P-38 vs. jets.
hhutc...@cornell-iowa.edu
something:
How would the P-38 have done against a MiG-15 in the initial
meeting, where six P-51s were bounced by MiG-15s? I think it woul
dhave stood a good chance against jets like the MiG-15 and Me-262 in
Korea and WWII, seeing as it had a much more concentrated armament as
opposed to the 6 .50s of the P-51 and F-86.
Just curious.
--
"No weapon in the arsenals of the world is as powerful as the will and
courage of a free people."
"We will always remember. We will always be proud. We will always be
prepared, so we may always be free."
"History teaches us that wars begin when governments believe the price
of aggression is cheap."
"All the way into the hangar."
- Ronald W. Reagan, 40th President of the United States.
God bless him, and God Bless AMERICA!
Bill Shatzer
> Okay, I recently read Joe Baugher's files and I had to wonder
> something:
> How would the P-38 have done against a MiG-15 in the initial
> meeting, where six P-51s were bounced by MiG-15s? I think it woul
> dhave stood a good chance against jets like the MiG-15 and Me-262 in
> Korea and WWII, seeing as it had a much more concentrated armament as
> opposed to the 6 .50s of the P-51 and F-86.
> Just curious.
>
B-26 had even -more- concentrated armament and it was pretty much MiG
bait and soon relegated to the nocturnal role.
The issue is -not- the a/c's armament, the issue is could any piston-
engined aircraft ever get a firing solution on a MiG. Given the
discrepancies in airspeed, rate of climb and dive, and ceiling, unless
the piston a/c could 'ambush' a MiG just kinda lazing along or the
MiG decided to dogfight rather than dive-shoot-zoom-dive again, -any-
piston engined a/c is so much MiG meat (or Sabre meat or Hunter meat
or just about any second generation jet you can name!)
Cheers,
--
Bill Shatzer - bsha...@ednet1.osl.or.gov - aw...@FreeNet.Carleton.ca
scha...@notis.com
In article <1995Dec...@cornell-iowa.edu>,
<hhutc...@cornell-iowa.edu> writes:
> Okay, I recently read Joe Baugher's files and I had to wonder
> something:
> How would the P-38 have done against a MiG-15 in the initial
> meeting, where six P-51s were bounced by MiG-15s? I think it woul
> dhave stood a good chance against jets like the MiG-15 and Me-262
in
> Korea and WWII, seeing as it had a much more concentrated armament
as
> opposed to the 6 .50s of the P-51 and F-86.
> Just curious.
>
No, No the real question is what if the Brewster Buffalo (either
Finnish or F2A) went up a against a MIG 15. Now with if the Buffalo
had modern avionics and a jet engine (GE) on top of the fuselage
spine and two Sidewinders on each wing could it still land on a
aircraft carrier any better than a F-16 and fly as high as the
shuttle? That's the eternal question.
No wait! What if the Buffalo was painted brown to confuse the
optical/perceptual receptors of the Mig pilots?
Naw
Ben Schapiro
Founding member Brewster Buffalo Association and member at large.
Check out Dan Ford's Buffalo page at
http://wimot.unh.edu/-df/buff.html
CDB100620
Three P-38s returning to Foggia, Italy, from a photo escort mission to
Munich encountered the jet, piloted by Rudolph Zinner, near Innsbruck at
an altitude of 26,000 ft. Zinner attacked from above and behind.
The No. 3 man, Evereett Lindley, spotted the German and called a break
left. When the P-38s were about 90 degrees around, the Me-262 chandelled
over them climbing into a hazy sky.
The No. 2 man, Guy Thomas, who was on his first mission, was downed by
Zinner, who didn't stick around to check out the efficacy of the P-38's
armament arrangement.
Neither Lindley, or the flight leader, Royal Nyby, saw Thomas get hit. As
was so often the case in air combat, he suddenly wasn't there, and his
attacker was gone, too.
Thomas bailed out and either suffered injuries during the attack or upon
landing. In any case, he died of his wounds on Dec. 4.
