# Advanced designs



## Twitch (Feb 17, 2006)

Here's a thread where folks can post info/pics on advanced aircraft whether in production, prototype or drawing board form:





HE 343
Back in the bomber focus after the He 280’s loss to the Me 262, Heinkel came up with a quite conventional looking four-engine jet design in March 1944. The 343 was a quite realistic design stemming from a 1942-43 project P.1068. It was advanced as a jet bomber should be but was not over done. There were swept-wing variants planned but the basic plane was on par with the Arado 234, which saw service with the Luftwaffe. The He 343 was a larger Ar 234, if you will.

On the 343A-1 the quartet of HeS 11As of 2,866 lbs. thrust each were to give the plane a top speed of 565 MPH and a 1,000-mile range. 4,410 lbs. of bombs were to stow internally with an additional 2,206 under the straight, 59.0-foot wings. Guided munitions like Fritz Xs could be launched Length was 44.2 feet and all up the plane would weigh 43,108 lbs. A 48,500-foot ceiling was estimated while a pair of 20 mm MG 151s rested in the lower rear fuselage with 200 rounds each.

A nearly finished prototype was destroyed near the end of 1944. In early 1945 a prototype was in the final stages of pre-flight get-ready when a fire at the factory destroyed it and a fifty percent complete recon version. Segments for an attack variant with jigs, tooling and drawings were lost in the fire as well.

A 343A-2 designated the reconnaissance craft, which had extra fuel tanks in place of bombs. The He 343A-3 was the first Zerstörer (Destroyer) version. The standard armament was to be four forward firing MK 103 30 mm cannon with 400 RPG, which were mounted in the bomb bay. Alternately two forward firing MK 103 30 mm cannon with 100 RPG and two forward firing MG 151 20 mm cannon with 200 RPG. Cannons up to 50 mm could be used, though all the forward firing guns had to be located on the starboard side of the fuselage nose, due to the nose wheel which retracted to the rear and was on the port side. The He 343B-1 differed in that it mounted a remote controlled pair of MG 151s at the rear instead of fixed weapons.

Nothing about this straightforward bomber would have deterred it from rapid development and deployment.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 17, 2006)

It kind of reminds me of Martin's XB-48





usaf


----------



## Smokey (Feb 17, 2006)

Arado Ar E.555

http://www.yumodel.co.yu/takmicenje/ar-555.htm

http://www.luft46.com/arado/are555s.html












There were several variants


----------



## Henk (Feb 17, 2006)

Cool planes guys.

Henk


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 18, 2006)

Ive always liked the E.555, great looks. 8)


----------



## Twitch (Feb 18, 2006)

Flyboy- yeah huh? There's a few more dead wringers for WW 2 designs too.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 18, 2006)

Twitch said:


> Flyboy- yeah huh? There's a few more dead wringers for WW 2 designs too.



Yep!


----------



## Twitch (Feb 19, 2006)

Here was a good-looking prototype at the end of the war-





MITSUBISHI 
Beyond the excellent G8M1 “Rita” 4-engine bomber tested in the post-war US, the G7M1 Taizan Type 16 project was drawn up for a high speed bomber able to carry a lighter payload shorter distances. A crew of five rode in a comfortable 65.6-foot fuselage. Four Mitsubishi Ha.42 Model 31 18-cylinder radials of 2,400 HP each turned on the 82-foot wings. All up the compact bomber weighed 35,200 lbs.

Like the Rita this ship would be quite fast at 345 MPH but with a shorter range of 1,726 miles. 

Defensive armament proposed was that of two 20 mm cannon and six 13 mm machine guns. Bomb load variables could be a 1,760-lb. bomb or torpedo, two 1,100-lb. bombs or six 550-lb bombs.

This project was cancelled due to shortages and long lead time to completion.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 19, 2006)

is anyone else seeing a B-26 with 4 engines?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 19, 2006)

Yep -


----------



## Gnomey (Feb 19, 2006)

I am...


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Feb 20, 2006)

if they hadnt painted it in US paint, it wouldnt look like a B-25/26 with 4 engines


----------



## Gnomey (Feb 20, 2006)

No, it would look like a 4 engined B-26 in Japanese colours...


----------



## Twitch (Feb 21, 2006)

Here's a weird project that got dreamed up




PROJECT RAMMER/SIDESWIPER
So what ever happened to the builders of the airships, Zeppelin? They were still around by WW II building sub-assemblies for larger aircraft and other bits and pieces. With the colossal numbers of heavy bombers converging regularly on Germany, various methods to stop them were dreamed up. Kamikaze attacks had been generally ruled out by the high command, though proponents like aviatrix Hanna Reitsch argued her position till the end of the war.

Zeppelin suggested an alternative with a small solid fuel rocket powered craft capable of ramming one or two heavy bombers and surviving. It was feasible to build a plane so strongly that it could cut off another B-17’s tail after firing its salvo of fourteen R4M 55 mm rockets at a formation. A steel fuselage and wings with three tubular spars would do the job. The Rammer/Sideswiper idea was born.

It was 16.1 feet long and the design had a 16.4-foot non-swept wing constructed so solidly that it could perform mid-air slice of a bomber’s tail and survive. Again the concept was to tow the craft aloft and wait for the bomber stream to appear. The pilot, flying from his prone position, would then light his Schmidding 533 rocket of 2,205 lbs. thrust and close on the bombers at 600 MPH at the peak speed upon spending his solid fuel. Burn time of this rocket I unknown but typically would be about 45-60 seconds.

The nine-pound R4M rockets with their 1.1-pound warheads were the same as used on Me 262s, which carried twenty-four. Maximum range of the R4M was 4,900 feet but effective range was 1,800 feet. The Rammer’s tiny size would be hard to hit by gunners it was reasoned. 

But protection for the pilot beyond heavy armor was a windscreen with 80 mm glass plate and side panels with 40 mm glass. The nose and leading wing edges were to be fabricated of 20-30 mm cannon proof hardened steel. The plane would glide to land on its retractable skid anywhere it could for later retrieval.

The Air Ministry never had time to decide on which manufacturer’s design to choose. No prototypes or mock-ups are known to have been constructed. Even if they had it is very doubtful that it would have done much.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 22, 2006)

I prefer Ba-349. Mmmmm!


----------



## Gnomey (Feb 22, 2006)

It was a death trap... but yeah I prefer it too.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 23, 2006)

i think i'd prefer the Zepplin rammer.........

and CC if i'm not mistaken that picture was taken at the Wright Field's 1945 air fair and that's the Ju-290 behind it?


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 23, 2006)

No idea I just bashed Ba-349 in google and stole a random pic


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Feb 24, 2006)

Bugatti P100/110P http://www.bugattiaircraft.com/


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 24, 2006)

Yep, thats a great looking aircraft.


----------



## Gnomey (Feb 24, 2006)

cheddar cheese said:


> Yep, thats a great looking aircraft.


Yep!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 24, 2006)

i wouldn't call it good looking, she has beauty yes, but i wouldn't call her good looking........


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Feb 24, 2006)

not a French Bomber though


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 25, 2006)

i know i think that's where it's going wrong.......


----------



## Gnomey (Feb 25, 2006)

Not a large enough Greenhouse in the nose...


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Feb 25, 2006)

and its as streamlined as a torpedo... French bombers are streamlined like boxes


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 26, 2006)

but damn they look good.........


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Feb 26, 2006)

oh, instead of looking at pictures, get a cardboard box and admire it


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 26, 2006)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> i wouldn't call it good looking, she has beauty yes, but i wouldn't call her good looking........



WTF are you on about? If you think something has beauty then obviously you think its good looking...


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Feb 26, 2006)

not really, there are diff. kinds of beauty, not only in looks.

but damn that buggatti's hot


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 27, 2006)

yeah looma's right, something can have beauty but you don't have to think it's good looking, like a painting, you may apprechiate the artist's tallent and the skill that went into the painting, doesn't mean you have to like the painting.............


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Feb 27, 2006)

ya, like the Mona Lisa, da Vinci forgot her eyebrows


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 27, 2006)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> yeah looma's right, something can have beauty but you don't have to think it's good looking, like a painting, you may apprechiate the artist's tallent and the skill that went into the painting, doesn't mean you have to like the painting.............



Thats different, thats appreciation of effort...



> beau·ty
> n. pl. beau·ties
> "The quality that gives pleasure to the mind or senses and is associated with such properties as harmony of form or color, excellence of artistry, truthfulness, and originality. "


----------



## Twitch (Feb 27, 2006)

Well how about a brand new Stuka boys and girls!





JU187
The shortcomings of the Ju 87 are well known now and were acknowledged early in the war. While many companies put forth designs for a replacement none is bizarre as the Junkers concept.

The strange part was the movable vertical tail fin. It could be rotated180 degrees in flight to give the rear gunner a clear field of fire. The 58.25-foot wing was the familiar inverted gull but beyond the bend it featured an anhedral droop with dive brakes at the trailing edge. The main landing gear retracted into a slight bulge under the wing. 
Armament was upgrade from the original with the rear gunner having a 20 mm MG 151 plus 13 mm MG 131 machine gun in a turret at his disposal. Two 20 mm or 30 mm would have fired from the wings at the angle change. 1,332 lbs. of ordnance was to hang beneath the wings and 38.75-foot fuselage. Power was to come from a 1,750 HP Jumo 213A 12-cylinder.

A full-sized mock-up was even built but the program was canceled since the projected performance was not a significant improvement from the older Ju 87. And even famed Stuka pilot Hans Rudel was flying the FW 190, which was doing the job just as well. But not to give in, the Junkers engineers redesigned it as the Ju 287 with forward swept, from the wings and jet power in late 1943. But this was a totally different aircraft unlike the 187 in any way. Details of estimated performance are unknown.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 27, 2006)

My Dictionary for "beauty" said:


> A very fine Specimin or an advantage


 
something can have beauty without it appearing beautiful to you...........


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 27, 2006)

"Your garden is beautiful but it looks horrible."


It doesnt work.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 27, 2006)

no, but it does work if you say "i can see why others believe your garden has beauty, however it is not beauty that appeals to me", which isn't working with extremes which, incidentally is a trade mark of the dark lords of the Sith


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Feb 28, 2006)

Twitch said:


> Well how about a brand new Stuka boys and girls!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


got that from luft46 obviously


----------



## Twitch (Feb 28, 2006)

Yeah the image is from Luft 46 but Junkers had several designs they were kicking around for the "new and improved Stuka" and this was one that existed in mock up form so it was somewhat of a substantial direction they were heading.


----------



## Twitch (Mar 8, 2006)

So if the Ju 187 wasn't wasn't a contender for a new dive bomber let's look at the Henschel Hs 132




HS 132A C
The Stuka was a fine weapon against more primitive enemies with weaker defenses allowing pin point bomb delivery but as early as the Battle of Britain in 1940 its weakness were apparent. The Stuka was totally outclassed as an effective dive-bomber considering the aircraft opposing it. 

By 1943 the Air Ministry began looking for replacement with speed and endurance. Henschel engineers’ tried to make it a small a target possible so they positioned the pilot in the prone arrangement. Laying on his stomach the pilot could withstand G forces a sitting pilot could not.

The Hs 132 was designed to take 12Gs compared to 8 Gs of the normal piston-powered dive-bomber though it was constructed out of the minimum of strategic materials. The 29.2-foot fuselage was metal but the 23.6-foot wings and tail were wood. A single BMW 003A with 1,984 lbs. thrust sat above the fuselage like the He 162. It exhaust passed between a “V” shaped twin fin tail. A tricycle undercarriage was used for the 7,496 lb. loaded plane.

2,205 lbs. of bombs and/or armor-piercing air-to-ground rockets was its offensive ordnance while a pair of 30 mm Mk 108 with 60 RPG and pair of 20 mm MG 151s with 250 RPG defended it. Speed was to be 485 MPH clean at 19,686 feet and about 435 MPH with ordnance. It was estimated that a ceiling of 34,450 would be had and a range of 423 miles. A “C” was contemplated using the 2,866 lb. thrust HeS 011A-1 with performance not estimated.

The Hs 132V1 was getting ready for flight trials when the Russians rolled in to the area in April 1945. Prototypes V2 and V3 were about 75-80 percent complete.

The Russians probably completed the prototypes as they did with many other captured craft. The Hs 132 was a solid design that would have been a good shorter-range dive-bomber.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 8, 2006)

Getting ready for flight trials? I dont believe any Hs-132's were actually completed...


----------



## Henk (Mar 8, 2006)

Twitch mate the picture are actually an artist's impression by Gert Heumann, but if you knew it I just thought I will mention it.  The Hs-132 never were completed and the almost finished aircraft were captured by the Russians. 

I have these few pictures of the Hs-132 V1 prototype and you can clearly see it is not fully completed.






Above: The Hs-132 V1 with its engine already installed. 





Above: The nose of the aircraft.





Above: The cockpit with the two control sticks and at the front of the cockpit is the armored glass.

Here are some drawings of the aircraft.
















Specifications:

Origin: Henschel Flugzeugwerke AG
Type: Dive bomber
Models: V1, V2 and A, B, and C 
Engine: BMW 003A-1 turbojet
Thrust: 1,760lb (800kg) 

Dimensions:
Span: 7.20m (23 ft. 7.5 in.)
Length: 8.90m (29 ft. 2.5 in.)
Height: 3.00m (9 ft. 10 in.) 

Weights:
Empty: not known
Loaded: 7,496lb (3400kg) 

Performance:
Maximum speed with bomb: 435mph (700km/h)
Clean: 485mph (780km/h)
Range at 32,800 ft (10,000m): 696 miles (1120km) 

Armament:
A Model: None
B Model: Two 20mm MG 151 Cannon

The info and I got from www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org.

This is what I have.

The Hs 132 was begun in early 1944 with the concept of taking advantage of the fact that a prone pilot could better resist g forces. The advantages of a reduced frontal area was also not lost; it was thought allied anti-aircraft gunners would not be able to hit such a small fast target. The 132A series carried no guns. The 132B series, with the more powerful Jumo 004 engine was to be armed with two 20mm MG 151 cannon as well as the bomb. There were to be more variants but the factory was overrun before flight testing could begin.

Henk


----------



## delcyros (Mar 8, 2006)

Nice info. I may add that the engine for the V-prototypes were no BMW-003A1 (this engine model was phased out by late 1944 due to the high content of raw ressources like Molybdenum). A-2 would be more reasonable but the fixpoints for the BMW-003 A2 engine were on the top while te airframe has fixpoints on it´s back. This also exclude the BMW-003A2 for the Hs-129. The BMW-003 E2 or E3 fit in the airframe (alike the He-162). The engine has the same weight and size of the original A1 model but it is somehow improved, allowing a 30 sec. 115% overrew (923 kp instead of 800 Kp). It also was in serial mass production by early 1945.
The Jumo-004 model to be used by the Hs-129 was the 004 D4 model. This version had increased lifetime (still way inferior to the BMW engine), reduced fuel consumption, larger air intake and a nominal static thrust of 932 Kp (100%).
Lunatic also pointed out earlier that the plane would have it´s difculties as "DIVE"-bomber. try to slow down from 400 mp/h cruise speed at 90 degrees dive angle... The plane is way to fast to perform as a dive bomber. As a ground attack (shallow dive) plane it could be awesome on the other hand!


----------



## Henk (Mar 8, 2006)

Nice info mate, I read somewhere that they fixed a Jumo 004 engine to the prototype. 

