Why don't both of you two numbskulls quit your silly inane bickering and just enjoy the videos for what they are worth. Obviously neither of you are mature enough to appreciate anything of a technical nature without trying to prove your superior knowledge which neither of you seem to have. So just shut up.
Having flown full combat simulations with most planes on both sidees of the war?
about the only alied plain to realy compet with most of the german night fighters?
Was the p-38 lightning, and we nore the brittish ever to my knolage used them for this purpose. And the Real trick to them? Would have been to re-equip the P-38 with The rollsRoyce Merlin, Or it's pakard equivilant, just as we did with the mustang and it's ridge backed predisessor .
@FireDropTechnologies no 1 i am not british i'm a new zealander, secondly i respect a lot of what the germans had during the war, esp the fw-190, me-262 etc. But i recommend you read some books on the mosquito before you try to even compare it to the 110!!! for starters if you think a twin engined medium bomber that could carry a similar load to the b-17, capable of close to 400mph in 1942 and try to call it underpowered your the one that is incredibly ignorant or just plain dumb.
@FireDropTechnologies i mean honestly the mosquito had twin merlin, same mk as the spitfire and mustang i don't think i can think of anyone which called them "underpowered" during it's first year of service there wasn't a german aircraft that was fast enough to catch it, not long after it was converted for night fighting which it was incredibly succesful and not to mention as a ground attack aircraft it. honestly you read any book or go to any website you can find out this for yourself.
@FireDropTechnologies where the fuck do you get your facts you ???? let me guess playing video games. i have 35 yrs worth of books to back me up and FACTS on the aircraft and their pilots that flew the real aircraft you quote me the books or websites what i have told you is not true.
@FireDropTechnologies so what the fuck does those books have to do with the dehavilland mosquito??? you quote from those books what i said was wrong. I have books that have information on ALL OF THE WORLDS AIRCRAFT not just american.But you go and believe what you want you obviosly live in la la land.
Honestly, I searched for 5 minutes, but I could not find a translation for "bloke head". At least none, that makes sense in german. Now, I am curious: What is a "blokes head"?
This plane always fascinated me. But.. I wonder. Would it have made a good fighter?
It seems to me that any damage to this plane would be catastrophic due to its twin engines (both good and bad qualities) as well as it's rudder configuration (any damage would cause it to fly uncontrollably). That said, I'm just guessing! Still, the german's were VERY creative with their aircraft and ahead of their time.
imho, the germans had to experiment with wild new designs because most of their standard planes (and tanks) were designed in the 1930s and were becoming obsolete. Bf-109 was vintage 1936 and was designed for short range combat over Europe! The (tactical) bombers had too short range! They had no long range strategic bombers! The vaunted Panzers (I-IV) were too lightly armoured! Most of the advanced machines they fielded later in the war had various bugs, a sure sign of rushed development.
I believe the first production aircraft to use the push pull concept was Dorniers Wal from 1922. Didn't someone try the concept for a bomber prior to that?
Since Germany couldn't match US in terms of aircraft production, they concentrate on building a smaller number of aircraft that can outperform anything the allied has.
P-47s and P-51s at their optimum performances envelopes outperformed both Me-109 Gs and Fw-190 As in high-altitude combat where the air war over Germany was fought; and were equally matched by Me-109 Ks and Fw-190 Ds high-altitude fighters and of course were inferiors against the Ta-152 which a match for the P-51H and the Me-262 which would have met the P-80 in equal terms.
It was quality coupled with quantity that defeated the Luftwaffe.
@Eurofighter19 Not really. just my observation. but consider this. Germany design an aircraft that match the P-51 under severe shortage of materials. while US with it's vast industrial capacity and almost unlimited resources were a few steps behind germany in aircraft technology. Even the advance P-80 use a British jet engine. US can do better technologically then germany during WW2 and yet they never done so.
Industrial capacity has nothing to do with superior knowledge in aerodynamics and engine engineering.
The fact that Germany was ahead of the Allies did not have any effect on its war industries which were heavily damaged by the end of hostilities.
And do not underestimate Allied equipment either as their piston-engined aircraft matched the best German aircraft produced during the war and the P-80 although late to enter the conflict was matched in terms of performance to the Me-262.
@Eurofighter19 Germany wasn't ahead of the allies. Not in aviation tech. I don't know why you believe that? Certainly, a relevant comparison between performance of american and german aircraft cannot give such a notion. US won the war with '43 state of production tech. Because they could and it was cheaper. But - Fastest piston engine fighter to fly during the war: XP-47J, fastest to see service P-51H, fastest to see combat P-47M. And P-80 was a better plane than Me-262.
In terms of piston-engined fighters, most belligerent nations were more or less equally matched with the deployment of fighters such as the American P-51H, and P-47M; the British Spitfire Mk XI and the Hawker Typhoon; the German Fw-190 D-13 and the ultimate prop-driven German fighter, the Ta-152 which manage to see operational action in the last days of the war.
@Eurofighter19 There was no equality. From the start of '44 american fighter pilots enjoyed considerable performance advantages, 30-70 mph higher speeds at various altitudes. And they did this in aircrafts which also had many times the range, more ammo and oxygen and finally to add insult, better climb at altitudes. You want to compare very late all out efforts like Ta-152. Well, the P-47J flew in '43, wasn't put in production due to save money and no need, but utterly outperform Ta-152.
Taking out the superior range enjoyed by escort fighters which is irrelevant; American fighters pilots indeed had gained the initiative and the advantage with superior high-altitude fighters over their German counterparts during the last stages of the war.
The rapid depletion of the LW, however, can be largely be attributed to its strategic situation during the last stages of the war; over stretched with multiple fronts and starved by its collapsing industries unable to feed its necessities.
@Eurofighter19 You miss the point. Range is a technical challenge and a heavy burden on performance. Germany built short range, lightweight 'hot-rods' and still ended up being 70 mph slower. In order to at least get into the same ballpark, they had to resort to a few minutes of overboost, detonations tamed by methanol-water injection, (or even nitrogendioxide boost). US kept such option too. P&W R-2800 was test-run at 3,600 hp, and for 250 hours, not 10 minutes, like the frail german engines.
Range was a technical challenge and of course a heavy burden on performance in fighter planes for the USAAF, not the LW.
Could you please show me a source of a German fighter interceptor having its top speed 70 MPH slower than a American escort fighter during 1944 or 1945?
The old Bf-109 Gs and Fw-190 As were of course inferior but not for such large difference.
The Bf-109Ks and Fw-190Ds were almost equal in performance to latest American and British piston engined fighters used during the war.
@Eurofighter19 Certainly. If you read german, you should check out kurfurst(dot)org, a site keeping Me 109 documents, both tests and theorethical estimates from the time on WW2. Otherwise, a big source for detailed documentation, is wwiiaircraftperformance(dot)org. Here you can find historical test data, for all altitudes for different weights and configurations. I think you'll find the Mustang quite astonishing, once you get down to comparing.
@Eurofighter19 More directly, an answer is that the P-51B/D was 70mph faster than the F 190A above 28,000ft. (Actually it's comfortably faster at all altitudes).
As for the 109G, before the G-10 and MW50 boost, the american fighters enjoyed similar advantages. Even with the MW50, american fighters had greater advantages at altitudes lower or higher than at the 109's optimum speed altitude. Same with Fw 190D. Also remember that for '44 LF had armed up with 110/410 during '43, against bombers.
Could you please specify which variant of the FW-190A are you referring too?