It's possible he received no medical attention from the Germans. This was
not uncommon late in the war, when bitterness over air-raid casualties,
the impending defeat, and a shortage of medical supplies, taxed the mercy
of the Germans.
Tero P. Mustalahti
>The issue is -not- the a/c's armament, the issue is could any piston-
>engined aircraft ever get a firing solution on a MiG. Given the
>discrepancies in airspeed, rate of climb and dive, and ceiling, unless
>the piston a/c could 'ambush' a MiG just kinda lazing along or the
>MiG decided to dogfight rather than dive-shoot-zoom-dive again, -any-
>piston engined a/c is so much MiG meat (or Sabre meat or Hunter meat
>or just about any second generation jet you can name!)
Or even first generation jet. How many Me-262's were shot down not
landing or taking off? Not too many, I think.
Tero P. Mustalahti
CDB100620
Don't know the circumstances. Can anyone verify whether this did happen,
and, if it did, how did it happen?
Keith Pennington
Bill Shatzer
a Seafang or a Tempest V or a P-51H) at least a 'fighting chance'
against a 'first generation' jet - especially the Me-262 with its
notoriously unreliable engines.
Not to say that the prop fighter would have much chance in a 'top
gun' type situation where the two a/c fly at each other straight
and level at the same altitude and start 'dog fighting' when someone
yells 'break'. -But-, if a 'last generation' prop fighter could
get position and altitude on a 'first generation' jet, it should
have enough performance to obtain a firing solution despite the
jet's attempts to evade/escape/dogfight/whatever. An Me-262
pilot -could- see a Bearcat coming and the Bearcat could still
get a kill (unlike say a P-38, which would have to be able to
pretty much sneak up within gun range without being seen to have
much of a chance.)
Asbjorn Sundal
>
>
> Are the Vampire (maiden flight 43) and the Phantom I (m f 45)
> included in your easy meat ? Have a nice meal! :-)
>
>
Yes, they should be included, too!. But I still think the Me 262
is the best of them all. It is the only WWII jetfighter to actually
reach service units in useful numbers and shoot down manned
enemy aircraft. (The he 162 have one or two victories I think).
Kjetil.
Richard Caldwell
In Article<4af3dv$p...@news.acns.nwu.edu>, <scha...@notis.com> writes:
> In article <1995Dec...@cornell-iowa.edu>,
>
> <hhutc...@cornell-iowa.edu> writes:
>
> > Okay, I recently read Joe Baugher's files and I had to wonder
> > something:
> > How would the P-38 have done against a MiG-15 in the initial
> > meeting, where six P-51s were bounced by MiG-15s? I think it woul
> > dhave stood a good chance against jets like the MiG-15 and Me-262
>
> in
>
> as
> > opposed to the 6 .50s of the P-51 and F-86.
> > Just curious.
> >
>
>
> No, No the real question is what if the Brewster Buffalo (either
>
> Finnish or F2A) went up a against a MIG 15. Now with if the Buffalo
>
> had modern avionics and a jet engine (GE) on top of the fuselage
>
> spine and two Sidewinders on each wing could it still land on a
>
> aircraft carrier any better than a F-16 and fly as high as the
>
> shuttle? That's the eternal question.
>
> No wait! What if the Buffalo was painted brown to confuse the
>
> optical/perceptual receptors of the Mig pilots?
>
> Naw
>
> Ben Schapiro
> Founding member Brewster Buffalo Association and member at large.
No, Mr. Schapiro has picked the wrong AC for his eternally upgradeable
fighter. The question is, could a C-47 Gooney Bird, equipped with frequency
agile, artificial aperture, phased array radar, controlling phasers and photon
torpedo launchers, incorporating stealth technology and anti-gravity drives
reverse engineered from downed alien spacecraft, have a chance against modern
jet fighters. Answer *that* and you've said (not to mention read) a
mouthfull. 8-]
Gooney Birds forever!