Henk


----------



## Twitch (Mar 9, 2006)

Yeah I used the touched up photo for clarity sake. The prototypes were actually 75-80% complete when the Russkie grabbed them. Like most nearly-finished German planes they got it is quite possible they finished the Hs 132 as they did SO many others. Neat little design though.


----------



## Henk (Mar 9, 2006)

Yep, they were desperate to get such aircraft to "build" their own aircraft.

I like the design, but it is just stupid that it only carried one big bomb.

I have this pic of it in action at D-day or actually of how it could have been if it were at D-day.






Henk


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Mar 10, 2006)

the bomb was supposedly aimed by a computerized site.... it delayed development


----------



## delcyros (Mar 10, 2006)

Very correct. When it became avaiable in early 1945, this sophisticated aiming device could display correct solutions for aiming up to 1.400 Km/h, but it took time in development. I recall correctly that the Hs-132 did not was intended to be a dive bomber either. Documents published in Luftfaht Archive support this. The low level, shallow dive attack was the intended purpose of the plane. It shouls be noted that the original tactical envelope of the plane included ship attack, so a single heavy AP-bomb was needed for heavy cruisers, carriers and (older) battleships.


----------



## Henk (Mar 10, 2006)

This is pretty great info, I have also seen a that the Germans build the first TV set to be able to guide their guided bombs from the aircraft.

Prety amazing what they did to be able to get their target.

Henk


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Mar 10, 2006)

there were many missiles ready for action at the end of the war, so even more mass destruction in the Cold war


----------



## Henk (Mar 10, 2006)

Yep.

Henk


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Mar 10, 2006)

for all crazy German projekts, go to luft46.com


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Mar 10, 2006)

for all crazy German projekts, go to http://www.luft46.com


----------



## Henk (Mar 10, 2006)

I have been there, there are pretty strange designs.

Henk


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Mar 10, 2006)

they just look at their sh*t and ask themselves how to fit 4 MK108s and an He S 011 into it


----------



## Henk (Mar 10, 2006)

lol lol lol. I have got bad info their and thus stoped going their. Some of their projects never even were on the drawing board.

Henk


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 11, 2006)

that's what i don't like about that site and stuff like it, some of the planes on there were no more than a scribble in the corner of a designer's page, now everysingle one of them could've been a revolution, winning the war for germany, being superior to absolutely anything the allies could fly and all of this at over 600mph with 500lbs of thrust with a 1,000+ mile range and four 20mm in the nose, plus the two radar aimed guns in the rear, the plane wouldn't wanna get shot down before dropping its 5,000kg internal payload


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Mar 11, 2006)

depends on how aerodynamic are the thing they see in the toilet


----------



## delcyros (Mar 11, 2006)

Lancaster put forward a serious point. 
We cannot easily extrapolate the filght performances of these sketch designs.
It should also be noted that the page covers all designs, some of them were never intended for serial production, some of them would probably win a contract and therefor kick other designs for their specification:
Take the single jet engined air superior fighter for example:
The page covers designs like
Me-P1101 (one prototype build, but only as testbed for variable wing sweep, Messerschmidt rejected this construction early in the competition)
P1105, PP1106, P1110, P1111 and P1112 (all but the latest rejected)
Fw-Flitzer, Ta-183
Ju-248
Heinkel He-162 improved P 1073, P 1078
Hs P 135
BV P209, BV P 212
The contract was actually won by Junkers! Now You need to kick out all of these impressive paper projects (including the all loved Ta183, Gentlemen!) and you get a plane from which we virtually don´t know anything substantial....


----------



## delcyros (Mar 11, 2006)

-deleted-


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Mar 11, 2006)

ach double post


----------



## Twitch (Mar 12, 2006)

One thing we need to recognize is that the aero engineers in the employ of the major German aircraft companies were for the most part experienced members of teams that had already produced successful combat designs that proved themselves in actuality. 

That said, it doesn't mean there weren't some fanciful designs that made their way to paper. This was not unique to Germany. Every country's designers had all sorts of "radical" layouts on paper and in prototype stage at times. Every see what the original Lockheed concept for their jet was? Pure 2nd generation Luftwaffe jet! 

We need to realize that in those days when a concept was put on paper projected performance was approximated by using all the normal factors in play- drag, thrust, weight and so on. It was all slide rule. No computers. Sure estimates coulda, woulda been off but that is what development and testing are for. Designs morphed at times as initial flight data was recorded. Modifying a design is/was no sign of weakness.

Often when an Air Ministry requirement came down specifying, say 4- Mk 108s, that doesn't mean preliminary designs put on paper would have always accomodated them. Perhaps an initial layout would have only had space for 2. Perhaps the RLM would have compromised. Most certainly there was little doodling on the company's time. For the most part if we see a layout with the slimmest amount of estimated performance data that concept was something that was a direct result of an RLM spcification workup or the company's directive to conceive a viable craft.

All country's governments and military institutions laid down conceptual specifications for aircraft and other weapons they conceived. We must remember those details are arrived at by comittee. A lot of "wishes" are ultimately encompassed in them. While they say "we want a bomber that can travel 300 MPH with a range of 6,000 miles. Yeah depending on the time in history relative to the known technological data base it was easier said than done. So XYZ Aircraft company laid their best design and it was accepted yet the prototype did 280MPH and only hit 4,900 miles range. Was it a failure? Were the original performance estimates bogus? No. The estimates were made with the best information available at the time. When adjacent tech actually exceeded expectations a resultant aircraft would exceed the expected performance. That might be due to something as simple as a breakthrough in engine tech.

While we sit 65+ years hence and carp at the validity of what was then state of the art engineering it is easy to lose perspective. We must remember these guys had already been part of teams that produced planes like the Bf 109, FW 190, Ju 88, Me 262 and so on. Simply because someone with a smattering of aero engineering today discounts a WW 2 design as frivilous we need to assign weight ot that comment. How many successful modern combat aircraft has this person worked on? Yeah, none. 

The advanced German aero designs varied in their feasibilities relative to their estimated performance. Simply because a certain design was not tangibly possible in 1945 doesn't mean it wasn't validated as production technology, metalurgy and powerplants caught up years later. The Russian aircraft industry in post war times was built on the backs of Germans from designers to production workers that were spirited away to the USSR for a decade or more forced to produce what the Russkies demanded. 

Humongous amounts of prototypes, blueprints, production tooling, whole factories and people were taken to Russia. While the Soviet aero industry had their own stars we need to realize that the wealth of caputured German information and hardware made the rounds of all the design bureaus in the USSR. They got the Lion's share compared to the other Allies. We acknowledge that the F-84 and F-86 designs were modified at the urging of "our" Germans to employ swept wings for now obvious reasons. Yet many of us refuse to imagine stand out designs like the MiG 15 were not influenced in some degree by "their" Germans.

We must remember an artist concept is no more than a wishful fantasy. It's artwork. A designer concept is the result of envisioning a layout envelope based on input from a source like the Reichs Air Ministry and creating an initial workable idea.

Every plane ever came from a conceptual drawing based on desired requirements for performance. Drawings with projected performance based on the basics of power, weight, drag and such become blueprints that evolve through to until metal is cut. Even then modifications took place until the best plane could be produced given all factors involved.

Germany had no monopoly on radical designs considering the bizarre stuff to come out of other countries over the years either.


----------



## Henk (Mar 12, 2006)

Nicely said Twitch. I agree.

Henk


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Mar 12, 2006)

yup


----------



## delcyros (Mar 13, 2006)

Good reading, Twitch.

I need to underline that the "Lions Share" as You said, did not always helped to bring out mass produced designs for the soviet air industry. We still have to keep in mind that the captured german personal was forced labour and suffered from shortcomings typical for forced labour, especial when employed to design and construction. The blueprints, however, can be analyzed by soviet designers but this also takes time (in the US it wasn´t until the mid 60´s that comprehensive studies of captured german tech docs were closed).
The MiG-15 for example, never was based directly on the Ta-183 (different wing, fuselage, engine, armement, gear, controlls) as we may read in some Schiffer books or Myrrha ones. The La-15, however, was (exactly the same wing, same gear construction, same controlls, different fuselage to contain the british jet engine). But the MiG got the main contract, not the La-15. The Mig-9 and the Yak-15 got contracts despite a somehow lower performance, not the Su-7 Fishpot (because the later was based too much on the Me-262?). Not the german build Jumo-012 got the contract for mass production in Russia but the Nene and Dervent V. Exception are given for the PTL variant of the Jumo-012 which drove the early Bears and Il14.
But still there cannot be a doubt that the soviet air industry benefitted from the knowledge taken over from the germans.


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Mar 13, 2006)

The Yak-15 was a Yak with an engine, the trycicle landing gear one was the Yak-17, both were very rudimentary and had low performance, max speed was below 500mph and they were made from wood (i think) jut like the Yaks were


----------



## Twitch (Mar 13, 2006)

Sorry I got into a stream of consciousness thing there but just some rambling thought on the subject.

I mentioned the Lockheed ship and here it is-








L133
Before the famous P-80 Shooting Star came this radical design from Clarence “Kelly” Johnson and Hall J Hibbard at Lockheed in 1939. By 1940 Lockheed was working on a axial-flow turbojet of there own design, the L-1000, which was intended to power the project fighter designated Model L-133-02-01. It was a single-seat, canard design powered by two L-1000 engines. Think of the Curtiss XP-55 canard design on steroids.

At that time the Air Force showed no interest in the project and lost the opportunity to, perhaps, have the world’s first jet in service. So without Air Force support in the form of money, the L-1000 and L-133 research ended. Two years later in 1942 after hearing about German and British advances in jets the Air Force wanted in and called on the Lockheed jet guys. This culminated in the development and deployment of the P-80.

There are no known estimates of power, dimensions or performance for the L-133 other than a proposed four .50 caliber armament.


----------



## JonJGoldberg (Mar 13, 2006)

Twitch, interesting plane this L-113. Honestly, I see a P-80 with a flipped fuselage rudder. I have never seen it. Very cool.

Your observations and summations preceding the L-113 post, are for the 'lion's share' spectacular.


----------



## Henk (Mar 13, 2006)

Nice info and great research Twitch.

Henk


----------



## KraziKanuK (Mar 14, 2006)

The L-1000 was to have produced 5500lb of thrust @ SL. In 1943 it was given the designation XJ-37. In Oct 1945, Lockheed gave the design to Menasco which in turn gave it to Wright. The project was terminated in 1952.


----------



## delcyros (Mar 14, 2006)

The L-1000 would NEVER work properly. The whole jet engine project was repeatedly handed over from one company to another because all failed to produce the thrust necessary to operate a jet, not to speak of the 5000 lbs intended design thrust! It was terminated because it had too much design flaws and wrong expectations.


----------



## JonJGoldberg (Mar 15, 2006)

Figured I'd share some that caught my 'fancy'... As be sure that I avoid confusion, the P-40 should not be considered as included . Some are scary how 'modern' they are after "some 65 years".


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 15, 2006)

delcyros said:


> The L-1000 would NEVER work properly. The whole jet engine project was repeatedly handed over from one company to another because all failed to produce the thrust necessary to operate a jet, not to speak of the 5000 lbs intended design thrust! It was terminated because it had too much design flaws and wrong expectations.



The wing was used on the P-80. Just look at the model...


----------



## Twitch (Mar 15, 2006)

Jon- yeah some curious stuff. Those XP-54 pics are great! Here's some more on it
VULTEE
XP-54
Vultee Aircraft’s streamlined entrant for the 1940 proposal resulting in the XP-55 and XP-56 was the XP-54. An un-supercharged Allison was the preliminary power but the P W X-1800 was then planned but its discontinuation called for the use of a Lycoming XH-2470-1h 2,300 HP. 

The XP-54 flew in January 1943 but the cancellation of Lycoming’s engine then had engineers figuring to use the 3,000 HP Allison V3420-11/13 24-cylinder engine used in the XP-58. This would have been a straightforward swap but it was never undertaken and the sole example was delivered to the A.A. F. in May 1944 and the program was terminated. 

Though a good jet engine looks as though it would work nicely in this twin-boom pusher, the 2,300 HP Lycoming turned a four-blade prop for only 381 MPH at 28,500 feet and 290 MPH at sea level. Initial climb was 2,300 FPM with a ceiling of 37,000 feet. Weight and/or insufficient power were the keys to performance lag. Weighing 18,233 lbs. normally and 19, 337 lbs. maximum, the plane was big with the wing spanning 53.9 feet while it was 54.75 feet long. Armament installed was two 37 mm T-12/T-13 cannon with 60 RPG and two .50 calibers with 500 RPG.

Would any of these planes been viable if they’d reached production and ultimately combat? Some perhaps, but that’s difficult to estimate. Like most combatants in WW II, the U.S. manufactured tried and true fighters of known quality. To pursue another six new aircraft would have diluted resources from the booming production lines.


I have a bit more on the Heinkel too-

P.1079
This all-metal plane was in the night fighter Zerstörer (Destroyer) category designed by Siegfried Günther of Heinkel. Ernst Heinkel loved the project, which called for a pair of HeS 11 turbojets to propel it at up to 621 MPH and have a 1,771-mile range during a proposed three-hour mission. Ceiling was to be 32,810 feet. Four 2,205 lb. solid rockets were to assist a rapid takeoff and undisclosed fast climb to intercept.

The engine arrangement placed them faired into each side of the slim 44.0-foot fuselage. The 35-degree swept wings spanned 39.4 feet. This plane would have had heavy armament the four Mk 108s each with 300 rounds firing from the nose and a further pair of MG 151 20 mms with 200 RPG firing rearward. Aiming for the rear guns was via a radar binocular operated by a second crewman who plotted intercept coordinates to the forward target as well. The craft sat on a tricycle landing gear.

The shape is obviously copied and validated by the post-war Supermarine 508 jet right down to the butterfly “V” tail, though the 508 sports straight, stubby wings it proves the validity of Günther’s design. A tailless version was also drawn up.

I'll have to look for the pic of the V tail.


----------



## Matt308 (Mar 15, 2006)

Here's one of my favorites. You can see this design in many modern aircraft from business to experimental.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 15, 2006)

Try the Italian Ambrosini S.S.3 and S.S.4....some 5 years before the Shinden...


----------



## Henk (Mar 15, 2006)

Nice, realy nice guys. I wonder where luft26 get there info from.

Henk


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Mar 15, 2006)

there was no luftwaffe in 1926 right?


----------



## Gnomey (Mar 16, 2006)

Not officially.

I think he means Luft46 anyway.


----------



## Henk (Mar 16, 2006)

Oh, so sorry, a typing mistake. I were in such a hurry.

I meant I wonder where the website luft46 get their info from.

Henk


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Mar 16, 2006)

i wish i knew

ok anyways you do have many typos


----------



## Twitch (Mar 17, 2006)

Matt- superb artwork image! That one got downloaded for my screensaver for sure. I was always taken by the Shinden too. Cool looking, fast and heavily armed.

Here's a bit of specs on the plane-
KYUSHU
J7W1
A radical departure in fighter design was seen in the J.N.A.F. Kyushu J7W1 Shinden (Magnificent Lightning) developed in 1943 and flown in August 1945. The canard configuration mounted the elevators in the nose with a vertical stabilizer and rudder mid-way in each wing. The cockpit was forward of the leading edge of the wing and the rear-mounted 2,130 HP Mitsubishi Ha.43-42 18-cylinder radial pushed the plane using a six-blade prop.

Performance was spectacular with a top speed of 466 MPH at 28,540 ft. Climb to 26,250 feet was accomplished in 10.5 minutes. Range was 528 miles. The wingspan was 36.5feet and length was 30.25 feet while loaded weight was 10,913 lbs. Punch came from four Type 5 30 mm cannon with 60 RPG. Plans for 1,086 fighters through March 1947 were drawn up but only two built. A proposal for a jet version using the Ne-130 with 2,002 lb. thrust was considered also.

