P-51...

[357th_Dog]

Part of the challenge, and it really is a challenge, that the dev's will face is this..

It's known from pilot testimonials that they could run at say...72" of mercury for very extended periods of time at maximum RPM with no immediate damage to the engine..what isn't known is what material effect it had on the engines afterwards because mechanics and crew chiefs rarely kept diaries like pilots, nor did they have to write out long AAR's. 

It's known that 150 octane, a requirement for the above 72" of manifold pressure, did hit VIII FC in progressively growing quantities starting in the summer of 1944, around the same time the 51D's arrived in significant numbers.  There were ample kits provided for the conversion of engines in P-51's, P-47's and P-38's to run on the 150 octane. 

However, the hard source materials, IE operations manuals, aircraft manuals, engine manuals, all have very conservative limits..well below true continuous operational usage and limits. So while there is ample testimonial and frankly proof that the V1650-7 could pull 72" of manifold pressure at 3,000 RPM and for 20+ minutes at a time..there's little absolute unbiased, documented parameters that support that proof as well. 

A perfect example of that is the P-40E..which in US service, owing to having extremely high quality fuel, was a much more durable and powerful aircraft than what we see in game. What we have in game is the lend lease P-40E, which was provided to the Soviets and had representative limits for Soviet fuel quality, which is to say very poor in comparison to English, American and even German fuels. That is the documentation they went with as that is what was provided and what is simulated...the fact that it really kind of cripples the P-40 in some ways is just part of the roll of the dice. 

[Bremspropeller]

1 hour ago, Ehret said:

The Shaw's book states example of the P-51B driver locked with the enemy in the D-9 for the long time. The Mustang pilot's only fear related to his plane was that he would run out of fuel needed to go back to the friendly territory thus he had to do something quick.

(if the pilot would be flying the Mustang with engine from the game he would not survive)

 

It's highly unlikely that a P-51B pilot encountered a D-9.

 

 

Edited June 24, 2019 by Bremspropeller

[357th_Dog]

2 minutes ago, Bremspropeller said:

 

It's highly unlikely that a P-51B pilot encountered a D-9.

 

 

A few P-51B's from the 352nd FG reported mixing it up with "long nose FW-190's" in the Spring of 44, presumably they were the operational test Dora's that were known to have been used in testing prior to production starting in late summer 1944. 

Now..the question remains is if they were indeed seeing early test Doras or simply mistaking A8's and having some confusion with being in combat as to the true profile of the FW's..that will remain locked in history that we will never be able to answer. 

However, it's within the realm of possibility that P-51B/C pilots did encounter test Doras, but obviously as 44 wore on and the D's rapidly replaced war weary B's and C's, the chances of a B/C pilot encountering a production Dora dropped dramatically. 

 

[sevenless]

26 minutes ago, 357th_Dog said:

A few P-51B's from the 352nd FG reported mixing it up with "long nose FW-190's" in the Spring of 44, presumably they were the operational test Dora's that were known to have been used in testing prior to production starting in late summer 1944. 

 

 

It depends when exactly it happened. According to Peter Rodeike, who is pretty much the reference here, the V17 flew in June 44. Production started in 8/44. So everything before June 44 seems highly unlikely.

 

 

[Legioneod]

7 hours ago, LuseKofte said:

I think people going to be a bit dissapointed. 

Historically P 39 should do well in this sim. We fly in its premium altitude but still not many if any do well with it. 

P 47 should also do much better than my impression is. 

Statistically with the P 40 also in mind we probably going to be not satisfied. 

I hope I am wrong 

 

I'd have to agree with you. Based on the current American aircraft modeling I have little hope for the P-51.

[JonRedcorn]

We should start a topic just for ehret and countsmokealot and they can babble endlessly with poor grammar about how terrible the timers are. Literally ruined another thread with their endless drivel. It really starts getting old especially since the devs have said they are going to try and work on it. Not sure I can handle another countcocopuff essay.

[Ehret]

The bugged and erroneous modeling of engines is ruining matches. On BOBP unrestricted maps the LW had up to 3-4x numerical advantage; that's hardly fun for anyone. The issue restricts use of some fighter tactics if you are flying the "wrong" plane.

Someone may say that the BOBP is still in an early access but it doesn't make it feel any better at the moment. If the "Thunderspit" can be an indication then "Zerostang" is a real risk...