Richard
Dirk Lorek
>
[snip]
> Another interesting discussion would be to compare the best allied
> jetfighter with the Me 262 and see which one was "best".(Any other
> allied jet, including the P-59 and P-80 would in my opinion be
> easy meat for the Me 262!). Such a discussion is perhaps more relevant
> as they both are first generation jet fighters.
>
Are the Vampire (maiden flight 43) and the Phantom I (m f 45)
included in your easy meat ? Have a nice meal! :-)
==========================================================
Dirk Lorek dirk....@mailbox.swipnet.se Dalby, Sweden
"Tracers work both ways." Murphy's law of combat no 29
==========================================================
Asbjorn Sundal
>
> >
> Well, I'd give a 'last generation' prop fighter (like a Bearcat or
> a Seafang or a Tempest V or a P-51H) at least a 'fighting chance'
> against a 'first generation' jet - especially the Me-262 with its
> notoriously unreliable engines.
>
> Not to say that the prop fighter would have much chance in a 'top
> gun' type situation where the two a/c fly at each other straight
> and level at the same altitude and start 'dog fighting' when someone
> yells 'break'. -But-, if a 'last generation' prop fighter could
> get position and altitude on a 'first generation' jet, it should
> have enough performance to obtain a firing solution despite the
> jet's attempts to evade/escape/dogfight/whatever. An Me-262
> pilot -could- see a Bearcat coming and the Bearcat could still
> get a kill (unlike say a P-38, which would have to be able to
> pretty much sneak up within gun range without being seen to have
> much of a chance.)
>
> Cheers,
> --
>
> Bill Shatzer - bsha...@ednet1.osl.or.gov - aw...@FreeNet.Carleton.ca
>
Interesting discussion, but still the fact remains. Most (almost all?)
Me 262's shot down were unaware of the attack untill it was to late;
or were shot down when taking off/landing. I have yet to read an
account of a dogfight with a Me 262 were a piston-engined allied
fighter shot down the german jet. Any references to such a story would
be welcome.
Another interesting discussion would be to compare the best allied
jetfighter with the Me 262 and see which one was "best".(Any other
allied jet, including the P-59 and P-80 would in my opinion be
easy meat for the Me 262!). Such a discussion is perhaps more relevant
as they both are first generation jet fighters.
Kjetil Aakra
Leader of the Luftwaffe-SIG in Norway
Peter Denniston
>Asbjorn Sundal wrote:
>>
>[snip]
>> Another interesting discussion would be to compare the best allied
>> jetfighter with the Me 262 and see which one was "best".(Any other
>> allied jet, including the P-59 and P-80 would in my opinion be
>> easy meat for the Me 262!). Such a discussion is perhaps more relevant
>> as they both are first generation jet fighters.
>>
>Are the Vampire (maiden flight 43) and the Phantom I (m f 45)
>included in your easy meat ? Have a nice meal! :-)
>
No as I think it relates to production a/c not prototypes ;-)
Cheers PD
"Give me full tanks of T & C Stoff.....Aber Oho !!!"
Email me at:10040...@compuserve.com
Maury Markowitz
<Asbjorn...@zoo.uib.no> wrote:
> Any references to such a story would be welcome.
In "Fighter Aircraft of WWII" there's a gun camera picture of a 262 from
a 51. The caption underneath the photo states that the 262 in the picture
was shot down when it attacked the photo-taker's wingman.
> Another interesting discussion would be to compare the best allied
> jetfighter with the Me 262 and see which one was "best".(Any other
> allied jet, including the P-59 and P-80 would in my opinion be
> easy meat for the Me 262!). Such a discussion is perhaps more relevant
> as they both are first generation jet fighters.
The best props could pretty much keep up with the -59, the -80 was
pretty much an equal for the 262.
BTW, what is the Seafang?
Maury
Asbjorn Sundal
>
>
> In "Fighter Aircraft of WWII" there's a gun camera picture of a 262 from
> a 51. The caption underneath the photo states that the 262 in the picture
> was shot down when it attacked the photo-taker's wingman.
>
>
locate the book!
> The best props could pretty much keep up with the -59, the -80 was
> pretty much an equal for the 262.