The Luft '46 data comes from all the books and research done since the end of WW 2. It's in many forms but they have gathered it in one place at least. I have much of the same info but from many sources. The artwork people do is without rival also as many of the planes have never been illustrated before.


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Mar 17, 2006)

wasn't the Shindens engine the one meant for the A7M reppu? the Ha-43 a.k.a MK9 Mamoru (protection)


----------



## Henk (Mar 17, 2006)

loomaluftwaffe said:


> i wish i knew
> 
> ok anyways you do have many typos



   , well mate spelling were not always my best part in live. I am typing fast when I am up because it is normally 2-3 am in the morning after a night out and you feel like hell and you want to finnish quickly to get to bed sometimes.

I love posting, but dam my mom should get off her shit earlier then I could do my stuff.  

Just bear with my mistakes, just know why. I will try not to make so many of them. Promise.

Henk


----------



## Twitch (Mar 18, 2006)

My info states the Shinden used the 2,130 HP Mitsubishi Ha.43-42 18-cylinder and the Reppu the 2,200 HP Mitsubishi MK9A 18-cylinder radial. B-29 raids on Mitsubishi reduced output of all engines severely.


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Mar 18, 2006)

Ha-43 was the army designation of the MK9
like Ha-45 was the NK9 Homare cause the Ha-45 was ued on the Ki-84 and the Homare was used on the N1K-j and it is stated that they both used the same engines


----------



## Twitch (Mar 19, 2006)

OK here's one that's not too far out-





MITSUBISHI
J4M1
The J4M1 Senden or Flashing Lightning was the Japanese version of the P-38 Lightning, sort of. The Imperial Navy needed something with performance on par with its adversaries in late 1943. We know of the fine fighters like the N1K1 Shinden and J2M2 Raiden that were to soon begin service. 

Mitsubishi conceived a craft that would have the advantage of centerline weapons that allow easier point-and-shoot capabilities to infinity without the wing-mount harmonizing and aiming problems. Vision is paramount in fights and this design was even better than the P-38 in that respect owing to the pusher engine in the fuselage nacelle. Egression from a stricken plane and getting past the four-blade prop would have been tricky at best, however.

The Mitsubishi MK9D 18-cylinder radial of 1,650 HP was chosen for power, though the MK9A of 2,200 HP was used on the A7M1 Reppu. This would have certainly been better but air attacks on the Daiko engine plant reduced MK9s deliveries to trickle.

A 30 mm Ho 105 with 60-80 rounds and two 20 mm Ho-5s with 200 RPG would have mounted in the nose for substantial firepower. The weight was to be 9,700 lbs. loaded with a wingspan of 41 feet and length of 42.6 feet on a tricycle landing gear.

Performance estimates are incomplete but interesting, showing a top speed of 437 MPH at 26,246 feet and a 39,379-foot ceiling with an undisclosed climb rate and range. The design was known to the Allies and code named “Luke” but it never progressed past the design stage since the Navy wanted full effort on the J7W1 Shinden.


----------



## Henk (Mar 19, 2006)

Nice aircraft. It looks great and its performance is not bad at all. The P-38 would have had a counterpart. I wonder how itwould be in a dogfight with a P-51.

Great info Twitch keep em coming.

Henk


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Mar 19, 2006)

damn, had those MK9 engines came out... the A7M would have saw some action, and the J7W and that thing twitch posted


----------



## JonJGoldberg (Mar 20, 2006)

Twitch... This is what I have on this fighter of yours...

Mitsubishi J4M1 Senden (Flashing Lightning)
Allied Code Name: "Luke"
Description: Single-engined high-performance interceptor fighter of twin boom, pusher propeller configuration.
Accommodation: Unknown.
Powerplant: One Mitsubishi [Ha-43] 12 (MK9D) eighteen-cylinder air-cooled radial, rated at 2,130 hp for take-off, 2,020 hp at 1,180 m and 1,160 hp at 8,700 m, driving a four-blade pusher propeller.
Armament: One 30 mm and two 20 mm cannon.
Production: Not proceeded further than the design stage.
Performance: 380 kt at 8,000 m

Although the info we have is similar... the images we have of the aircraft are not. I'm not saying your image is 'not correct' just different, as this aircraft was never 'real'...


----------



## JonJGoldberg (Mar 20, 2006)

... So wile I'm at it...

McDonnell XP-67
Type: single-seat long-range fighter
Crew: 1
Armament: 6x 37mm cannon or 1x 75mm cannon
Length: 44' 9.25" (13.65 m)
Height: 15' 9" (4.80 m)
Wingspan: 55' 0" (16.76 m)
Wing area: 414 sq. ft (38.46 sq. m)
Empty Weight: 17,745 lb (8049 kg)
Max Weight: 25,400 lb (11,5321 kg) max at takeoff
No. of Engines: 2
Powerplant: Continental XIV-1430-17/19 contra-rotating inlines
Horsepower: 1350 hp each
Range: 2385 miles (3838 km)
Max Speed: 405 mph ( 652 km/h) at 25,000 ft
Ceiling: 37,400 ft (11,400 m)

In June of 1940, the new McDonnell company submitted an unsolicited proposal to the USAAC for an unconventional fighter powered by either an Allison V-3420-B2 or a Pratt Whitney H-3130 engine equipped with a two-stage supercharger. Besides being buried in the fuselage aft of the pilot the engine was to drive a pair of pusher propellers situated aft of the wings by means of a of extension shafts gear drives. Although rejected, the Army told the McDonnell company to keek trying...

The next McDonnell proposal to the Army came later that same month. McDonnell's design team attempted to maintain true aerofoil sections throughout the entire airframe, the center fuselage and the rear portions of the engine nacelles merging smoothly together. This gave the aircraft a unique bat-like appearance. On May 5, 1941 a formal proposal was submitted to the Army. The project was given the company designation of Model S-23-A. As proposed it now was a single-seat long-range fighter with a pressurized cabin. Additionally an unusually heavy armament of six 0.50-inch machine guns and four 20-mm cannon was included.

With the exception of armament, cabin pressurization equipment, and the oxygen system, the first XP-67 was ready by December 1, 1943. Also replaced were the planned drooping ailerons with conventional ailerons; the engines were XI-1430-17/19s, with D-23 turbosuperchargers. The Continental engines were rated at 1350 hp for takeoff and 1600 hp at 25,000 feet.

The initial flight tests were delayed by fires that broke out during a high-speed taxiing run at Lambert Field in St Louis on December 8, 1943. The first flight of the XP-67 took place January 6, 1944 with test pilot E. E. Elliott at the controls. The flight was abruptly terminated after only six minutes owing to engine problems.

Test flying resumed on March 23, 1944; the performance of the XP-67 fell quite short of that which was promised. The takeoff run was excessively long, the initial climb rate was poor, and the acceleration was slow. The aircraft was underpowered; its troublesome Continental engines failed to develop their design rating of 1350 hp, barely reaching 1060 hp.

The XP-67 was scheduled to begin official performance tests in September, but a fire broke out in the right engine nacelle while test pilot E. E. Elliott was taking the XP-67 for a test flight, the XP-67 was deemed to have been damaged beyond economical repair. 

This accident, plus the seemingly endless series of problems caused by the temperamental Continental engines, caused the USAAF to recommend that work on the XP-67 project be halted. On September 13, both McDonnell and the USAAF agreed that the project should be terminated...

But she was a looker... And she had potential, she just needed some engines...

Info from my head: As absorbed from History Channel "The Military Channel" on the "Strange Planes"
Illustrated History Of Fighters; Editor Bill Gunston; Exeter Books 1983:
http://avia.russian.ee/air/usa/mcdonnell_xp-67.html


----------



## delcyros (Mar 20, 2006)

Forget Continental, this plane REALLY needs a jet powerplant!
8)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 20, 2006)

this's always been one of the few american planes i like the look of, it does look great...........


----------



## Twitch (Mar 20, 2006)

Jon I may have mentioned the XP-67 earlier?? but you came up with many great images. Cool! Thanks! One thing for sure is than anything with proposed 37mm armament would have been crap if they were using the same weapon as the P-39 used which was prone to only a few rounds before jamming.

Of course the XP-67 would have been pretty useless against aircraft. Could have done something against armor though. But what a pretty design!


----------



## Henk (Mar 20, 2006)

Amen Twitch that design is great and it looks excellent. Great info guys and great pics Jon.

I must agree that it does need jet engines, just think about how great that would be.

Henk


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Mar 20, 2006)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> this's always been one of the few american planes i like the look of, it does look great...........


i agree completely, looks so sexy


----------



## JonJGoldberg (Mar 21, 2006)

...Please excuse me Twitch... Especially because this aircraft is not from WW2. 
I saw another photo today... 
Guys you gotta check out this site from time to time...

( http://aafo.com )

Anyway I was 'browsing' today and I saw the pics from the 2005 Oshkosh air show. I saw this aircraft, or aircraft-s thing, like from a sixties acid trip Beatles movie, or maybe it is what Penelope Pitstop would fly... You know I never paid much attention to this emotional 'throwback'... I post below images of the modern 'genius' in the art of "advanced design", Burt Rutan. The images are of 'The White Knight' carrying 'Space Ship One'.

Simply 'FANTASTIC'...

Images Data From:
( http://aafo.com/airshows/2005/oshkosh_airventure/ )
( http://www.scaled.com/projects/tierone/info.htm )


----------



## V-1710 (Mar 21, 2006)

Had it entered service, this might have been the best looking aircraft of WWII:
http://aeroweb.brooklyn.cuny.edu/database/aircraft/getimage.htm?id=8436
Since it didn't, I would vote for the C-69 Constellation.


----------



## Twitch (Mar 21, 2006)

Yeah the Rainbow is a good one. Who's got some more specs an that baby?

That whole Rutan space combo thing looks so much like futuristic Luftwaffe designs it's wild!


----------



## JonJGoldberg (Mar 21, 2006)

V-1710 thanks much… 

It has been more than a decade since I last saw a photo of it. I had forgotten about it until I saw the photo. This aircraft simply blows away the ‘Connie’ in the looks department, in fact it is my absolute favorite 4-piston engine aircraft period, heck it almost was a fighter... Wow!!! Thanks again.

I was introduced to this aircraft during a visit to Mitchel Field, Long Island, New York during the late seventies.

I searched the net for more photos and links to data as I needed to be reacquainted… Thought I’d share what was found…

The Republic XF-12 'Rainbow' (XR-12 after Sept. 1947)

Type: Long-range photo-recon. Aircraft
Crew: 7
Length: 93' 10" (28.62m)
Height: (8.75m)
Wingspan: 129' 2" (39.38m)
Wing area: (152.4 sq m)
Empty Weight: 66,980 lbs (30,382 kg)
Max Weight: 113,250 lbs (51,370 kg)
Engines: 4; Pratt-Whitney R-4360-31 28-cyl Wasp Major
Horsepower: 3250 hp each
Range: 4100 miles
Cruise Speed: 400 mph
Max Speed: 460 mph
Ceiling: 41,000 ft

This aircraft design was started in 1943 as a convoy fighter, to protect the bombers going on long-range missions. The Air Force later changed that requirement to that of a long-range photoreconnaissance aircraft, obviously fighter types of the day were proving more than ‘adequate’. Alexander Kartveli and Republic switched to meet this requirement, as did Hughes with the XF-11.

So low-drag was a primary consideration of Kartveli throughout the design of the XF-12. Many of its features were taken directly from Republic’s his considerable experience with fighter plane design. In an extremely rare case of design direction, absolutely no compromise with aerodynamics was made in the shape of its fuselage, the long pointed nose of the design virtually prohibited flow separation, on take-off and landing, the two halves of the streamlined upper windscreen rotated down into the nose to provide an unobstructed view for the pilots through a second flat windscreen. The engine nacelles, with their torpedo like shape were about the size of a P-47’s fuselage. Rather than having individual cowl flaps, the entire nacelle was equipped with a sliding ring arrangement and internal variable-speed fan for cooling air on the cylinder heads. A system to route exhaust and supercharger and accessory waste gases to an oval "jet pipe" exhaust gained 250-300hp per engine; it added 20 mph to the XF-12s top speed at altitude (Republic press release).

When the XF-12 was modified with increased "all weather" equipment and outfitted with a new power plant capable of providing short bursts of extreme power, it suddenly assumed tremendous importance in the eyes of both the U.S. Air Force and the State Department. As a potent intelligence weapon, the XF-12 had the ability to obtain photographs both in daylight and under conditions of restricted visibility and at high altitudes over long ranges and with great speed; they intended operation from northern bases (Alaska and Canada); utilizing the XF-12 as a "flying photo laboratory", capable of mapping broad stretches of territory in the Arctic regions, performing reconnaissance with near-invulnerability (…Like the DH Mosquito, or SR-71).

The USAAF ordered two XF-12 prototypes in March 1944; the first acting as a proof of concept airframe was rolled out in December 1945. It made its first flight on 7 February 1946. A production order for 6 F-12's was placed in 1947. 

The second prototype was fully equipped. In the pressurized cabin it carried, next to the three cameras, all necessary equipment for film-developing, printing and interpreting. The first flight was also made from Farmingdale, Long Island, 12 August 1947.

The Rainbow was re-designated XR-12 in September 1947.

"Operation Bird's-eye" was conceived to demonstrate the newly-designated XR-12’s ultimate photo capabilities. On Sept. 1, 1948, the second XR-12 lifted off from Air Force Flight Test Center at Muroc, Calif. (now Edwards AFB), and climbed westward to gain altitude over the Pacific Ocean. Upon reaching its 40,000 foot cruising altitude, the XR-12 headed eastward and began photographing its entire route of flight over the entire United States. The crew shot a continuous 325 foot long strip of film composed of 390 individual photos covering a 490-mile-wide field of vision. The aircraft landed at Mitchel field at Garden City, Long Island, N.Y., completing a flight lasting six hours and 55 minutes. The record shattering flight was featured in the Nov. 29, 1948, issue of Life magazine and the actual filmstrip went on exhibit at the 1948 Air Force Association Convention in New York City.

At the time this record was made, the Air Force had already canceled the entire XF-12 program. The primary reason for its demise was the availability of both B-29 and B-50 types to meet the long-range photo-reconnaissance requirement until the far more capable RB-47 was brought into service.

Disaster struck on 7 November 1948 when number two engine of the second prototype exploded over Eglin AFB and the crew was forced to bail-out, the aircraft crashed in the Gulf of Mexico. Subsequently flying of the first prototype was suspended, the project was shelved.


Had the Rainbow been available in 1944, it almost inevitably would have been ordered in quantity, and the whole postwar structure of the commercial aircraft market might have been altered by the RC-2 (The passenger aircraft derivative, orders for which were given, but canceled by Republic, as without the military contract, Republic decided it was not economically feasible to construct.) with Republic building follow-on airliners. As it was, the Rainbow the first prototype ended its life sadly as a US Army artillery target at the Aberdeen Proving ground, despite its graceful lines and high performance.

Info sourced from: 
( http://1000aircraftphotos.com/HistoryBriefs/RepublicXR12.htm )
( http://www.daveswarbirds.com/usplanes/aircraft/XF-12.htm )
( http://www.aerofiles.com/_repub.html )
Images sourced from:
( http://www.air-and-space.com )

Twitch… With regard to the Space Ship One… Ya think!!!! I too am floored.

