Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Zacherof on May 25, 2013, 06:27:07 PM
-
I'm thinking 162 on this one :airplane:
-
I'm thinking the guys from JG1 who did their best to get the thing operational would disagree with you considering they never officially shot down anything. (There is suggestion that 1 Allied bird was shot down but it was not confirmed). The 12 pilots who died in accidents in that short time probably would have preferred 262s if not 109s or 190s.
-
I don't think the 162s provided much encouragement, considering the troubles Corky mentioned and the fact that visibility to the rear was absolutely horrid.
Another reason was the lack of reliability of the engines, at least with the 262 they could still get home on one engine.
-
I've also read that a spit was shot down(described the 162 to his interogators)
also read that the 162 had numerous kills, tho I question that validy of that source.
What I do know that a us test pilot flew it for fun after all test
were concluded. Something brown.
I'll look for the site on the 162.
An all jets had reliabilty issues at this point. A huge factor on the delay of the 262 besides hitlers love for
bombers.
-
Define 'numerous.' :D
-
Define 'numerous.' :D
wikipedia(with no info to back up the claims)
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinkel_He_162
this site claims the first 162 kill was a jug
http://www.angelfire.com/ab4/airplanes/Heinkels/He162/History.html
this also claims jug kills
http://forum.12oclockhigh.net/archive/index.php?t-110.html
-
Yea but think one in every garage.
-
If I recall correctly Galland didnt want the 162. The high command was up his because they thought it was the best thing since sliced bread. On the other hand he approved of the 262.
-
If I recall correctly Galland didnt want the 162. The high command was up his because they thought it was the best thing since sliced bread. On the other hand he approved of the 262.
galland is an interesting character.
I'm surprised he wasn't shot for shooting his mouth when he did.
-
(http://i1197.photobucket.com/albums/aa433/arloguh03/CAM00424_zpsf677b410.jpg)
(http://i1197.photobucket.com/albums/aa433/arloguh03/CAM00423_zps6b2c7496.jpg)
(http://i1197.photobucket.com/albums/aa433/arloguh03/CAM00422_zps5b29fd97.jpg)
(http://i1197.photobucket.com/albums/aa433/arloguh03/CAM00421_zps56993855.jpg)
-
490? Dang kinda slow. Faster than the meteor, slower than the 262.
-
I've also read that a spit was shot down(described the 162 to his interogators)
also read that the 162 had numerous kills, tho I question that validy of that source.
What I do know that a us test pilot flew it for fun after all test
were concluded. Something brown.
I'll look for the site on the 162.
An all jets had reliabilty issues at this point. A huge factor on the delay of the 262 besides hitlers love for
bombers.
Eric Brown was English, not American.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Brown_%28pilot%29 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Brown_%28pilot%29)
-
490? Dang kinda slow. Faster than the meteor, slower than the 262.
Poor workmanship, 490 is actually being gentle, the He 162 was not ordered over 311mph due to poor construction since March 1945. Any speeds higher, would result in a massive failure of the air frame and the loss of an aircraft. In another words - Slave Labor and time consuming construction, in another words - you build as many as we say or you eat a bullet - many of the aircrafts were built without any testing or standards.
Its bad enough the Tiger II we have in aces high is a perfect tank, In reality a handful were - however the majority were plagued with poor craftmanship and were no where near the quality standards early german equipment were being tested on.
The HE-162 was far worse - the war was "lost" - I./JG-1 was the operational unit of the He-162, however they spent more time moving then actually flying.
They were ordered NOT to engage in combat, however on its first operational sortie (attacking an allied airfield) the only HE-162 was shot down by AAA.
The HE-162 served in combat, and in squadron strength, in my opinion you can't compare it to the Me-262 - poor construction, poor pilots - lack of fuel are just examples of trying to compare apples to oranges. Think of the Me-163 we have in aces high, more 163s were lost sitting on the runway then actually in combat.
There is no comparison to the Meteor, it never flew against an enemy aircraft - one can only debate on what "would" of happen, rather then what did.
-
Eric Brown was English, not American.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Brown_%28pilot%29 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Brown_%28pilot%29)
Eric brown might be British and flew almost 500 different aircrafts, he's been debated as being Bias on many occasions. I honestly don't use him as a source for any information just because there is to many open questions about anything he says.