I believe the FW-190 could achieve 428 MPH in its best performance envelope.
The FW-190 D-13 was a dedicated high-altitude fighter and could achieve speeds of 450-460 MPH at altitudes exceeding 30,000 feet, a match for the P-51B/D and P-47D fighters.
@Eurofighter19 Your Fw 190 performance figures seem exaggerated. Fw 190A5 achieved 407-410mph at 18,000ft, and that's about as fast as the A ever went. The A8 was slightly slower. 402mph without GM boost (not normally fitted), 408 with.There was a lot of experiments on how much boost the engines could take. But those were more successful at lower altitudes and speeds. 428mph seems a quite unreasonable figure to me. Where did you see that?
@Eurofighter19 Aah, now I understand, you've seen a performance figure for D-9. Yes, 426-428mph seem right. Mind you, many D-9 were not capable of that speed. Many had been built with a gap that let too much air through the cooler. (Though, by documents, germans seemed to believe it was the drag of the gap itself). Sealing the gap helped, but was slow and troublesome in coming. Early D-9s were delivered without MW boost. Though that is an issue of industrial shortages and no issue of D-9.
@Eurofighter19 Yes, the German defeat is a compound of many complexities. But the collapse of LW is easily contributed to allies releasing masses of long range fighters roaming german air, in '44, destroying ~20,000 german aircraft, in air and on ground. After this, LW had hardly any presence in the air, at all. True, other factors play in, like lack of fuel. But given how many aces were killed in '44, I'd suggest lack of fuel primarily contributed to saving german pilots' lives.
The defeat of the LW daylight fighting forces can entirely be attributed to 8th FC with the advent of long-range escort fighters during the last phases of the air war over Germany.
British BC however, did not manage to defeat the LW nocturnal fighting force which remained deadly until the end of the war.
The LW deployed over the Ost Front, engaged a rapidly growing Soviet VVS under appalling logistical conditions.
Imagine the LW throwing its entire assets against a single air force.
@Eurofighter19 Yes, I agree. But you must also remember that LW did sort of throw all its assets against the west. In the east, basically only Rudel's flying circus and Hartman's Jasta remained to the end. Every other fighter unit was pulled back to the west. So it's not really as if they had any more. For USAAF it wouldn't have made any difference. Certainly they stayed in the east for too long. But they also had to. Their armies needed at least some support.
I was referring to the earliest stages of the war when Nazi Germany maintained strong assets of its air force in the OST front as well as the Western front and N. Africa which eventually would retreat to Italy; But I do agree with you, at the end Nazi Germany was desperately and hopelessly defending the fatherland against the overwhelming force of the British Bomber Command and 8th Air Force with all it possessed.
the difference between the XP-47J and the Ta-152 is that the latter did managed to be fielded operationally during the last days of the war while the former, however, as formidable as it was, did not make to a production series and hence its performance, with all the equipment necessary to be deployed operationally, was never measured.
@Eurofighter19 Actually, you're wrong. The quoted performance for XP-47J is WITH armament and ammo, at FULL COMBAT weight. Unlike oft seen figures for TA-152, which albeit substantially lower, are indeed for an empty aircraft.
P-47J not seeing production is entirely a warfare management economy decision, not technical. And we were discussing technical profiency here. P-47J was not needed, as the challenge wasn't there.
Let me remind you sir that the Ta-152, although being much exaggerated of how it would have swept clean the skies of American escort fighters, was a deadly fighter and managed to destroy two Hawker Tempests at low altitude for no loss during the lasts days of the war being a dedicated high-altitude interceptor.
Had it been deployed it any meaningful numbers, it would had been a match to the latest Allied fighters deployed during the war, including the P-51H and the P-47N.
@Eurofighter19 One of my posts seem to have fallen away. Did you get the one? - where I pointed out that the P-47J would probably have been in production by start of '45, if there had been a challenge?
Anyway, what US fielded, depended on the need. Towards the end, it was much about saving money in a war they could already see they were winning. The two most important US fighters, P-51B/D and F6F, basically remained in their '43 shape throughout the war.
there's something that does not quite fit in your time line.
The last P-47 to see action in Europe was the P-47M and the last P-47 to see action in the overall war was the P-47N which saw limited action in the Pacific War August 1945.
How's possible to launch the P-47J in Europe before the P-47N which was already in production?
@Eurofighter19 XP-47J flew in summer '43. It was before M and N. It wasn't put into production because it would cost a lot of money for new tooling, jigs etc. And it wasn't needed. M was a surrogate plane for J. M retained the old fuselage and could be cheaply introduced in the existing P-47 production line. N, finally, was a move to give the M superlong range.
Well, it seems that we have reach a certain level of agreement regardless of some discrepancies; but I do not plan, however, to continue this over-stretched discussion although I have learned much information from you.
I respect your extensive knowledge on the subject and respect your opinions even if they not agree with some that I have, although overall, it seems to me that we share more that in which we do not.
It's been a pleasure exchanging ideas with you sir, I hope you have a great day.
@Eurofighter19 Thankyou. it's been fun. Some pointers on the wwiiperformance site. First, you need to be aware of speeds on different altitudes, not just max speed at best altitude. Then, very interesting is the data for P-47 with different propellers. This is the 'paddleblade' revolution for the P-47. Then there are comparative speed envelopes for somewhat early fighters. The pink one in splendid isolation is the P-51A with Allison engine. It drops with altitude, but what a curve it is! "Ahead"
You are welcome. thanks for the pointers, I certainly will take them into consideration when checking out the site.
The P-47 indeed became another aircraft after the introduction of the paddle blade propeller and of course the P-51 jump in performance throughout its evolution.
Without any doubt the right escort fighter needed to give the Luftwaffe a run for its money.
On the rest, I do agree: the P-51B/D and F6F were indeed capable fighters backed by superior numbers that without doubt prove superior against any force that enemy could muster during the last stages of the war.
The P-80 was at its best comparable to the Me-262 although the later had a much powerful armament, was marginally faster and had a superior rate of roll, an advantage which became important in post-war ear fighter jets.
When in comes to the industrial level the Axis Powers were undoubtedly inferior to the Allied nations which was the factor that largely decided the war.
@Eurofighter19 Me 262 was the reason P-80 got financed. So it's not fair to compare, 262 should have credit for being a much earlier aircraft. But the germans never solved the problems with the axial-flow jet engine, and didn't much get anywhere from there. The P-80 was a better aircraft mainly because of a much better engine. It had longer range, lower wingloading, was a much more flyable aircraft. You're wrong about speed. The P-80 was faster, though the 262 was slightly faster at altitude.
@Eurofighter19 Me-262 becoming "operational" is not a technical comparison accomplishment, since USAAF would have refused to accept the 262 as operational, even in its '45 status. US demanded 70h engine service life, Me 262 had like 7h. Then you're speaking '43 wise. The brits made the right call, radial compressor being more fruitful path in short term. By '45 the british jets and US J33 (P-80) were twice as powerful as german engines. And much better pull at lower speeds and altitudes.
the jet engines in the me-262 had a approximate 25 hrs of life expectancy not 7; having said that, the USAAF did not have indeed a need for a short ranged interceptor like the Me-262 for its mission profile.
Nazi Germany desperately needed an aircraft with its performance and managed to launch it operationally in a relatively short time after their realization.
If that's not a accomplishment of German aviation industry, frankly I don't know what might be.