This is my last ‘contribution’ to WW2aircraft.net. 
My last post will be found here upon completion… 
( http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/about962-0-asc-600.html ). 
Sorry, I will no longer post or reply in any of these forums; go there to see why...


----------



## Henk (Mar 22, 2006)

Cheers mate and thanks for the great info. Great pics and a another sad ending to a great aircraft.

Henk


----------



## Twitch (Mar 23, 2006)

Thanks- I have plenty of pics but was light on specifications for the XF-12.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 23, 2006)

it's looks aren't exactily amazing.......


----------



## Twitch (Mar 24, 2006)

It's a sleek mutha though!


----------



## Twitch (Mar 28, 2006)

This woulda been a mean ground pounder





MANSYU
KI-98
Whether the Saab 21 of nearly identical layout was copied or not in 1943, the Ki-98 was very similar. It was born as a ground attack aircraft though several other planes already filled that role, which was not a big priority in Japan in any case. Of course Japan later expected an Allied landing on its shores so that is why ground attack craft were reconsidered.

Much slower planes like the Ki-45 and Ki-102 in ground attack were effective but suffered at the hands of Allied fighters mostly driving them to night usage to survive much like the twin-engine Bf 110 in Germany. Ground attack can’t be carried out at night so a higher speed day fighter was called for.

The Ki-98 was to have a span of 37 feet and a length of 37.3 feet with a loaded weight of 9,921 lbs. Performance was to come from a turbo-supercharged 2,200 HP Mitsubishi Ha. 211ru, 18-cylinder radial turning a four-blade pusher propeller. It looked not unlike the aforementioned J4M1. At least it was proposing a powerful enough engine. The twin-boom met the wing at slightly different angles and the nose of the Ki-98 was more pointed.

In that nose were to reside a pair of 20 mm Ho-5s and one 37 mm Ho-203 cannon. That nose would slice through the air at 454 MPH up at 32,810 feet with speed unknown on the deck. Ceiling was to be 39,370 feet and the plane would have a range of 621 miles. Underwing ordnance loading was not discussed though it certainly would have lent itself to any mixture of weapons. 

Unorthodox airframes were never in favor with the Imperial Army or Navy procurement boards. A late war super plane, the Tachikawa Ki-94 I, was of this configuration and rejection resulted in a complete redesign to the conventionally shaped Ki-94 II. The Ki-98 did just get to the commencement of construction of a prototype though at the end of the war.

The Ki 98 was a solid design and would have offered superior prop-engine performance.


----------



## Twitch (Mar 29, 2006)

And there was our own Lippish-style tail-less design in the XP-56





NORTHROP
XP-56
Northrop had a lesser-known tailless design in its XP-56. Conceived in 1939 it did not fly until spring of 1943 and owing to many difficulties was never fully taken though its paces. All performance figures are Northrop estimates. Span was 42.5 feet. Length was 27.5 feet and the fighter weighed 11,350 lbs. loaded. Cooling was never satisfactory for the rear-mounted 2,000 HP P W R-2800-29 18-cylinder radial. Performance figures were 456 MPH at 25,000 feet and an initial climb rate of 3,125 FPM with ceiling being 33,000 feet. Range estimate with maximum fuel was 660 miles. Proposed armament was two 20 mm with 100 RPG and four .50 cal. with 400 RPG all in the nose.

Tailless designs were too radical to be looked at seriously in the US though they had been proven acceptable in Germany where they were seen in design abundance. Had it been developed there is every indication that it could have made a good defense fighter but nothing much more owing to its limited range.


----------



## hellmaker (Mar 29, 2006)

It's been a while since I have last posted here, so please excuse my absence. I have just finished reading some of the posts from this topic especially the most important(the first few), and I must admit that there were some really nice planes back then, but also some pretty odd looking ones too. Too bad they didn't all see active service, but also thank God they didn't see service because they might have prolonged the war far a few more years, which is not a pretty thought, wouldn't you agree?


----------



## Henk (Mar 29, 2006)

Oh yes, that was a great little plane and just to bad they did not go more into the design. 

I wonder what happend to the aircraft after they desided that they were not going to go on with the design?

Henk


----------



## Twitch (Mar 30, 2006)

Yeah Hellmaker, while I have no doubt that the Allies would have ultimately won the war, any proliferation at an earlier time of advanced aerial weapons would have prolonged it can cost lives on all sides.


----------



## carpenoctem1689 (Mar 30, 2006)

I have always liked the way the He-162 looked. That little fighter, if it could have been made out of light weight metals, or with proper glues, and the fuel extended some, it could have been a truly great fighter. The He-280 was cool too. Its a shame that it wasnt improved and put into production, i mean, early on, late 1943 anyway, they could of had some operational. I also liked the Kikka, the japanese version of the Me-262, or something similar in layout anyway, but smaller, and without guns, meant for ground attack, however it needed some more output from its engines, because late war prop driven allied fighters could catch it. I like the folding wings though, so they could be stored in caves, or just closer together. The most powerful design i ever have seen is the Me.P1101/99....five 55mm auto-cannons and a 75mm cannon. If all the guns were fired at once though, i cant imagine the damn thing not tearing to pieces or stopping in midair.


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Mar 31, 2006)

, dude the He-162 was made of wood cos Germany didn't have alot of raw material and the wood was cheaper, and prolly easier to build

though had it been made of metal


----------



## Twitch (Mar 31, 2006)

The P1101/99 had 4 of the cannon mounted to fire on an angle upwards-Schräge Musik style (slanted music) in anti-bomber configuration so you'd never fire all weapons at once. But an ambitious design it was.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 31, 2006)

Some Me-163's were tested with that system, using a photo electric cell to trigger the weapons, the idea being that as the bombers flew overhead the weapons would fire...one B-17 was shot down with this system on a Komet...


----------



## Twitch (Apr 3, 2006)

I believe the Schräge Musik arrangement was pilot-activated like mormal guns and was mounted on an angle with below an behind as the optimum position to fire. The Me 163 system was actually mortar tubes that fired straight up and had countercharges to lessen the recoil of the ordnance.


----------



## Gemhorse (Apr 4, 2006)

Speaking of 75mm cannon, this design was surprising from this manufacturer and merits a brief mention....2 examples of this twin-engined attack aircraft were ordered from Beech in 1943....Potentially a powerful attack aircraft, the Beech Model 28 [XA-38 in US Army service] was produced only in prototype form with a nose-mounted 75mm cannon. Production armament would have added 2 remotely controlled barbettes. It had a crew of 3, power was provided by two Wright R-3350-43 Cyclone radials producing 2,300 hp each, weighed 35,264 lbs [max take-off], span 67 ft 4in, length 51ft 9in. Performance was 376 mph max level speed. Was finally delivered for evaluation in 1945....Perhaps with jets coming in vogue it was too late but would've been useful abit earlier.....


----------



## Twitch (Apr 5, 2006)

See, it shows the Yanks can be just as outrageous as the Germans!


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Apr 5, 2006)

looks kinda conventional compared to the others if u ask me


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 5, 2006)

Twitch said:


> See, it shows the Yanks can be just as outrageous as the Germans!



Although not as outrageous as the Italians, 102mm, hell yeah...


----------



## Henk (Apr 5, 2006)

The Italians had the best one, it looks nice and you can not see it if you have a quick look.

Henk


----------



## carpenoctem1689 (Apr 5, 2006)

Something tells me though that the muzzle blast of that 102mm cannon would crumple the nose of that aircraft, and if it didnt use powerful german engines, like the -801 radials, or other strong radials it would be slow as hell, and the recoil might damn near stop the thing dead in mid air. knowing that italian industry was poor, it ws probably hand loaded to top it all off, like early 75mm b-25s


----------



## Henk (Apr 5, 2006)

Well Iwonder if they ever fired it and tried it out. 

Henk


----------



## Twitch (Apr 6, 2006)

How about this:





DEUTCHES FORSCHUNGSINSTITUT FUR SEGELFLUG- DARMSTADT
A little-known chapter in high altitude reconnaissance aircraft began with the 1940 concept from Deutches Forschungsinstitut fur Segelflug (German sailplane company) of the DFS 228.

The 34.7-foot long, 57.6-foot wing spanned craft was intended to be towed like the sailplane it was to 33,000 feet where the 3,630 lb. thrust Walter rocket motor was lit. Using the boost, it would climb to between 75-83,000 feet and use the motor on and off to maintain altitude for about forty-five minutes. It would then commence a long glide during which infrared recon photos were to be taken. By the time 39,400 feet was reached, it would have traveled 465 miles. A further 185 miles would be covered back to the ground. Of course the use of thermals would increase these ranges. A speed of 565 MPH at sea level was envisioned.

The pilot compartment was temperature controlled with an electrical unit and pressurized. The whole compartment could be jettisoned if need be. At a pre-determined altitude the pilot seat would disconnect and the parachute would open.

The DFS 228 would have been flying shortly though its impact on the war would have been miniscule.

Though gliding trials were accomplished in 1944, no powered flight had been undertaken at the time of Germany’s collapse. Ten were under construction at that time. 

Since the only remaining DFS 228 was shipped the U.S. after the war you can draw your own conclusions on the later U-2.


----------



## Henk (Apr 6, 2006)

That wis a great one and it is only a shame that it does not exsist any more. It is for me a death trap, but still a great thing.

Henk


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Apr 6, 2006)

Henk said:


> Well Iwonder if they ever fired it and tried it out.
> 
> Henk


they did, i heard it blew the nose off


----------



## carpenoctem1689 (Apr 6, 2006)

Just as i figured it would. Ive heard about the BK 7.5 75mm cannon in the ju-88s crumpling noses and propellers, and the recoil problems on the B-25 along with the structural damage firing of the cannon caused. Its no wonder that a 102mm cannon would completely destroy the aircraft, and with italian aircraft production, it wouldnt be made of the best grade of metals or woods.


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Apr 7, 2006)

If so then why didn't two High velocity 37mm cannons Firing at the same time blow a Stuka or an IL-2, or a Hurricane with 40mms?


----------



## Twitch (Apr 16, 2006)

Since there's been some interest in the He 162 have a look at the Focke Wulf version of the same concept




Straight swept wing versions

FW VOLKSFLUGZEUG
The submitted design for the Volkfluzeug or “people’s airplane” was this one. Instead of the above-the-fuselage engine mount, this featured a cleaner shape with the BMW 003 enclosed in the lower aft 28.75-foot fuselage mounting a high, swept tail and house the requisite pair of 30 mms in the lower nose. Two wings were possible and swept and straight were shown both measuring 26.5 feet across.

At 6,723 lbs. loaded the jet was to be capable of 509 MPH at 20,000 feet with an endurance of 42 minutes at 32,800 feet. With the He 162 winning the competition almost before it began this plane is just another footnote in history.


----------



## Henk (Apr 16, 2006)

I did not know Fw had such designs.

Wich one works the best, the He-162 or the Fw design/

Henk


----------



## KraziKanuK (Apr 17, 2006)

Most here know of this but for those that don't, site http://www.luft46.com/


----------



## Henk (Apr 17, 2006)

I know about them, but I do not trust everything those guys says. 

Henk


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 17, 2006)

nor do i, most of you know my thoughts about planes like that, few of them were any more than doodles on a designer's scrap of paper, yeat through the wonders of sites like this these scraps of paper are all, single handedly, prolinging the war for several years, by cruising around with their 4x 30mm (200+rpg, naturally) at 600 mph with their Jumbo 003s, with enough reliability and internal fuel to keep them on station for upwards of 5 hours at a time, that's even with that 10,000kg internal payload, not that it needs all that, not much's gonna reach them at 60,000ft, but if it does no doubt each of these wonder weapons would be able to turn inside it, no matter what it was, not bad for a scrap of paper


----------



## Henk (Apr 17, 2006)

Yes, but some of them does look real for me.

Henk


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 17, 2006)

yeah i know some of them are, and don't get me wrong i know their designers were smart and knew what they were doing, i just can't help but be a bit suspect of some of their figures, especially when i see the words "projected performance" ..........


----------



## Henk (Apr 17, 2006)

Yes, I know what you mean. I always use to get info from them, but when I got my Jane's I double checked them and found that some things had wrong names and were totally off with their stuff. I also love these stuff, but they do have their problems, but why don't they double check their stuff? 

Henk


----------



## delcyros (Apr 17, 2006)

You may dress it in words: DON´T TRUST SCHIFFER BOOKS.
The performance of those paper projects are questionable but not in general. Recent views stress more the date of the calculations. If You note carefully when these estimations were made You may be able to lower reliability in some cases. Much has to do with the mathmatical background and related difficulties to extrapolate the performance correctly in transsonic speeds. It wasn´t until late february 1945 (!) that a math. sloution was finally found. So those MeP 1101 and related designs, closed well before turn 1944/45 are somehow questionable, others aren´t. Another concern never factored properly is stability of these designs.


----------



## Twitch (Apr 18, 2006)

Any "doodles" were far more than idle time killing in time of war while working for the top suppliers of aircraft to the Luftwaffe. Anything we might see from the era was done as an extension of a legitimate RLM- Reichsluftfahrtministerium (Air Ministry) directive. And these designs were done by men that had previous experience designing aircraft that proved successful in actual combat. So don't be so quick to discount something that may seem fanciful. Most of the design features of the late war designs have been utilized in real postwar aircraft.

As for engineers' slide rule calculations of projected performance it is unclear why all the world's previous aircraft's performance was generally predicted well but advanced German designs are not? If the Soviet BOROVKOV-FLOROV project with a projected 520 MPH speed had actually reached 495 MPH what would we say? Would any aircraft's projected speed of 621 MPH be inflated maliciously if it actually hit 587 MPH?

Since the Air Force requim for the B-26 was a speed of 350 MPH was it bogus since it never surpassed 283 MPH in service? How about the B-29 that came from a 307 MPH requirement but actually maxed out at 357 MPH?

All aircraft are developed in stages through flight testing when issues are proved or disproved and modifications made, be it in stability or ease of maintence. Never has there been a plane that evolved from mind's eye concept to technical drawing to prototype without changes.

God Lancaster what have you been smoking? Nowhere has those completely unrelated comglamoration of empty statistics ever been touted to be a singluar aircraft. 

The above-mentioned FW Volkfluzeug is quite modest in that it was on par with a plane that did exist, the He 162 so I fail to understand the rhetoric.

Frankly it's of no matter whether anyone believes anything about advanced designs from Germany, the US or Russia. This thread is simply a place to show those designs without prejudice as to political dogma.


----------



## Henk (Apr 18, 2006)

Do not worry Twitch I was just talking about Luft 46 and what they say were really designed and what not. Yes, the designer never actually knew how the aircraft would react after it has been tested, some can go over their expectations and others does not perform as expected.

Well guys lets stop fighting over shit and lets go on posting some cool designs.  