 

You are right that's tiresome but so it's flying and fighting as Allied pilot in such environment. It is just wrong.

[LukeFF]

???

[Sobilak]

8 hours ago, Bremspropeller said:

 

It's highly unlikely that a P-51B pilot encountered a D-9.

 

 

P-51B/C was slightly faster on high attitudes than P-51D, lighter and more stability.

P-51B and P-47D at end of 1943 to summer 1944 won air superiority for allies on northwest Europe for D-Day.

P-51D start operations in mid 1944 and he brought air superiority to end of war.

[Lusekofte]

7 hours ago, JgonRedcorn said:

We should start a topic just for ehret and countsmokealot and they can babble endlessly with poor grammar about how terrible the timers are. Literally ruined another thread with their endless drivel. It really starts getting old especially since the devs have said they are going to try and work on it. Not sure I can handle another countcocopuff essay.

Well  I do not bring that topic up much. But to be honest what you call drivel and poor gramma come off a bit arrogant. 

You are in a forum made by no native english. 

Flying a game starting out with poor gramma in its description acting like this is a English home base. 

What you call drivel is in no doubt one of the biggest weaknesses of this game. 

But in the end of the day you are right, it does come up in just about every topic 

Edited June 25, 2019 by LuseKofte

[bzc3lk]

2 hours ago, Sobilak said:

P-51B/C was slightly faster on high attitudes than P-51D, lighter and more stability.

 

P-51B and P-47D at end of 1943 to summer 1944 won air superiority for allies on northwest Europe for D-Day.

P-51D start operations in mid 1944 and he brought air superiority to end of war.

 

I don't think he is referring to performance, but alluding to the in service time frame between these two aircraft, with doubts to  the accuracy of the aircraft models involved in the combat report.

Edited June 25, 2019 by bzc3lk

[CountZero]

8 hours ago, JgonRedcorn said:

We should start a topic just for ehret and countsmokealot and they can babble endlessly with poor grammar about how terrible the timers are. Literally ruined another thread with their endless drivel. It really starts getting old especially since the devs have said they are going to try and work on it. Not sure I can handle another countcocopuff essay.

Where did devs said they gona fix bugs with engine timers ?

 

And its biggest thing that will make or brae P-51, what timers will it get, what recharg it will get, same importance as its FM DM or modifications it will get...

Having still buged engine timers that heavy advantage russian and germa airplanes but disadvantage usaf airplanes is big deal when talking about usaf airplane for this flying game.

 

Haz u sdand me?

[=621=Samikatz]

14 hours ago, =VARP=Tvrdi said:

Me262 vs allied prop planes in rl

 

This is what Im talking about. How we will mimic this in the sim? Currently we cant do much vs experienced pilots in me262...

 

You can't really use one person's opinion as objective fact. Someone over on Reddit did a fairly lengthy and well sourced post about the 262's effectiveness in combat, cross referencing loss records from the USAAF and RAF against German records, and came to the conclusion that the Germans just about lost a 262 for every aircraft they brought down. Not a great record for an expensive aircraft flown by highly trained pilots. Tiger Fever in the air, I guess

 

2 hours ago, Sobilak said:

P-51B/C was slightly faster on high attitudes than P-51D, lighter and more stability.

 

Due to the slightly thinner wings I believe? I recall that the machine guns were mounted in sideways and allegedly were prone to jamming when firing during tight turns

[IVJG4-Knight]

1 hour ago, =621=Samikatz said:

You can't really use one person's opinion as objective fact. Someone over on Reddit did a fairly lengthy and well sourced post about the 262's effectiveness in combat, cross referencing loss records from the USAAF and RAF against German records, and came to the conclusion that the Germans just about lost a 262 for every aircraft they brought down. Not a great record for an expensive aircraft flown by highly trained pilots. Tiger Fever in the air, I guess

 

 

-And that reddit post that contains emotional arguments like "wehraboo" is objective ? Let's be honest :It shows an irrational animosity .

 

-Me262 kills / losses ratio seems very hard to determine for me. AFAIK every allied fighter or most had gun camera but all the footage i see of 262 shot down shows 262 shot while landing or there was another one posted on the forum of a 262 that ran out of fuel .

 

-you talk about tiger fever.Here i've seen historical facts destroyed by all kind of " youtube and reddit historians "  .

