# P-51 Mustang Vs. Me 262



## Zniperguy114 (Feb 1, 2010)

I'm a fan of both planes, but I'm not sure which is better. What do you guys think? Vote for the one you believe to be better and I will think about them....


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 1, 2010)

Why are you trying to compare a Jet aircraft with a Piston aircraft?


----------



## timshatz (Feb 1, 2010)

Ahhhh, why not. Makes life interesting.

I'll go with the P51. Mature design, you could hit full throttle without the engine(s) cathing fire.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Waynos (Feb 1, 2010)

Me 262 for me, but isn't this a "poll"?


----------



## Colin1 (Feb 1, 2010)

I'm unsure of the aim of the poll

are the P-51 and the Me262 fighting each other or are we just comparing them as platforms?


----------



## Zniperguy114 (Feb 1, 2010)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Why are you trying to compare a Jet aircraft with a Piston aircraft?



I am comparing a jet with a piton aircraft because, if you look at my way, it makes sense. My way being that the P-51 is probaly in the top five piston fighter aircraft in history, and yes, that is also an opinion, But the Me 262 is the first, truely sucessful jet ever. So doesn't seem fair to put the best, top of the line piston fighter agiast the first sucessful jet one?


----------



## Zniperguy114 (Feb 1, 2010)

Colin1 said:


> I'm unsure of the aim of the poll
> 
> are the P-51 and the Me262 fighting each other or are we just comparing them as platforms?



Colin, you choose. I only have a limited view of each aircraft and any comparision is perfectly fine by me. And plus, wounldn't seeing who would win in a dogfight be one deciding factor in the better fighter?


----------



## RabidAlien (Feb 1, 2010)

Much as I love the 262, I'm gonna have to say the 51 in this match. When the 262 came into use, the average quality of pilots and training was much much better for the Allies; the '51 had pretty much all of its kinks and wrinkles ironed out (the aforementioned flaming engines...not a good thing!); and the 51 could stay up a whole lot longer. All it had to do was to evade the 262 for a few minutes, and then catch it on its way back to refuel.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Erich (Feb 1, 2010)

Me 262 - better bomber killer

P-51 - better one on one fighter

end of poll........


----------



## tomo pauk (Feb 2, 2010)

Hello, Zniperguy 

The 'Polls' sub-forum is just a 'PgDown' away...


----------



## Njaco (Feb 2, 2010)

I like the DVII.


----------



## evangilder (Feb 2, 2010)

Moved thread to the proper section. SitRep is for current military matters.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 2, 2010)

Erich said:


> Me 262 - better bomber killer
> 
> P-51 - better one on one fighter
> 
> end of poll........



Ditto, other than that I don't see the point in comparing them.

The Me 262 was the future. The P-51D was an escort fighter. The Me 262 was an interceptor.


----------



## parsifal (Feb 2, 2010)

I think the Me 262 was superior, except in range. I think if the 262 had been an allied fighter, that problem would have been solved by 1946. 

The 262 had a lot of problems particulalry in engine wear, but as a pice of technology its hard to go past. Its ironic to me that despite this, the impact of the 262 on the progress of the war was virtually nil


----------



## renrich (Feb 2, 2010)

As an escort fighter, the P51 was probably the best during WW2. As a bomber interceptor, as long as the intercept was close to the ME's base the ME262 was probably the best. In a one V one, it was probably a draw, with the ME having a big Vmax advantage and more powerfully armed, if hits are made, and the P51 being more maneuverable and with a loiter advantage. I think a wise ME 262 driver would avoid a dogfight given possible engine problems with a lot of different throttle inputs.


----------



## drgondog (Feb 2, 2010)

As a pilot asked to fly and shoot down aircraft I would pick the 262. 

The tactical advantage of great endurance combined with excellent high end piston performance gave the Mustang an edge in the closing days of the war but did not make it a superior airplane.


----------



## beaupower32 (Feb 2, 2010)

Very tough call. As much as I love the Me-262, I think Im going to tip my hat towards the P-51.

The 262 had a lot of Marvials and set the way of the future. If it had come earlier, It could have made a difference, or at least extended the war by 6 months to a year IMHO. But the Allies found its weekness in that it was very vulnerable on take off and landing, which the P-51 pilots (and other aircraft) used to great success.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 2, 2010)

parsifal said:


> I think the Me 262 was superior, except in range. I think if the 262 had been an allied fighter, that problem would have been solved by 1946.
> 
> The 262 had a lot of problems particulalry in engine wear, but as a pice of technology its hard to go past. Its ironic to me that despite this, the impact of the 262 on the progress of the war was virtually nil



Too little too late, but it was the sign of things to come.


----------



## timshatz (Feb 2, 2010)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Too little too late, but it was the sign of things to come.



Exactly,262 pointed to the future. Had plenty of problems, as new technology does, but was a well thought out design and pretty good work by the engineers that made it (all things considered). But the fuel burn and engine wear just were signs of a design that still had plenty to go in refinements. Another couple of years, a few more models and it would've been superior to the P51. 

Still, those engines catching fire had to be hairy.


----------



## drgondog (Feb 2, 2010)

Guys - if mean time between failure is the criteria you want to use to judge to make a judgment then the marvelous Mustang gets the vote.

If you want range for escort or time to loiter, the 51 wins again.

Fast forward to Korea - the Mustang still wins over the MiG 15 - right? Same criteria.

There is simply zero question that the Me 262 was the best fighter when compared to any piston engine ever developed based on performance and firepower.. the reliability issues were not based on design but shortage of design optimized materials not available in Germany when the a/c was built.

I guarantee that no Mustang fighter pilot preferred being in a P-51 to say a P-80 when the Me 262 was spotted, reliability being a consideration.

When the two ships were in the air at the same time and space, by definition the 262 was 'reliable enough'.. IMHO.


----------



## Erich (Feb 2, 2010)

personally after reading and re-reading and interviewing Me 262 pilots the prestn jet at the time was not enough even in the hands of an experten. The only thing going for it was it's speed and that is by surprise from the rear. the jet and according to German LW vets as well as many Us STang pilots was thus : the jet could not turn on a dime and that was it's doom in the air. poor fuel reserves crappy and literally damned no Flak defense to keep Mustangs from shooting down the 262 upon landing. back to earlier sentance the jets turning radius was way to wide and large allowing many P-51 and P-47 pilots to get inside and nail the jet to destruction. now if the newer streamlined 262 with inline fuel cells would of been in service then a possibility it could of been on par, still does not add as a bonus it's plaging wide circle though ......,would of been interesting had there been enough 262's to equal the US 8th AF escort might in 45.

E ~


----------



## beaupower32 (Feb 2, 2010)

drgondog said:


> Fast forward to Korea - the Mustang still wins over the MiG 15 - right? Same criteria.



The P-51 did have some early success in Korea, but the jets eventually overcame it, and It pretty much spent the remainder of the war doing ground attack.


----------



## Colin1 (Feb 2, 2010)

Erich said:


> ...would have been interesting had there been enough 262s to equal the US 8th AF escort might in 45


With numerical parity
the P-51 escort would have been spectators to massacre, the Me262 had no reason to get involved with a P-51; the same parity would have reduced the effectiveness of P-51 tactics who would be effectively bystanding whilst their 'mark' zipped past them and tore up a bomber.


----------



## timshatz (Feb 2, 2010)

My entire focus on calling the Mustang superior was the maturity of the design versus that of the 262. The concept and potential of the 262 was far more substantial than that of the P51. Like Eric noted, the only real benefit you have in the 262 is speed. After that, everything goes the P51's way. 

Keep in mind, about half the losses (in WW2 aircraft) were caused by operational and not combat events.


----------



## Erich (Feb 2, 2010)

the 262 pilots at first were ordered not to engage the US escorts but that changed as conditions upon surprise permitted in 45.....

remember gents the 262 units never had upwards high flying escorts in their favor only a dismal JG 54 and JV 44 Fw 190 help when landing back to base and even then they did such a muck up job the jets were still shot down almost at will.


----------



## drgondog (Feb 3, 2010)

beaupower32 said:


> The P-51 did have some early success in Korea, but the jets eventually overcame it, and It pretty much spent the remainder of the war doing ground attack.



BeauP - a couple of MiGs were miraculously shot down by 51's and one (?) Corsair. In each case it was a fleeting golden B-B on a 90 degree deflection shot after being caught on the deck in fighter bomber mode.

It wasn't the same scenario as WWII - I just used it as an illustration of late piston fighter in hopelsss situations where the attacker had all of the options.


----------



## Clay_Allison (Feb 3, 2010)

Gimme the legs and numbers over high speed, powerful armament, short range, failure prone engines, and poor mass production capability.


----------



## Colin1 (Feb 3, 2010)

Clay_Allison said:


> Gimme the legs and numbers over high speed, powerful armament, short range, failure prone engines, and poor mass production capability.


But a German commander playing at home, principally against bombers, would put up with the range/engine/production issues if the high speed was giving him a comfortable degree of separation from the escorts and the armament had the hitting power to make most strikes on target a sure thing


----------



## Clay_Allison (Feb 3, 2010)

Colin1 said:


> But a German commander playing at home, principally against bombers, would put up with the range/engine/production issues if the high speed was giving him a comfortable degree of separation from the escorts and the armament had the hitting power to make most strikes on target a sure thing


I'd put up with everything except the production issues. They never had and never could have had enough Me 262s to make a real difference. IMO, I still think a better developed He-162 type was the way to go. A single jet engine on a light, cheap ultra-fast plane that could be mass produced might have had a chance of producing a large enough force to turn the tide. If it were possible to combine it with the Mauser MG 213, it would have been pretty fearsome.


----------



## renrich (Feb 4, 2010)

One way of looking at it, understanding that the two AC evolved into two different roles, the P51 from a pursuit plane into an escort fighter, and the ME262, from a bomber, (because of Hitler) to an interceptor is to see if they could do the other's job. The P51 could have been a decent interceptor but the ME262 was too short ranged to be much of an escort fighter.


----------



## riacrato (Feb 4, 2010)

I resent that logic. That would make the Do 335 look better than the Me 262, which is wrong.


----------



## beaupower32 (Feb 5, 2010)

drgondog said:


> BeauP - a couple of MiGs were miraculously shot down by 51's and one (?) Corsair. In each case it was a fleeting golden B-B on a 90 degree deflection shot after being caught on the deck in fighter bomber mode.
> 
> It wasn't the same scenario as WWII - I just used it as an illustration of late piston fighter in hopelsss situations where the attacker had all of the options.




