# P-80 v Me 262 v Gloster Meteor....



## Lucky13 (Nov 17, 2009)

Can't remember seeing this.. Which would come out on top in a fighter v fighter test?


----------



## Konigstiger205 (Nov 17, 2009)

I know the Me262 was excellent against bombers, but how would it fair agains other jet fighters? That is a very good question. The thing is, that the Me262 did saw combat action in the war, although it was plagued by a lack of trained pilots, fuel and reliability issues. I know that the Meteor and the P-80, did not saw action in WW2, of course I may be wrong here. But in a fight during WW2, I would put my money on the Me262 .


----------



## Watanbe (Nov 17, 2009)

I'm sure had the Germans not been in such a desperate situation they would have been able to iron out the faults like the British and US did. They didn't have to rush the P80 and Meteor as much.


----------



## wheelsup_cavu (Nov 17, 2009)

Great topic Lucky.
I am going to be watching this thread for answers too.


Wheels


----------



## Milosh (Nov 17, 2009)

A post war American test had the Me262 slightly superior to the P-80.


----------



## davebender (Nov 17, 2009)

P-80 Shooting Star - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


> The initial production order was for 344 P-80As after USAAF acceptance in February 1945. Eighty-three (83) had been delivered by the end of July 1945



Are we freezing aircraft development as of early May 1945? If so we need to pull out all the stops just to get a handful of early model P-80As into combat before the end of the war.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 17, 2009)

davebender said:


> P-80 Shooting Star - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> Are we freezing aircraft development as of early May 1945? If so we need to pull out all the stops just to get a handful of early model P-80As into combat before the end of the war.



2 flew combat air patrols out of Italy, but the P-80 did not see combat in WW2.


----------



## davebender (Nov 17, 2009)

Good enough for the purposes of this discussion. Let's have these early model P-80s bump heads with a Rotte of Me-262s.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 17, 2009)

They did not however...

As others pointed out, I believe that post war flight tests showed that the Me 262 was slightly superior to the P-80.


----------



## davebender (Nov 17, 2009)

The mysterious and secret YP-80 Shooting Star at Foggia during WW2


> Two Lockheed YP-80A Shooting Star, jet fighters were shipped to the MTO under Project Extraversion on December 26, 1944, arriving in Italy in late December '44 / early January '45. They became the first, true jet planes to have flown in Italy (and the MTO), beating to it the Luftwaffe's Arado 234B recon jets, which did not begin flight operations until March 1945 and are almost universally quoted as the first true jet planes to have flown in Italy, instead.
> 
> The two aircraft 44-83028 and 44-83029, Lockheed cn 1007 and 1008, respectively, were flown by Wright Field personnel who received general support from some of the units stationed in Italy, and ended up with the 1st FG, sometime in April 1945. According to An Escort of P-38s, The 1st Fighter Group in World War II, by John D. Mullins, the aircraft were '...brought over in early April by a Wright Field contingent, "for testing under combat conditions in a remote location" ' and were quickly dubbed the "33rd Air Force".
> 
> One of the 1st FG pilots, Major Ed LaClare, logged two flights on the YP-80A.



--- Late April 1945. Somewhere over Italy.
Maj LaClare and his wingman flew into a strange looking cloud. They are unaware the cloud is actually a small wormhole. We are all Star Trek fans, right? 

----- A few seconds later. Somewhere over Central Germany.
Maj LaClare and his wingman fly out of the cloud. The terrain below appears to have changed. The wormhole has spit them out over Central Germany. However they don't have time to consider the issue. A pair of JV-44 Me-262s are closing from head on and at a similiiar altitude.


----------



## Nikademus (Nov 17, 2009)

I asked a similar question in this thread a month or so back

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/usaaf-eval-me-262-a-20946.html


Interesting replies. The P-80 on paper appears superior (though i noted that in some past arguments, people tend to quote the later refined P-80C!), yet USAAF test reports indicated the 262 was slightly better in actual flight.


----------



## renrich (Nov 17, 2009)

Wasn't the Meteor used in WW2 to shoot down V1s? It would have interesting if the ME262 had met Meteors. I suppose that neither of them had the range to get into proximity to one another.


