FA+
Shop
344
Views
Views
9
Favorites
Favorites
Category
Artwork (Traditional) / Miscellaneous
Species Unspecified / Any
Size 1280 x 580
File Size 44.4 kB
Report this content
More from dingopatagonico
well, when arrives in 1947 definitly was the future (was like argentina flying F-22 now ^^). One Gloster Meteor F. Mk 4 with F-86 wing tanks and ventral tank too, armed with its standart 4 cannons of 30 mm O.O (die krusty)
ahh the FAA was SO INCREDIBLY SUPERIOR in that moment... >=3
then chile buys F-80 and brazil Gloster Meteor F. Mk 8 some years later
D ´oh XD
25% ^^
ahh the FAA was SO INCREDIBLY SUPERIOR in that moment... >=3
then chile buys F-80 and brazil Gloster Meteor F. Mk 8 some years later
D ´oh XD
25% ^^
Category Artwork (Traditional) / Miscellaneous
Species Unspecified / Any
Size 1280 x 580px
File Size 44.4 kB
Yeah, Meteors managed to shoot down nine Mig-15s in Korea (six meteor losses from Migs) from a less advantaged position, as they were tasked most frequently with ground attack duties, and were invariably always bounced from above, and generally outnumbered. Obviously a poor performing aircraft.
No.
I'm tired of people ranking 'this machine is better than that machine' and not taking into account why the machine was built, how it was built, and for what reason.
The Me-262 was not a dogfighter. It was an interceptor. it's swept wings and high wing loading gave it extremely poor sustained AoA in any turn. The Jumo 004 engines were slow to respond to throttle input, highly inefficient, and highly unreliable, with a 20% chance of failure per hour. The Mk108 30mm Minengeschloss-firing cannon that the Me-262 carried, were designed for anti bomber work, and as the Me-262 was an interceptor, this is an ideal fit. However, the low rate of fire, low velocity, and terrible trajectory generally made this weapon the last choice for anti-fighter work. But it was fast, and it did have a good climb rate.
The Gloster Meteor F.3 (December 1944) was by contrast slower, with it's straight wing, which however afforded it a greater turn rate. It's reliable centrifugal flow RR Welland or Derwent engines gave the Meteor a greater combat range, and the 4x Hispano 20mm cannon the Meteor packed in the nose had double the effective range of the Mk108, and double the rate of fire.
The 262's role was anti bomber work, and it's greatest single asset was it's speed. It would utilize boom and zoom tactics which would likely be stalemated against the Gloster's better armament range and turn. At any rate the Schwalbes would have to go home in short order before they ran out of gas. IF they would ever be wasted against opposition fighters, as again, they were intended to shoot down bombers. Generally when 262s tried to tangle with piston engined fighters, they came out the losers.
And I'm being generous. The Argentinian Meteor Mk F.4 here was a radically improved beast compared to the I,III marks from two years earlier. It matched or outright surpassed any wartime Me-262 performance parameter. Better Roll rate, Better turn, higher top speed, same climb rate, better pilot visibility, better fighter-armament, insane range improvement.
I'm tired of people ranking 'this machine is better than that machine' and not taking into account why the machine was built, how it was built, and for what reason.
The Me-262 was not a dogfighter. It was an interceptor. it's swept wings and high wing loading gave it extremely poor sustained AoA in any turn. The Jumo 004 engines were slow to respond to throttle input, highly inefficient, and highly unreliable, with a 20% chance of failure per hour. The Mk108 30mm Minengeschloss-firing cannon that the Me-262 carried, were designed for anti bomber work, and as the Me-262 was an interceptor, this is an ideal fit. However, the low rate of fire, low velocity, and terrible trajectory generally made this weapon the last choice for anti-fighter work. But it was fast, and it did have a good climb rate.
The Gloster Meteor F.3 (December 1944) was by contrast slower, with it's straight wing, which however afforded it a greater turn rate. It's reliable centrifugal flow RR Welland or Derwent engines gave the Meteor a greater combat range, and the 4x Hispano 20mm cannon the Meteor packed in the nose had double the effective range of the Mk108, and double the rate of fire.
The 262's role was anti bomber work, and it's greatest single asset was it's speed. It would utilize boom and zoom tactics which would likely be stalemated against the Gloster's better armament range and turn. At any rate the Schwalbes would have to go home in short order before they ran out of gas. IF they would ever be wasted against opposition fighters, as again, they were intended to shoot down bombers. Generally when 262s tried to tangle with piston engined fighters, they came out the losers.
And I'm being generous. The Argentinian Meteor Mk F.4 here was a radically improved beast compared to the I,III marks from two years earlier. It matched or outright surpassed any wartime Me-262 performance parameter. Better Roll rate, Better turn, higher top speed, same climb rate, better pilot visibility, better fighter-armament, insane range improvement.
Comments