@Eurofighter19 Engine life is probably exaggerated in many books on the subject. Most common figure is 10h, but I feel that is 'rounded' upwards. ~7h was once quoted to me by a good source. During US test flights of Me 262, the average engine life was 1h 20minutes. But the american pilots were of course not as well educated and trained in how to treat the engine. Of course it's an accomplishment. I meant accomplishment for 'comparison', (not) as US had different criteria.
I clearly remember watching documentary in which a German jet fighter pilot stated that the average Me-262 required a engine change every 20 hours or so; subsequently even a good source may have a credible counter argument.
I believe that ultimately it depended on the quality of the production of the engine and the lack of strategic material which at the end was a serious issue for the German aviation industry.
Being objective, Nazi Germany was ahead in aviation technology and had a superior knowledge in aerodynamics although not by a large margin.
None of the Allied nations possessed a comparable aircraft against the Me-163, Do-335, Ar-234, He-163 and so on.
on rocketry technology Nazi Germany was undeniably ahead with the development and subsequent deployment of the V-1 and much more importantly the V-2 ballistic missile.
@Eurofighter19 Excuse me, but three of those projects, Me-163, Do-335, He-162, were failures, so it's not clear to me what features I should compare?
Germany possessed no comparable aircraft to C-46, C-47, C-54, C-69
B-17, B-24, B-25, B-26, B-29, B-32 and so on. And not for lack of trying. No comparable aircraft to P-51B/D, P-47M/N (because Ta152 can't match the range). Do 335 was never ready. Allied test personel found it the most technically troubled aircraft they've ever encountered.
Operational failures given the circumstances but not failures based on performance.
The Me-163 with its top speed of 600 MPH, incredible rate of climb enabling it to reach the 8th AF bombers altitude of 25,000 feet in two minutes and its deadly armament, indeed managed to achieve the expectations set by its designers.
the He-162, although not formidable as the 262, but by being dirt cheap and mass production friendly did achieve the expectations of its designers as well.
@Eurofighter19 As for the Me-163. I agree on the Germans making progress with rocket engines. However, such are of no worth in aviation. And the 163's performance was a question of putting a rocket in the back. Aerodynamically, it got into trouble beyond Mach 0.82 (I might be wrong though, since it's a memory figure, haven't been able to find a note now). Anyway, given the mass of accidents and broken spines (on landing), I disagree, Me-163 cannot be called a "success" in any reasonable context.
The B-17, B-24, B-29 and the B-32 heavy bombers belong to the strategic bombardment doctrine pursued keenly by the USAAF during the war, a doctrine never adopted by the Luftwaffe which never showed much interest and therefore more effort to build and mass produce strategic bombers.
@Eurofighter19 If Germany ever dismissed strategic bombing, it was because Hitler and Goering were sick of the technical problems. Fw 200, Me 264, He 177, Germany certainly tried to build heavy military aircrafts, but their aviation industry wasn't up to the challenge. My guess is that it has much to do with german aviation engineering's obsessive fixation on small frontal area and low weight. Aircrafts have to be stiff to be successful. Then there is the question about engines...
Had Nazi Germany devoted resources into building a dedicated, reliable strategic bomber; I highly doubt that the German aviation industry would have not been able to field at least one type before the end of the war.
The LW under Goering, a negligent leader, devoted massive amounts of resources on other projects but not strategic bombing.
@Eurofighter19 Nazi Germany certainly indulged in investing much in very ambitious projects. Jets, rockets, guided missiles. They certainly had a lead in jet aircraft until the end of the war. The allies didn't have any rocket projects, and not much of jet programs either, before the Me 262 had flown in '43. And doubtless the germans learned a lot from their efforts, as proven by US adopting their missile programs after the war. But they were never 'ahead' in aviation technology during the war.
@Eurofighter19 As for the troubled Do 335, there can be comparisons. Without the MW50 boost, it's matched by the much earlier the P-38. With boost, it's still outclassed by the 504 mph +1000 miles range XP-47J, which also flew in '43 and was also a far more practical aircraft.
@Eurofighter19 To be fair. It should be noted that Germany made a very significant breakthrough in aerodynamics towards the end of the war. This was thanks to a high-speed windtunnel, and the breakthrough was the swept wing. While swept wings weren't new (XP-55, Me 262) their good properties at high subsonic speeds weren't known. But DURING the war, Germany never finished building an aircraft based on this data.
This data, too, was immediately adopted by US after the war.
Although going in that direction, Nazi Germany never aimed to field a supersonic aircraft during the war, the Me-262 possessed better aerodynamics than its two counterparts, the Gloster Meteor and P-80 and also had a much powerful engine, although certainly troubled with teething problems during its gestation, that the original British jet engine.
And given the fact that the US, GB and the USSR were quick to seize German data on aerodynamics makes clear the German advantage.
@Eurofighter19 Me-262 had a never exceed speed of mach 0.84. Overall, the P-80 is a slicker design, has a much more sophisticated airfoil, and achieved +623mph in '47. In '44, '45 it matched the 262 despite having much lower wingloading (= superior maneuver performance). 262 only claim to 'more advanced' aerodynamic is its swept wing. But Messerschmitt had no clue then. He originally swept it because it was torsionally flexible. He swept it more to rebalance after an engine shift.
The P-80 evolved quickly after the war while the Me-262 did not have that opportunity, the 1947 P-80 is the C version which has nothing to do with the 1944 Me-262.
@Eurofighter19 It's not a fair comparison in my book either. I was the first to point out that it wasn't fair to the Me 262 to compare it to P-80. But you said Me 262 had 'more advanced' aerodynamics. Now that has some merit, the swept wing. Still, the P-80 is aerodynamically more advanced in other ways, and I wanted to point out that it was capable of higher performance than the Me 262 (in it's wartime state, it could of course be further developed, stiffer, more sweep, etc).
I believe this particular discussion is degeneration in rather confusing statements.
What I'm trying to compare is the Me-262 just as it was deployed during the war against the P-80A just as it would have been deployed in Europe had the war continued a at least a couple of additional months; not the P-80C which was of course an improved aircraft that could had beaten the Me-262 hands down which of course would have keep evolving too.
@Eurofighter19 Very late in the war, even the P-80A has to be considered a better aircraft than Me262. It was much more maneuverable and flyable, for instance, thanks to lower wing loading and better engine characteristics at lower speeds and altitudes. Better range too. Better gunsight and better armament. Fighter vs fighter, six .50 cal is better than 4 X the low velocity, extreme short range, german Mk 108. That's an anti-bomber weapon for slower aircraft like Me110.
@Eurofighter19 Of course they had an interest in all the technical knowledge of Germany! Why on earth wouldn't they? And - NO! it does NOT make any German "advantage" clear. That's a ridiculous statement, quite frankly. And I have already agreed that Germany learned a lot of new things, thanks to their "crazy" programs. They certainly possessed much neat competence and experience. But that does not make them 'ahead' in aviation tech. Contrary, any relevant comparison crumble such notions.
Why didn't the Allied intelligence sections pursue the remnants of the Italian and Japanese industry aviation with the same intensity as they pursued the German; its airplanes, its aeronautical data and its designers?
The Allied nations were well aware of the potential of the German aviation industries for the looming Cold War.
@Eurofighter19 Well, they did examine Japan and Italy too. One thing you have to remember is that there was a race with Soviet for German scientists and engineers, in Germany. But I agree, Germany was much more interesting than those nations. That Germany was "ahead" is still not a reasonable conclusion. They possessed knowledge new to US. But you see, so did US! There's a wealth of american competence in fuel, cooling design, streamlining, airfoil design, construction, which Germany lacked.
