# p-80 V Me 262



## MAV_406 (Mar 8, 2007)

if the P-80 shooting star which made it to europe just after the war versed a 262 over the european skies. who would win


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 8, 2007)

Hard to say. Both had advantages over the other. I am keen to say Me-262 however. Too hard to tell really though at the time.


----------



## MAV_406 (Mar 8, 2007)

what guns/cannon did the p-80 have


----------



## Gnomey (Mar 8, 2007)

6 x 0.5" Machine guns.

I too will go with the Me-262 in this case although with a late model P-80 it would of been a better fight than with an early model.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 8, 2007)

Yeap I agree with a later model P-80. However this is only a what if in the case of a later model P-80 because if a later model P-80 were to see combat in WW2 (no P-80s saw combat in WW2 anyhow) that would mean the war would not be going very well for the allies and by that time more better German jets would be in service such as the Messerschmitt P.1011 and the Ta-183. Both were ready for test flights when the aircraft were captured at the end of the war.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 8, 2007)

ME 262 for speed and firepower. P-80 for stability, endurance and maneuvability. I'd say the P-80 was more reliable but both aircraft had their bugs as 1st generation jet combat aircraft. 

From Wikipedia....

Specifications (Messerschmitt Me 262 A-1a)
Data from Quest for Performance[2]

General characteristics
Crew: One 
Length: 10.60 m (34 ft 9 in) 
Wingspan: 12.51 m (41 ft 0 in) 
Height: 3.50 m (11 ft 6 in) 
Wing area: 21.7 m² (234 ft²) 
Empty weight: 3,800 kg (8,400 lb) 
Loaded weight: 7,130 kg (15,720 lb) 
Max takeoff weight: 6,400 kg (14,100 lb) 
Powerplant: 2× Junkers Jumo 004B-1 turbojets, 8.8 kN (1,980 lbf) each 
Aspect ratio: 7.23 
Performance
Maximum speed: 870 km/h (541 mph) 
Range: 1,050 km (652 mi) 
Service ceiling: 11,450 m (37,565 ft) 
Rate of climb: 1,200 m/min (3,900 ft/min) 
Thrust/weight: 0.28 
Armament
4x 30 mm MK 108 cannons (A-2a: two cannons) 
2x 250 kg (550 lb) bombs (A-2a only) 
24x 55 mm (2.2 in) R4M rockets 

Specifications (P-80A/F-80)

USAF P-80A of the first production series.Data from Quest for Performance[2]

General characteristics
Crew: One 
Length: 34 ft 5 in (10.49 m) 
Wingspan: 38 ft 9 in (11.81 m) 
Height: 11 ft 3 in (3.43 m) 
Wing area: 237.6 ft² (22.07 m²) 
Empty weight: 8,420 lb (3,819 kg) 
Loaded weight: 12,650 lb (5,738 kg) 
Max takeoff weight: 16,856 lb (7,646 kg) 
Powerplant: 1× Allison J33-A-35 centrifugal compressor turbojet, 5,400 lbf (24.0 kN) 
Zero-lift drag coefficient: 0.0134 
Drag area: 3.2 ft² (0.30 m²) 
Aspect ratio: 6.37 
Performance
Maximum speed: 600 mph (965 km/h) 
Cruise speed: 410 mph (660 km/h) 
Range: 1,200 mi (1,930 km) 
Service ceiling: 46,000 ft (14,000 m) 
Rate of climb: 4,580 ft/min (23.3 m/s) 
Wing loading: 53 lb/ft² (260 kg/m²) 
Thrust/weight: 0.43 
Lift-to-drag ratio: 17.7 
Time to altitude: 5.5 min to 20,000 ft (6,100 m) 
Armament
6x 0.50 in (12.7 mm) machine guns (300 rounds per gun, 1,800 rounds total) 
2x 1,000 lb (454 kg) bombs 
8x unguided rockets


----------



## Morai_Milo (Mar 8, 2007)

Never heard of any Ta183 ready for test flights. It still had a lot of work to be done to it to make it flyable as the Puqui and MiG15 showed.

Flyboy, how can you say speed for the 262 when the specs you posted show the P-80 to be faster by 95kph? MK108s are not the best fighter weapon being slow firing and with a bad trajectory especially for high speed fights. A hit though would be not so nice. A 20mm would have been better, either the MG151/20 or the MK213.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 8, 2007)

Morai_Milo said:


> Flyboy, how can you say speed for the 262 when the specs you posted show the P-80 to be faster by 95kph?


 Simple - the data is posted for a P-80C which was 95KPH faster than the early Me 262. The original P-80 A was probably around 540 at altitude.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 8, 2007)

Here's another comparison...


----------



## Morai_Milo (Mar 8, 2007)

OK but it does not state it was for the P-80C, so the confusion.

"_USAF P-80A of the first production series. Data from Quest for Performance_"

Here is another comparison chart


----------



## Civettone (Mar 8, 2007)

As the Me 262 primarily relied on its speed, it's difficult to imagine what it would do against a faster opponent. As it has two engines, I think the P-80 would have the advantage in terms of manoeuvrability. The heavier armament of the Me 262 is also a non issue. The 6 MGs of the P-80 would be more than sufficient. 
That's why I think the P-80 held the advantage (once the air inlet problem was resolved).

But ... and this is a big BUT if the P-80 would take on the Me 262 in sufficient numbers it would have been mid 1945. By that time the Me 262 would have been powered by the Jumo 004D or even Jumo 004E. In THAT case, the Me 262 is once again in the lead. Just my 2 cents...

Kris


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 8, 2007)

Civettone said:


> As the Me 262 primarily relied on its speed, it's difficult to imagine what it would do against a faster opponent. As it has two engines, I think the P-80 would have the advantage in terms of manoeuvrability. The heavier armament of the Me 262 is also a non issue. The 6 MGs of the P-80 would be more than sufficient.
> That's why I think the P-80 held the advantage (once the air inlet problem was resolved).
> 
> But ... and this is a big BUT if the P-80 would take on the Me 262 in sufficient numbers it would have been mid 1945. By that time the Me 262 would have been powered by the Jumo 004D or even Jumo 004E. In THAT case, the Me 262 is once again in the lead. Just my 2 cents...
> ...



Agree.....


----------



## Soren (Mar 8, 2007)

The Me-262 is likely more maneuverable than the P-80 though, noticably at high speeds..


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 8, 2007)

Morai_Milo said:


> Never heard of any Ta183 ready for test flights. It still had a lot of work to be done to it to make it flyable as the Puqui and MiG15 showed.



Yes you are right. The P.1101 was ready for test flight and when the facility was overun. However if the facility of the Ta-183 had not been overun, the Ta-183 was scheduled to have a maiden flight for May/June 1945.


----------



## krieghund (Mar 8, 2007)

Let me toss a fact grenade on the fire............

There were six P-80A's stationed in Northern Italy prior to the war's end but poor serviceability the lack of German Jets airborne at that time made the question academic.

A 262 would have a hard time of it with unreliable engines......however ifyou had a factory fresh 262 with Ju004A's instead of "B"s it would be a close battle.


Ka-Boom!!!


----------



## Soren (Mar 8, 2007)




----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 8, 2007)

krieghund said:


> There were six P-80A's stationed in Northern Italy prior to the war's end



Actually only 4 were sent to Europe and 2 of those were in Northern Italy. The other 2 went to England. The 2 that went to Italy were 1st Fighter Group at Lesina, Italy.



krieghund said:


> but poor serviceability the lack of German Jets airborne at that time made the question academic.



The P-80s were held to only CAP patrols and were no more reliable than the Me-262. One of the jets in England even killed its test pilot.



krieghund said:


> A 262 would have a hard time of it with unreliable engines......however ifyou had a factory fresh 262 with Ju004A's instead of "B"s it would be a close battle.
> 
> 
> Ka-Boom!!!



As stated above the P-80 was no more reliable than the Me-262. It had problems with its Fuel pump and they were all grounded in Jan. 1945 for several months. Major Frederic Borsodi was killed in a crash caused by an engine fire on 28 January 1945, demonstrating YP-80A 44-83026 at RAF Burtonwood.

On 20 October Milo Burcham was killed in a P-80 crash that was caused by failed fuel pump. Toly LeVier was able to get out of the aircraft but it crashed because of a turbine blade that broke. Major Bong was killed by a P-80 when the fuel pump failed.

The point is the P-80 was like all first generation jets and had its own reliability problems when it first came out.


----------



## Morai_Milo (Mar 8, 2007)

krieghund said:


> Let me toss a fact grenade on the fire............
> 
> There were six P-80A's stationed in Northern Italy prior to the war's end but poor serviceability the lack of German Jets airborne at that time made the question academic.


- YP-80As 44-83026 and 44-83027 were shipped to England in mid-December 1944

and

- 44-83028 and 44-83029 were shipped to Italy.

The P-80s that went offshore were YP models.

Adler, the P.1101V1 was not completed by the end of Apr '45. It was still many, many months away from production and still had to be test flown. The Americans even thought of having the Germans finish the a/c for them, so they did not have to.


----------



## Erich (Mar 8, 2007)

not again ! we have beat the pants off the bush with this comparison and it gets nowhere............ wheres Santa when you need em ?


----------



## lesofprimus (Mar 8, 2007)

Hehe, too true Erich... The next generation 262 would be meeting the P-80, so the comparison is irrelevant... The 262 was and would have been better in a fight..


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 8, 2007)

Morai_Milo said:


> -
> Adler, the P.1101V1 was not completed by the end of Apr '45. It was still many, many months away from production and still had to be test flown. The Americans even thought of having the Germans finish the a/c for them, so they did not have to.



Did I give an exact date that the P.1101 was going to test fly? Nope sure did not. However it was closer to test flight than the Ta-183 and the Ta-183 was scheduled to fly May/June 1945.


----------



## JG57_Rall (Mar 8, 2007)

What if the F-14 and the Me-262 squared off. Its silly since there were no F-14s in the air during WWII. The Luftwaffe had the Me-262 operational and it was being improved on when the war came to an end. Any allied development of jet fighters would have been behind the development of German jets and the pilots that flew the new allied aircraft would not have had the experience that the German jet pilots had. These what if questions can be interesting but they are no different than saying which is better a Klingon Battle Crusier or a Goa'uld Ha'tak


----------



## Morai_Milo (Mar 8, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Did I give an exact date that the P.1101 was going to test fly? Nope sure did not. However it was closer to test flight than the Ta-183 and the Ta-183 was scheduled to fly May/June 1945.


No you didn't but you did say: "_ready for test flights_" which I read as completed > just add gas and a pilot.



> Both were *ready for test flights* when the aircraft were captured at the end of the war.





> The P.1101 *was ready for test flight* and when the facility was overun.



The P1101 was nowhere near ready but for sure a lot closer than the Ta183. A flight capable engine being a main reason.

Strange that you say the Ta183 was to be ready for test flights in May/June 1945 when by April 1945 all the plants capable of making it had been over-run and only the detailed drawings had been completed with airframe construction not even started. (from what I can find) Bit hard to believe from paper to finished product in ~4-8 weeks.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 8, 2007)

JG57_Rall said:


> What if the F-14 and the Me-262 squared off. Its silly since there were no F-14s in the air during WWII. The Luftwaffe had the Me-262 operational and it was being improved on when the war came to an end. Any allied development of jet fighters would have been behind the development of German jets and the pilots that flew the new allied aircraft would not have had the experience that the German jet pilots had. These what if questions can be interesting but they are no different than saying which is better a Klingon Battle Crusier or a Goa'uld Ha'tak


That is pretty silly.........


----------



## Soren (Mar 8, 2007)

Morai it may be impossible for you to understand but humans sometimes make mistakes - I'm sure Adler wrote off of memory to begin with.


----------



## Jackson (Mar 8, 2007)

Well, I read a book 'Jagd Pilot' or something , by the guy who first flew the Me-163 successfully..(an earlier pilot had tried and died)

a great book BTW..

He said the Me262 had two engines, for reliability..
Unfortunately, it would not fly on only one engine.

So the odds of an catastrophic engine failure was doubled..

Major bummer..

So even if the engines were equal in reliability 


The odds of a failure were against the 262


----------



## syscom3 (Mar 9, 2007)

lesofprimus said:


> Hehe, too true Erich... The next generation 262 would be meeting the P-80, so the comparison is irrelevant... The 262 was and would have been better in a fight..



I dont know if the 262 would have been better in a dogfight, as compared to the P80.

Those two big engines pods slung under the wings would inhibit its instantaneous roll rate. 

The 262 was an interceptor, the P80 a dogfighter. Two different beasts for two different requirements.


----------



## GregP (Mar 9, 2007)

We could "what if" this forever. 

Simple fact is thet never fought, so we DON'T know. I'd say the P-80 had the performance edge, but only very slightly. 

In these cases, the real winner is usually decided by the pilot skill. The Germans had their best in the jets, and if the U.S.A. had sent jets (I know about the 2 P-80s sent to Italy - no combat), we'd have had our best in them, too.

So ... I'd say that they would have been pretty damned equal with pilots making the difference.

You, of course, are fre to disagree ...

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## krieghund (Mar 9, 2007)

After the war some 262's went to Muroc and were flown by Chuck Yeager and others. He said in his book that he felt the P-80 and 262 handled about the same with no appreciable advantages to either taking into account he only had a few hours left on his 262 engine's TBO.

I agree it would come down to pilot skill.


----------



## Parmigiano (Mar 9, 2007)

To be precise: the 2 P80 shipped to Italy were based in the deep south, not in the north (Lesina being roughly on the 'heel' of Italy 'boot')

Being the front 400+ miles north and being several US airports available closer to front , it does not look like the USAAF was planning to dogfight with other jets, the P80 location made impossible for them to reach Germany and barely in range to shortly patrol the area where the 3 Arado 234 were flying their recce.

Probably the P80 in Italy were just deployed to test the field logistics for a jet aircraft, not with the intention to mix up with Luftwaffe.


----------



## [email protected] (Mar 9, 2007)

I think the p-80 had a little preformance advantage over the 262. The 2 engines of the 262 must have affected the roll rate and turn radius etc. The mk 108 was also pretty slow firing, and I think this is pretty crucial in a dog fight were planes go from one side to another in a split second. 

On the other hand, the germans had allready used the 262 for 3/4 of a year when the first 2 p-80 came to europe, so german jet pilots had practised. They knew the strenghts and weaknesses of their jets in combat. The americans still had to learn this. 

So I think that the first dogfights would have been won by the 262, but its pure guessing work.

Tom


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 9, 2007)

The P-80 weight 1,000 pounds less than the -262. That will effect maneuvability and acceleration. I still believe the p-80 "would of" been more maneuverable than the -262.

Would of, could of , should of - of course we're all guessing.


----------



## lesofprimus (Mar 9, 2007)

Lemme get my wonderful, all seeing crystal ball out...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 9, 2007)




----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 9, 2007)

JG57_Rall said:


> What if the F-14 and the Me-262 squared off.



Are you serious?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 9, 2007)

Morai_Milo said:


> Strange that you say the Ta183 was to be ready for test flights in May/June 1945 when by April 1945 all the plants capable of making it had been over-run and only the detailed drawings had been completed with airframe construction not even started. (from what I can find) Bit hard to believe from paper to finished product in ~4-8 weeks.



Every source on the matter will say that the aircraft was scheduled for a test flight in May/June 1945 time frame. I will leave it at that because I dont think there is anything that I can say that you will dispute unless it is about Luftwaffe Sucks!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 9, 2007)

Soren said:


> Morai it may be impossible for you to understand but humans sometimes make mistakes - I'm sure Adler wrote off of memory to begin with.



Thats okay Morai will get his too...


----------



## Morai_Milo (Mar 9, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Thats okay Morai will get his too...


Yup and when I do I will own up and admit I was in error. 

What are these 'every source'? So every source says the 'dream world' test flight was for May/June 1945? Reality is different from the 'dream world'.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 9, 2007)

"On February 28, 1945, the Luftwaffe High Command examined the various Emergency Fighter proposals and selected the Ta 183 to be developed and produced. Sixteen prototypes were to be built, allowing the tail unit to be interchanged between the Design II and III variations. Of the Versuchs (experimental test series) aircraft the Ta 183 V1-V3 were to be powered by the Jumo 004B turbojet, pending delivery of the He S 011 jet engine. The Ta 183 V4-V14 were 0-series preproduction aircraft and V15-V16 were to be static test aircraft. *The first flight of the aircraft was projected for May 1945 *but none were completed by April 8, 1945, when British troops captured the Focke-Wulf facilities."

Focke-Wulf Ta 183 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Focke Wulfe Fw Ta-183

Focke-Wulf Ta 183 Luft '46 entry

"On Febuary 27 and 28, 1945, the Emergency Fighter Competition conference was held by the OKL (High Command of the Luftwaffe), and the Ta 183 was chosen to be developed and produced. There were to be sixteen Versuchs (experimental test series) aircraft: the Ta 183 V1-V3 to be powered by the Jumo 004B turbojet, pending delivery of the He S 011 jet engine, the Ta 183 V4-V14 as 0-series preproduction aircraft and V15-V16 as static test aircraft. *The maiden flight of the first aircraft was planned for May/June of 1945, *and was to test both the Design II and Design III tail configuration. The first production aircraft were scheduled to be completed by October 1945, but no examples of the Ta 183 were completed because on April 8, 1945 British troops captured the Focke-Wulf facilities."


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 9, 2007)

Morai_Milo said:


> Yup and when I do I will own up and admit I was in error.



As do I...

The difference is I dont pretend to be the all knowing source. 



Morai_Milo said:


> What are these 'every source'? So every source says the 'dream world' test flight was for May/June 1945? Reality is different from the 'dream world'.



Did you just figure that out?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 9, 2007)

FLYBOYJ said:


> "On February 28, 1945, the Luftwaffe High Command examined the various Emergency Fighter proposals and selected the Ta 183 to be developed and produced. Sixteen prototypes were to be built, allowing the tail unit to be interchanged between the Design II and III variations. Of the Versuchs (experimental test series) aircraft the Ta 183 V1-V3 were to be powered by the Jumo 004B turbojet, pending delivery of the He S 011 jet engine. The Ta 183 V4-V14 were 0-series preproduction aircraft and V15-V16 were to be static test aircraft. *The first flight of the aircraft was projected for May 1945 *but none were completed by April 8, 1945, when British troops captured the Focke-Wulf facilities."
> 
> Focke-Wulf Ta 183 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> ...



Thank you that is what every book in my library on the subject says as well. Sources are wrong though because someone else has read something different.

Ofcourse we all know as Morai so kindly put out for us that things dont work out that way.


----------



## davparlr (Mar 9, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Thank you that is what every book in my library on the subject says as well. Sources are wrong though because someone else has read something different.
> 
> Ofcourse we all know as Morai so kindly put out for us that things dont work out that way.



I have an issue here. My prime source has pictures of a Ju 287V-1 flying, both a Go 229V-3 and a P 1101 in build stages, but I have never seen any part of a Ta-183 that was built. I suspect it never really made it past the preliminary drawing and wind tunnel model stage. It took 6 mos. for Lockheed to design, build and fly the P-80, and that was using conventional aerodynamics, something the Ta-183 was advancing. I think it was a pipe dream to fly in May/June of 45. More probably, late 45, in early 46. And that doesn't mean that an effective warplane would have emerged.

Good move on closing down the Spiteful thread. It was very interesting on the discussion of high speed propeller flight. Then it went berserk!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 9, 2007)

You are more than right correct. The Ta-183 more than likely would not have flown in May/June 1945. The sources only say that it was scheduled to fly May/June 1945. This is when the Luftwaffe wanted it to fly. Would have, Could have, Should have....did not.


----------



## pbfoot (Mar 9, 2007)

[email protected] said:


> I think the p-80 had a little preformance advantage over the 262. The 2 engines of the 262 must have affected the roll rate and turn radius etc. The mk 108 was also pretty slow firing, and I think this is pretty crucial in a dog fight were planes go from one side to another in a split second.
> 
> On the other hand, the germans had allready used the 262 for 3/4 of a year when the first 2 p-80 came to europe, so german jet pilots had practised. They knew the strenghts and weaknesses of their jets in combat. The americans still had to learn this.
> 
> ...


I believe the 2 wing mounted engines would enhance aerobatics with a competent pilot by adjusting power on one engine . qoute from wiki about Janusz Żurakowski 
." Acknowledged as one of the best aerobatic pilots in the UK, he gave a spectacular display at the Farnborough Air Show in June 1946, with the Martin-Baker MB 5, a superlative piston-engined fighter, designed too late to enter production.

In 1947, he was employed as an experimental pilot by Gloster Aircraft Company. In the following years, he became one of the world's most famous experimental and aerobatics pilots (he developed a new aerobatics maneuver, the "Zurabatic Cartwheel" which held the audience captivated as he suspended the Gloster Meteor G-7-1 prototype he was flying, in a vertical cartwheel at the 1951 Farnborough Air Show). Announcers shouted out, "Impossible!"


----------



## syscom3 (Mar 9, 2007)

PB, youre forgetting that those early jet engines on the -262 flamed out due to them being extremely sensitive to quick throttle changes.

Differential thrust wouldnt work on the -262 because of this.

The 262 has the advantage in the top speed and probably dive speed.

P80 would have the roll rate advantage and superior endurance.

As for weapons.... I would say the 6 x .50's or even a pair of 20mm's would have the advantage over the 30mm's simply due to rate of fire and flatter trajectory.


----------



## pbfoot (Mar 9, 2007)

syscom3 said:


> PB, youre forgetting that those early jet engines on the -262 flamed out due to them being extremely sensitive to quick throttle changes.
> 
> Differential thrust wouldnt work on the -262 because of this.
> 
> ...


----------



## davparlr (Mar 9, 2007)

syscom3 said:


> The 262 has the advantage in the top speed and probably dive speed.



I have seen this comment before and I don't know where it comes from. Every source I have seen shows the P-80A with a higher top speed than the Me-262. My main sources shows the P-80A capable of 558 mph and the Me-262A-1a with a top speed of 540 mph. Now, the P-80 speed is at s.l. and the Me-262 speed is at 19k, so there is no one to one comparison. However, the P-80 cannot be said to be slower than the Me-262.


As far as dive speed, I cannot argue as I have no data to support one way or another. I think the Me-262 may have had a better Mach limitation.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 9, 2007)

pbfoot said:


> Differential thrust wouldnt work on the -262 because of this.


Any twin, jet or recip with engines slung under the wing will experience differental thrust and can actually be flown with varying throttle inputs. On a "production" -262 however I'd rather tame cobras than try it.


----------



## syscom3 (Mar 9, 2007)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Any twin, jet or recip with engines slung under the wing will experience differental thrust and can actually be flown with varying throttle inputs. On a "production" -262 however I'd rather tame cobras than try it.



With 1944/45 vintage jet engines...... thats pushing the luck of the airplane and pilot to some degree!


----------



## Jackson (Mar 9, 2007)

The 262 was designed to take out bombers, it is not a dog fighter..

>maneuverable 

They were shot down by 'top cover' P-51D's....

What is more revealing is the fact that Allied fighters did, in reality, shoot down Me262s in air-to-air combat. The speed advantage of the Me262 was routinely negated by American escort fighters by the simple method of a height advantage – they knew what height the Me262s would need to be at to attack the bombers, and judged it from that. 


Plus they took forever to 'spool' up.. 

By the end of the war Germany was considering using Hitler youth as jet pilots. Nevermind they did not have the 'gas' to even train them. This is in a period when the standards of Luftwaffe pilots was in decline?

So give the P-80 8,000 feet and think about all those P-51's shoting down the Me-262

Answer..

Who is faster and who can fly higher and then you can call the winner..

alternative view

The Messerschmitt Me-262 Schwalbe / Sturmvogel

The Me-262s were then shipped to the US on the Royal Navy "jeep" carrier HMS REAPER for further evaluation at Wright Field in Ohio. The tests there included a competitive fly-off against a Lockheed P-80 Shooting Star jet fighter that demonstrated the general superiority of the Me-262.


----------



## lesofprimus (Mar 9, 2007)

3 singular posts in a row is a no no Jack.... Im combining them... Next time, edit ur previous post...


----------



## Jackson (Mar 9, 2007)

ME 262 flight, rebuilt with modern engines

Me262 at the ILA2006 in Berlin (original sound) - Google Video

where is the delete button boss


----------



## pbfoot (Mar 9, 2007)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Any twin, jet or recip with engines slung under the wing will experience differental thrust and can actually be flown with varying throttle inputs. On a "production" -262 however I'd rather tame cobras than try it.


Yeah I remember the P38 thread on that but just thought I'd hilight it with the Meteor tale. Also I think I'd prefer to be in the P80 with a flame out


----------



## davparlr (Mar 9, 2007)

Jackson said:


> The Me-262s were then shipped to the US on the Royal Navy "jeep" carrier HMS REAPER for further evaluation at Wright Field in Ohio. The tests there included a competitive fly-off against a Lockheed P-80 Shooting Star jet fighter that demonstrated the general superiority of the Me-262.



A test report no one seems to have seen.


----------



## mad_max (Mar 9, 2007)

From the handbooks and such that I have.

262 would do 513 mph at sealevel and had a mach limit of .82 to .83 depending
on which data you look at.

FWIW


----------



## Civettone (Mar 10, 2007)

Jackson, the Me 262 was not designed to take out bombers. When it was designed (day) bombers were of little threat to the Germans. Now if you would have said the Me 262 was developed into a fighter to take out bombers... 

And there is still a question as to how many Me 262 were actually shot down by Mustangs in air combat. The Russian I-16 also shot down the much faster but less manoeuvrable Bf 109...

Kris


----------



## Jackson (Mar 10, 2007)

disputes are to be expected..

The link I gave discusses German fears of the B-29 and it's rush into production. 



// Me-262 s where shot down by the Russians also. 


I read the book by the first guy to successfully fly the ME-163..

Which came out earlier than the Me-262..

He was later in Galland's Me-262 squadron.

The Me163 was really made to get up fast and attack bombers in a 'point' defense. Not many Allied fighters would have been over Germany for any reason but to escort heavies. (recon?)

I submit the Me-163 sole purpose was against to protect against bombers.

So, the concern was there..IMHO


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 10, 2007)

Jackson said:


> The link I gave discusses German fears of the B-29 and it's rush into production.



Erich has some good info on that, but I think it will be a bit different than that link. Erichs info comes directly from the German archives.

We have some archives here in Nurnberg. I am going to see if I can check them out.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 10, 2007)

Jackson said:


> The tests there included a competitive fly-off against a Lockheed P-80 Shooting Star jet fighter that demonstrated the general superiority of the Me-262.




Not Really...

The test at Wright Paterson were run by legendary test pilot Al Boyd. 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 fighter." The P-80 handled better and had better visibility.

The Army Air Force also tested an example of the Me 262A-1a/U3 (US flight evaluation serial FE-4012), an unarmed photo reconnaissance version, which was fitted with a fighter nose and given an overall smooth finish. It was used for performance comparisons against the P-80. During testing in May-August 1946, the aircraft completed eight flights spanning four hours and 40 minutes. Testing was discontinued after four engine changes were required during the course of the tests, culminating in two single-engine landings." *There were NO combat maneuvers done aircraft vs. aircraft.*

This is referenced in Walter J. Boyne's book Arrow to the Future. and from Winkipedia.

For what ever reason this information was suppressed for a number of years, perhaps not to embarrass US aircraft manufacturers. While the test showed some superiority aspect of the Me 262 I think the reliability factor comes in to play as well....


----------



## Jackson (Mar 10, 2007)

I was trying to give an alternative view..

The flavor of my own posts concure with yours..

But the clarity which you add to it is good.


----------



## Civettone (Mar 10, 2007)

Jackson, the Me 163 was intended to intercept reconaissance aircraft. And later to intercept the B-29.



Kris


----------



## syscom3 (Mar 11, 2007)

tangent156 said:


> Wow... LesS actually performed a moderating task and did so without acting like a major ass-hole... it seems that you do have _some_ common sense after all... not much, but I think you could be turned from a piss-poor moderator into a poor moderator...



I have a feeling this will be your last post.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 11, 2007)

tangent156 said:


> Wow... LesS actually performed a moderating task and did so without acting like a major ass-hole... it seems that you do have _some_ common sense after all... not much, but I think you could be turned from a piss-poor moderator into a poor moderator...


 Again we could all bare witness to the diminishing gene pool, probably due to inbreeding and perhaps there are some coon and sheep DNA somewhere in the equation. Anyway this dipsh*t moron is no longer with us as it is apparent he doesn't have a life, a brain and probably suffers from male hormone inadequacies.

Good-bye dipsh*t, hope you have a great life as a toilet cake changer!


----------



## syscom3 (Mar 11, 2007)

The mission of the -262 was too shoot down US bombers, thus the comparison between the P80 and the -262 should be up at altitudes above 20,000 ft.

Does anyone know if the endurance times for the P80 was on internal fuel, or was it with a pair of drop tanks?


----------



## Jackson (Mar 11, 2007)

Civettone said:


> Jackson, the Me 163 was intended to intercept reconaissance aircraft. And later to intercept the B-29.
> 
> 
> 
> Kris



Yes, I checked , you are right..

But actual production funding and the first missions were another matter, given the later priorities.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 11, 2007)

syscom3 said:


> Does anyone know if the endurance times for the P80 was on internal fuel, or was it with a pair of drop tanks?



I have seen so many different figures that I am not sure what is correct and what is not.

A book that I have here at home says that the was as follows:

*P-80* 

Internal: 825 mi
With drop tanks: 1200 mi


----------



## mad_max (Mar 12, 2007)

My book says 780 miles at 410 mph at 35,000ft.
2 - droptanks of 625L...1,100 miles at 407 mph at 25,000 ft.


----------



## Aggie08 (Mar 12, 2007)

What kind of upgrades do you think the -262 would have received if Germany had stayed in the war? The Jumo engines were already mentioned, perhaps changing out the 30mm's to 20's, etc? I have a feeling that given the time the bird would have evolved into a far more capable machine that no one could hope to match, not without reverse engineering or something like that. Certainly would give the shooting stars something to think about in 1946.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 12, 2007)

Having had time to fix the bugs as well and yes it would have evolved into a better machine, but I think the future lied in the Ta-183 and the P.1101.


----------



## syscom3 (Mar 12, 2007)

Aggie08 said:


> ..I have a feeling that given the time the bird would have evolved into a far more capable machine that no one could hope to match, not without reverse engineering or something like that. Certainly would give the shooting stars something to think about in 1946.



You forget about the vast US and UK resources available to quickly design and build jet aircraft and engines.

Any leads the Germans had in this area (in 1945) were going to be short lived.


----------



## Soren (Mar 12, 2007)

The P.1101 certainly seems a winning design, eventhough the US attempt at replicating it was a faliure.


----------



## Udet (Mar 12, 2007)

A clarification:

The Me 262 was not designed for the purpose of dealing with a specific type of enemy plane. It was designed pretty much with the idea of dealing with any flying thing the enemy had it his disposal.

This comparison is interesting of course, several well grounded opinions around here, the fact yet remains only the Germans, and only them proved capable of putting a jet plane into combat action.

I do not care if the bugs on the Me 262 were not yet entirely eliminated, neither the Brits with the hangar lady Gloster Meteor, nor the USAers with the P-80 could press their jets into effective combat action.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 12, 2007)

I disagree some what there. 

For the British and the US it was not a matter of not being able to put jet fighters into combat in WW2.

The Meteor was ready for combat and did fly on missions. It just enver engaged and enemy aircraft. The P-80 had reliablity issues just as the Me-262 did as well, however if needed it would have flown in combat.

I think it is more of a safer bet to say the allies did not have a reason to *rush* a jet fighter into combat like the Germans did. The Me-262 was *rushed* into combat before she was ready.


----------



## Gnomey (Mar 12, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I disagree some what there.
> 
> For the British and the US it was not a matter of not being able to put jet fighters into combat in WW2.
> 
> ...



Just what I was about to post. Exactly had the Allies needed to rush into deployment a jet fighter they could of but they didn't need to because they already had air superiority over much of Europe and felt that it wasn't necessary for them to rush them into operations before they were ready.


----------



## Soren (Mar 12, 2007)

The Allies could've done it yes, however because of their lack of knowledge on the subject they would've ended up with a machine of no particular value. The P-80 was not a slow project at all if thats what you guys believe..


----------



## davparlr (Mar 12, 2007)

Soren said:


> The P.1101 certainly seems a winning design, eventhough the US attempt at replicating it was a faliure.



This is certainly a leap. The Bell X-5 was clearly a more complex design than the P.1101 in that the wing sweep was variable in flight whereas the P.1101 was only ground adjustable. This does mean that the German plane would have had less development and flight problems than the X-5, and far less benefit from the wing sweep, but projecting an aircraft as being a winning design, when it never flew nor had a successful follow-on, is ignoring the vast number of aircraft that looked like a "winning design" while on the drawing board, turned out to be a less than stellar performer. 

P.1101, Ta-183, and Go 229V-3 were all advanced designs, but the Germans did not have a mystical history of making advance designs into war machines without the time consuming trial and errors that all other designers had to go through in this era. Only the Go 229V-3 flew and only for couple of hours, as such, none of these aircraft can be called a "winning design". I would consider the Me-262 a winning design because it did perform beautifully and had problems that could be overcome with normal development. I would also consider the P-80 as a winning design because it continued to evolve into an effective fighter and had, in one form or another, a long history. 




> The Allies could've done it yes, however because of their lack of knowledge on the subject they would've ended up with a machine of no particular value. The P-80 was not a slow project at all if thats what you guys believe..



Both the Allies and Germans had demonstrated the ability to adapt very rapidly to new threats by their enemy and there is no reason to assume this would not continue. The allies were very familar with jet engines and were knowledgable of swept back wings in 1945.



DerAlder said:


> I think it is more of a safer bet to say the allies did not have a reason to rush a jet fighter into combat like the Germans did. The Me-262 was rushed into combat before she was ready.



Very knowledgable comment.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Soren (Mar 12, 2007)

davparlr said:


> This is certainly a leap. The Bell X-5 was clearly a more complex design than the P.1101 in that the wing sweep was variable in flight whereas the P.1101 was only ground adjustable. This does mean that the German plane would have had less development and flight problems than the X-5, and far less benefit from the wing sweep, but projecting an aircraft as being a winning design, when it never flew nor had a successful follow-on, is ignoring the vast number of aircraft that looked like a "winning design" while on the drawing board, turned out to be a less than stellar performer.



Never mind the variable sweep, a fixed wing is stronger and isn't as heavy, and like you said would prove less troublesome.

Anyway what I meant by that it seems a winning design is when all of its bugs were worked out, who knows how many, it surely would've performed well - aerodynamically it isn't that much different from the US Sabre. But its still only just a guess ofcourse...



> P.1101, Ta-183, and Go 229V-3 were all advanced designs, but the Germans did not have a mystical history of making advance designs into war machines without the time consuming trial and errors that all other designers had to go through in this era. Only the Go 229V-3 flew and only for couple of hours, as such, none of these aircraft can be called a "winning design". I would consider the Me-262 a winning design because it did perform beautifully and had problems that could be overcome with normal development.



The P.1101, Ta-183 and Go-229 probably would've all flown if it wasn't for the fact that German industry was being bombed as heavily as it was.



> I would also consider the P-80 as a winning design because it continued to evolve into an effective fighter and had, in one form or another, a long history.



Effective ? Well thats debatable, it didn't do that well..



> Both the Allies and Germans had demonstrated the ability to adapt very rapidly to new threats by their enemy and there is no reason to assume this would not continue. The allies were very familar with jet engines and were knowledgable of swept back wings in 1945.



No, the Allies were behind in aerodynamics, and not only in terms of wing sweep and its effects. Remember that the main center of theoretical, mathematical aerodynamics and fluid dynamics research was the Ludwig Prandtl laboratory at Göttingen from 1904 to the end of WW2. The Lab remained the leading in the world in terms aerodynamics until the end of WW2.

And in Jet engine design the Allies were behind as-well, their centrifugal jet engine being much larger and less efficient than the German axial flow jet engine.


----------



## syscom3 (Mar 12, 2007)

Wasn't the swept wing design (for the me-262) a result of the engineers attempting to balance some aerodynamic loads, without the knowledge it was more efficient at high subsonic speeds?


----------



## davparlr (Mar 13, 2007)

Soren said:


> Never mind the variable sweep, a fixed wing is stronger and isn't as heavy, and like you said would prove less troublesome.
> 
> Anyway what I meant by that it seems a winning design is when all of its bugs were worked out, who knows how many, it surely would've performed well - aerodynamically it isn't that much different from the US Sabre. But its still only just a guess ofcourse...



It is a good looking design, but still there are always unknowns when a plane flies.





> The P.1101, Ta-183 and Go-229 probably would've all flown if it wasn't for the fact that German industry was being bombed as heavily as it was.



Probably, but again, unknown problems. I think the G0-229 was a long way from becoming an effective war bird. Too advanced for the technology available. Tank seemed to have some problems with the Ta-183 in Argentina, modifing the wing installation.





> Effective ? Well thats debatable, it didn't do that well..



The P-80 seems to perform very comparatable to comtemporary jets, Vampire and Meteor, during the period 1945 to 1950. In Korea it did effective yeoman service but was outdated.



> No, the Allies were behind in aerodynamics, and not only in terms of wing sweep and its effects. Remember that the main center of theoretical, mathematical aerodynamics and fluid dynamics research was the Ludwig Prandtl laboratory at Göttingen from 1904 to the end of WW2. The Lab remained the leading in the world in terms aerodynamics until the end of WW2


.

I would agree that, up until WWII, the Germans had done significant advanced work in all areas pertaining to warfighting ability while Allied scientist was starved of support. However, by 1945, massive research had closed that gap to a large extent, and passed them in certain categories such a nuclear research. Allied aerodynamic papers discussing swept wing atributes had been submitted as early as Jan. 1945. The German data after the war validated the research.



> And in Jet engine design the Allies were behind as-well, their centrifugal jet engine being much larger and less efficient than the German axial flow jet engine.



Those centrifugal engines were developed into powerful and reliable engines. In fact the Russians were very successful in using centrifugal engines to make the world class aircraft Mig-15 and Mig-17. You would have a hard time telling a Sabre pilot in his axial flow jet how much more inefficient that Mig engine was.

As for Allied axial technology, the Westinghouse 19XB-2B flew in an XFH-1 in Jan. 1945, and the GE J-35 flew in the XP-84 in Feb. 1946. The J-35 eventually grew into the J-47 engine, so it was quite a sophiscated and modern engine. The Brits worked even earlier on axial flow compressors. I don't have good data on their effort. Allied technology was accelerating in this field.


----------



## davparlr (Mar 13, 2007)

syscom3 said:


> Wasn't the swept wing design (for the me-262) a result of the engineers attempting to balance some aerodynamic loads, without the knowledge it was more efficient at high subsonic speeds?




I believe this is correct, but they had done a lot of work on transonic airspeed design including swept wings, as shown by the Ta-183.


----------



## Soren (Mar 13, 2007)

The Ludwig Prandtl laboratory at Göttingen had nothing to do with nuclear research Davparlr, it was all about aerodynamics fluid dynamics and was in the lead in this area from the beginning of WW2 to the end.

About centrifugal jet engines, well they were big and draggy, the axial flow jet engines weren't - and the German axial flow engines were developing a lot of power for their size, however the metals used on the engines just couldn't withstand the heat developed. Centrifugal jet engines weren't bad though, they were more reliable and capable of the same power levels.

Btw, you meant the XFD-1 right ?


----------



## Soren (Mar 13, 2007)

As to the Me-262's swept wings, well no I don't believe they were swept for reasons of load distribution, Messerschmidt knew about the aerodynamic benefits of sweep which would be why he incoperated this into the Me-262 design.


----------



## davparlr (Mar 13, 2007)

Soren said:


> Btw, you meant the XFD-1 right ?



For some reason, the Phantom was orginally called the XFD-1 but D is a designation of Douglas, so the designation was changed to XFH-1, since H is the McDonnell letter.


----------



## davparlr (Mar 13, 2007)

Soren said:


> As to the Me-262's swept wings, well no I don't believe they were swept for reasons of load distribution, Messerschmidt knew about the aerodynamic benefits of sweep which would be why he incoperated this into the Me-262 design.



Wikipedia contains the following:

"The production Me 262 had a leading edge sweep of 18.5° primarily to properly position the center of lift relative to the center of mass and not for the aerodynamic benefit of increasing the critical Mach number of the wing (the sweep was too slight to achieve any significant advantage)"

Which traces back to a NASA document.

This in turn references the following:

Boyne, Walterj.: Messerschmitt Me 262, Arrow to the Future (Washington: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1980).

I don't know the expertise of this writer, so I have no opinion of his data. I think there was some translation changes between the references.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 13, 2007)

davparlr said:


> "The production Me 262 had a leading edge sweep of 18.5° primarily to properly position the center of lift relative to the center of mass and not for the aerodynamic benefit of increasing the critical Mach number of the wing (the sweep was too slight to achieve any significant advantage)"
> 
> Which traces back to a NASA document.



I believe this this was the "Status Quo" for the incorportation of swept wings during this period and the benifits of increasing critical mach number was dicovered after the fact. Take a look at the XP-55 Acender. It's predessor the CW-24B incorporated at least a 45 degree swept back wing and that was flying in late 1941.


----------



## Udet (Mar 13, 2007)

Flyboy and/or Soren:

Do you know if there were any documented mock air-combats between the Me 262 and P-51 or P-47?

They captured several intact Me 262s when it all ended; i have papers of some flight tests...but have not found anything regarding mock dogfights.


----------



## davparlr (Mar 13, 2007)

FLYBOYJ said:


> I believe this this was the "Status Quo" for the incorportation of swept wings during this period and the benifits of increasing critical mach number was dicovered after the fact. Take a look at the XP-55 Acender. It's predessor the CW-24B incorporated at least a 45 degree swept back wing and that was flying in late 1941.



and the Northrop XP-56, oh, and let's not forget the famous transonic C-47!


----------



## [email protected] (Mar 13, 2007)

davparlr said:


> Probably, but again, unknown problems. I think the G0-229 was a long way from becoming an effective war bird. Too advanced for the technology available. Tank seemed to have some problems with the Ta-183 in Argentina, modifing the wing installation.