----------



## Erich (Nov 17, 2009)

we covered this at least two years ago until it got way off topic and totally what-if ............sorry Lucky but I find these types of comparisons and what-if's tedious, this as the other comparisons to prove point will be covered with graphics, graphs, bogus internet information and so on from books

dam() whatever every happened to my jet vs piston engine killer thread of moons ago......... ! I shoudl go ahead and add to that when time permits.

the 262 was already a proven machine lacking, the Metoero and P-80 is a would of, could of

ok sorry for the hi-jack Jan.


----------



## fastmongrel (Nov 17, 2009)

The victor would be the guy with the advantage of surprise and the altitude just like probably 90% of air combat victories


----------



## Soren (Nov 17, 2009)

The Me-262 takes the prize, no doubt about it. It had problems with its' engines in the beginning, but these issues were being gradually solved. And by wars end the improved Jumo 004C engine was ready for use in German a/c, and this engine had a 20% higher thrust output than the B series, while fuel consumption was improved considerably as-well, greatly increasing both the performance and range of the Me262. Had the Jumo 004C been ready for production in mid 44 I fear what would've happened in Europe, the war might very well have taken a very different turn.

The best answer the Allies had for the Me262 was the DeHavilland Vampire, but it also arrived too late.


----------



## piet (Nov 17, 2009)

renrich said:


> Wasn't the Meteor used in WW2 to shoot down V1s? It would have interesting if the ME262 had met Meteors. I suppose that neither of them had the range to get into proximity to one another.



The Meteor's first 'kill', against the V1 was scored by Flying Officer 'Dixie' Dean, on 4 August, 1944. As his cannons had jammed, Dean manoeuvred his aircraft under the wing of the flying bomb to throw it off guidance and into the ground. Minutes later another Meteor pilot, Flying Officer J Roger, used his cannons to shoot down another flying bomb. Between then and the end of August, when flying bomb attacks ceased, Meteor pilots recorded a total of 13 'kills'. Although this was insignificant compared to the thousands of flying bomb strikes, a useful propaganda purpose was served.


----------



## Messy1 (Nov 18, 2009)

fastmongrel said:


> The victor would be the guy with the advantage of surprise and the altitude just like probably 90% of air combat victories



Pretty much sums it up IMO.


----------



## Lucky13 (Nov 18, 2009)

Erich said:


> we covered this at least two years ago until it got way off topic and totally what-if ............sorry Lucky but I find these types of comparisons and what-if's tedious, this as the other comparisons to prove point will be covered with graphics, graphs, bogus internet information and so on from books
> 
> dam() whatever every happened to my jet vs piston engine killer thread of moons ago......... ! I shoudl go ahead and add to that when time permits.
> 
> ...



That's alright Erich, no worries mate!  I don't visit these threads too often as I don't have that much of a technical expertise that many here have, but instead come up with questions like these...
I do enjoy reading them though, as I learn a h*ll of a lot from them!


----------



## stuka1940 (Nov 18, 2009)

My best guess for the best jet fighter that saw service in WW2 would have been the HE162 had the German more time to develope it. But in light of the fact they didn't have the time. than the ME262 gets my vote.


----------



## red admiral (Nov 18, 2009)

The Meteor F.III with lengthened nacelles is a fair match for the wartime Me 262s. The F.4 (prototype flying before the end of the war) with Derwent V engines comfortably exceeds the wartime Me 262's performance and is pretty similar to projected developments with the 004E engine.

Numbers are going to be pretty small on each side though. Far more likely for the Me 262+ to be destroyed on the ground by P-51Hs or Tempest IIs.

Would the outcome of the war have changed with the Me 262 somehow getting a magically improved engine earlier? No, the extra performance is redundant for the duties been undertaken. Vulnerable take-off/landing characteristics and massive inferiority in numbers don't go away. Being able to fly at 580mph instead of 530mph makes little difference to losses when engaging bombers. I'm not quite sure how they're supposed to stop the advancing Russian army either.


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 18, 2009)

Without getting into "what ifs" it has to be the Me 262 by default. 