No argument there, the US had a clear lead in the development of superior fuel, turbocharger technology, reliable a potent radial engines and so on.
I was strictly referring to the direction in which knowledge of aerodynamics was heading and the exploit of jet engine technology that Nazi Germany achieved, even though it was still on a phase of gestation, before the end of hostilities.
@Eurofighter19 I've always said that Germany did breakthroughs in hi-speed wind-tunnel tests. Primarily data on the swept wing at very high speeds. But they never finished a plane based on that data. Sort of the Me 262 and Me 163, but that was just chance, and they were not controllable at speeds so high anyway, due to yet insufficient knowledge about compressibility, when these were built.
Two engines in this configuration could be a great back up if one quits while in fight. It reminds me of Burt Rutan's air craft designs. It just goes to show how a war-in-progress excelorates aviation development and the Germans where ahead of their time in this area.
@NVanWendy Only 37 -that could fly were produced. Kurt Tank flew one and saw P-51's and easily outdistanced them. There is no evidence the Americans ever saw him. Pierre Clost. tried to catch up with one in a Tempest,probably the hardest accelerating fighter of ww2 and didn,t even get close. This footage is great , the sheer size of the bird was a bit of a surprize. Packs of Dora 9 ,Do 335 and Me 262 would have been a nasty combination.
Fokker used the push-pull configuration on the D23. If the Dutch would've had a squadron of those fitted with Merlins they would've kept the Nazi's out. As it is, only a prototype was flying. Never seen any footage, except for an English model plane.
the French ace Pierre Clostermann was leading a flight of four tempests saw a single do-335 crusing just above the trees, as soon as the 335 saw them it floored it, the tempests couldn't even catch up
I've always loved the Do335. I guess its too bad the "outdated" B-24's, B-17's, P-51's, P-38's, P-47's, Spitfires, Mosquitoes, Lancasters etc., kicked crap out of production. Historians should take note, this could have been an AWESOME aircraft.
@1776CommonSense The concept of the push-pull propeller was not that new at the time. The Fokker D23 was a similar design from the netherlands just before the war. But the prototype was destroyed in an air raid and it never had a chance to be put it into production.
Professional historians do not take notes of what could have been, only what has been. :-) I agree this was a kickass fighter, good that the nazis did not make any substantial numbers their advanced weapon systems or they would have been harder to beat. A posibility is that nukes would have been used by the USA in europe too if the war dragged on there for longer then it did in the pacific. Could you imagine a nuclear path blown from the beaches of Normandie to Berlin?
Hah! love the poxy 'Gypsy Minor' or flat-four engine sound of some description dubbed in to make it sound crappy I spose, typical yank doco on enemy aircraft that would have changed the war completely if fuckwitts like Goering weren't running the RLM.
@MrPlanedrawer: Yupp it doesn´t nearly sound anything like the mighty DB 603 (v12) Would have been great if someone like Dornier foundation or Flugwerk GmbH could build one.
I imagine this plane with jet engine at the rear...or with curved propellers in the engines. They surely could kick american and british fighters and bombers from the skies at large numbers.
Why don't both of you two numbskulls quit your silly inane bickering and just enjoy the videos for what they are worth. Obviously neither of you are mature enough to appreciate anything of a technical nature without trying to prove your superior knowledge which neither of you seem to have. So just shut up.
rmachayes 3 months ago 2
@rmachayes if someone comes up with absurd statements like he did then i'll bite back.
pramboy09 3 months ago
I'd luv to see it at the RENO air races!
chilsam 4 months ago
Having flown full combat simulations with most planes on both sidees of the war?
about the only alied plain to realy compet with most of the german night fighters?
Was the p-38 lightning, and we nore the brittish ever to my knolage used them for this purpose. And the Real trick to them? Would have been to re-equip the P-38 with The rollsRoyce Merlin, Or it's pakard equivilant, just as we did with the mustang and it's ridge backed predisessor .
FireDropTechnologies 4 months ago
@FireDropTechnologies rubbish, the de havilland mosquito owned the skies as a nightfighter from 1942.
pramboy09 4 months ago
@pramboy09
Right?
Your out of obsolete under powered fighter bomber,
Suddenly turned in to the Holy terror of the sky's just because your government said so?
And the Me 110 Didn't wreck more fighters at night than any other plane?
Come on Dork, I'm an american not a brit, but we fought the same fight, and to say
The Gerrmain Technologies Didn't Completly out gun, out move and out armor our own?
is either Blind ignorance, or Shear stupidity, please tell me wich one you fall in.
FireDropTechnologies 4 months ago in playlist FireDropTechnologies's favorites
@FireDropTechnologies no 1 i am not british i'm a new zealander, secondly i respect a lot of what the germans had during the war, esp the fw-190, me-262 etc. But i recommend you read some books on the mosquito before you try to even compare it to the 110!!! for starters if you think a twin engined medium bomber that could carry a similar load to the b-17, capable of close to 400mph in 1942 and try to call it underpowered your the one that is incredibly ignorant or just plain dumb.
pramboy09 4 months ago
@pramboy09
Carry nearly as much a as be seventeen?
Are you smoking crack Sir?
FireDropTechnologies 4 months ago
@FireDropTechnologies yeah it could almost as much as a B-17,
but then it didnt flew fast anymore,
They would never ever have added so much bombs, that they would fly 270km/h,
Because this plane is made to be fast with a speed of 715km/h,
They also had a version with Contra Rotating Propellers at nose and rear,
and I think that @Pramboy09 actually means that one with the 2 contra rotating propellers...
Weibkoln 3 weeks ago
@FireDropTechnologies i mean honestly the mosquito had twin merlin, same mk as the spitfire and mustang i don't think i can think of anyone which called them "underpowered" during it's first year of service there wasn't a german aircraft that was fast enough to catch it, not long after it was converted for night fighting which it was incredibly succesful and not to mention as a ground attack aircraft it. honestly you read any book or go to any website you can find out this for yourself.
pramboy09 4 months ago
@pramboy09
Fast? Sort of 400 isn't shaby,
But come on now, Agile? NO Manuvarable? NO
And I call bull shit on the not a germian air craft fast enough to catch it.
Where did you get your fact sheat? A war bonds poster?
FireDropTechnologies 4 months ago
@FireDropTechnologies where the fuck do you get your facts you ???? let me guess playing video games. i have 35 yrs worth of books to back me up and FACTS on the aircraft and their pilots that flew the real aircraft you quote me the books or websites what i have told you is not true.
pramboy09 4 months ago
@pramboy09
From the US Armys Aircraft Identification, and specs, manual
1956, Offishal break down on Ours your's and thiers Ass bite.
The Big Blue Bible of all things Pre-Veit-nam And millitary.
So F*ck you dick head I Know I'm right, and your full of shit.
FireDropTechnologies 4 months ago
@FireDropTechnologies so what the fuck does those books have to do with the dehavilland mosquito??? you quote from those books what i said was wrong. I have books that have information on ALL OF THE WORLDS AIRCRAFT not just american.But you go and believe what you want you obviosly live in la la land.
pramboy09 4 months ago
@pramboy09 Where is "la la land?" :)
dunjak111 3 months ago
@dunjak111 inside the blokes head
pramboy09 3 months ago
@pramboy09
Honestly, I searched for 5 minutes, but I could not find a translation for "bloke head". At least none, that makes sense in german. Now, I am curious: What is a "blokes head"?
dunjak111 3 months ago
@dunjak111 a 'bloke" is a man. so what i was saying when i said he was from "la la land" was what he was saying was stupid.
pramboy09 3 months ago
I love that plane!
