Early Gloster Meteor vs ME262

[IanMorewood]

b14 said:

This topic has turned out fun.

I reckon a Gloster Gladiator could take out a 262, easy. Discuss.

Nope, survive a few attack passes quite possibly, win no, not unless the 262 pilot was a moron.

[Eric Mc]

Sounds like "The Final Countdown"( F-14 V Zero).

[Dr Jekyll]

Sea Furies have taken out MiG15s and Mig17s have given Phantoms a very hard time so a great deal must be down to the pilots and their choice of tactics.

There was a serious chance in the 70s of Royal Navy Phantoms having to mix it with P51s over Belize. The Phantoms wouldn't have been in any real danger but a lot of thought was given as to how best they could take down the Mustangs.

[aeropilot]

Dr Jekyll said:

There was a serious chance in the 70s of Royal Navy Phantoms having to mix it with P51s over Belize. The Phantoms wouldn't have been in any real danger but a lot of thought was given as to how best they could take down the Mustangs.

Would be interested to know if they seriously thought they could have?

Would the Sparrow or Sidewinder of that era have locked onto a P-51?

Otherwise what else could they do/use? IIRC, the RN F-4K wasn't able to use the centreline Vulcan cannon pod so that wouldn't have been an option, even then that wasn't a AA weapon, it was AG IIRC.

[Eric Mc]

Drop a few bombs on the air base where the P-51s lived would probably have solved the problem. I know a number of "show of strength" overflights by RN Buccaneers were carried out (read Rowland White's "Phoenix").

[IanMorewood]

Dr Jekyll said:

Sea Furies have taken out MiG15s and Mig17s have given Phantoms a very hard time so a great deal must be down to the pilots and their choice of tactics.

Big difference in speed and armament between a SeaFury and a Gladiator 400+kts as opposed to 220kts and 4x20mm canon as opposed to 4x7.7mm (0.303) machine guns. From accounts of those using the Gladiator in combat the light armament really was a problem as you could put lots of holes in your opponent's plane and he would still be able to fly on.

[b14]

Well, the Gladiator reference was a bit of fun rather than a genuine question but ok, if we're debating hypotheticals...

Sopwith Pup vs Typhoon. Discuss.

[aeropilot]

b14 said:

Well, the Gladiator reference was a bit of fun rather than a genuine question but ok, if we're debating hypotheticals...

Sopwith Pup vs Typhoon. Discuss.

Assuming you mean Typhoon as in the current jet one, isn't the gun only fitted for ballast reasons and MOD haven't bought any ammo for them.......??

In which case, the Pup jockey might just be in with a shout

[b14]

aeropilot said:

Assuming you mean Typhoon as in the current jet one, isn't the gun only fitted for ballast reasons and MOD haven't bought any ammo for them.......??

In which case, the Pup jockey might just be in with a shout

My brother's fired quite a few rounds from a Typhoon gun, so pretty sure they aren't just ballast.

[Dr Jekyll]

Could you fit a sidewinder onto a Sopwith Pup?

[irocfan]

aeropilot said:

b14 said:

Well, the Gladiator reference was a bit of fun rather than a genuine question but ok, if we're debating hypotheticals...

Sopwith Pup vs Typhoon. Discuss.

Assuming you mean Typhoon as in the current jet one, isn't the gun only fitted for ballast reasons and MOD haven't bought any ammo for them.......??

In which case, the Pup jockey might just be in with a shout

wouldn't the turbulence from a supersonic pass a foot or so from the Pup kill it?

[V8 Fettler]

Ginetta G15 Girl said:

V8 Fettler said:

from this pdf http://www.raf.mod.uk/rafcms/mediafiles/374F7380_1...

Huh? You quote AP3000, a relatively recent document to prove that the concept of an Air Superiority Fighter existed in 1944/45? Aside from the fact said AP never mentions such a fighter. Hmm good luck with that!

Air Superiority as a Doctrine did not exist until the 1970's. While local Air Superiority was talked about during the Vietnam era, the idea of an Air Superiority Fighter resulted as post Vietnam. Indeed it was Vietnam as drove the idea - the first aircraft being designed as Air Superiority Fighters being the 'Teen' series a/c - ie the F15 and F16.

But then what would I know? I only spent in excess of 2 decades professionally dealing with the application of Air Power.

V8 Fettler said:

I wasn't aware that a climb or a dive could be described as a turn, but life is an education. At some point, a 262 will have to laterally turn (is that a better description?) and dive for home, and that's when it becomes vulnerable.

Obviously. From your posts it shows that you are an 'armchair' 'expert' who has no real idea about ACM (Air Combat Manoeuvring). You persist in thinking in 2D whereas in reality ACM is all about 3D.