I completely disagree with what you say on the Horton IX/gotha 229. The first prototype did 4 very satisfying test flights, before it crash landed due to an engine failure. The plane was allmost completely build from wood and welded steel tubes, not so advanced huh. The plane flew well, so the concept worked. Fact is, only the V1 flew. When allied troops overran the gotha factories, some 5 or 6 more prototypes were discouvered in various states of readiness. Some even with weapon bays. Sadly for the german warfare machine, gotha didn't had enough skilled woodworkers, unbombed workshop space and influence to make the fighters in a high tempo. Other projects were found to be more urgent. If the Horton plane got the same recourses availible as for messerschmitt or focke wulf projects, a lot more planes would have flown. 

On the Ta-183,
The only thing that actually was "wrong" with the huck, was that it didn't had wing fences. In a turn, the air would just follow the leading edge of the wing or run parrallell with the wing's leading edge, and so, no lift would be produced anymore and the plane would fall down. On the pulqui II, this was resolved by putting fences on the wing (small fin like things, in somewhere in the middle of the wing.) The russians did the same on the mig 15. 

Tom


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 13, 2007)

Udet said:


> Flyboy and/or Soren:
> 
> Do you know if there were any documented mock air-combats between the Me 262 and P-51 or P-47?
> 
> They captured several intact Me 262s when it all ended; i have papers of some flight tests...but have not found anything regarding mock dogfights.


As far as I know there wasn't but I could be wrong.

I know "Watson Wizards" were the first group of US pilots to fly the Me 262 and I think they were just overwhelmed to fly the aircraft. Seems like they just zoomed around Germany and France after the war and went home. The tests done at Wright Patterson after the war made comparisons with the P-80 but I couldn't find anything else against other aircraft. Don’t know if the Brits did anything as well.

I think one of the reasons why they didn't do air-to-air testing because of the reliability factor. When the AAF did the Me 262/ P-80 performance tests they went through 4 engines.


----------



## Udet (Mar 13, 2007)

Flyboy: thanks for the response. I was aware of the Wizards being the first ones to fly the Me 262.

I too have searched in England, but to no avail; it is my belief they did not carry out any mock aerial combat that got documented.

I ask this because in my guncamera footage collection (of Luftwaffe fighters shooting down USAAF fighters), there is this incident of some Luftwaffe plane that is out pursuing an enemy plane, as the German closes in -real fast- the enemy plane he´s after turned out to be a Mustang; he attempted evasive action by turning as tight is it seemed to have been possible to the poor guy in the cockpit, the German plane managed to remain inside the P-51s turning and practically shoot overhead the USAer, the whole burst smashing directly into the cockpit...he got so close you can almost see inside the bubble canopy of the P-51 D. If you ask me, i tell you is a horrible sight, a pilot receiving cannon fire on top of his head.

I once lent the CD to someone who knows, and it was his believe the killer had been a Me 262. A complete expert since he did not fire until getting real close, assuring the destruction of the enemy plane.

I know what the value of guncamera footage can be, but this film made me beginning to wonder if the allied version that points out to the fact the Me 262 "was dead meat if it turned" is true. Too bad i am a low tech creep and do not know how to convert the episode into .mpeg file to include it here.


----------



## twoeagles (Mar 13, 2007)

My feeling on the lack of mock dogfighting between the -262 and Allied prop fighters is simply that those aircraft were in the rear view mirrror now, and everyone was looking forward - the future was jets. So it was probably a case of 'why bother'. A lack of sufficient servicable spares was no doubt also a big driver in the post-war flight evaluations.


----------



## [email protected] (Mar 13, 2007)

@ udet

I don't know what software you are using and what format the movie is, but divx has a nice conversion program. It converts a lot of movie files to the divx format. 
You can download a free 15 day trail here Download DivX for Windows


----------



## Udet (Mar 13, 2007)

You are right twoeagles.

But many of those Me 262s were intact, and ready to fly. It is most likely that spare parts should not have been an issue at the moment. It would have been yet interesting to see if the P-51s and P-47s were as hot as they affirm in aerial combat against the jet.

I have several shots of Me 262s getting hit and others getting shot down, in all cases i am able to see the ground, and even small buildings and trucks.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 13, 2007)

Udet said:


> I know what the value of guncamera footage can be, but this film made me beginning to wonder if the allied version that points out to the fact the Me 262 "was dead meat if it turned" is true. Too bad i am a low tech creep and do not know how to convert the episode into .mpeg file to include it here.



I could tell you that reading about the Me 262 and then flying an L-29 gives me a feeling that both aircraft were/ are similar in their lack of acceleration power. In the L-29 it takes a good 5 or 6 seconds for things to spool up and the aircraft to start accelerating. This is quite nerve racking when on final and if you get yourself too low and too slow. Even though the L-29 lands at about 95 knots, it will drop like a rock with one wing dipping if you stall it over the runway.

Now I think about this and picture the Me 262 with its 2 engines and having one fail on final and I "pucker" as a continue thinking about it. 

As reported I think the Me 262 would be most vulnerable when its airspeed was allowed to diminish enough where a recip fighter could take advantage of its rapid acceleration and this may have happened if a 262 allowed itself to get suckered into reducing airspeed so it could tighten a turn. Once the 262 was brought into the operating speed realm of piston engine fighters they had the upper hand because of their ability to accelerate a hell of a lot quicker than the 262 and the 262s total lack of rapid acceleration.

And of course, we can't forget the me 262s diminished perfomance when landing....


----------



## Udet (Mar 13, 2007)

fLYBOY, i agree with you on most accounts.

But the questions:

Aren´t all planes vulnerable when approaching the runway from the air with the undercarriage out? 

So, let´s suppose a Bf 109 or P-51 that approaches the runway or landing strip gets tailed by an enemy plane, you mean they had bigger chances to get out of problem because they could accelerate faster than the Me 262 could?

Finally, and please forgive my ignorance, i do not know what aircraft the L-29 is...to what type of craft are we here referring to?


----------



## Civettone (Mar 13, 2007)

[email protected] said:


> I completely disagree with what you say on the Horton IX/gotha 229. The first prototype did 4 very satisfying test flights, before it crash landed due to an engine failure. The plane was allmost completely build from wood and welded steel tubes, not so advanced huh. The plane flew well, so the concept worked. Fact is, only the V1 flew. When allied troops overran the gotha factories, some 5 or 6 more prototypes were discouvered in various states of readiness. Some even with weapon bays. Sadly for the german warfare machine, gotha didn't had enough skilled woodworkers, unbombed workshop space and influence to make the fighters in a high tempo. Other projects were found to be more urgent. If the Horton plane got the same recourses availible as for messerschmitt or focke wulf projects, a lot more planes would have flown.


Dag Tom, I agree that the Ho IX would have been a great aircraft though I feel that it would have taken a long time before the aircraft had been operational. I don't think you can blame that on Gotha not having the resources (I mean, they built wooden gliders, didn't they?) but Gotha was also working on its own version, the P 60. Not only did that slow down the development of the Ho IX, it also shows that there was room for improvement. Although not a dramatic problem, the directional stability and especially the stability in turning and banking tailless aircraft is rather weak. Especially the CoG of the Ho IX was a serious disadvantage and could only be remedied by adding 600kg of ballast. The P 60 solved this by moving the engines backward and outward. 
AAF TRANSLATION NO.525 COMPARISONS OF THE 8-229 AND THE GO P-60 ALL-WING AIRPLANES

Personally, I think the directional problems would have kept it from being an effective fighter plane. I think the future for Horten's designs laid in long range aircraft and especially bombers where directional stability and turns are less of an issue. 

And one more little thing, the V1 only flew as a glider. It's the V2 that flew few hours before an engine failure caused its crash landing. Or at least, that's what I read at Farnborough_05.
Kris


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 13, 2007)

Udet said:


> fLYBOY, i agree with you on most accounts.
> 
> But the questions:
> 
> Aren´t all planes vulnerable when approaching the runway from the air with the undercarriage out?


 Absolutely - they are "dirty," gear down flaps down and creating a lot of drag - it will take several seconds to get cleaned up and accelerate, even in modern aircraft. They are also limited on how fast they could fly with the gear extended before damage is caused to the airframe.


Udet said:


> So, let´s suppose a Bf 109 or P-51 that approaches the runway or landing strip gets tailed by an enemy plane, you mean they had bigger chances to get out of problem because they could accelerate faster than the Me 262 could?


Yes - recip aircraft at lower transonic speeds have an acceleration advantage over most jets, especially if we're talking about first generation jets. You give power to just about any WW2 fighter and she will move immediately, a jet on other hand will lag for several seconds and the spool up is slow


Udet said:


> Finally, and please forgive my ignorance, i do not know what aircraft the L-29 is...to what type of craft are we here referring to?


Ex-Czech AF trainer - its M701 engine is a huge centrifugal similar to the nene or RD-45. Once it gets going it has a top speed of about 400 MPH (On a good day)







I've actually worked on and flown in this one. My friend Bob Stambowski is flying it.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Udet (Mar 13, 2007)

Flyboy: great explanation. Thanks a lot!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 13, 2007)

My pleasure...


----------



## davparlr (Mar 13, 2007)

[email protected] said:


> I completely disagree with what you say on the Horton IX/gotha 229. The first prototype did 4 very satisfying test flights, before it crash landed due to an engine failure. The plane was allmost completely build from wood and welded steel tubes, not so advanced huh. The plane flew well, so the concept worked. Fact is, only the V1 flew. When allied troops overran the gotha factories, some 5 or 6 more prototypes were discouvered in various states of readiness. Some even with weapon bays. Sadly for the german warfare machine, gotha didn't had enough skilled woodworkers, unbombed workshop space and influence to make the fighters in a high tempo. Other projects were found to be more urgent. If the Horton plane got the same recourses availible as for messerschmitt or focke wulf projects, a lot more planes would have flown.



Civittone addressed this quite adequately. Pitch stability was very marginable and directional stability was practically non-existant. Solving these problems was going to take a lot of work and may be impractical for a fighter (without the flight control computers we have today).

The plane may have been built of wood but aerodynamically, it was very advanced and required a lot of work.



> On the Ta-183,
> The only thing that actually was "wrong" with the huck, was that it didn't had wing fences. In a turn, the air would just follow the leading edge of the wing or run parrallell with the wing's leading edge, and so, no lift would be produced anymore and the plane would fall down. On the pulqui II, this was resolved by putting fences on the wing (small fin like things, in somewhere in the middle of the wing.) The russians did the same on the mig 15.
> 
> Tom



For some reason, the wing structure was raised from mid-ship to shoulder placement, a major design change. Again, with such a new design, much work would have been needed.


----------



## [email protected] (Mar 14, 2007)

I didn't say the 229 would have been an effective fighter aircraft! I only sayed it was allmost in production.

My source is the book from Reimar Horten

The RLM's E-stelle's order to build 40 pre production aircraft is dated 13 october '44, 2 months before the maiden of the V2 (indeed, my mistake, V1 was the glider which made several more flights and was captured by US troops) 20 were to be builded by gotha, 20 by klemm. Later this was changed, and gotha would have builded all the 40 aircraft. 
Horten also tested a longer nose variant with a H-II with new center section to test the longer nose. 
The cg on a flying wing is critical indeed. A lot of ballast was needed in the nose. But the armament wasn't installed yet, and with the longer nose of the V6, I think the problem could be solved, because the cockpit would be further to the front, and so creating a bigger moment. (V6 was to be a 2 seater/night fighter) Also, the planking of the wing was changed from a 17mm thick laminat to a 8 mm thick one. This would save 574kg.
On 14 july 44, the decision was taken, by gotha, to build the first 20 wings. A furniture workshop was contracted to do this. On 21 september '44 the Jäger sonderprogramm was made public and the furniture workshop could order through Gotha. Horten says it took 2500 hours to build a wing, I ask myself then why not more wings were captured by allied troops? If Gotha contracted a furniture workshop, it seems to me that they hadn't enough skilled woodworkers availeble,no?

Tom


----------



## davparlr (Mar 14, 2007)

[email protected] said:


> I didn't say the 229 would have been an effective fighter aircraft! I only sayed it was allmost in production.
> 
> My source is the book from Reimar Horten
> 
> ...



After the war, I believe John Northrop tried to get Walter Horten to come to America to work for him. Unfortunately, he could not pull the right governmental strings. I saw John Northrop once, he was very old and in a wheel chair. He had been given a one day clearance to be briefed on the B-2 bomber. After the meeting he said "Now I know why God has kept me alive so long."


----------



## Civettone (Mar 17, 2007)

Tom, I know you didn't say it would have been an effective fighter. That was a personal statement of mine ... and said so.

I thought the ballast would go to the rear of the plane... 

And about the building of the wings. In 1944 there may have been a small shortage of professional woodcraftsmen but I'm sure there were enough people around to build a couple of flying wings. Just look at the He 162 project which started weeks later. 

Kris


----------



## Udet (Mar 17, 2007)

Monsieur Civettone:

Not sure if i am recalling it right, but was it you that suggested on some other thread it could have been more viable to the Germans to produce more Bachems to have them launched in numbers during the final stages of the war? (or something to that effect).

If so, do you recall what thread was it? 

Merci beaucoup


----------



## [email protected] (Mar 18, 2007)

Civettone said:


> Tom, I know you didn't say it would have been an effective fighter. That was a personal statement of mine ... and said so.
> 
> I thought the ballast would go to the rear of the plane...
> 
> ...




Goeie morgent Kris

Owkay on the statement, I think I misunderstood you. 
No idea if the balast had to go on the back or the front in the Horten. All flying wings I've seen so far, in modelling, needed balast in the nose, also the Horten types. I may have been wrong, thinking it was the same on the real thing. On the production planes, they were lightening the wing planking, to save weight, and most of the planking is behind the cg, I would not change it if I needed weight behind the cg. But as I said, I don't know this. 
And true, there were skilled woodcrafting man in germany. The heinkel 162 is a nice example, and the Ta-154 was also a wooden plane. But if workers were availeble, and wood was availeble, and they had some sort of semi decent glue, why did the program progressed then so slow?

Tom


----------



## delcyros (Mar 18, 2007)

> And true, there were skilled woodcrafting man in germany. The heinkel 162 is a nice example, and the Ta-154 was also a wooden plane. But if workers were availeble, and wood was availeble, and they had some sort of semi decent glue, why did the program progressed then so slow?


I never saw it developing slowly. They had the unpowered V-1 prototype in the air in mid-late 44, after only little over 14 months of work. They concluded flighttests with it in early 45 and even finished "schießanflugtests" with it. What probably delayed the Hortens was that they had no access to DVL windtunnels for detail questions, that´s why they rebuilded the Ho-II glider with Ho-IX fuselage as flying experimentalplane. But even then the program advanced with the jet powered 2nd prototype ready in late 44 (disputed whether or not the maiden flight was in dec. 44 or feb. 45).


----------



## GregP (Mar 18, 2007)

The wing loading of the P-80A and the Me-262A-1a are virtually identical at normal loaded weight. Both are 61 pounds per square foot (OK, the Me 262A-1a is 60.5 pounds per square foot while the P-80A is 61 pounds per square foot). Too close to call.

The straight wing of the P80A would make it the more maneuverable of the two, even at speed since neither was a transonic fighter. The Me-262 was placarded at 540 mph. Anything past that and the pilot was flying in "test pilot" mode. Several such "test pilots" dived into the ground while pulling very hard on the stick. Much later, so did Lear 23 pilots.

Talk of the Me 262 as a Mach 1 plane is rubbish. None of the WWII jets were capable of Mach 1, and neither was the MiG-15 of considerably later vintage. There is a website perporting the 262 as having been dived to Mach 1. Let's just say that wrong is wrong, and will be forever.

Since transonic speed was not a real factor, the P-80A would have been the better mount, though not by much and I say pilot skill would have decided the outcome. In a pinch, the best pilot in the P-80A would have beaten the same pilot in the Me 262, but it would not be a walk away and the outcome would be in some doubt.

In most circumstances, all things being equal, I'd say the two planes were a match. The P-80A has a slight edge in altitude, as the MiGs did in Korea, and could have swooped down from higher altitude to pick off Me 262's, but it would have been a close thing since neither had anything like sufficient range.

In actual reality, they would have been pretty even with a slight edge to the P-80A in range and altitude and definite edge to the Me 262 in firepower. I respect the Me 262 as the first, but the Vampire and Meteros were CLOSE, and so was the P-80A. Still first into squadron servce was first, and it belongs to the Me 262.

"First" doesn't mean "best," and most people are not aware that there were over 2,000 jets flyable world wide by the end of the war.

Personally, I think the best jet fighter made before 1950 was the SAAB J-29. It outperformed the Sabre and MiG-15 and has never recieved its due, but it definitely wasn't a WWII jet.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 18, 2007)

GregP said:


> Personally, I think the best jet fighter made before 1950 was the SAAB J-29. It outperformed the Sabre and MiG-15 and has never recieved its due, but it definitely wasn't a WWII jet.


The J-29 was a great aircraft but it was developed after both the contemporary models of the Mig and Sabre - in other words the Swedes learned from the mistakes of the first two. The first one flew a year later after the first F-86 and it's introduction into service was slow. Later model F-86Hs, Canadair Sabre IVs and Furies were way better performers as were the Mig-17. Credit is due, it served until 1968.


----------



## Erich (Mar 18, 2007)

so Greg you spoke with Guido Mütke first hand to deny his reported dive ? do not be so sure. I interviewed the man about 10 years ago primarily for JG 7 research the unit he was part of. In cases like these it is best to remain neutral and hear the stories and then put into perspective. Outright denial of something like this since we were not alive nor present is not a wise thing .......... ~

E ~


----------



## Udet (Mar 18, 2007)

Do not take me wrong here, i find the academic debate very interesting. I enjoy reading the several opinions that compare the Me 262 with other jets already in existance by war´s end.

Still, i am on a collision course with Mr. Greg´s opinions as i can read them on his last posting.

The Me 262s flown by the pilots of Kommando Nowotny, JG 7, JV 44, EJG 2, I./KG(J) 54 shot down all the planes, fighters and bombers, in the menu of the USAAF in combat, and do not forget 10./NJG 11 who also processed Mosquitoes and other RAF bombers.

Not to offend the gentlemen of 616 sqn. known for having filed claims they "flew combat missions". Possibly they were observing migratory birds over Scotland from their Meteor cockpits, even perhaps over the Orkneys.

No USAAF or RAF guy who flew the jet each force had during 1945 gathered the information, knowledge and experience of having been through COMBAT inside the cockpit of a jet, simple.

These German guys learned what a certain enemy type of plane demanded in combat when flying the jet; the P-80 and Meteor guys were 100% clueless on this regard.

I have not read that much on the P-80, but have about the Gloster Meteor, and excuse me Mr. Greg but everything i have read is nowhere near to indicate "they would have been pretty even". 

The Meteor would not find itself in a nice position against a Me 262, but it is here that i read from Flyboy some testings revealed the P-80 was surpassed by ther Me 262, even if it was nearly 1 ton heavier than the USA design...

Back to the guys of 616 sqn., a squadron claiming to have become "operational" several months before the end of the war. Sorry but chasing V1 bombs over Great Britain is not a very demanding task, which was by the way already being carried out with a sufficient degree of success by not so very reliable Tempest planes.

Compare any guy from the 616 sqn. with Heinz Bär, Walter Schuck, Fritz Stehle, Rudolf Rademacher, "Quax" Schnörrer and many more and you know what i am talking about. When the war ended these German gentlemen were or should have been the most important flyers on planet earth. Forget all of your RAF and USAAF aces when it all ends on May 1945. Bring me the jet fliers who caused a few thousands of my men were never seen again.

I agree "First" is not necessarly the "better". But putting aside the academic debating which i described as interesting, i am sure neither allied jet plane was "better" or "clearly better" than the Me 262.

Furthemore: It is the first and the only for it is the only one who shed blood.


----------



## syscom3 (Mar 18, 2007)

Erich said:


> so Greg you spoke with Guido Mütke first hand to deny his reported dive ? do not be so sure. I interviewed the man about 10 years ago primarily for JG 7 research the unit he was part of. In cases like these it is best to remain neutral and hear the stories and then put into perspective. Outright denial of something like this since we were not alive nor present is not a wise thing .......... ~
> 
> E ~



Erich, remember that the speed instruments in 1944/45 were notoriously inaccurate as the plane entered the high subsonic speed regime.

He might have thought he was going Mach 1, but probably was well short of the mark.

Same as the claims that P47 and P38 pilots had when they were in power dives.


----------



## davparlr (Mar 18, 2007)

GregP said:


> The wing loading of the P-80A and the Me-262A-1a are virtually identical at normal loaded weight. Both are 61 pounds per square foot (OK, the Me 262A-1a is 60.5 pounds per square foot while the P-80A is 61 pounds per square foot). Too close to call.
> 
> The straight wing of the P80A would make it the more maneuverable of the two, even at speed since neither was a transonic fighter. The Me-262 was placarded at 540 mph. Anything past that and the pilot was flying in "test pilot" mode. Several such "test pilots" dived into the ground while pulling very hard on the stick. Much later, so did Lear 23 pilots.
> 
> ...



Well, I agree with all of the above, except for


> The P-80A has a slight edge in altitude


. I think that the 7500' altitude advantage of the P-80A over the Me-262A-1a is significant. Also, as for the J-29 comment, I don't know enough about the J-29 early models to agree or disagree. Although I respect Flyboyj comment. The F-86F was definately faster and had a much better climb rate than the J-29F. Again, I know nothing of the earlier J-29 models.


----------



## Erich (Mar 19, 2007)

sys there was a very lengthy conversation between ground control and Mütke during his escapade and it was an almost epic - death, the jet nearly blew the bolts out of the fuselage and wings. Again we can tamper with the story all we want and Mütke has passed onward but I point out we were not there when this happened, and again big deal if he broke it or Yeager did


----------



## syscom3 (Mar 19, 2007)

Erich said:


> sys there was a very lengthy conversation between ground control and Mütke during his escapade and it was an almost epic - death, the jet nearly blew the bolts out of the fuselage and wings. Again we can tamper with the story all we want and Mütke has passed onward but I point out we were not there when this happened, and again big deal if he broke it or Yeager did



Sounds exactly like what the P38 pilots were reporting......shock waves impacting on the tail and fuselage.


----------



## Bullockracing (Mar 19, 2007)

Actually Yeager's gauge did the "Mach flutter" on the X-1. At the same time, there was a F-86 test pilot who experienced the same phenomenon in a power dive a few days prior. He was squelched due to politics, but the claim was voiced even in the Happy Bottom Riding Club bar, since Jackie Cochran was bigger buddies with Chuck Yeager... Got the interview with the F-86 pilot article at home.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 19, 2007)

Bullockracing said:


> Actually Yeager's gauge did the "Mach flutter" on the X-1. At the same time, there was a F-86 test pilot who experienced the same phenomenon in a power dive a few days prior. He was squelched due to politics, but the claim was voiced even in the Happy Bottom Riding Club bar, since Jackie Cochran was bigger buddies with Chuck Yeager... Got the interview with the F-86 pilot article at home.


Yeager's X-1 did mach flutter and then it exceeded Mach 1. This was also verified by telemetry stations on the ground. George Welch exceeded mach 1 in a dive unofficially - It wasn't squelched at all, he did it to piss off Yeager who he didn't like. Jackie Cochran? You mean Pancho Barnes.


----------



## GregP (Mar 19, 2007)

Hi Udet,

I don't have to interview a WWII jet pilot to know taht the Me 262 cannot break the sound barrier. I was trained as a aeronautical engineer at a time MUCH later than WWII. The Me 262 is subsonic. Period.

No shame in that, all OTHER jets were subsonic, too.

Also, I never said the Meteor was better than the Me 262, I said that in my opinion, the P-80A was better, though not by much.

If I had to have a squadron of either type in peacetime, I would choose the P-80A for better reliability and ease of maintenance.

In wartime, if I had to attack bombers, I would choose the Me 262. Great performance and great armament ... but you can't base them too far away, so you'd have to choose the bases VERY craefully.

I have absolute respect for the Luftwaffe and their equipment. They shot down the most enemies of all air forces in WWII ... but they lost the war. The loss was not the direct fault of the Luftwaffe (that's a whole subject in itself), but they DID lose. So ... I argue that 1,000 B-17s escorted by 800 Mustangs was a MUCH MORE EFFECTIVE attack force than 20 Me 262's were a defensive force.

Actually the question was Me 262 vs. P-80A and my opinion is the P-80A was marginally better. Please recall I satted taht the outcome would probably be due to pilot skill. I think we can ALL figure out who would have won if a P-80A piloted by an average American had engaged one-on-one with an Me 262 piloted by Adolph Galland.

The point, at least in MY book, is that by late 1944, there were VERY FEW German "Experten" comapred with the planes attacking them. Since this entire thread is an exercise in "what if," I choose to believe that if the U.S.A. had fielded the P-80A, it would have done so in numbers far greater than the Me 262's. 

The reasoning is simple, the P-80A factories were not being bombed on a daily basis.

In point of fact, the war was being won anyway and the U.S.A. elected to NOT mass-produce or deploy the P-80A during WWII. Yes, I KNOW that two P-80A's made it to Italy, but they didn't see combat and they weren't "operational." It was an experiment to check out the new technology.

The only combat jet to see widespread service over Europe was the Me 262, and it did a credible job, but not a great job. There weren't enough of them to justify the incredible amount of resources that went into development. In thruth, the Me 262 only helped seal Germany's fate by wasting resources that COULD have been better used elsewhere.

Historically, the Me 262 was important. Tactically, it was so-so ... nothing to write home about. Strategically, it was a dismal failure, and World War is won by strategic superiority.

I say neither plane was a real factor in WWII, but the Me 262 helped shape at least two or three generations of subsequent jet fighters and so deserves its place in history.

Lockheed built 917 P-80A's and B's, and 798 P-80C's. They also built almost 7,000 T-33's as well as 854 F-94's (derived from the T-33) and 150 (T2V 1 Sea Stars for the Navy.

Messerschmitt built 1,433 Me 262's of all variants.

Historically, I'd say the Lockheeds blew away the Messerschmitt easily as a much more produced design (about 6,500 more Lockheeds than Messerschmitts). The Lockheed had a longer service life than the Messerschmitt by over 50 years and is still flown regularly today.

The only flyable Me 262 is a new-build machine, made here in the U.S.A. as a labor of love. It has modern engines and main landing gear from a Grumman S2F, and is a good machine, but there are only 5 that will be flyable.

LOTS of T-33's around. I volunteer every Saturday at a Museum that regularly flies one and uses it to start the U.S.A. Reno Air Races every year. It is reliable and going strong. 

No Messerschmitts do the same.

The Lockheed has proven itself over time and continues to do so. No Me 262 can make that claim.

Need I elaborate any further? Lockheed all the way!


----------



## davparlr (Mar 19, 2007)

I forgot one of the interesting points of getting good air data when I was discussing the difficulty of ascertaining TAS (and Mach). The air flow is perturbed ahead of the aircraft (except, of course, at supersonic speed). The perturbation is a factor times chord length, I believe. This is why flight test aircraft typically have a long pitop probe. On the B-2, this would have required a flight test probe length of 60', if I remember correctly. This was not acceptable so the B-2 flight test aircraft used a drogue for air data. On pictures of the flight test aircraft, the drogue support structure can be seen at aft top center of the aircraft.

Anyway, this just show the unreliability of raw air data on an aircraft and why pilot reports on what these instrument say can be misleading.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 19, 2007)

GregP said:


> LOTS of T-33's around. I volunteer every Saturday at a Museum that regularly flies one and uses it to start the U.S.A. Reno Air Races every year. It is reliable and going strong.


Very cool - I used to work on one in Mojave - Got to fly it a few times...



GregP said:


> Need I elaborate any further? Lockheed all the way!



As a former CALAC employee, I'm almost in tears!


----------



## Bullockracing (Mar 20, 2007)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Yeager's X-1 did mach flutter and then it exceeded Mach 1. This was also verified by telemetry stations on the ground. George Welch exceeded mach 1 in a dive unofficially - It wasn't squelched at all, he did it to piss off Yeager who he didn't like. Jackie Cochran? You mean Pancho Barnes.



You are correct - mixed up my aviatrix (es). I got the info from an Aviation History article, which didn't seem to convey any animosity between them whatsoever. Hmmm...

Once again, I am in awe of the knowledge on this forum...


----------



## delcyros (Mar 20, 2007)

I very much agree in what GregP already said. He pointed it down as it should be seen other than "what if´s".
Am not sure about Mutke´s claim. I too used to believe he was subsonic but recent analysis of the structural airframe done by aeronautical institute of the TU-Munich (which also contributes to Desa efforts, they are professionals) showed that it is not impossible for the -262 to reach Mach 1 from point of drag and structural issues (altough a "Verwindungsbruch" could be expected in a prolonged event) in the circumstances as described by Mutke. However, the paper closes with the conclusion that all things have to fit to make it through, which in turn makes it improbable that it really did happen.


----------



## Parmigiano (Mar 20, 2007)

Greg, I think your post is valid and sound, some points are in my view debatable but your position is absolutely sustainable.

except for this part, that seems completely nonsense:

"Historically, I'd say the Lockheeds blew away the Messerschmitt easily as a much more produced design (about 6,500 more Lockheeds than Messerschmitts). The Lockheed had a longer service life than the Messerschmitt by over 50 years and is still flown regularly today.

The only flyable Me 262 is a new-build machine, made here in the U.S.A. as a labor of love. It has modern engines and main landing gear from a Grumman S2F, and is a good machine, but there are only 5 that will be flyable.

LOTS of T-33's around. I volunteer every Saturday at a Museum that regularly flies one and uses it to start the U.S.A. Reno Air Races every year. It is reliable and going strong. 

No Messerschmitts do the same.

The Lockheed has proven itself over time and continues to do so. No Me 262 can make that claim.

Need I elaborate any further? Lockheed all the way!"

It is nonsense because it's like to compare 2 persons of which one died in the infancy: what does it means that the one who survived became taller than the other?

And don't go back to the usual agument 'but the P80 was on the winner side': the P80 has absolutely nothing to do with the victory, and the 262 has nothing to do with the defeat of Germany.

The only comparison that can be made historically is up to May 1945: and by then it was the 262 who was 'blewing away' the P80, that was way behind in development.

Speculations then can be made 'IF' the P80 could have been developed before and 'IF' the 262 could have been developed after 1945.
And also about how much the learning of the 262 (and in general of German technology) contributed to the development of the P80 and other jets.


----------



## delcyros (Mar 20, 2007)

Does anybody has access to the results of the flyoffs between P-80 and -262? I know that one flyoff resulted in equality while another showed -262 advances. Rumors say the latter was with an early YP80-prototype with an engine not rated to full power. Can anyone verify?

Thanks in advance,
delc


----------



## GregP (Mar 25, 2007)

Hi Parmigiano,

You are, of course, entitled to your opinion, and I see you have one. This thread is an exercise in "What if." Anyone engaging in "what if" can postulate whatever he or she wants.

I happen to believe that if the U.S.A. had seen a real advantage in producing the P-80A, they would have done so in massive numbers, rather quickly. I believe this because they actually DID it with the P-51, P-47, B-17, B-24, etc.

Messerschmitt never had anything like enough resources and he didn't ever have anything like enough engines. If he HAD the engines, he'd have fielded only half as many Me 262's as P-80A's since they each took two engines to the Lockheed's one.

You think what you like. I say the Lockheed was the marginally better aircraft, even though the Me 262 was first into operational service. I also say the Vampire and Meteor weren't exactly worthless.

The Vampire would have out-maneuvered the Me 262, but I do not claim it was ever as good or better than the Me 262. The Meat Box was a neat exercise, but was not up to the Me 262 either.

Let's say that we agree to disagree. Since there aren't entire squadrons of operational Me 262's ready to do battle with hordes of operational P-80A's, we will never really know, will we? Still, the Lockheed T-33 flies regularly and performs very well today ... in real time.

The only Me 262 that flies was made in U.S.A., uses US engines, US instruments, and Grumman landing gear. 

You go ahead and tout the Me 262. I understand "favorites," I have them, too. The P-80A isn't really one of them, but it IS better than the Me 262 in my opinion.


----------



## Parmigiano (Mar 26, 2007)

Hi Greg,

I think that 'we agree AND disagree' rather than 'we agree TO disagree'... 



GregP said:


> Hi Parmigiano,
> 
> You are, of course, entitled to your opinion, and I see you have one. This thread is an exercise in "What if." Anyone engaging in "what if" can postulate whatever he or she wants..



Yes and not. Comparing the career of an aircraft developed for 30 years to an aircraft whose development stopped after two is not a fair 'what if' (unless, of course, if the development stop was decided because of unacceptable performances, but that was not the case for the 262)



GregP said:


> I happen to believe that if the U.S.A. had seen a real advantage in producing the P-80A, they would have done so in massive numbers, rather quickly. I believe this because they actually DID it with the P-51, P-47, B-17, B-24, etc.



I agree on this, if war would had continued in 1946 probably US would had mass produced the P80.
But in 1944-45 the development of P80 was quite behind the 262, and US had no reason to fast-forward it because the war was already won.



GregP said:


> Messerschmitt never had anything like enough resources and he didn't ever have anything like enough engines. If he HAD the engines, he'd have fielded only half as many Me 262's as P-80A's since they each took two engines to the Lockheed's one.
> 
> You think what you like. I say the Lockheed was the marginally better aircraft, even though the Me 262 was first into operational service. I also say the Vampire and Meteor weren't exactly worthless.
> 
> The Vampire would have out-maneuvered the Me 262, but I do not claim it was ever as good or better than the Me 262. The Meat Box was a neat exercise, but was not up to the Me 262 either.



Again, I agree that the 262 was more expensive to build than the P80. I would add that even if the necessary number of engines was the same, the US would had likely produced far more units than Germany could.

I agree on the Vampire, that was a pretty neat aircraft. I disagree on the Meteor: the machine was designed for the Welland, had already ballast problems when they had to delete 2 guns, when the engine was replaced with the Derwent the higher weight of the engine required even more ballast and as a result the machine was restricted for aerobatics: not a good business card for a fighter. The first decent Meteor was the 1947 F4

Again, too easy to say that a 1947 or 1950 Meteor was better than a 1944 Me262.
The 'what if' should be ' is a 1947 Meteor F4 better than the planned upgrades of Me262 in 1947 ?'

The 'is' is that the 1944-45 Me262 was better than the contemporary Meteor.

The Vampire, for me, is already part of a next generation and I believe it would had outperformed the 262 as a dogfighter.




GregP said:


> Let's say that we agree to disagree. Since there aren't entire squadrons of operational Me 262's ready to do battle with hordes of operational P-80A's, we will never really know, will we? Still, the Lockheed T-33 flies regularly and performs very well today ... in real time.
> 
> The only Me 262 that flies was made in U.S.A., uses US engines, US instruments, and Grumman landing gear.
> 
> You go ahead and tout the Me 262. I understand "favorites," I have them, too. The P-80A isn't really one of them, but it IS better than the Me 262 in my opinion.



Look, it is not a matter of 'favorites', it is a matter of 'general rules'
I believe it is flawed logic to use the P80-T33 development in 30+ years as reason to state that it was better than the 1944 vintage 262. 
It may be, but we can't compare how the 262 could have been in 30+ years of development. 

As example, it is said that the French Dewoitine 520 was equal or better than the contemporary (1940) Bf109E. 
Maybe true, maybe not (I confess my ignorance about this), but for me it would be unacceptable to say 'the Bf109 was better because the 1945 109K4 (or the 1943 109G6) was outperforming the De520' : the Dewoitine did not had the chance to be developed further, the 109 did.

Nothing to say against the P80-T33: it was a great aircraft, maybe in 1946 it would have been better than the hypotetical 1946 version of the Me 262, but to say that it was better because the development continued after 1945 while the 262 was stopped just makes no sense.

This logic would be perfect if we want to compare P80 vs Meteor, since both aircrafts had similar opportunities to continue development after 1945.


----------



## Bullockracing (Mar 28, 2007)

To narrow this down - the question is really which aircraft is the better performer? You must eliminate all the variables to get down to the nitty-gritty of which is the better aircraft - airframe, engines, design attributes flaws, ease of maintenance, unit cost, cost of operation, etc. You must also keep this apples to apples and oranges to oranges. If the US built the 262 instead of the Germans, the design would have been simpler, cheaper, and of slightly lower quality, but there would have been a lot more of them. If the P80 was built by the Germans, it would have been more refined, into production sooner, and in far fewer numbers, and then inevitably shot out of the sky by the insurmountable Allied air superiority.

My two cents: The 262 was a better design, easier to maintain (keep in mind all other things equal), and better armored armed. At any point in time while the 262 was flying operationally, it would have whipped whatever version of the P-80 that was flying.


----------



## royal744 (Apr 17, 2007)

I wonder why there doesn't seem to be much mention of the Gloster Meteor on this site? All the ballyhoo about the Me262 and how "advanced" the Germans were..... well, it is true that they saw combat service.... but the British Meteor was ready for combat duty (againstV-1s) in 1944 and the American rather poor Airacomet was coming along. So there was never going to be much of a competiive advantage in Germany's favor for long, especially as when they were very low on jet feul, and their factories and runways were being mercilessly pounded. One wonders if the relative tardiness of the British was due to an overabundance of caution which they could afford, and the rushing of the Me262 was due to an overabundance of urgent need which was irresistible. INteresting...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 18, 2007)

The early Meteors would not have been much of a match for the Me 262 anyhow. The 262 outperformed the Meteor and was an overall better aircraft. The later Meteors turned out to be great aircraft but by then (what if scenerio the war last longer) the Luftwaffe and the USAAF would have better jets still than the Meteor.

Besides this thread was about the P-80 and the Me 262 not the Meteor...


----------



## kool kitty89 (Aug 31, 2007)

I think the major drawback to the 262 would be its engines. The 32"x152" 1,980 lbf thrust Jumo 004 weighed 1,585 lb compared to the 1321 lbf thrust 837 lb HeS-8 (centrifugal but 1.5" dia. less than 004 and less than half the length at 30.5"x63") or more powerful the axial 24.4"x107" 859 lb 2004 lbf thrust HeS-30 which both could have entered production around the same time had the government not cancelled them. The originally planned BMW 003 
would have also been better at 27"x139" 1240lb with 1760 lbf had it not run into design problems. The Me 262 might have actually been faster and lighter than the p-80 had better engines been used. (The 262 weighs ~5300 lb w/out engines while the P-80 weighs ~6600 lb w/out it's engine)

Most early production quality centrifugal turbojets had a much better thrust to weight ratio than theiraxial counterparts except the above mentioned HeS-30. The larger diameter (especialy in Whittle's misguided reverse-flow design) was the only major drawback, but even this wasn't seen so much in the HeS-8. A big production plus is that the welland,inspite of it's chunky reverse flow design, could easily be produced by existing turbocharger manufactures. GE managed to get it's whittle based 850 lb ~47"x70" I-16 (J31) engine up to 2000 lbf from it's original 1650 lbf by the time the P-59B entered production. (as a side note this gave the Airacomet a thrust/weight ratio of ~0.35 with standard load and ~0.31 with a max load but due to it's poor aerodynamics with thick wing and wing-root mounted engines it performed worse than the F1 meteor and the P-51.)

The Germans and americans both could have had working jets sooner but both airforce commands were uninterested in early developments: 

The germans weren't swayed untill a mock dogfight was staged between the HeS-8 powered He-280 and the Focke-Wulf Fw 190 and even that came after multiple attemptsby Heinkel to intrest the Luftwaffe.
Wikipedia: "Had the German government given support to production, the He-280s could conceivably have gone into production earlier in the war and reached the Luftwaffe earlier than was ultimately the case with the Me 262. But it was not to be, as Udet, on that March day in 1941, could not see a need for a plane without propellers, no matter what its future might be." About the He-178: " On November 1, 1939, Heinkel arranged a demonstration of the jet for the Reichsluftfahrtministerium ("Reich Aviation Ministry", RLM), where both Ernst Udet and Erhard Milch watched the aircraft perform. However, due to the conservative approach to aircraft design then favoured by both men, no official interest in the concept was shown."

The US wasn't interested until the british designs were almost ready for production. The L-1000 axial-flow engine, the United States's first jet design could have been ready for production around the same time had they shown intrest. Wikipedia: "The J37, known inside Lockheed as the L-1000, was the first turbojet engine designed in the United States. It was not considered important at first, and by the time it was British designs were already entering production. The design was built to the extent of testbed examples, but never entered production.Work on the design started in 1939 as part of their L133 fighter design, and was presented to the US Army Air Corps in 1940. The Air Corps proved uninterested and declined to fund development."

Personally I think the Me-262 would have been ahead of the P-80 with alternative engines and guns mached for dogfighting rather than anti-bomber
the He-280 could have been quite formidable had the Luftwaffe thaken earlier intrest, and who knows what the L133 would have been like. 

Also Czechoslovakia had the 262 in service untill 1957. I think the P-59 should have done better than it did and would have, even with the thick wings, if the engines had been mounted under mid-wing instead of at the wing roots, or maby if they were mounted in interwing nacelles like the Meteor but still aganst the fusilage, but then the tailplane would have probably had to be rased too. Would have been better than their AiracommetII, yuck.

Pictured is Hall Hibbard with a model of the Lockheed Model 133, the precursor to the P-80 that was designed around Lockheed's L-1000 jet engine.


----------



## Konigstiger205 (Aug 31, 2007)

I have to go with the Me262...although it had its bugs it saw combat in WW2 and it was an excellent bomber destroyer.


----------



## drgondog (Aug 31, 2007)

Erich said:


> so Greg you spoke with Guido Mütke first hand to deny his reported dive ? do not be so sure. I interviewed the man about 10 years ago primarily for JG 7 research the unit he was part of. In cases like these it is best to remain neutral and hear the stories and then put into perspective. Outright denial of something like this since we were not alive nor present is not a wise thing .......... ~
> 
> E ~



Erich - there were at least three major factors that would almost certainly keep the 262 from going supersonic.. 

Number one is that the Mcr was somewhere between .83 and .86 with transonic flow starting either over it's fat little wings or fuselage or both. It's a LOOOOOONG way to climb over the resultant drag rise

Number two is that the little sucker was way too underpowered to push it through the drag rise... and I'm very doubtful of the intake nacelle design - thinkin that any premature local shock there could yield an immediate compressor stall.

Number three is that it started it's pitch down phase at the .86 range which according to test pilots would a render the stick immovable plus continue nose down pitch until destruction - if not slowed. This was probably due to transonic effect and shock wave over wing starting to blank the elevators

The fuselage was not designed with area rule in mind so doubtful that even with much better engines, a thinner wing and more sweep - that it could punch through the drag rise past .9.

