(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??
"The Universe is run by the complex interweaving of three elements: energy, matter, and enlightened self-interest." G'Kar-B5