Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: viking73 on May 18, 2012, 02:54:17 PM
-
Lockheed L-133 was US first jet but when Lockheed approach the military before the war to build it, the military turned it down, wanting bombers instead. When the 262 was discovered, Lockheed was quickly re-approached by the military to get something built. Thus the P-80. Ar-234's were flying over Italy and giving the Germans knowledge of everything going on. A squadron of P-80's were rushed to Italy with the single mission of hunting and shooting down the 234's. However, the 234's sorties were so scattered that the P-80's never could find them.
Who is in charge of adding planes to AH2? Seems to me this is enough to qualify it as a WW2 combat aircraft.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=O3viiJ4g5G8 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=O3viiJ4g5G8)
-
L-133 never flew
-
It wasnt a squadron of P80 in Italy it was 2 or 3 at most and they never went into combat but were used in a trials phaze.
So sorry but it doesnt quite make to requirement for inclussion,however I have never seen it writen in stone what exactly are the requirement for inclussion into AH.
:salute
-
L-133 never flew
Really? No Duh. I said it wasn't built.
It wasnt a squadron of P80 in Italy it was 2 or 3 at most and they never went into combat but were used in a trials phaze.
So sorry but it doesnt quite make to requirement for inclussion,however I have never seen it writen in stone what exactly are the requirement for inclussion into AH.
:salute
It has to have been in Combat. There is no number requirement. It was a squadron of 4 P-80's. I think chasing down the 234 to shoot it down qualifies as combat missions.
-
ok I thought u were asking for the L133
-
Lockheed L-133 was US first jet but when Lockheed approach the military before the war to build it, the military turned it down, wanting bombers instead.
I would have thought that to qualify as "first jet" it should have existed... :headscratch:
-
I would have thought that to qualify as "first jet" it should have existed... :headscratch:
Ok, it was the first jet researched and approached to the government to build. Picky
I'm wondering how many of you responding have even seen the video yet.
Also The British Gloster Meteor did shot down 13 V-1's in 1944 (think the year is right)
Bill Yenne writes in his book 'Lockheed', "In early 1945 two Shooting Stars were sent to England and another pair to Italy. They actually went on patrol searching for Me-262 and Heinkel He- 162 jet fighters, but there was to be no air-to-air combat between jets during World War II.
-
Really? No Duh. I said it wasn't built.
It has to have been in Combat. There is no number requirement. It was a squadron of 4 P-80's. I think chasing down the 234 to shoot it down qualifies as combat missions.
So are you saying the P80's shot down an Ar234? I have never heard of this before,any link so I can read more?
:salute
-
So are you saying the P80's shot down an Ar234? I have never heard of this before,any link so I can read more?
:salute
He's claiming that both of the P-80s sent to Italy were sent there to hunt down Ar234 recce flights but there aren't any official USAAF reports to back up those claims.
ack-ack
-
He's claiming that both of the P-80s sent to Italy were sent there to hunt down Ar234 recce flights but there aren't any official USAAF reports to back up those claims.
ack-ack
Ack, if you check the youtube link you'll see they make mention of this! however like most history channel docs I take it with a grain of salt. I'm sure you 38 guys could find errors with the stuff covered on the 38 as well.
I always refer to the 6 50mm cannons that the P51 had!!! :devil
I've never seen any reports either but then I've never seen HTC's inclussion requirements either!
:salute
-
He's claiming that both of the P-80s sent to Italy were sent there to hunt down Ar234 recce flights but there aren't any official USAAF reports to back up those claims.
ack-ack
Nor have in. In fact, I believe they were grounded shortly after reaching Italy.
-
What I have found so far.
Most of the links don't work anymore on the first site.
http://forum.armyairforces.com/1st-FG-and-the-Lockheed-YP80A-Shooting-Star-m94873.aspx
http://warbirdsforum.com/showthread.php?t=990
http://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=71485
-
He's claiming that both of the P-80s sent to Italy were sent there to hunt down Ar234 recce flights but there aren't any official USAAF reports to back up those claims.
ack-ack
The P80s were attached to the 1st FG but their flying was done far from any combat.
This would apply to the 2 sent to the ETO as well.
