Aces High Bulletin Board

General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: skorpion on December 04, 2010, 12:54:57 PM

Title: A new view
Post by: skorpion on December 04, 2010, 12:54:57 PM
How about adding a british WW2 jet? could be intresting going up against a 262 in a meteor. Also i found a good website with all the weaponry, engine information and the plane itself. tell me what ya think  :cheers:  :salute

http://www.battle-fleet.com/pw/his/meteor.htm
Title: Re: A new view
Post by: Plazus on December 04, 2010, 01:02:01 PM
Doing a search on the BBS boards, you will find other threads requesting the Gloster Meteor's inclusion to the game. You will also find that the reason why the Meteor has not been added is because it is so low on the priorities list. There are more aircraft that need to be added- particularly the EW and MW planes.

That being said, I would not mind seeing the Meteor in the game. But only until more important aircraft have been added first.
Title: Re: A new view
Post by: Bruv119 on December 04, 2010, 01:20:52 PM
+1 for the meteor !!! 

we have lots of planes already in game that are questionable on numbers and participation.  This will give the pro RAF/Allied guys something to counter balance the 262 threat!

I Would love to see some AvA jet action  :rock
Title: Re: A new view
Post by: skorpion on December 04, 2010, 01:45:10 PM
+1 for the meteor !!! 

we have lots of planes already in game that are questionable on numbers and participation.  This will give the pro RAF/Allied guys something to counter balance the 262 threat!

I Would love to see some AvA jet action  :rock
i think we have a jet week in the AvA coming up soon, but it would be fairly intresting to see one of these go against a 262   :cheers: :salute
Title: Re: A new view
Post by: guncrasher on December 04, 2010, 05:42:21 PM
Doing a search on the BBS boards, you will find other threads requesting the Gloster Meteor's inclusion to the game. You will also find that the reason why the Meteor has not been added is because it is so low on the priorities list. There are more aircraft that need to be added- particularly the EW and MW planes.

That being said, I would not mind seeing the Meteor in the game. But only until more important aircraft have been added first.

ww1 needs more planes too, but why not just add planes that are actually going to be used like the a26 :rock.

semp
Title: Re: A new view
Post by: LLogann on December 05, 2010, 02:00:04 AM
Yeah.... Those 6 people need more than 4 planes.

ww1 needs more planes too, but why not just add planes that are actually going to be used like the a26 :rock.

semp
Title: Re: A new view
Post by: Tyrannis on December 05, 2010, 03:32:42 AM
american starfighter>all
Title: Re: A new view
Post by: Imowface on December 05, 2010, 03:34:37 AM
perhaps you mean the shooting star, Starfighter was the nickname of the lockheed F-104
Title: Re: A new view
Post by: danny76 on December 05, 2010, 06:03:16 AM
The starfighter was way past ww2, the Shooting Star (f80) never saw combat.

The meteor saw plenty of combat shooting down V1's and Ground attack.

Rather have the the Meteor every day of the week than the B29 :uhoh
Title: Re: A new view
Post by: 321BAR on December 05, 2010, 07:59:38 PM
The starfighter was way past ww2, the Shooting Star (f80) never saw combat.

The meteor saw plenty of combat shooting down V1's and Ground attack.

Rather have the the Meteor every day of the week than the B29 :uhoh
yeah i'd take my M-18 over both :noid :lol
Title: Re: A new view
Post by: mechanic on December 05, 2010, 08:12:33 PM
I'd rather have a mosquito 6 without flame dampers on the exhausts.

Oh wait. I already do. So long, suckers! :devil
Title: Re: A new view
Post by: Flipperk on December 05, 2010, 08:27:22 PM
Doing a search on the BBS boards, you will find other threads requesting the Gloster Meteor's inclusion to the game. You will also find that the reason why the Meteor has not been added is because it is so low on the priorities list. There are more aircraft that need to be added- particularly the EW and MW planes.

That being said, I would not mind seeing the Meteor in the game. But only until more important aircraft have been added first.


Invalid point...case in point...B-29
Title: Re: A new view
Post by: LLogann on December 05, 2010, 11:44:27 PM
Did you vote?  Regardless of your answer, blame your country......... 59% of them voted for the B29. 

The starfighter was way past ww2, the Shooting Star (f80) never saw combat.