It was the only one to get into combat in any large numbers and did show an advantage over the Meteor that did get into combat. 

Once you start playing the "what if the war had lasted to 194X" game it becomes which country could have improved their aircraft the fastest and/or actually turned proposed improvements into operational hardware in multi-squadron numbers.


----------



## Coors9 (Nov 18, 2009)

Well hell, I'm goin' with the P-80.........Just to be the only one


----------



## 88l71 (Nov 20, 2009)

I'd go with the P-80 or Meteor, given the quality of the *average* German pilot (not the uber-aces with 3 digit kills) at that point in the war.


----------



## riacrato (Nov 21, 2009)

And the Corvette is better than the Ferrari because American highways are longer.


----------



## Konigstiger205 (Nov 23, 2009)

riacrato said:


> And the Corvette is better than the Ferrari because American highways are longer.


Too right mate


----------



## vikingBerserker (Nov 23, 2009)

riacrato said:


> And the Corvette is better than the Ferrari because American highways are longer.



 Ok, that was funny.


----------



## woljags (Mar 14, 2011)

meteor for me,although all early jet were reported at the time to be slow on pick up and slowing down as so would proberly have been hard to control in close combat


----------



## Ruud (Mar 18, 2011)

red admiral said:


> Numbers are going to be pretty small on each side though. Far more likely for the Me 262+ to be destroyed on the ground by P-51Hs or Tempest IIs.



Yep, and P-47Ms (and N's too maybe).

My opinion: the M2-262 has great anti-bomber cannons, but in a dog fight, those slow firing rounds aren't going to work so well (see the MiG-15 and 17). Of course one hit does a lot. Both the Meteor and the P-80 proved to be sturdy and much used planes. The Me-262 was not the easiest to fly and the engines/fuel gave problems. So my guess would be that the Meteor and P-80 would win 60% of the time. This does not take into account pilot skill. Those who flew the 262 (the few) were very skilled, but had there been more planes and fuel available, how would below average pilots have fared in a 262...


----------



## drgondog (Mar 19, 2011)

www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org - Luftwaffe Resource Center - Messerschmitt Me 262
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-80/P-80A-85075.pdf

Draw your own conclusions - The engine thrust differences are negligible P-80A=3790, Me 262 =3960

The max climb rate of the P-80A at 5k was 4400fpm, max speed=548mph, TO wt = 11560 which included full internal fuel and 117# ballast for ammo. WL=49, T/W=.32. From other sources op ceiling = 48,500 feet.

The Me 262A-1a according to the spec sheet had max speed=540 (no TO wt specified), climb rate=1200m/s=3936fps, ceiling 11.5Km=37.K feet. Max gross TO (assume 2x1000 pound bombs, full fuel)= 14,272 -----> assume 12,272 for equivalent TO to P-80A conditions: WL=52.4 TW=.32 

The Me 262 had heavier armament, the P-80A was reputed to be very stable gun platform vs 262 having yaw issues at high speeds, Me 262 slightly faster, P-80 climbs faster and has higher ceiling. My guess based on equivalent T/W and lower wing loading that the Me 262 was less manueverable in all aspects, especially roll and turn and slightly less than P-80A in climb.

Both ships made their first flights within 2 months (Late Jan 44 for P-80 and Apr 44 for Me 262). The US fighter had no critical materials issues for sustained development of jet engines.

To me the P-80A has a slight edge, the YP-80 was same including engine so combat wise from dimension/performance range perspective the YP-80 has the same slight edge in manueverability - having said that, the flight test referenced above shows significant differences between the airframes and engines in the performance of the five P-80A's. I suspect the Me 262A-1a fares no better in consistency.


----------



## Ruud (Mar 19, 2011)

and... it the rest... of the story.