I have no doubt that the P-51 scored kills on a few migs. I have read stories about it and find it very intresting. Is this the F4U you were talking about?



> On 10 September 1952, Captain Jesse G. Folmar, USMC (VMA-312), in an F4U-4B (BuNo 62927) shot down a MiG-15 off the North Korean coast near Chinnampo. MiG pilot was seen to bail out, afire, and the MiG observed to crash into the sea. Moments later another MiG shot down Folmar. He bailed out and was rescued by a SAR plane, called by his wingman, Lieutenant Walter E Daniels, USMC, spending about eight minutes in the water.


----------



## drgondog (Feb 5, 2010)

beaupower32 said:


> I have no doubt that the P-51 scored kills on a few migs. I have read stories about it and find it very intresting. Is this the F4U you were talking about?



Yes it would be..


----------



## parsifal (Feb 5, 2010)

timshatz said:


> My entire focus on calling the Mustang superior was the maturity of the design versus that of the 262. The concept and potential of the 262 was far more substantial than that of the P51. Like Eric noted, the only real benefit you have in the 262 is speed. After that, everything goes the P51's way.
> 
> Keep in mind, about half the losses (in WW2 aircraft) were caused by operational and not combat events.



I thought the 262 in the air had greater accelaration, and in a sustained climb it was better. What about max altitude. Unsure about which aircraft could dive better. The 262 also had the advantage in terms of firepower, at least close in, with those 30mm cannon, surely.

I agree with your basic statement about maturity of design however


----------



## Colin1 (Feb 5, 2010)

parsifal said:


> I thought the 262 in the air had greater acceleration...


Most of the trials during and at the close of WWII
that pitted a piston against a jet, saw the piston leap off the start line (in mid-air) and build up quite a lead; the jet would then begin to gain until, at the instant it was level with the piston, it was rapidly overhauling it. WWII jets couldn't spool up very quickly.


----------



## Clay_Allison (Feb 5, 2010)

parsifal said:


> I thought the 262 in the air had greater accelaration, and in a sustained climb it was better. What about max altitude. Unsure about which aircraft could dive better. The 262 also had the advantage in terms of firepower, at least close in, with those 30mm cannon, surely.
> 
> I agree with your basic statement about maturity of design however


Firepower was definitely superior.


----------



## JoeB (Feb 6, 2010)

beaupower32 said:


> I have no doubt that the P-51 scored kills on a few migs. I have read stories about it and find it very intresting. Is this the F4U you were talking about?


F-51's in Korea weren't officially credited with any MiG-15's, nor did they actually down any as far as I can tell. In a few cases MiG's were claimed but not officially credited and those are included in some books and listings, but in all the specific cases I know of, the Soviets recorded combats with F-51's that match but didn't lose any MiG's. Per the USAF's 1953 Statistical Digest 8 F-51's were lost in air combat in Korea in the period of MiG-15 activity.

The MiG downed by Folmar was confirmed by the 1953 NK MiG defector's accounts, as being an NK a/c. Besides Folmar's a/c, two USN F4U's were downed by MiG'15's on the east coast of Korea during 1952 (the Folmar action was on the west coast). NK accounts also indicate those were their a/c, so coincidentally all the conclusive F4U actions were against NK MiG units, though those were relatively rare opponents in Korea. Soviet and Chinese units each also claimed a number of F4U's in actions also recorded by the USN and USMC (sometimes as F-47's or even as F-51's) but no F4U's were actually lost in any.

As is well known, an FAA Sea Fury was also credited with a MiG-15 in 1952. Those opponents were Chinese, but available Chinese accounts seem to deny they lost an a/c in that combat.

The MiG-15 and Me-262 were hardly comparable in performance. I think the point is just that in something like endurance the P-51 was still greatly superior to the MiG-15, also to jets long after that in practical combat radius w/o aerial refueling, but by Korea the MiG's superiority in speed made that moot as far as using the F-51 as a real fighter.

Re: acceleration between jets and props, even besides the issue of throttle response of the early jet engines, the thrust of a jet is inherently approximately constant with speed, while the thrust of the prop disk of (especially constant speed controllable pitch) will increase as speed decreases, so a prop with similar power to weight ratio as a jet will accelerate better, and have better 'vertical plane' performance at low speed. This effect is washed out by the enormously greater power to weight ratio's of later jets, but in case of WWII jets the props would out-accelerate them at low speed, and it was another whole new category of disadvantage for the jet to agree, or be forced, to engage the prop at low speed, more than the advantage given up by say a P-51 agreeing to engage an F4F at low speed.

Joe


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 6, 2010)

JoeB said:


> *Re: acceleration between jets and props, even besides the issue of throttle response of the early jet engines, the thrust of a jet is inherently approximately constant with speed, while the thrust of the prop disk of (especially constant speed controllable pitch) will increase as speed decreases, so a prop with similar power to weight ratio as a jet will accelerate better, and have better 'vertical plane' performance at low speed. This effect is washed out by the enormously greater power to weight ratio's of later jets, but in case of WWII jets the props would out-accelerate them at low speed, and it was another whole new category of disadvantage for the jet to agree, or be forced, to engage the prop at low speed, more than the advantage given up by say a P-51 agreeing to engage an F4F at low speed.*
> 
> Joe



In many of our discussions this is missed even when comparing recip fighters in performance. So much is emphasised about a few MPH in airspeed or a few degrees per second in turning, but a great factor that always seems missing is how well the aircraft can accelerate during combat maneuvers.


----------



## renrich (Feb 6, 2010)

FB, I agree with you that acceleration is a quality which is often overlooked by us arm chair pilots.


----------



## beaupower32 (Feb 9, 2010)

Got a stupid question here.

Could they use the prop as a breaking force for slowing down? Jets (Me-262?) have a relative clean airframe compaired to a plane with a big ol prop hanging out in front, so would it be easier for the mustangs to slow down and cause teh 262 to overshoot. I dont think this would or has ever happened, but Just curious if it was possible.


----------



## renrich (Feb 9, 2010)

bp, all the Mustang had to do with a ME262 on his six but before the attacker had come within gun range, was to execute a max G turn. If the ME tries to follow, if his speed is higher than the Mustangs he will not be able to turn as tight or obviously pull any lead. If he continues to try and turn with the Mustang he will be forced into an overshoot and if the Mustang reverses, he might get a snap shot. The pilot of the ME would probably be too smart for this and will go on to easier prey.


----------



## timshatz (Feb 9, 2010)

parsifal said:


> I thought the 262 in the air had greater accelaration,



My understanding is the fragility of the engines made it impossible to hammer the throttle wide open on the 262 without a flameout. I would give the edge to the mustang in that realm. Again, maturity of design. 

If you toss in an engine from the 50s, even late 40s, with a burner, then it would definitely be the jet's way. 

But I gotta believe the acceleration was on the mustang's side, especially with the 262 that was produced in 1944/45.


----------



## Njaco (Feb 9, 2010)

beaupower32 said:


> Got a stupid question here.
> 
> Could they use the prop as a breaking force for slowing down? Jets (Me-262?) have a relative clean airframe compaired to a plane with a big ol prop hanging out in front, so would it be easier for the mustangs to slow down and cause teh 262 to overshoot. I dont think this would or has ever happened, but Just curious if it was possible.



This was used during the BoB by Stuka units as a defense against the Spits and Hurris. Blow the dive brakes, let the RAF overshoot and use your forward guns or dive away.


----------



## beaupower32 (Feb 10, 2010)

> This was used during the BoB by Stuka units as a defense against the Spits and Hurris. Blow the dive brakes, let the RAF overshoot and use your forward guns or dive away.






> bp, all the Mustang had to do with a ME262 on his six but before the attacker had come within gun range, was to execute a max G turn. If the ME tries to follow, if his speed is higher than the Mustangs he will not be able to turn as tight or obviously pull any lead. If he continues to try and turn with the Mustang he will be forced into an overshoot and if the Mustang reverses, he might get a snap shot. The pilot of the ME would probably be too smart for this and will go on to easier prey.




Thanks for the info guys. I was just wondering if it did happen or not, but I know my answer now. I wouldnt think the pilot flying the 262 would try to stay with a mustang in a turn for very long, unless he was a novice.


----------



## renrich (Feb 13, 2010)

An interesting point about P51s. I was sent a site online about air racing in the period right after the Second World War. Some of the Mustangs racing had the air scoop on the belly relocated to nacelles on the wing tips that looked like extra gas tanks. Others had the belly scoop removed and relocated to the gun bays with air inlets in the wing leading edges.


----------



## Vincenzo (Feb 13, 2010)

So many of you agree with:
Hurricane it's best of Mustang (it's more mature design, turning best a low speed)....
so Gladiator it's best of Hurricane (it's more mature design, turning best a low speed)....
damn was so good the Camel why they developped other fighters...


----------



## Colin1 (Feb 13, 2010)

Vincenzo said:


> Hurricane it's best of Mustang (it's more mature design, turning best a low speed)....
> so Gladiator it's best of Hurricane (it's more mature design, turning best a low speed)....
> damn was so good the Camel why they developed other fighters...


I'm not sure that was the sentiment being expressed
within the context of piston-engined fighters, the Hurricane wasn't a 'more mature design' than the Mustang, it was just older.

Within the context of piston engine vs jet engine however, the former _was_ a more mature design, still able to take advantage of the fledgeling jets with the one or two tricks still left to them.


----------



## riacrato (Feb 16, 2010)

Vincenzo said:


> So many of you agree with:
> Hurricane it's best of Mustang (it's more mature design, turning best a low speed)....
> so Gladiator it's best of Hurricane (it's more mature design, turning best a low speed)....
> damn was so good the Camel why they developped other fighters...



8) Well put, Vincenzo.


----------



## timshatz (Feb 16, 2010)

Vincenzo said:


> So many of you agree with:
> Hurricane it's best of Mustang (it's more mature design, turning best a low speed)....
> so Gladiator it's best of Hurricane (it's more mature design, turning best a low speed)....
> damn was so good the Camel why they developped other fighters...



Vincenzo, you're setting up a straw dog (and idea produced as a fallicy in order to prove the opposite point).

It was not the technology which is in question, it was the effective maturity of the technology. The 262 was a revolution, not an evolution. As such, it had a lot of problems to work through and some of them were just beyond the ability of the engineers in the time available or the materials availabe. That is not to say the 262 would not've been a better aircraft in time, but that it didn't have the time to become a better aircraft.