>
> BTW, what is the Seafang?
>
> Maury
From what I understand the P-59 was actually slower than some of
the fastest "propfighters", and in any case it was not suitable for
combat. In the recent book (By Morgan, I think), "Stormbird Rising",
american pilots just having flown a captured Me 262 (postwar) are
as quoted as saying that the P-80 would be no match for the 262. They
should know, I'll guess.
The Seafang!? I've heard the name somewhere, and I think it is a british
design for a naval fighter/fighterbomber from the late 40's. British
aircraft are really not my strength so others can provide better answers,
I'm sure!
Kjetil Åkra
Dirk Lorek
>Dirk Lorek <dirk....@mailbox.swipnet.se> wrote:
>
>>Asbjorn Sundal wrote:
>>>
>>[snip]
>>> jetfighter with the Me 262 and see which one was "best".(Any other
>>> allied jet, including the P-59 and P-80 would in my opinion be
>>> easy meat for the Me 262!). Such a discussion is perhaps more relevant
>>> as they both are first generation jet fighters.
>>>
>>included in your easy meat ? Have a nice meal! :-)
>>
>No as I think it relates to production a/c not prototypes ;-)
>
Matthew Saroff
I would think that the Meteor and P-80 would have advantages at higher
altitudes, where their centrifugal flow compressors had an advantage over
the single spool axial flow JUMO, and I know that the P-80 had a lower wing
loading than the 262, so it should turn better.
I believe in comparisons after the war, it was determined that the 262 was
faster and climbed faster, but that the P-80 was more manoeuverable.
Also remember that the 30mm cannon of the 262 had a very low muzzel
velocity, and might have given a difficult firing solution in a "hairball",
particularly since the P-80 had a better gunsight.
--
--Sfi Mordehai ben Yosef Yitzhak, Aka Matthew G. Saroff
This is not the Dream. This is what I do on weekends to have
some fun.
The Dream involves 4 sets of identical twins, 2 gallons of Cool
Whip, 5 quarts of chocolate syrup, 2-1/4 pounds of strawberries,
satin sheets, a magnum of champagne, a trapeze, and a python.
Tero P. Mustalahti
>Being fitted with .50 machine guns was not a disadvantage compared
>to the cannon of the Me-262; the question of rate of fire vs firepower
>has gone back and forth more than once since then.
Actually, I don't think there's any question, or at least the answer
is simple: interceptors needed firepower against bombers and air
superiority fighters needed good rate of fire against the enemy fighters.
The US fighters (in the MG & cannon era) never had to intercept massive
formations of enemy bombers and so they all had relativaly low
firepower but good rate of fire armament (typically 4-8 .50 MG's).
(And was neatly
>taken care of with the 20mm Vulcan rotating cannon...letting you eat
>your cake and have it, too. Well, until you emptied your magazines a
>few seconds later, anyway.)
Even the Vulcan wouldn't probably be a very good weapon against heavy
strategic bombers but that surely is not its primary use...
Tero P. Mustalahti
steve hix
>
> > Another interesting discussion would be to compare the best allied
> > easy meat for the Me 262!).
The P-59 was little more than a proof-of-concept aircraft, at least
by the time that it first flew: its performance was little better than
most line prop-driven fighters of the time, and in some areas, such
as range, it was very poor.
The P-80 was another story. At altitude it would have been at least
as maneuverable as the Me-262, and likely more so.
Being fitted with .50 machine guns was not a disadvantage compared
to the cannon of the Me-262; the question of rate of fire vs firepower
has gone back and forth more than once since then. (And was neatly
Maury Markowitz
<Asbjorn...@zoo.uib.no> wrote:
> Thank you for that reference! I will try to locate the book!
Sorry, had it slightly wrong, it's "Fighter Combat of WWII" by Frank Price.
Maury
steve hix
:
:Even the Vulcan wouldn't probably be a very good weapon against heavy
:strategic bombers but that surely is not its primary use...
Short of using a missile, the 20mm Vulcan would be more effective
than just about anything mounted on any dedicated bomber destroyer
of WW2.
