Yeah, that’s what I wanted to say with “a good teacher” in the original post, I know you need a different skillset for this kind of work.
And what imho also comes to fruition when you team up the goodies is that if they work as a team they might even be more than just the sum of individual skills. Just imagine a group of killer aces hits the average joe fighter wing with only 1 or 2 “normal” aces at best, omg bloodbath. Sure they are an elite and as such not numerous but if used correctly like all the spec ops today they can be pretty useful I’m sure.
Again, you’re missing a trick. Who’s going to lead the squadrons and wings in the air? In US/UK practice, this was the very top 10% of pilots (returned from a trainign tour) that you’re farming off into specialist squadrons. Again, that produces one very good squadron indeed, but the rest of the air force suffers. Take a look for instance at this list of WW2 British aces here, then take a look at their ranks. There are an awful lot of Wing Commanders and Group Captains in there. Again, it’s all about getting the most total benefit from the accumulated experience you have on hand.
And what were their squads doing, while they were on training tour?
Does it need an actual fighter ace to be a good wing commander or is an experienced pilot enough to help the new pilots survive their first mission for them to make the very important own experiences? After all a single ace pilot can’t usually help more than his wingman during an actual engagement.
And I wouldn’t want to build complete Airwings, but more some small hunter/killer groups, maybe 8-12 machines. In my imaginary doctrine I wouldn’t even station them in a specific area but relocate them often and make it obvious who they are to gain a morale effect on the enemy like with the flying circus (though not the colours, uargh)
This is pretty much a diversion of force vs. concentration of force thing, I find it hard to tell which would be better. Think it also depends on the overall circumstances (equal sized opposing forces or one side bigger for example)
But we started with the training of new pilots where in my opinion the aces could’ve stayed on active duty without damage to the training cycle.
Of course I could be wrong, but I think Nickdfresh had a good point with his example from sports.
Top speed of 262 at 20.000 ft was 540 mph,the meteor mk III was 493 at 30.000 ft,
Top speed of 262 at sea level was 514…the meteor mk III was 458 mph.
The meteor had very poor roll performance,this was done on purpose to lesson the stress to the wings. The 262 could roll 360 degrees in 3.8 seconds at 5.000 ft flying 400 mph this is higher than the p 51 and fw 190 but was slower at low speeds.
The meteor had worse snaking than the 262 due to the design of its engine housing this also limited the tactical mach number of the meteor in a dive infact at low altitudes the 262 could fly faster than the meteor was permited to dive.
The 262 had the best tatical mach number of any ww 2 fighter that i know of, it was even better than the post war p 84.
Another strong point of the 262 was its zoom climb, ive read acounts of a p51 and a p 47 pilot saying the 262 could actualy eccelorate while flying straight up, this is obviously due to the fact they were slowing down much quicker than the 262 was.
The system ran on individual replacements - a flight commander would come to the end of his tour, and either a new one would be appointed from outside or one of his flight would be promoted if experienced enough. He’d go off and be “rested” in perhaps a training appointment or doing staff work. After that he would come back as a Squadron Leader, or perhaps a Flight Commander again depending on how good he was.
Shooting ability doesn’t have all that much to do with becoming an ace. Situational awareness and an understanding of fighter tactics are much more important - and both of those are absolutely critical in a Squadron or Wing commander. It’s also about far, far more than having new pilots survive their first mission (that’s largely down to their prior training and the other pilots in their flight). The Squadron Leader and Wing Commander’s job is to bring the maximum number of guns to bear on the enemy with the maximum of surprise and tactical advantage, while not running their unit out of fuel. If they do their job right (and as mentioned above many of the features of an ace are required to do so) one man will multiply the effectiveness of the whole unit.
Thing is, doing that throws away most of the advantages the best fighter pilots could bring to the party - about the only advantage most of them would have over average pilots would be superior shooting skills. That’s a waste of talent.
It is, but you are making the mistake of assuming a squadron full of superb pilots will be massively better than one led by a handful of superb pilots with the rest just average. It won’t be, for reasons I’ve gone into in the paragraph above. On the other hand, the squadron of average pilots with average pilots in the leadership positions will be slaughtered by either of the above.
I’ve posted this before a couple of times, but it seems appropriate for this thread.
Lockheed P-80A vs Messerschmitt Me 262A
http://ourworlds.topcities.com/blackhawk/fanfiction/ex-p80vsme262.html
The P-80 and the Me 262 never met in combat, but many students of aerial combat have debated what the outcome of such a battle might have been.