I've seen here complete fabrications like Tiger met Us shemans in battle only 3 times.

Tiger k/d ratios in major battles are at least 3 to 1 in Ardennes and as high as 10,12 to one in Nord Afrika and Russia .

I can send you in PM solid evidence from dozens of solid historians and retired officers ,.

 

PS: i only responded to this last part about tiger fever because we also have the tank in il2 and it's indirect evidence how much nonsense some people are wiling to write to push their agenda .

 

 

 

[Ehret]

1 hour ago, =621=Samikatz said:

You can't really use one person's opinion as objective fact. Someone over on Reddit did a fairly lengthy and well sourced post about the 262's effectiveness in combat, cross referencing loss records from the USAAF and RAF against German records, and came to the conclusion that the Germans just about lost a 262 for every aircraft they brought down. Not a great record for an expensive aircraft flown by highly trained pilots. Tiger Fever in the air, I guess

 

Well... a direct countermeasure is not possible but following the 262 patiently from afar would make life a bit harder for jet drivers. Eventually, the 262 would change direction or get target fixated thus presenting an opportunity for the Allied fighter. Besides, having to worry about the constant speck (or two) on your long six wouldn't be good for the 262 pilot awareness. Depleting SA is a valid tactic as stated in the Shaw's book.

 

1 hour ago, =621=Samikatz said:

Due to the slightly thinner wings I believe? I recall that the machine guns were mounted in sideways and allegedly were prone to jamming when firing during tight turns

 

Probably and the teardrop canopy which made Ds less streamlined. I'm not sure but Ds were heavier, too?

[PatrickAWlson]

57 minutes ago, Ehret said:

 

Well... a direct countermeasure is not possible but following the 262 patiently from afar would make life a bit harder for jet drivers. Eventually, the 262 would change direction or get target fixated thus presenting an opportunity for the Allied fighter. Besides, having to worry about the constant speck (or two) on your long six wouldn't be good for the 262 pilot awareness. Depleting SA is a valid tactic as stated in the Shaw's book.

 

 

Probably and the teardrop canopy which made Ds less streamlined. I'm not sure but Ds were heavier, too?

 

Two extra guns would add some.  B carried 4x50 where D carried 6x50.  

2 hours ago, =621=Samikatz said:

 

You can't really use one person's opinion as objective fact. Someone over on Reddit did a fairly lengthy and well sourced post about the 262's effectiveness in combat, cross referencing loss records from the USAAF and RAF against German records, and came to the conclusion that the Germans just about lost a 262 for every aircraft they brought down. Not a great record for an expensive aircraft flown by highly trained pilots. Tiger Fever in the air, I guess

 

 

Due to the slightly thinner wings I believe? I recall that the machine guns were mounted in sideways and allegedly were prone to jamming when firing during tight turns

Quote

 

From the Reddit page:

-Actual kills (low) - 26x B17s, 5x B24s, 2x P51s, 0x P47s, 0xF5 6x RAF bombers = Total low kills are 39 aircraft

-Actual kills (high) - 31x B17s, 6x B24s, 7x P51s, 1x P47, 11x RAF bombers = Total high kills are 56 aircraft

-ME262 Losses - 3x mechanical, 7x US bombers, 11x US fighters, 8x US unknown, 4x Accident = Total jet losses are 33x ME262s (could be as high as 40x ME262s lost, the sources are not clear for losses on some days). This does not include jets shot up or bombed in raids by USAAF on Jet airfields. Only losses during combat missions.

 

Italics above are from the reddit page.  This is from JG7, which, as a fighter unit, is the unit where kill/loss ratio might be meaningful.  I see 18 known losses to enemy aircraft (low end) with a high end of 26 if all 8 unknown are also losses to allied aircraft.  We will leave off the mechanical and accident as the allied numbers do not include these.

 

K/D low is 39/18.  K/D high is 56/26.  Both slightly better than 2:1.  The aircraft being brought down are mostly heavies with 10 crewmen each.  If you tell me that I get two heavies for each fighter I'm pretty good with that.  Now how many of those losses were brought down in the landing pattern?  That's not on the plane that is just the result of dire circumstances.  So jet fighters, while being completely overwhelmed numerically, flying in circumstances where the war was already effectively lost, still managed to produce a 2:1 K/D with a preponderance of kills being 4 engine heavies with 10 crewmen each.  That's pretty good. 

