# Fw better then Me-262?



## Wespe (Feb 23, 2007)

I dont think the Fw was better as a whole then the Me-262, or a more versatile plane:
Especially not from August 1944 onward.

As a fighter: NO
As a Recon: NO
As a Nightfighter: NO
As a Ground: attackplane: Maybe
As a trainer: both did their job
What else? Sofar it is 4:2 for the Me-262

Wespe


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 23, 2007)

you left out reliability....


----------



## Gnomey (Feb 23, 2007)

As a fighter the Fw was as good as any fighter which makes it a successful fighter especially if you take the D and the Ta into the equation.
As a recon it didn't really perform this role as there were better aircraft available.
Again it didn't really perform the night fighter role as twin engined aircraft were more effective and better able to carry radar.
As a ground attack, yes the fw was more effective. It could carry more ordinance and therefore could do more damage.
As a trainer both did what they needed to do - train pilots - but at the same time they didn't do much of it as there was no/little fuel.

The only thing the Me-262 has over any plane in WW2 is speed (and armament). Speed is not going to enable you to beat your opponent, just pick and choose your fight. Besides the Me-262 took a long time to spool up and spool down when it was easy prey for any allied fighter. The engines were prone to flame-outs and easily damaged (unlike the Fw which had an engine that didn't flame-out as was able to take a lot of damage).

There you see that the FW was better in almost every respect apart from speed and speed isn't everything.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 23, 2007)

Alright Wespe. Here you go. First of all I am not saying the Fw-190 was better than the Me-262 in any given role. So dont use my words wrong in this thread either. 

What I am saying is the the Fw-190 was a more versatile aircraft and it could perform more roles successfully than the Me-262. 

Here is a list of roles the Fw-190 could perform and had versions therefore of.

Fighter
Night Fighter
Recon
Fighter-Bomber
Torpedo-Bomber
Ground Attack and Close Air Support 
Trainer
Mistel-Carrier
Interceptor
Tank Buster

It performed all these roles very well and as a plus it did not have to worry about its engines flaming out because its engine actually had some life to it.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 23, 2007)

Gnomey said:


> There you see that the FW was better in almost every respect apart from speed and speed isn't everything.



Exactly most people seem to understand that. Besides the Me-262 would not dogfight at its top speed anyhow. No planes got into fights at top speed.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 23, 2007)

And if you really want to branch it out. The Fw-190 had fighter versions that were Long Range Fighters, All-Weather Fighters and specifically designed for attacking Bombers.

It also had Night Ground Attack versions as well as versions that were specifically designed as Attack Aircraft.

It has the Me-262 beat handsdown in versatility.


----------



## lesofprimus (Feb 23, 2007)

Agreed, the 262 was waaaay too limitied in its roles, and the 190 wasnt... Hands down to the Wurger...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 23, 2007)

I guess he is going to come back and say the Me-262 was a Transformer!


----------



## lesofprimus (Feb 23, 2007)

Anyone with any knowledge knows the 190 was far better than the 262, maybe he'll learn something...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 23, 2007)

Doubt it. He has been studying this for 35 years. He is the utmost athority on aviation in the world!


----------



## Wespe (Feb 23, 2007)

Wespe said:


> 1)The FwD's did not outmatch the Me-262 as a fighter, not on speed and not on firepower, of the Ta-152, I would estimate less then 15 ever in Action.



And you point being. The Fw-190 was as good as the allied fighters out there and it was in bigger numbers. It did not go up against Me-262s and therefore it was more successful. 



Wespe said:


> 2)As a recon plane it was the fastest with the same cameras, means after taking the photos it was very sure to bring them back.



Still does not matter. The Fw-190 could do the recon role really well. Again no one is saying that the Fw-190 was faster than the Me-262. No one is saying that it was better overall. *Besides the Fw-190 could run away without fear of his engines flaming out.*



Wespe said:


> 3)Nightfighter: Since I am comparing Fw with the Me-262, I agree to your 2 engine argument, but it has no indication about the Fw-Me competition.So the under (1) given reason still aply.



The Fw served as a Night figher in larger numbers and was just as good as the allied aircraft out there. Fw takes this one again...



Wespe said:


> 5)Taking reliability into account, it looks bad for the Me-262, however this is not a criteria in order to evaluate the better aircraft under equal performances.



Yes it does look bad, because the Me-262 was not the most versatile fighter. Could it perform the most roles Wespe? If you say yes you are a fool...



Wespe said:


> If so,the Fw-190 would never have been produced, since it took one year to get the BMW801 reliable.



And when did the Jumos of the 262 become reliable? Oh wait a minute they never did!

So it would still be: 



Wespe said:


> Torpedo bomber:both, however what should the Luftwaffe have torpedoed in 44 or 45?, and why should the 262 not be able to carry and launch a torpedo?



No you can not give Torpedo to the Me-262 since there were no versions that could carry a Torpedo. It would have been a shitty one anyhow since it could not carry the payload of a Torpedo...

Again you brought this up. You say the Me-262 is more versatile. I prove you it was not in that it could not perform as many roles. You still dont see the light...



Wespe said:


> Mistel carrier: both, Why waste a good fighter for that - take the 109's
> The Me-262 could also have been used as Mistel Plane, however I do not see a mistel carrier as anything realistic or needed.



I agree it is a stupid role, but the Fw-190 could do it and the Me-262 was never tested or used in that capacity. Therefore you can list it as a role for the 262 and another one for the Fw-190.



Wespe said:


> The 262 could also carry extra fuel tanks, if range would be a problem



The Fw still had a longer range than the Me-262 in the long range role. Therefore the Me-262 loses again.



Wespe said:


> 6:4 for the Me-262, so what else?



Where do you come up with that? The Fw-190 is more versatile than the Me-262? You keep going around the subject and coming up with this 4-1 and then 6-4 crap. 



Wespe said:


> No matter how many roles you bring in, the Me-262 could have done the same but faster (and faster was the "only" desicive answer from 44 onward)



Negative. The Me-262 could not do half the roles the Fw-190 could do. Are you blind?

Go back to my list. Those were actual roles performed by the Fw-190. The Me-262 could not do half of those.

Your 35 years of reading books has not done anything for you, yet my 26 years of reading books, flying planes and fixing planes has done more for me obviously.



Wespe said:


> It is only the Ground Attack role where the Fw could have performed better.
> Wespe



And the other 10 roles that the Fw-190 could perform and the Me-262 could not...


----------



## Wespe (Feb 23, 2007)

By the way,from 44 onwards the primary function of the fighter squadrons was to shot down bombers and not fighters.

So firepower and "speed" was "everything"

Wespe


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 23, 2007)

Ooops sorry about that. I accidently clicked on Edit instead of reply. Therefore it posted mine on Wespes post. 

Sorry about that. So anyone can go back and look at my post on his post in his post until I correct that when I get back. Going out with the wife tonight.

Wespe I will correct that later when I get back.


----------



## Gnomey (Feb 23, 2007)

The Me-262 would not of been a feasible torpedo bomber because of its speed, the torpedo would like disintegrate when it the water and if the Me-262 slowed down it would be extremely vulnerable to attack before it got up to speed again.

Jet engines are more thirsty than the radial in the Fw (especially with two of them) despite any extra fuel the Me-262 could carry the Fw should always have the legs on it.

Again faster is *NOT* best, just because it can out run anything it comes up against doesn't make it a good aircraft. The faster you the harder it is to hit anything, therefore I bet if you look at the hit ratios/tank kills for the Fw190 (A/F) compared to the Me-262 there will be a large difference between the hits achieved by each with the Fw190 having the higher ratio (thus making it more effective at this role and so a better aircraft).

Once the Me-262 had lost its speed (as would happen in a dogfight) it was less maneuverable than the Fw190. Put the two in a dogfight and I would put money on the Fw190 winning (especially a D or a Ta). 

*Speed is not the key to a successful aircraft! Speed doesn't make it the best aircraft! Speed isn't everything!*

The Me-262 is no the "uber" plane you are trying to make it out to be (none of the first generation jets were that much better than their piston engined counterparts except in the speed category. Look at Erich's thread on jet kills and you will see how many were shot down by Allied fighters which you say should not be able to touch the Me-262. Seafury's and Corsair's shot down Mig's in Korea and the Mig was a lot better than the Me-262 so there wouldn't of been a problem (and there wasn't really for the Tempests, P-51's, Spitfires etc of the Allied airforces).

Your argument is rather baseless...


----------



## delcyros (Feb 23, 2007)

Some of You might find it interesting that the FW-190A in it´s early development stage (1941 and 1942 in France) had engine reliability problems.

The overhaul times for the BMW 801 by then was 20-25 hours! Compare that with the 15-25 hours for the early Jumo-004B1, not that much of a difference 

However, this is a sidenote. In general, I strongly support the view expressed by Gnoomy, Adler Wespe.

regards,
delc


----------



## Wespe (Feb 23, 2007)

Hi Gnomey

I am not making an (ueber-plane) out of the Me-262. I am simply stating that the 262 was the better plane.

If you do not give a priority towards speed, you are right in a way to point out that speed isn't everything, but you seem to ignore that due to the overwhelming odds, it was the only thing that could give a Luftwaffe pilot a chance to survive, before and after maybe shooting down a bomber or fighter. I never said that a 262 is invincible. I can understand that from American or allied point of view, this all doesn't matter - free for the motto: who cares how fast they are we won the war anyway, or in 1944 - we will win anyway no matter how fast they are. So speed isnt everything from the allied point of view, but this does not apply to the Luftwaffe point of view. And if Galland would not have pushed this topic, the 262 would have been some funny sideshow flying meaningless ground attack sorties.

Torpedo and Mistel capabillities can be forwarded but to my believe are totally irrellevant.

Range,okay yes, but who needed a range in 44 or 45 that could not be provided by the 262, 1000km range.

Also to point out constantly, that the 262 was not in availability such as the Fw doesnt have any indication on a competition of a plane. When the RLM had its competitions or evaluations it was e.g. one Bf against one Fw and not the existing 2000? Bf in 1941 against the one Fw prototyp.

The only thing a Fw could do better, and I never dissagread was the ground attack role.
Anything else a 262 could do just as well but with one major advantage "speed". That the plane was in its early stages is known, and I would not use that in order to explain failures but also not to indicate that a modell that derived from 40/42 was better due to its development time.

And a F-86 was definatly not worse then a P-51 just because it could be shoot down by a prop or had engine problems in its early days.
The F-86 could just as well perform as a P-51 but "faster" and therefore bring the factor of "survival" to the US and UN pilots making it the better plane, no matter how many roles the P-51 could do and the Sabre could not.

Wespe


----------



## Gnomey (Feb 23, 2007)

Even with the speed a lot of Me-262's got shot down. Yes at top speed it was faster but it could be caught by an Allied plane in a dive and then shot down. Without the advantage of altitude the speed of the Me-262 was rather wasted as the Allied prop planes could dive to catch up with it.


----------



## Erich (Feb 23, 2007)

well I have to put my puny white butt in here..........

will not say much yet as I am in the middle of a couple big jobs in the snow , but be prepared Wespe (in fact go by you're real name please if you want a real answer) to get your fantaises smeared all over the skies.

what was the Me 262 A created for ? by answering this correctly you will gain a head full of knowledge which will help you realize where the Me 262 should be placed with the ranks of the Fw multi-variants.

It's simple the Fw 190 outperformed the 262 in everything but flat-out speed. Had the Me 262B-2a been available then it would of been the ultimate German night fighter but it did not ........ there is more .........

well I will tantalize your brain matter later tonight

bis bald E ♫


----------



## Wespe (Feb 23, 2007)

And a Fw going in for the landing or a dive could be wasted just as well by an allied plane. Come on this doesn't proof anything.

However the Luftwaffe claimes for the 262 a total kill of about 700 planes.

That would be a kill ratio of 2 or 3:1 for the 262. No 109 or Fw can claim that kill ratio, or did the Luftwaffe shoot down 100,000 allied planes? .

So this figure already proofs significantly more or less everything about the capabilities of a 262 compared to a Fw or Bf or what ever axis or allied a/c.

Wespe


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 23, 2007)

Wespe said:


> Hi Gnomey
> 
> 
> And a F-86 was definatly not worse then a P-51 just because it could be shoot down by a prop or had engine problems in its early days.
> ...




You're comparing a 2nd generation jet fighter aircraft to a ww2 aircraft - apples to oranges. Look that the thrust, power to weight ratio and internal systems of the F-86 and they are light years a head of the P-51.

But going back to the -262, First generation jet with barely 1500 pounds of thrust per engine that will last 10 - 20 hours if you're lucky (BTW to enlighten you about jet engine operation, you can't fly 100% continually). I suggest you look into how long the -262 could sustain its top speed due to normal operating limitation, you'll be very surprised.


----------



## lesofprimus (Feb 23, 2007)

This is retarded... We're all sitting here trying to convice some noob that he's wrong, and we've done this debate a couple times here already... What a waste of time...

Kid, the 262 was not a better all around fighter aircraft than the many derivatives of the Fw190......

Period...

All this back and forth sh!t is useless... U have not the slightest idea what u are talking about, and are trying to argue facts against people who KNOW with ur twisted view of reality...

Go read some old posts and threads concerning the arguments and info as to best fighter/bomber killer... Educate urself, cause u need to, and the facts are all hidden inside this little realm known as ww2aircraft.net...


----------



## delcyros (Feb 23, 2007)

The 700 -262 "kills" actually are claims and not kills.
I am not sure how many kills can be credited with the Me-262 but it is agruably more than 361 and certainly less than 500...


----------



## Civettone (Feb 23, 2007)

I don't know if you call him a kid. If he has studied the matter for 35 years ...
Although I have to say, when Wespe joined, I thought he was 25 or so... Did you guys have the same impression??

I suppose 99% of discussions have been had before. In that case we can just pack it up, and post shortcuts to previous posts.  
For what it's worth, I think the Me 262 was the best fighter when the engines held. Speed is the most important flight characteristic in air combat. The Bf 109 usually faced more manoeuvrable fighters while it conquered the skies of the entire European continent, yet its speed allowed it to have the initiative, chosing when to engage and when to disengage, and advantage which cannot be overemphasised. I'm sure the Japanese also came to the same conclusion when hundreds of their best pilots got killed by fighter aircraft which boomed and zoomed at will.

But the most versatile fighter the Schwalbe definitely isn't.

Kris


----------



## lesofprimus (Feb 23, 2007)

If he studied anything for 35 years my dog has wings and whistles Battle Hymn of The Republic...


----------



## Wespe (Feb 23, 2007)

lesofprimus said:


> This is retarded... We're all sitting here trying to convice some noob that he's wrong, and we've done this debate a couple times here already... What a waste of time...
> 
> Kid, the 262 was not a better all around fighter aircraft than the many derivatives of the Fw190......
> 
> ...




*I prefer not to comment this, but I know what to do*
Wespe


----------



## lesofprimus (Feb 23, 2007)

Then please do it...


----------



## Gnomey (Feb 23, 2007)

Yeah. You may have studied for almost twice as long as I have been alive but even I can tell you that your ideas are wrong. There is something wrong there (or maybe I am just intelligent)...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 23, 2007)

FLYBOYJ said:


> I suggest you look into how long the -262 could sustain its top speed due to normal operating limitation, you'll be very surprised.



I agree. If he thinks the the Me-262 could fly at its max speed for the whole duration of its flight he is completely clueless. Every Aircraft has its operting limitiation. On the Blackhawk we could not fly for more than 30 mintues at 100 percent power. We did not have to land after that 30 mintues but we had to drop back into the "Green" for a while.

That is the same for any aircraft including the Me-262.

The more and more I read what he has to say I think he is clueless. Either that or living in such a dream...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 23, 2007)

Civettone said:


> I don't know if you call him a kid. If he has studied the matter for 35 years ...
> Although I have to say, when Wespe joined, I thought he was 25 or so... Did you guys have the same impression??



