements.
-
Wasn't aware they could shoot back. I'll get back to reading now.
Civilians.
-
The He-162 would be more fit to add, as it saw both active service AND kills versus air-to-air targets, which were fully capable of shooting back.
The Meteor, not so much.
-
The He-162 would be more fit to add, as it saw both active service AND kills versus air-to-air targets, which were fully capable of shooting back.
The Meteor, not so much.
Meteor saw much heavier service than the He162 did.
-
If horde noe toolsheding can be considered combat in this game... shooting down buzz bombs IRL qualifies as combat.
Or a am I on a different page?
-
You are reading the cliff's notes.. slacker.
-
You are reading the cliff's notes.. slacker.
Sorry :cry
-
don't cry...we all make mistakes...you just make more :D
-
So, did the H-162 shoot down some?
AFAIK the Meteor made many more sorties though. And 10 months of combat service is IMHO enough to put it on the list of AH.
AND the V-1 :t
-
Wasn't aware they could shoot back. I'll get back to reading now.
Mossie B MkXVI?
-
This argument of "it did vs it did not" could be solved if HTC would just step in and say their position on the matter...
...
...
but dont count on it. ;)
-
Maybe they're looking for us to settle it?
-
Having more planes cannot help but allow for more fun. Don't have to feed them, pay for them, or wash them.
-
So YESSSS to the Meteor ;)