 

Now imagine what those jets could have done if the odds were more even, if the supporting war machine was not gasping its last breath, if they were not hunted over their own airfields.  Far from producing a picture of Tiger fever IMHO those numbers speak volumes to just how good the 262 was, while also reinforcing the reality that it was not all powerful.

 

Last edit: we should really take this to the 262 thread  

Edited June 25, 2019 by PatrickAWlson

[Lusekofte]

I agree. But problem with gameplay is that a ME 262 should not do well low level against late war fighters. While US piston designs should. 

And I am not of the impression that is what will happen

[=621=Samikatz]

I think once there are better maps put together with more pressing objectives, running away forever won't be as much of a viable option. The ability to stay and dogfight to defend an objective or keep an offensive going is extremely useful

 

1 hour ago, IVJG4-Knight said:

 

-And that reddit post that contains emotional arguments like "wehraboo" is objective ? Let's be honest :It shows an irrational animosity .

 

-Me262 kills / losses ratio seems very hard to determine for me. AFAIK every allied fighter or most had gun camera but all the footage i see of 262 shot down shows 262 shot while landing or there was another one posted on the forum of a 262 that ran out of fuel .

 

-you talk about tiger fever.Here i've seen historical facts destroyed by all kind of " youtube and reddit historians "  .

I've seen here complete fabrications like Tiger met Us shemans in battle only 3 times.

Tiger k/d ratios in major battles are at least 3 to 1 in Ardennes and as high as 10,12 to one in Nord Afrika and Russia .

I can send you in PM solid evidence from dozens of solid historians and retired officers ,.

 

PS: i only responded to this last part about tiger fever because we also have the tank in il2 and it's indirect evidence how much nonsense some people are wiling to write to push their agenda .

It's fairly obvious to anyone that a big tank with a big gun is a scary force on a 1940s battlefield, however they did make up a very small part of the German army, and with most being deployed in the East, the Western Allies slight hysteria over it was misplaced. Similarly, the 262 (for various reasons) had a very small impact on the overall course of the war, but had the Western Allies very much alarmed for a while

[Lusekofte]

While numbers of operational 262 was relative low , produced was amazingly high. 

Fact was that the bombers won the fight. Since numbers of ME 262 never making it to a operational unit was very high due to factories , disposals and transport bombed. Also fuel suffered and continious losses of pilots caused by the same bomber campaigns. The Operasional ME 262 might have been effective. But when you look at produced ME 262 vs victories you will se a horrific statistic

[PatrickAWlson]

26 minutes ago, LuseKofte said:

I agree. But problem with gameplay is that a ME 262 should not do well low level against late war fighters. While US piston designs should. 

And I am not of the impression that is what will happen

 

Agree that the 262 should not be the ideal plane to take to a low alt furball.  Back on topic, I'm not at all sure that most US designs are the best at that either. P47 definitely no.  P51 should be competitive against late war German types.  P38 will probably be the best at this sort of dogfight server stuff.  If you want to do that then fly a Zero or the closest thing in the game to a Zero. 

 

Let's wait til they are done and properly baked (IMHO none of the BoBP planes fall into this category yet) to see what we get.  However, if you use great planes in a largely ahistorical way and then get bad results, why be surprised?

[Ehret]

46 minutes ago, LuseKofte said:

I agree. But problem with gameplay is that a ME 262 should not do well low level against late war fighters. While US piston designs should. 

And I am not of the impression that is what will happen

 

I thought that as Allied fighter pilot it'd be most optimal to engage the 262 at +6000m especially if your crate had a turbo-supercharger and robust construction (like the Thunderbolt; ideally the M version) to withstand hard dives. Early jet engines weren't that great at higher altitudes.

 

When at the ground level the 262 can carry so much more kinetic energy because it's velocity squared. The potential energy is just proportional to height thus the jet can zoom much higher than differences in level speeds imply. You really want some altitude to work with in a prop.

Edited June 25, 2019 by Ehret

[Sgt_Joch]

5 hours ago, PatrickAWlson said:

 

Two extra guns would add some.  B carried 4x50 where D carried 6x50.  