The argument for the Mustang is not that it was best aircraft, but best available and most reliable.


----------



## Vincenzo (Feb 16, 2010)

timshatz said:


> Vincenzo, you're setting up a straw dog (and idea produced as a fallicy in order to prove the opposite point).
> 
> It was not the technology which is in question, it was the effective maturity of the technology. The 262 was a revolution, not an evolution. As such, it had a lot of problems to work through and some of them were just beyond the ability of the engineers in the time available or the materials availabe. That is not to say the 262 would not've been a better aircraft in time, but that it didn't have the time to become a better aircraft.
> 
> The argument for the Mustang is not that it was best aircraft, but best available and most reliable.



idk "straw dog" but the "idea produced as a fallicy in order to prove the opposite point" (if fallicy is fallacy) was just my intention. 

the technology was mature, if not at firsts tiem sure late as the last war winter. so passage from old style biplane to a monocoque monoplane is a evolution and to change to jet engine it's a revolution, i thinked both as revolution. So we change Meteor (this no problem with material and other things..) vs Mustang what is the result?


----------



## Clay_Allison (Feb 16, 2010)

Vincenzo said:


> idk "straw dog" but the "idea produced as a fallicy in order to prove the opposite point" (if fallicy is fallacy) was just my intention.
> 
> the technology was mature, if not at firsts tiem sure late as the last war winter. so passage from old style biplane to a monocoque monoplane is a evolution and to change to jet engine it's a revolution, i thinked both as revolution. So we change Meteor (this no problem with material and other things..) vs Mustang what is the result?



A very mature Biplane could beat an immature attempt at a monoplane. Give me a Cr.42 Falco over a Dewoitine D.500 any day.


----------



## timshatz (Feb 16, 2010)

Vincenzo said:


> idk "straw dog" but the "idea produced as a fallicy in order to prove the opposite point" (if fallicy is fallacy) was just my intention.
> 
> the technology was mature, if not at firsts tiem sure late as the last war winter. so passage from old style biplane to a monocoque monoplane is a evolution and to change to jet engine it's a revolution, i thinked both as revolution. So we change Meteor (this no problem with material and other things..) vs Mustang what is the result?



I gotcha on the point of technology being mature. The Meteor's technology was superior in terms of reliabliity to that of the 262. 

But if the Me262 is changed to a Meteor, then I'm going with the Meteor too. While the Meteor had it's flaws, especially when you compare it to other Jet Fighters, it was a superior aircraft to the 262 visa vie the engines. The 262 was a more advanced design, but hampered by unreliable engines. 

However, when you change the question to a Meteor vs Mustang, it becomes a much more complex question. For starters, the problem with the engines flaming out is much less pronounced. Also, reliablity of the same engines is much better on the Meteor. Two strikes against the 262 (reliability and flameout) are advantages to the Meteor. 

The question between the Mustang vs Meteor is one of numbers. Not only does the Meteor have to deal with the Mustang, it has to deal with the Tempest, Spitfire, Thurnderbolt, you name it. If it's an Allied fighter in NW Europe in 1945, it's going to take a crack at any targets available. 

Hard question now. But I would give the edge to the Meteor. But it is close, very close. It is a question of numbers vs technology. Also, the Meteor (262 position) was in a tactical and strategic disadvantge situation of losing. Even with all that superior technology, it's only a matter of time before you've lost.


----------



## Vincenzo (Feb 16, 2010)

Clay_Allison said:


> A very mature Biplane could beat an immature attempt at a monoplane. Give me a Cr.42 Falco over a Dewoitine D.500 any day.



my fault i want descrive a "modern monoplane" like hurricane, 109, ms 406 (for end the examples to western europe)


----------



## Colin1 (Feb 16, 2010)

Vincenzo said:


> ... so passage from old style biplane to a monocoque monoplane is a evolution
> 
> and to change to jet engine it's a revolution,
> 
> I thinked both as revolution...


Whatever they were, they had a prop out front and as piston engines go faster they become less efficient
Evolution


As jet engines go faster they become more efficient
Revolution


----------



## Vincenzo (Feb 16, 2010)

timshatz said:


> I gotcha on the point of technology being mature. The Meteor's technology was superior in terms of reliabliity to that of the 262.
> 
> But if the Me262 is changed to a Meteor, then I'm going with the Meteor too. While the Meteor had it's flaws, especially when you compare it to other Jet Fighters, it was a superior aircraft to the 262 visa vie the engines. The 262 was a more advanced design, but hampered by unreliable engines.
> 
> ...



i'm not agree on your opinion on the reliability of 262 engines (the engine has low life but this is not a important trouble, in war).

i'm agree with you in the last point


----------



## timshatz (Feb 17, 2010)

Vincenzo said:


> i'm not agree on your opinion on the reliability of 262 engines (the engine has low life but this is not a important trouble, in war).
> 
> i'm agree with you in the last point



Yeah, the numbers always get you. Eventually. Sucks. 

The engines of the Meteor and the Me262 had a big difference in reliability and ease of use (from what I've read). If you firewalled the throttle on the 262, the engines flamed out. Whereas the Meteor could take a more aggressive action on the throttle (I do not know the specifics of that point).

Further, they had more engine life. With the 262, you are looking at 10 hours before a changeout. That is a very short time. Scary short, cause that is probably an average. That means some of them conked out in the middle of their first or second flights. That definitely will affect the way you fly the bird and how aggressive you are. 

Another thought about the maturity of the Meteor, it really wasn't so much mature as more reliable. I don't know if fighter jet design hit mature states in the first generation. They were more experimental. Wings were straight more often than swept, it was more a piston design with jet engines than a mature jet design.

I would consider the Mig/Sabre/Vampire designs more made with a jet engine in mind than the generation preceeding.

Again, all this is IMHO.


----------



## Cromwell (Feb 17, 2010)

timshatz said:


> Another thought about the maturity of the Meteor, it really wasn't so much mature as more reliable. I don't know if fighter jet design hit mature states in the first generation. They were more experimental. Wings were straight more often than swept, it was more a piston design with jet engines than a mature jet design.



You hear a lot of negatives about the Meteor, but I think it was the kind of plane that was open to development - and quite rapidly too. (see also The Gloster Meteor )

(Just) Post war it held the *Speed Record* - *606 MPH (975 Klicks/h) in NOV 1945 * - Thats JUST after the war end _- not bad eh ?_

Thnk of the *NF14* 'Queen of the Skies' - which was an excellent NF and High Altitude interceptor and was kept in service till 1960s

Note. The USAAF pilots found it a real handful in War Games and Mock Combat high altitude.

ALSO - the Whittle Cetrifugal-type jet was not only much more reliable, it gave a lot more Horses per Pound (power to weight) that the German jets

AND was more economical too - and was developed into excellent Turboprop engines that were used for Decades after WW2

NB: For the Allies working from Britain in-to Europe, Reliability, Power to Weight and Economy were exceedingly important

The Germans were on an ever-shrinking piece of turf, so for them they could maybe get away with more in terms of reliability and economy- and I say Maybe, just maybe.


----------



## timshatz (Feb 17, 2010)

Cromwell said:


> You hear a lot of negatives about the Meteor, but I think it was the kind of plane that was open to development - and quite rapidly too. (see also The Gloster Meteor )
> 
> (Just) Post war it held the *Speed Record* - *606 MPH (975 Klicks/h) in NOV 1945 * - Thats JUST after the war end _- not bad eh ?_
> 
> ...




Learn something new everyday. Thanks for the post Cromwell.


----------



## Vincenzo (Feb 17, 2010)

As i read the jet planes of WWII flying constantly at high throttle, so don't need many thtottle movemevent as piston planes. 

never read of so short life of jumo 004 what's the source?


----------



## Vincenzo (Feb 17, 2010)

the fai record of meteor was possible only why not fai record in war of germans jet planes


----------



## Waynos (Feb 17, 2010)

Vincenzo said:


> the fai record of meteor was possible only why not fai record in war of germans jet planes



Do you think maybe they were otherwise occupied?

The real boost to Meteor performance came mainly from redesigning the engine nacelles, thats about the only major change from the F.3 to the F.4 (the model that set the record). The change from short to long nacelles was an easy field conversion if need be, so the low drag 1945 Meteor was every bit as fast as the 1945 262, if not moreso thanks to the more powerful engines
It is tempting to think from looking at the pics below that the F.4 had much bigger engines, in fact they were the same, but the longer nacelles greatly reduced drag and allowed higher speeds. The clipped wing of the F.4 pictured below also reduced drag and increased roll rate, but was not universally used on the day fighter Meteor until the F.8, and never on the NF series. The record setting F.4 stiill had the full span wing


----------



## timshatz (Feb 17, 2010)

Vincenzo said:


> As i read the jet planes of WWII flying constantly at high throttle, so don't need many thtottle movemevent as piston planes.
> 
> never read of so short life of jumo 004 what's the source?



To tell the truth, it has been stated so often and from so many different sources that the actual details escape me. 

My understanding was metals used in the manufacture had problems with the heat that the jet engines created. Germany, in the later part of the war, had problems producing the alloys due to mineral shortages. 

As for going everywhere at full throttle, I could see your point if:
-you don't have to land
-you don't have to take off
-nothing happens when you are landing, taking off or while you are going anywhere. 

Otherwise, you're going to need to monkey around with your throttle from time to time. Keep in mind, about half the losses an air force had during WW2 were operational. I would imagine that number would be a bit higher for the early jets as they were a new technology and the bugs/operational processes were still be worked out.