----------



## jim (Mar 19, 2011)

me 262 had low pressure tires so could use mediocre quality airfields, had 2 engines=increased safety,swept back wings (and the potential for mor swept), 360 canopy, a wide variety of weapons too choose (4x30mm, 4x20mm, 4x302x20, 1x55mm, R4m rockets, x4 rockets,bombs) ,It was very easy to fly ,very easy to taxi,care was needed in engine managemed In April45 improved engines were in production.The single seater was cabable for both day and night missions. With 4x20mm could deal with the alleid fighters as F4U dealed with A6Ms but had to focus on the terrorfliegers and protect the german population.
Its high mach snaking was better than Meteors F3 and could easily eliminated with rudder auto stabilisation given a little additional time .From the above its clear that it was more complete and versatile weapon system.
But even performance wise could easily outfly Meteor f3. As far the P80A is concerned even the biased american test pilot gave me262 better speed and accelaration and equal climb(Me 262 Arrow to the future ,page 139) And that with a machined cruedly maintained by american unexperienced mechanics. Finally possesed much more development potential (not only engine wise but aerodinamicly wise too)despite the fact that its succesor was ready to fly.
PS I apologise for the murder of the english language


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 19, 2011)

jim said:


> me 262 had low pressure tires so could use mediocre quality airfields, had 2 engines=increased safety,swept back wings (and the potential for mor swept), 360 canopy, a wide variety of weapons too choose (4x30mm, 4x20mm, 4x302x20, 1x55mm, R4m rockets, x4 rockets,bombs) ,It was very easy to fly ,very easy to taxi,care was needed in engine managemed In April45 improved engines were in production.The single seater was cabable for both day and night missions. With 4x20mm could deal with the alleid fighters as F4U dealed with A6Ms but had to focus on the terrorfliegers and protect the german population.
> Its high mach snaking was better than Meteors F3 and could easily eliminated with rudder auto stabilisation given a little additional time .From the above its clear that it was more complete and versatile weapon system.
> But even performance wise could easily outfly Meteor f3. As far the P80A is concerned even the biased american test pilot gave me262 better speed and accelaration and equal climb(Me 262 Arrow to the future ,page 139) And that with a machined cruedly maintained by american unexperienced mechanics. Finally possesed much more development potential (not only engine wise but aerodinamicly wise too)despite the fact that its succesor was ready to fly.
> PS I apologise for the murder of the english language


 
Jim - what's your basis for the ability of the 262 to operate "day or night" as opposed to any other early turbine aircraft of the day? Additionally I'd like to know specifics about test aircraft being "crudely maintained by American unexperienced mechanics." What were these mechanics doing for you or any writer to say that these aircraft were being maintained no better or worse than Luftwaffle personnel??? I too have read "Arrow to the Future" and I have not seen any indication of any of the captured 262s not being properly maintained, as a matter of fact, the American OIC responsible of operating the first batch of captured 262s (Col Harold Watson) ensured that he had plenty of assistance from former Luftwaffe personnel and this is emphasised in Arrow to the Future as both German air and ground crew trained US pilots and crew chiefs to operate 10 captured aircraft. The flight test program in country was quite successful.

Rudder stabilization? Please explain.

"Would have, could have, should have." I think Dragondog's points are spot on.