I have no idea what stability would result as transonic flow moved the center of lift further back - and would the continued shock wave disrupt elevators effectiveness as it seemed to in un altered design, but also change the static margin between Cl and Cg - have to see the wind tunnel results to understand if it is even controllable after .86-.90. assuming NO disruption of flow over elevators

Instrument readings from a pitot tube would be totally unreliable in 1945 as the stagnant pressure readings would be unreliable well before Mach 1 - they would be in compressibility range - which is why so many pilots stated they were going "600 mph" when in fact they were closer to 500 TAS.

I suspect the last factor to be the one leading Mutke to believe he punched through 

Helluva airplane though.


----------



## Erich (Aug 31, 2007)

Guido did say several times that he thought was going to die, the 262 was rattling and vibrating apart. Now if we take into consideration that this was all recorded from him to ground crews and whom may have confirmed and tested the results is probably another matter and continues even in Germany to be under investigation


----------



## kool kitty89 (Sep 3, 2007)

I just found some more data about the airacomet: it's designers were largely restricted from wind-tunnel use to optimise the airframe and the little time they were allowed use of one was with a low speed wind-tunnel. Also the large wing was used to allow high altitude flight, (which it did, and in one test made a new altitude record of 47,600 ft!) but the large wing area and span restricted top speed and roll. So even though the better version(P-59B) had a thrust to weight ratio almost 13% better than the P-80 shooting star it only had a top level-flight speed of 413mph. Still the government plan was basicly the armed and operational equivelent of a testbed or proof of concept aircraft, so I guess a radical design like the L113, even if it had been converted to use GE's engines instead of the incomplete L-1000s, would not have been the most attractive for a shurefire--we don't care as long as it's safe and shure-to-fly (ie. foolproof) new technology aircraft design. And that's one thing the P-59 was, though not the best performing.

P.S. The engine placement probably wasn't the biggest problem; the wing, as aformentioned, with both the largest area and span of any of the first jet-fighter designs. (ie. Meteor, Me-262, He-240, and probably the L113)


----------



## SoD Stitch (Sep 3, 2007)

delcyros said:


> Does anybody has access to the results of the flyoffs between P-80 and -262? I know that one flyoff resulted in equality while another showed -262 advances. Rumors say the latter was with an early YP80-prototype with an engine not rated to full power. Can anyone verify?
> 
> Thanks in advance,
> delc



I don't know about combat comparisons, but I did read that the Me-262 was actually faster than the P-80 by quite a bit; but the results were unpopular with "those in power", so they were suppressed. 

"Postwar tests were conducted at Wright Field comparing performance of the Messerschmitt Me 262 and the Lockheed P-80A. The late Al Boyd ran the test, and the comparison was so favorable to the Me 262 that the results were suppressed. The author found a copy only recently. The tests were not combat maneuvers, but comparisons of speed, rates of climb at different altitudes, and turning radius. The Messerschmitt had better speed and acceleration and an equal climb; the P 80 was easier to handle and had far better visibility." From _Messerschmitt Me 262: Arrow To The Future_, by Walter J. Boyne


----------



## kool kitty89 (Sep 5, 2007)

The 262 only had the speed advantage at medium altitudes as its speed dropped once above a certain point. At the P-80A was faster but by less than 10mph more than the 262's optimum. The 262 had lower roll characteristics due to its long engine nacelles while the P-80's wings were unobstructed. There was a chart that compares their peformance on the first page of this thread. Also the P-80 had quite an altitude advantage (~1000ft).


----------



## Kurfürst (Sep 6, 2007)

kool kitty89 said:


> The 262 only had the speed advantage at medium altitudes as its speed dropped once above a certain point. At the P-80A was faster but by less than 10mph more than the 262's optimum. The 262 had lower roll characteristics due to its long engine nacelles while the P-80's wings were unobstructed. There was a chart that compares their peformance on the first page of this thread. Also the P-80 had quite an altitude advantage (~1000ft).



I am not sure of this, but I haven't seen an actual speed chart for any P-80 variant so far. Common sense though tells me that since the P-80s maximum speed of nearly 900 kph was reached at SL, it means that at all altitudes it was slower than that. The 262 peaked out at 6000m.

I'd love to see that 262/80 Wright Field tests, too. Heard about it so many times..


----------



## kool kitty89 (Sep 13, 2007)

Did you see the chart on page 1? It compares both plane's capabillities as well as top speeds at various altitudes.
Also I think the P-80's better low altitude performance is due to the 800lb thrust water-alcohol boost. From wikipedia: "The J33 was a US-produced development of Frank Whittle's early Rolls-Royce Derwent, enlarged to produce dramatically more thrust, starting at 4,000 lbf and ending at 4,600 lbf with an additional low-altitude boost to 5,400 lbf with water-alcohol injection." Without this the top speed is substancially lower.


----------



## Kurfürst (Sep 14, 2007)

Yes, but I am cautious with charts with limited background information. 

The thrust used is simply not known. Correct me if I am wrong, but P-80A is a later and powerful version than the YP-80 that saw some flights towards the end of the war. It's not known wheter these results for the P-80 are measured or early calculations, wheter they are for a single plane or an avarage of production planes.

The Me 262 figures, for example, appear to be coming from a mass-measurement of serial production Me 262s, involving some 120 plane's avaraged data IIRC !


----------



## drgondog (Sep 14, 2007)

Kurfurst - the first P-80A deliveries started in late Februart 1945. I believe both the GE and Allison J-33's (GE-9 and -11, Allison A9) had 3850 pounds of thrust.

I've seen teo references that stated the higher SL speed which is curious to me as a jet engine is more efficient when the temperature difference between intake and exhaust is greater - and it is a lot colder at 40,000 feet!

I'm still looking for different data on the P-80C delivered with 25 Allison with 5400 pounds of thrust to see the best altitude for TAS.

curious..


----------



## JoeB (Sep 14, 2007)

drgondog said:


> I've seen teo references that stated the higher SL speed which is curious to me as a jet engine is more efficient when the temperature difference between intake and exhaust is greater - and it is a lot colder at 40,000 feet!
> 
> I'm still looking for different data on the P-80C delivered with 25 Allison with 5400 pounds of thrust to see the best altitude for TAS.


The temperature effect is dominant at constant pressure. So for example the s/l thrust of an turbine engine decreases noticeably at higher ambient temperature, important everyday effect for takeoff.

But, when increasing altitude you're decreasing air density a lot and thus mass flow, so the max thrust declines. The drag on the airplane is also tending to decline with altitude, but the combination of those offsetting effects was that early jets had flatter characteristics of speed v altitude than props usually did and some jets did max out at s/l. A slightly later plane more or less comparable to the F-80C is the F9F-2: this link shows its complete speed/altitude curves, it's either max at s/l or almost completely flat depending on configuration, see pg 6.
http://www.history.navy.mil/branches/hist-ac/f9f.pdf

This tendency increased as fighter performance increased and planes got closer to the Mach drag rise in level flight. The lower the altitude the lower the Mach for a given speed so the drag rise is delayed. So, for example the F-86 and MiG-15 both maxed out at s/l.

This changed for supersonic afterburning fighters because the turbine inlet temp no longer limited mass flow, the afterburner did, plus drag characteristics change in supersonic flight. Their max TAS often occurred as high as the tropopause, where air temp stops falling (ca. 50k ft). I don't know the speed/altitude characteristic of plane like the F-22 which can well exceed M1 at high altitude w/o afterburner, but that's getting pretty far OT.  

Another example back in WWII was the Meteor I. It didn't max at s/l but the difference in max speed w/ altitude was smaller than for props, so it was faster than most prop fighters at low altitude, but slower the best props at medium altitude. Hence its combat niche as V1 interceptor at low altitude.

Joe


----------



## drgondog (Sep 14, 2007)

JoeB said:


> The temperature effect is dominant at constant pressure. So for example the s/l thrust of an turbine engine decreases noticeably at higher ambient temperature, important everyday effect for takeoff.
> 
> But, when increasing altitude you're decreasing air density a lot and thus mass flow, so the max thrust declines. The drag on the airplane is also tending to decline with altitude, but the combination of those offsetting effects was that early jets had flatter characteristics of speed v altitude than props usually did and some jets did max out at s/l. A slightly later plane more or less comparable to the F-80C is the F9F-2: this link shows its complete speed/altitude curves, it's either max at s/l or almost completely flat depending on configuration, see pg 6.
> http://www.history.navy.mil/branches/hist-ac/f9f.pdf
> ...



You're right Joe - I should dragged out the propulsion books rather than rely on a memory 40 years out of current


----------



## kool kitty89 (Sep 14, 2007)

I think the Me-262 airframe was superior to both the P-80 and the Meteor, but the plane itsself was not optium. I said earlier that the 262's long nacelles wewe a problem with roll, well I should correct myself. I should have said that the weight of the Junkers 004 (more than 1600 lbs each) engines was what limited roll and with smaller/lighter engines like the originally planned BMW003s (~1300lbs) or, even better, the more powerful smaller, lighter HeS-30 had it not been canceled (only 860 lbs with over 2000lb thrust) it certainly would have been superior (but with such engines the He-280 might even be close to superior.

As it was the 262 was far superior to the F1 meteors (only 417mph max) but the F3, which was deployed over Germany for armed recon and ground attacks in early 1945) was upgraded with better aerodynamics (better, more strongly raked canopy and longer nacelles) was capable of over 490mph at altitude even with only the older 1600lbf welland engines (which only the first 13 F3s were fitted with as the 2000lbf derwent I wasn't available yet) and with the rest of the F3s fitted with derwents their speed would bave been markedly increased. Though the F3 was still about 50mph slower than the 262 its ligher engines (under 1000lbs each) would have allowed for better roll characteristics and its engines were more durrable, lasting many times longer than the 004 engines (which lasted for only around 20 hours with an avrage pilot) and it also had a flight ceiling advantage of a couple thousand feet.(40,000ft compared to the 262's 37,500 ft max) I'm not saying the F3 meteor is superior overall, but it would at least give the Me-262 a run for its money. 

Im not sure how the gun accuracy compared, but even if the F3 meteor's was better this wouldn't be a fair comparison because the 262's 30mm cannon was equipped primarily for bomber attacking (at which it was quite effective) and not for dogfights. As a side note, when the F3s were first stationed in germany in '45 they were often mistaken for Me-262s by friendly anti-aircraft implacements and sometimes even other friendly aircraft. This led to the Meteors being painted white to distiguish them. Luckily there wer no friendly kills resulting from these accedents and the only meteor lost in service over Germany was in a mid-air colission durring bad weather.

Also I think the YP-80A performed about the same as the P-80A but had more engine troubles mostly caused by the fuel-pump and, to a lesser extent, the air intakes (many of which resulted with fatal results). But the P-80A wa already in production before the end of the war anyway: 
"The initial production order was for 344 P-80A's after USAAF acceptance in February 1945. Eighty-three (83) had been delivered by the end of July 1945 and 45 assigned to the 412th Fighter Group (later redesignated the 1st Fighter Group) at Muroc Army Air Field."


----------



## delcyros (Sep 16, 2007)

kool kitty89 said:


> Though the F3 was still about 50mph slower than the 262 its ligher engines (under 1000lbs each) would have allowed for better roll characteristics and its engines were more durrable, lasting many times longer than the 004 engines (which lasted for only around 20 hours with an avrage pilot) and it also had a flight ceiling advantage of a couple thousand feet.(40,000ft compared to the 262's 37,500 ft max) I'm not saying the F3 meteor is superior overall, but it would at least give the Me-262 a run for its money.



I cannot fully agree here. Both planes have a comparable linear acceleration (the Me-262 tops out at high speed) and a fairly identic climb speed (the Meteor tops out at very high altitude) but I haven´t seen any details about the roll charackteristics. As a matter of fact, the roll speed is also dependent on the deatils of aerodynamic lift distribution and the controll surfaces, from which I haven´t seen figures to draw conclusions on.
I would also like to point out that the engine life is relative to the turbine section only. It could be as high as several hundreds of hours for -004A and as low as 6 hours for early production lots of -B-1 serial engines (it typically levelled off at 20 hours for the 004B-3 with hollow air cooled blades). However, the turbine section of the engine could be replaced in 20 minutes by experienced mechanics, after which the engine was cleared for another 10 hours. After these total of 30 hours, the engine has the be disassembled and investigated by a engine producer workshop, with the option of another 20 hours (this barely happened as there were lot´s of new engines coming in 45, they simply replaced the engines as a less time consuming measure).
More importantly, the Meteor was a flight restricted airframe, not cleared for acrobatics and with a comparably low critical Mach figure. Both isn´t good in high speed combat, so I don´t think the MK 3 is up to par with the -262 in it´s fighting abilities. 




kool kitty89 said:


> Im not sure how the gun accuracy compared, but even if the F3 meteor's was better this wouldn't be a fair comparison because the 262's 30mm cannon was equipped primarily for bomber attacking (at which it was quite effective) and not for dogfights. As a side note, when the F3s were first stationed in germany in '45 they were often mistaken for Me-262s by friendly anti-aircraft implacements and sometimes even other friendly aircraft. This led to the Meteors being painted white to distiguish them. Luckily there wer no friendly kills resulting from these accedents and the only meteor lost in service over Germany was in a mid-air colission durring bad weather.



Interesting, I hadn´t known much about the details of Meteor combat sorties over europe. The white camouflage however is a serious disadvantage, I think. No doubt, the four 20mm guns of the Meteor are better suited for high speed combat, nevertheless the -262 is somehow a one shot killer...

The YP-80 remains somehow a mystery to me. Does anybody know wheter or not there is a flight instructions manual for this A/C (or the P-80A) online?

kind regards,
delc


----------



## Glider (Sep 16, 2007)

kool kitty89 said:


> I'm not saying the F3 meteor is superior overall, but it would at least give the Me-262 a run for its money.



I believe the above is the key statement. In real life, few 262's were destroyed in 'open combat' the vast majority were caught on take off or landing. Once they had their speed up they were almost untouchable, giving them a huge tactical advantage.
Having Meteor F3's around would have gone a long way to removing that advantage.

An observation of the Meteor IV. Although it didn't enter production until 1947, it first flew in July 1945 with the delay not caused by any technical difficulties, it was a decision based on the likelyhood of war and the financial position of the UK. Had the war continued for another 12 months, there is little doubt that the Meteor IV would have been entering service in roughly the same timescales as the P80 and of course the Vampire.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Sep 16, 2007)

I pretty much agree with your responces. The disadvantage of heavy engines limiting manuverabillity was speculation on my part. I know the control surfaces have alot to do with manuverabillity, but since they never sucessfully used any other engines to compare performane its hard to tell.(The large and thick wings on the P-59 heavily contributed in its poor performance, the high area and span limiting maneuverability and the thickness contributing to poor top speed)

The low mach number of the meteor was greatly impacted by the nacelle design and this was fixed on the F3 but not until later in production (after this was changed the earlier F3s were refitted with new nacelles) but I'm not sure if this came in time forthe meteors serving over Germany). Also the Germany stationed meteors managed to destroy ove 40 german aircraft in their ground attack missions, tough none were in flight). Also I think the white paint would have helped more than it hurt since by this time in the war friendly fire waold have been more of a danger than the remaining German ground implacements.

The engine turbines were the biggest difference between the prototype 004s ond the production models. What I meant by durrable was that the steel turbines couldn't be abused as much as the british engines though this still wasn't a huge disadvantage (actually some of the pre-production 004Bs passed 100 hour tests but these tests were ground only on very well quality controlled producs).
RG Lunatic (I know that he caused alot of fuss and did deserve to be banned for lack of self controll and we all probably have mixed feeling about him) once said that lack of advanced industial science and industrial ability in germany made them incapable of producing sufficient numbers of engines and the V-1 and V-2 were a wast of time compared to their realitive effectiveness. I agree to an extent to the V-2 comment and to the V-1 to a lesser extent (it was fairly affective for its cost), I have to dissagree about the engines. They produced them fine in quantty (the hollow, air-cooled blades was an ingenious idea) and the industry wasnt all that far behind in metalergy as they produced stainless steel in quantity when they had access to sufficient chromium but lack of this durring the war scratched stainless steel off the list of prduction-quantaty materials. Though I'm not sure why they didn't use nickel-steel as this has good high temp properties and I don't think nickel was too scarse to be used for this and the steel would have been greatly improved for these purposes with only 10% nickel added though higher pecentages would have been even better. Plain nickel would have also worked well without the need of cooling though I don't think they had enough to use in this manner. Nickel and nickel alloys are still the primary material for use in gas turbine blades today.

Had the He 280 been produced (which would have required that at least one of Heinkel's class 1 jet engines be produced, preferably the HeS-30) it certainly havebeen a better fighter than the 262 because of its high maneuveabillity (in moch combat it outmaneuvered a FW-190), but it would have been a worse interceptor as it's speed was less due to the great speed aerodynamics (low drag area). So I think the 280 would outfight the meteor as well and probably the P-80A due to it's high maneuverability and ample speed.

Just imagine would have happened if Heinkel could have escaped Germany and defected to the allies with some of his designs in 1942. (this wouldn't have heen an unthinkable possibillity based on Heinkel's vew of the Nazis and especialy when they took over his company by "nationalizing" it in 1942. Though the nazis probably had a close watch on him and escape would have been unlikely. Still it would have been neat if he had somehow managed to leave and smuggle out copies of the HeS-30 and He 280 and gone to the allies for sactuary and in hopes that his designs would have been used. Though I still am unsure of why he didn't do somthing like this after the war...


----------



## delcyros (Sep 18, 2007)

> The low mach number of the meteor was greatly impacted by the nacelle design and this was fixed on the F3 but not until later in production (after this was changed the earlier F3s were refitted with new nacelles) but I'm not sure if this came in time forthe meteors serving over Germany).



I believe that this may have been improved but the problem never was fixed in the sense of beeing "cured". Even with long engine nacelles, the Meteor suffered from an appreciably lower crit Mach figure compared to the -262. This should be regarded as a tactical disadvantage.



> Also the Germany stationed meteors managed to destroy ove 40 german aircraft in their ground attack missions, tough none were in flight). Also I think the white paint would have helped more than it hurt since by this time in the war friendly fire waold have been more of a danger than the remaining German ground implacements.


Yes, the closest they came to jet vs jet combat was an attack on an Ar-234B airfield. My problem with the white camouflage is that it is easier to distinguish. The few remaining german medium AAA by this time was equipped with the advanced Askania Zielgerät 43/44, which could track low level intruders and compute advance helm points up to 1250 Km/h.



> RG Lunatic (I know that he caused alot of fuss and did deserve to be banned for lack of self controll and we all probably have mixed feeling about him) once said that lack of advanced industial science and industrial ability in germany made them incapable of producing sufficient numbers of engines and the V-1 and V-2 were a wast of time compared to their realitive effectiveness. I agree to an extent to the V-2 comment and to the V-1 to a lesser extent (it was fairly affective for its cost), I have to dissagree about the engines. They produced them fine in quantty (the hollow, air-cooled blades was an ingenious idea) and the industry wasnt all that far behind in metalergy as they produced stainless steel in quantity when they had access to sufficient chromium but lack of this durring the war scratched stainless steel off the list of prduction-quantaty materials. Though I'm not sure why they didn't use nickel-steel as this has good high temp properties and I don't think nickel was too scarse to be used for this and the steel would have been greatly improved for these purposes with only 10% nickel added though higher pecentages would have been even better. Plain nickel would have also worked well without the need of cooling though I don't think they had enough to use in this manner. Nickel and nickel alloys are still the primary material for use in gas turbine blades today.



My impression, beside all other things was that RG Lunatic is a very knowledgable Person. I had enjoied his valuable contributions, even (-better: because!) if they may sometimes have been controversial. His positions were usually well founded and he is a potent fighter for arguments. His approach from an techno-economical point of view is attractive and deserves to be mentioned here. He once stated that reliable jet engines couldn´t be produced by Germany outside the labs but I think he missed out some points. Out of the 5000+ Jumo-004´s which were produced in ww2 Germany, he considered 30-40% working jet engines. But this hardly could be the case. There is plenty of evidence from the -262 Werknummern database that around 1500 -262 have been finished (or worked so far as to receive Werknummern). Each of those takes two -004´s so that are around 3000 Jumos. Add 300-500 Jumos for the Ar-234 and around 50 for various prototypes and You have a minimum of 3350 -004 jet engine which were used. Naturally, several Jumos have been replaced on the planes following the end of their service life and a number of Jumo´s were used for training and tooling purposes. Therefore I regard the "reliable" output for jet engines to be at least 80% (conservative estimate). However, RG certainly could return a good argument and it is bad he isn´t around anymore.
Nickel also was considered a scarce ressource in Germany, hence the adoption of Tinadur and Chromadur as turbine alloy.



> Just imagine would have happened if Heinkel could have escaped Germany and defected to the allies with some of his designs in 1942. (this wouldn't have heen an unthinkable possibillity based on Heinkel's vew of the Nazis and especialy when they took over his company by "nationalizing" it in 1942. Though the nazis probably had a close watch on him and escape would have been unlikely. Still it would have been neat if he had somehow managed to leave and smuggle out copies of the HeS-30 and He 280 and gone to the allies for sactuary and in hopes that his designs would have been used. Though I still am unsure of why he didn't do somthing like this after the war...



Ernst Heinkel was "invited" to the USSR post war. Better call it "required". He worked with Gurowitsh and all the early soviet ejection seats are derivates from Heinkel models. Heinkel wasn´t much into jet engines at all (he perhaps delayed the HeS-030 project more than accelerated it) but he had the right impetus and showed initiative to advance the by then new field much.
I am undecided how he would impact allied efforts if he defects hypothetically. In the UK I am convinced it wouldn´t matter if Heinkel is around or not. In post war times the UK had no active interest in german technician, one might even go so far as to say they disliked them (actually they had a reason!). The US are a bit different as they were interested in solutions and Heinkel had plenty of experience with providing such.


----------



## Soren (Sep 19, 2007)

The most deciding factor here though is that while the British could've made the Meteor just as fast as the Me-262 they couldn't make it as effective a fighter, the Meteor's airframe simply not being capable of handling the same high amount of stress occuring in high speed maneuvers as the Me-262. 

Another quite decisive factor is that the Me-262, along with a high aspect ratio wing, features wing leading edge slats which greatly improve high speed high G turn performance. The Meteor has to do with a low aspect ratio wing with center fixed engines disrupting airflow, and, its got no LE slats.


As to the Me-262 A-1a's performance, well the official Messerschmidt AG figures are very conservative and represents guaranteed performance while taking into consideration that by late 44 to 45 the Jumo 004's being manufactured were suffering massively in terms of lack of available high temp. resistant metals and in the end hasty workmansship - thus performance from batch to batch often varied alot. 

The captured examples of Me-262 tested by the RAF topped 900 + km/h in straight flight, which is 30 km/h faster than the guaranteed performance brought forth by Messerschmidt AG.


Keep up the good debate guys


----------



## kool kitty89 (Sep 19, 2007)

I still think the He 280 (with appropriate engines) would have been a better dogfighter than the 262, early-model P-80, or early meteor (Mk3 or 1) Though its range wasn't that great (though drop tanks could have improved this) it had excelent maneuverabillity, especially for a jet fighter (it outmaneuvered a FW 190 in mock combat).

I can't vouch for its optimum speed (ie in its best configuration using HeS-30s) because it was never tested with HeS-30s and with the underpowered HeS-8 (600kgf, 1320 lbf each) it was tested with its top speed was around 420mph at low level. The Junkers 004 engines it was later tested with were poorly matched to the airframe and offered poor performance (they were about twice as heavy and significantly larger than the originally intended engines: more than twice the length and slightly wider of the HeS-8 and 50% longer and 30% wider than the HeS-30) Most sourses I've seen projected the top-speed (with HeS 30s) to be over 500mph and as high as 540mph at altitude. (from The Messerschmitt Me-262 Schwalbe / Sturmvogel and Heinkel He 280 archive file -some great pics on this site!)

Above: the original engine configuration, below: with Junkers 004 engines.


----------



## Glider (Sep 20, 2007)

Soren said:


> The most deciding factor here though is that while the British could've made the Meteor just as fast as the Me-262 they couldn't make it as effective a fighter, the Meteor's airframe simply not being capable of handling the same high amount of stress occuring in high speed maneuvers as the Me-262.



Where on earth did you get the idea that the Meteor couldn't take the stess's involved in high speed maneuvers. It was around for a long time, flown by many countries and I have never heard of a problem with the aircraft's stress levels.


----------



## Sir Francis (Sep 20, 2007)

Hey, 

A mate got this off some website, can't find it again though.
Post WW2 tests-USAAF comparison P80 v Me262 concluding "Despite a difference in gross weight of nearly 900kg the Me262 was superior to the P80 in acceleration, speed and approx same in climb performance. The Me262 apparantly has a higher critical Mach number, from a drag standpoint, than any current Army Air Force fighter".

I suppose they are referring to the swept wing drag benefit (even though the engines must be a drag.....)


----------



## Soren (Sep 20, 2007)

Glider said:


> Where on earth did you get the idea that the Meteor couldn't take the stess's involved in high speed maneuvers. It was around for a long time, flown by many countries and I have never heard of a problem with the aircraft's stress levels.




Where on earth ?? Look at the a/c Glider, its got built in engines in its wings, which means a weak-spot. Ofcourse the Mk.3 featured a strenghened airframe and was considered a robust a/c, but the place where the engines were mounted was still a weakspot - not saying it was litterally weak but the Me-262's configuration makes for a stronger wing.


----------



## Soren (Sep 20, 2007)

Kitty89, 

I agree the He-280 was a very promising a/c featuring excellent performance maneuverability, and adding the HeS-011 would've put it in the same league as the Me-262, perhaps even better. However the He-280 lacked the bubble canopy, swepped wing and LE slats of the Me-262, putting it at a disadvantage in high speed flight compared to the Me-262. The horizontal vertical stabilizer of the H-280 also looks as if it could prove troublesome at high speeds - admittedly these are bugs which probably would've been quickly worked out though.


----------



## Glider (Sep 20, 2007)

Soren said:


> Where on earth ?? Look at the a/c Glider, its got built in engines in its wings, which means a weak-spot. Ofcourse the Mk.3 featured a strenghened airframe and was considered a robust a/c, but the place where the engines were mounted was still a weakspot - not saying it was litterally weak but the Me-262's configuration makes for a stronger wing.



Just because a plane has a design that gives it in theory a weak spot, doesn't mean that its weak. That depends on the design of the structure and how it caters for the stresses. 
As you said, the Meteor was considered to be by all parties a robust aeroplane, not one that couldn't take the stresses incurred in combat.

There is also a case for saying that hanging the engines under the wing is a weakness. All the forces are on the engine mount, with all the torsional and tearing motions being catered for by the mounts.
The best place for the engine for a number of reasons is where the P80 had it.


----------



## delcyros (Sep 20, 2007)

Since the Meteor was used in combat capacity, I find the argument that she lacked structural strength improbable. Her high speed maneuvering suffered (which is been accounted for) but she had good low speed handling and offered a lot of structural redundancy.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 20, 2007)

I've done a little work on a Meteor - she was built like a brick.

http://aeroweb.brooklyn.cuny.edu/database/museums/getimage.htm?id=2680


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 20, 2007)

Very cool. I would kill to work on an old WW2 plane. I can believe they are bit more difficult to keep up because of the age of the plane but damn it must be a real pleasure.

When did you work on this Meteor?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 20, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Very cool. I would kill to work on an old WW2 plane. I can believe they are bit more difficult to keep up because of the age of the plane but damn it must be a real pleasure.
> 
> When did you work on this Meteor?



When I first started tinkering around with jets at Mojave. Two of my former "customers" were one of the first civilian jet owners. One guy owned the Meteor, the other guy owned a Vampire. On the weekends they would go off together and chase each other in a canyon area north of Mojave Airport. That Meteor was donated to the museum because of a corrosion problem (If I remember right). The other guy with the vampire sold it years ago.


----------



## pbfoot (Sep 20, 2007)

I know there was a manouver in the Meteor called the Zurabatic cartwheel performed by Janus Zurakowski in which he idled one engine and went 100% on the other . It doesn't sound like a weak point to me

In 1947, he was employed as an experimental pilot by Gloster Aircraft Company. In the following years, he became one of the world's most famous experimental and aerobatics pilots (he developed a new aerobatics maneuver, the "Zurabatic Cartwheel" which held the audience captivated as he suspended the Gloster Meteor G-7-1 prototype he was flying, in a vertical cartwheel at the 1951 Farnborough Air Show). Announcers shouted out, "Impossible!"


----------



## drgondog (Sep 20, 2007)

Soren said:


> Where on earth ?? Look at the a/c Glider, its got built in engines in its wings, which means a weak-spot. Ofcourse the Mk.3 featured a strenghened airframe and was considered a robust a/c, but the place where the engines were mounted was still a weakspot - not saying it was litterally weak but the Me-262's configuration makes for a stronger wing.



Soren, are you dabbling in airframe structures again? or do you have the actual airframe design and load calculations at hand and rendering an expert opinion?

Accounting for an imbedded engine bay in a wing would be similar to building a mid wing airframe like a F4F Wildcat. The fuselage(engine) carry through structure has to accomodate the cantilevered wing spar.

In my opinion (w/o actually seeing the wing design) the Meteor wing probably had more weight as a result of the carry through structure to obtain same design and ultimate load factors as a design in which the engines were imbedded in the fuselage (and/or maybe suspended from main spar).. but easily accomodated with carry through bulkhead type structure and the extra weight.

It is not intuitive to deduce (Accurately) actual strength by looking at most WWII designed airframes..


----------



## Matt308 (Sep 20, 2007)

Glider said:


> Just because a plane has a design that gives it in theory a weak spot, doesn't mean that its weak. That depends on the design of the structure and how it caters for the stresses.
> As you said, the Meteor was considered to be by all parties a robust aeroplane, not one that couldn't take the stresses incurred in combat.
> 
> There is also a case for saying that hanging the engines under the wing is a weakness. All the forces are on the engine mount, with all the torsional and tearing motions being catered for by the mounts.
> The best place for the engine for a number of reasons is where the P80 had it.



Well said, Glider.


----------



## davparlr (Sep 20, 2007)

drgondog said:


> Soren, are you dabbling in airframe structures again? or do you have the actual airframe design and load calculations at hand and rendering an expert opinion?
> 
> Accounting for an imbedded engine bay in a wing would be similar to building a mid wing airframe like a F4F Wildcat. The fuselage(engine) carry through structure has to accomodate the cantilevered wing spar.
> 
> ...




I agree with this. However, both design concepts quickly became obsolete as the jet fighter evolved.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Sep 20, 2007)

Yes here was a test between the 262 and P-80, but they don't specify which model the 262 was and the engine drag would have affected roll and turning more than level flight or dives, though it was still fairly manuverable.

It also doesn't mention the altitudes they were tested at. As the P-80A's top level speed of 562 mph was reached near sea level using W/A injection compared to the 262's top speed of 560 mph at 20,000 ft(6000 m) at which altitude the P-80 was slightly slower but above this point the 262's speed drops more rapidly than the P-80 and above 33,000 ft the P-80 is again ahead.

Either way there was no manuverabillity compasison stated between the two so it's hard to tell wich would be better, though the P-80 was lighter and had more thrust output.(I also think the He-280 would have been more maneuverable than either of these, though its short range woulg have been a problem this could have been remedied with external tanks.) 

The P-80 also had more range and the capibility of drop tanks but this was more important for the US fighters than Germany's. The P-80A also had a significant altitude advantage as its flight ceiling was more than 7000 ft higher than the 262's.

Also on the meteor due to the realitive shortness of its centrifugal engines a good part of the wing can fit ahead of the engine and if you look into its nacelle the wing splits the air intake on the front side.

And the 262's original engine mountigs were also mid-wing (using BMW's 003 engines) but the added weight and size of the 004s forced Meschersmit to redesign the wing, I think this is also when the <20 degree "swept" wing was added (more for weight centering reasons than speed) The mistake is often made that the "swept" wing of the production 262 gave it a major aerodynamic advantage, but at such a slight sweep the thickness and slotting of the wing as well as the overall design contributed mostly to its good aerodynamics, and the large engines probably muted any small gain the "sweep" made.

On the other hand Meshersmit did design some true swept wing variations with the HG II and III (high speed) while the HG I's were mostly the same its other improvements (lower profile and V-tail) gave it a Mach limit of .96!

Cool, flyboy, chasing eachother around the Mojave in a Meteor and a Vampire, sounds like crazy-fun; just who are these people?

And also, though it didn't have a bubble canopy, the He 280 still had a good vision range and probably offered 300 degree view, or at least a 280 view . Take a look at this site's pics: Heinkel He 280 archive file

PS: Doesnt the FW-187 on the cover page look like it has jet engines. =)


----------



## drgondog (Sep 20, 2007)

kool kitty89 said:


> Yes here was a test between the 262 and P-80, but they don't specify which model the 262 was and the engine drag would have affected roll and turning more than level flight or dives, though it was still fairly manuverable.
> 
> It also doesn't mention the altitudes they were tested at. As the P-80A's top level speed of 562 mph was reached near sea level using W/A injection compared to the 262's top speed of 560 mph at 20,000 ft(6000 m) at which altitude the P-80 was slightly slower but above this point the 262's speed drops more rapidly than the P-80 and above 33,000 ft the P-80 is again ahead.
> 
> ...


With respect - range is ALWAYs important unles you have no other mission in life but point defense (like a SAM 2 or Me 163).. With range you can disperse making it harder to find you, but still concentrate dispersed forces far away from your field. 

If the Luftwaffe had decided to centralize their Fighters in Central Germany they would have had more options regarding where to concentrate mass against USAAF bombers, and many more opportunities to attain local superiority..


----------



## davparlr (Sep 20, 2007)

Off subject comment. I was just coming in from a walk and I saw what looked like an F6F (to far to be sure, but most likely) flying formation on a B-25. They were probably out of Torrance. It is always a thrill to see and hear those birds flying.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## drgondog (Sep 20, 2007)

davparlr said:


> Off subject comment. I was just coming in from a walk and I saw what looked like an F6F (to far to be sure, but most likely) flying formation on a B-25. They were probably out of Torrance. It is always a thrill to see and hear those birds flying.



Growing up around airbases for my first 15 years had inculated me with extreme nostalgia for the drone of the B-36/C-124 and their 4360's or the roar of the Merlins in the 51s and P-82s and R-2800s in the A-26s. 

I first lived away from the base when I was 10 when my father was attending Air War College at Maxwell and it took me six months to learn to sleep in quiet environment.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Soren (Sep 20, 2007)

I totally agree with the structural argument of the Meteor however I'm still confident that the configuration of Me-262's engine mount provides for a stronger platform - however like drgondog pointed out the Meteor's engine mount might very well be as strong and just heavier, it is possible to keep the strenght of a straight wing if you reinforce the area.

Kitty89,

The mounting of the engines on/in the wings doesn't reduce turn performance at all, however roll rate will suffer.

___________________

Anyway as to the performance of the Me-262, again the actual service ceiling is higher than 11.5 km, according graphs it was around 12.5 - 13 km. Climb rate 'am boden' (sea level) was 20 m/s (3,937 ft/min) at 6,897 kg and 25 m/s (4,921 ft/min) at 5,700 kg.

And as to range, without droptanks the Me-262 could fly just as long as the P-80A, and the Me-262 could certainly carry drop tanks and did as-well.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Sep 20, 2007)

I just meant it was less critical than the US forces range because they generaly had more long range work. Still, for a shor-range fighter or interceptor, range is less important and most British fighters of the time had only about a 600 mi range compared to over 2000 mi on the P-38, P-47, and P-51.
And from what some sourses say the He-280 could have had a range of about 600 mi even with its smaller fuel capasity than the 262 (possibly due to its lower weight and more powerful and efficient HeS-30 engines which, thanks to their greater thrust, which would probably raise the max take-off weight and thus capasity to load.) Though the prototype using HeS-8 engines had a range of only 230 miles. 
Here's a cool vid. 
_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FF2WsyKOZOE_ and another 
_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SSwsZMiDKFw_


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 20, 2007)

To truly compare these two aircraft on the basis of strength around the wings and engine mounts, one should look at the g loading limitations of each aircraft - Although the configuration concepts are different, I could almost bet that in both aircraft the engines are held on by 4 to 6 bolts per side along with a rubberized engine mount taking up calculated loads. Personally I think there won't be much difference between the aircraft. I know I have a cut away of both aircraft - I'm going to try to dig it out and compare the two.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Sep 21, 2007)

It's probably lucky for the allies that the RLM wasn't interested in the He-280 (or jet propultion for that matter) early enough in the war to be of use. Had the 280 and the related engine projects had full government backing in 1940 the plane could have been in service in 1942 and this would have been verry bad for the allies, especialy England. But if the allies had intercepted or recieved information on such a design they would have put moch more work tward countering these planes with jets of their own. The Brits would have been interested in Whittle's design earlier and the US could have supported the various jet engine designs in development, particularly those of Westinghouse and Lockheed and the airforce might have even favored lockheed's L133 design if they were facing enemy jets.

Had Heinkel's engine designs not been cancelled or if BMW's 003 had used flame cans instead of an anular combustor, as it was the 280 could have entered production in early 1943 and in service before the end of '43 IMHO. Hell the 262 could have been in service in '43 had the fighter-bomber modifications not been made.


----------



## delcyros (Sep 21, 2007)

I see You have a favourite in the He-280, KoolKitty.
However, I am not going to destroy the bubble but a few comments need to be made. The RLM was VERY interested in jet propulsion technology, probably more than any other nation in ww2. Unlike the UK or the US, the german jet turbine program had comparably strong support in the RLM. That doesn´t preclude that questionable decisions are to be made but in retrospect I find them adeaquate. The He-280 had several advantages noted by Yourselfe but she also sticked to the old fighter age with a thick, unsweeped airfoil, optimized for low to medium speed handling (no wonder she outmaneuvered a Fw-190A, a fighter plane not notoriously famous for a tight turning radious). In this respect, the He-280 was little different form the Meteor. Her engines were to be radial He-S08 -the more advanced He-S30 was never intended for this airframe. The short and thick nacelles gave her a lower crit Mach number than the -262. This figure, however, is absolutely critical when comparing jet fighters. Messerschmidt designed his jet around a thin and more advanced wing, giving his jet a higher tactical speed to exploit. In a mock combat between -262 and -280 I assume that a low grade pilot in a -262 would loose (just as Galland in his He-51 biplane outmaneuvered a Messerschmidt test pilot in his brand new Me-109B, who was unaware to exploit the advantages of this plane). Heinkel himselfe considered the He-280 in 1943 an interims solution -should she went into production- because her low critical Mach speed (0.79) would require a major redesign.
Add the lower fuel buncerage of this plane and the problem with fuel consumption at low altitudes and You will at best get an interceptor but no aerial superiority fighter as the Me-262. The -262 not only had a substantially better high speed handling (thanks to swept back wings and tail), a higher tactical speed and more endurance, she also was much more redundancy designed and modifyable. There is photographic evidence showing two MK 108 30mm short barreled guns, two MK 103 30mm long barreled high velocity guns and two MG-151/20 in the nose of a -262 variant! She could carry bombs or drop tanks, rocktes or recon equipment and enjoied a reasonable cockpit armour (182 Kg). The -280 is only valid as a fighter plane with the nose section beeing cramped by nose wheel and 3 MG 151/20, already. Perhaps she could carry few bombs or R4M, too. But as soon as You would want to improve the basic design massive problems will be encountered: Adding more powerful jet engines is possible but the wing design would eat up to much of the increased power and the internal fuel buncerage couldn´t be improved at all. Adding the He-S30 helps a lot but this engine would benefit the -262 even more in comparison.
The -262 was more likely to be modified in future time with success, something the HG-variants or the B-2 nightfighter modification prooved.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Sep 23, 2007)

I know the RLM was the first to take intreat in jet propultion I just meant that they weren't interested in the first couple years of development surrounding the development of the He-178. They didn't take a strong intrest (with funding) until after 1941. Maby I should have said the jet program was lacking government funding, more than intrest. The HeS-30 was considdered as an alternate (and superior) powerplant, as was the BMW 003, but neither was fitted for trial (the 30 due to cancellation and the 003 due to production problems). 

The .79 (not sur of accuracy) crit-mach would still allow significantly high speeds, though dive performance would suffer, and fitting the narrower HeS-30s would have improved, though not cured, this problem. 

The production model 262's sweep was too slight to have a significant effect on the crit-mach number and the tailplane, though it did have a slight (at most 25 degree) leading edge sweep, had no trailing sweep, though these features probably improved performance elsewhere more significantly, they were only small contributions to the overall speed aerodynamics of the plane.(the thickness of the wing and tail surfaces contributed more as did the realitively low drag area)

Also my opinion of "favorite" in this aircraft is affected by the fact that the 280 didn't make it to production and wasn't given the outside intrest it could have used. Symilarly I was interested by the Lockheed L133. The airacomet fits in there too, to an extent, though Bell had production problems and was restricted in streamling by their contract, and Lockheed Produced the P-80 in an even shorter time.. I tend to root for the underdog. But still I think the 280 still had the most production and performance potential than any other of the underdeveloped early jets. Either way it was the world's first jet fighter.

The 262 was a superior aircraft in any case and with lighter/smaller engines it would have performed better as a dogfighter, but the 280's airframe was ready in 1941, and with proper funding for engine development it could have entered production by late 1942 IMHO.

I agree the 262 would have benefitted more from the HeS-30 (and to a lesser extent the BMW 003) and in retrospect the RLM should have dropped the 003 in favor of the HeS-30 since it probably would have been ready for production early enough to be useful, unlike the 003 which apeared to be farther along but actualy would have fallen behind due to problems with the anular combustor. (an anular combustor was proposed for the HeS-30, and while sucessful in the HeS-8, flame cans were chosen due to the higher reliabillity, simple construction, and ease of matenence.)


----------



## delcyros (Sep 25, 2007)

kool kitty89 said:


> They didn't take a strong intrest (with funding) until after 1941. Maby I should have said the jet program was lacking government funding, more than intrest.