Mupperik94 4 months ago
Now here's a replica begging to be built!
Poopingbotham 5 months ago
@Poopingbotham there is still one - restored
spottydog4477 4 months ago
This plane always fascinated me. But.. I wonder. Would it have made a good fighter?
It seems to me that any damage to this plane would be catastrophic due to its twin engines (both good and bad qualities) as well as it's rudder configuration (any damage would cause it to fly uncontrollably). That said, I'm just guessing! Still, the german's were VERY creative with their aircraft and ahead of their time.
Burnsengine 6 months ago
Das ist sehr gut!
StevenHoban 6 months ago
思ったより大柄な機体ですね人間との対比でよく分かります。
nakano8778 10 months ago
Wonder if it's possible to adapt the design using turboprops instead of pistons?
rozniy 11 months ago
imho, the germans had to experiment with wild new designs because most of their standard planes (and tanks) were designed in the 1930s and were becoming obsolete. Bf-109 was vintage 1936 and was designed for short range combat over Europe! The (tactical) bombers had too short range! They had no long range strategic bombers! The vaunted Panzers (I-IV) were too lightly armoured! Most of the advanced machines they fielded later in the war had various bugs, a sure sign of rushed development.
rozniy 11 months ago
I believe the first production aircraft to use the push pull concept was Dorniers Wal from 1922. Didn't someone try the concept for a bomber prior to that?
ezreader111 1 year ago
Since Germany couldn't match US in terms of aircraft production, they concentrate on building a smaller number of aircraft that can outperform anything the allied has.
phadil 1 year ago
@phadil
Are you sure about your statement?
P-47s and P-51s at their optimum performances envelopes outperformed both Me-109 Gs and Fw-190 As in high-altitude combat where the air war over Germany was fought; and were equally matched by Me-109 Ks and Fw-190 Ds high-altitude fighters and of course were inferiors against the Ta-152 which a match for the P-51H and the Me-262 which would have met the P-80 in equal terms.
It was quality coupled with quantity that defeated the Luftwaffe.
Eurofighter19 1 year ago
@Eurofighter19 Not really. just my observation. but consider this. Germany design an aircraft that match the P-51 under severe shortage of materials. while US with it's vast industrial capacity and almost unlimited resources were a few steps behind germany in aircraft technology. Even the advance P-80 use a British jet engine. US can do better technologically then germany during WW2 and yet they never done so.
phadil 1 year ago
Comment removed
alexsagara87 1 year ago
@phadil
Industrial capacity has nothing to do with superior knowledge in aerodynamics and engine engineering.
The fact that Germany was ahead of the Allies did not have any effect on its war industries which were heavily damaged by the end of hostilities.
And do not underestimate Allied equipment either as their piston-engined aircraft matched the best German aircraft produced during the war and the P-80 although late to enter the conflict was matched in terms of performance to the Me-262.
Eurofighter19 1 year ago
@Eurofighter19 Germany wasn't ahead of the allies. Not in aviation tech. I don't know why you believe that? Certainly, a relevant comparison between performance of american and german aircraft cannot give such a notion. US won the war with '43 state of production tech. Because they could and it was cheaper. But - Fastest piston engine fighter to fly during the war: XP-47J, fastest to see service P-51H, fastest to see combat P-47M. And P-80 was a better plane than Me-262.
Vermiliontea 10 months ago
Comment removed
Eurofighter19 10 months ago
@Vermiliontea
In terms of piston-engined fighters, most belligerent nations were more or less equally matched with the deployment of fighters such as the American P-51H, and P-47M; the British Spitfire Mk XI and the Hawker Typhoon; the German Fw-190 D-13 and the ultimate prop-driven German fighter, the Ta-152 which manage to see operational action in the last days of the war.
Eurofighter19 10 months ago
@Eurofighter19 There was no equality. From the start of '44 american fighter pilots enjoyed considerable performance advantages, 30-70 mph higher speeds at various altitudes. And they did this in aircrafts which also had many times the range, more ammo and oxygen and finally to add insult, better climb at altitudes. You want to compare very late all out efforts like Ta-152. Well, the P-47J flew in '43, wasn't put in production due to save money and no need, but utterly outperform Ta-152.
Vermiliontea 10 months ago
Taking out the superior range enjoyed by escort fighters which is irrelevant; American fighters pilots indeed had gained the initiative and the advantage with superior high-altitude fighters over their German counterparts during the last stages of the war.
The rapid depletion of the LW, however, can be largely be attributed to its strategic situation during the last stages of the war; over stretched with multiple fronts and starved by its collapsing industries unable to feed its necessities.
Eurofighter19 10 months ago
@Eurofighter19 You miss the point. Range is a technical challenge and a heavy burden on performance. Germany built short range, lightweight 'hot-rods' and still ended up being 70 mph slower. In order to at least get into the same ballpark, they had to resort to a few minutes of overboost, detonations tamed by methanol-water injection, (or even nitrogendioxide boost). US kept such option too. P&W R-2800 was test-run at 3,600 hp, and for 250 hours, not 10 minutes, like the frail german engines.
Vermiliontea 10 months ago
Range was a technical challenge and of course a heavy burden on performance in fighter planes for the USAAF, not the LW.
Could you please show me a source of a German fighter interceptor having its top speed 70 MPH slower than a American escort fighter during 1944 or 1945?
The old Bf-109 Gs and Fw-190 As were of course inferior but not for such large difference.
The Bf-109Ks and Fw-190Ds were almost equal in performance to latest American and British piston engined fighters used during the war.
Eurofighter19 10 months ago
@Eurofighter19 Certainly. If you read german, you should check out kurfurst(dot)org, a site keeping Me 109 documents, both tests and theorethical estimates from the time on WW2. Otherwise, a big source for detailed documentation, is wwiiaircraftperformance(dot)org. Here you can find historical test data, for all altitudes for different weights and configurations. I think you'll find the Mustang quite astonishing, once you get down to comparing.
Vermiliontea 9 months ago
@Vermiliontea
Unfortunately I can't read German but I will certainly check out those sites.
The P-51 Mustang was a superb fighter, no question about it.
Eurofighter19 9 months ago
@Eurofighter19 More directly, an answer is that the P-51B/D was 70mph faster than the F 190A above 28,000ft. (Actually it's comfortably faster at all altitudes).
As for the 109G, before the G-10 and MW50 boost, the american fighters enjoyed similar advantages. Even with the MW50, american fighters had greater advantages at altitudes lower or higher than at the 109's optimum speed altitude. Same with Fw 190D. Also remember that for '44 LF had armed up with 110/410 during '43, against bombers.
Vermiliontea 9 months ago
@Vermiliontea
Could you please specify which variant of the FW-190A are you referring too?
I believe the FW-190 could achieve 428 MPH in its best performance envelope.
The FW-190 D-13 was a dedicated high-altitude fighter and could achieve speeds of 450-460 MPH at altitudes exceeding 30,000 feet, a match for the P-51B/D and P-47D fighters.
Eurofighter19 9 months ago
@Eurofighter19 Your Fw 190 performance figures seem exaggerated. Fw 190A5 achieved 407-410mph at 18,000ft, and that's about as fast as the A ever went. The A8 was slightly slower. 402mph without GM boost (not normally fitted), 408 with.There was a lot of experiments on how much boost the engines could take. But those were more successful at lower altitudes and speeds. 428mph seems a quite unreasonable figure to me. Where did you see that?