What are you talking about? I still have that impression.


----------



## lesofprimus (Feb 23, 2007)

He even went so far as to create another member name and, get this, he wanted to argue with himself Axis vs Allies...


----------



## Hunter368 (Feb 23, 2007)

lesofprimus said:


> He even went so far as to create another member name and, get this, he wanted to argue with himself Axis vs Allies...




I know that was funny as hell........and lame.


----------



## Hunter368 (Feb 23, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> What are you talking about? I still have that impression.




Dan called him a kid couple posts ago.

Wespe "claims" to have studied the 262 for 35 years......OK.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 23, 2007)

I know I read it...


----------



## Erich (Feb 23, 2007)

if you have studied the 262 for 35 years which is doubtful then you are as old or older than my 53 years.

The 262 was not superior to anything actually. Wespe you still not answer my question of what was the 262 designed for ? .......... do you know ?

The speed initiative over any Allied fighter was enormous on the flat out straight with a slight upward vent or down climb, nothing steep up or down, the turning radius of the jet due to the speed was terrible and this is the case when meeting the 262 in aerial combat the P-51 pilots tried to take advantage of and usually came out on top. Read the piston engine kills thread of which several have added their thoughts. Wespe I hae a truckload of info on the 262 pilots themselves besides the US fighter jocks I have interviewed that engaged the 262, but that is another story.
The 262 could not linger and did not even have a maximum flight time due to small fuel cells/limited range to engage heavy bombers for any length of time and many JG 7 pilots complained of the closing ratios and overshooting of the bombers on a daily basis of engagements in 1945. As to the 700 claims by 262 units you can discount nearly 350 of these. JG 7's alone of over 400 cannot be all verified.
As a bomber it was terrible, as a ground attack unit it was used by JG 7 against Soviet ground targets with some success but again with limited arms cargo and fuel reserves it could not due too much except attack and fly back to base. As a day fighter it was already proved that the 262 was not a dog-fighter and avoiding the P-51 was the base plan for most action unless the P-51's could be taken by a superior altitude and dove upon with complete surprise. As a bomber killer it was supreme with the 3cm and R4M's from 18 march till wars end, but this is too little too late and again with the obnoxious useage of fuels down to nothing the 262 was good for one sweep through attack and then fly balls out back to base if they could make it. Fw 190A's could go through a formation several times if not already pounced upon by Allied escorts. As a recon unit give the place to the Ar 234. As a night fighter the single seater was too limited again in scope, it could not be fitted with radar and all it could do was fly Helle Nacht missions and chase Mossies of the LSNF. Gain due to fuel it could not sit within an RAF bomber stream and take on Lancs/Halis. Had the B-1a been able to be in some numbers then yes even with the added weight of two external fuel tanks and a second crewman/radar operator and of course radar electronics. The Fw 190A-5 and 6, 7 and 8 already proved themselves in Wilde Sau and Tame Sau missions with radar but flying the a/c and operating a radar scope was not a good way to engage a 4 engine heavy and several accidental rammings took place, clearly they were removed from night ops and used for daylight defense against US heavy bombers where the Fw 190A proved itself over and over again........... ok that was enough of the ramble for now.


----------



## lesofprimus (Feb 23, 2007)

Not a ramble erich... Ur just going over facts which we are already privvy to... Maybe Wespe will listen....

Probably not as we all have seen his type before...


----------



## Civettone (Feb 23, 2007)

I think Erich made some excellent claims as to why the Me 262 was not that great in some of the roles it was pushed into.
Reminds me a bit of what my avatar guy, Milch, said to Hitler when he wanted the Me 262 as a Blitzbomber "But even a small child can see that this is not a bomber but a fighter!!" Exit Milch...

The criticism on the Me 262 as a day fighter is exaggerated though in respect that it applies to all early jet fighters. Because of their speed they were not that manoeuvrable, yet every air force exchanged their piston engined fighters for jets as soon as they got their hands on them. 
The lack of fuel cannot be used to criticize the Me 262. On the contrary, the fact that these turbojet engines used diesel oil (or J2) is an advantage as it could be produced more easily than B4 and C3.

Kris


----------



## Njaco (Feb 23, 2007)

Wanted to put my two cents worth in. Everything that the posts had stated would be correct but my vote for the Me 262 would be based upon the major (as I see) difference between the two fighters. By the time the Me 262 was operational -key word- the FW had already gone through changes and had evolved into the Dora and Ta with experience with the many roles assigned to it. 

I think that if the Me -262 had the length of service as the Fw then it too would have been adapted to those other roles and excelled as the the Fw did.

I'll go back to my doghouse now.


----------



## Erich (Feb 23, 2007)

why ?

no the me 262 would have evolved into something much more streamlined over the course of the war had it had an earlier intro. closed within fuel cells, none of the limited reality the craft had. Engines would of been much more protected and more reliable. Just imagine if you will an almost knife-blade in appearance swooshing through the rear of the bomber formations clocking in at over 650mph. not sure what it would of been armed with but the test variants had four 20mms and not the slow firing limited range 30mm's

ah but this is what-if.

Kurt Welter in interviews wanted the Me 262A-1a to go through a fuselage/canopy change with more streamlineability though he knew full well that the RAF 4 engine bombers had to be stopped and that a redo of the two seater needed to be done with enclosed fuel tanks for the long range. also he commented that engine life was not good and that external engines could not take even a half dozen hits by .30's. this will be included in our future work ..... ~


----------



## Civettone (Feb 24, 2007)

Erich, can you elaborate on those "closed fuel cells"? Are you saying that the Me 262 didn't have self-sealing tanks or are you talking about something else?

On the Jumo 004, it was unreliable but let's not make it into a joke. When handled properly it was expected to serve 10 hours before a revision was needed (mainly replacing of the worn out turbine blades - a problem which the BMW 003 had much less) and then they could get another 10 hours out of it. I've also read 25 hours, but that would have been the maximum. But if the pilot knew how to handle the Jumo 004, something every pilot should know - then he wouldn't have had many problems with it. 

The well known 'flooding flaming' of the engine was pretty much resolved with the new Jumo 004D with regulator for throttle movement and two stage fuel injection. Prototypes were built and tested, serial production began shortly before end of WWII. The Jumo 004 was flight tested for an endurance of 150 hours, and as a stationary testbed was run for 600 hours. 
http://www.enginehistory.org/German/Me-262/Me262_Engine_2.pdf
The Me 262 simply ran out of time...

I am reluctant to answer the question as to which was best because it's really difficult to compare. Especially because the 190 was already 3 years around when the Me 262 entered service. I would conclude that the Fw 190 was the most succesful aircraft while the Me 262 was the best though not succesful fighter. But what should be clear to everyone is that the Fw 190 or any other piston engined fighter was a dead end. And if Germany still had any hopes it needed an aircraft which was both easy to produce as well as markebly better than those of the enemy. As such, the jet aircraft was its only option, even if it was a dangerous path.

Kris


----------



## Erich (Feb 24, 2007)

yes the 262 was not the end all for the Luftwaffe and yes the time ran out.

No the fuel cells which I am talking about was the deletion of the external fuel tanks needed in 45 to give longer range for the night fighter variant. What was purposed was a aerodynamic internal fitting on each side of the lower fuselage housing a tank on either side and also slightly armor protected, as well as negating the jet engines from the external to the internal within the wing structure. Flame outs continued to hamper the Kommando Welter through April of 45, in one case by a two seater version with the Kommando on a Mossie hunt, the pilot was able to bail out the radar op was trapped and went down with the jet.

E ~


----------



## Soren (Feb 24, 2007)

The Me-262 actually turned and maneuvered extremely well at high speeds, however at low speeds it was a sitting duck for the prop fighters.

Like Hans Werner Lerche put it, the biggest mistake made by many Me-262 pilots was to try and dogfight the Allied fighters at slow speed.

At high speeds the Me-262 could comfortably engage in a turn fight, firstly as the reduction of speed in a turn was much lower than for a prop fighter and secondly because the engines produce much more thrust at higher speeds than a propeller, and finally because the airframe was much stronger. However get slow in the Me-262 (or any jet of that period) and you're in trouble, as the jet engines don't accellerate the a/c as fast as a propeller and they don't increase the CLmax of the wing as a propeller either.

The reason the Me-262 wasn't everything that was needed was mostly because of engine reliability, in almost every situation you had to be careful with these engines.


----------



## delcyros (Feb 24, 2007)

> If he thinks the the Me-262 could fly at its max speed for the whole duration of its flight he is completely clueless. Every Aircraft has its operting limitiation. On the Blackhawk we could not fly for more than 30 mintues at 100 percent power. We did not have to land after that 30 mintues but we had to drop back into the "Green" for a while.
> 
> That is the same for any aircraft including the Me-262.



That´s entirely the case and also true for the -262, Adler. But still I have to remind that the real advantage the jet´s had over the piston A/C was that they could (and did) keep up max. speed for much longer than did the piston ones.
Once they engaged WEP, they could access this power rating for 2-5 minutes max while a jet engined plane could much longer engage max. thrust setting (just keep an eye on the turbine temp but this has to do with altitude very much), usually in between 8 and 14 minutes for the -262 at 100%. Only the -162 Salamander had brief 115% overrew capabilities (30 sec.).

The ability to use max speed for a longer timeframe was one of the prime reasons why the comparably slow Meteor-MK I was that successful against V-1´s.


----------



## Civettone (Feb 24, 2007)

Thanks for clearing that up, Erich. 
When was the Me 262B-2 supposed to enter service?


Good post, Soren. If the pilot was properly instructed on the use of the jet engines, he would not throttle them up and down like with a piston engine. I also recall that's one of the things the first operational pilots of the He 162thought of the plane: it's a completely new way of flying where you have to let the aircraft fly and gently turn it around for a new pass at high speed. (Can't recall who that pilot was but can look it up if someone's interested.)

Kris


----------



## Erich (Feb 24, 2007)

by fall of 45.

yes Soren is right about high speed turns but nothing tight or the wings would buckle. I've got some stories to tell by P-47 and P-51 pilots of the 356th fg about the 262 just "walking" away from the Allied fighters with the guys just watching without any hope of catching the jets


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 24, 2007)

delcyros said:


> That´s entirely the case and also true for the -262, Adler. But still I have to remind that the real advantage the jet´s had over the piston A/C was that they could (and did) keep up max. speed for much longer than did the piston ones.
> Once they engaged WEP, they could access this power rating for 2-5 minutes max while a jet engined plane could much longer engage max. thrust setting (just keep an eye on the turbine temp but this has to do with altitude very much), usually in between 8 and 14 minutes for the -262 at 100%. Only the -162 Salamander had brief 115% overrew capabilities (30 sec.).
> 
> The ability to use max speed for a longer timeframe was one of the prime reasons why the comparably slow Meteor-MK I was that successful against V-1´s.


I've read somewhere for the -262 it was 6 minutes - I've been trying to find that reference...

Just for a comparison - the L-29 that I fly -100% for 6 minutes. 96% for 30 minutes and 94% normal operations. On Initial take off and climb I leave 100%, throttle back to 96% and when I leave the pattern I keep the throttle at 94% unless I want to climb, I go to 96% while watching the Turbine Inlet Temp.


----------



## delcyros (Feb 24, 2007)

> I've read somewhere for the -262 it was 6 minutes - I've been trying to find that reference...
> 
> Just for a comparison - the L-29 that I fly -100% for 6 minutes. 96% for 30 minutes and 94% normal operations. On Initial take off and climb I leave 100%, throttle back to 96% and when I leave the pattern I keep the throttle at 94% unless I want to climb, I go to 96% while watching the Turbine Inlet Temp.



Hi Flyboy,

the -004B was already a downgraded performance engine. The layout of the engine was 1000 Kp thurst for the Jumo-004A (test benched in 1941 at this power output), altough the high rpm prooved to be problematic esspeccially with lower grade metals such as used in the -004B serial turbine. That´s why the max. thrust could be sustained for a longer period: The 890 Kp of the Jumo-004B3 f.e. were actually be not 100% but instead only 89%.

best regards,


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 24, 2007)

Interesting Del, thanks!


----------



## Njaco (Feb 24, 2007)

speed would be just one variable for the Me 262 at the time introduced. Stopping the bombers and not dogfighting the escorts I believe was the objective. In addition to the engine problems was they whole new style of fighting ... as posted by Cive ...*it's a completely new way of flying*. switching from a prop style to jet combat after years on one would be hard to do, especially if there was no precident. I believe it was Heinz Bar who upon first meeting with B-17s had to try three times before getting hits, and this was on a Fw! 

The Me 262 had its problems with engines and relaiblity but pilot inexpierence, even those Experten with hours logged and years fighting, would need to change old habits. Where was Molders when you need him!

Still doesn't answer which was better Fw or Me.


----------



## lesofprimus (Feb 24, 2007)

> Still doesn't answer which was better Fw or Me.


Depends on the criteria that u base ur opinion on... Each opinion will differ, but the general concensus is that the Fw 190 was a better all around fighter...

Then u have the 262 freaks....


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 25, 2007)

Ah he is gone now anyhow. He posted some Bf-109 performance charts in the Bf-109 thread and said theys how something and me, Denniss, and Civetone called him on it and told him what it really means. He than said "Good job you passed the test, Have fun this is my last post here". 

Basically he got called on everything he posted, proven he is just a 15 year old kid who does not know what he is talking about and left to find another forum to throw his weight around on newbies that dont know anything.


----------



## Erich (Feb 25, 2007)

well I guess this silly thread can get locked then. he never answered my question which I posed two times as he does not know. so much for 35 years experience studying ..............yeah what ? never told us who his father was in the war and flying twin engine what unit ?

Adler you're so right, another wanna-be kid. what a wienerschnitzel.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 25, 2007)

Naw lets leave it open for a bit....

You never know he might come back and we will have some entertainment again.


----------



## Njaco (Feb 25, 2007)

> Then u have the 262 freaks....


 

I guess you caught me. Not so much a freak, just love the plane.

Even though it may be moot, I still like the Me 262 over the 190.


----------



## lesofprimus (Feb 25, 2007)

Which one u like is not whats under discussion njaco...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 25, 2007)

That is the thing though. No one at all was saying the Me-262 was a bad aircraft. It was in my opinion the best jet fighter to see service in WW2. It however was not the end all aircraft and super fighter that they wanted it to be. 

The engines were crap and would flame out regularly. They only had a life span of 10 to 20 hours and then they had to be overhauled.

It was not the most versatile aircraft as this thread was set up to prove.

Was it a bad aircraft? Absolutely not. It was however not the greatest thing since bread and butter as Wespe thinks it was.


----------



## Njaco (Feb 25, 2007)

and I didn't post here to say if was my favorite. I just think that as a "fighter" is wasn't much but given the time to evolve like the Fw it might have been. 

I am trying to keep my like/dislike out of it.

I think the Fw had so much more behind whereas the pilots for the 262 were just staring to work on its abilities and didn't have the time. If it had the same tryouts as the Fw I think it would have been a better aircraft.


----------



## Civettone (Feb 25, 2007)

The Me 262 wasn't the superweapon some claim it to be but that's not so much because of the Me 262s shortcomings but because there's no such thing as a superweapon.

But when the engines held it was the best fighter in the world: it had the best speed and armament of all fighters, and still had good flight characteristics. When the Fw 190 surprised the Brits in 1941, it wasn't ready yet. Yet, even the British called it the best fighter in the world.

Kris


----------



## davparlr (Feb 25, 2007)

I think this is pretty straight forward. The Fw-190 was a mature effective aircraft with a demonstrated lethality and reliability. The Me-262 was, as all the jets were at this, not ready for combat in 1945. It probably needed a good one year of intense development to overcome its flaws, specifically its engines. Good reliability is force multiplier, more planes up more of the time. Poor reliability is a force divider. You would have to choose the Fw-190.