There actually were so many projects operating with rockets, jets or strange things like death rays, rail guns , etc. that the gouvernment hardly could differ between good and poor ideas. By 1941 jet engines were still basically developmental ideas as was rocketry. Nobody expected a serious breakthrough in within the expected brief timespan of this conflict. this estimation is wrong but we enjoi hindsight 20/20.



kool kitty89 said:


> I agree the 262 would have benefitted more from the HeS-30 (and to a lesser extent the BMW 003) and in retrospect the RLM should have dropped the 003 in favor of the HeS-30 since it probably would have been ready for production early enough to be useful, unlike the 003 which apeared to be farther along but actualy would have fallen behind due to problems with the anular combustor. (an anular combustor was proposed for the HeS-30, and while sucessful in the HeS-8, flame cans were chosen due to the higher reliabillity, simple construction, and ease of matenence.)


Agreed 100%. The He-S030 was the best of all class I jet engines well into the mid fifties with regards to frontal diameter, specific fuel consumption, thrust-weight ratio and spool up time. It probably would have required less strategic ressources as well and definetely was easier to produce compared to the BMW-003, which needed to be "harmonized" with help of a professional musician prior to assembly of the compressor stages.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Sep 30, 2007)

On the He-178 and HeS-3:

"A second engine was completed just after completion of the He 178 airframe, so it was decided to move directly to full flight tests. A short hop was made on 24 August during high-speed taxi tests, followed by full flight on 27 August, the first aircraft to fly solely under jet power. Testing continued and in November the aircraft was demonstrated to RLM officials in hopes of receiving funding for the development of a larger engine, but nothing seemed forthcoming.

Hans Mauch later told von Ohain the RLM was in fact extremely impressed, but he was concerned that Heinkel's airframe team did not have the knowledge to undertake engine development. Instead he and Helmut Schelp secretly visited a number of aircraft engine manufacturers to try to start programs there. Mauch left his position in 1939 leaving Schelp in command. Schelp was not as concerned about where development was taking place, and immediately started funding Heinkel to produce a more powerful engine.

Work on a larger version, the HeS 6, started immediately, and was tested under a Heinkel He 111 late in 1939. While successful, notably in terms of vastly improved fuel economy, the weight was considered excessive and the design was abandoned in favour of the more advanced Heinkel HeS 8."

Also a neat thing about the HeS-8 (001) is that it not only used a radial compressor but also a radial turbine which would be more durrable than its axial counterpart, and less efected by high temp damage due to flow properties of this design, an since its compressor was radial the extra diameter of a radial turbine would not be detrimental to size. I have only seen this configuration on generator turbines an nowhere else in engines, which makes considerable contrast to whittl's engines which used high-temp axial turbines.

There were many adaptations to the HeS-8 engine including adding an axial compressor behind the radial one and even a turbofan arrangement: quote "Several modifications of the basic HeS 8 design were also explored over the project's lifetime. The HeS 9 appears to be a modification adding a second axial compressor stage, and replacing the full centrifugal stage with a new "diagonal compressor" that Schelp favoured. Little is known about this design other than the fact that RLM ordered ten of them, and none were built. It appears it was this layout that was used to develop the 011. Another modification, the HeS 10, placed a complete HeS 8 engine inside a larger nacelle, and expanded the intake impellor to be larger than the engine. The HeS 10 appears to be the first example of what would today be called a turbofan engine. In order to extract more power from the exhaust to drive the fan, an additional single axial-stage turbine was added behind the HeS 8's existing centrifugal one. The only real difference between the HeS 10 and a modern turbofan engine was that the fan was not powered independently of the core, although given the separate axial turbine stage, this would not have been difficult to arrange."

But they never tried multi-stage radial compession, though this is probably due to Ohain turning in favor of the axial compressor (though , not his design he favored the HeS-30 over his HeS-8 ), but he did like the diagonal compressor which make a good comlement to aditional axial stages like in the HeS-011.

Personally I think the HeS-8 should have been dropped for the HeS-9 rather than the 011 (which was basicly a scaled-up version) this design probably would have progressed faster and might have been useful before the war's end. (it might have even outclassed the HeS-30, though it would have entered production later)

The only multistage centrifugal compressor in a turbojet engine is in the Russian RDT-1/VDR-2 from 1943 designed by Lyul'ka see: EnginesUSSR

The plane the engine was soposed to be used in was also quite interesting: Gu-VRD It migh have entered combat had it's engine not been canceled to work on more advanced designs (just like Heinkel's engines were)

Also I've seen a line drawing of the early version of Meshersmit's prototype the P1065 (a precurser to the 262) and it had tapered wings symilar to the P-80. overall they were the same wings as those wich were used in the final version of the 262 except they were bent foreward (actually they were normal, as the prodiction model had the wings bent back, mostly for trim reasons) if the wings were simply pivoted back and not fundamentally altered this would explain why ther is no trailing-edge sweep.
see: Translated version of http://www.afwing.com/intro/me262/new/1.htm

THough I like the 280, the 262 is simply a better airframe, with its small, thin wings and a fusalage that was sleek, but wide enough to allow a good fuel load and it had excelent high-speed manuverabillity. The 262 with mid-mounted engines would have been awsome, if slightly less practical, and though the engines used turned out to bee too large for this, the HeS-30 (006) engine would have been perfect, and would have allowed the craft to reach its full potential! Of course the 004 could serve as an intrim measure as it was ready earlier.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Oct 1, 2007)

Actually the P1065's narrow fusalage is more like akin to the 280's, but the buldged body that was chosen made more room for fuel and internal components without having a major efect on performance.

As I've said the major disadvantage to the 262 was its heavy, large engines and I think with smaller, lighter engines and fighter guns to replace its destroyer ones (20mm or .50 cal) it would have beaten the production P-80A, it also had a higher mach number (which may have been even higher with smaller engines). Just look at the performance of the reproductions with J85 engines: I think the top speed a SL is over 650mph.

I think the speeds would have been closer in the YP-80 as its engines were less powereful, had no low altitude boost, and were verry unreliable, still they had exelent maneuverabillity, and wingtip tanks improved roll rate, though I suspect speed was decreased.


----------



## delcyros (Oct 3, 2007)

Agreed, what the -262 needed were more powerful, less fuel gulping and more reliable engines. Though the Jumo-004 had the BIG advantage to be the first mass produced jet engine, avaiable a good 1 1/2 years before the BMW-003. The Jumo is still a better choice for nacelles than any radial (mostly due to the inherent advantage of axial type compressors: a lower frontal area diameter and resulting higher crit Mach figures in external nacelles) avaiable in Germany or the UK for this plane but it is virtually an inferior engine in every other aspect. The BMW-003 could give the plane superior acceleration (due to the 20% overrew figure and the much lighter weight), reliability (less sensitive to rapid throttle changes due to a different speed gouvenor design) and longivity (200 hours service lifetime of the turbine section). Arguably also a slightly better fuel consumption but this engine just entered mass production (and those delivered were urgently needed for the Ar-234C and He-162 programs). 
What the -262 really needed for the multi purpose role are different main armements. The 30mm MK108 is an awesome weapon against bombers but I suspect that the 30mm MK 103 would be more useful in all regards. Even if only three could be installed in the nose (due to weight and recoil issues), this weapon has extreme range, flat trajectory and a damage potential beyond good and evil. I run a discussion with RG_Lunatic years ago about this which ended in concerns about recoil issues in such an arrangement. A serious concern but the recoil, while more pointed and stronger, may be still acceptable as some 262 mods showed (50mm BK-5 or 6 30mm guns modified nose section).


----------



## Soren (Oct 3, 2007)

The Me-262 was a very stable a/c, so mounting two or three 30mm MK103's would've proven no problem at all. And the recoil, although heavy, I think the Me-262 would handle easily.

As to the Me-262s Jumo 004 engines, well yeah they weren't flawless, but they were ahead of their time and more efficient than any of those produced by any other country. Remember the reliability issue was mainly caused by the lack of the right metals, had they been available the Jumo 004 not only would've become a reliable engine, but also a much better performing one. As is evident different batches of engines performed very differently from each other, forcing Messerschmidt AG to release very conservative official performance figures as-well as maintenance operating manuals fit for an over-paranoid mechanic.

A good example of how much performance varied is the RAF's test flights where the Me-262 went beyond 900 km/h in straight level flight.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Oct 3, 2007)

I think the flame-out problems were even worse on the YP-80 and it also had fuel pump problems, though these glitches were rectified in the production version.

Yes radial compressor engines made for bad outboard engines but made fairly good fusalge-borne engines for single-engine craft, like in the Vampire, P-80, and later in the F9F Panther/Couger, Mig-15, and Hawker-Hunter (centrifugal engines' large diameters were made worse since all production models were single-stage, though whittle based designs used a 2-sided rotor, a prototype russian engine used a 2-stage centrifugal compressor, and dirivatives of the HeS-8 added axial stages behind the centrifugal one.)


----------



## pbfoot (Oct 3, 2007)

Has anyone considered the p80 with the Rolls Royce Nene 10 it was a superior version in most aspects range, climb ,cruise


----------



## kool kitty89 (Oct 5, 2007)

When did the P-80 ever use a Nene engine?


----------



## pbfoot (Oct 5, 2007)

The Canadair T33 was Nene powered they built about 600 of them it generally out performed the Allison powered one


----------



## kool kitty89 (Oct 8, 2007)

But by the time the Canadair T-33 was produced, the J33-A-35 engine was in production (produced up to 5400 lbf with W/A injection) compared to the Nene's 5000 lbf (or slightly higher). The J33-A35 was used in later T-33 models and in the F-80C.


----------



## pbfoot (Oct 8, 2007)

kool kitty89 said:


> But by the time the Canadair T-33 was produced, the J33-A-35 engine was in production (produced up to 5400 lbf with W/A injection) compared to the Nene's 5000 lbf (or slightly higher). The J33-A35 was used in later T-33 models and in the F-80C.


But the nene powered T bird was an all round better flyer much like the merlin powered P51. Flyboy should be more knowledgeable about this


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 8, 2007)

pbfoot said:


> But the nene powered T bird was an all round better flyer much like the merlin powered P51. Flyboy should be more knowledgeable about this


And that it was - it seemed the nene powered Tbirds had more power and the fuel control responded better - I don't know if there was internal differences between the two fuel controls....


----------



## kool kitty89 (Oct 8, 2007)

But wasn't CT-133 Silver Star somewhat slower than the Shooting Star? (top-speed around 570mph).


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 8, 2007)

kool kitty89 said:


> But wasn't CT-133 Silver Star somewhat slower than the Shooting Star? (top-speed around 570mph).


It was as all T-33s - extra cockpit, controls and the seat...


----------



## kool kitty89 (Oct 8, 2007)

But wasn't the T-33A's top speed 600 mph (with boost), the same as the P-80C? Though, a few feet longer and the 2-person cockpit, the T-33 is little diferent from the P-80 and from the figures I've seen is actually about 100 lbs lighter empty. While the CT-133 is about the same weight and has longer wings.

The (licenced) Nene-powered F9F Panther had symilar performance to the CT-133 with a top-speed of 575 mph, though it was heavier empty its max weight and range were about the same to the Silver Star. It also had a water-injection system that boosted its J42 engine from 5000 lbf to 5950lbf.


----------



## pbfoot (Oct 8, 2007)

kool kitty89 said:


> But wasn't the T-33A's top speed 600 mph (with boost), the same as the P-80C? Though, a few feet longer and the 2-person cockpit, the T-33 is little diferent from the P-80 and from the figures I've seen is actually about 100 lbs lighter empty. While the CT-133 is about the same weight and has longer wings.


Alls I know it's the preferred version of the T33 I believe there are more Canadair T birds flying then Lockheed's in the US whether thats because the CAF kept them up until the mid 90's or other reason's. I also believe the cruise in the CT133 was about 15mph faster or at least thats what they flight planned .


----------



## kool kitty89 (Oct 8, 2007)

Ok, well the performance difference either way isn't much and the T-33 was little used in combat (as the attack or recon combat variants) and I dont think the CT-133 used at all in combat


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 8, 2007)

kool kitty89 said:


> But wasn't the T-33A's top speed 600 mph (with boost), the same as the P-80C?


I don't believe so and many were delivered with slightly derated engines from what I understand, and I don't think many if any T-33s had water injection unless they were RT-33s.


kool kitty89 said:


> Though, a few feet longer and the 2-person cockpit, the T-33 is little diferent from the P-80 and from the figures I've seen is actually about 100 lbs lighter empty. While the CT-133 is about the same weight and has longer wings.


I'm not too sure about that - the 100 pounds empty weight don't mean much, it's the take off weight you'll work with. I'm not sure about the CT-133's wings being longer either - I believe most of the tooling that built the aircraft was made from drawings supplied from Lockheed.

BTW - the T-33s I dealt with at Mojave rarely saw more than 500 mph. All had their tip tanks bolted on and at higher speeds the tip tanks would "flap."


----------



## kool kitty89 (Oct 8, 2007)

Yeah, I'd imagine the T-33's large wing-tip tanks would cause some significant aerodynamic interferance, especialy compared to the P-80's smaller teardrop tanks wich, despite increasing drag slightly, improved roll rate significantly (like the F9F Panther's permanant wing tanks did), though I assume top-speed was negatively impacted.


----------



## vzlion (Oct 11, 2007)

I don't know where the original figures came from for the P-80 speed
but the following is what the Air Force says in "Post World War II Fighters 1945-1973":
MAX SPEED P-80A 484.5 kn @ s.l. (556.9 mph)
P-80C 503.6 kn @ 7,000' (580 mph)
T-33A 471.5 kn @25,000' (543 mph)

Monogram Close-Up 17 Mw 262A-1 says:
MAX SPEED Me262A-1a 514 mph (828 kph) @ s.l.
540 mph (870 kph) @ 19,686'
510 mph (820 kph) @ 32,811'

In addition the USAAF report on the Me 262, F-TR-1133-ND "Evaluation of the Me 262" saya in it's conclusion "Despite a difference in gross weight of nearly 2000 lbs, Me 262 T-2-711 was superior to the average P-80A in acceleration and speed and approximately the same in climb performance." It also says the handling of the P-80A was better.

One further point, only 4 YP-80s deployed to Europe, Operation Extraversion, before wars end, 2 to Italy and 2 to Britian. One of each were lost due to technical problems. No squadron deployment were made to Europe until mid-1946, when the 55th FG was re-equiped with P-80As.

My 2 cents worth,

Walt


----------



## kool kitty89 (Oct 11, 2007)

Does anyoune have a sourse for the US's service evaluation of the Me-262?


----------



## pbfoot (Oct 11, 2007)

kool kitty89 said:


> Yeah, I'd imagine the T-33's large wing-tip tanks would cause some significant aerodynamic interferance, especialy compared to the P-80's smaller teardrop tanks wich, despite increasing drag slightly, improved roll rate significantly (like the F9F Panther's permanant wing tanks did), though I assume top-speed was negatively impacted.


The T33 was an obvious better aircraft then the the 262 simply by the fact its still flying operationally today and it was a great airshow performer the RCAF used the T B 1 RD as a aerobatic solo demo bird for years for smaller airshows . The 262 was produced by the Czechs post war and flew into the 50's 

_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QUvsQ6kY-1A_

_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6OSJpD2eups_


----------



## kool kitty89 (Oct 12, 2007)

The original Me-262 was produced with materials that weren't that time-enduring (many components corroded or simply wore-out). There also was little further development of the design (the HG III being the most promising) and there were only a few used in Cezch service (around 100). In addition to this there were few organizations that were able to save the existing 262's from the scrapyard, and none of these kept them flight-worthy (engines being the main problem). While the T-33 is very durrable and has a tough, reliable engine and is still in military service in some countries.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Oct 12, 2007)

Another interesting thing I found out is that though the Me-262 entered operations in May of 1944 (in conversion training) its first combat mission wasn't until August of that year. The Gloster Meteor Mk I started operations (as a conversion trainer) in June of 1944 and entered its first combat mission (V-1 interception) in late July, before the 262. So technically the meteor was the first jet aircraft to see combat, if only by a few days. Though, of course, the Mk I wasn't fully combat ready, so the first fully combat operational, and first jet to see operations (albeit in training) was the Me-262.

If you really want to split hairs, the Mk I Meteor was the first jet aircraft to shoot down another jet-powered aircraft (albeit an unmanned pulse-jet powered one).

Also the YP-59As were undergoing service testing in 1943, but they were far from combat worthy, though it might have been feasible to send a few to help with V-1 hunting if conditions were dire (though this would more likely be done with the P-59As) they might have been usefull at this too with the 37mm M4 cannon they carried. Though the P-51 would be jus about as useful.

The only version of the Airacomet with any real combat advantage (if only slight) was the P-59B wich had a top speed of 450mph at about 36,000 ft (413mph at 30,000 ft and ~390mph at SL), decent handeling, and the highest ceiling of any military aircraft at the time of 46,200 ft (it actually set an onofficial record in tests at around 47,600 ft) and with its 2000 lbf J31-GE-5 turbojets and a loaded weight of 11,00 lbs the T/W ratio was a respectable .36 cmpared to the 262's .28 or the early P-80A's .32.

(note: the Me-262 was actually fairly underpowered and made up with good aerodynamics,the Airacomet having the opposite problem, and would have done best with engines producing around 2400 lbf each, though the 2300 lbf 004Ds would have been a substancial improvement with better fuel effiency and reduced spool-up/flameout problems would have resulted in the epitome of 262 performance, especially if used in the HG III design, I wonder why the USSR didn't copy the 004D engine.) Nevermind they did in the RD-10E, and with an afterburner in the RD-10F.


----------



## delcyros (Oct 13, 2007)

I too haven´t seen the original evaluation report between -262 and P-80A, everybody seems to know so good. It would be a fruitful enterprise to search for this doc in US archives!

However, the Ar-234 was probably the first jet plane to enter combat service-altough as a photo recon over Normandy. 
The Me-262 beats the Meteor-I by a narrow margin. The Ekdo 262 did combat sorties with the Me-262 in mid jule 1944, including the very first aerial kill in this month. The Ekdo 262 is no regular combat unit (rather a more preliminary combat evaluation unit).
The Meteor indeed semms to have been the first jet to enter REGULAR service.

The early thrust / weight ratios of -262 and P-80A are both around .28. It was long after end of ww2 that the improvements in jet engines benfitted the P-80A.

One of the big advantages of jets against V-1 bombs lies in their ability to sustain max. power much longer than piston A/C. A jet don´t has WEP (except for the BMW-003E, but that´s another story) and thus was not limited to 5 min. at max. power! Good when hunting V-1´s....


----------



## kool kitty89 (Oct 13, 2007)

The 004 engine was not really ahead of its time. Though it used an axial compressor opposed to the first operational allied jets, it was a very conservative design meant to work with little developmental issues. This was done to expedite time to production. Overall this decision was a good one as it enabled the 004 to enter production ahead of other designs, but it was bulky, especially for an axial design, and actually wider than the radial HeS-8 (001) engine (though it was significantly more powerful) and had a low thrust/weight (around 1.2). The fully developed version of the original design was the 004D which was a decent engine in all and competitive to other production designs of the time, but still was a bit behind its potential.

Quote: ("Franz opted for a design that was at once conservative and revolutionary. His design differed from von Ohain's in that he utilised a new type of compressor which allowed a continuous, straight flow of air through the engine (an axial compressor), recently developed by the Aerodynamische Versuchsanstalt (AVA - Aerodynamic Research Institute) at Göttingen. The axial-flow compressor not only had excellent performance, about 78% efficient in "real world" conditions, but it also had a smaller cross-section, important for a high-speed aircraft design.

On the other hand, he aimed to produce an engine that was far below its theoretical potential, in the interests of expediting development and simplifying production. One major decision was to opt for a simple combustion area using six "flame cans", instead of the more efficient single annular can. For the same reasons, he collaborated heavily on the development of the engine's turbine with Allgemeine Elektricitäts-Gesellschaft (AEG - General Electric Company) in Berlin, and instead of building development engines, opted to begin work immediately on the prototype of an engine that could be put straight into production. Franz's conservative approach came under question from the RLM, but was vindicated when even given the developmental problems that it was to face, the 004 entered production and service well ahead of its more technologically advanced competitor, the BMW 003.)"

The only German engine that could have been produced in war-time to be usefull (at least by early 1944 and possibly before the 004 reached full production) would have been the HeS-30 (006) design, it was far ahead in effeciency, had thrust equivelent to the 004, but weighed under 900lbs and with a diameter of only 24in it was also the smallest. (about the same weight and thrust as the J31 or Derwent but with the thinness of an axial design) It was also quite short at around 104in in length. It also used the simpler flame cans like the 004 which posed fewer problems than the annular one of the 003. Of course this engine was originally a Junkers design, but Muller left when Jumo was baught an their engine (004) took priority. I wouldn't consider the HeS-011 that great because, despite it being advanced and powerful, it was unrealistic for the short-term and was soon outclassed by allied engines like the J33 and J35. It was also not as ready as the 004H which was more powerfull and copperable to the nonafterburning production J35 from 1947. (the J35 beig designed in the early 40's as a turboprop and redesigned and tested to symilar results to the 011, in 1944)

It should be noted that the HeS-30 (006) was originaly a Jumo designed engine but in a 1939 merger the head designer and half the team decided to leave and was quickly taken up bu Heinkel. Had Jumo taken more interest in this design it might have been ahead of the 004 as it took over a year to transfer the whole projest to Heinkel and as it was the 006 was only a few months behind the 004 the prototype running on the bench shortly after the 004A. The 006's overall performance wan't matched until late 1947.

Many american designs, and a few british ones were also ahead of the times and quite advanced. The Metrovick F.2, Britain's first working axial engine, was an awsome design, its performance being symilar tho the D.H. Goblin and smaller but was too unreliable for war use. It was tested in the Meteor I a few months after the Halford H-1 and welland powered ones were in late 1943, both the welland, and F.2 powered prototypes crashed in April of 1944. The F.2 was developed further into the successful A.S. Saphire engine.
The Lockheed L-1000 (later J37) was also very advanced, but ultimately was never produced. The J35 was already mentioned above and was also very advanced. The J35 was developed from the turboprop TG-100 / TG-31 project, the TG-180 had an out put of 2,545lb of thrust, being run for the first time on the 21/4/1944. The first all-American design produced in the US was the Westinghouse J30 first run in early 1943 the final version was in the same class as the BMW-003 (at 1600 lbf thrust, later 1650 lbf) and entering production by early 1945. The only production aircraft to use it was the FH Phantom. But it was developed into the 3000 lbf J34 which powered several planes, most notably, the Phantom's successor, the F2H Banshee.

The jet engine that was most ahead of its time would have to be the first operating one: Conada's "air reactive" engine, a motorjet, built in 1910! 
see: Coanda
and CoandÄƒ-1910 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Of course the motor-jet wasn't a long-term jet design but could have paved the way for turbojets much earlier, particularly in terms of combustion-chamber and exhaust design.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Oct 17, 2007)

As a note on the WEP the J33 was fitted with W/A injection, and later a version of the US licenced Nene was also fitted with water injection.


----------



## pbfoot (Oct 17, 2007)

The Canadian version was an uprated Nene made by Orenda I haven't found out how it was uprated


----------



## kool kitty89 (Oct 18, 2007)

The water injection is really a boost not WEP, but it's not that big of a mistake. Either way both are limited, though water injection is not nearly as deyrimental to the engine as overrev in the 003E.


----------



## Graeme (Oct 20, 2007)

Poor photo, but T-33 with twin tail. Utilised by the US Navy during the test program to develop the T2V.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Oct 21, 2007)

It looks like the P-38's tail. Nice find.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Oct 23, 2007)

Just another comment on the He-280. Its wings may have been unswept but they were of low profile like the P-80 (the Meteor's were also not that thick, especially compared to the P-59) The wings were actually symilar to the P-47 which had decent high-speed maneuveabillity at altitude and a realitively high crit-mach (even without the dive flaps of the later models) and it had thick wings. The nacelles of the He-280 were no wider than the 262's (in with HeS-8, though it also used the 004 unsatisfactorily) so it couldn't be that bad. Anyway the Me-262 couldn't exceed .79 mach unless in a dive from high altitude (and certainly not in even a shallw dive even at ceiling, assuming 004B jets) Also where did you get the .79 figure? I still think the Me-262 is the better, especially in the interceptor role and had larger fuel capacity. Though there might have been room for increased tankage in the 280 since the fuel consumption rate was projected much lower than realistic and so tankage was low. And canceling the HeS-30 was definitly a big mistake and quite ironic, but ofcourse this is all with hindsight.


----------



## Soren (Oct 23, 2007)

Claiming the Jumo 004B wasn't ahead of its time is abit ridiculous, esp. considering that it was a way more efficient and advanced engine than any Allied engine.

The Jumo 004B featured a very narrow frontal area which made it excellent for high speed a/c, and the thrust out-put wasn't all bad at 8.8 kN, it did after-all push the Me-262 past 900 km/h in straight flight. Shallow dives was a very effective method of quickly attaining speed in the Me-262, the aircraft accelerating much more quickly than any piston engined fighter and it didn't take much altitude to reach hair raisingly high speeds - 1,100 + km/h could easily be reached in a dive. 

All this having been said, I agree the HeS-011 was a better engine as it was lighter and featured more thrust, its design was also way way ahead of its time, being by far the most advanced Jet engine to emerge from WW2.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Oct 23, 2007)

Read my post again. I didn't advocate the HeS-011; I actually sait it was more of a waste of time and resourses. It would never have been ready in time, used a complex and problematic design, and worst of all contributed to the cancelation of the HeS-30, the best class I engine of the war and for some time afterwards. This was particularly bad since the HeS-30 would have been a great tandem engine, even in shared nacelles, it was as light and powerful as the whittle Engine and was shorter and narrower than either the o004 or 003, and concevably could have entered production arround the same time as the 004 as its prototype was running at full speed at the same time as the 004A. (certainly ahead of the 003. It also used an electric starter motor opposed to the motercycle motor on the 004B.

I said the 004 was innovative, and that the conservative design approach was a good idea, but it was verry long and heavy and at 32 in in diameter it had almost 2x the frontal area than the HeS-30 of 24 in diameter. And it wasn't ahead of the allies technology as seen in the examples I gave. It was the first into production though. Both America and England had advanced designs around the same time as the 004 but didn't put as much intrest tward their designs. Jumo chose a design that could quickly be implemented in production so they chose a balance of advanced design and conservative performance. Though you can say that the 004 is ahead of its time as any functioning turbojet was in WWII, even the centrifugal ones.

Some of the most advanced designs were the British Metrovick F.2 and the Lockheed L-1000 axial engines. The designer of the F.2 heavily crit The F.2 at over 2600 lbf thrust was even tested in the Meteor as an alternate powerplant, but it wasn't nearly as reliable as the competitors and like FlyBoy said reliabillity wins over performance every time.

Whittle design based engines were particularly nice since they had radial air inlets. They also used 2-sided compressor rotors which nearly coubled mass flow. Such a design wouldn't work in Ohain's radial engines since they used annular combustors and piping is needed for air to pass between into the 2nd compressor side. The radial inlet also solved the problems of unstable air influx since ti had smooth flow. Ohain solved this the same way Whittle initialy did on paper, with an axial impeller ahead of the centrifugal inlet. The radial inlet also facilitated the addition of wire screens to act as a filter, keeping foreign objets out. This inlet was not seen on the DH Goblin which also used a single-sided compressor opposed to whittle's design, though the Goblin had 2 side inlets converging on the compressor inlet instead of a direct inlet. 

see: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/63/GE_J-31_Turbojet_Engine.jpg and http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/23/Aircraft_engine_RR_Nene_103_cut-out_RH.jpg for examples of the radial inlets and screens.

See: De Havilland Goblin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia for the Goblin's inlet design


----------



## Soren (Oct 24, 2007)

You didn't get my point.

My point is that the Jumo 004 is the most advanced efficient Jet engine to be used operationally in WW2. Sure there were more advanced efficient designs out there, but none of them ever went operational during WW2.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Oct 24, 2007)

The 004 may have had decent aerodynamic efficiency but it's fuel efficiency and thrust/weight left somthing to be desired.

Due larely to political reasons. As in the HeS-30 it was advancing rapidly and was catching up to the 004 in development and was ahead of the 003 in that respect, but the RLM didn't see a need for another class 1 engine and saw the HeS-30 as behind the others so it was cancelled to divert attention to the HeS-011 which IMHO was not as good or practical of a design. 

Also the 003 was more advance and was operational, if only very limitedly so.

The L-1000/L-133 wasn't taken up since the USAAF wasn't interested in Jets in 1941. The Westinghouse J30 was at least as good as the 003 and would have been ahead had it had government backing early on. As it was the J30 was developed independently at a slow pace and after the US government finaly took a serious interest in jets was able to finaly enter production in the early 1945. The J-35 was also advanced and had the government given more support it would have been ready for the war. (possibly along with the P-84)

The Germans had the advantage of supporting their jet program early on and thus were able to get them into production sooner. Still the cancelation of the HeS-30 was a big mistake, and though it wouldn't have changed the war's outcome it would have likely prolonged it. That design was probably the overall best of the war, light, high performing, small, efficient, and advanced but not so comlicated to cause production problems.

The Whittle engine development might have gotten ahead if: 1. the RAF had given funding sooner, and 2. Rover hadn't been chosen to produce it and Rols-Royce had been chosen from the start (the Rover development delayed production by about 2 years)

Its also too bad no 2-stage centrifugal-flow designs were put into production, they were still larger than the axial designs but smaller than single-stage centrifugals with the same positive properties and lacked the problems of axi-centrifugal designs. The Russians actualy designed one and built a prototype that produced 700kp of thrust by early 1943 and it could have been produced in quantity durring the war. There was even a decent airframe designed around it (single engine placement symilar to the Yak-15) and this was perfected in unpowered tests, but the engine was abandoned for a more advanced axial design which wouldn't be ready untill 1946. So the Russians lost their chance at an operational turbojet fighter durring the war.(and an indiginous one at that!)

see: EnginesUSSR for Soviet engines
EnginesUSA for US engines
EnginesUK for british developments and
Gu-VRD for Russia's jet.


----------



## Soren (Oct 25, 2007)

The BMW-003 wasn't really more advanced than the Jumo 004, just smaller and lighter.


----------



## AL Schlageter (Oct 25, 2007)

Soren said:


> The BMW-003 wasn't really more advanced than the Jumo 004, just smaller and lighter.


That would make the 003 more advanced.


----------



## Soren (Oct 25, 2007)

No it wouldn't, its output wasn't as high and aerodynamically it was no better.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Oct 25, 2007)

But the 003 had shorter spool-up time and less throttle-up and flameout problems and at WEP overrev it had slightly more thrust than the 004B, though the 004D or E would be at least as good overall the 004B was not. (accept in terms of maintanence as the 004D still lasted under 100 hrs and the 003E was known to last well over 100 hrs, iaround 500 hrs in som cases if memory serves) Though the 004 was much easier to produce and didn't need to be harmonized as delcyros mentioned with the 003, plus there were plans to produce an afterburning 004E while the closed thing the 003 had near production was the rocket boosted 003.

I still think the Germans had the best engine ready for production in time for use in the war in the HeS-30 (109-006) (originally a Junkers design started by Herbert Wagner and headed by Adolf Müller in 1936, but durring the merger with Jumo their engine seemed easier to get into production resulting in Junkers design being dropped and Muller with half the design team left and jouned Heinkel. This move severely delaying development.) but as said political events prevented its realization. 

Before the British achievements in the Whittle designs were known to the US they had had some pretty advance designs around, but they had no government support. In fact all the US jet designs (except maby a GE paper design based on one of there turbochargers) were axial. The J31 and J33 only came about because of the modified British designs which were ahead in development due to a larger government intrest. What would become the J30, J35, and the unsucessful XJ37 (L-1000) had all been tested by 1943. Had the US designs had government support early on it's conceivable they would have been ahead of the Germans due to their larger pool of engineers and production capabilities. (as well as more advanced industrial metallurgy).

Though even with the US's advantages the HeS-30 would be hard to beat. (and it wasn't in overall performance and efficiency untill the 1950s)

delcyros has expressed similar opinions of the HeS-30 (I believe he also agrees that the HeS-011 was not that great of a design as it was overly complex, not able to produce expected thrust, and wouldn't materialize in the necessary timeframe)

The HeS-30 was also the only Heinkel-Hirth design that could have been worth producing, compared to the HeS-8 and HeS-011. (though this may not have been if Ohain had designed an axial design to follow on of the HeS-3 and 6, and indeed he favored these designs bu this time but the RLM wasnted to keep a centrifugal design going in case the axlial ones ran into problems. In the end the engine never produced the projected 700 kp and development had fallen behind the 004 and even their own HeS-30 by 1942)

Heinkel HeS 30 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## kool kitty89 (Oct 25, 2007)

Delcyros, I know its alittle late to comment again about the wihte paint of the Meteor III but I've read some more about it now. The F.III Meteors serving in Germany in early 1945 were painted white to distinguish them from the 262 AND as winter camoflauge as it was winter at the time. Also the white paint didn't help all that mutch to eliminate friendly fire as many were still fired on thinking that they were Me 262s with a different paint scheme.
I think the Meteor also had better low altitude speed than some other fighters intercepting the V-1s as they were able to do around 400-410mph at low altitude (less than 20 mph lower than top speed).

With thw 262's critical mach of .86 (for safty limited to .84) it still wouldn't be able to go faster than 600 mph with sufficiently powereful engines at altitude since mach 1 at 30,000-35,000 ft is around 700-670 mph so mach .86 would be 602-576 mph and .84 is 588-562 mph. Though this is decidedly better than the P-80 or Mk.4+ meteor with limits closer to .82 which means only 574-549 mph at high altitude and the meteor had the thrust to push past this with the Derwenr V engines so the airframe was the limiting factor and is thus why top-speed is at lower altitudes. (the F-84G had this problem too due to its thick wings and had a limit of around .88 or alittle higher, which wasn't a problem for earlier varients with less powerful engines but with its uprated J35 delivering over 5500 lbf, compared to 4000 for prevous models, it could exceed its limited top-speed of 622 mph, compared to ~595 mph of earlier models, which would result in its famous pitch-up stall, though at least one pilot did this intentionally when trying to escape some Mig-15s which couldn't follow the violent maneuver and one crashed into the ground. The F-84 survived with heavy warping.)

One more thing, I was wrong when I said the P-80's 169 gallon teardrop wingtip tanks increased drag. According to several sources I read the tanks reduced drag by improving airflow around the wingtips as well as improving roll (the same effect as the F9F's perminant wing tanks) and increased lift at the tips reducing in-flight wing loading. Though I doubt the T-33's tanks had the same effect due to change in aerodynamic shape and larger size resulting in high-speed interferance. (as FlyboyJ said they caused the wings to flap)

FlyboyJ, any idea of the volume of the T-33's wingtip tanks?


----------



## Soren (Oct 26, 2007)

You've got to be kidding me Koolkitty!

In terms of metallurgy the Germans were well ahead throughout WW2, and they continue to be so till this day. The problem bugging the German Jet program was a lack of the necessary expensive metals needed to solve the reliability problems bugging their Jet engines. The Germans knew exactly what they needed to make their engines even more powerful reliable, problem was however that it wasn't in big enough a supply, as much had to be used for other projects.

I also strongly disagree with your false theory that the US would've been ahead had they showed interest earlier on. Fact is Germany possessed better educated engineers aerodynamicists right from the start of the war, and they were well ahead in both fields from the beginning till the end (Hence the performance they managed to achieve with the Me-262 design) In fact the Germans have been ahead in aerodynamics all the way back since 1904 and up until the end of the 2nd world war. All of this mainly thanks to the fact that all of the ground breaking research before and during WW2 was carried out at the laboratory of Ludwig Prandtl at Göttingen, which was the main center of theoretical and mathematical aerodynamics and fluid dynamics research in the world from soon after 1904 to the end of WW2. This is where the term boundary layer was coined as-well as the place where modern mathematical aerodynamics was founded. The laboratory first lost its dominance after the war when the researchers were dispersed.

The German lead in metallurgy is also clearly demonstrated in their AFV's, esp. the Tiger Ausf.E which featured the strongest and most durable armour of any AFV of WW2. German projectiles were also of higher quality and aerodynamic efficiency than their Allied counterparts, German armour piercing projectiles being made of harder and more durable metals - you can read about this as-well in the book "WWII Ballistics Armor and gunnery" by Lorrin Rexford Bird Robert D. Livingstone. 

Also remember its not like the Jet programme was supported full out by the RLM, and funding was limited.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Oct 26, 2007)

I said Industrial metalurgy. Sure they had produced things like stainless steel (though the Brits invented an equivelent with in the same time period) and high-temp metals in the lab but their industry wasn't equipped to produce them in large quantity. Granted this was largely due to lack of raw materials (why build factories to produce things they can't make much of). But the factories they did have weren't producing all that high-quality of steels for production (like in the case of many 004Bs). Though I'll also admit that the allied bombing contributed heavily to this. But note again I said INDUSTRIAL metalurgy not their metal engeneering in general. I agree that they had a great variety of advanced alloys but the industry lacked the raw materials, and to a lesser extent, the technology to produce it on a large scale.

One of the major breakthroughs for Whittle is when a high-temp Nickel-Chromium alloy became industrialy available, this is a large part of what made his engine feasible. Though the German metalugists had also been working on high-temp alloys (most likely a nikel-iron alloy) that used available, nonrestricted metals, and this was put to use in the turbojet industry before the end of the war (I believe ith was planned to be used in the 004 and 003 engines possibly the 004D or E)

The US certainly had advanced designs (look at the L-133) and as said before all the engines in serious development in the us by 1941 were axial designs. The Westinghouse J30 was in production by the war's end producing 1600 lbf and most of its development had been privately funded, untill the navy took interest in what would become the FH Phantom. Likewise went the L-1000 engine project with the L-133 design were private company designs, but work pretty much stopped when there was no intrest given by the USAAF. (that engine was to produce around 3000 lbf) The J35 I've already covered. The only engine design truly more advanced IMHO is the HeS-30, smply beautiful!

Granted the Germans had a greater number advanced designs and projects but when you compare the best of each Germany is ahead only by a little, and with the US's massive resourses production of such designs would be much easier and go much faster.

Another thing the US had were advanced turbochargers. The US was the only county to use turbos widely in the war. The Brits perferring to work on powereful 2-stage superchargers as seen in the Merlin-61. The Germans were also working on turbochargers, in particular I remember Junkers and Jumo doing some work (axial compressors I believe) before they started work on their jet projects in the late 1930s, but a large portion of the development staff was diverted to jet development and I'm not really sure how their turbocharger projects ended up. Do you know anything about German turbos durring the war? I don't seem to remember any production aircraft or engine to use them.
Also, Varients of the P-47 Thunderbolt were faster than any prop planes the germans had , even the fastest production varients, the P-47M and N had top speeds of 470 and 460 mph respectively. That's better than the F.3 Meteor with short nacelles. The P-47J topped out at 506 mph and the XP-72 was projected at a theoretical max speed of nearly 550 mph with contrarotating propellers and a 3500 hp engine. (though 520 mph is more reasonable and only 490 was reached with the standard prop, but I wouldn't be too surprised if a modified version optimized for top speed and without armament could reach 550)


----------



## delcyros (Oct 26, 2007)

There have been a couple of points of interest recently.

The Jumo-004B is not a bad engine per se but as Koolkitty pointed out, it was the second worst possibility (I believe the radial HeS08 would have been even worser but that´s another matter) to choose from the german perspective. The BMW-003 is indeed better in almost every respect and the 003 along with the -004e would have received afterburner in later 1945 (that was the first german scientists did on those engines in russia). The BMW-003D with improved fuel consumption and 1100 Kp thrust on the benchtest is an excellent engine for Ar-234 and He-162 even if it did not managed to get into mass production due to factories beeing overrun in march 1945 in Silesia.
The -004 was upgradable and thus would be improved as well but more importantly, it was produced in huge numbers! The good point on the development of the Jumo-004 is that in the cause of it´s development pioneering techniques had to be developed. It´s a point of "we do not learn from success". While the Jumo-004 was not initially successful it paved the way from a technology point of view and would have made successing axial designs much easier. I believe BMW enjoied some of the related experiences, esspeccially in it´s large axial jet engine, the BMW-018 (which can be grossly correlated with the RR Nene, altough not as efficiant and much heavier). 
However, I fundamentally agree that nothing beats the HeS030.
The HeS011 is difficult to have a position towards. It is somehow comparable in development to the Dervent V (both engines went airborne the same month!) and would have resulted in very comparable thrust ratings later that year. But as complicated as it´s vibration issues proved to be, I see lot´s of problems to overcome beforehand.

The big advantage the US had was basic tooling level as pointed out years ago by Lunatic. Had they ventured sooner into jet engines, they could have tipped the balance, true. The industrial implementation advantages, typical for the US has it´s own, unmatched quality.
I have always been impressed how they made british radial jet engines a subject of mass production in an outstanding short timeframe. I don´t think that the L1000 engine would have been possible for the US, there were actually more problems to be adressed previously (such as compressor stall, blade cooling techniques, vibrition issues and the details of a usable combustion chamber) than was known by then and that´s why this engine, altough beeing transferred from one authority to another, never worked on the testbench (well into the early 50´s).

The UK also made notable progress in jet engines (the Nene and Dervent V come to mind), even the soviets rapidly designed an indigenious Ljulka TR-1.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Oct 26, 2007)

As I said a major advantage of the 004 design is that it was easy to produce. On the same note it was said that a combination of conservative and innovative design approch was taken. This is what may have made it a great (but not necessarily high performing) engine, though not that advanced compared to some other designs, it was able to be produced in the thousands!

I agree that the HeS-011 is kind of a gray area, but it ceartinly shouldn't have taken presidence over the HeS-30. (neither should the 003, though as said the 004 had inherant production advantages) The HeS-30 would ceartainly have developed to production before the 003 seeing how fast it was progressing and was catching up to the 004 in development timeframe.

I'll also agree that the L-1000 wasn't a practical design (though it was advanced) but what would become the J30 (later developed into the much more powerful J34), and the J35, would have ceartainly have developed faster had there been a strong government intrest. 

As you probably know the Nene and Derwent V are the same engine, just on different scales. Don't forget De Haviland's work on the Goblin and Ghost. (also bassicly the same except for scale and flame-can design)

One more note on the British is that, though both Whittle and Ohain had their first engines run in the same month (April of 1937, Whittle's on the 12th and Ohain's a little earlier), Whittle's design was able to run on liquid disel while Ohain's had to use hydrogen. Though Ohain did Produce the first flyable model but even it had to use hydrogen for the first flight. (the first HeS-3 was having trouble with clogged fuel injectors so a compressed hydrogen tank was temporarilly fitted to the He-178 so it could fly on schedule) Though whittle's WU engine tended to accelerate out of controll at startup, this was found to be due to excess fuel leaking into the combustion chamber, this was later solved by adding a drain to remove fuel before startups.