----------



## jim (Mar 20, 2011)

Mr Flyboy j
1)I had no intention to insult american mechanics. But to assume that a couple of weeks of "training" made them experts on Me 262 is something diferent. In europe takes years of training for a mechanic to claim adequate training on an aircraft. The luftwaffe personel often provided false information or even sabotaged the aircrafts (see Erich brown and Ar 234 case) .German systems were unknown to these mechanics. Further more none of them had even seen a jet aircraft before!!! And in a few days became experts?! The german crew of cruiser Prinz Eugen was forced to train american crew in their ship . Then the americans took the ship for the america . Within days they broke it!!! It had to be towed to the pacific for the atomic test! And Prinz Eugen was not any revolutionary technology! And we well know how budly maintained were varius FWs ,Bfs in alleid captivity ( and still used to draw conclusions!)
2)Since you have the "Arrow to the future"you can find the sentence "the comparison was so favorable to the Me262 that the results were supressed" on page 139. On page 70 when Col.watson tryied to fly the Me262a FE110 found the elevators reversed and was barely able to recover from a dive. Does it sound as a proper maintained aircraft?
3) Eric brown writes: "If asked to nominate the most formidable combat aircraft to evolve in WW2 i would unhesitatingly propose Me262A" Wings of the Luftwaffe, page58 . On page 68 writes : " a hard hitter that outperformed anything that we had immediately available" He writes a lot of other good staff
4)The Me262A did flew combat night missions and scored victories . I believe that Mr Erich can confirm this. P80 and Meteor I/III could have/should have/would have fly in night but they never did .
5)Heinz Bar scored victories with 4x30mm 2x20mm, Major Herget flew them 55mm in action, Jg7 used R4M rockets and 21cm mortar rockets and scored,Jumo004c&e were in production lines, protoypes were flying with higher degree swept wings and low drug canopies, x4 was in operational testing phase. If i wanted to speak for could/should/would iwould speak for pressurized cocpits, EZ42 gyroscopic sights, Mk213 revolver cannons, take off assist rockets,air brakes,advanced navigation and radar direction equipment(all of which were in final development stage), versions with the engines buried in the wingsroots,Henscel engines and finally Ta183
6) Me 262 had accidents because of the unavailable raw materials. Lets look the P80 record manifactured in rich America . 3 Prototypes crashed with a dead pilot and a another badly injured, Yp80 crashed in England in 28/01/1945 .Finally Richard Bong ,the man who claimed the most victories, killed in a P80 on August 1945 because of material failure. 
7)Of course I like p80, everybody loves the T33


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 20, 2011)

jim said:


> Mr Flyboy j
> 1)I had no intention to insult american mechanics. But to assume that a couple of weeks of "training" made them experts on Me 262 is something diferent. In europe takes years of training for a mechanic to claim adequate training on an aircraft. The luftwaffe personel often provided false information or even sabotaged the aircrafts (see Erich brown and Ar 234 case) .German systems were unknown to these mechanics. Further more none of them had even seen a jet aircraft before!!! And in a few days became experts?!



Having worked for almost 35 years on a wide variety of military and civilian aircraft I can assure you that you don't have to be an "expert" to maintain an aircraft in the field and under the conditions that the first captured 262s were subjected to. Even as the 262 was viewed as "state of the art" technology during that period, ground operation of that aircraft and its contemporaries of the day was quite simple. Maintain fluid levels, establishing pre and post flight procedures checking such things as brake and tire wear and following structural inspection criteria from the airframe and engine manufacturer are all part of the procedure and that's why Col Watson relied on German ground crews for their expertise so his mission could be accomplished. Attempting to learn a forigen captured aircraft system without the benifit of manuals and instruction is a trial by error artform and those attempting to gain intelligence in this situation can hardly be blamed for "poor maintenance." Additionally I can also assure you that those American maintainers were well seasoned mechanics and knew what they were doing.


jim said:


> The german crew of cruiser Prinz Eugen was forced to train american crew in their ship . Then the americans took the ship for the america . Within days they broke it!!! It had to be towed to the pacific for the atomic test! And Prinz Eugen was not any revolutionary technology! And we well know how budly maintained were varius FWs ,Bfs in alleid captivity ( and still used to draw conclusions!)


And this has what bearing on this discussion?!? I know little about ships and did do a quick internet search on this and it seems the USN was only interested in the phase array radar of the ship. Regardless Prinz Eugen would have been placed at Bikini regardless as many captured and operation ships were destroyed during the atomic tests. Once again I ask you provide "specifics" on how the Americans made this ship inoperable, I see nothing to validate your claim.

Again, you say "badly maintained" tell me in what context? Were the aircraft NOT being maintained in accordance with original maintenance practices? Were wrong lubricants being used? Were aircraft being operated with control surfaces adjusted out of travel tolerances? These were captured aircraft and I'm not saying that early operation of these aircraft were done exactly the way the manufacturer intended , there was a lot of guess work behind how to operate these aircraft and I'm willing to say that abuse by maintenance personnel was never documented in detail.



jim said:


> 2)Since you have the "Arrow to the future"you can find the sentence "the comparison was so favorable to the Me262 that the results were supressed" on page 139. On page 70 when Col.watson tryied to fly the Me262a FE110 found the elevators reversed and was barely able to recover from a dive. Does it sound as a proper maintained aircraft?