But, once mature, the Me-262 would have obsoleted the Fw-190 as a fighter just as the F-86 obsoleted the F-80 and F-51 as fighters. It would have provided air superiority while the Fw-190 was used in the tacitical interdiction role.


----------



## Parmigiano (Feb 25, 2007)

No doubt that the 262 was underdeveloped (actually the engines, the airframe was already sound) with all the related maintenance and reliability issues but reading all the recent posts it seems to me that the probable dimension of loss/kill ratio is in the range of about 150 losses vs 350-400 kills.

If so, no matter the lack of development the 262 was better than anything else in the air, at least in his intended role of bomber killer.
There is no other plane that, in the strategic an tactical situation of the last 6 months of war could have dreamed to achieve a 2-3:1 kill ratio.
And if we consider that a good half of the 262 losses happened during take off or landing and that often the 262 was in trouble because had to start the mission with just half of the fuel (fuel shortage cannot be blamed to the aircraft) the results are even more incredible.

I never believed that the 262 was the 'perfect' plane, and I don't believe it now: I think it would not had been as versatile as the 190 or the 88 (to limit the comparison to German planes) and that his development potential was limited.
But acknowledging that kill ratio I have to say 'chapeau and applause' : 2.5:1 with no fuel, airspace completely controlled by the enemy and a numerical proportion of at least 20:1 is just extraordinary.


----------



## davparlr (Feb 25, 2007)

Parmigiano said:


> If so, no matter the lack of development the 262 was better than anything else in the air, at least in his intended role of bomber killer.



True but quantity was a problem exasperted by poor reliability



> There is no other plane that, in the strategic an tactical situation of the last 6 months of war could have dreamed to achieve a 2-3:1 kill ratio.


I suspect this is mostly bombers and not fighters, unless they were jumped.

The P-51 achieved a 2:1 kill ration over the war period. It was probably better during the latter days.



> But acknowledging that kill ratio I have to say 'chapeau and applause' : 2.5:1 with no fuel, airspace completely controlled by the enemy and a numerical proportion of at least 20:1 is just extraordinary.



Certainly a important plane. I picked it as my bomber/interdiction interceptor in my imaginary air force, but I would not pick it as a baseline figther. Not reliable enough and had weaknesses.


----------



## Udet (Feb 25, 2007)

100% agree with Signor Parmigiano.

I´d just add the fact that of the approximate total number of claims of USAAF pilots a number of those did not end in the shooting down of a Me 262.

~700 enemy planes claimed destroyed in combat by the jets...of which, as Erich states, some 300 can not yet be confirmed, and might not be confirmed, ever.

Still, and as Parmi correctly suggested, the number of kills that are proved is a testament of the proficieny of the Me 262 and the pilots who manned it in combat action.

~400 enemy planes destroyed in action means a significant number of German pilots achieved kills flying the Me 262, shattering to a very important extent the allied notion of the ill-trained German pilots of the last months of the war. Bugs and novelty of the model as experienced and advised by the German pilots included.


----------



## Civettone (Feb 25, 2007)

Like I said, with the new Jumo engines the Me 262 would have achieved its full potential in the middle of 1945.



Kris


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 26, 2007)

Udet said:


> ~400 enemy planes destroyed in action means a significant number of German pilots achieved kills flying the Me 262, shattering to a very important extent the allied notion of the ill-trained German pilots of the last months of the war. Bugs and novelty of the model as experienced and advised by the German pilots included.


Agree - and that to itself is a major achievement.



Civettone said:


> Like I said, with the new Jumo engines the Me 262 would have achieved its full potential in the middle of 1945.
> 
> 
> 
> Kris



I'm sorry Kris "would of, could of, should of," all speculation. By the summer of 1945 there would of been another several thousand allied aircraft to contend with. It would of een really hard to say what would of happened....


----------



## Erich (Feb 26, 2007)

I need to do more research but after 35 years of it just on the 262 and ops both day and night I am still am wondering if 250 kills were achieved by the 262. JV 44 records something like 50 which probably 30 can be attested to the unit if that. JG 7 is still an unknown as the kills on the Ost front have not all been documented or ever will. the KG (J) units in the fighter role were almost worthless providing US P-51 a/c plenty of targets. JG 7 was personally the unit to be tried and tampered with during 45 and with the unit came victories and with it came losses. there is without doubt noted panic amongst the US bomber crews when these things were flying in their vicinity. for the Us fighter jocks it was more of awe than fear/panic. The US knew they controlled the skies in 45 and it was of personal delight if the US pilot could catch one of the "blow jobs" however it may be, whether landing, taking off or in the air in combat.

In any case the 262 did present aerial ideas for what was to become the future of air warfare


----------



## Civettone (Feb 26, 2007)

FlyboyJ
of course you're right about these what-if scenarios. One can never tell what would have happened if this or that had taken place or not...

But I already stated that the Jumo 004D had an effective throttle regulator which sorted the flooding&flaming problem. This engine was taken in production before the end of the war but could not be used operationally before the end of hostilities. Fly tests with the new Jumo 004 engines showed operations of 150 hours, and 600 hours on a stationary testbed. In combat conditions this would be a lot less, sure, but it would have made the Me 262 reliable enough...

And about engine reliability, how reliable was the Jumo 213E? I also recall it had to be revised after just 25 hours... 

As to what the allies would send up in the Summer of 1945, there are few surprises. New Spitfire, P-51s, P-47s, Tempests, Yakovlevs, ... but none of these would have closed the gap on the jet fighter. So perhaps the P-80 with a fixed air inlet or the Meteor Mk III? 

Kris


----------



## delcyros (Feb 26, 2007)

That´s at all only partially the case.
The Jumo-004D had only superficial improvements (a larger air intake and a modified fuel injection system for improved hi alt behavior), resulting in a slight increase in poweroutput (930 Kp rated) and a significantly better high altitude reliability. There were no engine based modification of the accelerator valve, which was the main course of the -004B´s bad reliability. The sensibility of throttle changes was still there, at least in low altitudes (were it was even more important: during take off landings!). The reason why the -004D4 and -004B4 (both of which were in mass production at wars end) had a longer lifetime was the new Tinadur alloy used for the turbine section, altough I seriously doubt any figures above 100 hours. 

The soviets, however made substantial changes to the -004D and the afterburner modified -004E. I know about one 004 which was testbenched to over 3000 lbs!


----------



## VALENGO (Feb 26, 2007)

I have read that after a test flight in TA152, a Luftwaffe´s pilot said "I have not flew the Me 262, but I have no doubt that the FW is better". Well, a test pilot of TA152 is somebody to listen.


----------



## Yakpilot (Feb 26, 2007)

Bash the 262 all you want…. but it was most effective as a demoralizing weapon against allied bombers. It showed a technical type of superiority. It was 100 MPH faster than anything else in the air…… It also paved the way for the real jets….Migs and the American types. 

The 262 was just plain cool.8)


----------



## Civettone (Feb 27, 2007)

Hi Delcyros

IIRC the throttle regulator was not a part of the Jumo 004 itself, it was something like a governor in the cockpit, which 'regulated' the actual throttle movement in the engine regardless of the speed of movement done by the pilot. But I don't have any further details on it, so perhaps it was still under development and hopefully in time to be installed together with the new Jumo 004D engines.
But I argue that the real problem of the Jumo 004 was not so much the flame outs. A decent pilot should know what to do or not to do with an aircraft. When you take off in a Bf 109 you keep the the tail wheel locked. If you fly in a Me 262 you move the throttle gently. It can't be that hard... 

The real problem was the reliability of the engine which is a completely seperate issue from the flame outs caused by bad handling... I don't know about Tinadur but I know of Cromadur, perhaps similar?. And I also know that the Russians copied the Jumo 004 as the RD-10 but used better materials. This way they used those engines for years on their jet fighters. IIRC they had 50 hours service intervals but probably longer. I'll stick by the claim that the Germans tested their new Jumo 004s up to 150 hours actual flying time. Check out the article I mentioned...
I also want to make clear that one shouldn't make this engine revisions into something they weren't. The 4 back turbine blades (or combustion chamber cans?) had to be replaced. Big deal! 

Honestly, I think the Jumo 213 of the beloved Fw 190D didn't have better serviceability than the Jumo 004. The figures I've seen do not show a worse operationality with Me 262 equiped units than with some other piston engined fighter units.

Again, I'm not trying to make the Me 262 into a superweapon - I already said I don't believe in that - but it has become apparent to me that some are losing a bit of perspective regarding the Me 262, treating it as if its engines would explode most of the time it went into combat. Please, let's keep it real, guys! 
Kris


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 27, 2007)

I just want to clear something up here guys. This thread was never about whether the Fw-190 was technically better than the 262. Everyone knows that jet is technically better. True the engines sucked but it was still a great plane when it was working just fine. If they could have put better engines and used similiar metals to build the aircraft it would have been a great jet fighter.

The purpose of this thread was to prove to Wespe that the Me-262 was not the most versatile aircraft of WW2. He swore up and down that the Me-262 was the most versatile and definatly more versatile than the Fw-190, Ju-88 and Mossie. So the Fw-190 was used in comparison because it was a single engine aircraft.

Just thought I would throw that back out there because I think some people think this discussion was about something else.

Okay carry on...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 27, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> True the engines sucked but it was still a great plane when it was working just fine. If they could have put better engines and used similiar metals to build the aircraft it would have been a great jet fighter.


Bingo - That's the point I was trying to drive home as well - It's one thing to have this super performing state of the art fighter aircraft, it's another thing knowing that while you fly this bird the engines could come apart at any time.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 27, 2007)

Yeap I think the fact that the engines could flame out at any time would have been in the back of the pilots mind and maybe effected his readiness and ability.


----------



## Civettone (Feb 27, 2007)

> Yeap I think the fact that the engines could flame out at any time would have been in the back of the pilots mind and maybe effected his readiness and ability.


Now that's an exaggeration! When properly handled and if the engines hadn't reached their revision point, the fighter worked just fine! Like I said in my last post, let's not go _treating it as if its engines would explode most of the time it went into combat_. 

In any case, can we agree that - if the engines held - it was the best fighter in the world? Or not? 

Kris


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 27, 2007)

Civettone said:


> Now that's an exaggeration! When properly handled and if the engines hadn't reached their revision point, the fighter worked just fine! Like I said in my last post, let's not go _treating it as if its engines would explode most of the time it went into combat_.


At best they were still 25 hour engines, to me that's a major limitation in any operational situation. An engine failure at takeoff meant you were flying a brick and chances are you were not climbing or going around....


Civettone said:


> In any case, can we agree that - if the engines held - it was the best fighter in the world? Or not?
> 
> Kris



In it's day - yes....


----------



## Erich (Feb 27, 2007)

no the 262 was not the best fighter in the world. Again I point out the limitations of turns, proven repeatedly in fighter vs fighter combat with P-51's.

Flame outs occurred about as frequent as 3cm gun jams in the bird. not that often. JG 7 boys were not concerned: ~ the tactic ~ swoop like a porpoise onto the rear of the bomber pulk, blast them, zoom through and out and beat it home and do not wait up for the US escorts if they were about


----------



## Hunter368 (Feb 27, 2007)

I have to agree "somewhat" with you Erich. This is what I mean:

Would you sooner be flying a P-51 and being attacked by a ME-262.

or

Would you sooner be flying a ME-262 and being attacked by a P-51.


I 110% agree that the 262 was NOT the best fighter all a round. In a 1 vs 1 battle (I understand that happened rarely but we are talking only "ifs" and "buts" here now anyways) I would sooner fly the 262 than a P-51.

Like a said I 100% agree that the 262 had many problems, but damn it would be shitting my pants if I was sitting in a P-51 and seen a 262 swooping in or down on me. If I was the 262 and saw a P-51 closing in on me I would just open her up and speed away, I would not bother trying to dogfight it. Too dangerous I might be bounced by other P-51's or flame out etc etc.

I hope I am explaining what I mean clearly b/c I do understand the problems of the 262. But sitting behind those 30mm cannons and flying over 500 MPH is something very comforting about that. 

Sitting in that P-51 knowing even 1 of those shells would rip my plane in two or knowing that the 262 has such a huge speed advantage over me would make me very very nervous indeed. But in real life knowing that I have about 100 other P-51's backing me up vs that 1 262 would make me feel much much better also. LOL But that is real life.


----------



## Erich (Feb 27, 2007)

it is all situational. either yes or either no. each one could deal out the lethality
. if the 262 could open it up and speed off in a straight line then P-51 eat my dust and the P-51 vets have said that to me, but too many times the 262's would try to turn in an arc for some reason and that was their doom. In the very honest sense the P-51 pilots due to their cockiness and they still are, felt quite comfortable taking anything the Luftwaffe had - on. Personal feelings may have changed had the Luftwaffe had the sheer numbers of 262's in the air equivalent to the numbers of P-51. 8)


----------



## Hunter368 (Feb 27, 2007)

Erich said:


> it is all situational. either yes or either no. each one could deal out the lethality
> . if the 262 could open it up and speed off in a straight line then P-51 eat my dust and the P-51 vets have said that to me, but too many times the 262's would try to turn in an arc for some reason and that was their doom. In the very honest sense the P-51 pilots due to their cockiness and they still are, felt quite comfortable taking anything the Luftwaffe had - on. Personal feelings may have changed had the Luftwaffe had the sheer numbers of 262's in the air equivalent to the numbers of P-51. 8)



I need what helped to give USA pilots confindence is the poor quality of the average German pilot they ran into in late 44 and 45. Plus add to the fact that the USA pilots outnumbered the Germans by many fold at most times. So again if 15 P-51's ran into 1 or 2 ME 262's each individual pilot had little to fear even if the Germans were able to shoot down 1 or 2 P-51's there was small chance it was them. Then the P-51's would dog and swarm all over the 262's.

Everyone has to keep in mind also is that air combat is not a chess match. You don't get 5 mins to decide what is the best move to make before you make it. Air combats lasts most times only moments before it is over. So what happens is you get good pilots even who get surprised and make a dumb move and they get shot down. In hind sight if that good pilot was on the ground he would preach to newbies to never make a move like this....and yet if that vet gets surprised and has to make a split second decision he at times made that very same move that he preached to the newbies to never make. That at times was how a vet pilot would get shot down flying a 262 (or any other plane), so when you see a 262 trying to turn in a arc vs a P-51 it could of been a newbie making a mistake or a vet who was surprised and in that split second make a newbie mistake.

Air combat is split second decisions, adrenaline pumping, hair rising thing......it is not chess. Mistakes are made even by the best pilots....if they are lucky it will not cost them their lives. There is rarely second chances given in air combat and no mulligans allowed. Thats why so many damn good pilots and men died in air combat.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 27, 2007)

Civettone said:


> Now that's an exaggeration! When properly handled and if the engines hadn't reached their revision point, the fighter worked just fine! Like I said in my last post, let's not go _treating it as if its engines would explode most of the time it went into combat_.



10 to 25 hours is not a long time....

If the engines in my Hawk were only rated that long I would not have flown everyday in her. Now obviously WW2 was a different time than now though. 



Civettone said:


> In any case, can we agree that - if the engines held - it was the best fighter in the world? Or not?
> 
> Kris



No I will not agree on that. The Me-262 was a great aircraft but performance does not make you the best aircraft.

A combination of performance, firepower, reliability and flight characteristics is what makes an aircraft the best or not. For 1945 I would still say that there were piston engine aircraft that had the best of those characteristics combined. Maybe not the best performance or firepower but definatly the best of all combined. Remember there is more to performance than speed as well and speed does not make the best aircraft.