And on the Russians, remember Lyul'ka had the 2-stage centrifugal-flow RDT-1/VDR-2 I mentioned prevously in 1943. They could hve produced it for the war for the Gu-VRD but chose to divert work to the axial S-18/VDR-3 which was developed into the TR-1 , which wasn't ready for anpther 2-3 years.

once again I'll list: EnginesUSSR for Soviet engines
EnginesUSA for US engines
EnginesUK for british developments


----------



## kool kitty89 (Oct 27, 2007)

As for the Me-262's armament, a combination of 2 heavy 30mm cannons and 4 MG 151/20 with mine rounds would be one of the best all around configuration. I'd say MK-103, but the Luftwaffe seened to perfer the MK-108 plus with the 103 the barrels would protrude from the nose. The MK-108 was easy to produce, had a higher ROF, much less recoil and (not sure) a higher ammo load at the expence of lower velocity, range, and trajectory.

Another note on the He-280, I ask again where the Mach .79 figure came from delcyros? (,82 seems more reasonable, as the design was cleaner than the Meteor) Also, I've looked through my sourses again and found where I got the idea that the RLM was uninterested in jets. I was thinking mostly about Heinkel's projects, which were a private venture initially and the RLM was angry about this and less forthcoming with support than in the rest of this feild. And on the earlier comment on the wing design eating up speed, it was certainly thinner than the meteor's and the HeS-8 engines were as narrow as 004Bs (both about 31" in diameter andmuch smaller than the 42" welland or derwent of the meteor). Overall the 280 (with HeS-30 or 003 engines) was at least as good in all respects as the He-162 except production cost. It certainly could have outfaught the P-80A and would have made a good plane to complement the 262, as I believe it would have more trouble with the P-80 than the 280 would. (though the Me 262 was still superior in speed and versitillity) 

see: Heinkel He 280 archive file

Delcyros, you also said " Heinkel wasn´t much into jet engines at all (he perhaps delayed the HeS-030 project more than accelerated it) but he had the right impetus and showed initiative to advance the by then new field much." with wich I generally agree, one argument between Heinkel and Adolf Muller (the Head of the HeS-30 project) led to Muller leaving Heinkel. But as you said he was verry interested in the concept of jet aircraft (he seemed to like designing high-speed aircraft best) and I've read that quote: "Helmut Schelp, in charge of engine development at the RLM, refused to give Heinkel a production contract, an event that Hans von Ohain claims brought Ernst Heinkel nearly to tears."


----------



## delcyros (Oct 27, 2007)

The .79 crit Mach figure does come from a factory intern writing directed to Dir. Francke and Dr. Motzfeld, dating on dec. 6th, 1942 (so called "_EHF Aktenvermerk_"). It is termed as "_erwartete finale bahngeschwindigkeit_", so it is no empirical data. You should keep in mind that the airfoil of the He-280 was to thick to allow higher speeds. In a corresponding writing towards Dir. Francke, Dr. Motzfeld and Mr. Eichner dating from dec. 12th, 1942, Heinkel suggests the following points to improve the He-280 for serial production:
_
-VERBESSERUNGEN HE 280-_ 
IMPROVEMENTS HE 280

_1. Sechs Kanonen,_
1.) six cannons, 

_2. Wesentlich mehr Brennstoff und deshalb dickeren Rumpf,_
2.) considerably more fuel buncerage and therefore a larger fuselage diamter,

_3. Modernes Flächenprofil,_
3.) modern airfoil,
_
4. Zentral-Leitwerk,_
4.) central tailplane (normal tail)

_5. Rumpf um 50 - 80 cm verlängern,_
5.) fuselage to be elongated by 50-80 cm,
_
6. Möglichkeit der Unterbringung von Bomben unter dem Rumpf prüfen,_
6.) checking the possibility to take two bombs under fuselage,

_7. Zwecks Berücksichtigung einfacher Fertigung und bequemer Montage soll Gestängeführung und Leitwerk zu beiden seiten aussen sein, zweckmässige Baugruppen-Unterteilung usw.,_
7.) (...) 

_8. Im Prinzip sonst alles ähnlich._
8.) pricipally everything else likewise

_
gez. H E I N K E L_
sig. Heinkel

You see on what these improvements are aimed for. Mainly to be competetive with the Me-262. The max. allowed speed of the He-280 was 820 Km/h and a higher speed would make structural reinforcements necessary (skin was typically 1.2 - 1.5mm dural. The V7 had to reinforce the skin between frame 26 and 30 to 2mm dural). All the improvements together would drastically increase the gross weight of the He-280 and thus offset the advantages this plane theoretically had in terms of low speed handling and acceleration over the Me-262. The changes would also mean a substantial delay, add the engine problems and the decision of the RLM to drop the He-280 on 27th of march 1943 becomes understandable, esspeccially as the serial He-280 with the improvements suggested by Heinkel would resemble a fairly comparable appearence, altough slower.


(the comparison flight between Fw-190 and He-280 is often misinterpreted. The He-280 did not OUTTURNED the Fw-190, she OUTACCELERATED and OUTCLIMBED the plane).


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 27, 2007)

Soren said:


> In terms of metallurgy the Germans were well ahead throughout WW2, and they continue to be so till this day.


The Germans did some things very well, others they had to rely on substitutes in materials as they did not have the luxury of large furnaces and processing facilities, especially later in the war. 

And in what way is Germany "well ahead" in metallurgy today? I don't see any breakthroughs in heat treating, processing, welding or any other processing associated with producing aircraft that is no different than any other developed western country. 

BTW - here ate the top 10 heat treaters in the world today. Germany is represented as "part of Europe."

1) Bodycote International. Without a shadow of a doubt UK based Bodycote is the largest commercial heat treater in the world and generally the largest in each geographic area around the world. Overall sales are in the order of $1 Billion US which includes "Testing" and "Hipping" although heat treating sales are roughly 75% of Bodycote's overall sales. If you feel the inclination, a browse through our archives (a long browse) will give you a lot of Bodycote's history. A browse will also give you a good feel for where they are going, namely expansion into new developing markets. You can see their financials and locations at Bodycote plc Website :: Home 

2) Nihon Parkerising. It would appear that the second largest commercial shop in the world and the largest in Japan is Nihon Parkerising who have commercial heat treat sales of roughly $280 million USD almost all of which is salt heat treating based on the former Degussa Tennifer (MELONITE) technology. In addition they have huge sales of salt. Staggering that a commercial heat treater does such volumes in such a specialized area. 

3) Aalberts Industries. Based in the Netherlands Aalberts is the second largest commercial heat treater in Europe. This large conglomerate is split into two parts, Industrial Services (under which their heat treating companies fall) and Flow Control. While the second largest in Europe they have a very small presence in North America and virtually no, if any heat treating presence outside of Europe and NA. Aalberts Industries N.V. Aalberts heat treating sales are about €280m (at the time of printing this would be about $375 million USD) but this is split roughly 50/50 between commercial heat treating and Anodising/electroplating which means heat treat sales of approximately $187 million USD. 

4) Bluewater Thermal. (previously Gibraltar Industries). Again another large conglomerate US based Bluewater Thermal is clearly the second largest in North America with sales of about $120 million USD. They are best known for their individual companies such as Brazing Concepts, CCHT, B W Heat Treat, Harbor Metal Treating, Hi Temp Inc., Pennsylvania Industrial Heat Treat, Rock River HT and SCM Metals. All of these shops were part of the heat treating division of Gibraltar Industries based in Buffalo, NY until the heat treating operations were bought by a private equity group in June of 2006 and the name changed to Bluewater Thermal. Bluewater Thermal Processing commercial heat treaters 

5) DOWA in Japan, Thailand and the USA. Dowa is one of the giants in the industry both when it comes to commercial heat treating and building new furnaces. They have numerous heat treatment facilities in Japan and operations in Thailand, USA and others as they tend to follow Toyota and Honda. (1) Dowa Holdings Co., Ltd. consists of five member companies such as Dowa Metals Mining, Dowa Eco-Systems, Dowa Electronics Materials, Dowa Metaltech and Dowa Thermotech. Dowa Holdings Co., Ltd. USD90 to 70m range One which certainly deserves to be on the list is Dowa Thermotech who had 2005 sales of $193 million USD for their new furnace business and commercial heat treating division. Our belief is that roughly 60% of total sales are commercial heat treating which would mean $115 million USD.

6) The HEF Group. HEF is a European based company that describes itself as a ‘surface engineering company’, (HEF is a French acronym meaning “wear and friction”). They provide surface treatment technologies – chemicals and/or equipment - and commercial processing in the areas of liquid nitriding, sulfurizing, carburizing/heat transfer salts, boriding, PVD/CVD, etc. Estimated sales for their heat treating and PVD business is a little over $100 million USD. HEF - Tribology, Surface engineering, Surface treatments and coatings, Surface characterizations I

7) ONEX. Again another Japanese commercial heat treat chain. They do not have a presence outside of Japan and do not appear to have an interest in doing so. Our understanding is that commercial heat treat sales for ONEX are a little under $90 million USD. English@Page 

8 ) TOHKEN THERMO TECH CO. LTD. One of the largest commercial heat treaters in Japan with a number of locations in Japan, one in Thailand and one in Malaysia. By anybody's standards a very large, well established heat treater that has been around since 1927. TOHKEN Overall sales for the company as a whole are between $70 and $80 million USD.

9) RIKEN. This Japanese manufacturer of piston rings also builds furnaces and does a great deal of commercial and captive heat treating. In 2006 their sales were $771 million USD and we believe their commercial heat treating sales to be between $60 and $70 million USD. RIKEN

10) Paulo Products. US based Paulo Products is the largest of the privately held commercial heat treaters in North America, long owned and run by the Rassieur family Paulo Heat Treating, Brazing and Metal Finishing They currently have 5 plants pretty much covering most types of heat treating including Batch IQ furnaces, vacuum and continuous to name a few.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Oct 27, 2007)

And as Delcyros said earlier the Germans had to use alloys like Tinadur and Chromadur for turbine use the second one replaces nickel with manganeese and both use a fair amount of chromium, wihch is surprising since I'd think that chromium would be in shorter supply than nickel.

And I think Soren meant in development of new alloys (metalugical engineering) not so much production of advanced matals and metal processes. But I'd have to say that the UK and US certainly have similar merits in this feild. (like in the US with Nickel Aluminide, Ni3Al developed at the US government's Oak Ridge National Laboratory at Tennessee, which is 6x stronger than stainless steel and actually gets stronger as it gets hotter, being 2x as strong at 800C* than at room temperature!)

Thanks for that info on the 280 Delcyros, its just that in all the diagrams I've seen the 280 apears to have a fairly thin wing (thinner than those of the meteor) and the P-47 had a similar wing, probably even thicker and was able to stay in cntroll at higher speeds, known to dive at 550 mph, though dive flaps had to be used. But, nacelle size was certainly no larger than with the 004, and the Meteor with it's bulky engines did well once longer, streamlined nacelles were fitted. Since the 280 was still in prototype stages of these corections to the design had been made early it would have performed much better.

Too bad they didn't work on there problems durring the lengthy engine gestation period. And too bad Ohain was made to focus on the HeS-8 after the Hes-3 and 6 instead of starting on an axial design. The misfortion of the HeS-30 has already been discussed extencivily. Both Heinkel and Ohain viewed the HeS-30 as the favorable design, and it had been suggested as a replacement for the HeS-8 in designs using that engine. (since the HeS-30 was't too much longer or heavier than the HeS-8, and thus would fit most designs)


----------



## Soren (Oct 27, 2007)

> And in what way is Germany "well ahead" in metallurgy today? I don't see any breakthroughs in heat treating, processing, welding or any other processing associated with producing aircraft



FLYBOYJ, what fighter aircraft besides the Eurofighter does Germany build today ?

Anyway I wasn't talking appliance within aircraft production specifically FLYBOYJ, just metallurgical science in general. A good example today as-well as back in the day is the metals generally used in AFV's, guns and tools (of all kinds nearly) the methods in which they are machined refined. 

As to production capabilities, sure the Germans can't mass-produce in the same scale as the US but they make up for that in the quality of their work, much like the Swiss - You don't have to look far to notice either. 

Point is Germany specializes itself very much within steel-making having depending on huge exports in this area.


----------



## Soren (Oct 27, 2007)

Koolkitty,

Just a quick response to your comments about turbochargers piston engined fighter top speeds. The Germans employed both turbo superchargers in their aircraft, and their quickest piston engined fighters (Ta-152 Dora-12/13) reached speeds ranging from 475 - 500 mph, thats faster than both the P-47M N


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 27, 2007)

Soren said:


> FLYBOYJ, what fighter aircraft besides the Eurofighter does Germany build today ?


NONE - and they haven't built a whole airframe in mass since the war...


Soren said:


> Anyway I wasn't talking appliance within aircraft production specifically FLYBOYJ, just metallurgical science in general. A good example today as-well as back in the day is the metals generally used in AFV's, guns and tools (of all kinds nearly) the methods in which they are machined refined.


Again, nothing that any other European country and these days Japan hasn't done or done similar.


Soren said:


> As to production capabilities, sure the Germans can't mass-produce in the same scale as the US but they make up for that in the quality of their work, much like the Swiss - You don't have to look far to notice either.


Agreed to a point but in the case of metallurgical sciences there isn't much differance, in fact the US has been the leader in Titanium fabrication since the U-2 days. 


Soren said:


> Point is Germany specializes itself very much within steel-making having depending on huge exports in this area.


OK, but there's nothing world leading there. I don't see any plasma spray coating, titanium welding or laser cutting state of the art facilities that are world leading anywhere in Germany. Its not to say that the German metallurgical industry (consisting of heat treating and special processing companies) are no further state of the art than those found in the US or for that matter any where else in Europe. The leaders in this science are the ones who can produce and produce "state of the art" with that said, it's the UK, Japan and the US.


----------



## AL Schlageter (Oct 27, 2007)

Soren said:


> Koolkitty,
> 
> Just a quick response to your comments about turbochargers piston engined fighter top speeds. The Germans employed both turbo superchargers in their aircraft, and their quickest piston engined fighters (Ta-152 Dora-12/13) reached speeds ranging from 475 - 500 mph, thats faster than both the P-47M N


Your proof for this claim of top speed is ...... .

The Germans tried turbo charging in the Folke-Wulf 190 but couldn't get it to work.

The turbocharged Bv 155 only topped out at 429mph @ ~52,000ft.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Oct 27, 2007)

Soren that's what I thought you meant by metalurgy (as said in my previous post). As I also said the US also has much merit in the feild of metalugical engeneering. (see my previous example)

And on your comment on quality of work in steels, I heartily agree. Just look at the world famous knives and blades from Solingen.

on a different note here's another comparison between the 262 and the P-80
(picture below) from: The First American Jet (1942) - WW2inColor Talk I still think its amazing that Lockheed got such an amazing plane out of less than a year of development (~150 days to the XP-80A then later the full-blown XP-80A and YP-80A) Though obviously not flawless, it was amazing especially considdering it was comparable to the 262 (both having their own advantages) which had over 3 years of development work.

Below the comparison is an picture story from: The Aviation History Online Museum "Bolt from Above" - Robert Winks - P51D Mustang - Me262 Jet


----------



## AL Schlageter (Oct 27, 2007)

Sheffield steel anyone.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Oct 27, 2007)

With the GM boost I think the Ta-152 had a top speed of 472mph, though it might have been faster with both MW 50 and GM engaged at the same time. But less than 200 of this aircraft were produced and few evermade it to service. (I think a few were used as interceptors and as cover for Me-262 airfeilds) You could also include the Bf-209 world-speed setter at 469 mph, but this was never a combat plane, despite the breif attenpt to convert it to one. The Do-335 was also faster at 474 mph, and as a fighter-bomber its use is comparable to the P-47, but it didn't enter service.

The XP-47J and XP-52 were faster though (at 506 mph and 490 mph tested and 550 mph theoretical for the P-72) though these didn't enter production.

What is the Dora-12/13?


----------



## kool kitty89 (Oct 27, 2007)

Sheffield steel? isn't that an album from the 1980s Sheffield Steel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia =) 

But seriously, you're right many countries have regions famous for such things. My example for germany was Solingen.


----------



## AL Schlageter (Oct 27, 2007)

MW50 was usable up to ~FTH.
GM1 was usually used above FTH. 
False. Ta152H were not used as airfield cover.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Oct 27, 2007)

Oh, I found an article on the FH Phantom and itlists the size of arious Westinghouse engines proposed for it, the chosen J30 engines were 19 inches in diameter and produced 1600 lbs thrust. That is a more compact design then i thought, the powere of a welland or I-16 in an engine of less than half the diameter and thus less than 1/4 the frontal area and about half the frontal area of the 003! This engine possibly has the highest thrust to frontal area ratio of the war, even higher than the 24.4 inch HeS-30 tested at 2004 lbf (910 kp). It powered the US's first aircraft to take-off and land on a carrier the FH Phantom, which was also the first US jet to use axial engines. here are some line drawings: http://richard.ferriere.free.fr/3vues/fh1_1_3v.jpg http://richard.ferriere.free.fr/3vues/fh1_2_3v.jpg and its sucessor the F2H Banshee: http://richard.ferriere.free.fr/3vues/f2h_banshee_3v.jpg

Though, with both the engine and aircraft development going slowly the prototype wasn't ready untill 1945 (ordered in '43), and largely due to the war in the Pacific ending, didn't enter production untill '46, and service untill mid '47 by which time its replacement the larger, more powerefull, higher performing and better armed F2H Banshee was nearly ready to enter service along with the F9 Panther and the FJ Fury and would all would enter service in about a year. So the order was reduced from 100 to 30 andthen raised to 60 and the Phantom served as a conversion trainer and never saw combat, similar to the P-59, though it did see a short period of front-line use from 1947-1948. (though if the war had continued and Japan was invaded a planned, its likely the FH Phantom would have seen some service before Japan surrendered)


----------



## kool kitty89 (Oct 27, 2007)

Of the aifield cover with the 152, I thought that might be a mith, that's why I said I think...
But thanks for the correction. =)


----------



## Ome_Joop (Oct 27, 2007)

AL Schlageter said:


> False. Ta152H were not used as airfield cover.



Although some writers have stated that Ta 152s flew "top-cover" for bases from which Messerschmitt Me 262 jet fighters operated, this seems unlikely..... The Ta 152s of the Stabsschwarm did fly airfield protection duties for the Doras of II./JG 301 given that the various Gruppen of JG 301 were housed on different fields..


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 28, 2007)

kool kitty89 said:


> Soren that's what I thought you meant by metalurgy (as said in my previous post). As I also said the US also has much merit in the feild of metalugical engeneering. (see my previous example)
> 
> And on your comment on quality of work in steels, I heartily agree. Just look at the world famous knives and blades from Solingen.




Knives don't fly unless you throw them!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 28, 2007)

AL Schlageter said:


> Sheffield steel anyone.



BINGO!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 28, 2007)

kool kitty89 said:


> Of the aifield cover with the 152, I thought that might be a mith, that's why I said I think...
> But thanks for the correction. =)



Ask Erich about more info on this. He has family ties to this squadon and plenty of information.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Oct 28, 2007)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Knives don't fly unless you throw them!



I guess we have gotten a little off topic huh...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 28, 2007)

kool kitty89 said:


> I guess we have gotten a little off topic huh...



Yup -


----------



## drgondog (Oct 29, 2007)

kool kitty89 said:


> One more thing, I was wrong when I said the P-80's 169 gallon teardrop wingtip tanks increased drag. According to several sources I read the tanks reduced drag by improving airflow around the wingtips as well as improving roll (the same effect as the F9F's perminant wing tanks) and increased lift at the tips reducing in-flight wing loading. Though I doubt the T-33's tanks had the same effect due to change in aerodynamic shape and larger size resulting in high-speed interferance. (as FlyboyJ said they caused the wings to flap)
> 
> FlyboyJ, any idea of the volume of the T-33's wingtip tanks?



To be technical, the design theory with having tip tanks was to create a 'two dimensional' effect at the wing tip to reduce the tip vortex - which reduces induce drag - the more elegant approach is the modern 'winglet'.


----------



## drgondog (Oct 29, 2007)

Soren said:


> You've got to be kidding me Koolkitty!
> 
> In terms of metallurgy the Germans were well ahead throughout WW2, and they continue to be so till this day. The problem bugging the German Jet program was a lack of the necessary expensive metals needed to solve the reliability problems bugging their Jet engines. The Germans knew exactly what they needed to make their engines even more powerful reliable, problem was however that it wasn't in big enough a supply, as much had to be used for other projects.
> 
> ...



I have enormous respect for the aero and metallurgy and pure engineering skills exhibited by Germans then and now - but for some reason you trivialize Brit and American engineering talent in comparison. 

Why?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 29, 2007)

kool kitty89 said:


> Though I doubt the T-33's tanks had the same effect due to change in aerodynamic shape and larger size resulting in high-speed interferance. (as FlyboyJ said they caused the wings to flap)
> 
> FlyboyJ, any idea of the volume of the T-33's wingtip tanks?



Actually Bill got it right - they just flapped like hell in a dive or at higher mach numbers.

The Fletcher tip tanks (found on most T-33s) had a capacity of 233 gallons


----------



## kool kitty89 (Oct 29, 2007)

So did all tanks cause high-speed problems or just the centerline 233 gal tanks. The F-80Cs used both the centerline tanks as well as 265 US gallon under-tip tanks (sometimes named "Misawa" tanks) see: Lockheed P-80C Shooting Star


Quote from Lockheed XP-80A Shooting Star : "The second XP-80A became the first in the Shooting Star series to carry a 165 US-gallon drop tank underneath each wingtip. When carried, these tanks actually lowered rather than increased the drag. They could be brought home empty with no penalty in aerodynamic drag. The tanks also improved aileron effectiveness and wing loading."

So was it just the early 165 gallon tanks that had this possitive effect?

Below is a comparison of the tanks from: BVM T-33 Jet Kit

Below that is an interesting story of the P-80 found on the same site: Hot Shots BVM F-80 Shooting Star

Some cool cool model flight there, I wonder if there are any like Me-262 models?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 29, 2007)

The larger tank was the Fletcher tank, I think that article is wrong. Among civilian operators its the most popular because it carries the most fuel.






I used to fly in this one, it belongs to my friend Charlie Wallash.

I can't speak for the other tanks or for the F-80. I would imagine at higher speeds they would have the same effect. At lower or normal operating speeds I think they became "first generation winglets."


----------



## kool kitty89 (Oct 29, 2007)

The 165 gal "Lockheed" tanks still look the most streamlined. And is that letter correct about the problems on the YP-80's guns?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 29, 2007)

kool kitty89 said:


> The 165 gal "Lockheed" tanks still look the most streamlined. And is that letter correct about the problems on the YP-80's guns?



Possibly - I know there were problems with the F-94C firing all its rockets in one blast.


----------



## comiso90 (Oct 29, 2007)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Possibly - I know there were problems with the F-94C firing all its rockets in one blast.



like what?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 29, 2007)

comiso90 said:


> like what?


It shook the hell out of the aircraft and cracked the canopy - this was from Tony LeVier.


----------



## comiso90 (Oct 29, 2007)

not good.


----------



## Soren (Oct 29, 2007)

Bill, all I have posted is facts ! Check up on it yourself !

The laboratory of Ludwig Prandtl at Göttingen was the main center of theoretical and mathematical aerodynamics and fluid dynamics research in the world from 1904 to the end of WW2. The term boundary layer was coined at the Göttingen lab, and modern mathematical aerodynamics was founded there. Thats fact Bill !

And here are some of THE most important and influencial persons within the history of aerodynamics:

Ludwig Prandtl - Germany (Probably the most important contributor to aerodynamic research in history, the father of modern aerodynamics)
Albert Betz - Germany
Michael Max Munk - Germany (Worked with NACA)
Richard von Mises - Germany 
Theodor Meyer - Germany 
Adolph Busemann - Germany (Specialist in supersonic airflows, and the father of the swepped wing concept)

Prandtl and Theodor Meyer developed the first theories of supersonic shock waves and flow in 1908. 

Prandtl later worked with Adolf Busemann and created a method for designing a supersonic nozzle in 1929, and today all supersonic wind tunnels and rocket nozzles are designed using the same method.

Now seeing that you've apparently heard nothing about the above earning your PhD, not even recognizing their work eventhough it was some of the most influencial to date, you most be very rusty on the subject history of aerodynamics fluid dynamics!


----------



## kool kitty89 (Oct 30, 2007)

So were US (as well as a few others than Germany) using designs based on Adolph Busemann's pre-war work (was it even public?) in projects like the XP-55 Ascender? Also the XP-56, XP-59 (20 degree swept-wing development of the XP-52, not the airacomet) and the pre-war, Russain Borovkov-Florov IzdeliyeD

Not critisizing, just an honest question.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Oct 30, 2007)

comiso90 said:


> not good.



Niether is blowing the nose off when all 6 guns are fired! (I'm not sure this was a problem on all YP-80s though, just that pilot's account. Though I do seem to rember some othe sourse that said the armament of the YP-80A had been reduced to 4x guns. Any knoledge of this?)


----------



## delcyros (Oct 30, 2007)

Adolph Busemann hold a public lecture on his "Pfeileffekt" theories in the aerodynamic symposium of Rome, june 1938. As far as I understand, his theories were not appreciately recognized by other scientists. But that doesn´t has to wonder, the practical effect of his works was beyond their horizon and it lasted until 1942 that his theories could be verified with experiements in supersonic windtunnels.
Swept wings are common features since the early days of aviation. What makes Busemanns work outstanding is that the relation to a higher crit Mach figure was recognized and deliberately choosen instead of accidentally. The Me-262 had accidentally swept back wings (because of very similar reasons why the DC3 had those: to counter cog issues). The -262HG II and Ju-287 had deliberately swept wings, as had some experimental planes, the almost completed Me P-1101 and DFS 346, a half finished He-162 prototype with interchangable swept back and swept forward wings and an Ar-234B experimental prototype with crescant wings.

Soren, we over embilish and over exaggerate german scientific efforts, which are fine examples of practical applications that requires no such thing from anyone. The US UK and other nations scientists did excellent work in their grounds. For some technological breakthroughs the conditions were given in many nations, leading to parallel and often independent lines of R&D.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Oct 30, 2007)

The wings of the XP-55 were certainly swept deliberately though. (35 degrees I think) I'm pretty sure the XP-56 and XP-52/59 were designed likewise, but the sweep was only 20 degrees. (Which was more reasonable for the speeds they were designed for, the XP-55's sweep being overkill and resulted in stalling problems.)


----------



## drgondog (Oct 30, 2007)

Soren said:


> Bill, all I have posted is facts ! Check up on it yourself !
> 
> *You stated that Germany had 'best' engineers and best metallurgy - I will address the aerodynamicists below. By citing some leading aero theorists you forgot a few things that I addressed below*
> 
> ...


*

I think the subject of conversation was WWII alignment of engineering and metallurgy - not the history of pioneering Aero! You assumed I had not heard of them but you 'assume' too much - and often. Your presentation of Munk as an impled German contributor of Gottingen is somewhat typical of your debate style since he did NOTHING at Gottingen after 1920 and everything in US starting at NACA in 1921! .

You conclude your argument for 'best engineering' by citing some truly innovative pioneers but do you really want to make an argument about Germany having the 'best' when so many leading Allied Engineers, Mathmeticians and Physicists were not only US and Brit but also leading emigre's from Hungary, Norway, Italy and Germany - all in US or Great Britain. Who do you want to stack up against Plank, Einstein, Courant, Fermi, Munk, Von Karman, Theodorsen, Robert Jones Glauert, etc?

Last - I did NOT get my Doctorate and said exactly that - I finished my Masters and 24 hours of course work toward PhD and then got out of Aero biz - but finished math with Calculus of Variations, and engineering with study of applying Chaos theory to wake turbulence. 

I DID explain to you what the leading engineering theoretical guys were for MY coursework but failed to mention Prandtl and Buseman - not because they weren't great but because Von Karman and others like Munk and Whitcomb had EXTENDED their works to the state of the art in the 60s.

So, what Facts do you have to support that Germany had the Best Engineers in contrast to Allies?*


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 30, 2007)

delcyros said:


> Soren, we over embilish and over exaggerate german scientific efforts, which are fine examples of practical applications that requires no such thing from anyone. The US UK and other nations scientists did excellent work in their grounds. For some technological breakthroughs the conditions were given in many nations, leading to parallel and often independent lines of R&D.


VERY WELL SAID!


----------



## drgondog (Oct 30, 2007)

delcyros said:


> Soren, we over embilish and over exaggerate german scientific efforts, which are fine examples of practical applications that requires no such thing from anyone. The US UK and other nations scientists did excellent work in their grounds. For some technological breakthroughs the conditions were given in many nations, leading to parallel and often independent lines of R&D.




Right on target. Nobody claims the Germans didn't make huge contributions - that wasn't the debate. well spoken


----------



## SoD Stitch (Oct 30, 2007)

delcyros said:


> Soren, we over embilish and over exaggerate german scientific efforts, which are fine examples of practical applications that requires no such thing from anyone. The US UK and other nations scientists did excellent work in their grounds. For some technological breakthroughs the conditions were given in many nations, leading to parallel and often independent lines of R&D.



A prime example of this would be the parallel development of gas turbines by both von Ohain and Whittle; both developed "jet propulsion" at more or less the same time, apparently unaware of the other's efforts. One train of development (Whittle's) led to the centrifugal-flow gas turbine, the other to axial-flow gas turbines. Both had advantages disadvantages, but axial-flow gas turbines had more development potential.


----------



## Soren (Oct 31, 2007)

My point, as already clearly illustrated, is that the Germans were ahead in the field of aerodynamics from before the beginning till the end of WW2, being far ahead in supersonic airflow research as-well as slightly ahead in other more basic fields of aerodynamics. The UK were right behind though, and were only really behind in terms of supersonic airflow research, but they were nevertheless the closest to the Germans - as evident during the early post-war period.

I mentioned Max Munk because he is German and got his PhD at Göttingen, but Bill apparently choose to ignore that I stated he worked for NACA in my very own post. The other aerodynamicists I mentioned worked in Germany throughout the war. I can mention more as-well. 

As to engineers, well Bill I can't believe you would even ask, but since you did: Focke-Wulf engineer Hans Multhopp as an example was experienced with swepped wing designs and knew of its merits and its characteristics, something which can't be said about any Allied aerospace engineer by that time. After the war Multhopp was sent to the US where he proved very valuable. 

Anyways as to examples of why German engineers were in general better educated, or lets say more up to date in terms of their designs, refraining from going into detail, let me just ask you to look at what the Germans were fielding in terms of equipment throughout WW2: (Only going to name a few examples of the equipment which was state of the art throughout WW2) 


Aircraft: 
FW-190 - 1941 
Me-262 - 1944
He-162 - 1945
Ta-152 - 1944
Ar-234 - 1944
Me-163 - 1944
Me-323 - 1941
Fa 223 - 1942
Me-410 - 1943
He-219 - 1943
Ju-388 - 1944

Small-arms:
StG.44 - 1943
MG-42 - 1942
MG-34 - 1934
FG-42 - 1942
K98k - 1935 (The action is what I'm thinking about here)
G-43 - 1943 (The Garand does have an edge in reliability, otherwise equal)
Panzerfaust - 1943

AFV's:
Pzkpfw V - 1943
Pzkpfw VI - 1942
Pzkpfw VI B - 1944
JagdPanther - 1944
JagdTiger - 1944
Hetzer - 1944
Etc etc, as the list in this category goes on for very long.

Navy vessels:
Type VII U-boat - 1940
Type IX U-boat - 1941
Type XXI U-boat - 1945
Type XXIII U-boat - 1945
(Should probably list the pocket battleships as-well as they were top notch)

(I know I didn't even mention half of what should be up there, self-guided missiles, bombs, projectiles, computers, etc etc) 

Now the Allies in some cases produced equals to some of the above, but in most cases the Allies failed to produce anything as good.

The Allies ofcourse produced other advanced equipment on their own, such as the B-29 which was the overall best large bomber to see widespread service during WW2.

You're ofcourse welcome to dispute the above and come forward with what you believe is the Allied equal or the closest to the above.


*Delcyros*, 

I agree, however the Germans were clearly ahead, how much is debatable but they were ahead, something which is demonstrated quite clearly in the equipment in service throughout the war.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Oct 31, 2007)

The P-47 was a good match for the FW-190. Though it was heavier and less maneuverable at low altitude, the P-47 could take more damage and had the advantage at high altitude. The speeds were about the same, but the P-47 was faster if both were without boost. The 190 had 20 mm cannons but the P-47 was still powerefull with 8x .50 cal BMG. The Mustang would also have put up quite a fight, though it lacked the damage resistance and armament of the P-47, it was more agile. 

The Mossie was at least equal overall to the 388 and 410. It was multirole like the 388 but was a better fighter, ie more maneuverable, and was faster. It also had a good climb rate. Though it lacked a defensive armament, as said before it had the speed to run and enough maneuverabillity to fight, but not verry well aganst single engine fighters. The mossie was also fielded im much larger numbers. Personally I think the FW-187 could have been better (maby on the scale of the P-38 ) but that's another issue. (see: http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/best-twin-engined-fighter-8053-6.html )

Granted, the Germans were ahead in feilding jets, particularly the Ar-234 which was performing recon before D-day I believe, though to be honest I've never liked the fixed rearward guns of the 234, there's virtually no rearward vission to aim it with or a gunner, I'd rater have them foreward fireing since the plane had decent maneuverabillity and could have outfaught intercepting fighters better than fireing aimlessly backward (if it couldn't outrun them).


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 31, 2007)

Soren said:


> You're ofcourse welcome to dispute the above and come forward with what you believe is the Allied equal or the closest to the above.


How about May 8, 1945...


----------



## syscom3 (Oct 31, 2007)

Undoubtably the Germans were ahead in some of the fields of aerodynamics. But it was technology for the next war, not the "here and now war" of 1944/1945.

None of that R&D advantage translated into anything meaningfull for when it counted.


----------



## drgondog (Oct 31, 2007)

FLYBOYJ said:


> How about May 8, 1945...



Joe - or august 6, 1945..in which pitiful Allied technology created the one ship/one city concept for strategic airpower!

It is perfectly clear that the US and UK and USSR had worthless science, terrible engineering and even worse metallurgy when confronted by the brilliance and dominance posed by Germany in WWII.

The B-29, B-32, Lancaster, B-17 and B-24 were lousy designs compared to the vaunted He-177 and Do 17 and Do 217 and other heavy bombers that the Reich put out in such large numbers.

The Mosquito of course couldn't touch anything the LW put out... and all the mediums and light bombers such as the B-26, A-26 were clearly inferior.

The Japanese can attest that the US Fleet Boats and Brit subs never laid a hand on them, our carriers were pitiful, the US and Brit fleets in general second class in all respects to Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan - including carrier aircraft.

The Mustang and Spit and Tempest and Yak3 and Thunderbolt were really lucky in all the encounters, the Garand was worthless, the Jeep a piece of junk, the C-47 was a nightmare, the T-34 and M-26 and M10 were engineering failures, the 3.5 Bazooka had no value, the M2 machine gun was idiocy and besides nearly ancient in WWII, the Liberty ship was a non contributor, etc. etc.

We designed lousy stuff - and worse - we put them into the field in shortest times and greatest numbers. I know we did it because we had lousy engineers so an inferior product can be made cheaply and quickly.

And even worse than that, we went into a steady technological decline in military and scientific development after the war was over thanks to really deficient technology and science - including breaking the speed of sound, putting a man on the moon and building dumb aircraft like the SR-71 and F-117.

I mean, how stupid can we really get?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 31, 2007)




----------



## Soren (Oct 31, 2007)

I was hoping, infact I was pretty sure, that you were a more mature person Bill. 

I never called what the Allies made inefficient or junk as you imply in your childish attempt to ridicule, but then again its not the first time you've tried to put words into my mouth so I should've been prepared.

In my very own post I wrote that the B-29 was overall the best large bomber of WW2, but like you do so often you choose to ignore that.

Like I said the Allies had their own advanced projects, but as you can clearly see yourself the Germans were in general fielding more advanced equipment. 

The Allies failed to field an equal to the Me-262, He-162, Ta-152, Ar-243, Ju-388 Fa 233. The Allies failed to field an equal to the StG.44, MG-42 Panzerfaust. The Allies failed to field an equal to the Pzkpfw V, IV, IV B, JagdPanther, JagdTiger Hetzer etc etc. The Allies failed to produce an equal to the Type VII, IX, XXI XXIII subs.

The Allies, with a great amount of outside help, produced the A-bomb. The Germans failed to produce an equal to this.


----------



## the la-7 is gangster (Oct 31, 2007)

The me-262 would win cos it has more speed and a much more powerful set of armament. The P-80 advantage in manouverability wouldnt matter for much but it would be able to accclerate faster.


----------



## AL Schlageter (Oct 31, 2007)

> Granted, the Germans were ahead in feilding jets, particularly the Ar-234 which was performing recon before D-day I believe, though to be honest I've never liked the fixed rearward guns of the 234, there's virtually no rearward vision to aim it with or a gunner


From what I understand this weapons system was in development with maybe some combat testing but was not to appear on the 234 til the C-4 model.

Any further words?

The Ar234 was the only German a/c capable of taking recon photos of the Noramandy beachs. This happened in Aug 1944.
.......................................
Late war German armour, from what I understand, was not as good as early war armour due to the lack of certain materials.

.......................................
Wasn't the German antitank weapon a development of the American bazooka.


----------



## the la-7 is gangster (Oct 31, 2007)

the allies did manage to find an answer to the panzers what about russia's is2 eh?


----------



## pbfoot (Oct 31, 2007)

The one thing that everyone is skirting around is the Germans were not paying much of their labour force and using looted funds to proceed with these projects


----------



## kool kitty89 (Oct 31, 2007)

The 262's operational armament was only effective aganst bombers, and even then not past 300m. The P-80's 6x .50 cals made for much better dogfighting weapons, had a much higher velocity, longer range, and were faily effective in other roles as well.

The Germans nuclear program focused more on nuclear energy development. Though a weapons program did exist it was generally thought that one couldn't be deployed before the war's end, so less work was put tward that. 
see: German nuclear energy project - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Japanese had also started with neclear energy development, but quickly shifted work tward bomb development. By the end of the war they were very far along having designed and (possibly) set up several gas-defusion enrichment facillities. There was also talk that japan had secretly tested a small bomb (~6 kT) in Konan (a small island of the coast of what today is northern Korea) on August 12, 1945. There was also a history channel special about it: Japan's Atomic Bomb DVD There are some clips here: Japan's Atomic Bomb : Japan Probe

see: Japanese atomic program - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia and Japan's Atomic Bomb


----------



## comiso90 (Oct 31, 2007)

the la-7 is gangster said:


> much more powerful set of armament.



Armament wasn't much of a factor.

Against bombers yes, against other fighters, no.

.50 cals will shred a jet engine just fine and you can carry more rounds then cannon shells... the higher rate of fire is handy at jet speeds too.

.


----------



## Soren (Oct 31, 2007)

the la-7 is gangster said:


> The me-262 would win cos it has more speed and a much more powerful set of armament. The P-80 advantage in manouverability wouldnt matter for much but it would be able to accclerate faster.



The Me-262A-1a is both more maneuverable and faster than the P-80, but it lacked effective fighter vs fighter armament.



> the allies did manage to find an answer to the panzers what about russia's is2 eh?



The Allies include the Soviets, but even they didn't even come close. The IS-2 was litterally a piece of junk in the field of Tank vs Tank combat, it had lousy optics, slow RoF, inadequate protection and its gun wasn't a very effective AT weapon for its size being outperformed by the 75mm Kwk42 88mm Kwk43 in this department, and considerably so by the 88mm Kwk43.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Oct 31, 2007)

I'm not too sure about the maneuverabillity...

Speed (accept crit mach/ dive speed) was about the same on average and I think the P-80 was faster at SL. The P-80 also had better range and a significantly higher ceiling. (over 5,000 ft higher than the 262's)

A better armament for the Me 262 would be 2x MK-103 and 2-MG-151/20 cannons using mine rounds. This would offer better range and trajectory and a more well-rounded armament.


----------



## syscom3 (Oct 31, 2007)

drgondog said:


> .....
> 
> I mean, how stupid can we really get?


----------



## magnocain (Oct 31, 2007)

I dont know if this really counts, but according to Secret Weapons Over Normandy (a video game for the XBOX), the me 262 was rather unmaneuverable, but was the best plane cause of it's speed and firepower. The game's creators (LucasArts with a aviation museum) tried to make it as accurate as possible.
I have also read that the me 262 was not very maneuverable from several places


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 31, 2007)

magnocain said:


> I dont know if this really counts, but according to Secret Weapons Over Normandy (a video game


Say no more *PLEASE!... *


----------



## drgondog (Oct 31, 2007)

Soren said:


> I was hoping, infact I was pretty sure, that you were a more mature person Bill.
> 
> I never called what the Allies made inefficient or junk as you imply in your childish attempt to ridicule, but then again its not the first time you've tried to put words into my mouth so I should've been prepared.
> 
> ...




The Germans produced nothing like the Liberty ship, the Jeep or the GM 6x6. The Germans could never produce a ship like the Liberty in less than 5 days which is the record. The 1911A1 was better combat sidearm than the P-38 or the Luger.

If you even want to go there, bring on your equivalents to Iowa class BB, Alaska Class Heavy Cruisers, Cleveland Class Light Crusiers or Fletcher Class Destroyers.

What REALLY distinguished combined Allied engineers was designing some 'good to very good' and then getting them to the field ops in record times.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Nov 1, 2007)

magnocain said:


> I dont know if this really counts, but according to Secret Weapons Over Normandy (a video game for the XBOX), the me 262 was rather unmaneuverable, but was the best plane cause of it's speed and firepower. The game's creators (LucasArts with a aviation museum) tried to make it as accurate as possible.
> I have also read that the me 262 was not very maneuverable from several places





I own this game (for PC) and, while the physics are very relaxed and the planes perform nothing like real WWII fighters would, the realitive performance (compared to other planes in the game) is realitively accurate. The storyline is good and fairly accurate (~90% based on or adapted from actual events).