Vermiliontea 9 months ago
@Eurofighter19 Aah, now I understand, you've seen a performance figure for D-9. Yes, 426-428mph seem right. Mind you, many D-9 were not capable of that speed. Many had been built with a gap that let too much air through the cooler. (Though, by documents, germans seemed to believe it was the drag of the gap itself). Sealing the gap helped, but was slow and troublesome in coming. Early D-9s were delivered without MW boost. Though that is an issue of industrial shortages and no issue of D-9.
Vermiliontea 9 months ago
@Eurofighter19 Two D-13 were delivered. And, what? a dozen D-11? This is my point with dragging in the XP-47J in the discussion. It was never needed.
Vermiliontea 9 months ago
@Eurofighter19 Yes, the German defeat is a compound of many complexities. But the collapse of LW is easily contributed to allies releasing masses of long range fighters roaming german air, in '44, destroying ~20,000 german aircraft, in air and on ground. After this, LW had hardly any presence in the air, at all. True, other factors play in, like lack of fuel. But given how many aces were killed in '44, I'd suggest lack of fuel primarily contributed to saving german pilots' lives.
Vermiliontea 10 months ago
The defeat of the LW daylight fighting forces can entirely be attributed to 8th FC with the advent of long-range escort fighters during the last phases of the air war over Germany.
British BC however, did not manage to defeat the LW nocturnal fighting force which remained deadly until the end of the war.
The LW deployed over the Ost Front, engaged a rapidly growing Soviet VVS under appalling logistical conditions.
Imagine the LW throwing its entire assets against a single air force.
Eurofighter19 10 months ago
@Eurofighter19 Yes, I agree. But you must also remember that LW did sort of throw all its assets against the west. In the east, basically only Rudel's flying circus and Hartman's Jasta remained to the end. Every other fighter unit was pulled back to the west. So it's not really as if they had any more. For USAAF it wouldn't have made any difference. Certainly they stayed in the east for too long. But they also had to. Their armies needed at least some support.
Vermiliontea 9 months ago
@Vermiliontea
I was referring to the earliest stages of the war when Nazi Germany maintained strong assets of its air force in the OST front as well as the Western front and N. Africa which eventually would retreat to Italy; But I do agree with you, at the end Nazi Germany was desperately and hopelessly defending the fatherland against the overwhelming force of the British Bomber Command and 8th Air Force with all it possessed.
Eurofighter19 9 months ago
@Vermiliontea
the difference between the XP-47J and the Ta-152 is that the latter did managed to be fielded operationally during the last days of the war while the former, however, as formidable as it was, did not make to a production series and hence its performance, with all the equipment necessary to be deployed operationally, was never measured.
Eurofighter19 10 months ago
@Eurofighter19 Actually, you're wrong. The quoted performance for XP-47J is WITH armament and ammo, at FULL COMBAT weight. Unlike oft seen figures for TA-152, which albeit substantially lower, are indeed for an empty aircraft.
P-47J not seeing production is entirely a warfare management economy decision, not technical. And we were discussing technical profiency here. P-47J was not needed, as the challenge wasn't there.
Vermiliontea 10 months ago
@Vermiliontea
Let me remind you sir that the Ta-152, although being much exaggerated of how it would have swept clean the skies of American escort fighters, was a deadly fighter and managed to destroy two Hawker Tempests at low altitude for no loss during the lasts days of the war being a dedicated high-altitude interceptor.
Had it been deployed it any meaningful numbers, it would had been a match to the latest Allied fighters deployed during the war, including the P-51H and the P-47N.
Eurofighter19 10 months ago
@Eurofighter19 One of my posts seem to have fallen away. Did you get the one? - where I pointed out that the P-47J would probably have been in production by start of '45, if there had been a challenge?
Anyway, what US fielded, depended on the need. Towards the end, it was much about saving money in a war they could already see they were winning. The two most important US fighters, P-51B/D and F6F, basically remained in their '43 shape throughout the war.
Vermiliontea 9 months ago
@Vermiliontea
there's something that does not quite fit in your time line.
The last P-47 to see action in Europe was the P-47M and the last P-47 to see action in the overall war was the P-47N which saw limited action in the Pacific War August 1945.
How's possible to launch the P-47J in Europe before the P-47N which was already in production?
Eurofighter19 9 months ago
@Eurofighter19 XP-47J flew in summer '43. It was before M and N. It wasn't put into production because it would cost a lot of money for new tooling, jigs etc. And it wasn't needed. M was a surrogate plane for J. M retained the old fuselage and could be cheaply introduced in the existing P-47 production line. N, finally, was a move to give the M superlong range.
Vermiliontea 9 months ago
Well, it seems that we have reach a certain level of agreement regardless of some discrepancies; but I do not plan, however, to continue this over-stretched discussion although I have learned much information from you.
I respect your extensive knowledge on the subject and respect your opinions even if they not agree with some that I have, although overall, it seems to me that we share more that in which we do not.
It's been a pleasure exchanging ideas with you sir, I hope you have a great day.
Eurofighter19 9 months ago
@Eurofighter19 Thankyou. it's been fun. Some pointers on the wwiiperformance site. First, you need to be aware of speeds on different altitudes, not just max speed at best altitude. Then, very interesting is the data for P-47 with different propellers. This is the 'paddleblade' revolution for the P-47. Then there are comparative speed envelopes for somewhat early fighters. The pink one in splendid isolation is the P-51A with Allison engine. It drops with altitude, but what a curve it is! "Ahead"
Vermiliontea 9 months ago
@Vermiliontea
You are welcome. thanks for the pointers, I certainly will take them into consideration when checking out the site.
The P-47 indeed became another aircraft after the introduction of the paddle blade propeller and of course the P-51 jump in performance throughout its evolution.
Without any doubt the right escort fighter needed to give the Luftwaffe a run for its money.
Eurofighter19 9 months ago
@Vermiliontea
On the rest, I do agree: the P-51B/D and F6F were indeed capable fighters backed by superior numbers that without doubt prove superior against any force that enemy could muster during the last stages of the war.
Eurofighter19 9 months ago
@Vermiliontea
The P-80 was at its best comparable to the Me-262 although the later had a much powerful armament, was marginally faster and had a superior rate of roll, an advantage which became important in post-war ear fighter jets.
When in comes to the industrial level the Axis Powers were undoubtedly inferior to the Allied nations which was the factor that largely decided the war.
Eurofighter19 10 months ago
@Eurofighter19 Me 262 was the reason P-80 got financed. So it's not fair to compare, 262 should have credit for being a much earlier aircraft. But the germans never solved the problems with the axial-flow jet engine, and didn't much get anywhere from there. The P-80 was a better aircraft mainly because of a much better engine. It had longer range, lower wingloading, was a much more flyable aircraft. You're wrong about speed. The P-80 was faster, though the 262 was slightly faster at altitude.
Vermiliontea 10 months ago
@Vermiliontea
It is fair to compare because both the Me-262 and the P-80 became Nazi Germany's and America's first operational jet fighters respectively.
The Me-262 being fielded in mid-1944 and the P-80 in mid-1945 giving the Germans a year of advantage.
The Me-262 axial-flow jet engine indeed proved to be troublesome, but managed to produce more power than the Gloster Meteor's centrifugal jet engine.