Henk


----------



## delcyros (Apr 18, 2006)

You still factored the maths not properly, Twitch.
A serious problem for all Luft-46 designs was that each company used it´s own mathematical systems to describe the somehow not fully understood rapid increase in drag for transsonic speeds (depending on wingsweep, area-rule, altitude and other factors). Prof. A.W. Quick and Dr. P. Höhler from the DVL institute were orderedto find a mathematical solution (december 1944). They already had developed the right idea in the past months but needed more wind tunnel tests (transsonic and supersonic ones) to verify and fix minor problems. Until mid february they finally solved the matter. Remember, the drag doesn´t increase lineary or exponentiary bur far over-exponentiary if the plane reaches it´s individual Mach limit! So far a comparison of speed differences with a soviet plane doing Mach 0.75 is not valid for these designs hitting Mach 0.9...
I will give a sample: The Messerschmidt P 1101 (from 30th of august 1944) using Messerschmidts company maths was estimated to reach 1080 Km/h (Mach 0.95) in 7.000 m (671 mp/h @ 23.000 ft) and sustain the speed at this altitude for 51 min. with 1.827 lbs of fuel (take off weight: 8.940 lbs; thrust: 1* 2.826 lbs).
These datas are tooo high for many reasons but the most striking is the use of unproper maths.
Eventually the Me-P1101 V1 design was revised on 22th of february 1945 and the use of new maths following Höhler and Quick gave the following performance figures for virtually the same plane (thrust, airframe and weight identic) :
600 mp/h @ 23.000 ft (Mach 0.85), sustainable for 30 min. at these altitudes with 1.827 lbs of fuel.
You notice the difference? 71 mp/h, same design with proper maths used. 
Not all designs are affected in such a drastic way, I must admit.
The Focke Wulf company and Henschel in particular used a system which was little in distance to Höhlers conclusive works


----------



## Twitch (Apr 18, 2006)

Yeah Henk I ain't gonna fight with anyone. To each their own!

Delcyros- yeah see my data for the P.1101 projects nothing like 671 MPH. Messerschmitt figured 550 MPH by my info. !!??


----------



## delcyros (Apr 18, 2006)

There are several datasheets for P1101. If You check the dates of them (27.7.44; 30.8.44(I); 30.8.44(II); 14.12.44 and 22.2.45) in Your books, You may well find different figures, making the matter more foxy. I used to compare design charts from 30.8.44 (II) and the one proposed on 22.2.45. There may be even more design charts once existed.
They are used for W. Schicks I. Meyers Geheimprojekte der Luftwaffe. Jagdflugzeuge 1939-1945 (Stuttgart 1994), page 196ff. (compare there)
I used both charts because nothing changed on the plane except for the maths.
550 mp/h is a figure too low for the P1101 (except maybe at sea level?). The more advanced airframe (40 degrees wingsweep, crit Mach 0.96) and the more powerful thrust output (1.300 Kp instead of 923Kp) would secure a significant better performance compared to the 562 mp/h He-162.


----------



## Twitch (Apr 18, 2006)

Let's not forget the variation of engine thrusts at work here. The Jumo 004-B of 1,980-lbs. thrust was the initial one to be used but the proposed final power was to be the Heinkel 109- 011 or HeS 11. Not the 2,460-lb thrust engine but the eventual 3,520 lb- thrust turbine that was being worked up to production viability. The P.1101 was among many 2nd generation jets that would have used the HeS 11 in the near future. The power was at hand.

And the reality of things are that the P.1101 was sent to the US and many of its actual components were used in the X-5! It used a 4,900-lb thrust engine and incorporated a variable sweep wing. The P.1101 was not variable in flight. The X-5 maxed out at 650 MPH 60° swept and 605 MPH 20° unswept at 9,892 lbs.

Any speed in the ranges of 650 MPH projected for the P.1101 was at the very onset of the project before modifications and strengthening added weight. See these are the things that reality dictates after best projected estimates are done. Modifications are always needed. But estimating speed with thrust and weight factors that change requires re-assessment of performance. Would a lighter P.1101 with 3,520 lbs thrust have done 650 MPH? Certainly a heavier P.1101 with less thrust wasn't able to. 

Here's what I have gleaned on the P.1101 with the bottom line of the design being sound and far from a doodle on paper.

P.1101
Messerschmitt had its P.1101 80% complete when American troops over ran the Oberammergau assembly complex in late April 1945. A Jumo 004B was installed but specs called for the forthcoming He S 011 of greater thrust which was expected to propel the fighter to speeds of 650-670 MPH between 20-23,000 feet with a range of some 930 miles. Weights were estimated at 6,600-7,200 lbs. Armament considered was two or three Mk 108 30 mm cannon and four of the new X-4 air-to-air wire-guided missiles. Of note were the swept wings that could be adjusted on the ground for variable sweep settings of 35 or 45 degrees. Their span was only 23.5 feet.

The P.1101 design lacked only an engine powerful enough to propel it when its layout was drawn up in 1942. It sat on the drawing board until the HeS evolved. It was problem-ridden in its early stages, as are most prototypes. Modifications continued until the end though and the plane would have been easy to maintain with good access to the one turbojet. Originally a 650-670 MPH speed was anticipated but estimates of about 550-612 MPH were calculated after all the modifications and strengthening changes were made. The five Mk 108 30 mm cannon in the nose caused a space problem adjacent to the intake and spent shell chutes were problematic. Finally weighing 8,966 lbs., the P.1101 would have climbed at 4,370 FPM and had a maximum range of 932 miles and a 45,933-foot ceiling. 

The Bell X-5 high-speed research craft was designed directly from the captured P.1101’s layout. Certainly the X-5 proved the design in its flights.

The P.1101 is another plane that could have soon been in production and would have been a concern for the Allies.


----------



## davparlr (Apr 18, 2006)

Twitch said:


> Let's not forget the variation of engine thrusts at work here. The Jumo 004-B of 1,980-lbs. thrust was the initial one to be used but the proposed final power was to be the Heinkel 109- 011 or HeS 11. Not the 2,460-lb thrust engine but the eventual 3,520 lb- thrust turbine that was being worked up to production viability. The P.1101 was among many 2nd generation jets that would have used the HeS 11 in the near future. The power was at hand.
> 
> And the reality of things are that the P.1101 was sent to the US and many of its actual components were used in the X-5! It used a 4,900-lb thrust engine and incorporated a variable sweep wing. The P.1101 was not variable in flight. The X-5 maxed out at 650 MPH 60° swept and 605 MPH 20° unswept at 9,892 lbs.
> 
> ...



The P.1101 concept was a sound concept and eventually made it into several successful aircraft. However, Bell had proposed to the AF to convert the X-5 to a fighter. To make the X-5 a fighter, the aircraft would have to be completely redesigned. This effort was deemed unnecessary due to advances in conventional aircraft design. I am sure the P.1102 would have faced the same level of redesign and would have been delayed significantly therefore would have not appeared very quickly.


----------



## Twitch (Apr 19, 2006)

Here's a design that did not reach fruition during the war but was carried on by the Russian in post-war times.





FW J. P.011-45
If we look at the P.5 layout concept we note the engine mounting at the extreme lower, forward fuselage. The J. P.011-45 employed this configuration. It was to be a 3-man night fighter with the HeS 011 engines with 2,866 lbs. thrust each side-by-side at the bottom of the 44.3-foot fuselage. Swept at 30-degrees the 46.25-foot wings attached at mid-fuselage. Speed was projected as 587 MPH. Two MK 108 30 mm cannon fired from the fuselage nose and two MK 108 30 mm cannon fired upwards from the rear fuselage Schräge Musik style. Four MK 108 30mm cannon all firing forward in the nose was an alternate arrangement.

It must be noted that in post-war Russia early MiG and Yak jets were all designed in this manner. This captured blueprint with minor changes became the MiG I-320 flying in 1949! It had two side-by-side seats but with a more powerful engine thrust of 5,952 lbs. each it reached 677 MPH.


----------



## delcyros (Apr 19, 2006)

I do not question that the soviets used german designs for testbeds on their own. But according to all I know, no Me-P1101 ever was to be equipped with Jumo-004 engines. All pictures of the V-1 prototype captured at plant Oberammergau strikingly point to a single He-S011 AV-prototype engine. One of the few captured intact! (compare attached pictures showing Jumo004, HeS011 and MeP1101 V1).
You made a point regarding a light plane may reach higher speeds. This is valid but not for the sample I gave: Both design datasheets are for P1101 with He-S011 B engine (1300 Kp nominal thrust). Both datasheets give a very comparable take off weight: 4050 Kg (8.918 lbs) for 30.8.44 (II) and 4062 Kg (8.944 lbs) for 22.2.45. And since nothing else is changed in these studys, except for the mathematical system used, we should pay attention to 71 mp/h difference in calculations. Just my opinion.


----------



## Twitch (Apr 21, 2006)

I dunno- that picture has always been labeled as a 004-B engine in every place I've seen it too. !!??


----------



## delcyros (Apr 22, 2006)

I have read this too. However, it isn´t a Jumo, obviously. According to the HM-records one HeS011 atrap and a AV-prototype engine were delivered to Messerschmidt and since we do have photographic evidence we do know better.
The differences between HeS011 and Jumo-004 are substantial, different weight, different size, different airflow and performances. I doubt that it would be an easy task to exchange the engines for the Me P1101 V1 prototype without further redesign (centre of weight shifts a lot).
It should also be taken into consideration that the authors mistakenly mixed up Ta-183 with Me P1101. The first Ta-183 prototypes should be powered by Jumo-004D. But despite the claim that the Ta-183 was sheduled for maiden flight in may or june 1945 I so far, haven´t seen any proof that even construction of the first prototype did began by wars end. The Ta-183 probably never left design stage.


----------



## Twitch (Apr 22, 2006)

The P.1101 was designed for the Heinkel Hirth powerplant not the Junkers that is positive. I have to look at a large sclae pic of the plane and try to identify that turbine. Thing is, similarities and differences aside many prototypes slated for one engine actually got an interim engine of a different manufacture.

The Ta 183 did not progress beyond the drafting tble and mock up and wind tunnel model stage by May-June-45. The P.1101 WAS going to be ready to fly by then though.


----------



## delcyros (Apr 22, 2006)

I checked the Me P 1101 pics once more. It seems that the pictures of the prototype taken at Oberammergau/Germany following wars end show another engine than the pictures taken from this plane in the US. Both show a He S 011 engine (notice the diagonal compressor with the "step" in shape) but the pictures of the plane at Bell show an individual engine with longer jet needle.(this longer jet needle was typical for HeS011 AV6 and later models of the turbine according to photographic evidence) Other pictures show the airframe to be equipped with an US engine.
I do not know how many HeS011 engines were captured by the US at wars end (I do firmly believe that some of the HeS011 have been assembled AFTER wars end under US controll) and if they were modified or not.


----------



## delcyros (Apr 23, 2006)

By the way... since this nearly is a Luft_46 discussion, what plane do You prefer? Me P1101 or Ta 183? Please explain.
Keep notice that neither plane would become a serial fighter. The competition was won by the Ju-EF128.


----------



## Twitch (Apr 24, 2006)

I agree upon close inspection that the engine is a Heinkel, which is actually what it supposed to be.

The P.1101 was 80% getting near flight. It was originally conceived in 1942 as a Messerschmitt project to explore wing sweep increments not as a competitor in the February 1945 emergency fighter program announced by the RLM.

Blohn Voss had the P.215, Heinkel had the P.1078, Junkers the P.128 and FW the P.183. The P.1101 preceeded all the rest in concept and to actual tangibility as a real aircraft.

The P.128 did not "win" the RLM award. No one did. The RLM had however, provided limited funds to Messerschmitt since the P.1101 was in a tangible form rather than buleprint stage as the others were. After the P.1101's projected performance was considered less than desired the RLM gave some financial support to Han Mullthopp's P.183 design.

Beyond the P.1101 becoming the Bell X-5, another Messerschmitt design, the P.1111, became the Northrop X-4.

I feel the Multhopp fighter was ultimitely the best design. The performance estimates were conservative and the layout proved viable in copies and refined versions that actually flew.


----------



## delcyros (Apr 27, 2006)

Correct, no one won the contract. However Junkers EF-128 was officially choosen for further development (something we cannot say for the Ta-183) in april 1945. My personal estimation is that the Ta-183 in the variant shown as Version II would be a deathtrap (no slots or wingboundary layers, instable tail design, worse buffeting in the frontal region, high aspect ratio without anhedral or dihedral, high wingsweep ergo very worse low speed handling and comparably challanging stall behaviour). The P1101 is more advanced in some aspects but not the best. The proposal of Henschel (P135?) would be my personal favourite.


----------



## cls12vg30 (Apr 27, 2006)

Anybody remember the Microsoft game Crimson Skies? It was pretty big a few years ago, there were PC and Xbox versions. That game featured a bunch of strange piston-driven aircraft designs, some obviously based on planes you might see at Luft46.


----------



## Twitch (Apr 27, 2006)

Well the RLM put up Reichsmarks to FW for further development. Never heard they gave Heinkel squat. You know the situation for Heinkel anyway, he was totally out of favor by Milch and high RLM bigshots. He only got the He 162 contract because he had a mock up.

Multhopp has always maintained that he would have made modifications to the P.183 design along the way as development would have played out if the project had reached fruition. He may have lowered the horizontal stabilizer a bit in a final form but why do people believe the T tail so unstable when there are lots of planes since that have flown with them?

So here's something from the Russians- 




M.I.GUDKOV 
This early design carried over to post-war Soviet layouts in Yak, MiGs, and LaGGs featuring the turbojet slung below the pilot making a fat front fuselage section and slim taper to the tail. Gudov was a principle in the design of the LaGG-3. The 1943 prototype design implementing the forthcoming 1,540 lb. thrust Lyulka jet engine, the RTD-1/VDR-2, was the USSR's first serious attempt at a jet powered fighter with no influence from the later-captured German data. In fact save for the jet engine placement, the rest of the plane borrowed heavily from the LaGG-3.

Since the jet engine was not expected for two more year’s work was halted on the Gu-VRD’s ambitious design, which was never concluded. 

The non-swept wings were to span 31.1 feet and the rotund fuselage would have been 29.5 feet long. Stated weight of 4,950 lbs. was empty with about 6,500 lbs. loaded. A maximum speed of 559 MPH was estimated but seems optimistic as the post-war La-150 that bore out this design did only 500 MPH. Range was calculated at 435 miles. A 20 mm cannon and a 12.7 mm machine gun was the conceived armament.

Had it seen production with the puny jet engine it could have probably hit 500 MPH but would have been eclipsed by German jets in combat.


----------



## HealzDevo (Apr 2, 2007)

Cool photos in this thread.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Dec 9, 2007)

The P.1101 was fitted with an allison engine?! I dindn't know this, from what I read the craft was too damaged to be completed so Bell built the X-5 over from scratch and added some improvements. Which allison engine did it use the J33 or J35?

And Luft-46 also says that tests were to be done using 004 engines until 011's were available.

I think it would have been better to stick with twin-engined designs earlier on and concentrete on class I (and maby class II) engine development. Have Heinkel continue development of the excelent Hes-30 (109-006) which had been making rapid progress in late '41 early 1942 and may have even been ready for production before the 004B had been ready. (certainly before the 003) The 004H would have been a good class-2 design, though I'm not sure how far along it was.

Ohain and Heinkel should have worked on a single-engined project, either using a scaled-up HeS-8 or a further scaled-up HeS-6 (either would bee about double the size and weight) Such developments would be far more practical than the HeS-011. A fusalage mounted design like the Vampire, P-80, He 178, and Gloster G.40 is much better for centrifugal engines. Perhaps a scaled-up HeS-30 would also have been a good route. Production and continued improvement of the HeS-6 may have been a good intrim design to be used on a modified He 280.(similar to the Meteor's mis-wing mounting to give adequate ground clearance, but still low enough to keep exaust away from the fin-rudder assembly) Or maby Ohain should have switched to an axial tuebine like whittle used since it would be small enough to use turbine alloys economicaly and could be made hollow for air cooling,(which would allow higher RPM, operating temperatures, and efficiency) as well as allowing an easier strait-through arrangement like in the Halford H-1 Goblin design. (though for an uncooled design a radial turbine is best as seen in the higher thrust and RPM capable compared to Whittle's early designs prior to the availabillity of Nimonic 80)

On the Gu-VRD design, the fusalge and nose was very streamlined and had a thrust/weight of more than .28. What you wrote on the engine is not true. The original design would have been ready (2-stage centrifugal with 700kp) but work stooped to develop a more advance axial design. See: Gu-VRD Perhaps a design like the Su-9 could have used 2 of these engines (and later re-engine with the axial design) making a resonably sized fighter. See: EnginesUSSR 

I perfer the alternative Fw 183 to either design: http://www.luft46.com/fw/ta183-ii.html

Though I think the Messersmitt craft is more practical due to its more advantced development progress. The design also used a wing derived from the Me 262's so this would facilitate development too. (basicly the portion of the wing outboard of the engines mounted at a swept angle iirc, adjustible sweep in the prototype ofcourse) I wonder if there was any though of adaptig the craft to use the 004H engine...