Now I will go as far as saying it was the best intercepter because of its speed and firepower, but not pure fighter per say.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 27, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Now I will go as far as saying it was the best intercepter because of its speed and firepower, but not pure fighter per say.


I'll backpedal and agree with that!


----------



## davparlr (Feb 27, 2007)

Hunter368 said:


> But in real life knowing that I have about 100 other P-51's backing me up vs that 1 262 would make me feel much much better also. LOL But that is real life.



I have never read anywhere where the P-51 pilots were afraid to take on an Me-262 if they spotted it, whether they had backup or not. And, in one on one combat, backup doesn't really help since if you are shot down, you are dead whether you have a 100 backups or none. Now, I am sure they were concerned about the ones they didn't see, just like other aircraft, as the Me-262 could come in very fast and hit very hard and go. That is what it was good at.



Alder said:


> Now I will go as far as saying it was the best intercepter because of its speed and firepower, but not pure fighter per say.



I agree with this 100%.

I don't think anyone is saying the Me-262 was a bad aircraft. It is for certain a milestone aircraft and showed the way to the future. They are just saying that it had some issues in WWII.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 27, 2007)

davparlr said:


> I agree with this 100%.
> 
> I don't think anyone is saying the Me-262 was a bad aircraft. It is for certain a milestone aircraft and showed the way to the future. They are just saying that it had some issues in WWII.



I agree as well. That is what I have been saying all along. Some people think those issues were minor but issues with engines and construction are quite serious with a combat aircraft.


----------



## Civettone (Feb 27, 2007)

I completely agree that there is more than speed or firepower to make a fighter the best fighter. But I strongly disagree with Erich's statement that the Me 262 wasn't the best because the P-51 could outturn the Me 262.

Every fighter in the world could be outturned by a Zero, even today's fighters. But can anyone say it was better than the Corsair? I don't think so. What did the Corsair have on the Zero? Speed! It would attack the enemy with superior speed and would get away with superior speed. The Zero didn't stand a chance. Likewise, the Bf 109 was more manoeuvrable than the P-51 though the Mustang outperformed the Bf 109. Sure, the Bf 109 could hold its own but its inferior speed was the major contributor to the losses (except for pilot quality of course). So, turning is important but becomes ineffective when confronted by power fighters. That's also why the Russians lost so many fighters against the German fighters. That's why the Italian CR.42 was one of the worst fighters of WW2.

The Me 262 was nice to fly, comfortable, manoeuvrable (sensitive controls) and had superior climb rate (at altitude) and dive speed. What does the Mustang have to counter this? Turn rate and roll rate? These were never qualities of the Mustang as in that field it was inferior to the Fw 190 and Bf 109, as well to the Spitfire and every Russian fighter.

*If you're saying the Me 262 wasn't better than the P-51, you're saying that the P-80 wasn't better than the P-51...*

(again, I'm talking about a Me 262 in a one-on-one situation with engines not due for revision.)
Kris


----------



## Erich (Feb 27, 2007)

you guy's are misinterpreting my post which indeed pisses me off !

my point in my opinion was the Me 262 was not the best fighter due to mentions previously posted by others not just by myself. Was not this thread about FW vs the 262 and which one was better or has my Opa eyes tired out.

obviously several have not heeded my exclamation about turning problems, JG 7 vets that i have spoken with said at times the thing was just too fast the Mustang would get in their circle and give them a broadside. Speed does not always bring you victory ........ this has nothing to do with the Mustang being better than the 262 though I have my thoughts on that


----------



## lesofprimus (Feb 27, 2007)

Civett, if u have no idea who Erich is, u need to familiarize urself... Read some older threads or something, cause he is not one to be scrutinized....

It's the other way around...


----------



## Soren (Feb 27, 2007)

Had the Germans just produced some greater heat resistant metals and had Hitler not issued the Me-262 an anti-ground role then yes, the Me-262 would've then been the very best fighter of WW2 - that is not how things went however..


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 27, 2007)

Civettone said:


> Every fighter in the world could be outturned by a Zero, even today's fighters. But can anyone say it was better than the Corsair? I don't think so. What did the Corsair have on the Zero? Speed! It would attack the enemy with superior speed and would get away with superior speed. The Zero didn't stand a chance.


 Corsairs, Hellcats, and in some rare occasions a P-38 could turn with or even out turn a Zero, this is a subject of pilot skill.


----------



## Civettone (Feb 27, 2007)

Well, I hope Erich is not pissed off at me. I've known him for a while. Since I joined at LEMB, and that's a couple of years ago, I think.

I think everybody has the impression that people are misinterpreting their posts and don't see the point, I know I have that feeling a lot. That's the way it goes, I think... 
So I just repeat myself a lot ... 

FlyboyJ, of course you're right about the outturning of the Zero, but at which speed would they be able to do this? In any case, the pilot is always the central element, but in comparing two aircraft, we must assume that there are evenly qualified pilots in them. As such, the Zero pilot would be more often the better turner.
But the preferred tactic of the Corsair pilots was BnZ, and in fact it was the preferred tactic of all American fighter pilots since the Flying Tigers over China. Corsairs, Mustangs, (early) Lightnings, Thunderbolts, ... these were power aircraft, not turning and rolling dogfighters. And that won them the war (as one of the main contributing factors).
And it's exactly for that reason, that I believe the Mustang was better than the Bf 109G-6, and why I believe the Me 262 was better than the Mustang. They were in the same league.

Kris


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 27, 2007)

Civettone said:


> FlyboyJ, of course you're right about the outturning of the Zero, but at which speed would they be able to do this? In any case, the pilot is always the central element, but in comparing two aircraft, we must assume that there are evenly qualified pilots in them. As such, the Zero pilot would be more often the better turner.


There have been P-38 pilots who turned with the Zero below 300 mph - more the exception than the rule, but it was done...


Civettone said:


> But the preferred tactic of the Corsair pilots was BnZ, and in fact it was the preferred tactic of all American fighter pilots since the Flying Tigers over China. Corsairs, Mustangs, (early) Lightnings, Thunderbolts, ... these were power aircraft, not turning and rolling dogfighters. And that won them the war (as one of the main contributing factors).


And you are correct



Civettone said:


> And it's exactly for that reason, that I believe the Mustang was better than the Bf 109G-6, and why I believe the Me 262 was better than the Mustang. They were in the same league.
> 
> Kris


I could compare the G-6 and the P-51 all day - the 262 was a bomber destroyer with a 90 minute endurance - and even with it's superior speed, all the Mustang had to do is keep turning and make the 262 fight at its optimum speed and aparently many Mustang and other recip fighter pilots did the same...


----------



## Hunter368 (Feb 27, 2007)

davparlr said:


> I have never read anywhere where the P-51 pilots were afraid to take on an Me-262 if they spotted it, whether they had backup or not. And, in one on one combat, backup doesn't really help since if you are shot down, you are dead whether you have a 100 backups or none. Now, I am sure they were concerned about the ones they didn't see, just like other aircraft, as the Me-262 could come in very fast and hit very hard and go. That is what it was good at.



You don't have to read about P-51 pilots being afraid going into combat.....they were. Anyone going into combat is afraid (German or American or anyone else) and anyone who says different is BSing you or has never been in combat.

But I was not talking about real American pilots (sorry if I was unclear).......I was talking about me flying the plane. I would of been very afraid if I was flying a P-51 and I saw a ME-262 was coming after me......if I was not I would of been a fool. Having a 100 other P-51's backing me up and covering my tail would certainly of made me feel better but I would still would of been afraid.

But to get back to ME-262 trying to turn away from a P-51...yes that would of been a foolish thing to do....but pilots sometimes tried. Why? Because air combat is much like fighting. You don'y have time to think only react. If you have to "think" what to do....then its to late or you make a mistake.

What you get taught in mixed martial arts is to train train train and when you think you know what you are doing train more train more train more. Like I said flying in combat has to be based of training yes, but in combat you can't think you have to just react (you only get to this point after many many many hours flying and training and combat). Many good talented pilots died from all nations b/c, they could fly with the best of them, but they had to think in combat. The true great pilots just reacted, that gave them the best chance to survive. Just like in fighting a pilot is only as good as he trains. One of the major problems for the Germans was in 44 and 45 there was too little fuel and safe airspace to train new pilots to become great pilots. Many rookies died in their first combat who "could" of become great pilots but they could never fully live up to their potentional b/c they could not be trained the way they should of been (b/c lack of fuel and safe airspace).


----------



## Hunter368 (Feb 27, 2007)

I do agree the ME-262 does make a better bomber killer than fighter, b/c of many reasons.


----------



## Erich (Feb 27, 2007)

gee's I am so confused now, I will refrain from posting a response .......


----------



## Soren (Feb 27, 2007)

FLYBOYJ said:


> There have been P-38 pilots who turned with the Zero below 300 mph - more the exception than the rule, but it was done...
> And you are correct



I do believe this is a case of the Zeke pilot not knowing he's being attacked, cause the P-38 wasn't worth a penny in a turn fight unless going REALLY slow - but even then the Zeke is still overwhelmingly superior.


----------



## Civettone (Feb 27, 2007)

Perhaps he's talking about the late P-38J and the P-38L with the hydraulic flaps? That apparently made the P-38 the best turner of ALL USAAF fighters!



Kris


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 28, 2007)

Soren said:


> I do believe this is a case of the Zeke pilot not knowing he's being attacked, cause the P-38 wasn't worth a penny in a turn fight unless going REALLY slow - but even then the Zeke is still overwhelmingly superior.


If the Zero (or Oscar) is in a 30 or 40 degree bank, he knows something is happening. I posted this earlier for one example, again more the exception than the rule...

Secrets of a P-38 Ace. John Tilley's electrifying story


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 28, 2007)

Civettone said:


> Perhaps he's talking about the late P-38J and the P-38L with the hydraulic flaps? That apparently made the P-38 the best turner of ALL USAAF fighters!
> 
> 
> 
> Kris



Actually the P-38 D was the first model with improved fowler flaps that could be deployed to tightern the turning radius. Again, more the exception than the rule and only done by a select few...


----------



## Soren (Feb 28, 2007)

FLYBOYJ said:


> If the Zero (or Oscar) is in a 30 or 40 degree bank, he knows something is happening.



Not necessarily no. The Zeke pilot might have been concerned with another a/c, watching it carefully. Or he might have thought that there's no way a heavy bird like the P-38 is going to have a chance in even the slightest of turns and therefore chose to retain as much speed as possible for when the P-38 overshoots.

There are litterally hundreds of possible reasons for why the Zeke pilot was shot down, and since we weren't in the cockpit we can only guess.



> I posted this earlier for one example, again more the exception than the rule...
> 
> Secrets of a P-38 Ace. John Tilley's electrifying story




There has been debates about this before, and even with the help of the fowler flaps the P-38 isn't going to out-turn or even turn with a Zeke in a hard turn, its simply impossible. 

In TAIC report No.38 from April 1945 it is made clear that from SL and up, even with the help of various combinations of maneuver and dive recovery flaps, the Zeke 52 (A6M5) is on the P-38's tail within approx. one turn.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 28, 2007)

Soren said:


> Not necessarily no. The Zeke pilot might have been concerned with another a/c, watching it carefully. Or he might have thought that there's no way a heavy bird like the P-38 is going to have a chance in even the slightest of turns and therefore chose to retain as much speed as possible for when the P-38 overshoots.
> 
> There are litterally hundreds of possible reasons for why the Zeke pilot was shot down, and since we weren't in the cockpit we can only guess.


I disagree Soren - you have flown aircraft - there is no reason why in the would you would fly around with your aircraft continually banked 30 or 40 degress - if one was avoiding enemy contact the usual method was to fly zig zag patterns and never stay straight and level - 





Soren said:


> There has been debates about this before, and even with the help of the fowler flaps the P-38 isn't going to out-turn or even turn with a Zeke in a hard turn, its simply impossible.


Not unless you use diffenterial throttle settings, another issue discussed before and a technique that was used by a few exceptional P-38 pilots - not the norm or sane thing to do, but in fact it was done successfully.


Soren said:


> In TAIC report No.38 from April 1945 it is made clear that from SL and up, even with the help of various combinations of maneuver and dive recovery flaps, the Zeke 52 (A6M5) is on the P-38's tail within approx. one turn.


In a "normal" combat situation. The A6M5 was the more maneuvable of the Zero line - I'd like to see data with an A6M3...

Again, I'm not saying this was done as a normal combat SOP - it was possible however to turn with the Zero and Oscar in a p-38 and a very few select pilots accomplished this task....


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 28, 2007)

Civettone said:


> Every fighter in the world could be outturned by a Zero, even today's fighters.





And I still disagree with the Me-262. Again there is more to it than speed and performance.

We can not change history so we can not talk about what if the Germans had done this with the Me-262.

It is proven fact that the construction was shotty because of disimiliar metals. It is a proven fact that the engines were unreliable. It is a proven fact (as all early jet fighters were) that they were not really maintenance friendly. 

The list of problems with the Me-262 can go on and on. 

Was she a step in the right direction? Absolutely. Could she have been the best? Yes but this is not about could have should have...

I would rather have 100 reliable Fw-190s which were good eneoght o tangle with the allies than 1 flying Me-262. And therefore the Me-262 is not the best in my opinion.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 28, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I would rather have 100 reliable Fw-190s which were good eneoght o tangle with the allies than 1 flying Me-262. And therefore the Me-262 is not the best in my opinion.


BINGO!


----------



## Gnomey (Feb 28, 2007)

Agreed Chris and Joe. The German's at the end of the war needed numbers of reliable aircraft (such as the 190 and 109) rather than small numbers of complex unreliable next generation aircraft such as the Me-262.



FLYBOYJ said:


> If the Zero (or Oscar) is in a 30 or 40 degree bank, he knows something is happening. I posted this earlier for one example, again more the exception than the rule...
> 
> Secrets of a P-38 Ace. John Tilley's electrifying story



Anyone have anymore information on the paratroop raid performed by the Japanese whilst he was based on the Philippines?


----------



## Soren (Feb 28, 2007)

FLYBOYJ said:


> I disagree Soren - you have flown aircraft - there is no reason why in the would you would fly around with your aircraft continually banked 30 or 40 degress - if one was avoiding enemy contact the usual method was to fly zig zag patterns and never stay straight and level -



Like I said there are hundreds of possible reasons for why the Zeke pilot was in a 30 degree continious bank, and one of them could be that he was convinced than a twin engined a/c couldn't possibly follow even a mild turn - Zeke pilots were used to easily out-turn every single enemy fighter they met, and this would've let to cockiness in turn burn fights.

Another possible reason is he was scanning for fighters, making a mild turn to preserve speed, as speed was very crucial when fighting the US fighters.

He could also have been trailing another US fighter, etc etc...

I wouldn't zig zag against a much faster opponent, I'd turn hard to either side and hope I've timed it right.



> Not unless you use diffenterial throttle settings, another issue discussed before and a technique that was used by a few exceptional P-38 pilots - not the norm or sane thing to do, but in fact it was done successfully.
> In a "normal" combat situation. The A6M5 was the more maneuvable of the Zero line - I'd like to see data with an A6M3...



The A6M3 mod.32 and A6M5 are pretty much the same except the A6M5 has rounded wing tips and a higher permissable dive speed. The scenario would be the same against a A6M3, if the Zeke pilot wants to turn-fight the P-38 doesn't stand a chance. 



> Again, I'm not saying this was done as a normal combat SOP - it was possible however to turn with the Zero and Oscar in a p-38 and a very few select pilots accomplished this task....



I understand, however I disagree on it being possible if the Zeke pilot really wants to turn fight.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 28, 2007)

Soren said:


> Like I said there are hundreds of possible reasons for why the Zeke pilot was in a 30 degree continious bank, and one of them could be that he was convinced than a twin engined a/c couldn't possibly follow even a mild turn - Zeke pilots were used to easily out-turn every single enemy fighter they met, and this would've let to cockiness in turn burn fights.