The Me 262 was an amazing aircraft, well ahead of its time in many ways, but it was also an aircraft that was rushed into production before all its bugs had been worked out. In the Earth-X timeline, I suppose that some, but not all, of those problems have been fixed, making it a more reliable aircraft than it was in reality. But it still has handling problems and a slow throttle response.
The P-80 had some development problems, also. Most notorious was the primary fuel pump that was powered by the main engine. This could cause engine failure if the auxilary pump was not engaged for take-off, as happened to several pilots, including America’s top ace, MAJ Richard Bong. But the P-80 was a more advanced design that took advantage of the work done on earlier jet aircraft. It had power-boosted ailerons and a speed brake, both of which contributed to superior maneuverability. It was faster than the Me 262, though not by a lot, and it had greater range, much greater with its wingtip tanks that actually decreased its aerodynamic drag and improved its control response.
Although the two aircraft never met in combat, they were flown in a comparison test at Wright Field after the war. According to reports from that test, the Me 262 had a speed advantage in a dive, but the P-80 was superior in all other respects. In the Earth-X timeline, I’ve improved the Me 262 to make it a more even contest, but in the hands of the Blackhawks, the best pilots in the world, smart money will still go on the P-80.
See the table below for a direct comparison of the specifications and performance of the actual aircraft.
Lockheed P-80 Shooting Star
http://www.aviation-history.com/lockheed/p80.html
Performance:
Max. Top Speed: 558 mph (898 km/h) @ Sea Level
Max. Speed: 492 mph (792 km/h) @ 40,000 ft (12,192 km)
Climb Rate: 4,580 ft/min (1,396 m/min)
Climb: 5.5 minutes to 20,000 ft (6,096 km)
Service Ceiling: 45,000 ft (13,716 m)
Me 262A-1a Schwallbe (Swallow)
http://www.ww2guide.com/jetrock.shtml#262
Performance:
Max. Top Speed: 540 mph 469 knot (870 km/h) at 19,685 ft (6000 m)
Max. Speed: 514 mph 446 kt (827 km/h) at Sea Level
Climb Rate: 3,937 ft/min (1200 m/min)
Climb: 6 minutes and 48 seconds to 19,685 ft (6000 m)
Ceiling: 37,730 ft (11500m)
P-80 vs. Me-262 - Which was the superior jet-fighter of WWII
http://p214.ezboard.com/ffighterplanesfighters.showMessage?topicID=9123.topic
An interesting thread and read.
F-80 vs ME262
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/post-war/f-80-vs-me262-1688.html
Another thread on the topic.
good point. But I think situational awareness’n’stuff can also be found in experienced pilots without XX kills. They needed that to survive that long. And like I said I don’t want all of the good pilots. The 90% rest should have still some very good group/wing commanders in their ranks.
What makes an ace an ace is not only his very keen senses, the fact that he chooses his prey carefully and his superior tactics in dogfight but precisely the fact that he kills the target (and usually fast). That seems to be something that cannot be learned or figured out if it is in a pilot before it actually happens.
True, the above average advantages in all the aforementioned fields are not available to other units.
Ok this is again something highly dependent on the circumstances. Normal air engagements are usually highly unfair as the attacker usually seeks the utmost possible advantages.
I indeed make the assumption that a squad of aces will be a lot better than an average joe squad led by a few or even only one aces. They will in an actual “fair” engagement and maybe even those that initially have them at a disadvantage rip the “average” pilots apart (and imho quickly) and then outnumber their matches which will ultimately doom them as well.
The engagement which has the initial advantages with the aces cannot even be called a fight anymore, but slaughter.
I fail to see the mistake.
In the ace/average vs average/average “fair” (I know, unlikely) engagement the ace will score once or twice and the rest should be 50:50 more or less.
It then boils down how often the situation is unfair to whom, where your aforementioned arguments come to fruition. I’m still undecided 
To me is pretty clear that in a doghfight the P-80 would have advantage over the Me-262.
Bomber variants (II): Me-262A-2a/U2.
This subtype was a pure bomber variant. It discard completely the MK-108s and had the cannon-carrying metal nose replaced by a plywood nose carrying a prone bombardier position with a bomb-aiming tachimetric Lofte 7h bombsight to improve the accuracy in level bombing.
Only one prototype of this variant was ever produced, the V555.
Wow excellen pict of Me-262/bomber.
Is there a second men-operator who was responsible for the precision droping the bombs?
[QUOTE][Is there a second men-operator who was responsible for the precision droping the bombs?/QUOTE]
Yes, he lay in a prone position on his belly while looking thru the bomb sight.