What is the weight of the HeS-011 engine? Ive read that it was heavier than the 004B at around 1900 lbs, is this true?


----------



## johnbr (Dec 9, 2007)

The HeS-011a weight was 2097lb's but they where working on it to got it to 1997lb's there was also a 011b 3300lb's thrust and 3700lb's one. Ohain said that they had to sacrifice 1000lb's of thrust because of the metal that was used in it.


----------



## Civettone (Dec 9, 2007)

I disagree that the Germans should have gone for two engined designs. They should have gone for uncomplicated jets like they did at the end of the war. With the HeS 030 your proposed they could have had a decent jet interceptor in the air in numbers by 1943. And there's one aircraft which would have been suited for the task more than others, this one: the Lippisch P.20. It was based on the Messerschmitt Me 163 but would have replaced the short endurance rocket engine with a turbojet engine. 






Kris


----------



## kool kitty89 (Dec 9, 2007)

Well they could have done both.. sort-of as the first two fighter designs developed (280 and 262) were designed for class one engines. But I'll agree that He-162 type planes would have been much easier to field fast. But if the He-280 had taken a more conservative approach with the engines (at least intrim) it could have flown with 1,300 lbf HeS-6 engines in modified mountings (to maintain clearance) before the end of 1941.

Though I certainly agree light-weight singgle class-1 engined craft would have had the most effect for Germany. The HeS-30 (HeS 006) would have been even easier to convert the Me-163 to as it could have fitted into the existing fusalage. Pluss the HeS-30 would probably produced even more thrust than the 004B (at least 2000 lbf static) and was smaller and lighter than the BMW 003. Though the compressor was somewhat more complex than the 004's and 003's (not mechanically, but aerodynamically, as the rotors did about half the compession, instead of the stator's doing almost all, so the design could produce the compression in 5-stages, what a normal one could in 10). Thus the engine produced somewhat more thrust than the 004 but with little more than half the weight, length and frontal area. HeS-30 (like the Jumo 004) used simpler flame-cans, opposed to the 003's more-advanced (and problematic) annular one, so it would have had less combustion problems in development than the 003. IIRC the 003 also had to be tuned to syncronise the compressor to avoid vibration.

The HeS-30 also would have needed far less material to build, so high-temp alloys could be used more extensivly per engine than could be done with the other engines. (realitively small turbine and hot-section) Development struggled at first and improved little when Hirth was aquired as Muller (unlike Ohain) was unhappy to accept help from outside the design team. IIRC work was finally going smoothly somtime after Muller left Heinkel and was progressing so rapidly that the engine was nearing production quality and was about to overtake the development of the 004 and 003 when it was cancelled in '42, as it was thought that the 004 and 003 were ready to enter production. But the 004 was only ready in the A (pre-production) configuration and the 003 was having many difficulties and was scarcely producing more than 1100 lbf. These engines subsequently went into long delays, over 1 year befor the 004B was ready for production, and about another year after that for the 003. IIRC fuel efficience of the HeS-30 (006) was similar to that of later 003 models (and probably the uprated HeS-8) and better than the early A models with 1.4 [lb/lbf hr]

Deccyros, Do you have any better figures on SFC of these engines. I particularly havent seen any specific figures on the 004B, or HeS-30. The HeS-3b was supposed to have ~1.6 lb/lbf/hr, so the HeS 6 should be 30-40% less than this.

Can you immagine a He 162 with a fully developed HeS-006 powering it? At around 500 lbs lighter than with the 003 and with 2000+ lbf at SL (~2400 lbf at 500 mph) and with a far smaller target to hit the engine it would have been great. How about a Me-263, ~3000 lbs lighter, with longer range to boot! The He 162 may have even been able to carry MK-103's as these sidn't have the nose-damaging muzzel blast of the MK 108 and had far better performance, though the mountings may have needed strengthening. Recoil would have been high but as an interceptor firing verry short bursts it should have worked. Maby MK-103's with MK-108 cartrages, still higher velocity and accuracy than the 108 due to the longer barrel, but with much lower recoil and a higher ammo load. (You can't put a longer barrel on the 108 due tue pressure issues) The reduced muzzel flash is good too, though less important due to the under-nose mounting. Or maby Blast/Flash supressors could be fitted to the 108s so nose strenthening would be unnecessary.

A jet powered Me-163 (especially with 006 engine) would have been good too and already had the capabillity for Mk-108s. Plus it made a tiny target. Add some R4M's under the wings and you've got a killer! Again I wonder about Mk-103s being used as they had suppicient range to keep the pilot safe, though both the Mk 108 and R4Ms had similar trajectories, so the same sight could be used.


The R4M was simple and devistating. If it had been developed in '41 or '42 (which thecnology wise, it ceartainly could have) the US's day-time bombing missions would have likely ceased. Probably one of the best "wonder weapons" of the war. Simple, cheap, easy to manufacture and use operationally. To be honest though, if the British hadn't had the US to back them up later on they would have eventualy colapsed. Germany probably would have won... (not saying the US won the war, just that were were the biggest desiding factor, especially economically, Britain, a close second in industry, though less so due to their volnerabillity)

Had Germany severed ties with Japan at this stage, we may have stayed in the Pacific only too. Though if japan had struck with our carriers when they were at Pearl, we'd have been in much worse shape there too...

The whole Nazi rising and general situation of post WWI Europe could have been largely prevented if the 14-point plan had been used. (Which, in fact, was what Germany had thought were the terma when they suppendered and were a much more fair arrangemet) As the Central Powers (particularly Germany) really didn't deserve what happend after WWI, and they weren't really at fault. (just the whole stupid situation with secret treaties leading up to it) Besides, Germany could have destroyed Brittain's fleet with submarine warfare if they hadn't restricted them at the USA's request. (caused by Britain illegally transporting weapons supplies on a civilian ship, though the US hadn't known this...) This could have happened far earlier than Britain's advances in tank tech. But I Digress...


The only Jet fighter that could have been ready early enough to make a real difference though would have been the He 280. (Possibly the 262 with HeS 006 engines) If it were to take a more conservative engine approach and use HeS-6 as a stop-gap for better engines, they could be mud-wing mounted in modified wings with about 1/3 of the engine above the wing allowing clearsnce for both the ground and for the exaust under the tail. If well-streamlined nacelles were used and 1300 lbf engines were fitted (assuming thrust hadn't been improved further) the plane should have had a thrust/weight of over .28 if weight was limited to 9250 lbs and a top-speed of ~480+ mph. (so ~2900 lbs 
load) And an endurance of ~1 hr (at 2000 lbf net thrust assuming 1.4 lb/lb/hr sfc, though it may have been even less) so, assuming a 400 mph cruise, range should be around 400 miles (up to 600 with more fuel efficient engines, even more with HeS-8s and more further with HeS-30's due to higher performance, increased load capacities and reduced drag) It should have been possible to fit 2 Mk 108s with decent ammo capacity (100+ rounds each) Maybe even Mk-103s with more powerful engines. Or maby a mixed armament of 2x MG 151/20s and a single 108 or 103. Larger numbers of MG 151/20s (perhaps 5) should also have been possible if 2 more were mounted further back and higher up in the nose. 
These should have been ready for production by early 1942 and would have been devestating aganst daylight bombers. And, despite somewhat inferior high-speed performance then the Me 262 (as the 280 wasn't meant for much more than 500 mph at altitude and .79 mach limit), it had excelent low to medium speed handeling (below 500 mph, best fit for 350-450 mph maneuvers, though lowere speeds should be good too). Such maneuverabillity would allow easier evasion (or engagement) of escort fighters and would be harder for bomber's gunner's to hit.

Atmittedly after early 1943, the Me-262 should be a better choice (assuming the 280 hasn't been improved) and HeS 006 should be available. Though with the 280 already in service and production, it may have been easier (training wise, and production wise) to fit the 280 with HeS 006 engines.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Dec 9, 2007)

I still think that once Ohain had finished work on his early designs (up to HeS 6) where uncooled radial turbines were a better choice, he should have switched to an air-cooled hollow bladed turbine design. This would also facilitate the use of turbine alloys, while the large, radial turbine would be impractical to do so. Using flame cans instead of an annular cambustor should have solved the defusser and combustion problems too. This way he could use an engine of roughly the same size as the HeS 8 (though slightly wider around the compressor due to piping, but smaller elsewhere; possibly .9m/36 in wide) with straight through air-flow but with much more power, as the cooled (and possibly alloy) turbine would allow higher stress levels. (possibly 15,00-16,000 rpm) This should allow power levels around 1600 lbf possible (maby more). The higher opperating conditions would also allow better fuel efficience. (~1.2-1.3 lb/lbf/hr) Such a design would also be more practical to scale-up too, in the high class I to low class II range (2300-2700 lbf). While further scaling above medium class-2 (2x size or ~3,000 lbf) would be somewhat impractical due to the large diameter. (>50in or 1.3m) As multi-engine axial designd would be more efficient overall. Such a design would have been a better (more practical) way to go than the HeS 8, or HeS 011. The layout of such engines would be reminiscent of the Halford Goblin design, though probably with fewer flame cans and using an axial impeller rather than split/diagonal (or radial intakes like Whittle-based designs) intakes to smooth airflow to the compressor.(and, ofcourse, airbleeds for the turbine)


Of course, if Whittle had been teamed-up with Rolls Royce (or submitted his work to them indepentantly to work with PowerJets durring development) the Gloster meteor (with W.2B Wellands) would have been operational in 1943 (with the G.40 flying in 1940 and the Meteor by late 1941) and the aerdynamic problems (longer nacelles and sleeker canopy) would have been worked out much faster. Later Meteors would either have used uprated W.2 engines (ie up to 2500 lbf in the W.2/700s) or switched to W.2Y (derwents) by 1944. Structural issues would also likely have improved eliminating the heavy controls of the F.III. By the end of the war Meteors could have been pushing 540 mph with ranges ~700 miles with improved nacelles, canopy, and 2,200-2,500lbf enfines. (though the high-speed control from compressibillity/airflow-separation problems of the tail would still be present)


----------



## red admiral (Dec 10, 2007)

I have some doubts over your thoughts of developed German engines. The HeS 011 was extensively tested postwar by the allies and never came close to making it's design thrust.

Kicking Rover off working on Whittle's jet engine would save about 2 years in getting the engines into service. The Meteor F.4 had the measure of all the proposed German designs that were likely to see service. 590mph max speed and 8000fpm initial climb and comfortable up to M0.81 with the Derwent V


----------



## kool kitty89 (Dec 10, 2007)

I didn't say anything about developing the HeS 011 preferentially. I actualy think it was not that great of an idea to go with (design was good but not practical for the time frame). It did manage to produce the originally specified ~2860 lbf, though the expected 3000+ lbf advancement was never reached. 

I suggested continued work on the HeS-30 (109-006) class 1 axial design, which was developing very well by the time it was canceled in 1942. It was nearing production quality and thrust appeared to be about to exceed that of the 004 engine (900+ kp) It would have certainly been ready for production before the 003 and possibly even before the 004B. With about half the weight and size of the 004 with similar thrust and good SFC, probably similar to the 003's 1.4 lb/lbf/hr. But at the time the RLM thought that the 004 and 003 were far ahead and about to be ready for production and that they simply didn't need another axial design.

I think it would have been best to focus on the less problematic class I designs. Also I said Ohain should have tried working with axial turbines like Whittle did, as the radial turbine (though good for an uncooled design) was heavy, and too large to use turbine alloys practically and couldn't be air-cooled practically. I also flame-cans (opposed to annular combustors) would have been much easier to work with. Axial turbines had also been explored more than radial-inflow types had. (like centrifugal compressors over axial) Such an engine with air-bleed cooled turbine should have offered higher operating conditions and have higher efficiency, and would be easier to scale-up to a class II sized design. (ie 2,700 lbf Halford H.1 in England)

As I mentioned above.

I certainly agree that Britain was slowed by 2 years due to Rover's mismach, as at the time Rover was chosen Whittles achievements were only weeks behind Ohain's. And in some ways ahead, as Whittle's WU could run on Diesel while the HeS 1 ran only on Hydrogen, and Heinkel's team was still considering gasoline as fuel for the HeS 3. Of course Heinkel's own project was later held up by several months due to delay in aquire Hirth due to political problems (possibly due in part to Messersmitt). And Muller wasn't receptive to Hirth help, which finally happend after Muller left iirc.

Though I'm not sure if the Derwent (and Nene-Derwent-V) would have developed the same if R.R. had worked with PowerJets earlier, possibly the W.2 700 (2,500 lbf) would have been produced instead, though the W.2Y (Derwent) may have been developed too, I'm just not sure. Of course the Halford H.1 Goblin (2,700 lbf) could have also been used if not diverted to the Vampire, or perhaps R.R. could have licensed production of the Goblin for use in the Meteor Mk II. As I still doubt a Nene or especially Derwent V engine would have been available in numbers by early 1945, with decent reliabillity. (as even the J33 was struggling in productin and reliabillity at this time)


----------



## kool kitty89 (Dec 11, 2007)

As it was, the Meteor F.III was doing ~520 mph with long nacelles. (I think they were still using Derwent I's)

Did the Meteor III ever use Derwent II's (2,200 lbf) or IV's (2,420 lbf)?

I'd think they'd have upgraded them as better marks became available. (like how the first ~15 were down-graded to Wellands due to lack of Derwents)

As said the Meteor Mk II with 2,700 lbf Goblin I's would have been good too, but they were diverted to the Vampire... (Which was outperforming the Meteor by this time, and with far less engine-power and only one engine)


----------



## kool kitty89 (Jan 15, 2008)

Does anione know if production Metor F.III's used Derwent Mk.II's or Mk.IV's (Mk.III's were II's experementally fitted with a vacuum pump for boundary layer control). It would make sence as these were available prior to the war's end, but I've never read about their use, in any a/c for that matter.

Use of these engines on the Meteor, along with new nacelles should have allowed top-speed, and climb performance to match the 262's and turning should be better with lower wing loadin, though there would still be problems with airflow separation over the thick tail surfaces at high speeds. (not fixed until the advent of the new tail seen on the F-8) Though the ailerons were still wired heavy, the Me-262 was no fast roller either due to the long and heavy engines.


----------



## Soren (Jan 15, 2008)

> Multhopp has always maintained that he would have made modifications to the P.183 design along the way as development would have played out if the project had reached fruition.



Very true Twitch. And one thing which would've been realized (was already planned) was the need for either LE slats or wing fences on the Ta-183, or there would be tip stall issues. 

The predicted performance of the Ta-183 with the HeS-011 engine is very impressive, a 1,000 + km/h top speed and 6,000 + ft/min rate of climb, not bad.