V8 Fettler said:

P51s flying top cover would generally match the speed of the bombers below, their height providing the (potential) energy for manoeuvre.

Utter rubbish. A fighter does not willingly give up Energy-Manoeuvre. The Luftwaffe tried that in 1940 (tieing the Fighters to the Bombers) and it did not work . Do you really think the USAAF would make the same mistake in 1944? HINT. They did not, top cover flew about 2000ft above in weaving patterns keeping their airspeed (energy) up. Further HINT. 2000ft doesn't give you that much energy conversion in a piston fighter.

V8 Fettler said:

A well flown P51 will typically be able to avoid a high speed pass from a 262 by virtue of its greater lateral turning ability.

As I said before, Google 'Hi Speed Yo-Yo'. Yet again you are forgetting that a Fighter with a greater specific excess thrust can turn in the vertical.

V8 Fettler said:

Your comparison between the 262 and the Lightning is bizarre, the Lighting would have been at least twice as quick as the 262 (with weapons to match), but the PR Spitfire would not be much faster than a P51.

No. It's only 'bizarre' if you really don't get it. I was trying to point out that an a/c with a HUGELY worse wing loading (ergo hugely poorer lateral turn radius) can wax a more (laterally) manoevrable a/c by using its specific excess thrust and turning in the vertical. Just like the 262 could against the P51

V8 Fettler said:

I'll not be responding to your pathetic name calling or your feeble attempts at verbal abuse; Boats, Planes and Trains is better than that, as should you be.

If you post bullst about flying Military a/c I will challenge you on it every time.

V8 Fettler said:

I suspect that you might be an irascible old codger, and I have a lot of time for irascible old codgers, primarily because that's what I intend to be in a couple of decades.

I am an 'Old Codger' who has spent more time flying DACT (Dissimilar Air Combat Tactics) and developing ways to survive against FJs on a number of a/c than I care to think about.

Do you still want to argue with me?

Your ranting has reduced, that's good; although you appear to be searching for Keyboard Konflikt which - in view of your marvellously irascible codgerliness - you'll not get from me. Throw what you want and I'll take notes for my dotage.

We can cut through the proverbial by comparing the number of 262s destroyed by P51s and vicky verky.

After a recount, I estimate that P-51s destroyed about 120 262s; source (pdf): http://www.afhra.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-...

I estimate that 262s destroyed approximately 70 P-51s, my source being "The Me 262 Stormbird: From the Pilots Who Flew, Fought, and Survived It", Colin D. Heaton. There is what appears to be a complete copy on an Eastern European website that I'm not going to post a link to (spyware detection wasn't happy). I'm sure there will be PHers with the hardback or the kindle version who can check this.

I was expecting about a 3:1 advantage in favour of the 262, so I'm not 100% confident of the data (possible missing pages on the Stormbird copy?), so chip away at my estimates! I am tempted to spend the £18 or so for a kindle copy, but I'd rather spend that on petrol.

[IanMorewood]

It's hard to find reputable and accurate data for that part of the war, but late 1944 shows for example three aircraft lost on the 8th November (two total losses, one in part) with George Eder claiming 3 Mustangs and a P38, Franz Schall claimed 3 Mustangs also I'm sure other also claimed it's just finding the data.

[Tango13]

irocfan said:

aeropilot said:

b14 said:

Well, the Gladiator reference was a bit of fun rather than a genuine question but ok, if we're debating hypotheticals...

Sopwith Pup vs Typhoon. Discuss.

Assuming you mean Typhoon as in the current jet one, isn't the gun only fitted for ballast reasons and MOD haven't bought any ammo for them.......??

In which case, the Pup jockey might just be in with a shout

wouldn't the turbulence from a supersonic pass a foot or so from the Pup kill it?

I'd imagine a close pass with both 'burners lit would be pretty effective...

[Dr Jekyll]

V8 Fettler said:

Your ranting has reduced, that's good; although you appear to be searching for Keyboard Konflikt which - in view of your marvellously irascible codgerliness - you'll not get from me. Throw what you want and I'll take notes for my dotage.

We can cut through the proverbial by comparing the number of 262s destroyed by P51s and vicky verky.

After a recount, I estimate that P-51s destroyed about 120 262s; source (pdf): http://www.afhra.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-...

I estimate that 262s destroyed approximately 70 P-51s, my source being "The Me 262 Stormbird: From the Pilots Who Flew, Fought, and Survived It", Colin D. Heaton. There is what appears to be a complete copy on an Eastern European website that I'm not going to post a link to (spyware detection wasn't happy). I'm sure there will be PHers with the hardback or the kindle version who can check this.