----------



## Vincenzo (Feb 17, 2010)

Waynos said:


> Do you think maybe they were otherwise occupied?
> 
> The real boost to Meteor performance came mainly from redesigning the engine nacelles, thats about the only major change from the F.3 to the F.4 (the model that set the record). The change from short to long nacelles was an easy field conversion if need be, so the low drag 1945 Meteor was every bit as fast as the 1945 262, if not moreso thanks to the more powerful engines
> It is tempting to think from looking at the pics below that the F.4 had much bigger engines, in fact they were the same, but the longer nacelles greatly reduced drag and allowed higher speeds. The clipped wing of the F.4 pictured below also reduced drag and increased roll rate, but was not universally used on the day fighter Meteor until the F.8, and never on the NF series. The record setting F.4 stiill had the full span wing



either 262 and 163 go to speed over 1000 km/h in war time


----------



## Vincenzo (Feb 17, 2010)

timshatz said:


> To tell the truth, it has been stated so often and from so many different sources that the actual details escape me.
> 
> My understanding was metals used in the manufacture had problems with the heat that the jet engines created. Germany, in the later part of the war, had problems producing the alloys due to mineral shortages.
> 
> ...



i wait

i not told this only that comaparate to piston engine the early jets move less the throttle and they commonly go to high throttle (that is not full) and was obvious they need land take...

i dislike the changing others statement, i hope this is first, and for me the last


----------



## Waynos (Feb 17, 2010)

Me 163 had a top speed of about 620mph, but is pretty worthless. The 262 top speed was 540mph with faster models projected, but unbuilt. I kind of think a 1946 Me 262 with developed engines but essentially the same airframe would have shown a 620mph top level speed at its best altitude.

Top seed of the Meteor F.3 was 490mph while the operational F.4 was 580mph, the record plane had its guns removed and gained 26mph. the following year another F.4 further raised the record to 616mph

These are 'best' speeds. Obviously altitudes affect speeds but are not required here as I am not talking about a 1 v 1 combat, only highest recorded level speeds.


----------



## Vincenzo (Feb 17, 2010)

Wayanos we are talking of record flight your data on max speed of operational plane it's out. the first F 4 not flying after the end of development of 262?


----------



## timshatz (Feb 17, 2010)

262 Engines details:
Wiki- 
The BMW 003 jet engines, which were proving unreliable, were replaced by the newly available Junkers Jumo 004. Test flights continued over the next year, but the engines continued to be unreliable. Airframe modifications were complete by 1942, but hampered by the lack of engines, serial production did not begin until 1944, but deliveries were low with 28 Me 262s in June, 59 in July, but only 20 in August.[8] This delay in engine availability was in part due to the shortage of strategic materials, especially metals and alloys able to handle the extreme temperatures produced by the jet engine. Even when the engines were completed, they had an expected operational lifetime of approximately 50 continuous flight hours; in fact, most 004s lasted just 12 hours, even with adequate maintenance. A pilot familiar with the Me 262 and its engines could expect approximately 20–25 hours of life from the 004s.

That posting is representative of many articles/postings stating that the 003 engines were lousy wtih respect to reliability while the 004s were much better, they still lasted a very short time. Again, the point is about reliablity. And engine that lasts 20-25 hours is not reliable. Engines of today routinely get 10,000 hours of flight time. That is a reliable engine. 20-25 hours is not reliable. 

On my end, my statement that the average life of the engines was 10 hours was incorrect. I was going on memory. 

Lastly, full power, war emergency power, half power, it really doesn't matter. The problem is not the power but the changing of the power settings. When you fly, you change the settings all the time and the Jumos were succeptable to power setting changes so much so that the pilots were told to increase throttle very slowly in order to avoid a flameout. It is almost impossible to set the engines at any level and leave them there for a whole flight. It IS impossible for anyone flying in formation to fly with power settings unchanged. So, even if a pilot took off and flew a whole mission at one throttle setting (never heard of it done but for the sake of arguement we'll go on the assumption it happened in anything other than a rocket plane), he would have to do it solo as nobody else could fly with him without changing throttle settings constantly. To fly missions in a kette, the Luftwaffe pilots forming on the leader had to change throttle settings constantly (and very slowly) to stay in formation. The leader could make this a much simpler thing to do by being predictable and gradual in his changes of movement as well as broadcasting them when he did it to give his wingmen time to react.


----------



## Waynos (Feb 17, 2010)

Vincenzo said:


> Wayanos we are talking of record flight your data on max speed of operational plane it's out. the first F 4 not flying after the end of development of 262?





What is it that is out? I'm not sure what you mean by that. The first F.4 flew on 14th May 1945, but the speed increase with the long chord nacelled had already been demonstrated on an F.1 before that and the last 15 production F.3's were completed with them too, so the faster Meteors did fly, in small numbers, before the end of the war.

Timshatz - you were not entirely wrong. The engine life had to be increased from 10 hours to 25 before the LW would accept the 262 for service, taken from Alfred Price's 'Last Year of the Luftwaffe'


----------



## Messy1 (Feb 17, 2010)

Interesting posts guys. Thanks for the info.


----------



## red admiral (Feb 17, 2010)

Vincenzo said:


> Wayanos we are talking of record flight your data on max speed of operational plane it's out. the first F 4 not flying after the end of development of 262?



The FAI records were still given at sea level during this period which is where the 606mph and 616mph records come from for the Meteor F4. The Me 163 was faster at altitude, but that wouldn't count for the record. It wasn't till the mid 1950s that speeds had increased so much as to necessitate the changeover to maxmimum Mach at altitude.


----------



## Cromwell (Feb 17, 2010)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Why are you trying to compare a Jet aircraft with a Piston aircraft?



OK - How about vote for *Me262 vs Meteor *

Only, like most everything else on this site, it has probably been done before - several times [sigh]


----------



## Cromwell (Feb 17, 2010)

timshatz said:


> To tell the truth, it has been stated so often and from so many different sources that the actual details escape me.
> 
> My understanding was metals used in the manufacture had problems with the heat that the jet engines created. Germany, in the later part of the war, had problems producing the alloys due to mineral shortages.



OK, well strangely enough my Father - rest his soul - had quite a lot to do with Power Jets when the company was started by Whittle Co 45/46 (my Dad worked for the MoD but did not tell me much)

Anyhow, he did used to talk about using early computers to control cutting jet engine parts very slowly over weeks to ensure Micro-Nano accuracy to stop them flying apart due to tiny imbalances - at the RR factories in Derby UK and in Germany too.

(I actually have a book published by Powerjets from 1946)

Thing is this : Centrifugal impellers can be built onto, or cast from, or turned-up from BIG chunks of metal

So - they can be made with metals that are _far less specialised_ without fear of flying apart. 


I.E : RPM for the Whittle type engine was 16-17,000 RPM - Max for the BMW 003 about 8-9,000 - about half the max speed


German engines had Co-Axial Impellers and Turbines that were much _Thinner_ and had to sit entirely immersed in the air / heat flow - very cold in some parts, very hot in others


So with time and immense centripedal forces they just flew apart - any slight crystaline / hair-cracks and whammo - game over.


The other thing with Co-axial engines is they get* 'Creep' *which means that over time they become unbalanced - _even if they are standig completely still_.


In the past commercial / military jet engines were sometimes being constantly turned over when the planes were at rest - like one revolution every 4-5 hours - or something like that. Not so sure now.


Picture of Centrifugal Engine


----------



## Colin1 (Feb 17, 2010)

Cromwell said:


> OK, well strangely enough my Father - rest his soul - had quite a lot to do with Power Jets which was the company started by Whittle Co. He used to talk about using early computers to control cutting jet engine parts very slowly over weeks to ensure Micro-Nano accuracy


Nano-accuracy in the late 40s, that sounds interesting


----------



## Cromwell (Feb 17, 2010)

timshatz said:


> Learn something new everyday. Thanks for the post Cromwell.



Thanks for the boost, Tim - you can see quite a lot on Airvectors and Wikipedia 

_*Enter the VAMPIRE !*_


Another point is that the Vampire set some records too for Altitude (and possibly Climb Rate too momentarily)


*1948, John Cunningham : world altitude record of 59,446 ft (18,119 m)*


*NB: The Vampy first flew in 1943 - 20 Sep actually*


So you see, the Brits were not so badly behind the 'ze vunderful Germans' after all


Also the Vampire was easy to mass-produce - a lot of the parts were also made of wood like the Mosquito so it was possibly to use non-specialist factories to make some of the parts.

So my point is that in the event of the war going on for say another 1-2 years the Brits and allies, would have been knocking out LARGE quantities of Good Quality Jet Planes to give the old Luftwaffe another head-ache, thanks all the same.


----------



## Cromwell (Feb 17, 2010)

red admiral said:


> The FAI records were still given at sea level during this period which is where the 606mph and 616mph records come from for the Meteor F4. The Me 163 was faster at altitude, but that wouldn't count for the record. It wasn't till the mid 1950s that speeds had increased so much as to necessitate the changeover to maxmimum Mach at altitude.



I think in reality the Me 163 was a rocket-plane that regularly dissolved its pilots in T-stoff * and C-stoff

( * 80% _concentrated _hydrogen peroxide / 20% oxyquinoline - NICE !!)

It could woosh its way up up and away, and then flutter back down to earth for a dodgy skid landing that also regularly killed pilots.

But really, was this a working military reaction-propulsion plane - or a fascinating rocket-plane for research ??


I mean 5 minutes up - then some gliding, and if the fuel does not turn you into biological soup - the landing will probably flip you over and break your neck.

Excellent - I want one for Christmas


----------



## Cromwell (Feb 17, 2010)

I seem to be in a posting frenzy - So why change ?

Thing is this : There seems to an idea that all Allied stuff was stop-gap, not very well made, and only worked in large numbers.

Like saying the Sten Gun was useless - BUT recent tests comparing the MP40 with the Stens from say, 1944, show there was actually very little difference in the effective performance

Watch Battlefield Detectives series about Arnheim and you will see live firing comparisons between the MP40 and the Sten.

Granted the Sten was not pretty - and the MP40 was nicely machined and fitted.

The Sterling, which was developed from the Sten, in 46/47 was actually a very fine bit of kit (in service 51 or 53 depending on sources)


----------



## Colin1 (Feb 17, 2010)

Cromwell said:


> Thing is this : There seems to an idea that all Allied stuff was stop-gap, not very well made, and only worked in large numbers.
> 
> Granted the Sten was not pretty - and the MP40 was nicely machined and fitted.
> 
> The Sterling, which was developed from the Sten, in 46/47 was actually a very fine bit of kit (in service 51 or 53 depending on sources)


I've not noticed that sentiment C, presumably you mean outside of the forum

I thought the MP40 was pressed, not machined (my knowledge is limited in this area)

Do you mean the SMG that they used in Star Wars with the stocks folded? Used them through apprentice college 78 - 80 then never saw them again. They were still out there but were issued to complexes and anyone else who might have to fight close in.


----------



## timshatz (Feb 17, 2010)

Great posts Cromwell, especially about the differences about the two engines. I was not aware of the differences in that light. Very interesting. As I am a relative novice on Jet Engines (I know how they work in principle but that doesn't mean squat in the real world), where do Turbofans fit in. Any link I can go to for a comparison to co-axle or are they the same?