----------



## Soren (Jan 15, 2008)

kool kitty89 said:


> Use of these engines on the Meteor, along with new nacelles should have allowed top-speed, and climb performance to match the 262's and turning should be better with lower wing loadin,.



Nope, the Meteor still wouldn't be able to turn with the Me-262, the 262's full span LE slats more than making sure of that.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Jan 16, 2008)

The meteor could probably turn better at low to medium speeds speeds (below 450 mph), though certainly not at high speeds as the early Meteors had serious problems with airflow separation over the tail surfaces at high speed. (starting at ~500 mph) The 262 should also have had better speed retention, while the Meteor may have had better initial acceleration with a net thrust of 4800 lbf with derwent IV's, and probably a better climb rate too. At ~13,800 lb gross weight, it would have had a thrust/weight of nearly .35!

Rember also the Meteor III had quick-deploying maneuvering flaps to aid in turning too. (I'm not sure if it had airbrakes yet, but I think so; I know the YP-80A's didn't get airbrakes though)

Still I have no knowlege as to the usage of Derwent Mk.II or IV engines on any a/c, but it stands to reason that they would replace earlier marks for production, and as the Meteor was the only craft using the engine it would be the one to recieve it.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Jan 18, 2008)

Of course it's lift loading that realy affects turning ability and climb, and this would depend on wing efficiency, though I'd expect the Meteor would be better at low to medium speeds due to the thicker airfoil and there's still the flaps andor airbreaks to considder.

But above 450 mph (depending on altitude) the Meteor starst to get unstable, particularly at altitude, due to airflow separation over the tail. And crit mach was low untill the new nacelles were added, but even then only ~.79 mach.


----------



## red admiral (Jan 19, 2008)

kool kitty89 said:


> But above 450 mph (depending on altitude) the Meteor starst to get unstable, particularly at altitude, due to airflow separation over the tail. And crit mach was low untill the new nacelles were added, but even then only ~.79 mach.



Critical Mach was about 0.83-0.85M for the F.4 with longer nacelles. Max speed was around 580mph at 10,000ft, then the performance is Mach limited.


----------



## delcyros (Jan 19, 2008)

Red Admiral, my figures give lim. Mach =.81 for the F IV with long nacelles, that would resemble about .83 to .84 for crit Mach, respectively, matching Your figures nicely. The buffeting was serious at these speeds. And more worrisome, the Meteor never was cleared for full acrobatics.
The air brakes didn´t allow higher tactical speed, they had to be deployed before reaching 400 IAS.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Jan 19, 2008)

The Meteor III wasn't cleared for areobatics due to wing structural issues, the same reasnon for the heavy ailerons. (later fixed on the Mk.4 with a stronger airframe and clipped wings, though the clipping was also to reduce drag iirc) I beleive it the problem was discovered when first testing the more powerful Derwent I engines in the prototype Meteors and one suffered a structural failure to the wing durring high-speed maneuvers. The airframe of the F.III is the same structure as the Mk.I iirc, thus it wouldn't have been untill the strengthened structure of the Mk.4 that high-speed aerobatics would be safe, though clipped wings alone on the F.III may have been enough to allow high-speed maneuvers due to the decreased stresses, at least in the intrim (as was done with some Griffon engined Spitfires prior to wing strengthening to the airframe), but this was't done for the F.III, so it doesn't really matter.

I remember reading that mach limit for the Vampire Mk.I and Meteor III were both .79 Mach at SL, though this would increase with altitude as well and crit mach would be higher as well. Thise figures may be only for the short nacelles though, and it may very well have been stable into the 500 mph region, but once into the .8 mach area conrol became some what unstable iirc, though I may be wrong.

I was pretty sure the Meteor IV had some serious separated flow over the tail near the mach limit as well, a problem that wasn't overcome until the F-8 type tail was introduced.


----------



## Soren (Jan 19, 2008)

kool kitty89 said:


> Of course it's lift loading that realy affects turning ability and climb, and this would depend on wing efficiency,



Which is why the Me-262 turns better.

The Me-262 features full span automatic LE slats as well as a higher AR wing, giving it a better L/D ratio and much higher CLmax, the slats alone raising the CLmax critical AoA by 25%. And then there's the extra thrust which is important to turn performance as-well.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Jan 21, 2008)

Similar to the Bf/Me 109's slats, though those weren't full span and were mainly to improv aileron control when near stalling iirc.

But high wing efficiency and slats only go so far when you're comparing such a difference in wing-loading with ~60 lb/ft2 for the 262 compared to ~37 lb/ft2 for the Meteor III both at max-take-off. (14,100 lb for the Me 262 and 13,800 lbs for the Meteor). But as said the Meteor wasn't officially cleared for aerobatics and had compressibillity problems. (high-speed controll problems being encountered well below the Mach limit iirc)

Besides, high-speed a/c (particularly in this time period) were at their best when used as "energy tactics", though this is more important when fighting aganst piston planes particularly (due to better initial acceleration and low-speed handeling of such opponents) similar tactics were utilized by P-47s with their high wing-loading and excelent speed retention and dive performance. Likewise the Me-262 would hve better speed retention due to the cleaner airframe with very low drag. The high thrust of the Meteor F.4 largely made upo for this (as well as improoved aerodynamics and airframe) that's a differen't story...

The P-80 and Vampire are a bit of a different group, though both of their early models had lower Mach limits as well, though improovements came realitively quickly after the war and anything above .75 mach would only apply to dives. Also, compared to the early Meteor, these two vraft performed well in maneuvers into the 500 mph range. (though the YP-80s did have a problem with boundary layer separation in the intakes)


----------



## Soren (Jan 21, 2008)

Keep focus for a moment now Koolkitty,

The slats were not put on the Bf-109 for improved aileron control, they were put on to delay tip stall and increase the CLmax critical AoA of the entire wing, dramatically improving turn performance and lowering the stall speed of the a/c.

The Me-262 needed full span slats partly because its wing thickness ratio hardly changed through the entire span, but mainly because it was a jet fighter and the engines weren't pushing air over the first 45-55% of the wing span. For this reason the Me-262 needed full span slats, cause otherwise CLmax critical AoA would vary too much and tip stall would still be a problem.

Now on the Me-262 vs Meteor debate;

Lets compare weight with no fuel as the fuel consumption was about the same for both a/c.

*Me-262*
Empty equipped weight: 3,800 kg
Wing area: 21.7 m^2

Wing loading = 175.11 kg/m^2

*Gloster Meteor*
Empty equipped weight: 4,800 kg
Wing area: 32.52 m^2

Wing loading = 147.6 kg/m^2


Now let us ignore the increase in CL the higher AR causes and alone consider that the Me-262 benefits from a increase in lift critical AoA by 25% because of its automatic LE slats: 

175.11 * 0.75 = 131.33 kg/m^2

So as you can see the slats alone more than makes sure that the Me-262 always will out-turn the Gloster Meteor.


----------



## delcyros (Jan 21, 2008)

> Wing loading = 147.6 kg/m^2
> 
> 
> Now let us ignore the increase in CL the higher AR causes and alone consider that the Me-262 benefits from a increase in lift critical AoA by 25% because of its automatic LE slats:
> ...



Some points to consider:
wingloading isn´t everything. Without knowing the exact lift coefficiant and the condition of flight, You cannot make such a simplification.
The Meteor had a thick wing with large chort (large RE-numbers) and correspondingly high lift coefficiant. 
The Me-262 had a comparably thin wing, the chort varied from very large on the wingroots to very thin on the wingtips with correspondingly different RE-numbers and compared to the Meteor a significantly lower lift coefficiant, which could be improved by deployed slats by about 25% only at very high angles of attack. At such an angle of attack, the wing of the meteor would already be stalled, in every other aoa, the Meteors wing provides more lift. Turning that hard is only possible at very low speeds (g-issues) and would bleed off Your energy quickly.


----------



## red admiral (Jan 21, 2008)

Soren said:


> Lets compare weight with no fuel as the fuel consumption was about the same for both a/c.



If by "about the same" you mean the Ju 004 was roughly 50% worse you'd be correct. Best to compare the weights at half-load. The lower AR wing is better for maneuverability, especially in the roll, but both planes roll pretty slowly on accont of the mid-wing engines.


----------



## Soren (Jan 21, 2008)

Delcyros,

You apparently do not understand the function of the slats very well. The slats start to deploy at a very low AoA, and then gradually (Or immediately depending on the ferocity in the increase of the AoA) extend until they can no more. In a maximum performance turn the critical AoA has been increased by 25%, and so has lift, giving the Me-262 the edge. The Me-262 can easily pull critical AoA even at high speed, however depending on how fast it's going the G forces might be to great for the airframe - something like 8.5 - 9 G's, plus at those loads the pilot is no longer concious.

Also that the Meteor reaches its CLmax earlier in the AoA range is no advantage. Because of the slats the Me-262 can pull steeper turns at all speeds and because of this is helped more by its available thrust as the vector has been increased. 

Also AFAIK the Me-262's wing thickness ratio stayed very close over the entire span, something like 10 to 9 or 8.5. The main reason for the full span slats was however that there was no additional thrust over inner parts of the wing.

Red admiral,

Low AR is ONLY good for roll rate, it is bad for turn rate as induced drag is increased.


----------



## delcyros (Jan 21, 2008)

Soren said:


> Delcyros,
> 
> You apparently do not understand the function of the slats very well. The slats start to deploy at a very low AoA, and then gradually (Or immediately depending on the ferocity in the increase of the AoA) extend until they can no more. In a maximum performance turn the critical AoA has been increased by 25%, and so has lift, giving the Me-262 the edge. The Me-262 can easily pull critical AoA even at high speed, however depending on how fast it's going the G forces might be to great for the airframe - something like 8.5 - 9 G's, plus at those loads the pilot is no longer concious.
> 
> ...



Seriously, Soren, slats do not deploy at low or moderate AoA´s. They do pop out close to the point where the airflow does change to turbulent or seperated, which is typically only valid for high angles of attack. At low or medium angle´s of attack, LE-slats do not add to the lift coefficiant. So You need a condition of flight were such extreme aoa-conditions apply. This is only at low speeds possible due to g-issues. Deployed slats greatly increase the drag and any Me-262 driver is better advised to keep his "e" as high as possible, esspeccially since the energy retention (=acceleration) of this A/C is pretty low.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Jan 21, 2008)

Soren, the weight figures on the Metoer don't match up for what I've read, they do match those of the Meteor Mk.4 and F-8 fairly closely, but these are more than 1000 kg heavier than the Mk.I and III. (both the structure and weights of the Mk.I and III were about the same with empty weight of ~3700 kg and ~6,260 kg max take-off)

The wing area figures are also off with even the clipped wings of later models being 350 ft2 (~32.5 m2) and the Mk.I and III having an even higher with 374 ft2 (~34.8 m2). So the results would be much different.


On the engine efficiency, the 004B used 1.44 lb/(lbf hr) in the best versions (though at its worst the 004B may have consumed closer to 1.8 lb/(lbf hr) but I don't have a refrence for the actual values), while the Welland used 1.12 lb/(lbf/hr) and the Derwent I used 1.18 lb/(lbf hr). (note that using kg of fuel and kp force doesn't change the values) For refrence the De Havilland Goblin used 1.14 lb/(lbf hr), the HeS-3B used 1.60 lb/(lbf hr) and the BMW 003A used 1.40 lb/(lbf hr) though this was improved in the 003E model of the same thrust iirc, as did the 004D.

However, the low-drag airframe of the Me-262 partially made up for the poorer fuel efficiency, though it was likely not enough to fully compensate in comparison to the Meteor. (particularly with long nacelles and other drag reducing modifications)


----------



## Soren (Jan 22, 2008)

delcyros said:


> Seriously, Soren, slats do not deploy at low or moderate AoA´s. They do pop out close to the point where the airflow does change to turbulent or seperated, which is typically only valid for high angles of attack. At low or medium angle´s of attack, LE-slats do not add to the lift coefficiant.



Seriously, Delcyros, that is incorrect. The automatic LE slats start to deploy already at low AoA's, that's fact. 

The LE slats work by delaying boundary layer seperation, increasing the critical AoA CLmax of the airfoil by approx. 25% in the covered areas. The slats function by means of airpressure, as the the pressure starts to decrease on the top of the wing the slats start to deploy, the speed of which is completely determined by how quick the change in AoA is. 

Bf-109, Me-262 F-86 pilots generally all loved this device because of its very positive effect on the turn rate stalling speed of the aircraft.



> So You need a condition of flight were such extreme aoa-conditions apply. This is only at low speeds possible due to g-issues.



Incorrect. The airframe is the limit, which means 8.5 - 9 G's. 

What the slats do is allow the Me-262 to reach its limit earlier in the speed range than the Meteor. At very high speeds it all becomes equal as a max performance turn will either rip the wings off the a/c or make the pilot unconcious.



> Deployed slats greatly increase the drag



And that is downright wrong. Automatic LE slats do NOT increase drag at all Delcyros. What you're thinking about is fixed LE slots. 

Automatic LE slats function by means of airpressure, extending gradually as the pressure on the top of the wing gradually decreases as AoA is increased. There will NOT be any "stepped" increase in drag when the slats deploy, only at the point where even the slats cannot prevent the wing entering a stall, this is at the critical AoA, but that goes for all wings, with or without slats. When the critical AoA is reached drag is suddenly and violently increased and now overcomes lift, creating a stall. 

But, the tighter your turn the more the drag, and that is universal. So when the Me-262 turns tighter than the Meteor it is whilst generating more lift also generating more drag.



> and any Me-262 driver is better advised to keep his "e" as high as possible, esspeccially since the energy retention (=acceleration) of this A/C is pretty low.



Again you're incorrect, by virtue of its clean design the Me-262 has much better energy retention in maneuvers than piston engined a/c. Furthermore energy retention is NOT acceleration, it refers to the rate of energy loss in maneuvers, and here the ME-262 retains its energy much longer than any piston engined fighter.

*LuftWaffe test-pilot technical inspector Hans Fay:*
_"The Me-262 will turn much better at high than at low speeds, and due to its clean design, will keep its speed in tight turns much longer than the conventional type aircraft" _

*Me-262 POH, Flight characteristics:*
"(2) The airplane holds its speed in tight turns much longer than conventional types"


----------



## kool kitty89 (Jan 22, 2008)

I'm not suer what Delcyros meant by


> and any Me-262 driver is better advised to keep his "e" as high as possible, esspeccially since the energy retention (=acceleration) of this A/C is pretty low.


 either, but it is true that the Me 262 accelerated poorly compared to most prop-driven fighters (particularly at low speeds), but I certainly agree that the Me 262's energy retention is excelent compared to piston-engined fighters and the Meteor. (and probably the He 280 and Vampire, but probably similar to the P-80A and He 162) It performed best when used as an "energy fighter".


----------



## kool kitty89 (Jan 22, 2008)

Oh, and I checked again and the Meteor III was ~1000 kg heavier than the Mk I, though still somewhat lighter than the Mk IV. But the Wing area figures are corect, and even the Mk IV and F-8 had lower wingloading than the 262 despite increased weight and decreased wng area. (374 ft2 to 350 ft2) 

Though the heavier Mk IV and F-8 may have been worse at turning based on airframe alone, improved roll-rate and thrust largely made up for this, thogh this comparison isn't valid anyway since Derwent V type engines weren't available until 1946, among other reasons.

And the Meteor III with long-chord nacelles was capable of 520 mph with 2000 lbf Derwent I's and 493 mph with 1,700 lbf Welland engines. (it was limited to ~450 mph with short nacelles)


----------



## Arsenal VG-33 (Jan 22, 2008)

The periods between the last year of the war, and immediately after the war, from 1943 to 1947 have always been the most fascinating, for me at least. During these years, we have just a very few of the new jet designs and copies thereof, and having so few powerplant designs forces engineers to be more creative and imaginative when it come to airframes designs. 