The 75mm cannon occasionally mounted might hit harder, but you
generally would only have one (scant) chance at getting a hit.
Bill Miniscalco
Markowitz) wrote:
[snip]
> In "Fighter Aircraft of WWII" there's a gun camera picture of a 262 from
> a 51. The caption underneath the photo states that the 262 in the picture
> was shot down when it attacked the photo-taker's wingman.
[snip]
>
>
> Maury
In their book _Horrido! Fighter Aces of the Luftwaffe_, Constable &
Tolliver treat Me-262 operations in some detail. The Me-262 losses occured
primarily during take off and landing (as has been pointed out by several
posters) or when they lost an engine, which was a relatively frequent
occurence. They say that on one engine the Me-262 was slightly slower
than a P-51.
--Bill
Tero P. Mustalahti
>>>>
>>>[snip]
>>>> allied jet, including the P-59 and P-80 would in my opinion be
>>>> as they both are first generation jet fighters.
Well, Chuck Yeager flew both Me 262 and P-80 and he claimed that their
performance was roughly equal. The Me 262 had a heavier armament but
the rate of fire of those 30mm cannons was fairly low. The plane
was intented to be a bomber destroyer, not an air superiority fighter.
The P-59 was clearly a failure, but it provided much useful experience
in designing jet fighters.
Tero P. Mustalahti
Bob Caissie
|>
|> From what I understand the P-59 was actually slower than some of
|> the fastest "propfighters", and in any case it was not suitable for
|> combat. In the recent book (By Morgan, I think), "Stormbird Rising",
|> american pilots just having flown a captured Me 262 (postwar) are
|> as quoted as saying that the P-80 would be no match for the 262. They
|> should know, I'll guess.
Chuck Yeager, in his book says, while at Wright field he was given
the assignment of comparing the P-80 and a captured Me-262.
He said that both planes were just about equal in all performance
tests. ????????
BC
Charles K. Scott
Asbjorn Sundal <Asbjorn...@zoo.uib.no> writes:
> In the recent book (By Morgan, I think), "Stormbird Rising",
> american pilots just having flown a captured Me 262 (postwar) are
> as quoted as saying that the P-80 would be no match for the 262. They
> should know, I'll guess.
Well that's one opinion, or theirs rather, Chuck Yeager (who not only
flew both but wrung them out extensively) had another; he thought that
the performance of both aircraft was similar enough so that the main
difference would have been the ability/experience of the pilots.
Corky Scott
Adam Steineck
was in the landing pattern. Ack-ack-ack.
It is a fact that the engines of the Schwalbe(Me262) was the culprit
in keeping the '262 out of combat. Not to mention the nose landing gear
which were prone to break on landing accounting for 25% of accidents.
The '262 was a great performer, but suffered from lack of time to
solve teething troubles.
Asbjorn Sundal
>
>
> In their book _Horrido! Fighter Aces of the Luftwaffe_, Constable &
> Tolliver treat Me-262 operations in some detail. The Me-262 losses occured
> primarily during take off and landing (as has been pointed out by several
> posters) or when they lost an engine, which was a relatively frequent
> occurence. They say that on one engine the Me-262 was slightly slower
> than a P-51.
>
> --Bill
In Pierre Closterman's book on his experiences during WWII
there is a story about when he encountered a Me 262 which had lost an
engine.The Me 262 was apparently still able to outrun the Tempest.
According to Closterman they had been told that the Me 262 could not even
fly on one engine, that was obviously wrong.
But, of cource, some allied fighters was probably able to catch such a
"disabled" 262, especially from a dive.
Kjetil.
Asbjorn Sundal
>
>
> Sorry, had it slightly wrong, it's "Fighter Combat of WWII" by Frank Price.
>
> Maury
Thanks again!
Kjetil
Asbjorn Sundal
>
>
> The plane
> was intented to be a bomber destroyer, not an air superiority fighter.
>
>
> Tero P. Mustalahti
>
>
I cannot recall having seen anywhere that the Me 262 was built from the
start as a "Pulk Zerstörer" and not as a air superiority fighter. Clearly,
it was used in the former role more often that not, but I still think
the Me 262 should be considered a "fighter".There are many references to
German jet pilots having shot down single-engined allied prop-fighters.
Kjetil Åkra.
Tero P. Mustalahti
>In article F...@utu.fi, term...@utu.fi (Tero P. Mustalahti) writes:
>:
>:Even the Vulcan wouldn't probably be a very good weapon against heavy
>:strategic bombers but that surely is not its primary use...
>Short of using a missile, the 20mm Vulcan would be more effective
>than just about anything mounted on any dedicated bomber destroyer
>of WW2.
Well, what about the German R4M rockets? By the way, does the Vulcan
shoot HE or AP ammunition? Without HE ammo even a 20mm round won't do
that much damage. No doubt the bomber could still be destroyed, but
you would have to hit many times... though I have to admit that with a
Vulcan it wouldn't be very difficult.
Tero P. Mustalahti
Asbjorn Sundal
>
> Being fitted with .50 machine guns was not a disadvantage compared
> to the cannon of the Me-262; the question of rate of fire vs firepower
> has gone back and forth more than once since then. (And was neatly
> taken care of with the 20mm Vulcan rotating cannon...letting you eat
> your cake and have it, too. Well, until you emptied your magazines a
> few seconds later, anyway.)
>
WWII, but later developement in the field of fighter cannon clearly
showed that the German's choice of calibre was "right". All fighters
with a few exceptions settled for the 20 mm or 30 mm types, with more
hitting power than the MK 108.
Also, let's not forget that germany has some very advanced cannon under
production or developement at the end of the war. Have you heard of the
MK 214 or Mk 103?
Kjetil
Asbjorn Sundal
>
>
> It is a fact that the engines of the Schwalbe(Me262) was the culprit
> in keeping the '262 out of combat. Not to mention the nose landing gear
> which were prone to break on landing accounting for 25% of accidents.
> The '262 was a great performer, but suffered from lack of time to
> solve teething troubles.
>
I agree on all points. BTW, it is really a myth that Hitler's insistence
that the me 262 be buiult as bomber delayed service introduction of the
Me 262 with 6 months. The achilles heel of the Me 262 was always the Jumo's.
Therefore the Me 262 could not have reached operational status much sooner
than it did (July/August 1944), regardless of Herrn. Hitler's stupid ideas.
Kjetil Åkra
Bill Shatzer
-snips-
>
> In Pierre Closterman's book on his experiences during WWII
> there is a story about when he encountered a Me 262 which had lost an
> engine.The Me 262 was apparently still able to outrun the Tempest.
> According to Closterman they had been told that the Me 262 could not even
> fly on one engine, that was obviously wrong.
>
'his' Me-262 had an engine out?? I can't imagine that would be
something all that apparent except at -very- close range.
Tero P. Mustalahti
>I cannot recall having seen anywhere that the Me 262 was built from the
>start as a "Pulk Zerstörer" and not as a air superiority fighter. Clearly,
>it was used in the former role more often that not, but I still think
>the Me 262 should be considered a "fighter".There are many references to
>German jet pilots having shot down single-engined allied prop-fighters.
I didn't say it couldn't been done, but a fact is that most of the German
fighters after 1942 were designed with the interceptor role in mind.
Surely the Germans would have used higher rate of fire 20mm cannons in
the ME 262 if it hadn't been primarily an interceptor.
Tero P. Mustalahti
Hans Anderson
> BTW, what is the Seafang?
The Supermarine Seafang was a folding wing, hooked naval derivative of the
Supermarine Spiteful, itself a development of the Spitfire Mk XIV with a
laminar flow wing design, inspired by the success of the P-51.
The first true Spiteful prototype (s/n NN664) first flew in January 1945.
Originally, the design had been allocated the name Spitfire Mk XXIII, and
the laminar flow wing had first been tested on a stock Spit XIV, but the
extensive redesign of the fuselage needed eventually made it a logical
step to give the new design a name of its own.