-
Would be a different addition. Very sleek. :P
-
Two YP-80s were sent to the UK and two to Italy, but in no case were they intended for combat. They were sent so that service pilots could give some feedback on them. They did not fly anywhere near where they would encounter enemy aircraft and most certainly were never tasked with hunting any of them. I am also highly skeptical of the claims about a pre-war US jet design given that the Whittle design was sent over by the UK during the war.
The only Allied jet to see combat was the Gloster Meteor Mk I, against V1s, and Meteor Mk III, against V1s and ground attack on the continent.
-
Really? No Duh. I said it wasn't built.
It has to have been in Combat. There is no number requirement. It was a squadron of 4 P-80's. I think chasing down the 234 to shoot it down qualifies as combat missions.
Two YP-80s were sent to the UK and two to Italy, but in no case were they intended for combat. They were sent so that service pilots could give some feedback on them. They did not fly anywhere near where they would encounter enemy aircraft and most certainly were never tasked with hunting any of them. I am also highly skeptical of the claims about a pre-war US jet design given that the Whittle design was sent over by the UK during the war.
The only Allied jet to see combat was the Gloster Meteor Mk I, against V1s, and Meteor Mk III, against V1s and ground attack on the continent.
Last i read was they where about the fly their first mission hours after the German surrender. Neverless, talking about the P-80 seeing combat in WWII is like beating a dead horse.
-
Last i read was they where about the fly their first mission hours after the German surrender. Neverless, talking about the P-80 seeing combat in WWII is like beating a dead horse.
So basically this is a "I know the British Meteor gets roundly castigated as not having seen real combat because all it did was shoot down drones and do some ground attack late in the war, but this one is American so we should add it despite it having seen absolutely no combat because it is American!" type of thing?
-
deployed to a squad and flew 2 missions id say add it but perl the living hell out of it would be a nice way to spend all these perks i cant get rid off :cheers: :bolt:
-
So basically this is a "I know the British Meteor gets roundly castigated as not having seen real combat because all it did was shoot down drones and do some ground attack late in the war, but this one is American so we should add it despite it having seen absolutely no combat because it is American!" type of thing?
I dont remember it ever getting "castigated". If anything I remember many wishing for it on both sides of the bloody pond..... wot?
-
Karnak is just being a jerk. Instead of countering the argument he decides to troll around and do the 'MURICA thing and accuse instead of saying "Hey...this is why it shouldn't be in game."
-
No, in every Meteor thread there are always people saying that it doesn't qualify because those things weren't "real" combat. Usually they are German aircraft fans, but sometimes they are just against more hair dryers being added.
-
At this point in AH they could literally add flying hair dryers to the game and I wouldn't care.
If I can shoot it down, then good to go.
-
At this point in AH they could literally add flying hair dryers to the game and I wouldn't care.
If I can shoot it down, then good to go.
Perhaps an Evil Con Mission..... :devil
-
Sir! The temperature is rising in the next sector over. Nothing on radar yet.
"My God....they're doing an NOE hair dryer raid....SOUND THE ALARM!"
-
Wow, look at the conceptual design for the L-133. I had no idea the US had such a non-conventional design in the works back then.
-
No, in every Meteor thread there are always people saying that it doesn't qualify because those things weren't "real" combat. Usually they are German aircraft fans, but sometimes they are just against more hair dryers being added.
Oh, before you sounded before like an ex-Empire/Naval power guy with a inferiority complex. From what I remember "most" support the Meteor in the game. Most of all we Yanks.
-
This link just sent a virus at my computer. Caution before viewing
-
This link just sent a virus at my computer. Caution before viewing
Youtube?
Seems likely you picked the virus up elsewhere.
-
What I have found so far.
Most of the links don't work anymore on the first site.
http://forum.armyairforces.com/1st-FG-and-the-Lockheed-YP80A-Shooting-Star-m94873.aspx
http://warbirdsforum.com/showthread.php?t=990
http://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=71485
That 3rd link is great thanx for posting that... lots of info and good pics.