About the me 262 vs p 80a… these two aircraft were compared side by side in test conducted in the us and the results were that the me 262 was faster had better acceleration and had a higher tatical mach number(better in the dive), they were equal in the climb…they did not compare handling or turning performance since the me 262s servo tabs were disconnected, the result was that the 262 handled very poorly at high speeds but pilots did comment on the better hanlding of the p 80 even if the tabs were connected the p 80 would have out turn the 262 easily since it had lower wing loading.
When you look at this closer you have to realize that the factory specs of the p 80 were not realistic for combat since a special paint was used to get higher speeds from the aircraft and it was to difficult to maintain so it was not used on production aircraft, when you look at the me 262 that was used in the test i read that it was in very poor condition… worse condition than when it first fell into allied hands.
The test above was to see how an average production p 80a compared to the me 262 (a 262 that was produced in war time gemany, captured then shipped to the usa, stored for some time before being tested against the p 80)
Well i’m agree the me-262 that was tested in USA was not in the best conditions.
I know not a lot about P-80 however my personal experiece of piloted the p-80 and me-262 in the realistic flight simulator Il-2 tells me that the p-80 was not as good in combats as the me-262.
Moreover the maneuverability of the p-80 was even worts in comparition with the Me-262.
Plus the early modifications of P-80 had very unreliable engines- worse than the Jumo004.
Wow excellen pict of Me-262/bomber.
Is there a second men-operator who was responsible for the precision droping the bombs?
He does.
However the operative bomber variants of the Me-262 were the Me-262A-2a, and the Me-262A-2a/U1, both were used operecionally by the special detachment “Kommando Schenk” in July 1944 and the KG 51 “edelweiss” in august 1944.
Me-262A-2/u1 showing the reduced node armament.
The normal bomb load were 2x 250 kg SC or 2 x 500 kg sc 500 or a single Ab 500 bomblets container.
awack,
I would like to see your sources on the actual comparison tests at Wright Field. That the Me 262 was faster in a dive (as you put it - higher tactical mach number) seems to agree with the information that I provided. However, according to my information the P-80 was superior in all other respects.
This also seems to be born out when comparing the specifications of each aircraft. The P-80 had higher top speed - 558 mph vs 540 mph, higher ceiling - 45,000 ft vs 37,730 ft, faster climb rate - 4,580 ft/min vs 3,937 ft/min, greater range - 780 miles vs 650 miles, and better maneuverability. It had power-boosted ailerons and a speed brake, both of which contributed to superior maneuverability.
On June 19, 1947, the XP-80R set a new world air speed record of 629 MPH.
http://www.ccminc.com/vintage/history.html
Lockheed P-80 Shooting Star
http://www.aviation-history.com/lockheed/p80.html
Max. Top Speed: 558 mph @ Sea Level
Max. Speed: 492 mph @ 40,000 ft
Climb Rate: 4,580 ft/min
Climb: 5.5 minutes to 20,000 ft
Service Ceiling: 45,000 ft
Me 262A-1a Schwallbe (Swallow)
http://www.ww2guide.com/jetrock.shtml#262
Max. Top Speed: 540 mph @ 19,685 ft
Max. Speed: 514 mph @ Sea Level
Climb Rate: 3,937 ft/min
Climb: 6 minutes and 48 seconds to 19,685 ft
Ceiling: 37,730 ft
Chevan,
I still haven’t bought a copy of Il-2 yet, but definitely want to try my hand at it. Have used the P-80 and Me-262 in CFS 2 & 3 though. I’m looking forward to Il-2.
http://www.ccminc.com/vintage/history.html
Despite delays waiting on the arrival of the engine from General Electric, the aircraft was completed in 137 days. On January 8, 1944, the single seat XP-80 made its first flight from Muroc Dry Lake, now Edwards Air Force Base, in the hands of long-time Lockheed test pilot, Milo Burcham. It lasted six minutes and during the flight the landing gear would not retract. Nevertheless, one of the P-80’s and later the T-33’s best inbred characteristics had already been determined. The aircraft had extremely sensitive ailerons and would roll 300 degrees within one second. Lockheed knew early that it had produced a champion. On the second flight of the day, Burcham reached speeds of 500 MPH and made several low passes with spectacular rolling pull-ups over the 140 men who had worked on her. The aircraft was fast, extremely stable, with excellent visibility from the cockpit, but there were problems. Most seriously, at low speeds, with flaps down, stall warning was poor, and when the XP-80 did stall, it broke sharply to the right, usually with deadly consequences when close to the ground. Also, the XP-80 had a dangerous tendency to flip onto its back in a whipping action in an inverted stall, and this would later bring tragedy to the program. Engine metallurgy had not caught up with the airframe design and the original GE I-40 engine would be plagued with reliability problems. Further flight tests and gun firing tests proceeded with the GE engine.