However the biggest problem for me was a lack of a cockpit viewpoint, without one it really limits the realism, lax physics aside. (a strong arcade type gameplay influence, similar to Blazing angels which was actually inspired by it)

You are corect in the museum consultation, in fact one of the most extensive aircraft museums in the US (and the world), the Planes of Fame Museum (in Chino, CA) is the museum that was consulted. (they have one of two surviving Horten Ho IV gliders, the last flying P-26 Peashooter, the onle surviving Northrop N-9M (and still flying!) flying wing, one of the most extensive Japanese WWII aircraft collection in the world including the last fully authentic flying A6M Zero, and soon to have in flight condition a YP-59A which will be the oldest flying jet aircraft in the word as well as the only flying Airacomet.

Though I'm not sure of their oppinion of the final cut of the game.

If you want a highly accurate game in both the performance and physics departments, I'd go with IL-2 Sturmovik (game - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) it has a very high level of realism (when settings are set to "realistic" since difficulty can be altered) This game is highly realistic and has an inventory (as of the "1946" addition) of over 300 planes, sadly not including any of the british jets, though the next installment might change this since it will be centered on Britain. As per the name, much of the game is centered on the Eastern front. (though the Ar 234B, Me 262A-1 A-2 HG-II, He 162A C D, Me 163B, Ho-229, Ta-183, YP-80, Mig-9, and Yak-15 are included) This game also has a glossary with statistics and historical summaries of planes in the figures for the YP-80 it lists that it has "good maneuverabillity for a jet fighter) 

Also note that you are comparing the the Me 262 to the piston fighters of the game, the game puts the Meteor F. III on the same level of maneuverabillity. And indeed the 262 is realitively unmaneuverable compared to the best piston fighters but compared to other jets it was quite similar.


----------



## Glider (Nov 1, 2007)

drgondog said:


> What REALLY distinguished combined Allied engineers was designing some 'good to very good' and then getting them to the field ops in record times.



An excellent point.


----------



## Soren (Nov 1, 2007)

> You stated that German engineers and scientists were better than the combined allies, then illustrated a mix of German scientists - some of which were major contibutors in WWI timeframe



Prandtl and the others still contributed to aerodynamic research in WW2, that is why I mentioned them specifically.



> , some educated in germany and moved to US, some you didn't mention like Von Karman and Theodorsen and Planck and Einstein thet were educated in germany and moved to US then moved on as if the pioneers you mentioned would clearly illustrate your point. It didn't!



Bill, I was drawing forth examples of aerodynamicists, Einstein was no aerodynamicist.



> BFD - the Germans had no counter to the Mossie,





> the Fw 190 and 109 was defeated handily by Spit, Tempest and Mustang - they were lucky they didn't have to deal with the F4U or even the P-51H or the P-80 - all of which were ready for combat in early 1945 but not deployed.



The FW-190 Bf-109 did amazingly against the fighters above considering the situation Germany was in by 1944-45 and both handily defeated the Tempest, Spit Mustang when'ever the odds were equal.



> The He 219 was an excellent design but inferior overall to Mossie or maybe even the P-61 as pure night fighter.



The He-219, Ju-88 Ju-388 were as good as the Mossie as nightfighters and they were definitely better than the slow very low ceiling P-61!

The Mossie lacked the special weaponary of the German nightfighters to effectively fight enemy bombers at night.



> Debatable either way but neither an illustration of 'design superiority' - and the Mossie was in service in 1942.



And the Ju-88 was in service way before that.



> The Me262 came into service after 3 years of development.



For crying out loud Bill, the aircraft itself was finished ready to go already in 1943! 

The project was delayed because of periods with lack of interest within the RLM and with Hitler. 



> The P-80 went from contract to flight in 143 Fu*****ing days



From contract to first flight less than 150 days isn't that unusual Bill, the He-162 beats it easily from contract to the final product.



> , the P-51 in 117 days and first flew in 1940.



Like I stated less than 150 days from contract to first flight wasn't that unusual.



> None of the German heavy bombers are even a footnote in history as far as either reliability or contribution to the war effort.



That is very incorrect on your part !



> The Ar 234 could have been interesting but relegated mostly to recon.



I think it would've made for a more interesting nightfighter/heavy bomber-interceptor.



> Ta 152 slithered in in late March 1945 and made zero contributioon as good as it was - and would have been marginal over the P-51H and various Spits at that late stage of the war - it would have its hands full in medium high altitude to the deck against the F8F or F7F - I could go on and on here but my maturity would come into question once again.



No Bill you can't go on cause the Ta-152H is a far superior fighter to any Allied fighter fielded in WW2. The F8F would've proven a good match, but the P-51H falls slightly short and the F7F has nothing but speed.



> The German jets were slightly better and came into operations sooner. The armor was superior



Slightly ??! They were hampered only by their reliability issues which in turn were caused by a lack of the necesary heat resistant metals.



> The Germans failed to field an equal to the F4U, the P-51H or the P-47N for long range escort.



Ta-152H-1. And again the P-51H didn't see service.



> The Germans failed to produce a medium altitude to low altitude air fighter like the Yak3.



Now that is just plain wrong Bill ! You seriouslu need to read up on the occurences on the Eastern front my friend cause the FW-190 Dora-9 proved greatly superior to ANY fighter fielded by the Soviets, litterally beating the sh*t out of any VVS fighter in encountered, including the Yak-3! 



> The Germans failed to produce transports like the C-47 or C-54.



But they did field the Me-323 to which the Allies had no equal.



> The Germans failed to produce viable naval fighters as good or anywhere neare the numbers of F6F or Seafires or F4U for naval aviation.



Errr, Bill, incase you didn't notice the Germans didn't field any navy carriers during WW2, which is probably why they didn't produce any naval fighter 



> Don't even step into heavy or really, medium bombers. The Ju 88 was a superb medium carry, multi purpose twin but do you really want to say it was better than the Mossie, or even the B-25, B-26 or A-26.. pick the mission. If you want to go night fighter talk about mossie, if you want an anti shipping a/c look to up gunned B-25s and compare the records



The Ju-88 was atleast as good a nightfighter as the Mossie, and it was a capable medium bomber as-well.



> The Germans failed to field an equal to the M-1 Garand



Gewehr 43.



> and the M2 heavy machine gun.



I agree, but the MG-42 MG-34 fulfilled that role very effectively because of their heavy long range projectiles and high RoF - Allied troops in Africa used to refer to them as cannons because of their extreme long range effective fire.



> The Panzerfaust was excellent short range the 3.5 bazooka was equally devastating at much longer ranges and effective against T-34 and T-54 in Korea.



Need I even remind you of the 8.8cm Panzerschreck capable of penetrating over 200mm of armor ?

And on the Panzerfaust, again you're rusty Bill, the Panzerfaust was a one time disposable AT weapon and eventhough the reach was short it was far more devastating than the US Bazooka ever was on impact. There were however versions of the Panzerfaust with a long reach.



> The Balao and Tranch Class were equal



No the Balao and Trench Class were inferior mainly because they couldn't dive half as deep or feature as advanced equipment (Esp. in the field of Targeting) or weaponary as its German counterparts. The only thing the Balao Trench Class subs have in their favor is speed, something which is nearly completely irrelevant for a sub as its a stealth hunter.



> The Germans produced nothing like the Liberty ship,



The Liberty ship is a cargo vessel am I correct ?



> the Jeep or the GM 6x6.



That is again incorrect Bill, the Germans produced 4x4's which could even sail, and their trucks were just as good while their halftracks were unmatched.



> The Germans could never produce a ship like the Liberty in less than 5 days which is the record.



I fully agree, way too hasty for the Germans. They didn't have the manpower.



> The 1911A1 was better combat sidearm than the P-38 or the Luger.



That is VERY debatable ! The P-38 is right up there with the M1911A1 IMO.



> If you even want to go there, bring on your equivalents to Iowa class BB, Alaska Class Heavy Cruisers, Cleveland Class Light Crusiers or Fletcher Class Destroyers.



The Germans didn't even think about battleships after the introduction of the Bimarck Tirpitz battleships, both were ahead early in the war but the US later built bigger battleships. The germans however continued to produce the worlds best pocket battleships.



> What REALLY distinguished combined Allied engineers was designing some 'good to very good' and then getting them to the field ops in record times.



And the exact same goes for the Germans except the equipment they fielded in general was more advanced than their Allied counterparts.


----------



## Soren (Nov 1, 2007)

Sorry about all the quotes btw.


----------



## AL Schlageter (Nov 1, 2007)

> The Mossie lacked the special weaponary of the German nightfighters to effectively fight enemy bombers at night.


This special weaponry is __________ ?



> The FW-190 Bf-109 did amazingly against the fighters above considering the situation Germany was in by 1944-45 and both handily defeated the Tempest, Spit Mustang when'ever the odds were equal.


Yes Bodenplatte showed that.



> Errr, Bill, incase you didn't notice the Germans didn't field any navy carriers during WW2, which is probably why they didn't produce any naval fighter


But the Germans did, the 109T.



> No the Balao and Trench Class were inferior mainly because they couldn't dive half as deep or feature as advanced equipment (Esp. in the field of Targeting) or weaponary as its German counterparts. The only thing the Balao Trench Class subs have in their favor is speed, something which is nearly completely irrelevant for a sub as its a stealth hunter.


Speed allowed them to get on station quicker. Then there is the air conditioning for greater crew comfort and thus less fatigue. They didn't have to dive as deep as Japanese anti-sub measures, and Germanys, were not that great.

*There was no need to rush new Allied planes into production because the Allies 'were not on the ropes' of a catastrophic total defeat.*


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 1, 2007)

magnocain said:


> I dont know if this really counts, but according to Secret Weapons Over Normandy (a video game for the XBOX), the me 262 was rather unmaneuverable, but was the best plane cause of it's speed and firepower. The game's creators (LucasArts with a aviation museum) tried to make it as accurate as possible.
> I have also read that the me 262 was not very maneuverable from several places






You have to be kidding right? The game comes no where close to the real thing. It is an X Box game man. It is very unrealistic and you cant even think of getting the feel for flying these great planes from that game!


----------



## SoD Stitch (Nov 1, 2007)

AL Schlageter said:


> This special weaponry is __________ ?[/b]



The only "special weaponry" I can think of that the Germans had and the Allies didn't was "Schrag Musik", which is a loose German translation of "Jazz Music". I'm sure others could describe it better than I could . . .


----------



## drgondog (Nov 1, 2007)

Soren - lets look at one example which illustrates aerodynamics and priorities - you can cite others.

The Republic XP-72 was ordered in July, 1943 with an initial order for 100. It was designed around the PW 4360-13, counter rotating props and mustang like 'thrust radiator'. It first flew on 2 Feb, 1944 with the following Flight Test results - 480mph at 32K, ceiling at 42,000, 1200 miles range, 5280fpm initial climb.

That was with the -13 engine. The planned performance with the 4360-19 was 5,500 fpm climb and 540mph at 32K. 

The program was cancelled because the USAAF believed the a/c was not needed and only a small incremental increase in performance over the P-51H.

So, this a/c which had similar to greater performance to Ta152H was never produced despite flying six months before the Ta152!

Below from various sources - maybe correct (Erich?)

The Ta152 was initiated in late 1942 and because of priorities did not really get much done until late 1943, with first delivery in July 1944 and first flight in August 1944. It went into serial production in October producing the first Ta152 in November - getting 34 delivered and went into ops Jan27, 1945.

So I suspect you won't use the Ta152 as an example of a German design 'easy to get into production from concept to first flight' in contrast to the P-80 and the P-51?

In contrast to the XP-72 which a.) flew seven months before the Ta152H, and b.) was faster and climber much faster with the -13 engine and projected 10% even higher performance with the -19, the Ta152 was

a. ) 'Buggier' with several crashes and other issues due to the extremely high pressure to get into production (31 hours total test by end of November, 50 hours by January 1945?)

b.) Had a much higher ceiling at 48K (but who was it going to fight there?)

c.) Did go into ops - but the latter was a conscious decision by US to NOT bring the P-72 into production and Germany to force the Ta152 into ops before it was ready.

For similar reasons the P-51H was ready and fully operational and deployed to units in US in March 1945- approximately 35 days later than the Ta152H but far more reliable at that stage of development.

The XP-51G first flew in August 1944 (like the Ta152) and attained the highest performance of any Mustang achieving 495TAS at 22,800 feet, climbing to 20,000 feet in 3.4 minutes with 2,000 hp at 20,000 feet. Only lack of a pressurized cabin limited the ceiling to 46,000 feet. The engine was a special Merlin 100 with a five blade Rotol prop. The latter tests were performed at both NA facilities and Boscomb Down and completed by Nov 1944.

The first P-51H (production) flew on February 3, 1945 and the first operational squadron was equipped in March 1945. This ship had a 'no stores' maximum speed of 487mph - still higher than the max Ta152H

So, except for the the superior 'design to flight cycle', 'flight to production cycle' of the Allies, equivalent fighters (recip) in flight (XP-51G, XP-72) before or same time as Ta152HV1, where do you want to demonstrate superior aerodynamicists and engineering programs with just the stellar Ta152H?

It's all about putting the right tool in place at the right time. The Germans were suprised that we (US) didn't assign Japan as highest priority and initially weren't worried about US daylight bombing.. but they had from Aug 1942 to the end of the war to design and implement the 'stoppers' - but they failed. 

The US with help of UK recognized that daylight bombing was going to be prohibitive without escort fighters - modified the P-51 with Merlins in summer of 1942 and put the P-51B into production in March 1943.. about six months after 8th AF started combat ops... the first ones reached UK in Sep 1943.

The Germans saw the disaster coming at high altitude escort by P-51s in Dec 1943 - and put the Ta 152H into combat one year later despite starting design in 1942. 

As to your pocket Battleship - contrast away. Give it your best shot. The Japanese actually take top honors on the BB's from a firepower standpoint but perhaps behind in fire control. Dig up your data on the fine German 'pocket' BB's and contrats against Alaska Class Cruisers and Iowa Class BB's?

And BTW, the double hull design of German U-Boats did give them superior crush depths to the Balao and Trench boats but fewer torps , shorter range, more time to get to station... but your best boat only put two into ops by end of war. Different designs for different priorities. Still, THAT U-Boat was superior to all Allied designs..


----------



## kool kitty89 (Nov 1, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> You have to be kidding right? The game comes no where close to the real thing. It is an X Box game man. It is very unrealistic and you cant even think of getting the feel for flying these great planes from that game!



Yeah, check my responce from earlier. The PC version was slightly better (at least you could use a joystick, though still no cockpit =( ). And as said the historical aspect is decent, though as said not 100% corect (even from an adaptation standpoint). I would have thought consulting Planes of Fame would have had a more significant effect on the game. (I wonder what their oppinions of the final version are, as it comes far short from what they claimed to be aiming at)

Still, despite the unrealistic performance of all the planes, they do perform realitively accuratly in comparison to eachother. And at least the Germans and Japanese speak their own languages (compared to Blazing Angels' horrid accented english vouces)

I sttand by my statements of IL-2 1946 though... One of the most realistic combat sims out there, though the voice acting could be a little more enthusiastic (partiularly the Americans...).


----------



## kool kitty89 (Nov 1, 2007)

drgondog, the XP-72 was great, at the projected speed it would have given the 262 a run for the money. I've also read that the increased power not only increased speed and climb, but along with improved control systems markedly improved the maneuverabillity. Addition of dive-flaps increased crit-mach, which was already pretty high, all things considdered. (the P-47 could dive at 550 MPH without the use of dive-recovery-flaps!) Imagine the look on the Me-262 pilot's face when he can't outrun or outfly a prop-driven piston-engined fighter!! 

Don't forget the P-47J though (tested over a year before the Ta 152): "The first and only XP-47J was first flown in late November 1943. When fitted with a GE CH-5 turbosupercharger, the XP-47J achieved a top speed of 440 knots (505 mph, 813 km/h) in level flight in August 1944, making it one of the fastest piston engine fighters ever built. However, by that time Republic had moved on to a new concept, the XP-72." P-72 with the P-47N's wings would have made a nice escort.

This has been discussed thoughly here: http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/av...-side-would-you-develope-further-2805-13.html


----------



## Soren (Nov 2, 2007)

*Al,*

1.) SchrägeMusik

2.) I am afraid the 109T never saw service.

3.) LoL, lets see the details.


On the subject of U-boats:

The method of reaching the target destination for U-boats of the era was to travel on the surface, which made them very vulnerable to detection, except ofcourse for the German U-boats. German U-boats were equipped with the "Schnorchel", a device which allowed them to run on diesel engines at periscope depth, this allowed them to travel all the way to their target destination fully submerged, this meant a dramatically decreased chance being detected. The Schnorchel also allowed the Germans to ventilate their subs while still being submerged. Another smart anti-detection measure used by German U-boats was the sonar-absorbing rubber materials covering their U-boats from 1942 (IIRC it was 1942) and onwards, this increased their stealth capability while engaged in combat with destroyers. 

As to the weaponary targeting system of the German U-boats, again here were far ahead compared to their allied counterparts. The German U-boats featured a torpedo targeting fire-control computer [KommandoGerät] which automatically calculated the correct angle deflection needed to strike the moving target on pre-chosen areas transferred this directly to the chosen torpedo. This ensured a far greater chance of not only hitting the target but also taking it out with the first shot, as German U-boat commanders could (If the intelligence on the target was correct) pick the most vulnerable spots on the target (Such as the fuel depot) and hit with pinpoint accuracy at very long ranges. This system remained unrivalled in the world until the end of WW2.

And then ofcourse comes the torpedoes themselves, and ofcourse the Germans were years ahead in this field as-well fielding self guided acoustic homing torpedoes [ZaunKönigs], one of the first true fire-and-forget weapons. So effective were these first self guided torpedoes that the Allie quickly had to develop a countermeasure, the Foxer sound device, this in turn had the Germans develop new versions of their ZaunKönigs with a more fine tuned accoustic detection capability. This weapon was mostly used against escorts as their course was unpredictable, but also if the U-boat had been detected and it proved very successful, esp. early in its deployment.


*Bill,*

You failed to note that the XP-72 was a prototype a/c, an during its speed trials it wasn't packed with ammunition. By contrast the combat ready Ta-152H-1 reached 500 + mph at altitude and climb rate was in excess of 5,000 ft/min reaching 32,808 ft in just 10.1min. The Dora-13 topped at 480 mph at VH. 

Still the XP-72 was an impressive a/c no doubt about it, and like the Ta-152 it was pushing the performanc limit of piston engined fighters.

That having been said the Germans were by mid 1944 to 1945 more interested in Jets, which was one of the reasons the Ta-152 didn't recieve the engine most desired for it. 

The Germans weren't going to be bothered with wasting funds on any piston engined fighter by mid 1944 as they had already topped 900 km/h with their first operational Jet by then and were aiming to reach 1,000 + km/h with their next designs. The Jet engine the way forward and that had been fully recognized by the German engineers since the first flights of the Me-262, and by some even since 1939 after the very successful flights of the He-178.

The He-162 was the fastest German jet to make it into service at 890 km/h at SL and 905 km/h at VH.


----------



## AL Schlageter (Nov 2, 2007)

Soren said:


> *Al,*
> 
> 2.) I am afraid the 109T never saw service.


Then how did I/JG.77 fly 109Ts in Norway?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 2, 2007)

kool kitty89 said:


> Yeah, check my responce from earlier. The PC version was slightly better (at least you could use a joystick, though still no cockpit =( ). And as said the historical aspect is decent, though as said not 100% corect (even from an adaptation standpoint). I would have thought consulting Planes of Fame would have had a more significant effect on the game. (I wonder what their oppinions of the final version are, as it comes far short from what they claimed to be aiming at)
> 
> Still, despite the unrealistic performance of all the planes, they do perform realitively accuratly in comparison to eachother. And at least the Germans and Japanese speak their own languages (compared to Blazing Angels' horrid accented english vouces)



I am going to have to disagree with you, but that is for another discussion. We have gone over it many times here.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 2, 2007)

Soren said:


> *Al,*
> 
> 
> 
> 2.) I am afraid the 109T never saw service.



Sorry Soren but you are completely wrong. 

They were used out of Norway. I have a great book at home on the Bf 109T called Sea Eagles. I will post the source for the book so you can buy it yourself and educate yourself on the subject. It also includes pics of the Bf 109Ts in service. 

The book also includes complete Werk Nummer for all the aircraft that entered service and the fates of each one. It also includes kills for each aircraft and the pilots that were flying them.


----------



## Soren (Nov 2, 2007)

Ok I was partly wrong as I remembered the project had been cancelled, and not that the few prototypes had been sent to Norway. But Germany didn't have any carrier fighters cause they didn't have any carriers Adler - that was my point. The Germans didn't develop any up to date carrier a/c after 1940 as they didn't have any carriers, hence why they didn't have an equal to the Allied carrier fighters by 1944.

The few 109T's made (7 according to my book) operated from land, not from any navy vessel.


----------



## AL Schlageter (Nov 2, 2007)

Soren said:


> *
> That having been said the Germans were by mid 1944 to 1945 more interested in Jets, which was one of the reasons the Ta-152 didn't recieve the engine most desired for it.
> 
> The Germans weren't going to be bothered with wasting funds on any piston engined fighter by mid 1944 as they had already topped 900 km/h with their first operational Jet by then and were aiming to reach 1,000 + km/h with their next designs. The Jet engine the way forward and that had been fully recognized by the German engineers since the first flights of the Me-262, and by some even since 1939 after the very successful flights of the He-178.
> *


*
Sure Soren. That is why at least 15,000 Ta152s were to be produced by March 1946.

Then why was money being spent on the Bv155?*


----------



## AL Schlageter (Nov 2, 2007)

Soren said:


> Ok I was partly wrong as I remembered the project had been cancelled, and not that the few prototypes had been sent to Finland..


I think you need a geography lesson. Norway is not Finland.

70 109Ts built is a an awful lot of prototypes.


----------



## Soren (Nov 2, 2007)

I corrected it to norway AL, and you need to learn your history cause only 7 prototypes were ever finished before the project was cancelled, and they were actually still test-beds when they flew in Norway, so my initial statement stands - the 109T never saw service, or atleast not as anything but a test-bed.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 2, 2007)

Soren said:


> The few 109T's made (7 according to my book) operated from land, not from any navy vessel.



Try 73 were built. I have the werk nummer for each and every one of them. There were 7 prototypes built and 73 total with the larger wingspan, folding wings and arrester hook.

When the program was canceled the 73 production aircraft that were built were sent to Norway and operated out of Trondheim and othe places. I will post info and the book as soon as I get home.


----------



## Soren (Nov 2, 2007)

Where in the heck have you read that the 15,000 Ta-152's were planned to be built by 1946 AL ??!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 2, 2007)

Soren said:


> I corrected it to norway AL, and you need to learn your history cause only 7 prototypes were ever finished before the project was cancelled, and they were actually still test-beds when they flew in Norway, so my initial statement stands - the 109T never saw service, or atleast not as anything but a test-bed.



No Soren you are completely wrong. There were 73 production Bf 109Ts built. Later the Bf 109T-1s had the arrester hooks removed and were renamed T-2s.

You need to admit when you are wrong...

As I said I will post the proof as soon as I get home.


----------



## Soren (Nov 2, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Try 73 were built. I have the werk nummer for each and every one of them. There were 7 prototypes built and 73 total with the larger wingspan, folding wings and arrester hook.
> 
> When the program was canceled the 73 production aircraft that were built were sent to Norway and operated out of Trondheim and othe places. I will post info and the book as soon as I get home.



Reading "Messerschmitt Bf 109 Recognition Manual" right now and according to it 70 were planned to be made but only 7 were completed when the project was cancelled.

But I'd be happy to read what you've got on the bird as it havent been a subject of study for me.


----------



## AL Schlageter (Nov 2, 2007)

Soren said:


> Where in the heck have you read that the 15,000 Ta-152's were planned to be built by 1946 AL ??!


Hermanns's Ta152 book.

Why were 46 109Ts parked on Pillau airfield on March 29 1943 if only 7 were built?


----------



## Soren (Nov 2, 2007)

Hmm.. changed your post to a more patronising one I see Adler....


----------



## Soren (Nov 2, 2007)

AL Schlageter said:


> Hermanns's Ta152 book.



I have that book, which page ?


----------



## Soren (Nov 2, 2007)

I'll gladly admit it if I am wrong though.


----------



## AL Schlageter (Nov 2, 2007)

Soren said:


> I have that book, which page ?


Look and you will find.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 2, 2007)

Soren said:


> Reading "Messerschmitt Bf 109 Recognition Manual" right now and according to it 70 were planned to be made but only 7 were completed when the project was cancelled.
> 
> But I'd be happy to read what you've got on the bird as it havent been a subject of study for me.



Sorry you are wrong. I will prove it to you as soon as I get home. I will give you werk numbers and all.



Soren said:


> Hmm.. changed your post to a more patronising one I see Adler....



What do you recognize your tactic? 



Soren said:


> I'll gladly admit it if I am wrong though.



Well you arem, so admit it...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 2, 2007)

I know exactly how you are confusing yourself now.

After 7 production Bf 109Ts were built the *carrier project* was canceled and there remaining aprox 63 to 64 (I will give you exact numbers at home) were built without carrier equipment (ie arrester hook and some other equipment) but still retained the larger wingspan and folding wings.

They were however Bf 109Ts Soren and that is a fact! There is even a surviving one from Trondheim in a musuem.


----------



## AL Schlageter (Nov 2, 2007)

Adler, since I edited my post to add

_Why were 46 109Ts parked on Pillau airfield on March 29 1943 if only 7 were built?_,

how does Soren explain these 109Ts? 

Radinger Schick back up you production numbers for the 109T with delivery per month.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 2, 2007)

That is becaues they were built AL.

They were used by I/77 JG in Norway. The main base was at Trondheim I believe.

Just because they were not used off of Carriers does not mean they were not built.


----------



## Soren (Nov 2, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> What do you recognize your tactic?



Forgive me for not finding that funny.



> Well you arem, so admit it...



Not according to the book I'm reading - History concerned we unfortunately only know about what we read about. Hence why I find your patronising tone inappropiate.

Please direct me to a post of mine which is patronising wihtout reason though.


----------



## Juha (Nov 2, 2007)

Soren, I have been trying to ignore all that Überdeutch deluge, but Germans copied Schnorkel from Dutch. And if their U-boat targeting systems were so superior, why KM’s instructions to U-boat captains stressed so much the need to get close to targets. The main theme was “Get closer”. That said their early wartime boats were very good and very late Type XXIII was very difficult to spot but wartime experience showed that after their first attack Allied counter-measures usually were able to find and destroy them. The bigger Type XXI just missed the war, so how well they would have worked is unknown but they were base for post-war submarines. But one must remember that already during WWI British did have had R-Class hunter-killer subs with very fast underwater speed, but they were ahead their time and had control problems at high underwater speed. Also Japanese Type 71 sub preceded German high-speed U-boats. 

On battleships You forgot the H-class studies which went to ridiculous proportions, first to 120000tons and then to 150000 tons. And pocket battleships were a dead-end and didn’t leave up expectations as shown at La Plata. Even Germans saw that before war and so cancelled last 3 and build 2 Scharnhorst-class battlecruisers instead. On ships German produced very good subs, MTBs, minesweepers and motorminesweepers but otherwise their ships were not very special and some types were below par. Heavy cruisers were good if compared to the treaty cruisers of other navies but being almost 40% over the treaty limits that’s not very surprising and their engines were unreliable. IMHO same sized but later Baltimore-class cruisers were clearly better and even clearly smaller and contemporary French Algerie was probably as good as German heavy cruisers or even better and was at least better protected with same armament.

On torpedoes, also Allied had acoustic torpedoes, at least Mk 24 FIDO, first success on 12 May 1943 when a British Liberator sank U-456, so it predated the earliest German T5 Zaunköning success by 4 months.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 2, 2007)

Soren said:


> Forgive me for not finding that funny.



If the shoe fits, wear it.

Go back and read many of your posts in any thread...





Soren said:


> Not according to the book I'm reading - History concerned we unfortunately only know about what we read about. Hence why I find your patronising tone inappropiate.



The book you are reading is wrong. I will give your werk number later but then ofcourse you still wont believe it. Every person in the world could tell you otherwise and you wont believe it.



Soren said:


> Please direct me to a post of mine which is patronising wihtout reason though.



Go and read many of your posts yourself.


----------



## drgondog (Nov 2, 2007)

Juha said:


> Soren, I have been trying to ignore all that Überdeutch deluge, but Germans copied Schnorkel from Dutch. And if their U-boat targeting systems were so superior, why KM’s instructions to U-boat captains stressed so much the need to get close to targets. The main theme was “Get closer”. That said their early wartime boats were very good and very late Type XXIII was very difficult to spot but wartime experience showed that after their first attack Allied counter-measures usually were able to find and destroy them.
> 
> *Excellent points Juha... as I recall three of the 7 lost in ops were to RAF*
> 
> ...



*The Japanes Long Lance was also an extremely well designed and lethal torpedo better than anything the US had until near the end of the war.*

What started this "mine is better than yours" silliness is Soren's statement that German Engineering was better than all the Allies combined... so it is important to reflect that the US pursued applied Physics and Engineering to its highest priorities, GB and USSR ditto, Germany ditto and Japan ditto.

The Long Lance for Japan is classic - they were held to 53 ratio for capital ships and pursued a force multiplier to leverage the lethality of their fewer and in most cases smaller (Yamato Class excluded) ships. We (US) on other hand largely ignored the potential of the torpedo in long range sea engagements and entered the war with one hand tied behind the backs of our Submariners (and Cruisers).

The Germans were denied surface fleet development so they emphasized the U-Boat and probably had the better edge throughout the war in context of crush depth and evasion - simply because we had the countermeasures in destryers and airpower and gained upper hand in sonar. Our boats were single hull, fast and long range and did extremely well against a very capable navy with much the same assets for anti sub as we did early in war. The Brits had excellent subs - more along the line of US Balao clas fleet boats operating same docrine.

The Germans never developed a satisfactory doctrine and capability for long range strategic bombing and never extended escort fighter capability beyond the Me110 until the Ta152 was designed as an interceptor with longer range capabilities.. so the PRIORITY for Germany became interceptor and required force multiplier to offset both our (Allied) conventional high performance and forthcoming (B-29) capability operating at high speeds and altitudes. Voila - very good Engineers focused on problem and the Me 262 plus excellent jet engines arrived before Allies. 

The Ta152 was arguably the best conventional single engine fighter ever produced and engaged in combat ops, was arguably Not a better fighter than possible produceable fighters like a XP-51G, or XP-72 - but the latter were not deemed required.

Simply stated the Germans were leading edge in transonic aerodynamics, jet propulsion and rocket technology plus U-Boat and Tanks. Unknown to Allies they also developed lethal nerve agents. Not because they were smarter but because they put their best and brightest on the key problems to be solved for them.

They had the lead in synthetic fuels and battery technology

They had zero lead in conventional aerodynamics, reciprocating engines, and other conventional airframe technologies. 

They were behind in theoretical and applied physics which drove the electronic (sonar, radar, computing, nav aids), nuclear advances on our side.

They NEVER had the manufacturing and logistics capabilities we had

Our (Allied) priorities were extinction of Japan and Germany's ability to fight and produce effectively and defeat both. Heavy bombers, long range fighters, tactical airpower, transportation capacity, mobile forces, sea/air/land assault, naval forces, nuclear weapons - and the manufacturing methods to convert assets to weapons.

All of our best and brightest were focused on providing incremental improvements in our technologies to achieve our strategic aims. 

Nuclear was truly the one true quantum leap in technology in WWII. Jet and rocket propulsion was next but was not the difference maker and while the Germans held a lead in that aspect of aviation technology it truly was irrelevant.


----------



## drgondog (Nov 2, 2007)

i just deleted this duplicate


----------



## Soren (Nov 2, 2007)

I will believe it Adler, but like I said Adler I can't be blamed of not knowing before hand if the books tell me otherwise now can I ? So please quit the patronising tone, esp. cause you're moderator.


----------



## drgondog (Nov 2, 2007)

Soren said:


> *
> Bill,
> 
> You failed to note that the XP-72 was a prototype a/c, an during its speed trials it wasn't packed with ammunition. By contrast the combat ready Ta-152H-1 reached 500 + mph at altitude and climb rate was in excess of 5,000 ft/min reaching 32,808 ft in just 10.1min. The Dora-13 topped at 480 mph at VH.
> ...


*

Awhile back when I posted the contract to flight times of the X(Experimental)P51 and 80 in the 4 month cycle you posed that was not a problem for German design teams - which programs did you have in mind that were remotely comparable? I agree the He 162 was fast but it isn't good engineering when the second take off of the prototype isn't matched with a landing and a surviving pilot.. and the next flight restricts speed to 1/2 design because of stab/aug issues.

But if that is the example of good German Engineering you want to use, I can accept that.

Also you just stated that the Ta152H attained 500+mph with a combat load. Where might you direct me to verify that claim? I have seen 480mph cited as a top speed but don't even have a notation for load on that figure. The P-51H did 487mph with no stores (or rack) but only 466mph with combat load of fuel and ammo.*


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 2, 2007)

Soren said:


> I will believe it Adler, but like I said Adler I can't be blamed of not knowing before hand if the books tell me otherwise now can I ? So please quit the patronising tone, esp. cause you're moderator.



This has nothing to do with me being a Moderator or not. You specifically said that there were no Bf 109Ts in service. We have given you proof and you keep saying that we are wrong and there were only 7 built before it was canceled. You chose to argue the situation we have proven wrong.

I give you a taste of your own medicine on how people percieve your posts and you cant handle it. Maybe you will try to get your point across differently from now on and the debates might be a bit healthier.

Now as stated here is the proof that I give to you about the Bf 109T. Afterwards I would like for you to say "I stand corrected."  Then I will consider it a closed issue.

The book I was telling you about:

*Sea Eagles The Messerschmitt Bf 109T* by Francis L. Marschall
ISBN: 1 871187 23 0

The book is full of information and is completely dedicated to the Bf 109T. Yout should get the book. It is very interesting and informative. It covers teh development, the units, the pilots and even has mission logs from JG 77 in it.

Now before you say that the information might not be correct the book was researched and written with the help of JG 77 pilots who flew the Bf 109T. Infact it lists 26 pilots how helped with writing the book on page 5. The Preface was also written by:

*Rudolf R. Gloeckner
Former Staffelkapitiaen of I./JG 77 and III./JG 5*

Mr. Gloeckner who flew the Bf 109T has stated on page 11 that this is the most historical and correct piece of work on the Bf 109T and debunks several myths about it.

Here are some quotes from the book:

_"Several myths have grown up about the production of the Bf 109T and these should be dispelled by the facts.

First references have been made to 10 Bf 109T-0s covnerted from Bf 109E-3s. Although it was at one stage intended to do this, the plans were changed and as a result there was no such version. The true Carrier version was the Bf 109T-1, while the land based version was the Bf 109T-2. There is much confusion between these, not surprisingly in view of the facts. Of the *70* Bf 109Ts produced seven were initially retained as Bf 109T-1 versions for test purposes, the rest completed as Bf 109T-2s. However when the type was withdrawn at the end of 1941 all the survivors were converted to Bf 109T-1 standard. Then starting in early 1943, all the aircraft were re-converted to Bf 109T-2 standard and issued to land based units again, leaving only one or two fitted with carrier equipment.

The distinction between the types is not as clear cut as one may think, since although the arrester hook was removed from the T-2 aircraft, many other fittings simply remained in place. The wing spoilers for example were deactivated but remained a part of the wing."_

And now the Werknummer of each aircraft. Also included are the Stammkennzeichen and Unit. If you would like I can also give you the fate of each aircraft and the pilots that flew them as well:

*7728* RB+OA E-Stelle 
*7729* RB+OB E-Stelle and NJG 101 
*7730* RB+OC E-Stelle and Jasta Helgoland
*7731* RB+OC E-Stelle 
*7732* RB+OD E-Stelle
*7733* RB+OF Messerschmitt Augsburg
*7734* RB+OG E-Stelle and Jasta Helgoland
*7735* RB+OH JG 77, NJG 101 and Jasta Helgoland
*7736* RB+OI JG 77 and Jasta Helgoland
*7737* RB+OJ JG 77
*7738* RB+OK JG 77
*7739* RB+OL JG 77 and Blindflugschule 10
*7740* RB+OM JG 77
*7741* RB+ON JG 77
*7742* RB+OO JG 77 and Jasta Helgoland
*7743* RB+OP JG 77 and NJG 101
*7744* RB+OQ JG 77
*7745* RB+OR JG 77 and Jasta Helgoland
*7746* RB+OS JG 77 and Jasta Helgoland
*7747* RB+OT JG 77
*7748* RB+OU JG 77
*7749* RB+OV JG 77
*7750* RB+OW JG 77
*7751* RB+OX JG 77
*7752* RB+OY JG 77
*7753* RB+OZ JG 77 and Jasta Helgoland
*7754* UNK JG 77 and NJG 101
*7755* UNK JG 77
*7756* UNK JG 77
*7757* UNK JG 77 and 11.JG 11
*7758* UNK JG 77 and NJG 101
*7759* UNK JG 77
*7760* UNK JG 77
*7761* UNK JG 77
*7762* UNK JG 77 and Jasta Helgoland
*7763* KD+QA JG 77
*7764* KD+QB JG 77
*7765* KD+QC JG 77 and Jasta Helgoland
*7766* KD+QD JG 77 and Jasta Helgoland
*7767* KD+QE JG 77, NJG 101, and 11./JG 11
*7768* KD+QF JG 77
*7769* KD+QG JG 77 and Jasta Helgoland
*7770* KD+QH JG 77 and NJG 101
*7771* KD+QI JG 77
*7772* KD+QJ JG 77 and Jasta Helgoland
*7773* KD+QK JG 77
*7774* KD+QL Jagdgruppe Drontheim
*7775* KD+QM JG 77
*7776* KD+QN Jagdgruppe Drontheim
*7777* KD+QO JG 77
*7778* KD+QP Jagdgruppe Drontheim and NJG 101
*7779* KD+QQ Jagdgruppe Drontheim
*7780* KD+QR JG 77
*7781* KD+QS JG 77
*7782* KD+QT JG 77
*7783* KD+QU JG 77 and NJG 101
*7784* KD+QV Jagdgruppe Drontheim
*7785* KD+QW Jagdgruppe Drontheim
*7786* KD+QX Jagdgruppe Drontheim and NJG 101
*7787* KD+QY Jagdgruppe Drontheim
*7788* KD+QZ Jagdgruppe Drontheim, JG 77, Messerschmitt Augsburg and E-Stelle
*7789* UNK Jagdgruppe Drontheim
*7790* UNK JG 77
*7791* UNK Jagdgruppe Drontheim, Jasta Helgoland and NAG 101
*7792* UNK JG 77
*7793* UNK Jagdgruppe Drontheim and 11./JG 11
*7794* UNK Jagdgruppe Drontheim and JG 101
*7795* UNK JG 77
*7796* UNK Jagdgruppe Drontheim, Jasta Helgoland, and 11./JG 11
*7797* Jagdgruppe Drontheim


----------



## kool kitty89 (Nov 2, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I am going to have to disagree with you, but that is for another discussion. We have gone over it many times here.



Which parts? The historical (at most 90% based on or around hisorical events) not the best for realism though. Or the realitive performance? (of course I meant w/out "upgrades", though admittedly even the realitive performance wasn't too accurate maby 90%) How much did they consult Planes of Fame. (what do the museum historians think about it now...)


----------



## Soren (Nov 2, 2007)

I stand corrected about the 109T Adler, and I have no problem with it as I know nothing other than what I read or hear when its from before my time, and that goes for most of the people on this forum. Also the 109T, like I said, hasn't been subject of my study really. So can I be blamed for not knowing ? Sure sounds like you think so.

And I'd like an example of where I accused people of downright lying without proof at all, cause thats what you accused me of when you claimed I wouldn't admit I was wrong. The reason I need this is because I suspect some of you guys are just waiting for the smallest mistake I make to quickly jump in and say I am SO VERY WRONG because you don't agree with everything I write - Am I correct in my suspicion ? 

KoolKitty Delcyros are pretty much the only ones who has kept it civil so far, eventhough they have disagreed on some points.

Anyways...

AL, you're not getting away that easy, what page ? Can't take you more than 1 min to find since you obviously must have looked it up already. Thats all I'm asking.

Bill, I'll respond to your post soon, in the mean time I have work to do.


----------



## Soren (Nov 2, 2007)

Btw, as to why U-boats prefered and were adviced to get close to their targets:

That made it harder for the destroyers to detect and attack them, esp. during attacks on convoys where the U-boats would often hide within the convoy itself, motionless waiting for the convoy to sail straight passed them. Another very obvious reason was that IF the U-boat was detected and the target was given notice of it, then the target simply wouldn't have time or room enough to alter course significantly enough to avoid impact. 

A merchant heading a continious straight course could be engaged with pinpoint accuracy at very long distances. Destroyers were too fast and their course unpredictable and they therefore always had to be engaged at as close a range as possible


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 2, 2007)

Soren said:


> I stand corrected about the 109T Adler, and I have no problem with it as I know nothing other than what I read or hear when its from before my time, and that goes for most of the people on this forum. Also the 109T, like I said, hasn't been subject of my study really.



You really should get the book that I posted. It really is good. I would recommend it to anyone who enjoys reading about the Bf 109. 





Soren said:


> So can I be blamed for not knowing ? Sure sounds like you think so.



For not knowing? No...

...I just recommend being more open minded. *None* of us know everything and we learn something knew every day.





Soren said:


> And I'd like an example of where I accused people of downright lying without proof at all, cause thats what you accused me of when you claimed I wouldn't admit I was wrong.



No actually I never accused you of lying at all. That was not what I said. Do not put words in my mouth!

You said my post was patronizing and I said I am only using your technique. No where did I say you were lying. Again dont put words in my mouth. That does piss me off!




Soren said:


> The reason I need this is because I suspect some of you guys are just waiting for the smallest mistake I make to quickly jump in and say I am SO VERY WRONG because you don't agree with everything I write - Am I correct in my suspicion ?



Actually no you are wrong in your suspician again. Debating something is fun. However as soon as someone disagrees with you, you start patronizing as you accused me of. People in turn patronize you and then you get all But Hurt about it. 

Also you allways demand proof but many times you dont provide any. You provide something that you have read but you dont list source or anything like that. 



Soren said:


> KoolKitty Delcyros are pretty much the only ones who has kept it civil so far, eventhough they have disagreed on some points.