Eurofighter19 10 months ago
@Eurofighter19 Me-262 becoming "operational" is not a technical comparison accomplishment, since USAAF would have refused to accept the 262 as operational, even in its '45 status. US demanded 70h engine service life, Me 262 had like 7h. Then you're speaking '43 wise. The brits made the right call, radial compressor being more fruitful path in short term. By '45 the british jets and US J33 (P-80) were twice as powerful as german engines. And much better pull at lower speeds and altitudes.
Vermiliontea 10 months ago
@Vermiliontea
the jet engines in the me-262 had a approximate 25 hrs of life expectancy not 7; having said that, the USAAF did not have indeed a need for a short ranged interceptor like the Me-262 for its mission profile.
Nazi Germany desperately needed an aircraft with its performance and managed to launch it operationally in a relatively short time after their realization.
If that's not a accomplishment of German aviation industry, frankly I don't know what might be.
Eurofighter19 10 months ago
@Eurofighter19 Engine life is probably exaggerated in many books on the subject. Most common figure is 10h, but I feel that is 'rounded' upwards. ~7h was once quoted to me by a good source. During US test flights of Me 262, the average engine life was 1h 20minutes. But the american pilots were of course not as well educated and trained in how to treat the engine. Of course it's an accomplishment. I meant accomplishment for 'comparison', (not) as US had different criteria.
Vermiliontea 9 months ago
@Vermiliontea
I clearly remember watching documentary in which a German jet fighter pilot stated that the average Me-262 required a engine change every 20 hours or so; subsequently even a good source may have a credible counter argument.
I believe that ultimately it depended on the quality of the production of the engine and the lack of strategic material which at the end was a serious issue for the German aviation industry.
Eurofighter19 9 months ago
@Vermiliontea
Being objective, Nazi Germany was ahead in aviation technology and had a superior knowledge in aerodynamics although not by a large margin.
None of the Allied nations possessed a comparable aircraft against the Me-163, Do-335, Ar-234, He-163 and so on.
on rocketry technology Nazi Germany was undeniably ahead with the development and subsequent deployment of the V-1 and much more importantly the V-2 ballistic missile.
Eurofighter19 10 months ago
@Eurofighter19 Excuse me, but three of those projects, Me-163, Do-335, He-162, were failures, so it's not clear to me what features I should compare?
Germany possessed no comparable aircraft to C-46, C-47, C-54, C-69
B-17, B-24, B-25, B-26, B-29, B-32 and so on. And not for lack of trying. No comparable aircraft to P-51B/D, P-47M/N (because Ta152 can't match the range). Do 335 was never ready. Allied test personel found it the most technically troubled aircraft they've ever encountered.
Vermiliontea 10 months ago
@Vermiliontea
Operational failures given the circumstances but not failures based on performance.
The Me-163 with its top speed of 600 MPH, incredible rate of climb enabling it to reach the 8th AF bombers altitude of 25,000 feet in two minutes and its deadly armament, indeed managed to achieve the expectations set by its designers.
the He-162, although not formidable as the 262, but by being dirt cheap and mass production friendly did achieve the expectations of its designers as well.
Eurofighter19 10 months ago
@Eurofighter19 As for the Me-163. I agree on the Germans making progress with rocket engines. However, such are of no worth in aviation. And the 163's performance was a question of putting a rocket in the back. Aerodynamically, it got into trouble beyond Mach 0.82 (I might be wrong though, since it's a memory figure, haven't been able to find a note now). Anyway, given the mass of accidents and broken spines (on landing), I disagree, Me-163 cannot be called a "success" in any reasonable context.
Vermiliontea 10 months ago
@Vermiliontea
The B-17, B-24, B-29 and the B-32 heavy bombers belong to the strategic bombardment doctrine pursued keenly by the USAAF during the war, a doctrine never adopted by the Luftwaffe which never showed much interest and therefore more effort to build and mass produce strategic bombers.
Eurofighter19 10 months ago
@Eurofighter19 If Germany ever dismissed strategic bombing, it was because Hitler and Goering were sick of the technical problems. Fw 200, Me 264, He 177, Germany certainly tried to build heavy military aircrafts, but their aviation industry wasn't up to the challenge. My guess is that it has much to do with german aviation engineering's obsessive fixation on small frontal area and low weight. Aircrafts have to be stiff to be successful. Then there is the question about engines...
Vermiliontea 10 months ago
@Vermiliontea
Had Nazi Germany devoted resources into building a dedicated, reliable strategic bomber; I highly doubt that the German aviation industry would have not been able to field at least one type before the end of the war.
The LW under Goering, a negligent leader, devoted massive amounts of resources on other projects but not strategic bombing.
Eurofighter19 10 months ago
Comment removed
Vermiliontea 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Eurofighter19 Nazi Germany certainly indulged in investing much in very ambitious projects. Jets, rockets, guided missiles. They certainly had a lead in jet aircraft until the end of the war. The allies didn't have any rocket projects, and not much of jet programs either, before the Me 262 had flown in '43. And doubtless the germans learned a lot from their efforts, as proven by US adopting their missile programs after the war. But they were never 'ahead' in aviation technology during the war.
Vermiliontea 10 months ago
@Eurofighter19 As for the troubled Do 335, there can be comparisons. Without the MW50 boost, it's matched by the much earlier the P-38. With boost, it's still outclassed by the 504 mph +1000 miles range XP-47J, which also flew in '43 and was also a far more practical aircraft.
Vermiliontea 10 months ago
@Eurofighter19 To be fair. It should be noted that Germany made a very significant breakthrough in aerodynamics towards the end of the war. This was thanks to a high-speed windtunnel, and the breakthrough was the swept wing. While swept wings weren't new (XP-55, Me 262) their good properties at high subsonic speeds weren't known. But DURING the war, Germany never finished building an aircraft based on this data.
This data, too, was immediately adopted by US after the war.
Vermiliontea 10 months ago
@Vermiliontea
Although going in that direction, Nazi Germany never aimed to field a supersonic aircraft during the war, the Me-262 possessed better aerodynamics than its two counterparts, the Gloster Meteor and P-80 and also had a much powerful engine, although certainly troubled with teething problems during its gestation, that the original British jet engine.
And given the fact that the US, GB and the USSR were quick to seize German data on aerodynamics makes clear the German advantage.
Eurofighter19 10 months ago
@Eurofighter19 Me-262 had a never exceed speed of mach 0.84. Overall, the P-80 is a slicker design, has a much more sophisticated airfoil, and achieved +623mph in '47. In '44, '45 it matched the 262 despite having much lower wingloading (= superior maneuver performance). 262 only claim to 'more advanced' aerodynamic is its swept wing. But Messerschmitt had no clue then. He originally swept it because it was torsionally flexible. He swept it more to rebalance after an engine shift.
Vermiliontea 10 months ago
@Vermiliontea
The P-80 evolved quickly after the war while the Me-262 did not have that opportunity, the 1947 P-80 is the C version which has nothing to do with the 1944 Me-262.
That is not a fair comparison in my book.
Eurofighter19 10 months ago
@Eurofighter19 It's not a fair comparison in my book either. I was the first to point out that it wasn't fair to the Me 262 to compare it to P-80. But you said Me 262 had 'more advanced' aerodynamics. Now that has some merit, the swept wing. Still, the P-80 is aerodynamically more advanced in other ways, and I wanted to point out that it was capable of higher performance than the Me 262 (in it's wartime state, it could of course be further developed, stiffer, more sweep, etc).
Vermiliontea 9 months ago
@Vermiliontea
I believe this particular discussion is degeneration in rather confusing statements.