Italics above are from the reddit page.  This is from JG7, which, as a fighter unit, is the unit where kill/loss ratio might be meaningful.  I see 18 known losses to enemy aircraft (low end) with a high end of 26 if all 8 unknown are also losses to allied aircraft.  We will leave off the mechanical and accident as the allied numbers do not include these.

 

K/D low is 39/18.  K/D high is 56/26.  Both slightly better than 2:1.  The aircraft being brought down are mostly heavies with 10 crewmen each.  If you tell me that I get two heavies for each fighter I'm pretty good with that.  Now how many of those losses were brought down in the landing pattern?  That's not on the plane that is just the result of dire circumstances.  So jet fighters, while being completely overwhelmed numerically, flying in circumstances where the war was already effectively lost, still managed to produce a 2:1 K/D with a preponderance of kills being 4 engine heavies with 10 crewmen each.  That's pretty good. 

 

Now imagine what those jets could have done if the odds were more even, if the supporting war machine was not gasping its last breath, if they were not hunted over their own airfields.  Far from producing a picture of Tiger fever IMHO those numbers speak volumes to just how good the 262 was, while also reinforcing the reality that it was not all powerful.

 

Last edit: we should really take this to the 262 thread  

 

That is 262s vs 8th AF in feb-april 1945. Typically, the 262s would attack with 15-30, sometimes 45 ACs. They would use their high speed to avoid the escorts, deliver a mass attack on the bomber formations, usually one pass and then hi-tail back to base. The heavies are pretty much sitting ducks in that scenario.

 

More typical for BOBP would be the experience of 2nd TAF in sept. 44-early 45. 262s would be spotted, 1-2 times a month, usually flying in pairs. Usually, they would leave the area at high speed as soon as the RAF fighters were spotted. The only times RAF fighters could engage would be if they caught the 262s low and slow and gained enough speed in a dive to get into a firing position.  I suspect the 262s were fighter-bomber versions with orders not to engage. 

Edited June 25, 2019 by Sgt_Joch
spelling

[Talon_]

12 minutes ago, Sgt_Joch said:

I suspect the 262s were fighter-bomber versions with orders not to engage. 

 

Indeed only bomber units exist on our map after October 1944.

[Bremspropeller]

15 hours ago, 357th_Dog said:

A few P-51B's from the 352nd FG reported mixing it up with "long nose FW-190's" in the Spring of 44, presumably they were the operational test Dora's that were known to have been used in testing prior to production starting in late summer 1944. 

Now..the question remains is if they were indeed seeing early test Doras or simply mistaking A8's and having some confusion with being in combat as to the true profile of the FW's..that will remain locked in history that we will never be able to answer. 

However, it's within the realm of possibility that P-51B/C pilots did encounter test Doras, but obviously as 44 wore on and the D's rapidly replaced war weary B's and C's, the chances of a B/C pilot encountering a production Dora dropped dramatically. 

 

They could have mistaken the alleged 190Ds for 109s. A simple mistake that was all too common.

A-8s aren't all that likely either.

[Caudron431]

2 hours ago, PatrickAWlson said:

If you tell me that I get two heavies for each fighter I'm pretty good with that.  Now how many of those losses were brought down in the landing pattern?  That's not on the plane that is just the result of dire circumstances.  So jet fighters, while being completely overwhelmed numerically, flying in circumstances where the war was already effectively lost, still managed to produce a 2:1 K/D with a preponderance of kills being 4 engine heavies with 10 crewmen each.  That's pretty good. 

 

Now imagine what those jets could have done if the odds were more even, if the supporting war machine was not gasping its last breath, if they were not hunted over their own airfields.  Far from producing a picture of Tiger fever IMHO those numbers speak volumes to just how good the 262 was, while also reinforcing the reality that it was not all powerful.

The issue with the 262 is that only Experten with an incredible amount of combat experience, confidence and flying skills could make it something like a fantastic fighter.  Losing one of these pilots is more devastating for an air force than losing multiple bombers and their crews (what is more against a side that can afford the sacrifice). Without this kind of pilots, the 262 would just be like the KI84 and N1K2 japanese fighters in the end of the war: far from being used to their full potential. It's clear that the 262 is not a plane to learn to fight with like the 109, it's the weapon of a master. As such they were not a major threat and could never really be. In fact unlike  the japanes designs mentionned, the 262 was used to its full potential, they were flown by some of the best fighter pilots in the world. The figures 2:1 K/D is much more a figure about what those elite pilots could do than the machine itself. IMHO It is more so in the case of the 262 than it is in general.