On another note, somebody on the board used to use a Sterling and had a low opinion of it. Said something like it was useless for everything but opening beer bottles or some such. I can't remember. It might've been Airframes or one of those guys who were in the British Army in the 70s.


----------



## Vincenzo (Feb 17, 2010)

red admiral said:


> The FAI records were still given at sea level during this period which is where the 606mph and 616mph records come from for the Meteor F4. The Me 163 was faster at altitude, but that wouldn't count for the record. It wasn't till the mid 1950s that speeds had increased so much as to necessitate the changeover to maxmimum Mach at altitude.



idk what altitude were flying that speed test and it's possible and also probable that were highest of FAI at time regolamentation


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 17, 2010)

Guys, all great info, but remember all this doesn't preclude the fact that all these early jets were not great "accelerators" and flew into combat with high power settings. The Meteor was fast for its day but wasn't a great "roller." The Vampire, had a slow responding engine typical of the period, but built up speed quicker because of its lighter weight and was more maneuverable - but here's the key - the amount of energy these aircraft could maintain and develop during combat. The extra 5 or 6 mph difference in speed is not going to mean too much if one aircraft can use energy to accelerate away.


----------



## drgondog (Feb 17, 2010)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Guys, all great info, but remember all this doesn't preclude the fact that all these early jets were not great "accelerators" and flew into combat with high power settings. The Meteor was fast for its day but wasn't a great "roller." The Vampire, had a slow responding engine typical of the period, but built up speed quicker because of its lighter weight and was more maneuverable - but here's the key - the amount of energy these aircraft could maintain and develop during combat. The extra 5 or 6 mph difference in speed is not going to mean too much if one aircraft can use energy to accelerate away.



dead on Joe...I was nodding off in the discussion - plus the niggling detail that only when alerted (and capable) did max speeds even become a factor. The second guy to know he is in a gunfight often holds that as his very last thought.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 17, 2010)

Thanks Bill - glad we woke you up!


----------



## Erich (Feb 18, 2010)

funny I thought this was the contention between the Schwalbe and the Stang and nothing to do with the Meteor. why the F*** does a thread of this nature and interest always get off-topic


----------



## riacrato (Feb 18, 2010)

Cromwell said:


> I think in reality the Me 163 was a rocket-plane _that regularly dissolved its pilots in T-stoff * and C-stoff_





> Granted the Sten was not pretty - and the MP40 was nicely machined and fitted.


Wrong.

And on what you wrote about jets. You see, by now everyone with decent interest in jet engines knows well enough about the relative advantages of centrifugal or axial compressors. And it is ****ing common knowledge that none is definetly superior to the other or else they were not both used until this day. But no, always someone has to make it look as if his country's engine concept choice was inherently superior.



timshatz said:


> That posting is representative of many articles/postings stating that the 003 engines were lousy wtih respect to reliability while the 004s were much better, they still lasted a very short time. Again, the point is about reliablity. And engine that lasts 20-25 hours is not reliable. Engines of today routinely get 10,000 hours of flight time. That is a reliable engine. 20-25 hours is not reliable.


First of all the 003 was abandoned for the Me 262 relatively early on simply for the fact that it was clear the engine was nowhere near as close to being serial production ready as the Jumo. Only the very first prototypes used the 003. And it wasn't "lousy" it was simply not ready. The J33 also had lousy reliability in pre-production. this is the first jet generation afterall. When the 003 entered true service with Ar 234 and He 162 it showed good reliability given the circumstances.

And todays engines have to last for ages, because that's how long the plane lasts. Now how long will a Me 262 in spring of 1945 last on average? We have really been repeating this subject over and over again. And there's a Me 262 vs Meteor topic right on this page.


----------



## timshatz (Feb 18, 2010)

We have been close to this subject for a while and the point was about the reliability of the engines. In the spring of 1945, a Merlin was far more reliable than the Jumo 004. Hence the point about the Mustang being preferred over the 262 due to reliablity and maturity of the design. The Mustang had a more reliable and mature engine.


----------



## Colin1 (Feb 18, 2010)

riacrato said:


> And todays engines have to last for ages, because that's how long the plane lasts.
> 
> Now how long will an Me262 in spring of 1945 last on average?


Your first comment doesn't look right to me, I can't put my finger on it...

...and your second comment is probably what is confusing me; what are you saying has changed in aircraft maintenance between Spring 1945 and now? Or even air combat, in modern times we have less aircraft being shot at by far more accurate weapons (not all of them other aircraft), what are you saying has changed?


----------



## riacrato (Feb 19, 2010)

The situation of a modern airforce is very different from LW 44-45. The reality was that from late '44 onwards the average LW fighter aircraft survived no more than a few (5? 10?) missions before being shot down in the air or on the ground, crash landed or similar. So it makes a lot of sense to have an engine lifetime in the vicinity of the total aircraft's lifetime. Sure the Jumo 004 is borderline. But you have to make a decision: Either have an expensive, normal-lifespan engine which will be a lot of money blown out the window if shot down (as in Jumo 004 A) or take the cheap route of the Jumo 004 B. I'd take the latter any day given the choices.


----------



## Colin1 (Feb 19, 2010)

riacrato said:


> ... So it makes a lot of sense to have an engine lifetime in the vicinity of the total aircraft's lifetime...


In the Luftwaffe's case, I think this has more to do with unfortunate coincidence than intelligent design

With regards to a modern airforce, I don't think an F-15 sitting on the apron at Holloman AFB in 2010 has the same engines it rolled out of Long Beach with in 1974. I don't know that for certain but it doesn't sound feasible so the statement 'engines have to last because that's how long the plane lasts' feels limited in accuracy to me.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 19, 2010)

Actually the F-15 was built in St. Louis and yes, more than likely any given F-15 flying today has seen at least a half dozen different engines in its lifetime, depending on the flying hours.

The minimal life time of German turbine engines during WW2 existed because of material and the implementation of new technology and that was typical of ANY turbine engine of the period. British and US made engines were lasting a bit more because of materials and better quality control, but that's not taking anything away from what Germany accomplished with its first turbine engines. In reality, reliability in ANY turbine aircraft built between 1944 and 1946 could be questionable and if I was flying one I'd make sure I had a good parachute, say prayers during the first 500' of takeoff and make sure I was way ahead of the airplane during landing.

Now, let's get this thread back on track....


----------



## parsifal (Feb 19, 2010)

something I only recently found out. The Vampire used the same plywood laminar construction as had been developed for the Mosquito, though more metal was used in the Vampire. This mixed wood/metal construction was continued in both the Venom and Sea Venom types, which were not retired until 1967 in the RAN. 

The Sea Venom had an initial climb rate of 5900 feet per minute. Does that not suggest superior accelaration, I assume that climb rate and accelaration are related in terms of their power demands?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 19, 2010)

parsifal said:


> something I only recently found out. The Vampire used the same plywood laminar construction as had been developed for the Mosquito, though more metal was used in the Vampire. This mixed wood/metal construction was continued in both the Venom and Sea Venom types, which were not retired until 1967 in the RAN.
> 
> The Sea Venom had an initial climb rate of 5900 feet per minute. Does that not suggest superior accelaration, I assume that climb rate and accelaration are related in terms of their power demands?



All true...


----------



## riacrato (Feb 19, 2010)

Colin1 said:


> In the Luftwaffe's case, I think this has more to do with unfortunate coincidence than intelligent design


the Jumo 004 A had a significantly longer lifetime than the B, that is fact. The B was a trade-off solution between material availability and service life.that is also fact.



> With regards a modern airforce, I don't think an F-15 sitting on the apron at Holloman AFB has the same engines it rolled out of Long Beach with in 1974.


And I never said so. I said with a plane lasting years it makes sense to have an engine lasting a few years (didn't say it has to be 1:1). With a plane whose lifecycle is measured in weeks it doesn't make sense to have its engine lasting for years. Disprove me.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 19, 2010)

riacrato said:


> With a plane whose lifecycle is measured in weeks it doesn't make sense to have its engine lasting for years. Disprove me.



The point here is despite an airframe with a lifecycle lasting weeks, no one in 1945, allied or axis was building a turbine engine lasting years, even if they wanted to.


----------



## timshatz (Feb 19, 2010)

FLYBOYJ said:


> The point here is despite an airframe with a lifecycle lasting weeks, no one in 1945, allied or axis was building a turbine engine lasting years, even if they wanted to.



I'm with you on the engine life Flyboy. Any bird with a lifecycle on the engines of 20-25 hours is going to make me VERY nervous. Jeez, if that's the average, what's the deal with the substandard engines that snuck by QC. 

Matter of fact, I don't think I've ever met a pilot who wasn't at least "very sensitive" to whatever his engine was doing. And that's on a 2000 TBO Lycoming.


----------



## thrawn (Feb 19, 2010)

timshatz said:


> I'm with you on the engine life Flyboy. Any bird with a lifecycle on the engines of 20-25 hours is going to make me VERY nervous. Jeez, if that's the average, what's the deal with the substandard engines that snuck by QC.
> 
> Matter of fact, I don't think I've ever met a pilot who wasn't at least "very sensitive" to whatever his engine was doing. And that's on a 2000 TBO Lycoming.




Some people are mixing expectet engine life time with reliability.
It is right that an unreliable engine has an shorter average lifetime than an reliable. But to assume a short life engine is unreliable is simply wrong.
If we assume a gaussian normal distribution with the peak at 20 hours engine life, the variance (width of the bell) is the factor to determine reliability. This could be small or wide. The average life time will be the same. So if only very few engines last significant longer than 20 hours, there will be very few engines which will last significant shorter. Thats a reliable engine. For an unreliable one its the other way around. But we dont know the variance and so we cant judge reliability. Engine life time alone is meaningless.

In fact, one of the problems which reduced the life time on the jumo 004 was the blade lengthening because of low heat resistant materials. But this lenghtening is a very steady process, which is controllable.
Of course this is not the only problem of the Jumo 004. And so its difficult to say it was reliable or not.

regards 

thrawn


----------



## timshatz (Feb 19, 2010)

thrawn said:


> Some people are mixing expectet engine life time with reliability.
> It is right that an unreliable engine has an shorter average lifetime than an reliable. But to assume a short life engine is unreliable is simply wrong.
> If we assume a gaussian normal distribution with the peak at 20 hours engine life, the variance (width of the bell) is the factor to determine reliability. This could be small or wide. The average life time will be the same. So if only very few engines last significant longer than 20 hours, there will be very few engines which will last significant shorter. Thats a reliable engine. For an unreliable one its the other way around. But we dont know the variance and so we cant judge reliability. Engine life time alone is meaningless.
> 
> ...