 No it sounds like ground crews assembled a captured aircraft wiout the benifit of proper maintenance instructions, and this type of incidient was common during that era. Col. Watson holds some responsibility for this as he should of verified rigging prior to take off, especially when test flying a captured ship. I do have issues with this story however as if the elevators were reversed, Col. Watson should not have been able to take off and probably would have discovered this problem early in his flight. The fact that it is mentioned that he went into a dive with this condition is a bit stretched.


jim said:


> 3) Eric brown writes: "If asked to nominate the most formidable combat aircraft to evolve in WW2 i would unhesitatingly propose Me262A" Wings of the Luftwaffe, page58 . On page 68 writes : " a hard hitter that outperformed anything that we had immediately available" He writes a lot of other good staff
> 4)The Me262A did flew combat night missions and scored victories . I believe that Mr Erich can confirm this. P80 and Meteor I/III could have/should have/would have fly in night but they never did


I can agree with Brown's assessment to a point, but over the years he's been proven to be very biased in many of his opinions. Yes, the 262 flew at night, the Meteor and P-80 had the capability to fly at night as well but never did so. Your original statement about night flying makes the 262 no better in this operation than any other aircraft. The only thing that can be said about the 262 is it actually flew combat at night during WW2. It wasn't until 5 years later when later versions of both the Meteor and P-80 (now F-80) actually flew many sorties at night, that being during the Korean war.



jim said:


> 5)Heinz Bar scored victories with 4x30mm 2x20mm, Major Herget flew them 55mm in action, Jg7 used R4M rockets and 21cm mortar rockets and scored,Jumo004c&e were in production lines, protoypes were flying with higher degree swept wings and low drug canopies, x4 was in operational testing phase. If i wanted to speak for could/should/would iwould speak for pressurized cocpits, EZ42 gyroscopic sights, Mk213 revolver cannons, take off assist rockets,air brakes,advanced navigation and radar direction equipment(all of which were in final development stage), versions with the engines buried in the wingsroots,Henscel engines and finally Ta183


Your point? Within 2 years after the war you had such aircraft as the F-86 coming off production lines with many of the same systems developed independent of German technology. Aside from swept wing technology, systems within postwar US and British aircraft were well established and at the end of the war the allies had just about caught up with german turbine engine technology.


jim said:


> 6) Me 262 had accidents because of the unavailable raw materials. Lets look the P80 record manifactured in rich America . 3 Prototypes crashed with a dead pilot and a another badly injured, Yp80 crashed in England in 28/01/1945 .Finally Richard Bong ,the man who claimed the most victories, killed in a P80 on August 1945 because of material failure.
> 7)Of course I like p80, everybody loves the T33


 Are you trying to say that if germany didn't have a raw material problem, there would not have been any 262 crashes? Again you make no points here. The Me 262 had its share of developmental crashes as any early jet did. The 262 had an extremely high attrition rate during its initial operations. The P-80 crashes (including Bong's) have no bearing in comparing the two aircraft, in fact Bong's crash was preventable as he forgot to turn on a boost pump during takeoff. The early J33, like early Jumos, failed at take off.

So again I invite you to show "specifics" where US or even British maintainers conducted improper maintenance practices with regards to operation of captured German aircraft. The only real "abuse" that could be apparent was the lack of information or purposely being told wrong information.


----------



## Shortround6 (Mar 20, 2011)

FLYBOYJ said:


> And this has what bearing on this discussion?!? I know little about ships and did do a quick internet search on this and it seems the USN was only interested in the phase array radar of the ship. Regardless Prinz Eugen would have been placed at Bikini regardless as many captured and operation ships were destroyed during the atomic tests. Once again I ask you provide "specifics" on how the Americans made this ship inoperable, I see nothing to validate your claim.