 A lot of speculation there Soren, you forgot to throw in the 150 hour pilot that could barely fly the aircraft....


Soren said:


> Another possible reason is he was scanning for fighters, making a mild turn to preserve speed, as speed was very crucial when fighting the US fighters.
> 
> He could also have been trailing another US fighter, etc etc...
> 
> I wouldn't zig zag against a much faster opponent, I'd turn hard to either side and hope I've timed it right.


At a continual 30 to 40 degree bank angle the pilot is either going to get real tired or real sick...




Soren said:


> The A6M3 mod.32 and A6M5 are pretty much the same except the A6M5 has rounded wing tips and a higher permissable dive speed. The scenario would be the same against a A6M3, if the Zeke pilot wants to turn-fight the P-38 doesn't stand a chance.


The A6M3 was not as maneuverable but still a stellar turner....




Soren said:


> I understand, however I disagree on it being possible if the Zeke pilot really wants to turn fight.


I think we're going to agree to disagree - my point again is the scenario shown is more the exception than the rule. Even those pilots who accomplished this did not encourage the same tactics among their flock.

_"The Jap fighter planes have all been very maneuverable and when flown by an experienced pilot become a most difficult target to destroy. Fortunately however, the majority or Japanese pilots encountered are not of this calibre. They are excellent stick and rudder men, but their weakness is that all their maneuvers are evenly coordinated. They make use of sharp turns and aerobatic maneuvers, seldom using skids, slips, or violent uncoordinated maneuvers in their evasive tactics. Another characteristic of the younger pilots is their definite lack of alertness."_ Gerry Johnson, 1944

Twelve to One


----------



## Soren (Feb 28, 2007)

The last part of your quote supports one of my speculations, the Zeke pilot probably hadn't seen the P-38 coming in at him.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 28, 2007)

Soren said:


> The last part of your quote supports one of my speculations, the Zeke pilot probably hadn't seen the P-38 coming in at him.


Either that or he was crapping his pants as 4 .50s and a 20mm flash was coming his way....


----------



## Soren (Feb 28, 2007)

Thats a possibility


----------



## zebraa51 (Feb 28, 2007)

Hello: ( All ) did you know that the FW190 was the world`s first Electric Plane??? That didn`t happen again Until the Likes of the X-15 F-16`s were Built, But over-all the FW190`s and The Me262`s were both Very Very good at what they were designed for Killing ...... . ~ZeB~


----------



## davparlr (Feb 28, 2007)

zebraa51 said:


> Hello: ( All ) did you know that the FW190 was the world`s first Electric Plane??? That didn`t happen again Until the Likes of the X-15 F-16`s were Built, But over-all the FW190`s and The Me262`s were both Very Very good at what they were designed for Killing ...... . ~ZeB~



Define electric.


----------



## lesofprimus (Feb 28, 2007)

Yea, thats what Id like to know...


----------



## bigZ (Feb 28, 2007)

I wonder how many 262 jockeys wished they where in a FW190 on taking off/landing, with the skies dominated by the allies?

For all the 262's potential it was just to little and far too late. You can have the best plane in the world but without fuel, trained pilots, ground crew its just a heap of ali.


----------



## Erich (Feb 28, 2007)

I can bet strongly that KG (J) 51, 54 and JG 7 wishes they would of had a high protection flight of at least gruppe strength of Fw 190A-9's or Bf 109G-10's but they did not

RAF fighters made mince meat out of the Dora 9's of III./JG 54 while trying to protect Kommando Nowotny but am sure much was learned by the survivors as they went into JG 26


----------



## Civettone (Mar 1, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> The list of problems with the Me-262 can go on and on.
> 
> Was she a step in the right direction? Absolutely. Could she have been the best? Yes but this is not about could have should have...
> 
> I would rather have 100 reliable Fw-190s which were good eneoght o tangle with the allies than 1 flying Me-262. And therefore the Me-262 is not the best in my opinion.


That doesn't make sense: you're saying that there were 100 operational Fw 190s for every operational Me 262. That's turning it into a joke. The Me 262 wasn't less reliable than the Ta 152. Erich pointed out how rare the flaming out of the engines really was. The Jumo's could fly for 25 hours if properly maintained. That means 15 to 20 missions. If the pilot didn't make an error in handling the engine thrust, he could fly a month with the same engines. 

The Fw 190A/D and Bf 109G weren't better than the allied fighters, or at least not by any margin. Given the small amounts of decent pilots and limited fuel amount, they should better have produced less fighters but which were superior to the allied fighters. Besides, the fuel for the jet fighters could be more easily produced what also means more missions. 

I still would like to know what makes the Fw 190 a better fighter than the Me 262. More reliable, I'll give you that, but is that all? Especially the Fw 190 was outdated in 1944 as its performance didn't improve from 1942 to 1944 with the arrival of the A-9 and D-9 which were hardly an improvement.




> The German's at the end of the war needed numbers of reliable aircraft (such as the 190 and 109) rather than small numbers of complex unreliable next generation aircraft such as the Me-262.


Totally wrong. They produced 14,000 reliable bf 109s and 10,000 reliable Fw 190s in 1944. What did it bring them? It's mathematics: if the enemy can produce more planes than you, you need better planes. I also see no reason why the Me 262 couldn't be produced in the same amount as the Fw 190 as the Me 262 was designed with mass production in mind.

Kris


----------



## lesofprimus (Mar 1, 2007)

> Especially the Fw 190 was outdated in 1944 as its performance didn't improve from 1942 to 1944 with the arrival of the A-9 and D-9 which were hardly an improvement.


Huh??? What??? Ur saying there was hardly an improvement from the Fw190A-8 to the D-9???





Ur taking Adlers comments too litterally... 


> I also see no reason why the Me 262 couldn't be produced in the same amount as the Fw 190 as the Me 262 was designed with mass production in mind.


Its called round the clock bombing operations... If the 262 projest was started earlier in the War, u might have some reason for argument, but as it stands, Germany was doomed, and neither more 262's or 190/109's was not going to change anything without pilots and fuel for em...


----------



## Civettone (Mar 1, 2007)

lesofprimus said:


> Huh??? What??? Ur saying there was hardly an improvement from the Fw190A-8 to the D-9???


Yep, that's what I'm saying. The only improvement was that it could retain its power higher up. Remember that the Fw 190D-9 of 1944 flew without the MW 50 which makes its maximum speed similar to that of the Fw 190A-8 and less than that of the A-9. What's worse, the Fw 190D-9 lost the best thing about the Fw 190A, its roll rate. No other WW2 fighter rolled like an Anton could! 



lesofprimus said:


> Ur taking Adlers comments too litterally...


I know, but just to be one the safe side...



lesofprimus said:


> Its called round the clock bombing operations... If the 262 projest was started earlier in the War, u might have some reason for argument, but as it stands, Germany was doomed, and neither more 262's or 190/109's was not going to change anything without pilots and fuel for em...


Of course. But that makes many of these 1944/1945 discussions moot, doesn't it?

Kris


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 1, 2007)

Civettone said:


> That doesn't make sense: you're saying that there were 100 operational Fw 190s for every operational Me 262.That's turning it into a joke.



No I did not say that. Now you are putting words in my mouth. That is something that pisses me off when people do that. I never said there were 100 Fw-190s for every operational Me-262. I said I would rather have 100 Fw-190s than 1 Me-262.

Again do not put words in my mouth or change the meanings of the words that I right!



Civettone said:


> The Jumo's could fly for 25 hours if properly maintained. That means 15 to 20 missions.



And do you know how much maintenace goes into a combat aircraft for every hour of flight? I have some experience in this area because I flew combat aircraft and maintained them. I guarantee you the Me-262's mainteance was more intensive and required more time than a prop aircraft that had allready been in service for many years and had the bugs worked out. So that 15 to 20 missions becomes less if you dont have the time to do proper maintenance on them between missions.



Civettone said:


> If the pilot didn't make an error in handling the engine thrust, he could fly a month with the same engines.



And that is made into months with a radial engined Fw-190. 



Civettone said:


> The Fw 190A/D and Bf 109G weren't better than the allied fighters, or at least not by any margin.



Again never said they were absolutely better. Dont put words in my mouth...

I said they were just as good and could tangle with any allied fighter.



Civettone said:


> Given the small amounts of decent pilots and limited fuel amount, they should better have produced less fighters but which were superior to the allied fighters. Besides, the fuel for the jet fighters could be more easily produced what also means more missions.



Wrong! If you put small numbers in the air of superior aircraft they are going to be overwelmed by the superior numbered allied aircraft and will be lost just as well. Better to have a more fighing chance with large numbers of equal aircraft. I would rather have 100 Fw-190s in the air to fight against 100 P-51s than 5 Me-262s to fight 100 P-51s. 



Civettone said:


> I still would like to know what makes the Fw 190 a better fighter than the Me 262.



Again you are completly missing the point of this thread. Wespe said the 262 was more versatile than the Fw-190. This thread was to prove him wrong.

No one here is saying that 1 Me-262 was better than 1 Fw-190. 



Civettone said:


> More reliable, I'll give you that, but is that all? Especially the Fw 190 was outdated in 1944 as its performance didn't improve from 1942 to 1944 with the arrival of the A-9 and D-9 which were hardly an improvement.



It was not outdated. It was still on par with most allied fighters.




Civettone said:


> I also see no reason why the Me 262 couldn't be produced in the same amount as the Fw 190 as the Me 262 was designed with mass production in mind.
> 
> Kris



Read up on the history of the Me-262. Lack of engines and delays in engine production.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 1, 2007)

lesofprimus said:


> Ur taking Adlers comments too litterally...



Putting words in my mouth and changing the meaning of my words to suit his arguement is what he is doing.


----------



## davparlr (Mar 1, 2007)

Civettone said:


> More reliable, I'll give you that, but is that all?
> 
> 
> Kris



As I have said before, good reliability is force multiplier, poor reliability is a force divider (I guess a force subtractor is a better term). A plane on the ground being worked on is more than worthless. 

The U.S. government spends millions and millions of dollars to improve reliability and maintainability.

Reliability is a big deal.


----------



## Civettone (Mar 1, 2007)

Adler, chill man, don't take this so personal. I'm not trying to put words in your mouth though I understand it can appear that way. I think that's common in discussions, at least I often get irritated when people take out a specific thing I said, take out of context and make it into something it's not.
For instance, I know this thread is about the versatility of the Fw 190 but I asked the question if we can agree that the "Me 262 was a better fighter than the Fw 190 if all things were working ok." So that's what this discussion is about.



DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I never said there were 100 Fw-190s for every operational Me-262. I said I would rather have 100 Fw-190s than 1 Me-262.
> 
> Again do not put words in my mouth or change the meanings of the words that I right!


I still don't see what the sense is in what you said. So I interpreted the way I did. I may have been wrong but I still don't understand what the point is in what you said. Have a 100 Fw 190s for 1 Me 262??? 
So I said: _you're saying that there were 100 operational Fw 190s for every operational Me 262. That's turning it into a joke. _ The emphasis is on the last bit, I have the feeling you're turning the reliability of the Jumo 004 into a joke, as if it flamed out almost every time it flew. It was rare, like Erich pointed out!



> Again never said they were absolutely better. Dont put words in my mouth...


That was not a response to anything you said. That's why there was an open line between that and my previous text block which was a reply to your post. If you have an idea on how I could make this clearer, please do. (I can hardly mention each time that it is no longer a reply to...)
 
But back to topic, I'll try to say it like this. The Luftwaffe built over 20,000 Fw 190 and Bf 109 fighter aircraft in 1944, and they got beaten. I totally agree that the Fw 190 (and Bf 109) could 'handle' most allied opponents. But that wasn't good enough. After May 1944 there was only enough fuel for a part of the missions. So then you have less missions with average fighter aircraft. Wouldn't it be better to fight those missions with the Me 262 even though it required more maintenance and still had some bugs? 




> I guarantee you the Me-262's mainteance was more intensive and required more time than a prop aircraft that had allready been in service for many years and had the bugs worked out. So that 15 to 20 missions becomes less if you dont have the time to do proper maintenance on them between missions.


I don't want to put words into your mouth but isn't this always the case with new aircraft types? If you use that logic, you'll be using the Fw 190 until 2525.  
When the British encountered the Fw 190 they immediately recognized that it was the best fighter in the world. Yet, the Fw 190 was still experiencing engine problems and other bugs, wasn't it? What's the difference with the Me 262??




> Wrong! If you put small numbers in the air of superior aircraft they are going to be overwelmed by the superior numbered allied aircraft and will be lost just as well. Better to have a more fighing chance with large numbers of equal aircraft. I would rather have 100 Fw-190s in the air to fight against 100 P-51s than 5 Me-262s to fight 100 P-51s.


Again, that sounds like you're saying there would be 5 Me 262s for a 100 Fw 190s... What would be closer to the truth is that there would be enough fuel for 50 Fw 190s against a 100 P-51s but also 50 Me 262s. Perhaps you don't believe there would be enough Me 262s: 


> Read up on the history of the Me-262. Lack of engines and delays in engine production.


Yet, from 1945 onwards there were more than a 1000 Jumo 004s being produced each month! This quotum could have been achieved sooner but instead they went for more inferior Fw 190s. Just multiply the number of kills by JV 44. 




davparlr said:


> As I have said before, good reliability is force multiplier, poor reliability is a force divider (I guess a force subtractor is a better term). A plane on the ground being worked on is more than worthless.


I know. It's a big issue! But my point is that I don't believe the Me 262 was as unreliable as it is portrayed by some. Reminds me of those ghost stories of the Me 163 which I was battling in another thread.

Kris


----------



## Morai_Milo (Mar 1, 2007)

Why did the Dora 9 have less of a roll rate than the Antons? Both had the same wing.

_Volume deliveries to Messerschmitt began in October and by the end of the war approximately 6,000 had been built of which about half had gone to Messerschmitt. The balance had been used for test purposes, for spares and for the Arado Ar 234 airplane for which expectations were high._

U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey Aircraft Division Industry Report



> Read up on the history of the Me-262. Lack of engines and delays in engine production.



Seems there was more than enough 004 engines for the 1433 Me262s produced.


----------



## Yakpilot (Mar 1, 2007)

This sh*t is just like bench racing.....but for airplanes instead.....


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 1, 2007)

Civettone said:


> Adler, chill man, don't take this so personal.



Then if you dont understand what I am saying then please ask and I will try and explain it differently rather than change the words I use to support your arguement.



Civettone said:


> For instance, I know this thread is about the versatility of the Fw 190 but I asked the question if we can agree that the "Me 262 was a better fighter than the Fw 190 if all things were working ok." So that's what this discussion is about.



In my opinion for the reasons that I put out in other posts and will not post again for it is like a broken record, no it was not. One on one maybe but in the eventual run of things no it was not the better fighter. Fw-190 was good eneogh. The allies won with superior numbers and the few Me-262s had less of an effect (except for shock value) than the Fw-190.



Civettone said:


> I still don't see what the sense is in what you said. So I interpreted the way I did. I may have been wrong but I still don't understand what the point is in what you said. Have a 100 Fw 190s for 1 Me 262???
> So I said: _you're saying that there were 100 operational Fw 190s for every operational Me 262. That's turning it into a joke. _



No what I said was _I_ and probably any airforce commander would rather have 100 of a perfectly good capable aircraft that can tangle with anything the enemy has than have a few super aircraft that are too small in numbers to do anything.



Civettone said:


> The emphasis is on the last bit, I have the feeling you're turning the reliability of the Jumo 004 into a joke, as if it flamed out almost every time it flew. It was rare, like Erich pointed out!