See your point and agree with you Thrawn. The distribution of the population is a crucial component on the effective life of an engine. And using a Gaussian (took me back to College on that one) would assume the engine life is not restrictive to the point of being a point of contention. Going on that perspective, my guess is the consideration of any engine under something like 15 hours (again, just pulling that one out of thin air as there is no data associated with it that we could, or I would, analyse) you would have a confidence interval in the high 90s that they would survive up to at least 15 hours. 

But doesn't your arguement base itself on the condition that we know the standard deviations of the distribution. If we have a median of 20 hours without knowing the actual distribution (given this was a new technology in the situation it was being used), then there could be some engines that last 38 hours and there could be some that last 2. Given that the technology was not refined to the point it is now, with engine lifes in the thousands of hours, would it not be wise to consder the immaturity of the engines in the effectiveness of the aircraft? 

I guess what I'm saying is, given how many unresolved (to the point of consistency that a jet engine ten years in the future would have) issues there were with the 004s, could the intervals of the population be so wide as to cover from the 0 time engine to the 40 hour engine?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 19, 2010)

thrawn said:


> Some people are mixing expectet engine life time with reliability.
> It is right that an unreliable engine has an shorter average lifetime than an reliable. But to assume a short life engine is unreliable is simply wrong.
> If we assume a gaussian normal distribution with the peak at 20 hours engine life, the variance (width of the bell) is the factor to determine reliability. This could be small or wide. The average life time will be the same. So if only very few engines last significant longer than 20 hours, there will be very few engines which will last significant shorter. Thats a reliable engine. For an unreliable one its the other way around. But we dont know the variance and so we cant judge reliability. Engine life time alone is meaningless.
> 
> ...



Thrawn - Your point is taken but during this period the statistical analysis of engine reliability couldn't really be determined because your Gaussian normal distribution (also known as a "baseline" in laymen’s terms) was unattainable during that period for a number of reasons (tolerances, variances manufacturing process, still evolving workmanship standards, and mainly a still evolving technology). For example even by mid 1945 I-40s powering early P-80s that failed in service failed at varied times. Tony LeVier had a turbine blade come apart on a P-80 he was flying south of Edwards AFB in March 1945. I remember him telling me that engine had less than 10 hours on it. Even though these early manufacturers attempted to place a time life on these engines, it was still a crap shoot with failure imminent at any given time. 

Bottom line whether we want to lump expectant time life into reliability, it was not comforting to those early pilots flying these crates and coming from a world where they could easily see 50 or 100 hours on a recip engine (and not normally fail during normal operation), these new turbines weren't reliable, regardless of any time life that might have been attempted to be attached to them.


----------



## Cromwell (Feb 20, 2010)

riacrato said:


> Wrong.
> 
> And on what you wrote about jets. You see, by now everyone with decent interest in jet engines knows well enough about the relative advantages of centrifugal or axial compressors. And it is ****ing common knowledge that none is definetly superior to the other or else they were not both used until this day. But no, always someone has to make it look as if his country's engine concept choice was inherently superior.




1. Well before you start saying 'Wrong' perhaps you can tell me why I am wrong ? or perhaps you don't know. 


2. Also, I think the issue was at that time which of the beligerants could field a reliable jet plane that would give them certain advantages in terms of time in the air, serviceability, safety and pilot confidence.

Based on the materials then commonly available the Centrifugal engine scored more highly in these areas - as well as in power-to-weight ratio. It so happened that this was on the Brit / US side of the equation.

So, it would seem that if the war had dragged on for a year or more, the allies might have been well placed to put up a credible jet force using technology that gave them certain advantages.


----------



## Cromwell (Feb 20, 2010)

FLYBOYJ said:


> All true...



I live near the Mosquito museum here in the UK and they actually have some early Vamps Venoms. Its really strange to go up and touch the Plywood noses and the Fabric covered aerolons :-

Mosquito Aircraft Museum - de Havilland Aircraft Heritage Centre

Note. Pilots found the Vamp was a great plane to belly-land if needed - the shape and the elastic wooden structure used to just skid nicely long grass strips.

One other point :

I said earlier that the Me163 was a Rocket-plane. Someone else said 'Wrong' (bit rude really)

This is entirely true - it was driven by a reaction-rocket engine, running on mixed liquid fuels

Komet Me163 - Chief test pilot Rudy Opitz tells it like it was - Flight Journal.com Page 1


----------



## Cromwell (Feb 20, 2010)

timshatz said:


> Great posts Cromwell, especially about the differences about the two engines. I was not aware of the differences in that light. Very interesting. As I am a relative novice on Jet Engines (I know how they work in principle but that doesn't mean squat in the real world), where do Turbofans fit in. Any link I can go to for a comparison to co-axle or are they the same?
> 
> On another note, somebody on the board used to use a Sterling and had a low opinion of it. Said something like it was useless for everything but opening beer bottles or some such. I can't remember. It might've been Airframes or one of those guys who were in the British Army in the 70s.



Well Wikipedia seems a good place to start - if a bit obvious !

Jet engine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## JoeB (Feb 20, 2010)

Colin1 said:


> With regards to a modern airforce, I don't think an F-15 sitting on the apron at Holloman AFB in 2010 has the same engines it rolled out of Long Beach with in 1974. I don't know that for certain but it doesn't sound feasible so the statement 'engines have to last because that's how long the plane lasts' feels limited in accuracy to me.


As mentioned surely the plane has had it engines changed out several times. But the engines which started in one F-15 way back (well F-15A's built back in mid 70's are becoming rare, though most are still relatively old) might still be in another now. They've been overhauled and rebuilt replacing wearing or fatigue life parts, but P&W hasn't built several complete fleets worth of completely new F100 engines for F-15's i in the last 30 years. You might say the engines are kind of like your grandpa's old hammer where your dad replaced the handle and you repaced the head , though not quite, some parts neither physically wear nor come under much stress in operation.

But TBO's for fighter engines, which is really what we're talking about, the Me262 engines wouldn't necessarily be completely sh*tcanned either I wouldn't guess, have multiplied if anything more than the lives of the a/c themselves, especially if you compare on an apples to apples basis their lives in peacetime service. Though, the fact that a WWII combat a/c would likely be destroyed in a weeks or months in a combat zone, or else become obsolete not long after that, or simply wear out itself (for example Soviet fighters with wooden and fabric parts) was a factor in considering equipment life, obviously. Perhaps it should have been in more cases (as in criticism of US Browning .50 of being a long lived machine gun heavy for its performance compared to shorter lived Soviet 12.7mm a/c mgs). But late war German jet and some piston, engines had short enough TBO-lives to cause servicibility/availability problems with the planes they were fitted in.

Joe


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 21, 2010)

At the time in question the different compressors had different advantages and dis-advantages. BOTH offered about the same effective pressure ratio although the axial would eventually (early 50s) easily far surpass the capabilities of the axial in that regard.

Axial was much shorter, lighter and simpler. It was also much fatter which meant more frontal area and drag.
There is a reason a two seat Venom can be side by side.

In 1943-45 you pay your money and take your choice.


----------



## renrich (Feb 21, 2010)

As far as military engines in WW2 are concerned, I remember reading that Lindberg while in the PTO was trying to teach pilots to extend the range of their aircraft. One of the methods he used was to run the engines with a leaner mixture than the manual advised. When some of the pilots protested about abusing the engines that way, he countered by saying that they were military engines and were designed to be abused. Of course, if one is a pilot flying over the Pacific Ocean, the last thing you want is an abused engine but on the other hand you don't want to run out of fuel either. When in a light plane I have always noticed that the engine seems to begin to sound "funny" as soon as I am over a large body of water.


----------



## timshatz (Feb 21, 2010)

renrich said:


> When in a light plane I have always noticed that the engine seems to begin to sound "funny" as soon as I am over a large body of water.



Or at night over unfamiliar terrain..."What was that?"


----------



## Glider (Feb 21, 2010)

renrich said:


> When in a light plane I have always noticed that the engine seems to begin to sound "funny" as soon as I am over a large body of water.



At least thats one thing I didn't have to worry about


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 21, 2010)

JoeB said:


> But TBO's for fighter engines, which is really what we're talking about, the Me262 engines wouldn't necessarily be completely sh*tcanned either I wouldn't guess, have multiplied if anything more than the lives of the a/c themselves, especially if you compare on an apples to apples basis their lives in peacetime service. Though, the fact that a WWII combat a/c would likely be destroyed in a weeks or months in a combat zone, or else become obsolete not long after that, or simply wear out itself (for example Soviet fighters with wooden and fabric parts) was a factor in considering equipment life, obviously. Perhaps it should have been in more cases (as in criticism of US Browning .50 of being a long lived machine gun heavy for its performance compared to shorter lived Soviet 12.7mm a/c mgs). But late war German jet and some piston, engines had short enough TBO-lives to cause servicibility/availability problems with the planes they were fitted in.
> 
> Joe


Joe - you'd have to look at what type of failure the engine had to determine if the whole thing was tossed. Compressor and turbine bearing failure was common as well as burner cans coming apart. Let's not forget compressor and turbine blades coming apart as well. If the failure involved penetration of the engine case by failing parts that have flung off the compressor or turbine disk, or if the engine caught fire and burned for a while, I don't see much being salvaged. When early centrifugal flow turbines failed and started throwing parts, there usually wasn't much left. As we know axial flow engines fared much better again providing there wasn't any prolonged fire or engine case penetration, and even then, one half the case can be replaced.


----------



## JoeB (Feb 21, 2010)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Joe - you'd have to look at what type of failure the engine had to determine if the whole thing was tossed. Compressor and turbine bearing failure was common as well as burner cans coming apart. Let's not forget compressor and turbine blades coming apart as well. If the failure involved penetration of the engine case by failing parts that have flung off the compressor or turbine disk, or if the engine caught fire and burned for a while, I don't see much being salvaged.


I was thinking more of scheduled overhaul/rebuilds of mature engine designs with predictable life, where most are overhauled without failing first. For early jets with less predictable life and no previous experience, you're probably right, many probably failed in operation in ways that completely ruined the engine (not to mention causing destruction of the whole airplane sometimes, usually so in case of single engine jets).