On June 10, 1944 the XP-80A with the new J33 engine was test flown on its maiden flight by Lockheed test pilot TonyLeVier. However, early in the flight LeVier knew he was in trouble when the aircraft rolled inverted at 10,000 feet as he was starting flap tests. With only one set of flaps deployed, LeVier was able to make a fast flat approach and land on the dry lake bed. The addition of boundary layer splitter plates in the ducts to insure a smooth airflow eliminated snaking. Unfortunately, flaws in the casting of the engine’s turbine wheel caused the turbine disc in the “hot section” to disintegrate cutting off the XP-80A’s tail. Test pilot, Tony LeVier was forced to bail out during the March 20, 1945 test flight and survived, but suffered severe back injuries. Six months earlier, Milo Burcham died when a faulty overspeed governor failed, causing drive shaft overspeed and fuel pump failure, which ultimately resulted in fuel starvation. Burcham had just taken off from Burbank Airport when the engine flamed out. He tried to bring the XP-80A back, but crashed into a nearby gravel pit and was killed. A similar fuel starvation incident was to claim the life of Major Richard Bong, the highest scoring US fighter pilot in World War II and with 40 victories the highest scoring US fighter ace of all time. To prevent another reoccurrence of the type that killed Burcham, an electrical backup fuel pump had been installed to support the fuel flow should the primary fail. However, when Bong took off from the Van Nuys Airport, some five miles from Burbank where Milo Burcham had crashed, he failed to switch on his electrical backup pump prior to takeoff, and his P-80A crashed, killing him. Six more engine related fatal accidents were to plague the program. However, the program continued to be refined and on June 19, 1947, the XP-80R set a new world air speed record of 629 MPH.
The world’s first jet trainer evolved from America’s first successful jet fighter, the F/P-80 Shooting Star. The F-80 was developed by the Lockheed Skunk Works in 137 days which was less than the 150 days as specified by the contract from design to test flight in 1943. After the unsuccessful Bell P-59 Aircomet project, the F-80’s airframe was found to be far more sophisticated and advanced than its primitive engine. It was also much more reliable. By the time the metallurgical bugs were worked out its original General Electric I-40 engine, which was based on the British de Havilland H-1 engine used in Britain’s first fighter the DH- 115 Vampire, the engine project had been turned over to the Allison Engine Division of General Motors. At Allison, a group of engineers, led by Robert Atkinson, turned the GE I- 40 into the Allison J33 and its many variants with far greater reliability and 50% more thrust. However, jet fighters from North American (F-86 Sabre) and Republic Aircraft (F-84 Thunderjet) would soon eclipse the underpowered F-80, but the clean airframe still had many miles of utilization remaining in its sleek lines. In fact, this elegant product of the aviation designer’s art looks modern today. As well it should, since it was the creation of the industry’s best aviation minds, laboring under a formidable, stringent deadline, but without the usual impediemnts of red tape. Compared to the primitive GE powerplant with which it had originally been fitted, it represented the state of the aerodynamicist’s art. It was fast, it was smooth and very maneuverable, with finger light controls. It was also dependable and, most important, versatile.
With the relatively high performance of the P-80, the high altitude environment where it could routinely operate, and the new and different demands put on pilots flying jet aircraft, which were so gravely underlined by early accidents which destroyed fifteen YP-80A aircraft and P-80’s, required that a jet trainer be developed to aid this transition to a new mode of flight. Accordingly, a twenty nine inch plug was inserted ahead of the wing, with a second twelve inch plug behind it, giving the trainer a length of 37 feet 9 inches and providing the extra space for a second cockpit with dual controls. Ejection seats and 235 gallon jettisonable centerline tip tanks were added and [b]on March 22, 1948, Tony LeVier made the aircraft’s first flight. The T-33 flew even better than its single seat ancestor. Cleaned up and refined, the airframe climbed faster, cruised more effortlessly and was slightly faster than its older and smaller cousins. Even the US Navy had a special version of the T-33 built, the TV2-1A Sea Star, for carrier pilot training.
Powered by its Allison J33A35 single-shaft dual compressor centrifugal flow turbojet engine with a rating of 4,600 lbs.of thrust (9200 horsepower), the T-33 had a top speed of 600 mph, a ceiling of 49,000 ft., and a range just under 1,400 miles. It was fitted with a pair of .50 caliber machine guns in the nose and could carry external stores and armament under its wings.[/b]
Oh thanks George you posts a great detailed staff as always;)
I still haven’t bought a copy of Il-2 yet, but definitely want to try my hand at it. Have used the P-80 and Me-262 in CFS 2 & 3 though. I’m looking forward to Il-2.