-
Eric Brown was English, not American.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Brown_%28pilot%29 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Brown_%28pilot%29)
I forgot to mention the American test pilot :bhead
-
262 hands down. The 162 would have become a better fighter with a few months more development and proper production. A properly built He 162 could best a 262.
The Volksjäger program was a pipe dream and Heinkel knew this from the start and designed the He 162 as a proper fighter demanding a proper pilot to fly it. The He 162 was a truly excellent design, and a truly remarkable feat since it went from design to production in just three months. All of the 162's vices, including the too powerful rudders, were known in January 1945, but production couldn't be halted for any reason; the enemy was literally at the gates. However, in the closing weeks of the war a number of He 162s were built in the Mittelwerk underground factory at Khonstein. These were properly made, and it was these examples that were tested by RAE Farnborough and Eric Brown. It was Brown's favorite early jet.
As for people claiming Eric Brown is biased, I dismiss any such claims as nothing more than whining from lesser men. I've had the honor of meeting Eric Brown and he is a perfect gentleman, and apart from a (justified) pride in British accomplishments I have not heard or read one word from him that I find in any way biased. On the contrary; I find all his conclusions to be supported by well researched arguments. You may disagree with his arguments, but that does not make it bias. His detractors would be wise to look into their own bias.
In Eric Brown's "Duels in the Sky" he presents his "picks" for the best single engined fighters of WWII:
1 Spitfire and Fw 190 tied for first place
2 Hellcat
3 Mustang IV
4 Zero
5 Tempest V
6 Kawanishi George
His best picks for carrier fighters:
1 Hellcat
2 Zero
3 Wildcat
4 Corsair
5 Sea Hurricane.
6 Seafire
His "picks" are not based solely on performance, but also on the impact they had on the war. You may disagree with some of his choices, but this is clearly not a man with a bias.
Eric Brown is the most experienced test pilot and naval aviator that has ever lived, and many of his records will probably never be broken due to the circumstances of WWII. Pilots of the future simply won't get the chance. No man, living or dead, possess the same magnitude of firsthand knowledge of Axis and Allied late-war aircraft. Brown, speaking German, was on the British "Enemy Flight" team that scoured the German countryside for aviation technology. He personally interrogated people like Kurt Tank, Willy Messerschmitt, Ernst Heinkel, Hanna Reitsch, Hermann Göring (!), Erich Hartmann, Werhner Von Braun and many more. People would be wise to listen to this man.
-
When I was reading up on the volksjager(btw salamander is incorrect, as that was the title of the whole production)it was from an engineeing and mechanical stand point outstanding. Although fire power goes the the shwlabe hands down.
-
here here,
Lets see HTC model the meteor mk III and let the AH experten decide which one is better. :P
-
I'd love to see the Meteor and P-80 in the game. Both would probably be very fun MA rides.
-
here here,
Lets see HTC model the meteor mk III and let the AH experten decide which one is better. :P
Meteor Mk III would win hands down - better acceleration, top speed, climb - it was tested against the Tempest - in which the Tempest only won in a turn fight, otherwise the Meteor Mk III was hands down a better aircraft.
I'm assuming the Mk III is what served in europe, I know the Mk I was a piece of crap.
-
I'd love to see the Meteor and P-80 in the game. Both would probably be very fun MA rides.
P-80 I don't think should be added. It was only in prototype and saw no service of any kind. The last jets that could be added are the Meteor and He162. Two versions of the Meteor could be added and I believe there are a couple more versions of the Me262 that could be added as well.
Meteor Mk III would win hands down - better acceleration, top speed, climb - it was tested against the Tempest - in which the Tempest only won in a turn fight, otherwise the Meteor Mk III was hands down a better aircraft.
I'm assuming the Mk III is what served in europe, I know the Mk I was a piece of crap.
Meteor Mk I, 408mph top speed, anti-diver duties only.
Meteor Mk III, 490mph top speed, anti-diver duties and limited operations on the continent.
Meteor Mk IV, 610mph top speed, missed the war by less than a year.
-
When I googled Eric Brown's book this Youtube came up. Pretty appropriate when comparing turn rate, climb, etc. The Falcon comes in second place. Great footage.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jg4x9_pDH-I
boo
PS I would be interested to note what Brown thought of the different models and marks of the 190 and Spits. Which did he rate as the ultimate of each?