Joe


----------



## drgondog (Feb 21, 2010)

parsifal said:


> something I only recently found out. The Vampire used the same plywood laminar construction as had been developed for the Mosquito, though more metal was used in the Vampire. This mixed wood/metal construction was continued in both the Venom and Sea Venom types, which were not retired until 1967 in the RAN.
> 
> The Sea Venom had an initial climb rate of 5900 feet per minute. Does that not suggest superior accelaration, I assume that climb rate and accelaration are related in terms of their power demands?



Acceleration dependent on available Thrust less drag.

Climb also based on thrust available as well as the lift of the airplane and the angle of the climb.

rate of climb = (T-D)*V/W for unaccelerated flight

for high angle of climb (a) and unaccelerated flight you have to account for change in Induced Drag and that must be accounted for in the above equation (L= W*cos a and as induced drag changes with changes to CL then Di (1) = Di (0) cos>>2 a..

where Di(1) is induced drag at a climb angle, Di(o) is induced drag at level flight and cos>>a is cos squared of a.

So the Vampire (and Me 262) climb rates are more about the Velocity enting the climb) rather than acceleration, as well as lift loading of the aircraft based on the wing.

Anybody ever see a U-2 climb..? not much acceleration but gawd what a climbe rate for a relatively low T/W ratio (not much induced drag on that beast but a very low lift loading)


----------



## timshatz (Feb 21, 2010)

Cromwell said:


> Well Wikipedia seems a good place to start - if a bit obvious !
> 
> Jet engine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Thanks bud. Appreciate it. Another page in the education of timshatz!


----------



## Cromwell (Feb 22, 2010)

Shortened said:


> At the time in question the different compressors had different advantages and dis-advantages. BOTH offered about the same effective pressure ratio although the axial would eventually (early 50s) easily far surpass the capabilities of the axial in that regard.
> 
> Axial was much shorter, lighter and simpler. It was also much fatter which meant more frontal area and drag.
> There is a reason a two seat Venom can be side by side.
> ...



One issue is that most super / turbo-chargers were based on Centrifugal fans (like Hoover cleaners) and so the technology was quite well developed on this side of the fence i.e. the Allies

See this Quote * :-


_The engine was renamed the Welland after the English river, and entered production in 1943 for use on the Gloster Meteor. It was beaten into the air only slightly by the Junkers Jumo 004. Unlike the 004, however, the Welland was a reliable and generally safe engine, due largely to *Britain's]better metallurgy and Rolls-Royce's considerable experience in the related field of superchargers* ._ 


* This is from a very interesting article on the RR Welland version of the 'Whittle engine' in Wikipedia


Rolls-Royce Welland - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Cromwell (Feb 22, 2010)

timshatz said:


> Thanks bud. Appreciate it. Another page in the education of timshatz!



Take a look at this too, also in Wiki

Frank Whittle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Cromwell (Feb 22, 2010)

drgondog said:


> Acceleration dependent on available Thrust less drag.
> 
> Climb also based on thrust available as well as the lift of the airplane and the angle of the climb.
> 
> ...



A. Can you define some of the terms please such as T , D ,V , W so on

B. So in the end which was a faster climber - the Me262 or the Vampire ? (or the Meteor come to that)


----------



## Cromwell (Feb 24, 2010)

Zniperguy114 said:


> Colin, you choose. I only have a limited view of each aircraft and any comparision is perfectly fine by me. And plus, wounldn't seeing who would win in a dogfight be one deciding factor in the better fighter?



There is a very interesting article about the Mustang versus Me262 called "Riding Shotgun" in the February 2008 issue of Fly Past magazine (UK publication).

It relays the experience of Lt Joseph Peterbus as a Mustang Pilot during WW2

You might possibly be able to get a back-copy at their webiste FlyPast: At the heart of aviation heritage


----------



## drgondog (Feb 25, 2010)

Cromwell said:


> A. Can you define some of the terms please such as T*=thrust* , D*=drag=induced drag+parasite/profile/skin friction/wave drag* ,V*=velocity* , W*=weight *so on
> 
> B. So in the end which was a faster climber - the Me262 or the Vampire ? (or the Meteor come to that)



I suspect the Vampire but I do not know. What I was trying to communicate is the acceleration per se doesn't have as much effect on climb rate from level steady flight as the Lift Loading, Velocity and Angle of climb


----------



## Cromwell (Feb 25, 2010)

drgondog said:


> I suspect the Vampire but I do not know. What I was trying to communicate is the acceleration per se doesn't have as much effect on climb rate from level steady flight as the Lift Loading, Velocity and Angle of climb



That is interesting :-

So in other words the ability to accelerate is not an over-riding critical function when considering the ability to climb - It would also help to explain why some planes with tremendous acceleration such as the P47 were fairly lousy climbers.


I know that with some planes 'top speed' as such is limited by design so that you could double the power but may not get much more MPH - but much improved Feet per Second

Say, for example, the later models of Hurricane which could climb and also carry much higher loads, but were not significanlty faster because the thick wing section etc etc prohibited any advantage in this area.


----------



## Colin1 (Feb 25, 2010)

Cromwell said:


> That is interesting :-
> 
> So in other words the ability to accelerate is not an over-riding critical function when considering the ability to climb - It would also help to explain why some planes with tremendous acceleration such as the P47 were fairly lousy climbers


I got the impression that the point was that WWII jets couldn't just pull the nose up into a climb and accelerate away from a pursuing recip. The ability to accelerate anywhere is a critical function, it's just that 1st-gen jets were pretty poor at it, even in level flight.

I'm not sure why you think the P-47 had tremendous acceleration


----------



## Cromwell (Feb 25, 2010)

Colin1 said:


> I got the impression that the point was that WWII jets couldn't just pull the nose up into a climb and accelerate away from a pursuing recip. The ability to accelerate anywhere is a critical function, it's just that 1st-gen jets were pretty poor at it, even in level flight.
> 
> I'm not sure why you think the P-47 had tremendous acceleration



When I said "not critical function" I meant specifically in terms of climb ability i.e there are some types of plane that do not have particularly high level acceleration or even top speed, but can climb like home-sick angels.

However, I am sure in combat it really helps to be able to accelerate, and climb and all the rest of it, of course it does - and I know early jets had problems _spooling-up _quickly etc etc

Which is why I believe the US and UK Navies kept prop planes for so much longer in the front line as they were better at rapid acceleration and the need to go around again if they missed the wire (by all means look it up).


P47: 

Well I have never flown one, for sure, but when you read about the P47 it had loads of power from a large supercharged engine - but was apparently not so good at climbing to altitude if that makes sense ?

See what you think : P-47 Performance Tests


----------



## Cromwell (Feb 25, 2010)

Colin1 said:


> I got the impression that the point was that WWII jets couldn't just pull the nose up into a climb and accelerate away from a pursuing recip. The ability to accelerate anywhere is a critical function, it's just that 1st-gen jets were pretty poor at it, even in level flight.



I think that is why also the Germans covered the 262 with Dora 190s on landing and take-off

Early jets were pretty much commited once they were landing or taking off, which lines up wiith your point pretty much I think.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 25, 2010)

Cromwell said:


> I
> Early jets were pretty much commited once they were landing or taking off, which lines up wiith your point pretty much I think.



Not Really - depends on what was to happen and when. On takeoff between wheels up and until you turn crosswind an engine loss usually meant trying to land straight ahead for a single engine aircraft. For a twin jet, it would depend on maintaining climb on one engine and a lot of variables play into that. If you could make to downwind or at least to a speed where gear and flaps are retracted and then have an engine failure, you could probably have some time to find a place to land should you experience an engine failure. 

On landing, the key is staying ahead of the airplane and compensating for the 10 - 20 second spool up should you need to go around. The point here is a seasoned pilot should be able to put his aircraft close to the numbers when established on final. In the case of a 262 on a 1/4 mile final and being attacked from behind, the pilot better be carrying a little power and hope for the best....


----------



## Milosh (Feb 26, 2010)

The final was more than a 1/4 mile.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 26, 2010)

Milosh said:


> The final was more than a 1/4 mile.



Of course it is - a 1/4 mile final is a reference point in the circuit where the pilot usually commits to either a landing, touch and go, or go around, other pilots would know what I'm talking about, apparently you didn't....


----------



## Milosh (Feb 26, 2010)

Thanks for the correction.

What do you mean by 'a little power'?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 26, 2010)

Milosh said:


> Thanks for the correction.
> 
> What do you mean by 'a little power'?



From base to final the flight manual may recommend carrying 60 to 80% power. 70% to 90% (depending on the aircraft) would be recommended on a slow spooling jet engine if one is anticipating a go round. You'll start adding power at about 1/4 final. Depending on the aircraft you could carry more power and have the speed brakes out, but I do know some folks don't approve of this technique. You may land a little fast but that's the compromise for carrying power for a go-around.


----------



## Milosh (Feb 26, 2010)

Thanks.

Do you know what power the Jumo 004B is putting out at 230kph.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 26, 2010)

Milosh said:


> Thanks.
> 
> Do you know what power the Jumo 004B is putting out at 230kph.



With gear and flaps down to maintain level flight, I would guess between 85% - 90%. With gear and flaps up I would say 70%.

I have a flight manual downloaded somewhere. If I remember correctly below 6000 rpm is where you have to be real careful about rapid throttle movements. I believe idle is about 3000 RPM, about 30%. ~ 40%.


----------



## Cromwell (Feb 27, 2010)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Not Really - depends on what was to happen and when. On takeoff between wheels up and until you turn crosswind an engine loss usually meant trying to land straight ahead for a single engine aircraft. For a twin jet, it would depend on maintaining climb on one engine and a lot of variables play into that. If you could make to downwind or at least to a speed where gear and flaps are retracted and then have an engine failure, you could probably have some time to find a place to land should you experience an engine failure.
> 
> On landing, the key is staying ahead of the airplane and compensating for the 10 - 20 second spool up should you need to go around. The point here is a seasoned pilot should be able to put his aircraft close to the numbers when established on final. In the case of a 262 on a 1/4 mile final and being attacked from behind, the pilot better be carrying a little power and hope for the best....