Nope I never said that the 004 would flame out on every flight. The sooner you get into high operating hours (which on the 004 was not very high, 10 to 25 hours) the risk gets higher.

It was not a reliable engine.



Civettone said:


> But back to topic, I'll try to say it like this. The Luftwaffe built over 20,000 Fw 190 and Bf 109 fighter aircraft in 1944, and they got beaten. I totally agree that the Fw 190 (and Bf 109) could 'handle' most allied opponents. But that wasn't good enough. After May 1944 there was only enough fuel for a part of the missions. So then you have less missions with average fighter aircraft. Wouldn't it be better to fight those missions with the Me 262 even though it required more maintenance and still had some bugs?



No because a few Me 262 are not going to have a chance against the overwelming numerical superiority. We can not change history but the more numerical Fw-190 and Bf-109 had a better chance because they had more numbers. 

I would rather have the aircraft that are allready numerous. 



Civettone said:


> I don't want to put words into your mouth but isn't this always the case with new aircraft types? If you use that logic, you'll be using the Fw 190 until 2525.



No because the Germans were in a fight for there survival. You keep developing the Me 262 and when it is ready you mass produce it but you keep the 190s and 109s because they have numbers to keep up the fight.

We all know that it did not matter what kind of aircraft they had anyhow. The Allies had overwelming numerical superiority and had the advantage. The Me 262 few advantages over the 190 were gone because it did not matter when you are jumped by so many numbers of P-51s.



Civettone said:


> When the British encountered the Fw 190 they immediately recognized that it was the best fighter in the world. Yet, the Fw 190 was still experiencing engine problems and other bugs, wasn't it? What's the difference with the Me 262??



Try several years too late...




Civettone said:


> Again, that sounds like you're saying there would be 5 Me 262s for a 100 Fw 190s...



No I did not say that there would be. I said I would rather have that.



Civettone said:


> What would be closer to the truth is that there would be enough fuel for 50 Fw 190s against a 100 P-51s but also 50 Me 262s.



No there would not be. Do you know how much fuel a jet engine guzzles? And it was a lot worse in WW2. You could easily fly more Fw-190s with the same amount of fuel.







Civettone said:


> I know. It's a big issue! But my point is that I don't believe the Me 262 was as unreliable as it is portrayed by some. Reminds me of those ghost stories of the Me 163 which I was battling in another thread.
> 
> Kris



The Me 262 had much more problems than just the engines. Constructed using disimiliar metals and have you ever looked up close at a 262? They were hastely put together, there are gaps between the panels and skin sections. 

Again I still would rather have a 190 which was good eneogh to fly against anything the allies put in the air and have whole squadron of 190s behind me to back me up.


----------



## Udet (Mar 1, 2007)

Civettone: mind you the Fw 190 was never "outdated" in 1944.

By the way, the title of this thread is annoying -and foolish-; the guy who commenced it seems like clueless on planet earth.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 1, 2007)

You are correct he was...


----------



## Erich (Mar 1, 2007)

let's simplify this shall we ? We could probably agree that the what-if had the Me 262 been perfected to what it was going to look like through enclosed fuel tanks-larger and a more dependable engines, streamlined body and different wings-swept back, it really would of been the Luftwaffe a/c to contend with the P-51's even is large numbers would of really had probs catching this thing in turn, climb, dive and of course forget it when it came to flat out speed.
Granted the 262 was the wave of the future there is absolutely no doubt in that in my little brain but it had teething problems, no airbase field protection and yes many many of the 8th/9th AF kills were when the Schwalbe came in to land. the Luftwaffe forces were just plain stupid when it came to aerial defense of airfields relying to heavily on quad 2cm protection to get the job done. well it failed miserably.
Even with just a staffel hanging around the fields and diving on the P-51's it would of saved numerous JG 7 pilots as an example


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 1, 2007)

Erich said:


> let's simplify this shall we ? We could probably agree that the what-if had the Me 262 been perfected to what it was going to look like through enclosed fuel tanks-larger and a more dependable engines, streamlined body and different wings-swept back, it really would of been the Luftwaffe a/c to contend with the P-51's even is large numbers would of really had probs catching this thing in turn, climb, dive and of course forget it when it came to flat out speed.



Agreed and I have never denied that. I have even said that on several occasions. My arguements in this thread are based off of actual history. There is no should have, could have, would have....because it did not.


----------



## Civettone (Mar 1, 2007)

Good posts guys!



DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> In my opinion for the reasons that I put out in other posts and will not post again for it is like a broken record, no it was not. One on one maybe but in the eventual run of things no it was not the better fighter. Fw-190 was good eneogh. The allies won with superior numbers and the few Me-262s had less of an effect (except for shock value) than the Fw-190.


What's good enough? If you have less fighters than the enemy and they aren't better? 
What I recall from your arguments why the Me 262 wasn't better was that it lacked performance at take off, that it had unreliable engines and that it had a lousy construction. But again, what if a Me 262 (with functioning engines) would meet a Fw 190 in the sky? Who would theoretically have the best chance, and why? What advantage did the Fw 190 have that would have lead to succes?




> It was not a reliable engine.


In my opinion it was unreliable but reliable enough. The Jumo 213E and VK 107 didn't do better...





> No because a few Me 262 are not going to have a chance against the overwelming numerical superiority. We can not change history but the more numerical Fw-190 and Bf-109 had a better chance because they had more numbers.
> I would rather have the aircraft that are allready numerous.


But there were not that many operational fighters after May 1944. So there wouldn't have to be MORE Fw 190s. There would be less Me 262 but at least they could have been operational. Why need hundreds of Fw 190s if you don't have fuel to fly them?? 




> No because the Germans were in a fight for there survival. You keep developing the Me 262 and when it is ready you mass produce it but you keep the 190s and 109s because they have numbers to keep up the fight./quote]Yes, you have a point there!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 1, 2007)

Civettone said:


> Good posts guys!
> 
> What's good enough? If you have less fighters than the enemy and they aren't better?



The allied aircraft were not really any better. Each aircraft had is advantages and disadvantages. What made the allies overally superior was the numerical superiority.



Civettone said:


> What I recall from your arguments why the Me 262 wasn't better was that it lacked performance at take off, that it had unreliable engines and that it had a lousy construction. But again, what if a Me 262 (with functioning engines) would meet a Fw 190 in the sky? Who would theoretically have the best chance, and why? What advantage did the Fw 190 have that would have lead to succes?



Obviously the 262 would have an advantage. That has never been argued. I am looking at the overall scheme of things. 




Civettone said:


> In my opinion it was unreliable but reliable enough. The Jumo 213E and VK 107 didn't do better...



We are not talking about a Ta-152 here. We are talking about the Fw-190.



Civetone said:


> But there were not that many operational fighters after May 1944. So there wouldn't have to be MORE Fw 190s. There would be less Me 262 but at least they could have been operational. Why need hundreds of Fw 190s if you don't have fuel to fly them??



And even less fuel to fly the jets.



Civettone said:


> Only speed. (But of course not during take off and landing.)



There is more to it than speed. Especially when the enemy is all over you. The 262 was not going to go from 400mph to 500mph in 0.2 sec.



Civettone said:


> Sure, but the 190 needs C3 fuel while the 262 could fly on modified diesel oil. If you check out the USSBS reports you'll see that the diesel production more or less stayed the same. Only too bad the German officials failed to divert diesel production to the air force. (Although there was still the problem of getting it to the units!)



And since this is not a what if thread and could have, should have, would have dont matter because history is history fuel for the 262 was negligable.



Civettone said:


> I have heard you mention this several times although I have my doubts about its effect on the capabilities of the Me 262. Did many Me 262s desintegrate in flight? Did many lose a fight because of structural weakness? I can recall a couple of stories but I am sceptical about its importance.
> 
> Kris



As an aircraft mechanic I am very aware of aircraft structures. The Me 262 was built using disimiliar metals. Do you know what that does over time? The two metals corrode each other, Which in turn will weaken the structure which in turn will eventually come apart due to the stresses of combat flying. Below I have posted it better than I can explain it to you:

_"When two or more different sorts of metal come into contact in the presence of an electrolyte a galvanic couple is set up as different metals have different electrode potentials. The electrolyte provides a means for ion migration whereby metallic ions can move from the anode to the cathode. This leads to the anodic metal corroding more quickly than it otherwise would; the corrosion of the cathodic metal is retarded even to the point of stopping. The presence of electrolyte and a conducting path between the metals may cause corrosion where otherwise neither metal alone would have corroded."_

Also gaps in the structure and panels allows dirt and elements to get into areas they should not. In turn making more componants inop which have to be repaired and keep the aircraft on the ground.

Over time if these problems were not corrected on the Me 262 it would have caused structural failures in the Me 262. I think FBJ who has been an aircraft mantainer longer that I have will agree with me on this assessment of the Me-262s long time servicability.


----------



## Hunter368 (Mar 1, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> _"When two or more different sorts of metal come into contact in the presence of an electrolyte a galvanic couple is set up as different metals have different electrode potentials. The electrolyte provides a means for ion migration whereby metallic ions can move from the anode to the cathode. This leads to the anodic metal corroding more quickly than it otherwise would; the corrosion of the cathodic metal is retarded even to the point of stopping. The presence of electrolyte and a conducting path between the metals may cause corrosion where otherwise neither metal alone would have corroded."_
> 
> Also gaps in the structure and panels allows dirt and elements to get into areas they should not. In turn making more componants inop which have to be repaired and keep the aircraft on the ground.



Hmmmm I thank you very much for your expert insight on the subject Chris, sometimes "facts" are hard to come by on forums. Thank you for those "facts", I have learnt something new today.

Would two different metals corrode each other faster in certain enviroments than others? Like if they were located near the ocean where it is more salty? compared to the dessart? Please explain if you can.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 1, 2007)

Chris is very correct on this....

In our technical section, there is a technical paper on the Me 262's airframe and engine

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/ot...s-tech/me-262-technical-description-5815.html

Through out the paper it is repeated over and over again how large amounts of steel and aluminum are brought into contact with each other, either by bolting or riveting. Again, no mention is made of corrosion control practices and it is a known fact that corrosion control was at a limited basis on all sides during WW2 - there is also mention of poor workmanship in several areas. despite that, even if built under the best of conditions, the me 262 was a rust bucket - combine that with the limitations stated earlier concerning the engines and you do have a "last ditch" weapon that was hurried into combat - but once again, when all worked accordingly, her performance (speed) was unmatched...


----------



## bigZ (Mar 1, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Over time if these problems were not corrected on the Me 262 it would have caused structural failures in the Me 262. I think FBJ who has been an aircraft mantainer longer that I have will agree with me on this assessment of the Me-262s long time servicability.



The Smithsonian restorations of both the Arado 234 and 262 exhbited corrosion through disimilar materials especially in the wings.

Although I agree it would have been a problem in the long term. But I wonder what was the average length of service for a frontline fighter.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 1, 2007)

bigZ said:


> I wonder what was the average length of service for a frontline fighter.


Years ago I attended a seminar where one of the P-51 design engineers was in attendance - he stated the P-51 was looked at as a 100 hour combat tool.


----------



## Hunter368 (Mar 1, 2007)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Years ago I attended a seminar where one of the P-51 design engineers was in attendance - he stated the P-51 was looked at as a 100 hour combat tool.



Damn that sucks. Not saying it was better or worse than any other fight but damn.

Joe what would that include on the plane? Just the engine or what?



Joe can you read my post higher up on the page and answer that one also about the ME-262.


----------



## bigZ (Mar 1, 2007)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Years ago I attended a seminar where one of the P-51 design engineers was in attendance - he stated the P-51 was looked at as a 100 hour combat tool.



Cheers. I thought it wouldn't be much. Given the Gorings emphase on production figures which effected the availabilty of spare parts. Am certain the 262 will probably clock less hours compared to the allies fighters.

So if we take 100 hours as an average do think the dissimilar material construction would still present a problem?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 1, 2007)

Hunter368 said:


> Damn that sucks. Not saying it was better or worse than any other fight but damn.
> 
> Joe what would that include on the plane? Just the engine or what?


Just about everything - they considered between normal attricion the life of a fighter aircraft was limited and that's part of the reason why you saw later in the war aircraft being delivered without paint. not only as a weight saving action, why go through the truoble painting something it may not last 100 hours anyway - BTW this situation was actually included in some of the contracts issued to manufacturers where at a certain lot they(the manufacturer) was directed to deliver the aircraft unpainted.




Hunter368 said:


> Joe can you read my post higher up on the page and answer that one also about the ME-262.



Salt humid air is the worse; any atmosphere with a high humidity would also cause corrosion. The salt would enhance the galvanic process to make corrosion happen. Also in wet areas, as moisture settles on an aircraft structure, it picks up impurities (dirt, pollutants from the air) which also causes corrosion.

Dry deserts with little wind are the best.


----------



## Hunter368 (Mar 1, 2007)

Keeping that in mind I wonder what the "real" service life of a Japanese fighter would of been in the Pacific. We all know they really had a hard time keeping their front lines units stocked up with spare parts. Could you imagine trying to keep a fighter flying in the salty pacific area, flying off muddy fields, etc etc and how short a service life span they had. Damn


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 1, 2007)

bigZ said:


> So if we take 100 hours as an average do think the dissimilar material construction would still present a problem?


It depends where the aircraft was operated from....


----------



## delcyros (Mar 1, 2007)

Civettone,

try
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/heinkel-he-162-engine-1745-2.html
post 23 for an explenation of the basic principle of Jumo-004 and -BMW-003 differences in reliability.
Any change of the gouvenor would have limited effect as long as there was no accelerator valve as was in the BMW-003. I have doublechecked my sources and can assure You that the -004D had none (the -004E V1-V6 prototypes had them). Therefore, it was comparably easy to burn out the turbine blades at accelerating from low rpm´s as the amount of fuel was relative to engine rpm and not relative to airflow. Still better than the -004B but worser than the BMW-003 or any british jet engine.
This was the main limiting factor for the lifetime of the turbine section. Careful accelerating could improve the lifetime of a Jumo-004B by some 80% or even more, rapid throttle changes could result in engines to start suffering at 10 hours and even less.

regards,
delcyros


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 1, 2007)

Hunter368 said:


> Would two different metals corrode each other faster in certain enviroments than others? Like if they were located near the ocean where it is more salty? compared to the dessart? Please explain if you can.



Salty environments such as areas near the ocean as well as humid and wet environments would deffinatly speed up the process I would think.

Whenever we flew near the ocean or over the ocean or the aircraft were on boats we had to flush our engines and clean the aircraft due to the corrosive effects of the salt.

We had Ballistic Protection Plates installed in our aircraft when were in Iraq and the screws were made of alluminum. The metal of the screws corroded to the plates and the airframe of the of the aircraft. I had to drill out every one of those damn screws just to get the plates out at the port so we could wash the aircraft and go back home.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 1, 2007)

bigZ said:


> The Smithsonian restorations of both the Arado 234 and 262 exhbited corrosion through disimilar materials especially in the wings.



Exactly. I have seen both of those aircraft up close and another Me 262 here in Germany.


----------



## Erich (Mar 1, 2007)

have to chime in after seeing the Me 262 first hand at Chino, Cali. You really think the jet is overall much larger than what she really is. And still it is one of beauty. It looks fast just sitting on the tarmac


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 1, 2007)

I agree she is definatly a beautiful aircraft. I have seen a 262 a few times at various locations and to me she is one of the best looking aircraft of WW2 and still has a killer looking quality to her.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 1, 2007)

agree Erich and Chris...


----------



## Erich (Mar 1, 2007)

guys I think we need a few images ......... right ?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 1, 2007)

Right!