Oh believe me I have kept this very civil. I have used no insulting words to you what so ever at all. I have gone about this the way you do in almost every topic where someone disagrees with you.

Please Soren, I Dare you to go back and read your posts in many of these threads and then you might understand why people act the way they they do when they are debating with you.


----------



## Juha (Nov 2, 2007)

Soren
no, accoding to Richard Compton-Hall's The Underwater War 1939-1945 (1982) p.59 German Commanding Officers' Handbook repeatedly stated the importance of getting nearer "... serious miscalculations may occur by night, therefore _go in as close as possible_...Therefore, keep your nerve and do not fire too soon...distance is easily underestimated...one is _always_ further away than one thinks, particularly at night. Stick it out and go nearer..."


----------



## delcyros (Nov 2, 2007)

Juha said:


> That said their early wartime boats were very good and very late Type XXIII was very difficult to spot but wartime experience showed that after their first attack Allied counter-measures usually were able to find and destroy them. The bigger Type XXI just missed the war, so how well they would have worked is unknown but they were base for post-war submarines. But one must remember that already during WWI British did have had R-Class hunter-killer subs with very fast underwater speed, but they were ahead their time and had control problems at high underwater speed. Also Japanese Type 71 sub preceded German high-speed U-boats.
> 
> And pocket battleships were a dead-end and didn’t leave up expectations as shown at La Plata. Even Germans saw that before war and so cancelled last 3 and build 2 Scharnhorst-class battlecruisers instead. On ships German produced very good subs, MTBs, minesweepers and motorminesweepers but otherwise their ships were not very special and some types were below par. Heavy cruisers were good if compared to the treaty cruisers of other navies but being almost 40% over the treaty limits that’s not very surprising and their engines were unreliable. IMHO same sized but later Baltimore-class cruisers were clearly better and even clearly smaller and contemporary French Algerie was probably as good as German heavy cruisers or even better and was at least better protected with same armament.
> 
> On torpedoes, also Allied had acoustic torpedoes, at least Mk 24 FIDO, first success on 12 May 1943 when a British Liberator sank U-456, so it predated the earliest German T5 Zaunköning success by 4 months.



Juha, sorry if I join this aspect of the discussion but some of Your points are not correct, others are arguable, but nethertheless cannot be made with such an athoritative statement.

A) Type XXIII- couldn´t be chased with conventional ASW. It was to silent for beeing detected and to fast for ASDIC (above ca. 8 kts wave interferences reduce ASDIC performances over proportionally). All type XXIII-related losses are either accidents, scuttlings or sunk bombers. Out of 16 recorded engagements, the type XXIII could always disengage.
B) Type XXI claimed two B-24 destroyed. Several were sunk by bombers, more by scuttles. Three type XXI boats were enroute to combat patrol, with two of the boats engaging british task forces post VE-day without beeing detected in mock attacks. To compare the vintage R-type or the japanese sub with this boat is not justified. The crushing depth, the electronic outfit and LuT -torpedoes along with the improved TVb acoustic homing torpedoes represent a substantial advancement in submarine warfare.
C) Pocket BB´s were heavy cruisers per difinition. And they were the most successful cruiser sized ships of ww2 if You compare the tonnage laid down with the tonnage sunk. the PBB Admiral Scheer sunk more than 10 times it´s own tonnage in the course of war and had the highest war record of all warships during ww2. These small ships gave oustanding returns, no doubt. 
D) I am no fan of the Hipper class CA, either. The Baltimores are potentially good to fight them, but they are not "clearly better". they are arguably better. the Hipper Prinz Eugen always did very well in gunfights with other cruisers and unlike the Baltimores, the Hippers showed good long range gunnery, despite less effective (by then) radar FC. A lot depends on training and crew skills. The ALgerie deserve beeing mentioned as one of the most beuatiful cruisers but french produced ammunition was faulty at least twice and hit rates of these cruisers were mediocre at best.
E) the Fido is no torpedo. It is referred to as an acoustic homing mine. The Fido can only be used against VERY SLOW targets at VERY CLOSE DISTANCE. The TVb was a true homing torpedoe, which could be used agianst a multitude of targets at normal distance.

However, I certainly agree that the Long Lance was the best torpedoe of ww2, and the USN the best Navy at all. -


----------



## Soren (Nov 2, 2007)

*Adler,*

I present sources when asked, go ahead and check. If I'm not asked you cannot blame me for not presenting any. But I can assure you Adler, I do not debate about subjects which I haven't got excellent detailed information on collected over many years. 

There are certainly subjects in which I am not very well educated, but you'll also notice I will rarely ever debate on these but rather ask for confirmation or mostly not even participate but just read.

And yes I often do ask for evidence of my claimed patronising, but for once I'd like to actually see some, its very frustrating being accused of something you don't feel is correct and then is offered no proof of it.

*Delcyros,* 

You pretty much wrote my response to Juha, but you missed some which I am going to fill in.

*Juha, *

To get close at night was necesary because like it is said (And like you are taught in the military) distance is so very very easy to get horribly wrong at night - and the targeting fire-control computer [KommandoGerät] is only as good as the range figures are correct, a wrong distance setting will seriously alter angle deflection needed to score a hit. 

However with sufficient moonlight long range attacks at night could be carried out very successfully as target ID and bow to stern measurements of unknown targets could then be carried out with a good degree of certainty.


----------



## Soren (Nov 2, 2007)

Note on U-boat torpedo targeting computers:

The US were actually sligthly ahead of the Germans in this area as their TDC's could to some degree track the target in fog, this meant some rather more dubious shots could be made with a better chance of a hit (It never beat an experienced target operator in a clear visibility situation though, but it made quick shots against slightly obscurred targets easier), otherwise they were the same as long as the right figures were plugged in. The US subs however seriously lacked the efficient and advanced torpedoes navigational computers deployed by German subs, as-well as the excellent optics provided by Zeiss, something which had a greater effect on accuracy.

Anyways just thought I'd let you guys know that the US weren't completely behind in terms torpedo targeting as their TDC was slightly ahead all others with its limited ability to track targets in fog. Overall US torpedo targeting was still behind the German though. (Mainly due to the better optics torpedoes deployed by German subs)


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 3, 2007)

Soren said:


> *Adler,*
> 
> I present sources when asked, go ahead and check. If I'm not asked you cannot blame me for not presenting any. But I can assure you Adler, I do not debate about subjects which I haven't got excellent detailed information on collected over many years.



Really? You just did.



Soren said:


> And yes I often do ask for evidence of my claimed patronising, but for once I'd like to actually see some, its very frustrating being accused of something you don't feel is correct and then is offered no proof of it.



Soren I dont have to give you any proof. The proof is in your posts in other threads. I told you to go back and read all your damn posts in just about every thread. *You are called out on this by everyone.*

*I challenge you to actually go and read your posts.*

This discussion is dead here now. If you wish to discuss this in a PM that is fine with me. I will be back from Munich tomorrow. We can carry this on there.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Nov 3, 2007)

So back to the original topic? Or is that dead too...

Maby we should stary another best jet of the war topic, or maby worst jet.  


So to sum up what I've got, the speeds were about equal ith the 262;s higher crit-mach making it the faster diver. The P-80 had a better dogfighter armament (though the 262 could have had other weapons fitted fairly easily if needed). The P-80 had better initial acceleration with standard load and better normal and max range. The P-80 had a significant ceiling advantage and pressurized cockpit. The P-80 had a computing gunsights. Both had unreliable engines (though partially for different reasons, and only in the early P-80s: J33-A-9 engine had less of a flameout problem and more of a stalling one). The YP-80A had the fuel-pump problem,though the back-up pump allieviated this partially. Some early P-80 pilots underestimated the differences between jets and prop planes and treated it as "just another plane" which contributed strongly to the early accedent rate. (though pilots that had already had conversion training in a P-59 would have had less of a problem, and better if the pilot was fully experienced in the characteristics of the P-80) (the P-80 tended to be a pretty hot aircraft to handel, which showed the need for new trainers, resulting in the T-33)

Unsure: which was more maneuverable (it seems many say it was the P-80 at lower speeds and the 262 at higher speeds, others claim the P-80 was more agile in general) Also unsure of which had better armour...

The range of the P-80 would have made it usable as an escort if the 262's interceptions were persistant though.


----------



## delcyros (Nov 3, 2007)

You pretty much summerized it up, koolkitty!
I would add computing gunsights for the Me-262 (EZ-42 were delivered for the Me-262 program) and the Berger G-siuts for the P-80.
As far as I know, the -262 had considerable armour in the cockpit front, the nose and the cockpit rear and three fireproof bulkheads in the fuselage.
The whole amount of armour is 577.5 lbs. I do have no idea what the P-80 had but I would expect cockpit armour, too.
What is more interesting for me is the skin of both planes. I have no figures but would expect substantial differences depending on which area we look. This is actually more important for the Me-262 against .50cal API. The 30mm mine round, containing actually twice the amount of explosive as a Bofors 40mm HE round has to much blast and fragmentation effects and usually would destroy a P-80 if hit (barring a wingtip hit).


----------



## AL Schlageter (Nov 3, 2007)

Who has read the 4 books on the Me262 put out by Classic Publications and authored by Smith Creek?


----------



## Juha (Nov 3, 2007)

Delcyros, on Type XXIII you are right, I remembered the early 45 coastal campaign, but most U-boats lost in it seemed to be “ordinary” schnorkel-boats.
On XXI, it easy to claim some successful post-VE-Day engagements but impossible to verify them, because no shots were fired and so no hits to verify the claims. So I don’t count them. As I wrote the Type XXI was the base of post-war submarine development, but they missed the war. Or at least they sunk nothing.

PBB, now they were heavily armed rather slow commercial raiders. Allies had no use of that kind of ships and in seacombat between warships they didn’t do exceptionally well. And this tonnage vs sunk tonnage comparison isn’t very good indication when comparing combat worth of warships, KM’s aux. cruiser Atlantis, Schiff 16, sunk or captured nearly 20 times it’s own tonnage, was it clearly better warship than Adm Scheer?

PE shooting was exceptionally good during Bismarck cruise, but Hipper’s was poor during the battle of Barents Sea, and probably not very good when HMS Glowworm rammed it in April 40, I would say fair during combat with escorts of convoy WS5A on 25 Dec 40.

Mk 24 FIDO was a torpedo, slow it was but 12 kts on own power with a range of some 5½ km made it a torpedo not a mine. The mine term was used on it as a cover term but it wasn’t a mine. Allies didn’t have so desperate need for submarine homing torpedoes and German didn’t have so desperate need for A/S homing torpedoes that’s why Allies developed FIDO and Germans T5.


----------



## delcyros (Nov 3, 2007)

> On XXI, it easy to claim some successful post-VE-Day engagements but impossible to verify them, because no shots were fired and so no hits to verify the claims. So I don’t count them. As I wrote the Type XXI was the base of post-war submarine development, but they missed the war. Or at least they sunk nothing.



You may find it easy but it shows very well that type XXI boats repeatedly were able to work up into a task force and develop a fortunate firing solution against an enemy cruiser and enemy carrier, despite massive ASW screening. And U-2511 shadowed a british sub off norway for two days, for the whole duration beeing undeteced by the submarine hunter-sub. It did not fire LuT torpedoes due to uncertainities whether or not this sub was german or british and only post war analyses showed the latter to be the case. In all three cases the reports were not believed in the first as british ASW-operations were running high and they didn´t detected anything. Only when log positions were compared did they realized that the incidents indeed happened. To not count them as submarine due to they haven´t fired torpedoes in anger is acceptable in case it would have been a prototype sub or an experimental testbed but there were 120+ boats type XXI servicable at wars end. The type XXI wasn´t rushed into combat (like rockets or jets) but that doesn´t make it less lethal or advanced, quite the opposite I would assume.



> PBB, now they were heavily armed rather slow commercial raiders. Allies had no use of that kind of ships and in seacombat between warships they didn’t do exceptionally well. And this tonnage vs sunk tonnage comparison isn’t very good indication when comparing combat worth of warships, KM’s aux. cruiser Atlantis, Schiff 16, sunk or captured nearly 20 times it’s own tonnage, was it clearly better warship than Adm Scheer?


You are correct in recognizing that PBB´s were slow and heavily armed and the allied had no use of such a type. But this doesn´t make them less worthy! The allies had no use of a commerce raider BECAUSE there was no large german / italian merchant fleet operating in the Atlantic. The germans, however, had a target rich environment requiring this type of ship. Tonnage sunk vs tonnage laid down is an exceptionally well indicator for the strategic usefulness of a design CLASS. Atlantis was only one ship in a CLASS which didn´t did well at all but the three PBB´s as a CLASS had very positive returns as did the subs (which is exactly why the german navy changed to submarine warfare). I don´t know where You rely on that the PBB´s didin´t well in combat, only one lengthy naval battle emerged in which Graf Spee, despite beeing slower, low on ammunition and outnumbered 3 to 1 did well against 3 RN cruisers. The damage received in this action was not compromising combat abilities of Graf Spee but mislead Langsdorff to enter the wrong harbour, politically.



> PE shooting was exceptionally good during Bismarck cruise, but Hipper’s was poor during the battle of Barents Sea, and probably not very good when HMS Glowworm rammed it in April 40, I would say fair during combat with escorts of convoy WS5A on 25 Dec 40.


How do You qualify "poor" shooting at Barent Sea. According to every reliable naval history, Hipper did better with her gunnery in worse conditions, compared to other ships operating this day. You may justifiedly blame other aspects, but Hipper particularely was not "poor".
Glowworm was hit repeatedly by Hipper during it´s approach on her, what do You expect more from Hippers main artillery? Later Hipper showed quite good gunnery against HMS Jupiter, a tanker and a troop transport (all sunk).



> Mk 24 FIDO was a torpedo, slow it was but 12 kts on own power with a range of some 5½ km made it a torpedo not a mine. The mine term was used on it as a cover term but it wasn’t a mine. Allies didn’t have so desperate need for submarine homing torpedoes and German didn’t have so desperate need for A/S homing torpedoes that’s why Allies developed FIDO and Germans T5.


The USN referred to it as a homing mine. The MK 24 mine was to be dropped by B-24 bombers and activated it´s own powersource only if it found noises in it´s vicinity, a unique weapon. The range at 12 Kts,however was only 4.000 yards (3.66 Km), not 5 1/2 km. The hit rate was ~ 12%. Out of 340 Fidos dropped in 264 attacks, 40 submarines got sunk or damaged. This weapon turned out to be to slow for use against submarines. You need to place the Fido in the very vicinity of the submarine to have a reasonable hit rate (type XXI and XXIII could outpace it). 
The first acoustic homing US torpedo was the post war Mk 35 mod.1.


----------



## Juha (Nov 3, 2007)

Hello Delcyros
“log positions were compared did they realized that the incidents indeed happened”

I don’t doubt that Type XXIs observed the British formations but how to verify how close they got?

“Atlantis was only one ship in a CLASS which didn´t did well at all”
That’s entirely untrue. First of all Germans were not so stupid that they would build a class of disguised aux. cruisers, that would have made the game too easy to Allies. All their disguised aux. cruisers were different. And as a TYPE they were rather successful.
Orion Schiff 36 sunk 10 times it’s tonnage
Thor, Schiff 10 sunk nearly 40 times it’s tonnage
Pinquin, chiff 33, sunk almost 20 times it’s tonnage

The 9 disguised aux. cruisers which got to open seas sank altogether 890’000BRT of merchant ships and one light cruiser and one British aux. cruiser. Smallest of these 9 was Komet, 3’287 tonnes and largest Kormoran, 8’736 tonnes. So their average was better than that of best of PBBs in tonnage sunk vs own tonnage.

“Graf Spee, despite beeing slower, low on ammunition and outnumbered 3 to 1 did well against 3 RN cruisers”

IIRC Graf Spee wasn’t low on ammo at the beginning of the battle, after all it shot away 414 11” shots/shells during the battle but at the end of battle it had run rather low in its ammo and that had an effect on it’s CO’s later decisions. And Exeter and Ajax and Achilles were “small” CA and CLs, British County class CAs had 33% more 8” guns than Exeter and the new Town class CLs had 50% more 6” guns than Ajax-class CLs. So IMHO Graf Spee would have had harder time against those bigger CAs and CLs.

On Hipper, IMHO it would be difficult to ram well shooting CA. On Hipper’s case maybe part of the blame is on overconfident CO and maybe underestimating the fighting spirit of RN. So let’s say that Hipper’s shooting was not adequate for the CO’s needs. 
Barents Sea, I think that HMS Jamaica and HMS Sheffield shot better, after all they hit thrice Hipper in 5 minutes and sunk DD Eckholdt in minutes 

On torpedoes, air-launched torpedoes were rather short-ranged, British Mk XII 1,500 yards (1,370 m) / 40 knots 3,500 yards (3,200 m) / 37 knots, Mk XV 2,500 yards (2,290 m) / 40 knots 3,500 yards (3,200 m) / 33 knots, USN Mk 13 6,300 yards (5,760 m) / 33.5 knots. So Mk 24 was slow but longer ranged than air-dropped torpedoes used by RN but had only 2/3 range of USN air-dropped torpedo. It seems you had got your figures from "US Navy *Torpedoes*" by Frederick J. Milford, notice the title, bolding by me. And according to Milford only 204 of the 264 attacks were against submarines, so success rate was almost 20%. I don’t have success rate of T5, but I doubt it was much better, probably worse.


----------



## delcyros (Nov 3, 2007)

> I don’t doubt that Type XXIs observed the British formations but how to verify how close they got?


Without GPS tracks nobody could doubtless verify how close the subs came (even torpoedoes, had they been launched could have originated from another sub). But this technology doesn´t exist in ww2. You would need to question the submarine CO and officers credibility as eyewitnesses in order to question the events, per se. Which I -in turn- regard as a very questionable approach to the matter.



> The 9 disguised aux. cruisers which got to open seas sank altogether 890’000BRT of merchant ships and one light cruiser and one British aux. cruiser. Smallest of these 9 was Komet, 3’287 tonnes and largest Kormoran, 8’736 tonnes. So their average was better than that of best of PBBs in tonnage sunk vs own tonnage.


I stand corrected with this. And now show me an allied aux. cruiser, cruiser or any gunfire capital ship-class which sunk that many tonnage as a PBB or an KM aux. cruiser as a class...



> IIRC Graf Spee wasn’t low on ammo at the beginning of the battle, after all it shot away 414 11” shots/shells during the battle but at the end of battle it had run rather low in its ammo and that had an effect on it’s CO’s later decisions.


This is only superficially true, my friend. Graf Spee, following a lengthy south Atlantic cruise was indeed low on the kind of ammo, which was best suited for this engagement: HE rounds. The 11.1" APC went right through the ship as neither of the RN cruisers had armour to stop them (as a matter of fact, even lateral fragmentation of the 11.1" HE round could pierce the turrets from near hits)


> Exeter and Ajax and Achilles were “small” CA and CLs, British County class CAs had 33% more 8” guns than Exeter and the new Town class CLs had 50% more 6” guns than Ajax-class CLs. So IMHO Graf Spee would have had harder time against those bigger CAs and CLs.


I do not doubt that it would have been harder with other CA´s. But the fact still remains: three individual ships against a single, two turretted vessel leaves one ship (at least) unengaged, which is a tactical advantage, worthy beeing mentioned as such. HMS Exeter, effectively driven out of the engagement due to damage received by Graf Spee had a max. displacement of 10.688t.; Ajax and Achilles each a displacement of 9.740t. max while Graf Spee had a max. displacement of 16.020 t., around half as much as the RN ships combined. Not only had the RN ships strategic (Graf Spee has no hope of any assist and the allied presence was growing with Dunkerque and Strassbourg detached), tactical (visibility), numerical, conditional (torpedoes, nearby allies) and force advantage (30.168t. vs. 16.020 t.) but they were also faster than their german counterpart. The RN force thus should have been more than able to sink Graf Spee in this engagement, if Graf Spee is nearly as bad as Your statements imply. 
But this didn´t happened. Countrary to this assumption, the 6" common and 8" SAP ammo had not the ability to penetrate into Graf Spee´s vitals and thus only superficial damage was inflicted to the ship (an exception is a single 8" training round penetrating the main belt. But this round was a solid APC-shot, with inherent advantages as to AP-capabilities and without filler. No damage occurred) This is a point of interest as it shows that other RN cruisers likely wouldn´t have differed in this regard if they had six, eight or twelve guns as long as the rounds do not penetrate. USN 8" CA´s do have generally much better APC rounds issued, but not by 1939.


> On Hipper, IMHO it would be difficult to ram well shooting CA. On Hipper’s case maybe part of the blame is on overconfident CO and maybe underestimating the fighting spirit of RN. So let’s say that Hipper’s shooting was not adequate for the CO’s needs.
> Barents Sea, I think that HMS Jamaica and HMS Sheffield shot better, after all they hit thrice Hipper in 5 minutes and sunk DD Eckholdt in minutes


Compare the number of ammo expanded on Sheffield Jamaica with the number of hits claimed and do the same for Hipper. Quite enlighting as to who had the better hit rate...
Hipper never showed "poor" gunnery or- assumning she did- than her contemporary allied cruisers had even poorer gunnery, respectively -which isn´t true. Therefore Hipper had very good gunnery for a cruiser as had Prinz Eugen. I think we both agree on the CO underestimating Glowworm´s fighting spirit and overestimating Hippers tactical position, hardly something one could blame the ship for. 


> On torpedoes, air-launched torpedoes were rather short-ranged, British Mk XII 1,500 yards (1,370 m) / 40 knots 3,500 yards (3,200 m) / 37 knots, Mk XV 2,500 yards (2,290 m) / 40 knots 3,500 yards (3,200 m) / 33 knots, USN Mk 13 6,300 yards (5,760 m) / 33.5 knots. So Mk 24 was slow but longer ranged than air-dropped torpedoes used by RN but had only 2/3 range of USN air-dropped torpedo.


Fido: 4000 yards *@ 12* Kts
US MK 13 air dropped torpedo: 6.300 yards @ 33.5 Kts
Soviet TAV-15 air dropped torpedo: 6.500-9.800 yards @ 30 Kts
Soviet 45-36AV-A air dropped torpedo: 4.370 yards @ 39 Kts
British 18" MK XV air dropped stand. torpedo: 3.500 yards @ 33 Kts
German F5B air dropped torpedo: 6.560 yards @ 24 Kts
japanese type 91 air dropped torpedo: 2.200 yards @ 41-43 Kts

To put this into prospect: adding 4 Kts to the speed of a uniform waterplane area submarine requires a rough approximate doubling of the energy. If we use the lowest performing air dropped torpedo (the german F5b at low speed configuration) and let the Fido run 24 Kts, it will have a range no more than 500 yards compared to the 6.560 of the F5b. Doing the opposite, letting the F5b run at Fido´s 12 Kts equals to a capacity range of theoretical 52.480 yards compared to Fido´s 4.000.



> And according to Milford only 204 of the 264 attacks were against submarines, so success rate was almost 20%. I don’t have success rate of T5, but I doubt it was much better, probably worse.


 That is true but I added the non US successes of the Fido and hence You should add the 62 non US attacks on submarines with the Fido. That totals to a hit rate of slightly under 15%.


----------



## Juha (Nov 3, 2007)

“Graf Spee, following a lengthy south Atlantic cruise was indeed low on the kind of ammo,”

Now IIRC PBB capacity was 600 – 700 11” shells, at the end of La Plata action it still had some 20% left, so it seemed to have had at least some 80% of its 11” ammo when the action started. So how much under 100% is low?

“three individual ships against a single, two turretted vessel leaves one ship (at least) unengaged,”
you forget the 8 5.9” guns on Graf Spee, one could use at least the 4 on one side against one enemy ship, and they were used, firing IIRC 377 5.9” shells without hitting once.

“Compare the number of ammo expanded on Sheffield Jamaica with the number of hits claimed and do the same for Hipper. Quite enlighting as to who had the better hit rate...”

I would like to do that if you can give me a reliable info on how many hits Eckholdt suffered. Without that info one cannot count hit rate. In the gun battle between cruisers Hipper was hit thrice without hitting the RN cruisers. Hipper fired only some 20 shells towards RN cruisers before running away.

On air-drop torpedoes my point is that they tended to be rather short range weapons because of aiming difficulties. The range and speed of Mk 24 FIDO was fairly enough against pre Type XXIII subs, one can see it from 15 - 18% hit rate which I think was better than that of T5.

“And now show me an allied aux. cruiser, cruiser or any gunfire capital ship-class which sunk that many tonnage as a PBB or an KM aux. cruiser as a class...”

As you know, there were not so many merchant ships to be hunted by Allied ships outside Pacific. Some German ships were captured/forced to scuttle in Atlantic but I cannot remember their sizes or that of their captors. One other possibility is Force K in Med but it was operating in much more hazardous environment and it still had far fewer potential targets than German raiders. But if we look from other angle. Allied succeeded to cripple Afrika Korps supply service, strangle Japan imports rather effectively but Germany’s aim to force GB to surrender by economic blockade failed.


----------



## Soren (Nov 3, 2007)

kool kitty89 said:


> So back to the original topic? Or is that dead too...
> 
> Maby we should stary another best jet of the war topic, or maby worst jet.
> 
> ...



The difference between the Me-262 the P-80 is that by late 1944-45 the Me-262 was actually safe to fly and the P-80 wasn't. The P-80 had serious teething problems when first fielded and was quickly deemed unsafe to fly after a series of accidents and was pulled away from service. 



> Unsure: which was more maneuverable (it seems many say it was the P-80 at lower speeds and the 262 at higher speeds, others claim the P-80 was more agile in general) Also unsure of which had better armour...



The Me-262 was definitely the more agile in the horizontal, being able to pull harder turns because of its automatic LE slats. The P-80 must have had an advantage in roll rate with those stubby wings though. Speed Climb rate goes to the Me-262 with its ~4,000 ft/min climb rate fully loaded (6,700 kg).




> The range of the P-80 would have made it usable as an escort if the 262's interceptions were persistant though.



The US just couldn't have had it ready in time. The XP-72 was a better solution IMO as it could've been fielded in time and didn't suffer from any serious reliability issues, plus it was VERY fast at high altitudes, so it would have had a good chance of catching an Me-262 busy attacking the bombers by diving in on it.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 3, 2007)

Soren said:


> The difference between the Me-262 the P-80 is that by late 1944-45 the Me-262 was actually safe to fly and the P-80 wasn't.


In what terms? The only problem the P-80 had was a fuel control problem at full power (which killed Bong and Burcham) and that was rectified by the summer of 45. Not to say that both aircraft had their problems but the P-80 didn't have 25 hour engines and did not have the same engine out on landing problems the 262 had.


----------



## AL Schlageter (Nov 3, 2007)

Soren said:


> The difference between the Me-262 the P-80 is that by late 1944-45 the Me-262 was actually safe to fly and the P-80 wasn't. The P-80 had serious teething problems when first fielded and was quickly deemed unsafe to fly after a series of accidents and was pulled away from service.


Sure Soren. Got the stats to back up your statement?


----------



## delcyros (Nov 3, 2007)

Juha,

let´s realize that we are going to totally sidetrack the discussion. If You are interested in continuing, open a new thread in another section (ww2 general). Graf Spee and subs do have absolutely nothing in common with a me-262 or P-80.

thanks in advance,


----------



## pbfoot (Nov 3, 2007)

The Germans were fielding aircraft in 44/ 45 that would not have met the same safety standards used by them in 39/40


----------



## Soren (Nov 3, 2007)

FLYBOYJ said:


> In what terms? The only problem the P-80 had was a fuel control problem at full power (which killed Bong and Burcham) and that was rectified by the summer of 45. Not to say that both aircraft had their problems but the P-80 didn't have 25 hour engines and did not have the same engine out on landing problems the 262 had.



By summer 45 the war was over, and the fuel pump problem was serious. 

The reliability problem of the Jumo 004's didn't make the Me-262 unsafe to fly, for one it had two of them, secondly everything was done to ensure they didn't fail (Such as for example limiting them to 25 hours of flight time before maintenance). Also if both engine did fail the LE slats coupled with flaps would ensure a slow enough ditching speed to ensure the pilot didn't get hurt - it was actually more unsafe to try and land with only one engine.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 3, 2007)

Soren said:


> By summer 45 the war was over, and the fuel pump problem was serious.


Yes the war was over and the fuel pump problem was serious and was rectified. The only why Bong died in the P-80 was because he wasn't aware of the "quick fix" which involved engaging the pump (which I believe was in a wheel well) during his pre-flight. This was told to me by Tony LeVier who also stated that if he had an opportunity to brief Bong before his flight he (Bong) might not of been killed.


Soren said:


> The reliability problem of the Jumo 004's didn't make the Me-262 unsafe to fly, for one it had two of them, secondly everything was done to ensure they didn't fail (Such as for example limiting them to 25 hours of flight time before maintenance). Also if both engine did fail the LE slats coupled with flaps would ensure a slow enough ditching speed to ensure the pilot didn't get hurt - it was actually more unsafe to try and land with only one engine.


From Steinhoff to Galland, every well known pilot who flew the 262 spoke about its limitations during engine out landings - slats weren't going to help you if you couldn't get directional control of the aircraft and that was the problem with the 262.

The 25 hour maintenance was out of necessity and that's if the engine even made 25 hours. No denying the ability of the aircraft but once again you ignore the fact that these aircraft were being built with "substitute" materials and slave labor - accidents waiting to happen.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Juha (Nov 3, 2007)

Hello Delcyros
I agree, I will put some questions in ww2 general section. And thanks for correcting my wrong impression on Type XXIII. It funny when one gets old it easier to remember some old impressions one had got while reading 35 years ago, in this case the Ballantine book on U-boats than something one had read some 15-20 years ago, one book on subs which clearly stats that only 2 Type XXIIIs were lost in open seas.

Juha


----------



## Soren (Nov 3, 2007)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Yes the war was over and the fuel pump problem was serious and was rectified. The only why Bong died in the P-80 was because he wasn't aware of the "quick fix" which involved engaging the pump (which I believe was in a wheel well) during his pre-flight. This was told to me by Tony LeVier who also stated that if he had an opportunity to brief Bong before his flight he (Bong) might not of been killed.



I know but Bong wasn't the only who had an accident in the P-80. 



> From Steinhoff to Galland, every well known pilot who flew the 262 spoke about its limitations during engine out landings - slats weren't going to help you if you couldn't get directional control of the aircraft and that was the problem with the 262.



Directional control was great in the Me-262 infact it was excellent. You'd have to go below 160 km/h to loose directional control in the Me-262 (This is with flaps deployed)

Ditching the Me-262 on a field at 160 km/h wouldn't be that risky for the pilot.



> The 25 hour maintenance was out of necessity and that's if the engine even made 25 hours. No denying the ability of the aircraft but once again you ignore the fact that these aircraft were being built with "substitute" materials and slave labor - accidents waiting to happen.



The reliability issue was because of the use of substitute metals. 

I am not really aware of how big a part of the Jumo 004 production was carried out by slave labor, infact AFAIK the Jumo 004's werent constructed by slave labor but built completely with German hands - I could be wrong about this though.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Nov 3, 2007)

I agree that the P-72 would have been a beter choice for a high performance escort. Speed almost up to P-80 standards, climb-rate over 5000 ft/min, 42,000 ft, longer range (at least 1200 miles combat), verry tough, strong armament, few development problems since based on well prooven P-47, more reliable, little or no need for conversion treining (especially for former P-47 pilots). Handeling was supposedly good especially compared to the P-47. It may have had a pressurizd cockpit as well. Had the initial production order for 100 P-72s not been canceled thy could have been in production by mid '44 and service by the end of the year. 

It would have been the best intrim measure until the P-80 was ready (as Bell didn't seem to be making any apreaciable improvements on the P-59, unlike the improvements being made on the Meteor) and would have been excelent for ground support in Korea. Though if the Airacomet had seen the same rapaid improvements as the Meteor, it woul have been a good contender.(who knows what the P-59 would have been like with engens like the Derwent V, or even just the 2400 lbf of the Derwent IV, though the only US engine like this would have been the J36 copy of the Goblin with 2,700 lbf but its development was running behind)


With the P-80A's standard load I think it had better climb thn the 262 though...

And I found this in another discussion:
Well here's what Chuck Yeager said in his book, " I was among the first Mustang pilot's to shoot one down in the War, so I was facinated to discover that the 262 and the Shooting Star performed identically-the same range, top speed, acceleration, and rate of climb " from the book" Yeager ".
Of cours the range is without droptanks.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 3, 2007)

Soren said:


> I know but Bong wasn't the only who had an accident in the P-80.


No there were exactly 4 others before the planes were grounded, one pilot survived a turbine coming apart and that was Tony LeVeir.




Soren said:


> Directional control was great in the Me-262 infact it was excellent. You'd have to go below 160 km/h to loose directional control in the Me-262 (This is with flaps deployed)


Not with one engine, that's the point, engine outs on final killed more 262 pilots than enemy action.


Soren said:


> Ditching the Me-262 on a field at 160 km/h wouldn't be that risky for the pilot.


No better or worse than any other WW2 aircraft except you had two blowtorches under each wing...




Soren said:


> The reliability issue was because of the use of substitute metals.


My point and agree


Soren said:


> I am not really aware of how big a part of the Jumo 004 production was carried out by slave labor, infact AFAIK the Jumo 004's werent constructed by slave labor but built completely with German hands - I could be wrong about this though.


Something I wouldn't want to bet my life on....

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Soren (Nov 3, 2007)

> Not with one engine, that's the point,



Ok if that is what you meant then I agree. But this problem could be simply rectified by shutting the engine off and gliding in on the final. 



> engine outs on final killed more 262 pilots than enemy action.



Rookies were often responsible for engine outs, throttling up too fast.

A little over 100 Me-262's were lost to enemy action, over 90% being shot down on landing approach or take off.


----------



## Soren (Nov 3, 2007)

> With the P-80A's standard load I think it had better climb thn the 262 though...



Not according to official data. 

The F-80C had a climb rate of 4,580 ft/min.


----------



## AL Schlageter (Nov 3, 2007)




----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 3, 2007)

Soren said:


> Ok if that is what you meant then I agree. But this problem could be simply rectified by shutting the engine off and gliding in on the final.


Providing you were in gliding distance of the runway and you manage your airspeed for an approach.



Soren said:


> Rookies were often responsible for engine outs, throttling up too fast.


As well as the mechanical failures...


Soren said:


> A little over 100 Me-262's were lost to enemy action, over 90% being shot down on landing approach or take off.


Agree....


----------



## AL Schlageter (Nov 3, 2007)

Soren said:


> A little over 100 Me-262's were lost to enemy action, over 90% being shot down on landing approach or take off.


Does that mean the rest were lost due to mechanical failure because some 900 had been delivered to the LW?


----------



## kool kitty89 (Nov 3, 2007)

Soren said:


> Not according to official data.
> 
> The F-80C had a climb rate of 4,580 ft/min.




And the Me 262's was... (you said earlier ~4000 ft/min.)

Note this is the avrage climb for the P-80C (to ~20,000 ft) while the max initial climb is over 6000 ft/min the P-80A's initial climb was about 4580 ft/min while its avg. climb to 20,000 ft was about 3,700 ft/min. (though its no Meteor F. 4 or 8 with an initial climb of over 7,000 ft/min)

There is some good (but not infallible) data at: Lockheed P-80/F-80 Shooting Star


----------



## Micdrow (Nov 4, 2007)

the su-47 is gangsta said:


> der alder 1st gelandt is a dumbkopf



As far as Im concerned this is you last warning. Opinions dont matter, Facts do. Stick to the facts or you are gone!!!!!


----------



## evangilder (Nov 4, 2007)

the su-47 is gangsta said:


> der alder 1st gelandt is a dumbkopf



Insulting a moderator is a quick way out of here. An apology is in order. Your antics on this forum are being closely watched and you better shape up. This is your only warning. Capiche?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 4, 2007)

Soren said:


> The reliability issue was because of the use of substitute metals.



And that changes what? If you are not using quality metals and that causes reliability issues then that makes it unsafe.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Nov 4, 2007)

FBJ, the 262 was controllable in flight on one engine so it could return to the airfield and shut off the engine on final approach, like Soren said, or idle it in case the aproach had to be aborted. Didn't the P-38 have similar problems on singe-engine landings?

The reliabillity problems were largely due to lack of materials, as said, but the 004B also had fuel control problems which caused the rapid spool-up flame-outs and engine stalls. The 004D largely solved this problem though.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 4, 2007)

kool kitty89 said:


> FBJ, the 262 was controllable in flight on one engine so it could return to the airfield and shut off the engine on final approach, like Soren said, or idle it in case the aproach had to be aborted.


All that is fine provided you could make the field and the problem with dead stick approaches is sometimes the pilot miscalculated his glide and needs power so he could make the field. Combine this with combat situations and you have many a pilot "rushing" (for better words) to get on the ground. Normally you won't dead stick a twin engine aircraft, you try to fly it on the one engine but this takes training, something many multi engine pilots of WW2 on both sides lacked. 


kool kitty89 said:


> The reliabillity problems were largely due to lack of materials, as said, but the 004B also had fuel control problems which caused the rapid spool-up flame-outs and engine stalls. The 004D largely solved this problem though.


To a point - all first generation turbines had spool up problems.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Nov 4, 2007)

I didn't mean it solved the spool-up problems entirely but it kept fuel frm flooding the engine, greatly reducing flam-outs and cut-outs (though the TBO was still low, thow better than the 004B and the D also had a higher max rev at 10,000 rpm)

I definitely agree on the landings. But at least you don't have to worry about torque in a twin jet, though assymetric thrust is still a problem. (except in the P-59  but this came at a price)


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 4, 2007)

kool kitty89 said:


> I definitely agree on the landings. But at least you don't have to worry about torque in a twin jet, though assymetric thrust is still a problem. (except in the P-59  but this came at a price)


You still had to deal controlling the aircraft along the vertical axis because of the engines being mounted on the wings. Twin engine training wasn't taken serious in the first part of WW2 and many pilots jumped into twin engine aircraft with little or inadequate training.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Nov 4, 2007)

That's what I meant by asymmetric thrust. And the P-59's inboard engine placement resulted in very little of this with one engine out, same with the Mig 9.

Totaly agree on the training though.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Nov 7, 2007)

Here's yet another comparison: P-80 vs Me 262


----------



## Soren (Nov 7, 2007)

Koolkitty, 

That comparison is beyond reason, the guy is making some very ridiculous claims and provides no facts to support them at all.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 7, 2007)

And I actually agree....


----------



## AL Schlageter (Nov 7, 2007)

Soren said:


> Koolkitty,
> 
> That comparison is beyond reason, the guy is making some very ridiculous claims and provides no facts to support them at all.


You are not saying much Soren. What very ridiculous claims do you take issue with?


----------



## kool kitty89 (Nov 7, 2007)

I didn't say it was accurate of reality I just meant it was another interesting comparison. Look what the purpose of website is. (it's about the Blackhawks comic series)  It's been noted several times on the "WWII In Color" forum.
see: The First American Jet (1942) - WW2inColor Talk

Sorry though, I should have been more clear on the purpose of the post...

Although, while the written statements aren't very correct, the chart has the same figures as FlyboyJ's one on page 1.


----------



## Civettone (Nov 7, 2007)

In reality the P-80 would have had to face the Me 262s with the Jumo 004D engines which were both more reliable as powerful. I think that would have definitely given it the edge over the P-80.

Kris


----------



## kool kitty89 (Nov 7, 2007)

The 004D also had better throtle-up characteristics, longer service life, higher rev limit, and lower fuel fuel cnsumption than the 004B.

The P-80 still has the weapon advantage (unless the Me 262 used an alternative armament), lighter controls due to hydrolic booting, air-breaks, longer range, higher ceiling, and a pressurized cockpit (though the Me 262 was designed to accomedate pressurization, though this was never used in practice). The P-80A had lower wing-loading, though later models were quite higher due to increased thrust allowing higher maximum loads. The P-80A had a better thrust/weight with a normal (empty wing racks) load, normal normal range. (3850 lbf with 11700 lb load 14,000 lb was the max) The info on one of FlyboyJ's posts on page 1 said "Empty weight: 3,800 kg (8,400 lb) 
Loaded weight: 7,130 kg (15,720 lb) 
Max takeoff weight: 6,400 kg (14,100 lb)" I've seen this elsewhere too, this hence the confusion.

The P-80A also seems to have a faster initial climb and avrage climb to 20,000 ft. Though, I've seen conflicting data on this.

Actually, since the wing area of the P-80 is 237.6 square ft compared to the 262's 233.5 and the max weights of 14,000 lbs and 14,110 lbs the wing loading was almost the same. (I've also seen 15,720 lbs for the Max of the 262, but this is passes the max-takeoff, so I'm not sure, maby max load the airframe would allow with sufficient thrust?)

The Me-262 had the automatic LE slats though and a higher mach figure (though with no airbrakes, terminal dive was difficult to recover from)

On the Wright Field fly-off comparison test, I've never seen a resourse to site it, and even a consistant conclusion. (some say it was supressed due to the 262's superiority, others say that the 262's only advantage was dive speed, still others say that the 262 was superior in some respects but much detail is left out) The only conclusive comparison I've ever seen was a quote from Chuck Yeager saying that,having flown both planes, they were pretty much equal in all apreaciable performance aspects.

I'd really like to see the official version of that test.

Also I've read: "I've seen (In the book Me-262, Smith and Creek, Volume 4) a summary of a direct comparison test done after the war that suggested the overall superiority of the Me-262. But it's important to note that that comparsion was between a stripped recon verson of the Me-262 and the XP-80 (which was dimensionally smaller and had 1,000 lbs less thrust than the P-80A). This was the only test that I know of where both planes were present at the same place and time.

However, I know of at least 4 other comparison studies that were done by the USAAF between the P-80A and the Me-262. Results of two of those tests are unknown to me. The others concluded the general superiority of the P-80A. One pilot in one of the latter tests stated "The Me-262 may be the best jet fighter in service, but the P-80 is the best jet fighter in the world." I guess he meant combat service." See: Messerschmitt Me 262. - Page 10 - WW2inColor Talk

So this skews the comparison even more. Especially he one using the XP-80 (Lulu Belle/Green Hornet), it was a completly different airframe than the XP-80A (gray ghost and silver ghost) and the resulting production craft, with coresponding different characteristics. (the XP-80 was Lockheed's model L-140, the XP-80A was the L-141) The XP-80 was fairly underpowered (using the 2,400 lbf Halford H.1) and at least 50mph slower.

