@Peg Leg Pom will have to answer that question. He suggested it.Why is the Meteor being slaughtered by the Me262? The latter didn’t slaughter Tempests or other fast piston fighters. Why is the Meteor so ill matched?
@Peg Leg Pom will have to answer that question. He suggested it.Why is the Meteor being slaughtered by the Me262? The latter didn’t slaughter Tempests or other fast piston fighters. Why is the Meteor so ill matched?
I just don’t understand the logic of those arguing against a home-build aircraft. This thread clearly outlines that whatever fighter we’re producing will be in place of the Javelin, Lightning, Vixen, etc. So, we have no, can I make that clearer, no shortage of funds.
Take what was spent to make the half dozen RAF and FAA fighters of the late 1950s and early 1960s and surely we have sufficient coin to meet the needs outsider in the OP.
No I didn’t. The OP did.You've lumped 3 planes together that span 20 years and two generations, indeed the Lightning replaced the Javelin, without reference to their Life of Types.
Can the RAf and FAA standardize on a single multirole fighter-bomber in the early 60s ? Rather than lightning , javelins , sea vixen, hunter, scimitar, sup swift etc
ME262 was faster, more heavily armed and better designed to handle high subsonic speeds. They have the ability to control any engagement with the Meteor. Where piston engine fighters brought down 262's it was usually while they were on approach to land, and the slow response of early jets made it difficult to accelerate to combat speed and get out of the way.Why is the Meteor being slaughtered by the Me262? The latter didn’t slaughter Tempests or other fast piston fighters. Why is the Meteor so ill matched?
Does that apply to the Meteor F.3 of 1945? I thought the F.3 was a quick bird.ME262 was faster, more heavily armed and better designed to handle high subsonic speeds. They have the ability to control any engagement with the Meteor. Where piston engine fighters brought down 262's it was usually while they were on approach to land, and the slow response of early jets made it difficult to accelerate to combat speed and get out of the way.
No I didn’t. The OP did.
So, we have no, can I make that clearer, no shortage of funds.
I posted a table of the costs of projects cancelled between 1951 and 1967 in the British Cold War Facts & Figures thread.So, we have no, can I make that clearer, no shortage of funds.
I posted a table of the costs of projects cancelled between 1951 and 1967 in the British Cold War Facts & Figures thread.
There are several proposals of fighter variants of B103.Someone mentioned a Fighter Buc, how would that look or would it just be some twin Spey fighter?
Does that apply to the Meteor F.3 of 1945? I thought the F.3 was a quick bird.
The F3 had some changes to the canopy, fuel system and nacelles, they started in production in mid 1944 and went to Europe.It was the engine nacelles, the short nacelles of the early versions limited the mach number. Late production F3s had long nacelles which raised the mach limit, so it went from about 480mph to 580mph with no other changes. I don't think any were delivered before VE day and long nacelles were retrofitted to early batches of F3s.
If it came with further improvements yes. As I once mentioned elsewhere.One thing I'd like to see is the Red Top being used as Britain's AA missile on the late 60s generation of aircraft: TSR2, Harrier and Phantom.
If it came with further improvements yes. As I once mentioned elsewhere.
It would be nice to have the SARH option too.
Delivers a nice big warhead.
True but they did try to go smaller with Taildog and SRAAM.When it was introduced in 1965 it was a beast; fast, long-ranged with a big, sensitive seeker able to lock onto airframe heating. Its only in the 70s with no follow-on development does it start to slip.
Some background information.Can the RAf and FAA standardize on a single multirole fighter-bomber in the early 60s?
Rather than Lightning, Javelins, Sea Vixen, Hunter, Scimitar, Supermarine Swift etc.