I am still trying to see where we disagree - I think we are actually mostly in agreement here


----------



## pbfoot (Feb 27, 2010)

a 1/4 mile final at 230 kph transalates into 10 secs til the end of the rwy might make it easier to understand


----------



## Marc Yanoff (Jun 24, 2010)

I understand the P51 could outhandle the Me 262 and the Thunderbolt could outdive it, (the Me 262 did not have dive breaks.) But, they were three very different planes. The Me 262 was closer to the Me 410, it was designed as a Destroyer while the P 51 was an air superiority fighter and the Thunderbolt, expecially the light weitght M variant capable of 470MPH, was just deadly. The P 51 M and P 47 M could have chased down Arados but not quite the Me 262. 

Had the war gone on it would have been interesting to see how the second generation Gloster Meteors. Vampires and the Lockheed P 80s would have faired against the second generation german jets including the Heinkel 162A-2. Also, B 29s over Berlin would have had the German High Command running, would we have dropped the A Bomb on Berlin in August of 45? I don't think so unless the Russians agreed.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 25, 2010)

Marc Yanoff said:


> I understand the P51 could outhandle the Me 262 and the Thunderbolt could outdive it, (the Me 262 did not have dive breaks.) But, they were three very different planes. The Me 262 was closer to the Me 410, it was designed as a Destroyer while the P 51 was an air superiority fighter and the Thunderbolt, expecially the light weitght M variant capable of 470MPH, was just deadly. The P 51 M and P 47 M could have chased down Arados but not quite the Me 262.
> 
> Had the war gone on it would have been interesting to see how the second generation Gloster Meteors. Vampires and the Lockheed P 80s would have faired against the second generation german jets including the Heinkel 162A-2. Also, B 29s over Berlin would have had the German High Command running, would we have dropped the A Bomb on Berlin in August of 45? I don't think so unless the Russians agreed.



You would have not seen B-29s over Germany. The B-32 was planned for the replacement of the B-17 and B-24.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 26, 2010)

The Heinkel 162 was alo not a next generation Germany jet aircraft. It was a quick and easy way to built a "Volksjaeger". 

If you want to talk about the next generation jet aircraft you will have to discuss the:

Focke-Wulf Ta 183
Horten Ho 229
Messerschmitt Me P.1101

Of course any discussion of that, will be purely "What If".


----------



## Colin1 (Jun 26, 2010)

Marc Yanoff said:


> I understand the P51 could outhandle the Me 262 and the Thunderbolt could outdive it, (the Me 262 did not have dive breaks.) But, they were three very different planes. The Me 262 was closer to the Me 410, it was designed as a destroyer while the P 51 was an air superiority fighter and the Thunderbolt, expecially the lightweight M variant capable of 470MPH, was just deadly. The P 51 M and P 47 M could have chased down Arados but not quite the Me 262.
> 
> Had the war gone on it would have been interesting to see how the second generation Gloster Meteors. Vampires and the Lockheed P 80s would have faired against the second generation german jets including the Heinkel 162A-2. Also, B 29s over Berlin would have had the German High Command running, would we have dropped the A Bomb on Berlin in August of 45? I don't think so unless the Russians agreed.


The Me262 didn't need to concern itself with handling the P-51
it could flat run at the bombers while offering minimal opportunity for interception by the Mustang escorts

Curious that you should select the P-51M as the aircraft to chase down Ar234s, only one was built, right at the end of the production run for the D model and it's sole differentiating feature over the D was the use of the V-1650-9A - basically a -9 with no water injection. It wasn't much better (if at all) than the -3 of the P-51B; at the stage of the war where the Ar234C might have entered service, the USAAF would more than likely have been pinning its hopes on the H model.

The Ar234C never flew, approx a dozen airframes were complete by war's end and less than half of those were fitted with powerplants but with 4 x BMW 003A units over the previous 2 x Junkers 004Bs, it's a fair assumption that the P-51H/P-47M driver would have his work cut out hauling him in.

The scenario of 'if the war had gone on' is always interesting to discuss but all roads lead to eventual German destruction; technical marvel was no match for the massive Allied airforces facing them. Luftwaffe jets might (might) have had the edge over their Allied counterparts in the beginning but Germany had nowhere from which to draw the specialised materials needed for jet turbine construction; if it transpired that their second-generation designs were slightly more advanced than the Allies, they would also have been significantly more unreliable.


----------



## Cromwell (Jul 1, 2010)

Colin1 said:


> The scenario of 'if the war had gone on' is always interesting to discuss but all roads lead to eventual German destruction; technical marvel was no match for the massive Allied airforces facing them.
> 
> Luftwaffe jets might (might) have had the edge over their Allied counterparts in the beginning but Germany had nowhere from which to draw the specialised materials needed for jet turbine construction; if it transpired that their second-generation designs were slightly more advanced than the Allies, they would also have been significantly more unreliable.



Its true how many wars are won or lost due to a. logistics and b. deployment and c. reliability / serviceability

It must be said that the US of A was pretty good at logistics, and also the Brits - 

- And the fact that we had so much of everything and the Reich was lacking so much of everything does indeed point to an Allied victory

One Point : I often wonder why the _Millions_ of Slave Workers in Europe did not rebel against the Germans - and why the Allies did not consider giving them weapons and the will to fight back .........


----------



## Cromwell (Jul 1, 2010)

FLYBOYJ said:


> You would have not seen B-29s over Germany. The B-32 was planned for the replacement of the B-17 and B-24.



Well I guess that could be true - but then that is also conjecture is it not ?

Perhaps they would have brought the B50 in a bit more quickly, and I think that aircraft would have made a big difference .......

I am not sure the Ruskies would have especially objected to the A Bomb, although I do believe one of the reasons for dropping it on Japan was to blunt the USSR in its ambitions in that direction (i.e. heading to-wards the Japanese homeland)


( - and even if they had objected, would that have stopped the US from dropping it ?)


----------



## Erich (Jul 1, 2010)

Gents the He 162 was a sort range limitation the German had not wanted to continue even in the fall of 45 had the war expanded in any future length of time, we would of seen swept back winged jets from FW and a sleeker 262 in the air

no matter to topic at hand the 262 did not stand a chance in air combat with the P-51D or K a spoken in an earlier reference(s)


----------



## timshatz (Jul 4, 2010)

Erich said:


> Gents the He 162 was a sort range limitation the German had not wanted to continue even in the fall of 45 had the war expanded in any future length of time, we would of seen swept back winged jets from FW and a sleeker 262 in the air
> 
> no matter to topic at hand the 262 did not stand a chance in air combat with the P-51D or K a spoken in an earlier reference(s)



Agreed. After the first turn, the 262 was losing energy, getting closer and closer to the sweet spot of the 51. Turning and burning is not what it was made for. Hit and run. 

In a dogfight, the 51 had it all over the 262 and both pilots should've known it. 

Matter of fact, any late war piston fighter had it all over the 262 in a dogfight. Why limit it to the 51. Laggs, Spits, Typhoons, Tempests, could all take the 262 on in a turning fight and end up on top.


----------



## HOUSTON (Jul 4, 2010)

I voted for P-51 MUSTANG becasue I thought it did better in combat than ME 262 but I am probably wrong, and also because I like it ...


----------



## drgondog (Jul 7, 2010)

it probably did shoot more Me 262s down than it lost (P-51) by a significant margin - but the 262 had no reaL ability to escape in clear weather once past the halfway point on fuel.


----------



## Erich (Jul 7, 2010)

correcto my friend at least 100 in my estimation though some may be in the count as P-47's. interesting this is actually a project I have been working on for some years. we all must understand the prime directive for the 262 fighter was to engage the US heavy bomber formations and then secondary the Allied escorts and if they were in the way before engaging the US bombers then yes would be shot down if possible to "clear and road" for the other 262's attacking from the rear.


----------



## Njaco (Jul 8, 2010)

I agree with you Erich as I was gonna say tactics for both machines are a little different - P-51 was pure fighter-to-fighter while the 262 was after the bombers.


----------



## jrw1238 (Jul 8, 2010)

I all boils down to the tactics used by the pilots of the individual aircraft. If the 262 pilot attempted to dogfight the P-51 my money would be on the Mustang, however if the 262 pilot chooses to use his speed and climb for hit and run then I would go with the 262. The tactics would be similar to what we used against the Japanese fighters in the Pacific.


----------



## parsifal (Jul 9, 2010)

Both aircraft were great in my opnion, but the potential of the 262 was never realized. The Mustang showed its capability in spades.

One needs to remeber the terrible conditions the 262 was operating under at the time of its introduction. By that stage, Germany was suffering a terrible pounding, with no airspece that was safe to train pilots or work out technological kinks. The 262 was a hitech item, demanding the best of materials and a skilled workforce, and Germany had neither by the time it began mass production.

If the 262 had had a reasonable chance to complete its development, had reasonable pilots to fly it, had the numbers to make a difference, and the fuel to train and fly proiperly, it would have shot the P-51 out of the sky. there was a generational difference in the two aircraft, like the MiG-15 and the Hawker Furies of the Korean War. Jets made piston engined fighters obsolete, end of story, its just that the 262 was never allowed to develop because by the time it began entering service, it was all over anyway.


----------



## USS Enterprise CV-6 (Apr 3, 2014)

RabidAlien said:


> Much as I love the 262, I'm gonna have to say the 51 in this match. When the 262 came into use, the average quality of pilots and training was much much better for the Allies; the '51 had pretty much all of its kinks and wrinkles ironed out (the aforementioned flaming engines...not a good thing!); and the 51 could stay up a whole lot longer. All it had to do was to evade the 262 for a few minutes, and then catch it on its way back to refuel.



I agree


----------



## pbehn (Apr 3, 2014)

parsifal said:


> Both aircraft were great in my opnion, but the potential of the 262 was never realized. The Mustang showed its capability in spades.
> 
> One needs to remeber the terrible conditions the 262 was operating under at the time of its introduction. By that stage, Germany was suffering a terrible pounding, with no airspece that was safe to train pilots or work out technological kinks. The 262 was a hitech item, demanding the best of materials and a skilled workforce, and Germany had neither by the time it began mass production.
> 
> If the 262 had had a reasonable chance to complete its development, had reasonable pilots to fly it, had the numbers to make a difference, and the fuel to train and fly proiperly, it would have shot the P-51 out of the sky. there was a generational difference in the two aircraft, like the MiG-15 and the Hawker Furies of the Korean War. Jets made piston engined fighters obsolete, end of story, its just that the 262 was never allowed to develop because by the time it began entering service, it was all over anyway.



To paraphrase an author "the ultimate expression of aerial superiority is a tank rolling onto an airfields perimeter. The air war was important the ground war was decisive.


----------