-
Butcher, the Meteor F Mk III had a max speed at SL of 486 mph. It could do 493 mph at 30k (the most favorable numbers I could find). Climb rate was similar to 262. Eric Brown called the Meteor a "pedestrian aircraft" compared to the 262 and that it would offer "no contest". That is unless you also claim Brown is biased against British aircraft...
I imagine it would do well in AH though with the laser guns and better turning circle.
-
perfect gentleman, and apart from a (justified) pride in British accomplishments
Here's a quote for ya -
I think like any test pilot, he has his good and bad points. As with any pilot, personal bias is going to enter the equation. If you have only one sample of an aircraft to test, and it has issues with fuel, or has been a crashed aircraft that has been patched together, that information should enter into the equation as a sub-par aircraft example.
Additionally, when testing enemy aircraft during wartime conditions, there may not be anyone who has trained and flown the aircraft in combat to understand the nuances of the airplane itself and to explain them. This is probably more true with German aircraft as they were quite good at technical innovation.
It is much easier to fly an aircraft to it's full capabilities when you have access to what the engineers say the limitations and capabilities are. Without that information, test data may not be complete as there are variables that may not be known at the time of tests.
I have a great respect for his wartime deeds as an RAF pilot. He certainly has flown a number of aircraft. But you cannot base any argument on the opinion of one source. Anyone who has ever worked in a test environment knows that a single test will not provide reliable data. You need at least three sets of results to have any chance of reliable test data. When working with numbers and empirical data, three tests run by the same person will provide good data. When working with variables that are subjective, you needs at least three different testers.
The man was a good test pilot, and flew many aircraft's - but he had a harsh dislike for the Corsair, even though he only flew the early bird cage version. His opinion is shown bias when he rants about the Wildcat, only because he shot down two Fw-200 condors in a Martlet.
Look at his comments towards the Me-109, he test flew one 109G/U2 that had gondolas on it and claimed it wasn't a very good dogfighter. He based his opinion on a bird setup for shooting down bombers, when fact is the 109 was almost as good as any Spitfire was - something he would not admit too.
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.
For me to have a source of information It has to be more credible then eric brown, I am not down grading what he done or has done, however there is some understated bias in there that I couldn't point my finger and say his word is good as gold.
-
I imagine it would do well in AH though with the laser guns and better turning circle.
The fact that it has quad nose mounted Hispanos and would be the third fastest fighter in the game, far faster than the vast majority of opponents it would face, would ensure it would do well, even as a pedestrian aircraft.
-
Meteor Mk IV, 610mph top speed, missed the war by less than a year.
If by "missed the war by less than a year" you mean "1947" then you are correct. Only two squadrons got equipped with IVs in 1947, the rest had to wait until 1948.
-
If by "missed the war by less than a year" you mean "1947" then you are correct. Only two squadrons got equipped with IVs in 1947, the rest had to wait until 1948.
Ah. My memory was saying Oct-Nov of 1945 when it set a new world speed record. I could very well be wrong on when that happened, but I thought it was shortly after the war. By no means was I suggesting the Mk IV should be added to AH as it clearly has no place in the game.
-
Here's a quote for ya -
The man was a good test pilot, and flew many aircraft's - but he had a harsh dislike for the Corsair, even though he only flew the early bird cage version. His opinion is shown bias when he rants about the Wildcat, only because he shot down two Fw-200 condors in a Martlet.
Look at his comments towards the Me-109, he test flew one 109G/U2 that had gondolas on it and claimed it wasn't a very good dogfighter. He based his opinion on a bird setup for shooting down bombers, when fact is the 109 was almost as good as any Spitfire was - something he would not admit too.
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.
For me to have a source of information It has to be more credible then eric brown, I am not down grading what he done or has done, however there is some understated bias in there that I couldn't point my finger and say his word is good as gold.
Who are you quoting?
And nothing of what you say looks like bias to me, unless I'm totally wrong about what that word means. I bet you won't find any German ace who says the 109 was better than the 190. I've seen several interviews with among others, Rall and Hartmann, who says the 190 was better, but they were so familiar with the 109 that they would rather keep flying it than start all over again by learning a new aircraft in the middle of a war. As for the 109 being as good as the Spit: That varied a lot with models and time frame. Brown didn't like the 109G, and that's his opinion, not bias.