----------



## Hunter368 (Mar 1, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Salty environments such as areas near the ocean as well as humid and wet environments would deffinatly speed up the process I would think.
> 
> Whenever we flew near the ocean or over the ocean or the aircraft were on boats we had to flush our engines and clean the aircraft due to the corrosive effects of the salt.
> 
> We had Ballistic Protection Plates installed in our aircraft when were in Iraq and the screws were made of alluminum. The metal of the screws corroded to the plates and the airframe of the of the aircraft. I had to drill out every one of those damn screws just to get the plates out at the port so we could wash the aircraft and go back home.



I could not even imagine trying to provide parts and servicing fighters in the pacific, see how Japanese failed in WW2. I wonder how many Japanese planes were lost to enemy action and how many were lost to lack of parts or just worn out do to lack of proper servicing. Bet that number might be closer then many would believe LOL.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 1, 2007)

And I recently seen a paper where a Japanese fighter pilot complains about the quality of JAAF aircraft...


----------



## Soren (Mar 1, 2007)

Civettone,

Even if the Me-262 could've been produced in half as many numbers as the FW-190 it wouldn't have made much if any difference, the reliability of its engines was way too poor, they were simply too ahead of their time. Way more time would've been spent putting new engines on or repairing the ones still running than the Me-262 would ever spend flying....


----------



## Soren (Mar 1, 2007)

FLYBOYJ said:


> And I recently seen a paper where a Japanese fighter pilot complains about the quality of JAAF aircraft...



For the most part the quality of the a/c when leaving the factory was good (except near the end of the war), however like Hunter mentioned servicing of the aircraft in the field was most certainly not always optimal, esp. in the late war period .


----------



## Hunter368 (Mar 1, 2007)

Soren said:


> For the most part the quality of the a/c when leaving the factory was good (except near the end of the war), however like Hunter mentioned servicing of the aircraft in the field was most certainly not always optimal, esp. in the late war period .



I would bet that the number lost to enemy action compared to lost to no spare parts or poor repairs were very close to each other. Japanese were very bad at supplying their bases with parts.


----------



## Civettone (Mar 2, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> The allied aircraft were not really any better.


I didn't say that. I said the Fw 190 wasn't better than the allied fighters. I AM saying the Me 262 is better (once airborne).



> Obviously the 262 would have an advantage. That has never been argued. I am looking at the overall scheme of things.


Ok, that's all I'm saying. I don't agree with the Me 262 being the answer to the German problems. I'm just saying that once airborne and the wings holding it was the best fighter aircraft. If it's not, then another fighter is, and I wouldn't know which one. Which could beat the Me 262 in a one-on-one (theoretically of course, so no surprise attacks, pilot errors, etc)? 




> We are not talking about a Ta-152 here. We are talking about the Fw-190.


I know but I don't see many people saying the same stuff about the Ta 152 as they say about the Me 262. Both had technical problems and weren't ready yet. But yet many consider it to be the best piston engined fighter. That doesn't make sense IMHO. 




> And even less fuel to fly the jets.
> (...)
> And since this is not a what if thread and could have, should have, would have dont matter because history is history fuel for the 262 was negligable.


No, they could have gotten more jet fuel than C3 fuel. They didn't, what makes this is a what-if. But a plausible one. I am making a point that the Germans should have concentrated on Me 262 production sooner than continuing with the Fw 190. So sure this is a what-if. Does that mean one cannot discuss these things? 




> The 262 was not going to go from 400mph to 500mph in 0.2 sec.


In some of the previous posts you'll read that one of the advantages of jet fighters is that they can keep up their maximum speed for a longer period. 




> Over time if these problems were not corrected on the Me 262 it would have caused structural failures in the Me 262.


As bigZ pointed out, what's the expected service duration of a German late-war fighter aircraft? And I'll ask you this for the second time, where and how did Me 262s lose fights due to structural problems? 




Delcyros said:


> This was the main limiting factor for the lifetime of the turbine section. Careful accelerating could improve the lifetime of a Jumo-004B by some 80% or even more, rapid throttle changes could result in engines to start suffering at 10 hours and even less.


Thanks for clearing that out for me! 
I also think you're right about the Jumo 004D. It has to be the 004E which had the modified governor. I just knew that they were going to build it, so I assumed it was with the 004D. Has to be with the next version. )

Kris


----------



## Morai_Milo (Mar 2, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> And even less fuel to fly the jets.


Was jet fuel really in short supply?

_On April 22 1945 Luftwaffenkommando West reported the following fuel stocks on airfields in Bavaria:

B-4 = 350,000 liters
C-3 = 284,000 liters
J-2 = 1,897,000 liters_

That is 5.42 times as much as B4 and 6.7 times as much as C3, at least in Bavaria.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 2, 2007)

Civettone said:


> I didn't say that. I said the Fw 190 wasn't better than the allied fighters. I AM saying the Me 262 is better (once airborne).



Only if it is not overwellmed by enemy fighters. Erich allready touched up on that.



Civettone said:


> I know but I don't see many people saying the same stuff about the Ta 152 as they say about the Me 262. Both had technical problems and weren't ready yet. But yet many consider it to be the best piston engined fighter. That doesn't make sense IMHO.



That is because the problems of the Ta-152 were no where near those of the Me-262. Read reports from the people who flew it and they will tell you they did not encounter serious problems. 



Civettone said:


> No, they could have gotten more jet fuel than C3 fuel. They didn't, what makes this is a what-if. But a plausible one. I am making a point that the Germans should have concentrated on Me 262 production sooner than continuing with the Fw 190. So sure this is a what-if. Does that mean one cannot discuss these things?



Yes but people take that kind of What if as "The Germans would have just gotten more fuel". Well they did not... 



Civettone said:


> In some of the previous posts you'll read that one of the advantages of jet fighters is that they can keep up their maximum speed for a longer period.



True, but how long can they actually do it? A jet guzzles fuel. It is going to run out very fast at max speed. 



Civettone said:


> As bigZ pointed out, what's the expected service duration of a German late-war fighter aircraft?



That I do not know... I do know one thing though, that when you build an aircraft you try to build it so that it will last. Building an aircraft with disimiliar metals is not going to last...



Civettone said:


> And I'll ask you this for the second time, where and how did Me 262s lose fights due to structural problems?



I did not answer you because I do not know. 

However if you go back and re-read my post (here you go again manipulating words) I never said that Me 262's were documented coming apart in flight. I do know however (because of experience working on aircraft) that eventually the structures would have failed because of the disimiliar metals and rather rapidly. 

Once this kind of corrosion starts it build rapidly and decays the aircraft. That my friend is fact!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 2, 2007)

Civettone read some stuff here about the Me 262.

Me 262 PROJECT TECHNICAL DATA

It will tell you a bit about the problems with construction and the engines and a bit about jet fuel consumption.

It also describes how the Me 262 was not good at low airspeed and at high airspeeds it would vibrate and eventually not be controlable.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 2, 2007)

Morai_Milo said:


> Was jet fuel really in short supply?
> 
> _On April 22 1945 Luftwaffenkommando West reported the following fuel stocks on airfields in Bavaria:
> 
> ...



And that would also be used up twice as fast as the other fuels because of the high consumption rates of the early jets.


----------



## Morai_Milo (Mar 2, 2007)

And the LW had over a 1000 se fighters operational for what maybe 100 Me262s operational. Even a twice jet fuel consumption, the piston fighters would run out of available fuel before the jets.

_"Postwar tests in the West confirmed that at *very high airspeeds* airframe vibration levels and buffeting grow increasingly worse until the jet enters into a shallow dive and becomes all but completely uncontrollable."_

It says VERY high speeds not high speeds which means near its Mach limit. A/c shake when near their Mach limit.



> I do know one thing though, that when you build an aircraft you try to build it so that it will last. Building an aircraft with disimiliar metals is not going to last...


 Maybe in peace time but not in war time. In 1944 Germany built some 20,000 se fighters and only had 14-1500 servicable in early Jan 1945. They were not to worried about the longtivety of a combat a/c with such combat losses. Soviet equipement was crudely made because they knew it would not last to _old age_.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 2, 2007)

Morai_Milo said:


> It says VERY high speeds not high speeds which means near its Mach limit. A/c shake when near their Mach limit.



Never said how high I was talking about. I left that for the reader to read in the link. 



Morai Milo said:


> Maybe in peace time but not in war time. In 1944 Germany built some 20,000 se fighters and only had 14-1500 servicable in early Jan 1945. They were not to worried about the longtivety of a combat a/c with such combat losses. Soviet equipement was crudely made because they knew it would not last to _old age_.



No you allways build an aircraft to last. You dont know how long that aircraft is going to be needed. You dont want to assume the aircraft is going to be lost soon and then it is not lost but ends of crashing because of bad construction.


----------



## Civettone (Mar 2, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Only if it is not overwellmed by enemy fighters. Erich allready touched up on that.


That goes for all fighters. But at least the Me 262 could get away from its enemies. The Fw 190 was slower at all speeds and had less climb rate.



> That is because the problems of the Ta-152 were no where near those of the Me-262. Read reports from the people who flew it and they will tell you they did not encounter serious problems.


Engine life expectancy was 25 hours.
And most late-war Luftwaffe aircraft suffered from technical construction problems. 




> Yes but people take that kind of What if as "The Germans would have just gotten more fuel". Well they did not...
> (...)
> True, but how long can they actually do it? A jet guzzles fuel. It is going to run out very fast at max speed.


Yes, that's spot on. It's also my main criticism on the Me 262, and why I think they shouldn't have built a twin engined jet fighter in the first place.
Yet, the advantage in being able to fly with diesel fuel is immense. I don't really understand what you're trying to say about the "gotten more fuel" comment but I'll tell you that the Germans could have gotten more jet fuel _if they wanted to_. That maybe hard to believe but it's like that. The chemical industry provided 97% of the aviation fuel. Most diesel oil came from refineries of crude oil of inferior quality. The diesel oil went to the army for their trucks and to the navy for their subs. But the jet fuel mainly kept coming from the chemical industry because that's what they were ordered to deliver. I guess that for every submarine mission the Germans could have provided fuel for about two hundred Me 262 missions. 
Sure, it's a what if but it was possible. It wouldn't have changed the logistical problem of getting the fuel there or let alone the outcome of the war but it's a rational consequence of what would have happened if the Luftwaffe went for jets sooner.



> However if you go back and re-read my post (here you go again manipulating words)


C'mon, I was asking a question, how can I be manipulating your words that way? 



> It will tell you a bit about the problems with construction and the engines and a bit about jet fuel consumption.
> It also describes how the Me 262 was not good at low airspeed and at high airspeeds it would vibrate and eventually not be controlable.


It doesn't say much about construction. It's mainly about the metals used in the engines...
The low airspeed is also old news, that's why it took so long for the Me 262 to take off and build up speed. The Me 262 was a sitting duck during take-off and landing (but then again, all aircraft are vulnerable in that stage, though still more capable).

Kris


----------



## Civettone (Mar 2, 2007)

> No you allways build an aircraft to last. You dont know how long that aircraft is going to be needed. You dont want to assume the aircraft is going to be lost soon and then it is not lost but ends of crashing because of bad construction.


That's simply not true! German officials saw the Bf 109 (or Me 262) as an expendable weapon. Read Speer's memoirs in which he writes that he preferred to have built new Bf 109s instead of repairing them. Milch wrote that he complained about the German aircraft industry putting too much effort in quality instead of quantity, and compared it with what the British did. It was bad quality for German standards but good enough for war necessities. He urged a similar philosophy for all German war products (aircraft, tanks, guns, ...) but failed to because of the power of the German 
industrials. That was until Speer came along. 

From all the things you've said that is really the one is least agree with. I suspect you're writing what you would have done, instead of what you think the Germans did...

But just look at how many aircraft were lost in 1944/1945 and you'll understand that these were not built to last. I suspect the average was three months... 

Kris


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 2, 2007)

Civettone said:


> C'mon, I was asking a question, how can I be manipulating your words that way?



Because I said over time due to the construction with disimiliar metals the Me-262 would lose its structural integrity. You asked me how many came apart basically saying that I said they did do so. Here are your words:

"And I'll ask you this for the second time, where and how did Me 262s lose fights due to structural problems?"

Again I never said that the aircraft did that. I said over time it would and that is fact because of the construction.

So please again if you do not understand what I am saying then ask me and I will try and explain it better, but dont twist my posts. 

I am more than likely going to leave this discussion now because this is going no where. It is me and you stating the same things over and over again and it is pointless.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 2, 2007)

Civettone said:


> That's simply not true! German officials saw the Bf 109 (or Me 262) as an expendable weapon. Read Speer's memoirs in which he writes that he preferred to have built new Bf 109s instead of repairing them. Milch wrote that he complained about the German aircraft industry putting too much effort in quality instead of quantity, and compared it with what the British did. It was bad quality for German standards but good enough for war necessities. He urged a similar philosophy for all German war products (aircraft, tanks, guns, ...) but failed to because of the power of the German
> industrials. That was until Speer came along.



And where is proof that they were not built to last. Show me facts of construction. I can only think of one and that is the Me-262 and it was constructed very poorly. Actually I take that back all aircraft from 1944 on were constructed poorly. 



Civettone said:


> From all the things you've said that is really the one is least agree with. I suspect you're writing what you would have done, instead of what you think the Germans did...



I would not have mass produced the Me-262 until it was ready...



Civettone said:


> But just look at how many aircraft were lost in 1944/1945 and you'll understand that these were not built to last. I suspect the average was three months...
> 
> Kris



Being shot down is not a fact pertaining to construction of the aircraft.


----------



## Civettone (Mar 2, 2007)

My impression is that we're getting closer to an agreement. From the start of this discussion I've noticed that our opinions are not all that different. I think we just put emphasis on different aspects of the discussion. I agree with most of the points you make, just not with the conclusion that come from them.



> "And I'll ask you this for the second time, where and how did Me 262s lose fights due to structural problems?"
> Again I never said that the aircraft did that. I said over time it would and that is fact because of the construction.


Oh no, this is you not understanding me, not the other way around. My point was: "ok, it had structural problems but did this lead to Me 262 losing fights?" So that's why I asked "where and how did ..." Because if it didn't lead to this, then I think it's _irrelevant_ in the discussion of the Me 262 being the best fighter of 1944/45.



DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> And where is proof that they were not built to last. Show me facts of construction. I can only think of one and that is the Me-262 and it was constructed very poorly. Actually I take that back all aircraft from 1944 on were constructed poorly.


Exactly!! 



> I would not have mass produced the Me-262 until it was ready...


I think you've got a good point there. But when I think about it, there are rarely complex aircraft that are ready when put into mass production. Just look at the Fw 190, He 177, B-26, B-29, P-80, Typhoon, Tempest, La-7, ... 
I don't know ... but perhaps it's because these were considered to be 'ready enough' to warrant mass production. 
Given the situation the Luftwaffe was in: too few pilots and fuel to use large amounts of aircraft, wouldn't it be better to use those few resources in a fighter which - although it is difficult to maintain and needs new parts for its engines after 10 hours - is a better fighter than the ones which are flying now, in the Luftwaffe or in the allied AFs?
Remember, that with less operational fighters, there are more resources for ground crews. If there was something that was still working in 1945 it was the Luftwaffe ground personnel because they had less work pressure due to less flights/missions.



> Being shot down is not a fact pertaining to construction of the aircraft.


Well, it leads to a construction policy. If you expect your fighters to last for 5 years as in peacetime, you'll build them different than when you lose them after 5 months. It was no longer cost effective to build aircraft according to pre-war standards, but it took until Speer took over before industrials were forced to adapt their construction techniques. 
(Shortly thereafter quality dropped even further and way below the lowest standards but this was not intended but forced upon the German industry by a shortage of materials and qualified and motivated personnel.) 