 

Still the machine was a formidable design, shining, lonely, a star in a class of its own.

 

Edited June 25, 2019 by Caudron431Rafale

[Lusekofte]

32 minutes ago, anonymouse said:

What?

 

What kind of proof do you have that Me262 should not do well against allied aircraft at lower altitudes? 262 is totally superior to any USAAF prop fighter, especially at low altitude, as it should be, nothing unrealistic there.

 

P-51 does about 600kph on the deck while 262 has a top speed of 840kph. It can zoom up to almost 3000m and start BnZ'ing the mustang to death.

Proof ? I claimed nothing. But in a game with 10 km limit of view a fast flying plane at low altitude expose itself a lot and in a way they would not do historical. 

I wish you relax a bit more snd use common sense. And read my post. It was not about performance. But how things are in a game

[-332FG-Buddy]

18 hours ago, 357th_Dog said:

A few P-51B's from the 352nd FG reported mixing it up with "long nose FW-190's" in the Spring of 44, presumably they were the operational test Dora's that were known to have been used in testing prior to production starting in late summer 1944. 

Now..the question remains is if they were indeed seeing early test Doras or simply mistaking A8's and having some confusion with being in combat as to the true profile of the FW's..that will remain locked in history that we will never be able to answer. 

However, it's within the realm of possibility that P-51B/C pilots did encounter test Doras, but obviously as 44 wore on and the D's rapidly replaced war weary B's and C's, the chances of a B/C pilot encountering a production Dora dropped dramatically. 

 

P51c pilots did see Dora’s by accounts from Tuskegee airmen.  I am unaware of any b’s would of saw Dora’s though

[LukeFF]

3 hours ago, Talon_ said:

 

Indeed only bomber units exist on our map after October 1944.

 

No, there is also Kommando Nowonty. 

[Sharpe43]

8 minutes ago, LukeFF said:

 

No, there is also Kommando Nowonty. 

which would turn into JG7 at a certain date..

[sevenless]

25 minutes ago, Sharpe43 said:

which would turn into JG7 at a certain date..

 

Yes, after Nowotnys death (on 8th November), on 19 November, what remained of Kommando Nowotny at Lechfeld was redesignated III./JG 7 and transferred to Brandenburg-Briest.

Edited June 25, 2019 by sevenless

[Legioneod]

7 hours ago, IVJG4-Knight said:

 

-And that reddit post that contains emotional arguments like "wehraboo" is objective ? Let's be honest :It shows an irrational animosity .

 

-Me262 kills / losses ratio seems very hard to determine for me. AFAIK every allied fighter or most had gun camera but all the footage i see of 262 shot down shows 262 shot while landing or there was another one posted on the forum of a 262 that ran out of fuel .

 

-you talk about tiger fever.Here i've seen historical facts destroyed by all kind of " youtube and reddit historians "  .

I've seen here complete fabrications like Tiger met Us shemans in battle only 3 times.

Tiger k/d ratios in major battles are at least 3 to 1 in Ardennes and as high as 10,12 to one in Nord Afrika and Russia .

I can send you in PM solid evidence from dozens of solid historians and retired officers ,.

 

PS: i only responded to this last part about tiger fever because we also have the tank in il2 and it's indirect evidence how much nonsense some people are wiling to write to push their agenda .

 

 

 

 

Here's a vid of a 262 getting shot down mid flight.? (8:20)

 

I know it's OT but in regards to the Tiger thing. Shermans fought Tigers on many occasions but Americans in Shermans only faced them a handful of times. The Brits and Russians have far more encounters with the Tiger than Americans ever had.

[IVJG4-Knight]

1 hour ago, Legioneod said:

 

Here's a vid of a 262 getting shot down mid flight.? (8:20)

 

I know it's OT but in regards to the Tiger thing. Shermans fought Tigers on many occasions but Americans in Shermans only faced them a handful of times. The Brits and Russians have far more encounters with the Tiger than Americans ever had.

 

As far as i remember this is the video i was talking about (262 running out of fuel) . I might be wrong .I think MiloMorai knows more.

The fact is i didn't remember .But actually Galland was shot down by a p47 .