-
Ah. My memory was saying Oct-Nov of 1945 when it set a new world speed record. I could very well be wrong on when that happened, but I thought it was shortly after the war. By no means was I suggesting the Mk IV should be added to AH as it clearly has no place in the game.
The prototype flew in late 1945 yes. Production started in 1946, and squadron service in 1947. If the war was still on they probably could have gotten it out the door sooner though.
-
I'd say that the Bf109 was at an ebb against its Spitfire contemporaries during the Gs vs the VIII/IX/XVIs. The F is clearly superior to the V, which was the Spitfire's ebb. The Es and the I/IIs are pretty dang even, as is the K and the XIV.
-
I totally agree with that.
-
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..
-
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.
-
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.
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.
-
There is nothing wrong with Eric Browns credibility. Your's however is waning with every post I'm sorry to say.
-
Was that the only time he flew a Bf109G?
-
No he also flew several E models and an F.
-
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.
-
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."
-
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?
-
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?
-
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 (http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/interview-captain-eric-brown-7136-2.html)
Appears I am not the only one with a different opinion.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.....
-
And that is just about the limit of their insight into these enemy machines. They know nothing of how differences in pilot quality, tactical doctrine, rules of engagement and a myriad of other variables affected the outcome of their battles. Most of the German interceptors shot down by the USAAF in 1944 didn't even try to fight, because they were ordered not to. This also had the psychological impact of making the USAAF pilots feel superior and the Luftwaffe pilots felt inferior.
Just ask yourself why did the Allies extensively test Axis aircraft (and vice versa) when they got their hands on them? Well the obvious answer is that's what they had to do to learn more about them.
-
During the war in Korea the USAF shot down hundreds of MiG-15s, but still they went as far as bombing North Korea with leaflets offering a $100,000 to any pilot who would defect with his MiG. How stupid were they! They should just have asked one of their own Sabre aces for free!
-
Read this
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/interview-captain-eric-brown-7136-2.html (http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/interview-captain-eric-brown-7136-2.html)
Appears I am not the only one with a different opinion.
The problem here though is those guys are ones with an agenda and not the experience. Brown was doing his job and was one of the best at it. I really think you are barking up the wrong tree on this one Butcher.
-
Eric Brown is a cocky little Navy-flier Scotsman.
True, he test flew many aircraft, & gives valuable insights into Luftwaffe aircraft.
However, he does show bias openly.. some plainly due to being physically small..
He did rate the He 162 though, & points out that.. of all the 1st gen` jets, the
Heinkel didn't suffer the high speed stability issues like the ''snaking'' that
plagued the Meteor..
2nd TAF/RAF histories contain combat reports of HE 162 vs Tempests, with
kills to the account of each type.
Of course it was one of the designated operational duties of the Tempest
in the tactical air-superiority role.. to take out the jets & they did score on
every type flying..
Most of the 1st gen` jets, while fast, had significant combat performance issues
by comparison to the well-sorted recip` fighters of the final generation.
-
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.
The tactics used to fight the Zero during the early part of the war came mostly from experience of other pilots that encountered and engaged the Zero in combat. Wildcat pilots didn't instinctively know to fight a Zeke, they gained this knowledge because of others before them learned the hardway not to turn with Zekes.
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.....
As I mentioned already, these pilots already had the experience of those before them that helped them in fighting against the Zeke.
ack-ack
-
JAW just got the PNG from another board and got a warning on Barbi's board.
Behave yourself here JAW. The Skuzz doesn't put up with any nonsense.
-
Thanks for the welcome..& heads-up..
Hey..guess what.. 'sink or swim' in a virtual scene? so be it..
If its more about B.S. - than reasoned & factual reality-based data-sharing - then.. too bad..
-
something tells me we have a tempest fan boi that has found an outlet for some anectdotal stuff he found in a book or two...even managed to dig up and bump a discussion from 1999 :huh
-
Funny, & what's with all the -ve waves man..since the deal is 'bout what was goin'down.. 7 decades ago..
Isn't there is some useful actual information to post?
Such as a quote from a flight test, official report or something?
"The Meteor III has an instability in yaw - 'snaking' - which makes it unsuitable as a
gun platform at operational speed."