:cheers:
-
No, in every Meteor thread there are always people saying that it doesn't qualify because those things weren't "real" combat. Usually they are German aircraft fans, but sometimes they are just against more hair dryers being added.
The biggest frustration for the pilots of 616 Squadron was that they never clashed with the Me 262, or indeed with any German fighter aircraft. They came close towards the end of the war when a flight of Meteors encountered a force of Fw 190s, but they were forced to abandon their attack when other RAF fighters mistook them for Me 262s
So, had your boys not botched their run on those FW-190s, WE MIGHT HAVE METEORS IN GAME. :bolt:
:x :cheers: :salute
-
At this point in AH they could literally add flying hair dryers to the game and I wouldn't care.
If I can shoot it down, then good to go.
Wish granted :D
(http://i888.photobucket.com/albums/ac82/mbailey166066/FlyingHairDryer_HonahLee.jpg)
-
Wish granted :D
(http://i888.photobucket.com/albums/ac82/mbailey166066/FlyingHairDryer_HonahLee.jpg)
You win the thread.
-
The biggest frustration for the pilots of 616 Squadron was that they never clashed with the Me 262, or indeed with any German fighter aircraft. They came close towards the end of the war when a flight of Meteors encountered a force of Fw 190s, but they were forced to abandon their attack when other RAF fighters mistook them for Me 262s
So, had your boys not botched their run on those FW-190s, WE MIGHT HAVE METEORS IN GAME. :bolt:
:x :cheers: :salute
Meteors never ran into Fw-190, the meteor never had visual CONTACT of any hostile enemy fighters what so ever, why this exaggeration keeps getting told is beyond me.
Last thread was "4 meteors engaged a dozen Fw-190s" - 616 Squadron report clearly stated they were to avoid contact with ANY Enemy fighters period, again for the reason of having one of the meteor's fall into the Russian hands in case one does go down.
If there was any visual contact, they would of broken for home as ordered to do so. I researched the entire 616 Squadron and did not see any mention of combat action against Fw-190s.
-
Meteors never ran into Fw-190, the meteor never had visual CONTACT of any hostile enemy fighters what so ever, why this exaggeration keeps getting told is beyond me.
Last thread was "4 meteors engaged a dozen Fw-190s" - 616 Squadron report clearly stated they were to avoid contact with ANY Enemy fighters period, again for the reason of having one of the meteor's fall into the Russian hands in case one does go down.
If there was any visual contact, they would of broken for home as ordered to do so. I researched the entire 616 Squadron and did not see any mention of combat action against Fw-190s.
First off, gonna go ahead and go with source on this one... sorry Butch.
Rickard, J (13 February 2008), Gloster Meteor during the Second World War , http://www.historyofwar.org/articles/weapons_gloster_meteor_WWII.html
Second, they were forbidden to fly over German occupied territory, not forbidden to engage enemy fighters... that's just silly.
-
First off, gonna go ahead and go with source on this one... sorry Butch.
Rickard, J (13 February 2008), Gloster Meteor during the Second World War , http://www.historyofwar.org/articles/weapons_gloster_meteor_WWII.html
Second, they were forbidden to fly over German occupied territory, not forbidden to engage enemy fighters... that's just silly.
Problem with engaging enemy aircraft is air battles stretch for miles, if you forget history in the case of Lanoe Hawker VC - who fell far behind the German lines engaging von Richthofen, eventually got shot down trying to make a break for his own lines.
Sometimes you don't want history repeating itself, especially if you don't want your top secret aircraft to fall into nimble hands :)
Btw the source comes from "Gloster Meteor" Britain's Celebrated First-Generation Jet
by Aerofax - written by Phil Butler and Tony Buttler from England
-
mBailey, just curious, what is the armament on that hairdryer? :old:
-
Is this the same "butler" who wrote "spitfire"?
-
mBailey, just curious, what is the armament on that hairdryer? :old:
200 rnds 20mm bobby pins. :D
(http://i407.photobucket.com/albums/pp159/ACGSurplus/pins.jpg)
500 .50 cal
(http://i185.photobucket.com/albums/x255/shayleene_123456789/ist1_47660_bobby_pins.jpg)
-
the 200 rnds of mm sounds good :old: