Iuchi_Zien Posted June 27, 2011 Share Posted June 27, 2011 Well it starts with the ability to fly at all, hence the "otherwise". But no, according to me Panthers are not bombers, which is what we were discussing. At least last time I looked they had no wings, and weren't especially aerodynamic. Don't mess about - a good WWII bomber aircraft: a)could be mass produced b)could take off without some kind of rato effort c)had a crew of more than one. d)could carry in excess of 2500kg of ordnance. e)carried self defence weapons that were not "useless". The arado was very advanced, sure, but it was also a crock. And these criteria were chosen by? you perhaps? Perhaps even chosen specifically to remove certain aircraft from the list? So the Phantom, B-52 were inferior to the Soviet equipment used because Vietnam won the war? All those Korean jets were inferior to the Mig 15 used by the Chinese? I don't agree with your 'definitions' specifically because I believe you are biased and so are your criteria. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phanerothyme Posted June 27, 2011 Share Posted June 27, 2011 And these criteria were chosen by? you perhaps? Perhaps even chosen specifically to remove certain aircraft from the list? So the Phantom, B-52 were inferior to the Soviet equipment used because Vietnam won the war? All those Korean jets were inferior to the Mig 15 used by the Chinese? I don't agree with your 'definitions' specifically because I believe you are biased and so are your criteria. Stop arguing with yourself and start making sense. I haven't said any of that and you don't have the conceptual equipment needed to make extrapolations. The arado was a crock. All mouth and no trousers, it couldn't get the business of bombing done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bassman62 Posted June 27, 2011 Share Posted June 27, 2011 Yet strangely the Germans, in spite of not inventing the Jet engine, and their 'apparent' lack of the special metal required, were at least five years ahead of Allied jet technology.. Utter rubbish, the Meteor was an all round better jet fighter with better jet engines. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mj.scuba Posted June 27, 2011 Share Posted June 27, 2011 How come this thread has been allowed to run to 38 pages but the one about I*****c got closed after 5? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bassman62 Posted June 27, 2011 Share Posted June 27, 2011 The fact that if rthe German high command had shown a little more forethought the Germans could have been flying effective Jet fighters in 1942.Given how long before WWII Whittle designed his first jet engine isn't it more realistic to say that the RAF could have entered WWII with jet fighters and bombers? You are truly one of the most blinkered posters on here with your anything anti west/Israeli posts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bassman62 Posted June 27, 2011 Share Posted June 27, 2011 How come this thread has been allowed to run to 38 pages but the one about I*****c got closed after 5? That's the SF branch of Hamas for you.:hihi: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mark I am Posted June 27, 2011 Share Posted June 27, 2011 How come this thread has been allowed to run to 38 pages but the one about I*****c got closed after 5? That did make me laugh:D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bassman62 Posted June 27, 2011 Share Posted June 27, 2011 All those Korean jets were inferior to the Mig 15 used by the Chinese? I know they build cars I didn't know that they built jets in or around 1950. BTW the MIG 15s engine was basicly designed by ther British. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iuchi_Zien Posted June 27, 2011 Share Posted June 27, 2011 Utter rubbish, the Meteor was an all round better jet fighter with better jet engines. Really? Let's see At this point (July '44) the RAF was not willing to deploy the Meteor over occupied Europe, feeling that the Meteor I was not sufficiently impressive to risk against the Luftwaffe. This time the Meteors were operating in pairs, in case of further problems with the cannon, but once again the cannons failed. The first interception was made by Pilot Officer Dean. After his cannon failed, he used the “tip and run” tactic to destroy the V-1. The Me 262 was a more capable aircraft than the wartime versions of the Meteor. Its top speed of 540mph was 50mphs faster than even the Derwent IV equipped version of the Meteor III. Quotes from a book written about Jet aircraft in WWII written by a historian who actually flew both the major combatants. J. Rikard. The book does accept that by 1945 Aug, the engine on the Meteor was more powerful and reliable than the one fitted to the Me 262, an aircraft upon which all true research was stopped nearly six months previously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bassman62 Posted June 27, 2011 Share Posted June 27, 2011 Really? Let's see Quote: At this point (July '44) the RAF was not willing to deploy the Meteor over occupied Europe, feeling that the Meteor I was not sufficiently impressive to risk against the Luftwaffe. The meteor was too valuable to be lost over enemy terrirtory, if it could and did catch V1s I don't think it was lacking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.