What I'm trying to compare is the Me-262 just as it was deployed during the war against the P-80A just as it would have been deployed in Europe had the war continued a at least a couple of additional months; not the P-80C which was of course an improved aircraft that could had beaten the Me-262 hands down which of course would have keep evolving too.
the fighter certainly had potential.
Eurofighter19 9 months ago
@Eurofighter19 Very late in the war, even the P-80A has to be considered a better aircraft than Me262. It was much more maneuverable and flyable, for instance, thanks to lower wing loading and better engine characteristics at lower speeds and altitudes. Better range too. Better gunsight and better armament. Fighter vs fighter, six .50 cal is better than 4 X the low velocity, extreme short range, german Mk 108. That's an anti-bomber weapon for slower aircraft like Me110.
Vermiliontea 9 months ago
@Vermiliontea Interesting stuff you fellows are writing here.
paullubliner 8 months ago
@Eurofighter19 Of course they had an interest in all the technical knowledge of Germany! Why on earth wouldn't they? And - NO! it does NOT make any German "advantage" clear. That's a ridiculous statement, quite frankly. And I have already agreed that Germany learned a lot of new things, thanks to their "crazy" programs. They certainly possessed much neat competence and experience. But that does not make them 'ahead' in aviation tech. Contrary, any relevant comparison crumble such notions.
Vermiliontea 10 months ago
@Vermiliontea
Enlighten me sir, and answer this question.
Why didn't the Allied intelligence sections pursue the remnants of the Italian and Japanese industry aviation with the same intensity as they pursued the German; its airplanes, its aeronautical data and its designers?
The Allied nations were well aware of the potential of the German aviation industries for the looming Cold War.
Eurofighter19 10 months ago
@Eurofighter19 Well, they did examine Japan and Italy too. One thing you have to remember is that there was a race with Soviet for German scientists and engineers, in Germany. But I agree, Germany was much more interesting than those nations. That Germany was "ahead" is still not a reasonable conclusion. They possessed knowledge new to US. But you see, so did US! There's a wealth of american competence in fuel, cooling design, streamlining, airfoil design, construction, which Germany lacked.
Vermiliontea 9 months ago
@Vermiliontea
No argument there, the US had a clear lead in the development of superior fuel, turbocharger technology, reliable a potent radial engines and so on.
I was strictly referring to the direction in which knowledge of aerodynamics was heading and the exploit of jet engine technology that Nazi Germany achieved, even though it was still on a phase of gestation, before the end of hostilities.
Eurofighter19 9 months ago
@Eurofighter19 I've always said that Germany did breakthroughs in hi-speed wind-tunnel tests. Primarily data on the swept wing at very high speeds. But they never finished a plane based on that data. Sort of the Me 262 and Me 163, but that was just chance, and they were not controllable at speeds so high anyway, due to yet insufficient knowledge about compressibility, when these were built.
Vermiliontea 9 months ago
Two engines in this configuration could be a great back up if one quits while in fight. It reminds me of Burt Rutan's air craft designs. It just goes to show how a war-in-progress excelorates aviation development and the Germans where ahead of their time in this area.
cgrscott 1 year ago
that thing was not just fast - it had some destroying large caliber cannons too
great plane
IIAndersII 1 year ago
470, damn.
mattigi 1 year ago
I wonder why no further experiments have been done with this pushme-pullyu design?
Wish Burt Rutan would try it out.
rozniy 1 year ago
@rozniy They did perfect the design,, but they used jet engines instead ,
bisleybob3 11 months ago
Superb Airplane, the Best and the fastest 470 mph piston engines 12 stars here.
games4u2ube 1 year ago
I'm lucky in that I live mere miles from the sole existing example of this amazing aircraft.
My rock-n-roll fantasy is to show up at the Reno Air Races in a fresh example (with actual, legitimate DB 603's), just decimating the competition.
Sigh.
geekengineer 1 year ago
Gotta love the cessna engine dub on the sound..LOL
spottydog4477 1 year ago
470 mph .. wow
biukucanoe 2 years ago
what tha "tooot' very powerful bird :)
games4u2ube 2 years ago
"...would have been formidable adversaries."?
Why were they not? Is there a part 2?
Thanks!
the82spartans 2 years ago
@the82spartans Just weren't enough of them built; no one had enough (any?) experience fighting them to say one way or the other.
NVanWendy 2 years ago
@NVanWendy Only 37 -that could fly were produced. Kurt Tank flew one and saw P-51's and easily outdistanced them. There is no evidence the Americans ever saw him. Pierre Clost. tried to catch up with one in a Tempest,probably the hardest accelerating fighter of ww2 and didn,t even get close. This footage is great , the sheer size of the bird was a bit of a surprize. Packs of Dora 9 ,Do 335 and Me 262 would have been a nasty combination.
hogiesanKenobi 1 year ago
beautiful bird
Santoslhelpa 2 years ago
Fokker used the push-pull configuration on the D23. If the Dutch would've had a squadron of those fitted with Merlins they would've kept the Nazi's out. As it is, only a prototype was flying. Never seen any footage, except for an English model plane.
hijslijst23 2 years ago
the French ace Pierre Clostermann was leading a flight of four tempests saw a single do-335 crusing just above the trees, as soon as the 335 saw them it floored it, the tempests couldn't even catch up
MadMilitiaMen 2 years ago 8
@MadMilitiaMen The first french ace Pierre Clostermann was born and learned to fly in Brazil.
alemaonausp 6 months ago
I've always loved the Do335. I guess its too bad the "outdated" B-24's, B-17's, P-51's, P-38's, P-47's, Spitfires, Mosquitoes, Lancasters etc., kicked crap out of production. Historians should take note, this could have been an AWESOME aircraft.
1776CommonSense 2 years ago 6
@1776CommonSense was, never had a chance to prove it's self. Which is as it should be considering the evil perverted regiem it was destined to serve.
GrigoriZhukov 1 year ago
@1776CommonSense The concept of the push-pull propeller was not that new at the time. The Fokker D23 was a similar design from the netherlands just before the war. But the prototype was destroyed in an air raid and it never had a chance to be put it into production.
Yodan82 1 year ago
@1776CommonSense
Professional historians do not take notes of what could have been, only what has been. :-) I agree this was a kickass fighter, good that the nazis did not make any substantial numbers their advanced weapon systems or they would have been harder to beat. A posibility is that nukes would have been used by the USA in europe too if the war dragged on there for longer then it did in the pacific. Could you imagine a nuclear path blown from the beaches of Normandie to Berlin?
myslmysl 11 months ago
@1776CommonSense
who's side are you on?
cruisingcody 5 months ago
Hah! love the poxy 'Gypsy Minor' or flat-four engine sound of some description dubbed in to make it sound crappy I spose, typical yank doco on enemy aircraft that would have changed the war completely if fuckwitts like Goering weren't running the RLM.
MrPlanedrawer 2 years ago
@MrPlanedrawer: Yupp it doesn´t nearly sound anything like the mighty DB 603 (v12) Would have been great if someone like Dornier foundation or Flugwerk GmbH could build one.
frontdebeouf 2 years ago
I imagine this plane with jet engine at the rear...or with curved propellers in the engines. They surely could kick american and british fighters and bombers from the skies at large numbers.
LeoAndRas 2 years ago
Comment removed
mihaelmartinovic 2 years ago
Whould have been interesting to see how this plane would have done in service.
daggers93 3 years ago
TY for posting such a rare footage!
Fantastic plane, just too late for war. Wish there are still working models of this planes around.
deltafreelancer 3 years ago