I've also never seen a difinitive figure on the P-80's critical mach number. I know the 262 lost control at .86 mach and I don't think the Meteor (including F.8 ) could go past .82 mach, but what about the P-80? (straight wings doesn't always mean lower mach number, there were several straight-winged craft without mach limits, the XS-1 was straight-winged as was the Avro CF-100 which could dive through mach-1) I wouldn't have been too surprised if the P-84 could break the sound barrier if it had low-profile wings (the wings being the main limiting factor, made thick intentionally to extend range; quite thicker than the P-80's, in fact this dropped the crit-mach number to below the P-80's IIRC) and, of course, the tailplane would need to be trimmable (variable incedence) to mantain controll.

To truely compare maneuverabillity, you'd need the maximum G load figures which I haven't seen either. (Though I've heard that, while the boosted alerons remained light at high speeds, the elevator became quite heavy, though this depended on the COG as it got lighter the farther back the COG was.)

One final note Soren, from the details I've seen, the P-80 should generally more maneuverable, though I'd expect more drag from the wings durring maneuvering, but the P-80 also had a narrower fusalage and much narrower nose (though both are a bit taller than the 262's triangular/shark-like nose) which means less drag area in the turning access. Though it the Me 262 had better flow characteristics the actual drag would be less, despite the higher area.


----------



## delcyros (Nov 8, 2007)

Why all this argument, I cannot understand.

Both planes are excellent jet´s for their era. Turn rates- and diamters in the horizontal are only important for pilot´s flying ww1 tactics, which passed away in the jet age (LATEST!). It is more important to understand which plane keeps the energy better during turns. 
This has much more importance and both planes enjoied here a significant advantage over their contemporary piston A/C, altough we simply do not know how they compare here against each other.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Nov 8, 2007)

I agree. And I think both retain energy pretty well in turns. All the pros and cons have been listed and overall the planes seem to be even, though they are optimized for different roles. And the mach limit is only really important when one is trying to out-dive the other. The Me-262 was a multirole fighter optimized as a bomber interceptor. The P-80 was a good interceptor, but also a decent escort and dog-fighter. The only scenario that would really make sence for the two meeting is if the P-80s were on a strike mission on a 262 airbase (as the Meteors did) or as an escort for bombers under the threat of the Me 262. 

But, you're right Delcyros, this discussion is kind of just going in circles. We've already pretty much settled on the characteristics of both craft as I summarized earlier. The only thing that's really left to add is the Fly-off info from Wright Field, with full details of what models of each plane were compared. A stripped-down will obviously outperform a loaded P-80, and almost any 262 configuration will outperform the original L-140 XP-80 in all but agility (and even tat was harmed bu some aerodynamuc problems with the original design).

This discussion has side-tracked so many times we might as well have started new threads for the offshoots. And there hasn't been a whole lot said here that was new compared to RG's previous thread.


----------



## Civettone (Nov 8, 2007)

kool kitty89 said:


> The 004D also had better throtle-up characteristics, longer service life, higher rev limit, and lower fuel fuel cnsumption than the 004B.


And with 150 kgp x 2 extra I think it would have gotten better performance: speed, climb rate, etc than the P-80.



kool kitty89 said:


> The P-80 still has the weapon advantage (unless the Me 262 used an alternative armament)


I don't understand this. The Me 262 had the greatest armament of all fighters in WW2. The MK 108 was a magnificent weapon, especially against fighters where the low muzzle velocity matters less.
And combined with the R4M it has an incredible punch, being able to take out every heavy bomber and finish it off with its guns.

Kris


----------



## kool kitty89 (Nov 8, 2007)

But muzzel velocity matters more when in a high speed doghfight. The .50 cal BMG had excelent balistic properties, very flat trajectory, high velocity, decent ROF, and good range. (~400 m for accuracy and ~1000 m for effective damage) While the MK-108 had a realitively low muzzel velocity and ROF resulting in a weapon that was great aganst bombers but poor aganst fighters. (effective range would be ~100m accurate and ~300 m effective damage) While a single direct hit is devistating its is difficult to score such a hit durring a dogfight, also the shell has to detonate and not bounce off or punch through. (there were a fair amount of duds) The dropping trajectory made it difficult to aim with and the low ROF further limited its chances of a hit. The 6x BMG of the P-80 could fire verry rapidly and in the compact nose mounting, had verry concentrated fire. The ammo load of the Me-262 was also fairly low. (2x 100 and 2x 80 shells in the 262A-1.

The MK 103 had the same projectile but with a much higher velocity and verry flat trajectory and about 2x the range of the 108, at the expence of added weight and lower ROF. I sugested an alternative armament of 2x MK 103 and 2x MG 151/20 cannons, making the armament much more versitile fore mitirole use. I'd expect the 151/20's to hold ~200 RPG each and the 103's ~80 RPG. (as a conservative estimate)

Look around the site, this has been discussed several times and by people with better balitics knoledge than I have. Look through this thread or: http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/polls/me262-vs-p-80-a-562.html or search the forum for more info on this.


From RGLunatic:


> As for the armament, I totally disagree. The 6 x .50's were far superior for dogfighting than the 4 x MK108's. It is unlikely that the Me262 would have been able to hit the P-80 from any range beyond 100 meters (and even that would require an expert marksmen), where the P-80 could have reached out over 400 meters and touched the 262. The MK108 was an anti-bomber weapon, nearly useless in a high speed dogfight."
> 
> 
> > Also R4M rockets were devestating against bombers but useless in a dogfight, I'd think they'd hurt more than help since there's virtually no chance of hitting a fighter with them and the added drag and weight lowered performance.
> ...


----------



## Soren (Nov 8, 2007)

Koolkitty98, please don't rely on what people say on other forums as there's bound to be allot of BS involved sometimes, and please don't directly copy their text without always marking them with ""'s or changing them to Italic. Its ok to copy text and post it here, just don't forget to make notice of it, otherwise some people might get confused.

Anyway getting back on track.. 

The Me-262A-1a P-80A both had approx. the same wing-loading with the same fuel loads, however the Me-262A-1a benefitted hugely from featuring full-span auto LE slats which improved turn performance at all speeds considerably. The Me-262A-1a also benefitted from a higher Aspect Ratio wing which meant a high L/D (Lift/Drag) ratio, keeping the energy loss in turns low compared to other a/c (The Ta-152H benefitted from this as-well)

Getting to performance the Me-262A-1a was superior here as-well, both in climb rate, acceleration speed. The ony comparative test we know of confirmed this as-well. Keep in mind that the P-80A's in service by 1945 didn't perform as well as the later F-80C.

The only a/c of WW2 which which would've been a potential match for the Me-262A-1a was the He-162A-2, but due to shortages in materials quite a few examples of the He-162A-2's would've undoubtedly suffered from a weaker structural integrity.


----------



## AL Schlageter (Nov 8, 2007)

Now I know 1-3 here will poo-poo this,

_In the fall of 1944 in a complaint by KG-51, they requested 3 spare noses for each aircraft, as the guns or gun barrels would work themselves loose in a mission, requiring replacement of the nose. Parts had to be beefed up because they were inadequate to the rigors of field and combat conditions.Parts had to be beefed up because they were inadequate to the rigors of field and combat conditions._


----------



## AL Schlageter (Nov 9, 2007)

Soren said:


> Directional control was great in the Me-262 infact it was excellent. You'd have to go below 160 km/h to loose directional control in the Me-262 (This is with flaps deployed)
> 
> Ditching the Me-262 on a field at 160 km/h wouldn't be that risky for the pilot.


Minimum approach speed of the 262 with one engine is 260kph with an altitude drop of 1 to 2m/s. At the airfield boundary the Va speed is 200kph for a normal landing (2 engines).

262 Pilot's Operating Notes 

I can't find it now but iirc you said the 262 could do 1000kph. This is 50kph above the maximum allowable diving speed.


----------



## delcyros (Nov 9, 2007)

> I can't find it now but iirc you said the 262 could do 1000kph. This is 50kph above the maximum allowable diving speed.



The following reference should be interesting to You, Al:

Me 262 A-1 Pilot's Handbook, ref: F-SU-111-ND dated 10 January 1946. Issued by Headquarters AIR Material Command, Wright Field, Dayton, Ohio. Classification cancelled; 3 June 1955.



> Speeds of 950 Km/h are reported to have been attained at shallow dives of 20 - 30 degrees from the horizontal. No vertical dives were made. _At speeds of 950 - 1000 km/h (590 - 620 mp/h) the airflow around the aircraft reaches the speed of sound and it is reported that the controll surfaces no longer effect the direction of flight._ (...) *It is also reported that once the speed of sound is exceeded, this condition disappears and normal flight controll is restored*



This statement implies that high speed tests have been undertaken at least in the US with captured Me-262. I could quote Messerschmidt Aktenvermerke which show that high speed dives have been made in Germany, too (during these dive tests at least two planes couldn´t recover from the dive and crashed, probably beeing supersonic in this event). The above source is also in general agreement with Guido Mutkes experience of a terminal dive.
However, IT WAS NOT ADVISABLE to exceed 950 Km/h TAS, for sure (at least for those, who wanted to attain higher ranks).
There are about two dozen reports, collected by a friend of mine, which cover the issues and show how pilots managed to escape the uncontrollable condition by trimming, jettisioning of the canopy and other emergancy operations. He is about to finish his paper. 



> As a side question, Delcyros, you've mentioned the HG series several times and I've been having trouble finding consistant data on the designs (some say only the HG II has the V-tail others say the HG-I or HG-III had it) and in one of you're first posts you said the HG-I had a "35 degree wing inlay", what does this mean?
> And any idea where this picture came from? The nacelles are weird and it looks real...



The picture You are referring to actually is an artwork originating from Daniele Sabatini:
Daniele Sabatini's Messerschmitt Me 262 HG "Early Variant" Luft Art Images
It does show the Me-262 HG-II as intended, not as executed.
The HG program was to enhance the aerodynamic design of the basic airframe with the aim for even further improved crit Mach figures (we suspect, altough we do not have a proof, that the final HG-III was intended to break the sound barrier with a crit Mach figure of >0.96). It does not seem that the experiences gained should be overtaken for immediate mass production, altough several aspects were considered for variants with more powerful engines.
The HG-I (Werknummer 130 004, previous designation V9 with the markings VI + AD W) started it´s high speed test flight program in january 1945.
The standart -262AV WN: 130 004 had the following modifications:
1.) new center wing section (between fuselage and engine nacelles) to increase the wing sweep locally (between fuselage and nacelles) to 35 deg. max (tapered to normal sweep at the nacelles).
2.) high speed, shallow canopy
3.) new, swept back tail
The new tailplane resulted in some stability issues at low speed, the canopy and wing filet increased speed noticably. Altough the test pilots (Baur and Lindner) didn´t liked the reduced comfortability of the shallow canopy.
I have not been able to find definitive speed measurements, altough they were made with the HG-I. Crit Mach figure is estimated to have increased, too, altough again nothing definitive to know of. There is a film of the V-9 landing, broadly known. It´s final fate is unknown to me.

The HG-II (Werknummer 111 538 ) consisted of a new, general wingsweep (35 degrees), improved engine nacelles, shallow canopy and swept back (normal) tailplane. There is also some evidence suggesting that the Werknummer 111 538 received Jumo-004D4 engines. The plane was finished and sheduled for flight testing in early 1945. There are no photos of the plane known to exist and Werknummer 111 538 was damaged during taxiing trials just before entering the Messerschmidt high speed flight test. There were no attempts made to repair the plane due to the closing stage of war. 
It was indeed discussed to refit Werknummer 111 538 with a V-tail altough the plane was finished with the HG-I normal swept back tailplane.

best regards,


----------



## kool kitty89 (Nov 9, 2007)

Sorry Soren about the quotes, and I didn't say I agreed with what they said, I just wasted some opinions of what they said. Though it is sertainly true about all the confusion of the fly-off.

I'll agree that the 262 had pretty nice handling, and I already assumed that with the cleaner form, the 262 would have better energy retention. But the P-80's air-brakes gave better dive recovery, and would probably allow a tighter turning radius, albeit with a greater loss of speed.

Soren, I beleive you agree on the weapons topic though. As the P-80's guns were obviously superior in a dogfight, though I certainly agree that the 262 could have easily used alternative armaments which would have offered better all-around performance. Since they were able to fit 2 of each: MG 151/20 MK-103 and MK108 all in one Me 262's nose. (I think 2x MG-151/20 and 2x Mk-103 would have been the most practical, as both have good velocity, range, and trajectory, the 30mm has the "punch" needed aganst bombers and the 20mm would have the ROF necessary for fighters, though with its flat trajectory, the 103 would be OK against fighters even with the low ROF)

While I maintain that the BMW 003 was superior in all technical respects to the 004 (size thrust/weight, spool-up, and efficiency), but the 004 was simpler and easier to manufacture. I also agree that the 003 would have not been a great choice for the Me 262 as it didn't have the necessary thrust for the large a/c. The Me 262A-1b was a test program usig production quality 003 engines and its top speed was less than 500 mph. Though I also maintain that the HeS-30 (109-006) engine was superior to both engines, and IMHO woult have been ready long before the 003 so they should have dropped the 003 and had BMW and Jumo focus on class-2 designs while Heinkel-Hirth would focus on the HeS-30. The 004 should have stayed since it would still likely be the first ready for production. Though the 109-006 was also superior to many class-2 designs as 2 of it had less frontal area than most comparable class-2's and it was verry light.

Thanks for the info Delcyros. Though swept normal tail would likely offer more control/manerverabillity than a V-tail of the same size, but with more drag. It would need a fully-trimmable tail (variable incedence) to maintain control near mach 1. Would a V-tail also allow control in transsonic flight though?

I'll assume then that there were various designs for the HG III, all having the same general layout, but with some differences. There are so many different pictures of the HG III designs on the web. (I think it was planned to use 2x HeS-011 engines on this model) See these for the "varients" I mean (including a development of the HG-III with a tail-burried cockpit that is often called the HG-III, even though it was a totally separate design): Gino Marcomini's Messerschmitt Me 262 HG III Luft Art Images Reichdreams Dossiers New Page 0 Cape Hobby Gift - Aircraft Resin Models - Antares

Below is the closest to the description of the "definative" version of the HG III I could find, and below it is the "very strange Me 262-Lippisch project" which is sometimes misidentified as the HG III or "HG IV"


----------



## AL Schlageter (Nov 10, 2007)

delcyros, I got the 950kph maximum diving speed from a translation of L.Dv.T-2262 A-1 and A-2, dated Jan 1945.

This translation can be found in the Classic 4 book series on the Me262 by Smith and Creek.


----------



## Jank (Nov 10, 2007)

P-80 in Foggia, Italy.





.
.
.
.
.
.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Nov 10, 2007)

IIRC, the 2 YP-80As stationed in italy were the only ones to see active service in the war, though they only flew a few patrols before they were grounded and never met any enemy a/c. Though, at least their pilots managed to fly them without serious problems, maby they were introduced more throughly to the plane's characteristics and procedures and were thus able to deal with the teething problems. (throtle regulation and the back-up fuel pump operation; as both would lead to engine failure and flame-outs some cases)

Also, Soren, any oppinion of the 2x MG 151/20 and 2x MK 103 layout for the Me 262? I know the Me 262A-a/U1 had two 20 mm MG 151 cannon, two 30 mm MK 103, and two 30 mm MK 108 cannon, but this was problematic and would limit ammo capacity, so eliminating the MK 108s might eliminate this. The MK-103 was heavier, but had better balitics and the ROF wasn't too much lower than the 108, the recoil would be higher, but as you said the 262 could handel it. The barrels would protrude a bit, but that's not major and with the lighter MG 151/20s the weight would be about the same as 4x MK 108s. This armament is also the one planned for the Me 109TL backup for the 262, though it was to have provisions for 2x wing-root mounted MK 108s.


----------



## AL Schlageter (Nov 11, 2007)

kool kitty89 said:


> Also, Soren, any oppinion of the 2x MG 151/20 and 2x MK 103 layout for the Me 262? I know the Me 262A-a/U1 had two 20 mm MG 151 cannon, two 30 mm MK 103, and two 30 mm MK 108 cannon, but this was problematic and would limit ammo capacity, so eliminating the MK 108s might eliminate this. The MK-103 was heavier, but had better balitics and the ROF wasn't too much lower than the 108, the recoil would be higher, but as you said the 262 could handel it. The barrels would protrude a bit, but that's not major and with the lighter MG 151/20s the weight would be about the same as 4x MK 108s. This armament is also the one planned for the Me 109TL backup for the 262, though it was to have provisions for 2x wing-root mounted MK 108s.


Since it was missed, here it is again:

_In the fall of 1944 in a complaint by KG-51, they requested 3 spare noses for each aircraft, as the guns or gun barrels would work themselves loose in a mission, requiring replacement of the nose. Parts had to be beefed up because they were inadequate to the rigors of field and combat conditions._

The nose of the 262 had trouble even with only 2 cannon fitted in the jabo.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 11, 2007)

kool kitty89 said:


> IIRC, the 2 YP-80As stationed in italy were the only ones to see active service in the war, though they only flew a few patrols before they were grounded and never met any enemy a/c. Though, at least their pilots managed to fly them without serious problems, maby they were introduced more throughly to the plane's characteristics and procedures and were thus able to deal with the teething problems. (throtle regulation and the back-up fuel pump operation; as both would lead to engine failure and flame-outs some cases)



They did not fly the YP-80A's without problems. They were even grounded after a crash.

Oh and Jank please downsize your siggy.


----------



## delcyros (Nov 11, 2007)

kool kitty89 said:


> Also, Soren, any oppinion of the 2x MG 151/20 and 2x MK 103 layout for the Me 262? I know the Me 262A-a/U1 had two 20 mm MG 151 cannon, two 30 mm MK 103, and two 30 mm MK 108 cannon, but this was problematic and would limit ammo capacity, so eliminating the MK 108s might eliminate this. The MK-103 was heavier, but had better balitics and the ROF wasn't too much lower than the 108, the recoil would be higher, but as you said the 262 could handel it. The barrels would protrude a bit, but that's not major and with the lighter MG 151/20s the weight would be about the same as 4x MK 108s. This armament is also the one planned for the Me 109TL backup for the 262, though it was to have provisions for 2x wing-root mounted MK 108s.



I think the weaponry proposal suggested by You is reasonable. To hit something in a deflection shot requires two points:

1.) a reasonable flat trajectory to ease aiming
2.) a good volume of fire.

The P-80´s 0.50 cal M2 (no M3 prior to the late 40´s installed in P-80´s) is a uniform, 6 barrel arrengement (= 80 rounds per second).
It has a muzzle velocity of 870 m/s. and an avg. rate of fire of 800 rpm + one of the finest ballistic properties. The 48g. projectile will drop below Mach 1.5 according to RG at an estimated 900m distance (at sealevel, without taken plane speed into consideration). At 300 m average firing distance, it will have a remaining velocity of 736 m/s. We therefore may conclude that the conditions for 1.) and 2.) are fullfilled perfectly.

Regarding the volume of fire, we should note that at any given time at 300m distance, the mean distance between the projectiles is 9.2m. for the .50cal BMG and the time elapsed between two succeeding hits at this condition is 0.0125 sec. For a very bad high angle (near vertical) deflection shot a plane moving at 166 m/s (~600 Km/h) may result in a .50cal hit each 2.08m (averagized). Assuming some perfect aim hold, a 10.6m long fuselage will receive approx. five 0.50 cal. BMG hits.

Now let´s turn to koolkittys proposal:
The 2 MG 151/20 have a muzzle velocity of 785 m/s. and a rate of fire of 750 rpm (= 25 rounds per second, total). According to RG the 20mm mine round will drop below Mach 1.5 at 250m. At 300m distance, the remaining velocity is 530 m/s, equaling to a mean distance between each round of 21.2m for the 20mm mine rounds and timeframe of 0.04sec.
Using the same high angle deflection shot as above a 10.3m long target (approx. P-80 sized) moving at 166 m/s. may encounter a 20mm hit each 6,64m. Therefore 1.5 mine hits may be expected here. (barely sufficiant to ensure You hit something at high angle deflection shots)
The 2 MK 103 have a muzzle velocity of 860 m/s and a rate of fire of 420 rounds per minute (= 14 rounds per second for two guns). The mine round will drop Mach 1.5 at ~600m according to RG. At 300m distance the remaining velocity is 662 m/s. (Ausf. A mine round with poorer ballistic properties) and the mean distance between the projectiles is 47.3m (!) with a timeframe of 0.071 sec. between two succeeding hits, equaling to a mean average distance of 11.8m. We therefore would only expect 0.87 30mm hits, which is not enough to ensure that the P-80 get´s hit at all, altough the probability not to hit the P-80 is very small (five out of six passes will hit).

So You have five .50 cal. hits vs. maybe one and a half 20mm and perhaps one 30mm hit...
-of course, the 20mm 30mm mine rounds are MUCH more severe to the P-80 than is the .50 cal API to the -262.


To put this in prospect, the normal, four 30mm MK 108 equipped Me- 262 A1a will result in between 2.65 and 3.5 hits, depending which version of the MK 108 is used, -low muzzle velocity is not always a disadvantage when it comes to compare the volume of fire! But then again, the low ballistic property of the MK 108 will make deflection shots impractical as an event.

My favourite armement would be three MK 103 put into the nose. That gives uniform cal. armement (easier to aim with), good ballistics and enough volume of fire to ensure hitting a target even at the worst possible deflection shot (1.3 hits). A 30mm mine contains about 7.7 times as much explosive as a 20mm MK V HE-round and still nearly twice as much explosive as a 37mm MK4 HE-round. Such a hit will assure destruction (safing a dud or perhaps a wingtip hit) of a P-80.

RG considered an armement of four 15mm MG 151/15 as optimal. This, too has merits. The weapon installment can be done quite easily (no major modification is necessary and the replacement of the guns can be made on the staffel workshop level), requiring only minor differences. The ammo is both, smaller lighter (166 gramm vs. 480 gramm), too, so more ammunition can used per gun (250 rpg for the lower and 200 rpg for the upper pair). The guns would also free up some 160 lbs of weight in the nose.
The muzzle velocity is very high (850 m/s for the AP 960 m/s for the HEI) as is the sectional density of the projectile (the AP), resulting in an extraordinary flat trajectory, as good or better than the excellent .50 cal., easening deflection shooting. You would expect three hits in our deflection shooting model. The AP rounds would go right through the structure (and are particularely good for strafing against lightly armoured ground forces as well) but the HEI rounds does only contain 2.8 gramms high explosive, nearly three times as much as the .50 cal API but not enough to cause significant blast effects. Therefore, I would not prefer this kind of armement as long as not a useful mine round is developed for this gun (this hypothetical mine round would be around 48 gramms and has comparable blast effects to a 20mm Type 99-2 HE round, fired with a muzzle velocity of >1000 m/s).
The armement would be limited to deal with fighters + ground attack, only. It is a very good armemnt if You consider the R4M for bomber hunting, as suggested by RG or the hypothetical mine rounds as sugested by me!


----------



## delcyros (Nov 11, 2007)

AL Schlageter said:


> Since it was missed, here it is again:
> 
> _In the fall of 1944 in a complaint by KG-51, they requested 3 spare noses for each aircraft, as the guns or gun barrels would work themselves loose in a mission, requiring replacement of the nose. Parts had to be beefed up because they were inadequate to the rigors of field and combat conditions._
> 
> The nose of the 262 had trouble even with only 2 cannon fitted in the jabo.



The KG-51 used Me-262 A1b´s with a structurally different nose section for the two nose ETC´s. It is possible that the gunmounts were somehow messed up in this event, as structure weight indeed was removed to counter cog issues. 
The nose section of the normal -262 (without ETC´s) was very rugged and a formidable weapon placement space. The Messerschmidt AG Aktenvermerke indeed show us an overconfidence with the nose structure, rapidly expanding requirements from four nose mounted 30mm to six and then to a variety of different guns, including MK 112 and BK-5´s. 
Neither the Ekdo-262 nor Kdo. Nowotny experienced the troubles which KG-51 experienced, which makes me think it is not related to the armement discussion for the fighter variant.


----------



## Soren (Nov 11, 2007)

I agree with Delcyros competely on the weapons issue.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Nov 11, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> They did not fly the YP-80A's without problems. They were even grounded after a crash.
> 
> Oh and Jank please downsize your siggy.




I know the YP-80As in general had problems, and certainly wasn't denying that fact. I know one of the 2 stationed in England crashed (killing test pilot Major Frederic Borsodi ), which resulted in grounding. Though IIRC the 2 stationed in Italy didn't have any failures durring the short period when they flew a few sorties (without conflict or incedent) before being grounded. To be clear, I was saying that neither of these 2 YP-80As in Italy had any acedents prior to being grounded, IIRC. Weather this was due to better orientation, care of the pilots, or sheer luck, I'm not sure.

The early Y/P-80As also had boundary layer problems at the intakes causing loss of power under high G's, this was solved with airbleeds around in the intakes.(this would have hindered the early P-80s compared to the 262) The fuel cap problem was just neglegence...

Delcyros, I was trying to suggest an armament that would be effective aganst fighters and bombers, and honestly I hadn't expected both weapons to be used simultneously.(pilot would choose which set of guns to fire depending on situation) As for 4x MG 151/15, good for dogfights but not for bomber busting, and why not 5 or 6 MG 151/15, the 262 should have been capable of this. Though since firing all guns is important and the trajectory needs to be the same as you said, maby 5 or 6x MG 151/20 with mine rounds, effective aganst fighters and bombers; balistics not quite as good as the 151/15 (or MK 103, but ROF and ammo was better) but the HE made up for that and was certainly better than the MK 108's balistics. (and there were fewer duds IIRC) 
How does 5 or (maby) 6x MG 151/20 cannons with 150 RPG sound? Even if only 4 were reasonable with 150 RPG or possibly 200 RPG, it would still have been decent for both dogfighting and Bomber busting. Like the Meteor's armament or the F2H Banshee's or the F9F Panther's with 4x Hispano 20mm cannons. (though ballitics were a little different, I don't think they could hold nearly the HE as the Mine rounds)


----------



## kool kitty89 (Nov 11, 2007)

delcyros said:


> The KG-51 used Me-262 A1b´s with a structurally different nose section for the two nose ETC´s. It is possible that the gunmounts were somehow messed up in this event, as structure weight indeed was removed to counter cog issues.
> The nose section of the normal -262 (without ETC´s) was very rugged and a formidable weapon placement space. The Messerschmidt AG Aktenvermerke indeed show us an overconfidence with the nose structure, rapidly expanding requirements from four nose mounted 30mm to six and then to a variety of different guns, including MK 112 and BK-5´s.
> Neither the Ekdo-262 nor Kdo. Nowotny experienced the troubles which KG-51 experienced, which makes me think it is not related to the armement discussion for the fighter variant.



Wasn't the Me 262A-1b the trial version of the A-1 with BMW 003 engines? I heard only a handful were built and top speed was only 497 mph. I don't think KG-51 used this model. Maby you mean the Me 262A-2a? What do you mean be ETC?


----------



## AL Schlageter (Nov 11, 2007)

delcyros said:


> The KG-51 used Me-262 A1b´s with a structurally different nose section for the two nose ETC´s. It is possible that the gunmounts were somehow messed up in this event, as structure weight indeed was removed to counter cog issues.
> The nose section of the normal -262 (without ETC´s) was very rugged and a formidable weapon placement space. The Messerschmidt AG Aktenvermerke indeed show us an overconfidence with the nose structure, rapidly expanding requirements from four nose mounted 30mm to six and then to a variety of different guns, including MK 112 and BK-5´s.
> Neither the Ekdo-262 nor Kdo. Nowotny experienced the troubles which KG-51 experienced, which makes me think it is not related to the armement discussion for the fighter variant.


If that is the case and the gun mounts were messed up, then it should show up on all the other 262s that had racks fitted. As far as I can tell, all the noses with MK108s were the same. Me262s of JG7 had racks fitted.

Most of the rack was attached to the main fuselage. (~3/4)


----------



## kool kitty89 (Nov 11, 2007)

Just a side note, but the video on the Me 262 project's stormbirds webside has many inacuricies, both historical ans technical. Many of which are contradicted by more accurate statements in writing on the site. Specicifically the statement on the "Video with great in-flight footage of White 1 Tango Tango." here: STORMBIRDS presents the Me 262 Project that states that the "top speed was 650 knots, just like the originals" which is 745 mph and well above the structural limit of the airframe, not to mention supersonic over ~1000 ft. (actually 650 kts was the max speed rating for tests on the XP-86) It explicitly states elsewhere that the planes are not supposed to go beyond the 540 mph (470 kts) rating, and if this is done they are flying in "test pilot" mode. It's more than a little frustrating when a group dedicated to the accurate reproduction of the original Me 262 would have a narration that was so wrong on their own site...


Rantings aside I doubt the mainstream Me 262s had any major structural problems with the nose, from what I've read it was very sound and well built, actually made of steel to provide better durability. (not because dural was scarse, which some sources claim) If the nose was altered as Delcyros said, that would have a significant effect on the structural performance. Though I'm not sure which model he was refering to since the the A-1b was the test version using 003 engines. (possibly the A-2a or A-1/R-1 ?)

And as a final note on the turbine alloys capibilities of countries in WWII (not arguing just noting a few things) the alloys the Germans were forced to use due to shortages were decent: tinadur and chromadur (basically stainless steels, the latter omitting Nickel and the small amount of titanium for Manganese). Apparently, more improvements had been made using non-restricted materials and were ready for use in the 004D just bfore VE day. 
(the biggest problem wasn't the alloys themselves, but the cercomstances of the production, though later models of engines had improved in quality and consistantcy, the 004B-4 was an example I believe. Many of the early 004B's used plain steel and not Chromadur or Tinadur so they were significantly less reliable and had much lower TBO. (I beleive it was these models which were the "10 hr" before flameout engines.)

The US had some problems when they first started work on jet engines, despite geed alloys being used in turbochargers by GE (stable at red heat), when GE first built the I-A the turbine was well above red heat and failed frequently, many actualy melting. Later improvements using alloys similar to the british Nimonic alloys. (ie Nichrome) (contrary to what RG said, when he claimed titaniom steels were needed, which aren't even a very good material for high-temp turbines; though Ti is a component but the majoity of most turbine alloys to this day is predominantly Nickel, many similar to Nimonic)

The british were probably the first to make use of the new Nimonic alloys which would allow turbines to run at high speed and very high temperatures. Whittle had been having trouble developing his engine without any good high-temp metals available and quickly made use of the new Nimonc alloys when they became available. This greatly improved the power, efficiency, and reliabillity of his engine.


----------



## Soren (Nov 12, 2007)

560 knots (1,030 km/h) isn't way beyond the Me-262A-1a's structural limit, the safe flying limit was 1,000 km/h, but 1,100 km/h could be reached quite easily in a dive. Going beyond 1,100 km/h and you'd start to loose control over the a/c.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Nov 12, 2007)

Sorry it should have said 650 knots (747mph), I fixed it. Which wasn't seen in controlled flight until the XP-86. Though the Me 262 HG II might have been capable of it in a dive, though just barely (and only maintain control at lower altitudes since the speed of sound is higher) and couldn't reach Mach 1.0+ and maintain control without a variable incedence or fully trimmable tailplane as seen in the Sabre. (it was supposed to be capible of up to .95 mach IIRC)

Admittedly 560 kts (644mph) is not impossible in the A-1 model in a dive (certainly in the HG I, and obveously in the HG II) but it would be beyond its .86 maqch limit at this speed above ~6500 ft (2000 m) and certainly in "test pilot" mode. And the Me 262 project people would not condone it...

But 650 kts (747 mph, 1203 kph) is beyond unreasonable for the A-1 or B-1 models.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Nov 12, 2007)

I'm still not sure which model Delcyros meant KG-51 used since it certainly wasn't the BMW 003 powered Me-262 A1b. They were ground-attack so would have used the fighter-bomber A-2a right?

Also it has been said before that the specs for the 004D and 004E are from the lab-examples and not reflective of feild performance. While this is true and the Germans never produced them, the Russians however did. The RD-10 is your basic Jumo 004B copy with a few tweaks and some better alloys to greatly reduce reliabillity problems producing 1984 lbf. The RD-10A is a copy of the 004D and produced 2,200 lbf in the production model.(same as the Derwent II) The RD-10F is a copy of the 004H and produced 2,420 lbf. (same as the Derwent IV) So the 004D would have only had a ~100 kp increase in thrust, not the 150 kp of the prototype.

Thus if the 004D was produced as was about to enter production just prior to VE-day it is reasonable to expect it would have made 2,200 lbf giving the 262 an 11% increase in thrust bringing the thrust/weight up to .31 along with the reduced SFC and resulting longer range. Though by this time the Vampire would be entering service with improved fuel capaciy and uprated engine. The Meteor F.III would have 2,400 lbf Derwent IVs and would being outfitted with the new nacelles; top speed would be at least 530 mph (as the nacelles added added 75 mph, so even the Welland powered Meteor IIIs would be pushing 490 mph) and acceleration and climb would be much improved with a thrust/weight of ~.34 though the controls would still be heavy) The poor P-80s would still be grounded though... So the Meteor III would have been the most likely to meet in combat since they'd actually been trying to score some 262 kills in Germany at the end of the war. And in its best configuration it would have put-up quite a fight. I's say a 9:10 inferiority to the 004D powered 262.

Even crazier, what if some of the Avia S 92/CS 92 Czech Avia had been sold off to North Korea to suplement the Mig 15's and they met in combat with F-80's. There would have been a good chance of meeting some Aussie Mk 4 Meteors as well, so we get to see it aganst both of its allied competitors. Though these were copies with standard 1984 lbf powerplants so they'd be inferior to the Meteor 4 and F-80C... 8)

The Su 9/10 (1946) with RD-10F engines would have been interesting too. Though not a copy, it had the same engines and engine placement and general layout.(canopy was virtually Idntical) There were key differences though: wings were smaller and unswept wings (though aerodynamicaly sound), the armament was different with 2x 23mm and 1x 37mm cannon (same as the Mig-9), it also had an ejection seat, break parachute, variable incedence tailplane, provisions for RATO, and (like the 262) provisions for cockpit preassurization. Performance was generally better than the 262 (with the 1984 RD-10 engines), though range was slightly less and wing loading was much higher due to much lower area. Performance was better than any other Soviet jet design of the time (better than many western jets too) and though about the same speed wise as the Mig-9, handeling was much better. The Yak-15 was a conversion trainer at best, and quite obsolete by the time it entered service.


----------



## drgondog (Nov 12, 2007)

delcyros said:


> I think the weaponry proposal suggested by You is reasonable. To hit something in a deflection shot requires two points:
> 
> 1.) a reasonable flat trajectory to ease aiming
> 2.) a good volume of fire.
> ...



Nice presentation - thx


----------



## kool kitty89 (Nov 13, 2007)

Delcyros, you might have missed it before so I'll ask again. I'm still not sure which model you meant KG-51 used since it certainly wasn't the BMW 003 powered Me-262 A1b. They were ground-attack so would have used the fighter-bomber A-2a right? And what do you mean by ETC?

Also it might have been the alteration in the armament from 4 down to 2 cannons might have caused problems if there was a flaw in the new placement.


----------



## Civettone (Nov 14, 2007)

Good post Delcyros. I didn't really get the reasoning behind the calculations but I'm sure they are correct.

I would just like to point out one more thing in the discussion and that's weight of the guns. One can compare the MK 103 with MK 108 but be aware that you can carry two MK 108s with ammo for the weight of one MK 103. And in case of the MK 108, it's also much cheaper to produce, something of great importance in late-war Germany.

But weight and size shouldn't be forgotten. That's why I love those old MG-FF/M guns as they weight as much as some HMGs but had much greater destructive power.

Kris


----------



## kool kitty89 (Nov 14, 2007)

But also the weight of 1 MG 151/20 plus 1 MK 103 are only a little heavier (~50%) than 2 MK 108 guns. Though 6 MG 151/20 would have been an interesting armament too, or for a pure dogfighting armament, 6 MG 151/15 guns would be totally superior to the P-80's M2 BMG's. 6x MG 151 guns (both 20 or 15mm weigh 42kg each) weigh about the same as 4x MK 108 cannons (60kg each) so weight wouldn't be a problem, though I'm not sure if there's enough room to be practical. (they would certainly fit as larger armaments like 6x MK 108 were made too, but these had problems, and I don't know if other problems would occur) 

As for the MG-FF/M, it was inferior in performance every way to the MG 151/20, except for weight, and this did not make up for the poor performance elsewhere as the 151/20 still had a higher specific firepower (energy/time/gun's mass). Though the Mk II Hispano cannon was better in some respects (though heavier and a lower ROF), and the Mk V in all.(same gun weight and ROF but much higher velocity and shell mass) Though the USSR's B-20 was probably the best overall 20mm cannon of the war, with slightly higher performance than the 151/20 and weighing only 25kg, that's 3kg less than the MG-FF/M and 4kg less than the Browning M2!

Here's a good resource for gun and ballistics data: The WWII Fighter Gun Debate: Gun Tables
The site is geocities based and up and down a lot, so I posted the cached version from google.


----------



## delcyros (Nov 17, 2007)

> Delcyros, you might have missed it before so I'll ask again. I'm still not sure which model you meant KG-51 used since it certainly wasn't the BMW 003 powered Me-262 A1b. They were ground-attack so would have used the fighter-bomber A-2a right? And what do you mean by ETC?



I have been out for some time. I will adress this first. The corretc terming for the bomber variant is Me-262 A-2. Not A-1 as I stated previously (mea culpa). The difference in A1a and A1b are not the engines (such prototypes existed but they didn´t got a serial designation) but whether or not the fighter variant had R4m rails. 
An ETC is the pylon for droppable ordenance.



> If that is the case and the gun mounts were messed up, then it should show up on all the other 262s that had racks fitted. As far as I can tell, all the noses with MK108s were the same. Me262s of JG7 had racks fitted.


Not all had racks fitted for bombs! The JG-7 only had two Me-262 A-2 operational by any time. The fighter nose, as I stated above differed substantially in structural framework and materials used. The JG-7 later had R4m racks refitted but ETC 504 were not as far as I know. Can always be that it missed my radar....

Regarding the armement, the soviet B-20 probably is the best 20mm weapon but it lacked a proper mine round, making it a mediocre performer in blast effects. A 6 x 20 mm MG 151 armement could improve dogfighting and interceptor capabilities greatly. The reason why I had not considered this kind of armement was that the 20mm MG 151 AP round is a poor performer, You cannot really use this armement in ground attack against even lightly armoured opposition. Even the 0.50cal AP is better, the Hispano MK II is really good but the 30mm MK 103 is truly great!


----------



## AL Schlageter (Nov 17, 2007)

delcyros said:


> Not all had racks fitted for bombs! The JG-7 only had two Me-262 A-2 operational by any time. The fighter nose, as I stated above differed substantially in structural framework and materials used. The JG-7 later had R4m racks refitted but ETC 504 were not as far as I know. Can always be that it missed my radar....


Do you have drawings showing these structural differences?


----------



## chad piper (Jul 21, 2018)

New to this site and love it! Haven't read everything on this particular subject but, since they never went up against each other and we are assuming things, like the Germans made it into fall of 45 and the beginning of 46 maybe, we'd have to assume that the Germans were possibly successful in the defense of the Reich, maybe chewing up the bomber streams with those late war aircraft, AND were assuming that many of the bugs were ironed out in the 262, including the troubling Jumo engines. Given time and more resources, I believe the 262 would have had many follow on sub-variations- say what you want, but they were good at improving everything they had. Im sure by the time these two went up against each other a much better 262 would have been available, plus the He162 and the Ho-229. Delicious thought yes, but again, just 'assuming' these things. Im sure someone has posted something like what I've just said but here is a thought-- what German Jet do you think would have made the most impact if it had been delivered in mass. Not any of that flash gordon stuff on Luft 46, but something that was very near production, say, within a year, into '46?


----------



## c1951 (Jul 7, 2021)

Under Project NAD-29 there was an American evaluation of the Me-262, the report was published in 1947. Here is the conclusion of the pilot, Roy W. Adams. _" Despite a difference in gross weight of nearly 2000 lb, the Me-262 No, T-2-711 was superior to the average P-80A in acceleration and speed, and approximately the same in climb performance. The handling characteristics of the Me-262 airplanes tested were very poor. However, it is believed that, with the exception of the directional hunting or yawing, they would have been considerably improved if the aileron and elevator servo tab had been connected. The Me-262 apparently has a higher critical Mach number from a drag standpoint than any current AAF fighters."
During the test the Americans found it difficult to service the engines, of the two involved in the test one was lost._

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pinehilljoe (Jul 10, 2021)

Does anyone know if one of the 262 pilots like Steinhoff that served in the post war Bundeswehr Air Force left accounts comparing the 262 to first gen NATO jets?


----------



## SaparotRob (Jul 10, 2021)

pinehilljoe said:


> Does anyone know if one of the 262 pilots like Steinhoff that served in the post war Bundeswehr Air Force left accounts comparing the 262 to first gen NATO jets?


I think Mark Felton did a YouTube video on that very subject. I'm not too sure if it was his but I'm sure I saw it listed.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 10, 2021)

pinehilljoe said:


> Does anyone know if one of the 262 pilots like Steinhoff that served in the post war Bundeswehr Air Force left accounts comparing the 262 to first gen NATO jets?


I don't now if any former LW got to fly the F-80 or straight wing F-84s


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 10, 2021)

Of all the former Luftwaffe pilots that transitioned into the West German airforce, I think that Barkhorn was the only Me262 pilot that flew newer jets.

Steinhoff was a former Me262 pilot, but his WWII injuries and his position in the Bundesluftwaffe didn't see him flying.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## special ed (Jul 10, 2021)

There was a story (going from faulty memory), I think was Barkhorn, who went to Britain to check out in the then new Harrier. While hovering, the wind changed blanking out one intake and the plane settled down hard with some damage. As those watching ran up he allegedly said, "That's 202 British aircraft destroyed."

Reactions: Funny Funny:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## rochie (Jul 11, 2021)

really hope that is a true story

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## special ed (Jul 11, 2021)

I'm reasonably sure it was a British aviation magazine from the 60s or 70s.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 11, 2021)

rochie said:


> really hope that is a true story


"Dreihunertzwei!"

Barkhorn really did, Karl - here's the story:
Vertically Challenged

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------