The meteor saw plenty of combat shooting down V1's and Ground attack.

Rather have the the Meteor every day of the week than the B29 :uhoh
Title: Re: A new view
Post by: danny76 on December 09, 2010, 09:57:32 AM
Did you vote?  Regardless of your answer, blame your country......... 59% of them voted for the B29. 


I did vote, for Me410. Never even saw an option for Meteor, which country are we referring to?
Title: Re: A new view
Post by: warphoenix on December 09, 2010, 10:06:12 AM
The starfighter was way past ww2, the Shooting Star (f80) never saw combat.

The meteor saw plenty of combat shooting down V1's and Ground attack.

Rather have the the Meteor every day of the week than the B29 :uhoh
B-29=1 of the bombers my great grandfather flew
Meteor=in service before the 262 by 1-2 weeks  :noid

I think I'll stick to the B-26(B-26=the aircraft my great grandfather flew over Italy) :P
Title: Re: A new view
Post by: B4Buster on December 09, 2010, 10:35:49 AM
The P-80 killed Dick Bong! It is the devil.
Title: Re: A new view
Post by: dirtdart on December 09, 2010, 11:29:33 AM
I read that there were P-80s in ETO flying out of Italy prior to the end of the war, however they did not "see action".  Is this true? 
Title: Re: A new view
Post by: Vudak on December 09, 2010, 11:43:47 AM
I'd imagine the Meteor would be a 262 that more people could actually kill with...  Be careful what you wish for ;)
Title: Re: A new view
Post by: B4Buster on December 09, 2010, 11:50:40 AM
Dirt, I believe a couple P-80s were deployed to Italy in 44' but were grounded due to a crash during a demonstration flight, causing them to miss combat.
Title: Re: A new view
Post by: VonKost on December 09, 2010, 11:54:47 AM
Dirt, I believe a couple P-80s were deployed to Italy in 44' but were grounded due to a crash during a demonstration flight, causing them to miss combat.

If memory serves (and it very well might not) they were with the 1st Fighter Group in Italy and maybe the 94th squadron? Rickenbacker's old unit.
Title: Re: A new view
Post by: B4Buster on December 09, 2010, 12:02:05 PM
I just looked it up, your memory serves you right. They were indeed sent to the 1st.
Title: Re: A new view
Post by: 321BAR on December 09, 2010, 12:43:09 PM
I'd imagine the Meteor would be a 262 that more people could actually kill with...  Be careful what you wish for ;)
one step ahead of me. a 300 perk version of the 262 in my opinion...
Title: Re: A new view
Post by: perdue3 on December 09, 2010, 01:53:23 PM
Meteor would be ok but, what about the He 111, Ju 52, Pe-2, Yak-3, MiG-3, LaGG-3, Fairey Swordfish, Oscar, and F2A Buffalo?

Just a few. We need to fill our Soviet list and finish the Luftwaffe before we adding stuff we 'want.'



perdweeb
Title: Re: A new view
Post by: AWwrgwy on December 09, 2010, 03:02:35 PM
I just looked it up, your memory serves you right. They were indeed sent to the 1st.

2 of them.  YP-80s at that.  With a full support staff from Lockheed.

THe YP-80 crash refered to occured in January, 1945 in England.

Good info here (http://forum.armyairforces.com/m95863-print.aspx)
and here (http://forum.armyairforces.com/1st-FG-and-the-Lockheed-YP80A-Shooting-Star-m94873.aspx)

Unfortunatly, it seems 1stFG.org is gone.  It had the color pics and info as well.

wrongway
Title: Re: A new view
Post by: LLogann on December 09, 2010, 03:41:46 PM
That was more figurative than literal..... Using the mean total of votes, divided equally between the three groups. 

I did vote, for Me410. Never even saw an option for Meteor, which country are we referring to?
Title: Re: A new view
Post by: B4Buster on December 09, 2010, 06:29:14 PM
2 of them.  YP-80s at that.  With a full support staff from Lockheed.

THe YP-80 crash refered to occured in January, 1945 in England.