Inevitably, the Air Ministry lost interest in the design as the war ended
and new jet design took shape on the drawing boards. But since jets where
then an unknown quantity as carrier aircraft, Supermarines developed a
naval version in a bid for an Admiralty contract. Sure enough, 150
Seafangs were ordered, but only ten (including the prototype VB 895)
actually built. None entered service with the Royal Navy .
The Spiteful/Seafang wing design was eventually "recycled" in the
Supermarine Attacker, an early taildragger carrier-borne jet
fighter-bomber used by the Fleet Air Arm in the late forties and early
fifties.
The Spiteful/Seafang was a great old dinosaur, one of the last of its
breed, reportedly a true "hot ship", and probably one of the best
piston-engined fighters ever. But alas, it never got the chance to prove
its worth. Sad, because had it been produced in greater numbers it might
have been as popular and (comparatively) wide-spread as the Sea Fury is
today. As far as I know, none remain in existance today.
Hans A/Gothenburg, Sweden
Emmanuel.Gustin
: then an unknown quantity as carrier aircraft, Supermarines developed a
: naval version in a bid for an Admiralty contract. Sure enough, 150
: Seafangs were ordered, but only ten (including the prototype VB 895)
: actually built. None entered service with the Royal Navy.
Because of the different fuselage design, the cockpit of the Seafang
offered better forward view than that of the Seafire. But the low-speed
handling of the Seafang was worse, with control problems and an unpleasant
stall. Because the performance was little better than that of the Seafire,
there was no point in putting the Seafang in production. Some were used
as test beds, to help developed the Attacker design.
Emmanuel Gustin
Matt & Betsy Dickson
or what kill number, and how many kills Brown eventually amassed, but I
have not been able to find info on the net...
(this, of course, assumes that Brown actually did kill Richthofen, but
I don't need to go that far into it...and my intention is not to start
_that_ debate...)
Also forgive if this is the second most often asked question in this
group....
THX
Matt
Asbjorn Sundal
>
>
> >
> Not to be picky but how the heck could Closterman even -tell- if
> 'his' Me-262 had an engine out?? I can't imagine that would be
> something all that apparent except at -very- close range.
>
>
As I remember Clostermann saw smoke coming from the engine and
the jet was also flying in a slighly off-axis direction. Still, it
managed to escape.
P.S. Just continue to be picky, That's what's keeping this newsgroup
going.!
Kjetil Aakra
Asbjorn Sundal
> fighters after 1942 were designed with the interceptor role in mind.
> Surely the Germans would have used higher rate of fire 20mm cannons in
> the ME 262 if it hadn't been primarily an interceptor.
>
>
> Tero P. Mustalahti
I believe that the Germans experimented with 20 mm cannon in the Me 262
but the 30 mm MK 108 were always the standard fitting, some even had just
two of them.
I agree that most German fighter designs after 1942 were heavily armed
interceptors meant to destroy bombers, but I am not convinced that the
air superiority me 262 would have received 20 mm cannon. I think the MK
103 would be a more logical choice.
Kjetil
Brian.Bushe
courtesy of Bill Ciciora from the WWI modelling mailgroup:
Summarized from _Above the Trenches by Shores et al
VIC DATE TYPE
1 17Jul17 Alb DIII
2 05Sep17 C
3 15Sep17 DFW C
4 20Sep17 Alb DV
5 13Oct17 DFW C
6 28Oct17 Alb DV
7 22Mar18 C
8 11Apr18 Alb DV
9 12Apr18 Fok DrI
10 21Apr18 Fok DrI *
* You know who ;-)
Victories 7-10 were all scored on Camel B7270
_________________________________________________________
brian...@harrier.com
Harrier Storage Solutions Legato NetWorker
42 Ivanhoe Road, Finchampstead AMASS, Baydel
Berkshire, RG40 4QQ EuroLogic, Banyan
http://www.harrier.com HP, IBM, Sun, DEC
Uk Phone 1734 328 282 SG, NT, Novell
Fax 731 130
_________________________________________________________