Kris


----------



## mad_max (Mar 3, 2007)

Don't know if you've seen this, but it's a rather interesting read.

http://www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com/Images/Me262/ME262PILOTDEBRIEF.pdf


----------



## Soren (Mar 3, 2007)

Have it already but still a great read


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 3, 2007)

Civettone said:


> My impression is that we're getting closer to an agreement. From the start of this discussion I've noticed that our opinions are not all that different. I think we just put emphasis on different aspects of the discussion. I agree with most of the points you make, just not with the conclusion that come from them.



Quite possibly. I dont think we will ever agree with the conclusion. It has been an interesting read either way. We will have to drink some belgian beer and discuss this more over a few drinks.



Civettone said:


> Oh no, this is you not understanding me, not the other way around. My point was: "ok, it had structural problems but did this lead to Me 262 losing fights?" So that's why I asked "where and how did ..." Because if it didn't lead to this, then I think it's _irrelevant_ in the discussion of the Me 262 being the best fighter of 1944/45.



And I told you initially no it would not, however given some time it would have had structural failures. This is a factor in what can be considered best or not. 





Civettone said:


> I think you've got a good point there. But when I think about it, there are rarely complex aircraft that are ready when put into mass production. Just look at the Fw 190, He 177, B-26, B-29, P-80, Typhoon, Tempest, La-7, ...
> I don't know ... but perhaps it's because these were considered to be 'ready enough' to warrant mass production.
> Given the situation the Luftwaffe was in: too few pilots and fuel to use large amounts of aircraft, wouldn't it be better to use those few resources in a fighter which - although it is difficult to maintain and needs new parts for its engines after 10 hours - is a better fighter than the ones which are flying now, in the Luftwaffe or in the allied AFs?
> Remember, that with less operational fighters, there are more resources for ground crews. If there was something that was still working in 1945 it was the Luftwaffe ground personnel because they had less work pressure due to less flights/missions.



You see that is where I disagree with you. I think it is better to put up lots of good fighters that are on the same page for the most part as the allied aircraft. Use the Me-262s but send them up after the bombers and use the mass amounts of Fw-190s and Bf-109s that you have to fight the P-51s and Spitfires.



Civettone said:


> Well, it leads to a construction policy. If you expect your fighters to last for 5 years as in peacetime, you'll build them different than when you lose them after 5 months. It was no longer cost effective to build aircraft according to pre-war standards, but it took until Speer took over before industrials were forced to adapt their construction techniques.
> (Shortly thereafter quality dropped even further and way below the lowest standards but this was not intended but forced upon the German industry by a shortage of materials and qualified and motivated personnel.)
> 
> Kris



And I dont agree with that. That is a big mistake in my opinion. Poor construction leads to an aircraft that can take less damage and can not perform as well.

I understand they had shortage of materials and so forth but it is a very bad idea.


----------



## bigZ (Mar 3, 2007)

Alder the IL 2 was very poorly constructed(plus mixed construction) but look how much damage it could withstand. An IL2 under restoration shown numerous examples of poor work practies such as angle iron riveted on top of domed riverts.

Speer trying to increase aircraft production was incensed by the German aero industries insistance of building parts to exacting tolerances which did not require it. They were still polishing the welds off the FW190 tailwheel legs towards the end of 43, they also produced the finest built bomber seats of any nation even towards the end of the war.


----------



## Civettone (Mar 3, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Quite possibly. I dont think we will ever agree with the conclusion. It has been an interesting read either way. We will have to drink some belgian beer and discuss this more over a few drinks.


 Yeah, I've also said my piece  Was a good discussion. 
Looking forward to the beer. Have you ever tried Duvel?
 

Kris


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 4, 2007)

Yes I have tried a few. It is not bad.


----------



## HealzDevo (Mar 12, 2007)

The Fw-190 and the Me-262 engaged in out different sorts of attacks. The Fw-190 conducted a more traditional Bf-109 style attack where it attacked and then it kept in the fight. The Me-262 on the other hand had a sort of slashing attack where it would attack and then it would need to go round again. Typically the Me-262 has a lower kill-rate because of closing-speed and the lack of time to fire at the target to finish it off. Therefore it is really very difficult to compare these two aircraft as they were both designed for a different type of fight.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 12, 2007)

HealzDevo said:


> The Fw-190 and the Me-262 engaged in out different sorts of attacks. The Fw-190 conducted a more traditional Bf-109 style attack where it attacked and then it kept in the fight. The Me-262 on the other hand had a sort of slashing attack where it would attack and then it would need to go round again. Typically the Me-262 has a lower kill-rate because of closing-speed and the lack of time to fire at the target to finish it off. Therefore it is really very difficult to compare these two aircraft as they were both designed for a different type of fight.


Really? And what source to you base this brilliant information from?


----------



## Gnomey (Mar 12, 2007)

His 'brilliant' mind


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 12, 2007)

Video game...


----------



## Soren (Mar 12, 2007)

The Me-262 could stay and fight as-well, as long as it kept the speed high - prefereably above 500 km/h.


----------



## HealzDevo (Mar 14, 2007)

Still being at that speed 500km/h plus dictates a high closing speed and thus there is a shorter period to fire. You said yourself that the Me-262 stayed at high speed. Therefore this would indicate that it would need to turn around at the end of its run. It has a very low kill ratio because there was very little time to aim and fire the guns at the opposition. In contrast the Fw-190 was slower and a better platform for dog-fighting. You look at the stats and think for yourself about what it would mean in a fight with a Spitfire or a Mustang of the time. That is my logical way of looking at things but I am open to being proved wrong if you can...


----------



## Parmigiano (Mar 14, 2007)

Devo, read back the thread: the kill ratio of the 262 is still uncertain, but it seems likely that is in the range of 2.5-3.5 : 1 , and this includes the 262 losses related to 'landing target practice' kills that should not be counted as combat losses (they were due to a situation independent from the aircraft performances: we all know that 262 needed a long glide for landing, but honestly take any other aircraft: Fw190, P51, P47, Spit etc., put 8-10 fighters on her tail strafing it during landing and figure out the chances of survival...) 

So even taking the 'unfair' figures the kill ratio of the 262 is far from 'very low', it is more in the range of 'quite high' in absolute and 'surprisingly high' if we consider that the 262 usually entered combat outnumbered 10 or 20:1 and often crippled by fuel shortage (one of the choices of the 262 comanders was 'do we fly with 15 machines with full tank or 30 machines with half fuel?'

And this with all the machine related problems that we all know: unreliable engines, quality production issues etc.

Your point of the short firing time available is correct, but it does not seems that the effectiveness was impacted very much.
Consider also that the 262 had 6 times more firepower than a P51D, so even it had 1/3 of firing time available because of the higher speed it still delivered anyway twice as firepower...


----------



## Yakpilot (Mar 14, 2007)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Really? And what source to you base this brilliant information from?



It’s based on the same premise as all the other brilliant info on this web site!

Theroy and conjecture! All just battles of opinion and statistical information.
A waste of time.

BTW: How many Migs have you killed?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 14, 2007)

Yakpilot said:


> It’s based on the same premise as all the other brilliant info on this web site!


8) 



Yakpilot said:


> Theroy and conjecture! All just battles of opinion and statistical information.
> A waste of time.


Especially if some comes on here not knowing what they are talking about... 


Yakpilot said:


> BTW: How many Migs have you killed?



None - But actually I got an L-39, a T-33 while flying an L-29 and a C-172 (while flying a Cherokee 160) - mock combat of course but I was in their six long enough to toss a brick at them if I had one with me....


----------



## Udet (Mar 14, 2007)

Agreed with the excellent comment from Parmigiano. I´ll just add it also speaks of the quality of German pilots during that part of the conflict.

As several guys here know, i have serious doubts regarding the accuracy of that comment that points out all new fighter pilots in the Luftwaffe were so terribly trained during the last year of the war their chances were marginal once in the air.

Even some German accounts i´ve read seem to point in a similar direction; but i also wonder if there is some sort of _"psychology of the defeated" _that leads to producing accounts that are not quite accurate, and also after having been bombarded by the accounts of the victors in the years following the end of the war their mindsets get "adjusted".

That indeed many German rookies died after having flown a fistful of missions does not mean they were "ill-trained", at all. Nobody has yet managed to indicate a clear correlation between Luftwaffe losses during 44-45 and the "ill-training" of new pilots.

Is it known how many RAF fighter pilots perished at the hands of the Luftwaffe after having flown two, or three missions? You bet that if a number could be known many here would be shocked.

Training certainly got shortened in the Luftwaffe, but never to send ill-trained rookies en mass to face the allied aerial onslaught.

The allies seem to infer the scenarios in the PTO and the ETO could be about identical in this department. That the Japanese indeed sent huge numbers of pilots that beyond take off could hardly do anything does not mean a similar thing happened in the ETO.

This new pilot training issue reminds me of the allied depicting of the Bf 109 G-6, even described in some accounts as "nearly obsolete", "outclassed", "slow speed"...someone somewhere got a wrong account -or made it up-, commenced reproducing it, and several others did the same picked the same erroneous data... (The G-6 was faster than the Spitfire Mk. V which was the RAF mainstay when the G-6 was serving in large numbers.)

It is public domain several German veteran fighter pilots "experten" like Heinz Bär, even Zerstörer pilots like Fritz Stehle, underwent succesful conversion to fly the Me 262, but also a large number of not so veteran pilots including rookies virtually commenced their pilot careers as jet pilots and manned the craft quite well in combar action.

So, if all rookies were barely trained during the last year of the war, then the Me 262 would not have the number of aerial victories in the record; also add a few hundreds of kills that are not confirmed, and might not be confirmed, but that could have occurred, and you know they were not ill-trained.


----------



## Civettone (Mar 14, 2007)

I don't think there's much doubt about that. There are figures available that show how the pilot training dropped significantly and how the number of combat losses (and non-combat losses) rose shortly thereafter. I don't see why these shouldn't be related. 
You have a point when you say that much information is allied prop but it's not like everything is. Discussing aircraft like the Bf 109G-6 is always partially subjective. For training all you have to do is look at training hours (and doctrine).
Finally I also think that you had better rookies than others. Some have natural talents. But I think that 99% of the rookies were easy meat for American fighter pilots. There are more than enough witness acounts on both sides to back this up.

Kris


----------



## Udet (Mar 14, 2007)

Onto the domains of the "Off-Topic" creature now.

I have documents and papers that illustrate losses of the Luftwaffe during 1944. Shown is indeed a significant increase in losses.

But how does that exactly prove the peak of losses is a consequence of poor training?

The most dramatic moment for losses as shown on such papers commences by spring´s end, 1944. A time when German production of fighter aircraft was by the way being significantly increased.

What about rookies still in the process of developing combat experience finding themselves fighting a numerically superior enemy with competitive craft and pilots -many of them rookies too-?

The very well trained pilots of the USAAF too enter service with zero combat experience and not only the German guys. 

Come on, even many of those guys who served their tour over Europe and went back home did not have the experience of thousands of German fliers who flew for several years.

Without the numbers displayed by the 8th AF over western europe the quality of their training gets pushed down to a secondary type of issue. *There probalbly lies the point:* the USAAF could combine adequate numbers of pilots and craft while by mid 1944 the Germans were no longer capable of achieving it. Sufficient and more than valid to defeat the enemy. Just do not come and tell me you were shooting down "turkeys".

A greatly trained P-51 pilot could end his days screaming and burning in his cockpit if ambushed or cornered by 6 or 7 not so greatly trained Bf 109 guys, as it did happen over the Normandy front several times, just like a seasoned Luftwaffe experte could get shot down by 7 P-51 well trained rookies.

Some basics: a pilot with better training has to a good extent better chances of performing fairly well once engaged in actual combat if compared with a guy with less training. We agree on that.

Still, when i see lists of claims i see names of German pilots claiming their first or second victories during November and December of 1944, as well as during 1945. After trying to find and cross those names on other lists and records of Luftwaffe flyers it could be deducted those were guys flying their very first combat missions. Filing a claim during such period means the guy entered a melee against the USAAF engaging the enemy and returned to base claiming he had destroyed an enemy plane. By late 1944 the numerical superiority of the allies was even more critical, so was the fuel issue in the Luftwaffe. And those new pilots were not "propaganda" tools for Herr Goebbels.

So there was a good number of naturally talented pilots available to the Luftwaffe by war´s end. See the claims of JG 7 and you will realize the victories are pretty well distributed among its pilots. Many did not reach the allied standard of "ace" because they did not shot down more than 5 enemy planes. 

That "target rich environment" -a hell of phrase coined there- should not apply here. A poorly trained individual will immediately get shot down when flying in that type of environment.


----------



## lesofprimus (Mar 14, 2007)

Pilot training is a very important topic for the latter parts of 1944-45 in the ETO.... To say the green pilots of the Luftwaffe were ill-trained is not the phrase I would use.... Under-trained is appropriate...

There wasnt significant fuel for the amount of flight hours needed to make a new pilot proficient enough to go into a combat unit on equal terms with the new Allied pilots...

Many many times Ive read and talked about this... Staffelkaptains and the like would travel to these training fields and be ed with the amount of training these guys were getting... Sometimes, once they got to their respective combat assignments, there wasnt enough time to get them familiarized with their new aircraft prior to combat operations...

I could go on and on concerning this...


----------



## Lucky13 (Mar 15, 2007)

I'd rather fight in FW-190D than in a Me-262. I think that I'd have a better chance of survival...
It was too much of "will it run" with 262's engines compared to FW-190's.
It would have been different if the 262 had been that good that they wouldn't have needed the Papagei staffel...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 15, 2007)

All early jets not just the Me-262 were the most vulnerable on take off and landing.


----------



## Parmigiano (Mar 15, 2007)

Yes, the lag in response of the jet engines required a longer approach at landing and required more time to build up speed at take off.

It would not be a real problem in normal situation, for the 262 was a problem because of the catastrophic situation of Germany. 

Definitely, to minimize the risk to be strafed on landing you should fly a Fieseler Storch  

But dangerous unreliability is in general valid for every new engine or new aircraft.

For instance the Hawker Typhoon was not safer than the 262 or P80 in her first year of service, her over-complicated Sabre engine was rushed in production before the youth problems were solved and the aircraft was also prone to structural failure (the resonance of the elevator counterbalance was breaking the tail)
And the 190 itself had a nasty tendency to roast in her first service variant, while the 109F1 was breaking her tail too and had to be quickly fixed on field before the weakness could be cured in production. 

At least in the 262 all you had to do was 'just' replace the engines in good time...

btw, I recall a video where an US pilot (maybe Strobell?) said that the change of the Jumo004 was done in less than one hour. A bit expensive maybe, but given the availability of the spare engines it should not have impaired the service records.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 15, 2007)

Parmigiano said:


> Yes, the lag in response of the jet engines required a longer approach at landing and required more time to build up speed at take off.
> 
> It would not be a real problem in normal situation, for the 262 was a problem because of the catastrophic situation of Germany.


This would of been something that would of required training to get used to. If these aircraft came into service in a peace time situation, I think it could of been dealt with.


Parmigiano said:


> btw, I recall a video where an US pilot (maybe Strobell?) said that the change of the Jumo004 was done in less than one hour. A bit expensive maybe, but given the availability of the spare engines it should not have impaired the service records.


That was the intent but in reality it took much longer, this is mentioned in the book "Arrow to the Future." I think in reality it was initially taking 8 hours to do an engine change.


----------



## Lucky13 (Mar 15, 2007)

Would have probably helped if they had decided to make it a pure fighter and not listened to uncle Adolf who wanted it as a fighterbomber....right?


----------



## Civettone (Mar 17, 2007)

I don't think that still stands. Hitler's order did not slow down the deliveries of the Me 262. The real problem were the engines and those were not affected by the Me 262 being either a bomber or a jet.

The Me 262 (and thus the Jumo 004) did not get priority in 1943 and early 1944. More emphasis went to piston engined fighters like the Me 209. That's what really slowed down the project.
Kris


----------

