ADS NOT DISPLAYED TO REGISTERED USERS.
+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 13 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 182

Best possible fighter

Aviation Discuss Best possible fighter in the World War II - Aviation forums; yes but i've never seen stats for the 263....................

  1. #31
    Senior Member the lancaster kicks ass's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    19,986
    Country
    United Kingdom
    yes but i've never seen stats for the 263.................


    "Reminds me of the time I sank the Tirpitz" comments a Spitfire pilot, "One pass of course, old boy."

  2. #32
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    WSM, England
    Posts
    20,367
    Country
    United Kingdom
    Type: Interceptor
    Origin: Messerscmitt AG
    Models: A
    First Flight: August 1944
    Service Delivery: None
    Final Delivery: None
    Engine:
    Walter HWK 109-509C-4 rocket
    Main Thrust Chamber: 3,750 lb. (1700kg)
    Cruise Thrust Chamber: 660 lb. (300kg)

    Dimensions:
    Wing span: 9.50m (31 ft. 2 in.)
    Length: 7.88m (25 ft. 10.5 in.)
    Height: 2.70m (8 ft. 10.25 in.)
    Wing Surface Area: N/A

    Weights:
    Empty: 2105kg (4,640 lbs.)
    Maximum: 5150kg (11,354 lbs.)
    Performance:
    Maximum Speed:
    1000km/h (620 mph)
    Time to 15,000m: 3 Minutes
    Endurance: About 1 Hr. including 15 min. under power
    Service Ceiling: N/A

    Armament:
    Two 30mm Mk 108 Cannon

    Avionics:
    N/A


  3. #33
    Senior Member the lancaster kicks ass's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    19,986
    Country
    United Kingdom
    right then

    speed- Me-263

    "Reminds me of the time I sank the Tirpitz" comments a Spitfire pilot, "One pass of course, old boy."

  4. #34
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    WSM, England
    Posts
    20,367
    Country
    United Kingdom
    Haha

  5. #35
    Anonymous
    Guest
    If you go with Jets, only a few hundred could be built per year at best. Producability (is that a word) is also important. Jets should not be included in this catagory, as they were not producable in 1945.

  6. #36
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    WSM, England
    Posts
    20,367
    Country
    United Kingdom
    I hink this is just a fun thread for you to say what parts of planes you would have to creat your "ulimate fighter". If we were being serious I could have ripped it to shreads by now

  7. #37
    Senior Member the lancaster kicks ass's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    19,986
    Country
    United Kingdom
    and that's why we can take charactoristics from other aircraft, i chose the reliabilty and ease of manufacture from the hurricane, that means that the entire made up aircraft will have the reliabilty and ease of manufacture of the hurricane, including the engines...............

    "Reminds me of the time I sank the Tirpitz" comments a Spitfire pilot, "One pass of course, old boy."

  8. #38
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    WSM, England
    Posts
    20,367
    Country
    United Kingdom
    But with the other characteristics from the other planes there is no way that'd be possible.

    But like a say, its a fun thread.

  9. #39
    Senior Member the lancaster kicks ass's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    19,986
    Country
    United Kingdom
    But with the other characteristics from the other planes there is no way that'd be possible.
    i know, but like you say, just a bit of fun..............

    "Reminds me of the time I sank the Tirpitz" comments a Spitfire pilot, "One pass of course, old boy."

  10. #40
    Senior Member wmaxt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Boise, Idaho
    Posts
    1,207

    Best Possible Fighter

    I find it interesting that whenever the question of the Best fighter comes up the P-38 is excluded!

  11. #41
    Senior Member Adolf Galland's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    105
    what do u mean by payload? how much a bomber carry?

  12. #42
    Senior Member Adolf Galland's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    105
    stuka can carry 2000lb bombs, but even a p-47 can carry 2X1000lb bombs AND 6 4.5" rockets as a normal fighter-bomber payload

  13. #43
    Senior Member Adolf Galland's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    105
    whats the ceiling 4 the Ta-152H?

  14. #44
    Anonymous
    Guest

    Re: Best Possible Fighter

    Quote Originally Posted by wmaxt
    I find it interesting that whenever the question of the Best fighter comes up the P-38 is excluded!
    Without the P-38K being part of the consideration, it just doesn't quite rate. Had they been willing to stop the production likes in mid 44 for about 12 days to do the conversion, the P-38K would have dominated the skies everywhere it saw action. Without that prop upgrade, there are just too many other planes which were better - the F4U-4 comes to mind for me.

    =S=

    Lunatic

  15. #45
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    35
    Best plane is like this:

    -A triplane with staggered wings - 1 in the front, 2 in the back.
    -Randomly placed control surfaces.
    -1 engine in the front, 1 on top, so that the fighter flies in an upwardly diagonal direction.
    -Vital components like the bracings or wing-warping wires are designed to come off for no reason and without warning "just for kicks."
    -A fixed undercart because all those moving bits are so complicated.

    The advantage to this aircraft is that no flight training is required. The pilot has either "got it" or "not got it" and the "not got its" will be seperated from the "got its" by a distinct class barrier known as "dead" and "not dead," the "not deads" being the "got its" and the "dead" being the "not got its."

    The justification for the aircraft is simple: The Sopwith Camel, being a somewhat tricky plane to fly shot down over 1500 enemy aircraft while killing in excess of 2000 of it's own operators. My aircraft, being exponentially more difficult to takeoff (let alone fly - let aone in combat) should kill something to the extent of 99% of it's operators (being the "not got its" of previous paragraph). However the 1% (See: "Got its") that will become aces in the aircraft should shoot down about 5000 aircraft (each).

    Countries like Russia with disposable income and populations will be delighted with the fighter, as it is a way to dispose of political enemies as well as your standard run-of-the-mill war enemies.

    Aircraft also functions in peacetime operations, so fathers can get rid of troublesome young men trying to date their daughters, etc.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 13 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86