Overall it's considerably more difficult for me to find accurate statistics on 262 k/d compared to tanks for example .

Just as an example, I was reading a book about israeli-arab air wars .And even though you see in the book twice the same  situation:  pics of gun cam footage and enemy plane taking serious hits, that enemy plane returned to base.

 

My problem is with people that spread false information .About Shermans just 3 times ("third the tigers were loaded on trains and it wasn't a fair battle") and i think you know who made the comment .

Complete fabrication .Only in Ardennes According to Richard C Anderson us army lost about 900 shermans .

According to Dupuy Institute Tiger losses were 16-20 . That doesn't mean there were only shermans and tigers .But if this important battle can be dismissed as "one time". Let's be serious .

And there's also West Germany , Italy , North Afrika ,Normandy .I can give you more details in PM.

[Ehret]

49 minutes ago, IVJG4-Knight said:

As far as i remember this is the video i was talking about (262 running out of fuel) . I might be wrong .I think MiloMorai knows more.

 

That's still a loss and making the enemy to run out of fuel is absolutely valid tactic. The same way out-climbing and out-running are because you are using your crate strength (endurance and time here) to an advantage. The Shaw's book discuss this as well.

Edited June 25, 2019 by Ehret

[Legioneod]

52 minutes ago, IVJG4-Knight said:

 

As far as i remember this is the video i was talking about (262 running out of fuel) . I might be wrong .I think MiloMorai knows more.

 

He didn't run out of fuel iirc, he was hit and went into a spin. Wolly Groce (the pilot who shot the 262 down) did an interview and he talked about it.

[Bremspropeller]

4 hours ago, -332FG-Buddy said:

P51c pilots did see Dora’s by accounts from Tuskegee airmen.

 

Where and when?

[LukeFF]

1 minute ago, Bremspropeller said:

Where and when?

 

I'm wondering the same thing - D-9s were nowhere near Italy.

[PatrickAWlson]

6 hours ago, Caudron431Rafale said:

The issue with the 262 is that only Experten with an incredible amount of combat experience, confidence and flying skills could make it something like a fantastic fighter.  Losing one of these pilots is more devastating for an air force than losing multiple bombers and their crews (what is more against a side that can afford the sacrifice). Without this kind of pilots, the 262 would just be like the KI84 and N1K2 japanese fighters in the end of the war: far from being used to their full potential. It's clear that the 262 is not a plane to learn to fight with like the 109, it's the weapon of a master. As such they were not a major threat and could never really be. In fact unlike  the japanes designs mentionned, the 262 was used to its full potential, they were flown by some of the best fighter pilots in the world. The figures 2:1 K/D is much more a figure about what those elite pilots could do than the machine itself. IMHO It is more so in the case of the 262 than it is in general.

 

Still the machine was a formidable design, shining, lonely, a star in a class of its own.

 

 

I think the amount of expertise required to effectively fly a 262 has been over blown.  The pilots were veterans but not all necessarily 100+ victory aces.  You did have to be reasonably well trained and most of the kids the Germans were putting in the air could never have flown the thing much less fought in it.  However, an average US or British pilot with a reasonable jet training course could absolutely fly and fight in a 262.  

[Legioneod]

23 minutes ago, LukeFF said:

 

I'm wondering the same thing - D-9s were nowhere near Italy.

Didn't Tuskegee fly missions over Germany?

Edited June 25, 2019 by Legioneod

[Bremspropeller]

13 minutes ago, Legioneod said:

Didn't Tuskegee fly missions over Germany?

 

They did - that's why I asked "where and when".

[QB.Shallot]

10 hours ago, PatrickAWlson said:

 

I think the amount of expertise required to effectively fly a 262 has been over blown.  The pilots were veterans but not all necessarily 100+ victory aces.  You did have to be reasonably well trained and most of the kids the Germans were putting in the air could never have flown the thing much less fought in it.  However, an average US or British pilot with a reasonable jet training course could absolutely fly and fight in a 262.  

I'd have to agree. Outside of engine management, the 262 was probably the easiest aircraft to fly and fight with at the time. Easy takeoff, easy landing, no prop to worry about.

Engagements would be dead simple as well, there's no fancy flying to be done in a 262.

If enemy has advantage, then leave.

If enemy at disadvantage, attack, then leave.