(August 4, 2010 at 5:30 am)Zen Badger Wrote: The Luftwaffe did have the best toys.

A) Supermarine Spitfire
B) Gloster Meteor

The best toys


Also, if I said I played a PC title called BOTF, would anyone here know what I meant?

Ummm

Siptfire?? Is this some new British clunker I have not heard of yet???

(August 10, 2010 at 8:17 am)KichigaiNeko Wrote: Ummm

Siptfire?? Is this some new British clunker I have not heard of yet???

Spelling, I'm doing it wrong >.<

(August 10, 2010 at 8:19 am)AnunZi Wrote:

(August 10, 2010 at 8:17 am)KichigaiNeko Wrote: Ummm

Siptfire?? Is this some new British clunker I have not heard of yet???

Spelling, I'm doing it wrong >.<

So I can hazard a guess that the aircraft in question is the Spitfire??? cute little rig that...we got lots of them decorating the countryside....not to mention my bookshelves...Badger!!!

(August 10, 2010 at 7:36 am)AnunZi Wrote:

(August 4, 2010 at 5:30 am)Zen Badger Wrote: The Luftwaffe did have the best toys.

A) Supermarine Siptfire
B) Gloster Meteor

The best toys

Spitfire maybe, but the Meteor? GTFO
Compared to the Me262 it was an obsolete piece of junk

Quote:Also, if I said I played a PC title called BOTF, would anyone here know what I meant?

Do now. Google is my friend

(August 10, 2010 at 8:22 am)Zen Badger Wrote: Spitfire maybe, but the Meteor? GTFO
Compared to the Me262 it was an obsolete piece of junk

It was an awesome aircraft! It was still in service in some places until the 70’s. The main reason it had a poor combat record is only because fighter command refused to allow them to fly over German held territory in case they were shot down and recovered. By the time they were in service the Germans didn’t have the capability to mount offensive air operations so it never got its chance to shine.

The 262 had its share of issues as well. 24 hour life span on the engines was a headache for the flight crews and they were really prone to flame outs if the throttle wasn’t managed correctly. Still, it was ahead of its time I’ll grant you that.

In a one on one combat I'd put my money on the 262.

In terms of aerodynamics, armament, engine design etc the 262 was streets ahead of anything else in the sky.(except maybe the B-29)

After all how many modern centrifugal flow engines do you see flying nowadays?

They are all axial flow.

(August 10, 2010 at 8:39 am)AnunZi Wrote:

(August 10, 2010 at 8:22 am)Zen Badger Wrote: Spitfire maybe, but the Meteor? GTFO
Compared to the Me262 it was an obsolete piece of junk

It was an awesome aircraft! It was still in service in some places until the 70’s. The main reason it had a poor combat record is only because fighter command refused to allow them to fly over German held territory in case they were shot down and recovered. By the time they were in service the Germans didn’t have the capability to mount offensive air operations so it never got its chance to shine.

The 262 had its share of issues as well. 24 hour life span on the engines was a headache for the flight crews and they were really prone to flame outs if the throttle wasn’t managed correctly. Still, it was ahead of its time I’ll grant you that.

Of course the pilot's had absolutely NOTHING to do with the air crafts performance did they??

(August 10, 2010 at 8:49 am)Zen Badger Wrote: In a one on one combat I'd put my money on the 262.

In terms of aerodynamics, armament, engine design etc the 262 was streets ahead of anything else in the sky.(except maybe the B-29)

After all how many modern centrifugal flow engines do you see flying nowadays?

They are all axial flow.

Fair point, I'm not saying the 262 wasn’t an awesome piece of engineering. I'm just saying that the Meteor was not an “Obsolete piece of junk”!!

(August 10, 2010 at 8:51 am)KichigaiNeko Wrote: Of course the pilot's had absolutely NOTHING to do with the air crafts performance did they??

Of course they did, but you put 2 equally skilled pilots in different aircraft then whoever has the best machine has a HIGHER chance of winning. Not guaranteed ofc. There are stories of some Russian lads shooting down 109’s and 190’s in IL-16’s.

Look at Erich Hartman, highest scoring fighter ace ever. He stayed with his 109 ever after 190’s were available. That was just a case of pure skill and natural talent.

(August 10, 2010 at 9:07 am)AnunZi Wrote:

(August 10, 2010 at 8:49 am)Zen Badger Wrote: In a one on one combat I'd put my money on the 262.

In terms of aerodynamics, armament, engine design etc the 262 was streets ahead of anything else in the sky.(except maybe the B-29)

After all how many modern centrifugal flow engines do you see flying nowadays?

They are all axial flow.

Fair point, I'm not saying the 262 wasn’t an awesome piece of engineering. I'm just saying that the Meteor was not an “Obsolete piece of junk”!!

(August 10, 2010 at 8:51 am)KichigaiNeko Wrote: Of course the pilot's had absolutely NOTHING to do with the air crafts performance did they??

Of course they did, but you put 2 equally skilled pilots in different aircraft then whoever has the best machine has a HIGHER chance of winning. Not guaranteed ofc. There are stories of some Russian lads shooting down 109’s and 190’s in IL-16’s.

granted but what is an IL - 16??? or do you mean an I-16?

(August 10, 2010 at 9:07 am)AnunZi Wrote: Look at Erich Hartman, highest scoring fighter ace ever. He stayed with his 109 ever after 190’s were available. That was just a case of pure skill and natural talent.

And Erich Hartman was Luft Waffe?

And he had JUST pure skill and natural talent which was obviously lacking in the british forces??