Good info here (http://forum.armyairforces.com/m95863-print.aspx)
and here (http://forum.armyairforces.com/1st-FG-and-the-Lockheed-YP80A-Shooting-Star-m94873.aspx)

Unfortunatly, it seems 1stFG.org is gone.  It had the color pics and info as well.

wrongway

I guess I'm confused; did the crash take place in italy, or else where, causing the whole program to be grounded?
Title: Re: A new view
Post by: danny76 on December 09, 2010, 06:45:15 PM
Meteor would be ok but, what about the He 111, Ju 52, Pe-2, Yak-3, MiG-3, LaGG-3, Fairey Swordfish, Oscar, and F2A Buffalo?

Just a few. We need to fill our Soviet list and finish the Luftwaffe before we adding stuff we 'want.'



perdweeb

Absolutely right, and the.... eeerrrrr... B29. Vital
Title: Re: A new view
Post by: Karnak on December 09, 2010, 11:45:54 PM
I read that there were P-80s in ETO flying out of Italy prior to the end of the war, however they did not "see action".  Is this true? 
No, it is not.  Two YP-80s were sent to England and two to Italy so that service pilots could give feedback on them.  In no case did any YP-80 fly a combat mission.
Title: Re: A new view
Post by: AWwrgwy on December 10, 2010, 01:28:44 AM
I guess I'm confused; did the crash take place in italy, or else where, causing the whole program to be grounded?

It took place in England.

Details HERE (http://web.ukonline.co.uk/lait/site/YP-80A%20%2044-83026.htm).

AFAIK it didn't ground the whole program but I really haven't looked.

The problem was with the engine.  They seemed as stressed as German 262 engines.

From the first link in my original post:
Quote
XF-80A's used the General Electric  J-33-GE-5 engines that were rated at 4,000 Lbs thurst, but they could not be run up too high because the exhaust gas temperatures would get so hot that they would melt the turbine blades.  The YP-80's had the earliest Allison J-33 series engines that were rated at 4,000 Lbs thrust, but they suffered from reliability problems due to faulty fuel injector design and faulty fuel delivery system, which led to flameouts.  When the injectors get clogged up they typically leave carbon streaks inside the tail pipe, which indicates to a mechanic the injectors need to be cleaned, flow tested or replaced.  When the third YP-80 flamedout and killed Lockheed test pilot Milo Burcham, an investigation into the crash yielded the necessary improvements needed to help minimize flameouts in the production aircraft.  The production P-80's used the new J-33-9/11 engines that featured much improved fuel injectors and a better and more reliable fuel delivery system.  It also provided a slight increase in engine performance over the earlier engines used in the YP-80's because the newer engines ran cooler and had lower exhaust gas temperatures thanks largely to the better fuel delivery system and improved fuel injector design.

From the link above, in this post:
Quote
Following the investigation of the Aircraft Accident Committee, the cause of the accident was found to be that the tail pipe flange failed in tension. This allowed enough exhaust leakage to be released into the aft section of the fuselage to melt of the tail pipe lagging, the tail surface roots, and part of the fuselage aft section skin, causing rear empennage disintegration. It took a further two weeks to determine the exact cause of the in-flight fire. The distribution of all the debris was plotted, which were spread over half a mile in a relatively straight line. The first piece along the flight path was the tail pipe, which displayed evidence of forced separation of its attachment to the engine tail cone. Next in line was the vertical fin and rudder with part of the aft fuselage, this part showed excesive heat and smoke damage. The investigation also revealed "thrown turbine buckets" and it was noted that when these break away, they damage everything in their path, cables, hydraulics' etc, i.e. the engine literally blew up, taking of the rear empennage.


wrongway
Title: Re: A new view
Post by: Ack-Ack on December 10, 2010, 02:01:24 AM
I'd rather have a mosquito 6 without flame dampers on the exhausts.

Oh wait. I already do. So long, suckers! :devil

 :rofl
Title: Re: A new view
Post by: Ack-Ack on December 10, 2010, 02:03:54 AM
B-29=1 of the bombers my great grandfather flew
Meteor=in service before the 262 by 1-2 weeks  :noid

I think I'll stick to the B-26(B-26=the aircraft my great grandfather flew over Italy) :P

aren't you the kid who's uncle was killed over Tokyo while testing the durability of the P-82 to withstand flak?

ack-ack
Title: Re: A new view
Post by: warphoenix on December 10, 2010, 11:43:47 AM
aren't you the kid who's uncle was killed over Tokyo while testing the durability of the P-82 to withstand flak?

ack-ack
I am going to be tortured with that forever aren't I?