My favorites of the immediate post-war years are those sleek little Yak 15-17-23 series. I also like the lines of this Arsenal aircraft, the VG-70:

Arsenal VG-70 - Expérimental - Un siècle d'aviation française

I always thought that a true air race would be one in which all participants must use the same powerplant, and letting the better airframe design win.


----------



## delcyros (Jan 24, 2008)

Soren said:


> Seriously, Delcyros, that is incorrect. The automatic LE slats start to deploy already at low AoA's, that's fact.
> 
> The LE slats work by delaying boundary layer seperation, increasing the critical AoA CLmax of the airfoil by approx. 25% in the covered areas. The slats function by means of airpressure, as the the pressure starts to decrease on the top of the wing the slats start to deploy, the speed of which is completely determined by how quick the change in AoA is.
> 
> ...



LE-slats, unlike flaps, do not increase the Cl-max of the wing at low to medium AoA´s, Soren. I really don´t understand why You pretend them to do so. They do work by airpressure and by delaying boundary flow seperation, both is only the case at high AoA´s, at low AoA´s there is no danger of boundary layer seperation for most airfoils. Usually, LE-slats do only cover the outer part of the wing (at the area of the ailerons), that is to improve the stall behavious (the outer part of the wing still produce lift, while the inner part of the wing is turbulent, that is to give A) plenty of stick warnings for a stall and B) to ensure aileron authority during a stall), You don´t want a stall to happen on the outer wing , it´s much more violent and will induce a strong spin. Full span LE-slats (Me-262 only) increase the flyable angle of attack and due to this increase, allow more Cl-max. The downside of this is increased drag (both, by the airfoil, as drag is in relationship with angle of attack and, to a less important degree, by the deployed LE-slats itself and their higher friction resistance, respectively).
LE slats -my key phrase was "if deployed"- increase drag substantially. That indeed is the case and can be verified by various AoA-drag charts.
If You have a solution where more lift can be generated without additional drag on basically the same wing, You would push the laws of fluid dynamics beyond their limits.

For a slat see:
f63 
the chart gives CL-increase ONLY AT HIGH ANGLES OF ATTACK. In comparison a normal high lift device like flaps:
f65
the chart shows CL-increase FOR ALL ANGLES OF ATTACK. 

On top of all this, You failed to mention the actual airfoils and their CL-max potential. The LE-full span of the Me-262 do give 25% advantage against an Me-262 wing without them, not more. The Airfoil of the Meteor does start with a notable Cl-max advantage over the thinner -262 wing.

Furthermore, with "energy retention" I do not mean loss of energy due to turning but "stockpiling energy" in order to keep turning. Any turn is an acceleration by definition of physics and requires energy. Planes with high acceleration will quicklier reload their energy after turning. The Me-262 unfortunately does need more acceleration ellbows than it´s piston prop adv.
Basically, in a high aoa condition (where the deployed full span LE-slats give some 25% advantage in Cl-max), the drag is substantially increased, too. At this condition, the Me-262 depletes her energy rapidly due to increased drag. The Me-262 has an excellent energy retenetion if the turn is large in diameter (=low aoa, less energy needed to sustain the turn, LE-slats not deployed) due to the clean airframe and this has been verified by various pilot accounts. That is due to the low thrust to weight ratio. The Me-262 is simply badly underpowered to sustain high aoa-turns without either rapidly loosing it´s energy or trading altitude.
This is the reason why the Me-262 were successfully engaged in dogfights by piston prop A/C (f.e.Kozhedub said post war that he was only able to kill the Me-262 on feb.17th, 1945 because the driver was stupid enough to engage a turning fight instead of using energy tactics)


----------



## Soren (Jan 24, 2008)

Delcyros, instead of dodging try actually reading what I wrote.

Like I said with higher lift comes higher drag, that is inevitable, simple law of physics. So like I said, *the tighter your turn the higher the drag, and that is universal. So when the Me-262 turns tighter than the Meteor it is whilst generating more lift also generating more drag. *

And yes the Me-262 does have poor low speed accelleration, however as speed reaches ~400 to 450 km/h the Me-262 starts to out-accelerate propeller a/c fast! 

Also remember that we're comparing the Me-262 Meteor here, not the Me-262 and piston engined fighters, thus the energy loss in a tight turn will not be any higher than that of the Meteor, actually it will be lower because of the higher AR wing.

And about energy retention, well like I said it refers to rate of which energy is lost in maneuvers, nothing else. What you're talking about Delcyros is the rate of which energy is regained AFTER maneuvering - two completely different things!

Now about the automatic LE slats, well in fear of repeating myself; NO they do NOT increase drag Delcyros, and I have no clue what ever gave you that idea. *As explained the slats function by means of airpressure, as the the pressure starts to decrease on the top of the wing the slats start to deploy, the speed of which is completely determined by how quick the change in AoA is. There will NOT be any "stepped" increase in drag when the slats deploy, only at the point where even the slats cannot prevent the wing entering a stall, this is at the critical AoA, but that goes for all wings, with or without slats. When the critical AoA is reached drag is suddenly and violently increased and now overcomes lift, creating a stall. *

And yes the slats start to deploy early on in the AoA range, they're dependant on air-pressure and thus the speed level of they're deployment is dependant on this pressure. Try flying a real a/c equipped with this device, you'll see that the slats start deploying very early on.


So these are the simple facts:

1. The automatic LE slats start to deploy already at low AoA and gradually extend until fully deployed at around the airfoils critical AoA and increasing it by an additional 25% percent.
2. The slats do NOT increase drag
3. The tighter the turn the higher the drag


----------



## kool kitty89 (Jan 24, 2008)

The slats will also be extended in level flight at low speeds (such as in take-off and landing) as well due to the low airpressure on the slats, correct?

From my general (albeit limited) understanding of automatic LE slats, the improve stalling characteristics for both low speeds at low AoA (or level flight) and at high AoA even at hih speeds. (ie when ever airpressure decreases the slats begin to deploy which results in a relative increase in lift) But if lift increases so should drag, though the Lift to Drag ratio may stay the same.


Another thing to considder, which I had forgotton about, is that the Me 262's fusalage was designed to utilize some airfoil characteristics and actually generate lift itsself, how affective this was I'm not sure.


----------



## delcyros (Jan 25, 2008)

Soren said:


> Like I said with higher lift comes higher drag, that is inevitable, simple law of physics. So like I said, the tighter your turn the higher the drag, and that is universal. So when the Me-262 turns tighter than the Meteor it is whilst generating more lift also generating more drag.


True.


> And yes the Me-262 does have poor low speed accelleration, however as speed reaches ~400 to 450 km/h the Me-262 starts to out-accelerate propeller a/c fast!


...and in return will find itselfe beeing outaccelerated by the Meteor....



> Also remember that we're comparing the Me-262 Meteor here, not the Me-262 and piston engined fighters, thus the energy loss in a tight turn will not be any higher than that of the Meteor, actually it will be lower because of the higher AR wing.


While AR-ratios beeing a case for importance, Your statement in context of our comparison is pure speculation, Soren. AR-ratio differences -the way You used them- are only true for wings with identic properties as to AIRFOIL, REYNOLDS-NUMBER and basic planform (except chord-span relation). Are You going to say that Meteor and Me-262 have the same airfoil, same chordlength, same planform? In orcer to support Your claim You need the EXACT aerodynamic properties of each wing, respectively.



> And about energy retention, well like I said it refers to rate of which energy is lost in maneuvers, nothing else. What you're talking about Delcyros is the rate of which energy is regained AFTER maneuvering - two completely different things!


Indeed but nontheless important, too. I a going to stress the opinion that the Me-262 is no turnfighter. Turning at such high aoa´s will bleed off the remaining energy quickly. And the Me-262 has a harder time to get the ernergy back...



> As explained the slats function by means of airpressure, as the the pressure starts to decrease on the top of the wing the slats start to deploy, the speed of which is completely determined by how quick the change in AoA is. There will NOT be any "stepped" increase in drag when the slats deploy, only at the point where even the slats cannot prevent the wing entering a stall, this is at the critical AoA, but that goes for all wings, with or without slats. When the critical AoA is reached drag is suddenly and violently increased and now overcomes lift, creating a stall.


Nor did I ever spoke of a "stepped" increase in drag. The slats do NOT increase CL-max _per se_, they just allow a higher angle of attack to happen due to delying of boundary layer seperation. higher angle of attack = more Cl-max = more drag. BTW, there is additional drag due to the increased surface of deployed slats and related friction resistance.



> And yes the slats start to deploy early on in the AoA range, they're dependant on air-pressure and thus the speed level of they're deployment is dependant on this pressure. Try flying a real a/c equipped with this device, you'll see that the slats start deploying very early on.


Slats are dependent on air pressure, correct. However, *THEY DO NOT INCREASE CL-MAX AT LOW AOA´s *, deployed or not. You have Your own charts to proove this. If You doubt this, feel free to submit Cl-max-aoa charts, which say the opposite. I have provided such charts above. You won´t find any supporting lift increase at low aoa´s. Therefore, it´s pretty irrelevant if LE-slats deploy at low aoa´s, if they deploy, they do add only friction drag, not lift. LE-slats are useful at high (better say extreme) aoa´s, when the wing -in other conditions- would have been long stalled. They do DELAY boundary layer seperation, they don´t make the boundery layer thicker or so.	THE 25% CL-max INCREASE IS ONLY AVAIABLE AT HIGH AOA´s.
That means in return that maximum sustained turn rate and minimum steady state turn radius are at or near stall speed, a regime any sane pilot in a badly underpowered A/C will avoid in combat.


----------



## Soren (Jan 25, 2008)

Delcyros,

No, the slats do NOT increase CLmax at low AoA, and I never claimed that they did. However the slats DO start to deploy at low AoA, that's fact, and this was the issue we were discussing, but you've seen your mistake now so all is OK.



> ...and in return will find itselfe beeing outaccelerated by the Meteor....



No that is again wrong Delcyros. 

Answer me which is faster, the Meteor or the Me-262 ? That's right, the Me-262 is, significantly so, and so at 400-450 the Me-262 will quite easily out-accelerate the Meteor.

The Me-262 also had a decent climb rate advantage at 3,900 ft/min.



> While AR-ratios beeing a case for importance, Your statement in context of our comparison is pure speculation, Soren. AR-ratio differences -the way You used them- are only true for wings with identic properties as to AIRFOIL, REYNOLDS-NUMBER and basic planform (except chord-span relation). Are You going to say that Meteor and Me-262 have the same airfoil, same chordlength, same planform? In orcer to support Your claim You need the EXACT aerodynamic properties of each wing, respectively.



While it is true that the exact figure is only obtainable emmidiately when comparing wings with the same airfoil planform, we do nonetheless know that everything else being equal the higher the AR the higher the Clmax and the lower the Cd0, increasing the L/D ratio, which is VERY important to the turn performance of the a/c. Also we can conclude with certainty that the planform of the Meteor's wing is inferior as the engines terminate allot of wing area by being mounted in the middle of the wing.



> BTW, there is additional drag due to the increased surface of deployed slats and related friction resistance.



Wrong again, now you're just making assumptions. Automatic LE slats do NOT add any drag when deployed, they rather drastically decrease it by increasing the critical AoA by 25%. The only additional drag that is created when the slats deploy is that which originates from the higher lift generated because of the increase in the AoA.

Remember that at the same angle of bank and velocity two fighters make exactly the same turn.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Jan 25, 2008)

The acceleration of the Meteor III would be dependent on weight and thrust values and if long chord nacelles were fitted. Thrust/weight of the with derwent I engines would be about the same (actualy slightly higher) as with the 262 and at dogfight speeds quickly reached in maneuvers (dropping below below 600-650 km/hr) the Meteor would likely accelerate better, particularly if Derwent II or IV engines were used. (which, as said, would have been available before the end of the war--and even if they weren't used for whatever reason, they easily _could_ have been fitted to later production Meteor III's and retrofitted to others like was often done with the new nacelles).

As for climb, I havent seen any specifications for the Meteor III's values, but with similar thrust/weight (and much higher thrust than the Mk.I as well s better aerodynamics) and much lower wing-loading, the Meteor III shuld outclimb the Me 262. (with more weight and less wing area and much more thrust the F.Mk IV and F-8 had initial climb rates of 7000 ft/min, 2134 m/min)


----------



## kool kitty89 (Feb 8, 2008)

I've seen very few comprehensive specifications and statistics on the Meteor III. Some say ~493 mph top speed, others as high as 520 mph but never specify altitude or if long-chord nacelles were used. (although with any speeds over 450 mph would imply long-chord nacelles) The use of the more powerful Derwent II or IV engines (2,200 and 2,450 lbf) which would have been available for late model Mk. III's aren't mentioned either. The weight figures also seem to vary. 
The Gloster Meteor sites that "The new nacelles increased the redline speed at altitude by 120 KPH (75 MPH), even without new powerplants." but the speed with short nacelles isn't sited (except for the Mk.1) and it isn't clear if "without uprated powerplants" refers to Wellands or Derwent I's. Meteor, Gloster / Armstrong Whitworth has some useful info, and it sites that 493.7 mph (795 km/hr) was reached with 1700 lbf (770 kp) Welland engines, so it would make sense that the 520 mph figure would be with Derwent I's.

Does anyone have reliable info on the Meteor III?

The same sight also says: "the ailerons had been deliberately wired to be "heavy" to prevent aerobatic maneuvers from overstressing the wings, and pilots complained that flying the aircraft could be very tiring; this had not been a problem with the Meteor I, since it hadn't been cleared for aerobatic maneuvers." So the Meteor III was cleared for aerobatics, in fact the heavy wiring of the ailerons was to facilitate clearance for maneuvers.

But one thing I've wondered is why they didn't clip the wings for the Mk.III, such as was done with early Griffin-engined Spitfires as an intrim for strengthened wings, or why not just limit the range of motion of the ailerons but not wire them heavy. (which would still limit roll-rate, but would make things alot easier on the pilot)


----------



## kool kitty89 (Feb 8, 2008)

And again, the empty (equipped) weight of the Meteor III should be 4771 kg and combat weight around 13,800 lbs (6,265 kg) (a load of 1494 kg of internal fuel only). Wing area was 34.74 m2. And assume the Me 262 has a fuel load of 1838 kg and a weight of 5638 lbs. (due to ~23% lower fuel efficiency) 

So if you use the same calculations with loaded weights you get:

*Me-262*
weight: 5,638 kg
Wing area: 21.7 m^2

Wing loading = 259.80 kg/m^2

*Gloster Meteor*
weight: 6,265 kg
Wing area: 34.74 m^2

Wing loading = 180.34 kg/m^2

Soren Said:
"Now let us ignore the increase in CL the higher AR causes and alone consider that the Me-262 benefits from a increase in lift critical AoA by 25% because of its automatic LE slats:" Assuming this is correct; with the new values it gives:

259.80 kg/m^2 * 0.75 = 194.85 kg/m^2 Significantly higher than the Meteor III.

Although the Thrust/weight of the 262 would allow better linear acceleration. (although 2,200 lbf Derwent II's would put them equal and 2,450 Derwent IV's would put the Meteor ahead, though by the same thought 004D's would have to be considered; I'm not even considering if HeS-30's had been fully developed and produced, or if 2,700 lbf Goblin I engins were fitted to the Meteor)


----------