Well in last mod of Il-2 there are avialible the XP-80 od early modification (1944) and Me-262-1a/b
Plus BONUS 
Me-262-ZII prototipe that should be take off in the 1946. This is a uber-figher.
But damn - they still didn’t include my favorite Mig-15 and Sabre;)
All the best.
You’re welcome Chevan 
BTW, I just bought IL 2 1946 The Signature Collection on my lunch break today for $20 US. It contains all 4 expansions so far plus the original IL 2. All on one DVD disc and it includes a bonus DVD with special features.
IL-2 STURMOVIK™: 1946
IL 2 1946 The Signature Collection
http://www.pacific-fighters.com/en/home.php
http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/26310365/m/8531020575
http://forums.simradar.com/IL-2_1946_Questions_P421504.html
http://www.combatsim.com/story.php?id=4537
http://pc.ign.com/articles/775/775516p1.html
http://pc.ign.com/articles/751/751000p1.html
http://www.3dgamers.com/games/il2sturmovik1946/
Now all I need to do is buy and install a DVD drive for my computer.
Cheers
The USAAF compared the P-80 and Me 262 concluding: "Despite a difference in gross weight of nearly 2,000 lb (907 kg), the Me 262 was superior to the P-80 in acceleration, speed and approximately the same in climb performance. The Me 262 apparently has a higher critical Mach number, from a drag standpoint, than any current Army Air Force fighterE]
I found this on WIKIPEDIA witch usualy has errors but this is a direct quote from the test document witch i have read in several books that i longer have.
The only way you can truly compare aircraft is by a side by side testing.
Thanks awack, but I would prefer to see the original detailed report. So far I haven’t had much luck finding it on the net.
Your quote is in the Me 262 article at wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Me_262
P-80 Shooting Star
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-80_Shooting_Star#Specifications_.28P-80C.2FF-80C.29
First victory of the JG 7.
A history about the Me-262A-1 schwalbe used in his best role, the high altitude interceptation.
A image of the pilot, Herman Buchner veteran ground attacker of the eastern front in the Fw-190.
Yea George the 1946 the Signature Collection is the best collection that i/m aslo use.
This last mod includs the some of the post-war jet aircrafts Including the some interesting prototypes like Me-262-HGII - the next development of the Me-262.
Now all I need to do is buy and install a DVD drive for my computer.
Cheers
How?
Really you still have not the DVD-rom?That’s a great lack;)
And do not forget about good Joistick ( i/m uses the Logitech)
[quote=“Chevan,post:139,topic:2284”]
Yea George the 1946 the Signature Collection is the best collection that i/m aslo use.
This last mod includs the some of the post-war jet aircrafts Including the some interesting prototypes like Me-262-HGII - the next development of the Me-262.
How?
Really you still have not the DVD-rom?That’s a great lack;)
And do not forget about good Joistick ( i/m uses the Logitech);)[/QUOTE]
Well Chevan, I’m glad that I finally bought the game. Looks like the Signature Collection was a good choice, as you recommend it.
IL-2 STURMOVIK™: 1946 The Signature Collection has received very high praise from the gaming community, so I’m really looking forward to it.
http://www.pacific-fighters.com/en/home.php
There are 32 new flyable fighters and bombers, including the Me-262-HGII prototype, the MiG-9 Jet fighter and the Arado Ar-234 Blitz jet bomber. The graphics look fantastic.
My computer is a little old (early 2000’s) Dell T-600 pentium III with 756 megs ram and 80 gb hardrive. I have a CD/ROM drive and a writeable CD drive which was fine for most gaming. But some of the newer programs are so massive that it is more conveniant to put them on one DVD rather than multiple CD’s (I think AutoCAD 2005 came on 5 CD’s. The latest AutoCAD 2008 is on one DVD).
Since my old CD/ROM drive was wearing out anyway, I will replace it with a new DVD Drive. I will probably pick one up at Best Buy or CompUSA.
I have been using a Logitech Extreme 3D Pro joystick which has a twist handle for rudder control. It works great in CFS 2 & 3, and I think it will be fine for IL-2 1946.
Logitech Extreme 3D Pro
http://www.logitech.com/index.cfm/gaming/pc_gaming/joysticks/devices/291&cl=us,en
I think that eventually, I will have to upgrade to a new computer as well. Some of the newer game system requirements are beyond the capabilities of my machine.