I was expecting about a 3:1 advantage in favour of the 262, so I'm not 100% confident of the data (possible missing pages on the Stormbird copy?), so chip away at my estimates! I am tempted to spend the £18 or so for a kindle copy, but I'd rather spend that on petrol.

Bear in mind that while the P51s were there to shoot down fighters, the ME262s were there to shoot down bombers. Ideally they wanted to totally ignore the P51s.

[V8 Fettler]

Dr Jekyll said:

Bear in mind that while the P51s were there to shoot down fighters, the ME262s were there to shoot down bombers. Ideally they wanted to totally ignore the P51s.

Whisper it quietly, but it's almost as if the 262 was designed as a "bomber destroyer".

I had hoped that other B,P&T posters would have done some legwork re: number of 262s destroyed by P51s and vice versa

[Simpo Two]

V8 Fettler said:

Whisper it quietly, but it's almost as if the 262 was designed as a "bomber destroyer".

I had hoped that other B,P&T posters would have done some legwork re: number of 262s destroyed by P51s and vice versa

Blimey he's still going. I've been back to base, had my tea and gone back up for another sortie.

Note that *what an aeroplane was designed to do was not always what it ended up doing*. War rarely goes to plan.

Also note that in over a decade of posts, I have never known G15 to be wrong. If you want facts, there they are.

Now excuse me while I pull off a perfect four-point landing with the canvas still over the gunports

[Talksteer]

creationracing said:

aeropilot said:

Dr Jekyll said:

There was a serious chance in the 70s of Royal Navy Phantoms having to mix it with P51s over Belize. The Phantoms wouldn't have been in any real danger but a lot of thought was given as to how best they could take down the Mustangs.

Would be interested to know if they seriously thought they could have?

Would the Sparrow or Sidewinder of that era have locked onto a P-51?

Otherwise what else could they do/use? IIRC, the RN F-4K wasn't able to use the centreline Vulcan cannon pod so that wouldn't have been an option, even then that wasn't a AA weapon, it was AG IIRC.

I remember reading that book. If I recall correctly they proposed that the gunless Phantoms would not have been able to use missiles, but would have to try to "knock" the Mustangs out of the air with a very fast and close diving pass. Hair raising and glad it didn't come to that!

The Sparrow/Skyflash shouldn't have any particular problem following a P51.

The exhausts of a piston plane exit directly from the headers and are actually hotter than an non afterburned gas turbine. I'd be surprised if an old Sidewinder wouldn't be able to follow provided it could maintain a line of sight to exhausts.

The RAF did some dogfights between a BBMF Spitfire the conclusion was that the Lightning would have to try pretty hard to lose it would have to try to follow the Spitfire in horizontal turns, best approach was from the rear and low as it wasn't necessary to use altitude to maintain an energy advantage.

[V8 Fettler]

Talksteer said:

The Sparrow/Skyflash shouldn't have any particular problem following a P51.

The exhausts of a piston plane exit directly from the headers and are actually hotter than an non afterburned gas turbine. I'd be surprised if an old Sidewinder wouldn't be able to follow provided it could maintain a line of sight to exhausts.

The RAF did some dogfights between a BBMF Spitfire the conclusion was that the Lightning would have to try pretty hard to lose it would have to try to follow the Spitfire in horizontal turns, best approach was from the rear and low as it wasn't necessary to use altitude to maintain an energy advantage.

If a dogfight means a twisting/turning battle, why would the EE Lightning pilot want to do something like that? Would not the Spitfire fall out of the sky in many small fragments without the Spitfire pilot even seeing the Lightning?

[aeropilot]

V8 Fettler said:

Talksteer said:

The Sparrow/Skyflash shouldn't have any particular problem following a P51.

The exhausts of a piston plane exit directly from the headers and are actually hotter than an non afterburned gas turbine. I'd be surprised if an old Sidewinder wouldn't be able to follow provided it could maintain a line of sight to exhausts.

The RAF did some dogfights between a BBMF Spitfire the conclusion was that the Lightning would have to try pretty hard to lose it would have to try to follow the Spitfire in horizontal turns, best approach was from the rear and low as it wasn't necessary to use altitude to maintain an energy advantage.

If a dogfight means a twisting/turning battle, why would the EE Lightning pilot want to do something like that? Would not the Spitfire fall out of the sky in many small fragments without the Spitfire pilot even seeing the Lightning?

Nope, in that hypothetical situation tested by the RAF back then, the F1A Lightning then in service at that time, only had Firestreak and a pair of 30mm Adens in the nose, and the Firestreak tech of the day wouldn't have really worked against the Spitfire which was substituting for the P-51 scenario, so the Lightning would have had only had to resort to using a guns attack, hence it's pilots would have had to pretty much using the same slash and dash technique employed by the Luftwaffe Me262 pilots 20 years earlier...