The Prinz Eugen may not have been able to complete a Voyage from Europe to the west coast of America even with a German crew. The German high pressure steam plant, operating at around double the pressure of WW II US steam plants, had a rather notorious reputation for unreliability in German service when manned and maintained by German crews in most large warship classes. Blaming an American crew for for a break down in 5 year old ship that probably had not been adequately maintained for several years is a bit like your brother-in-law blaming for you for blowing up the engine in his 150,000mile car that he hasn't changed the oil in for the last 40,000 miles when you borrow it for one weekend. 

This myth of superior German engineering is getting a bit tiresome. Wonder weapons and engines that only took 4-8 more years of development after the war ended to see service that would, in German hands, have turned the war around in 1946? 
In my life I have owned 1 German motorcycle (a BMW R90/6), several German cameras including a Lieca, four Anschutz target rifles/pistol, a Walther PP, a Mauser M1914 pocket pistol and a variety of West German airguns from Olympic quality to just as cheap and nasty as anything the Chinese turned out. Some were well thought out and well manufactured and others had some rather striking flaws. Not all were price related. The Motorcycle had a vibration problem due to a rather fundamental engineering problem, crankshaft was not properly counter weighted for the pistons. Some target shooters routinely carried spare firing pins for their Olympic quality Anschutz target rifles because they broke. A problem unknown to Winchester 52 shooters, a look at the two firing pins would revel why. 
The Germans did and do make good stuff. Just don't tell me they were nearly infallible in engineering, they weren't, and it is not just because of material shortages.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 21, 2011)

Shortround6 said:


> The Prinz Eugen may not have been able to complete a Voyage from Europe to the west coast of America even with a German crew. The German high pressure steam plant, operating at around double the pressure of WW II US steam plants, had a rather notorious reputation for unreliability in German service when manned and maintained by German crews in most large warship classes. Blaming an American crew for for a break down in 5 year old ship that probably had not been adequately maintained for several years is a bit like your brother-in-law blaming for you for blowing up the engine in his 150,000mile car that he hasn't changed the oil in for the last 40,000 miles when you borrow it for one weekend.
> 
> This myth of superior German engineering is getting a bit tiresome. Wonder weapons and engines that only took 4-8 more years of development after the war ended to see service that would, in German hands, have turned the war around in 1946?


 
Thanks for the info and agree


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 21, 2011)

Shortround6 said:


> In my life I have owned 1 German motorcycle (a BMW R90/6)



There is your problem. You bought a BMW.

BMW = Bayrische Mist Wagen = Bavarian **** Car


----------



## renrich (Mar 25, 2011)

SR, very good post on PE. I would add that the German crew may very well have sabotaged some of the machinery ( I can understand why) or at the least slacked on maintenance.

As far as German engineering is concerned, because of having too much money (which I had earned) and too little good judgment, I have owned over the years about a dozen M-Bs, a half dozen Audis, four Porsches and one BMW autos. Almost all were brand new. The first M-B was a 1972 280 SE4.5. The engine blew up on the way home with it. Broken cam shaft. After that numerous SLs, one SLC and a number of SEs and one turbo diesel. Then all the Porsches, 928s. with Audis sprinkled in. All were maintenance hogs, not very reliable and expensive and had poor air conditioning. I had a friend who owned the Porsche dealership who told me that the only Porsches with good ACs were the 924s which had an under dash Japanese unit added on in Houston. The last was a 2000 Audi A6 twin turbo. The service manager at the Audi dealer told me, "Don't let this car get out of warranty." I traded it with 49000 miles on it for an Infinity. I began to see the light when on a whim I bought a new 1982 Toyota Supra. It had a three liter twin cam inline six with about 160 HP. At that time I also had a 1982 928 with the 4.5 V8 single OH cam which I think had about 230 HP. I was driving the Supra from Texas to Colorado and thought, "This car is about nine tenths of the 928, the AC works and it cost $14000 while the Porsche was $50000." Hmmmmm. When you picked up the Toyota at the dealership, you usually seldom saw the dealer often while you were always well acquainted with the German car dealer.

I am a slow learner but I now own two Japanese cars, Honda and an Infiniti, both of which were bought used. I would add that consumer guides often show many German models are used cars to avoid obviously including the Audi A6 twin turbo. This is not a knock on German engineering but the 928s with the 4.5 single cam engine would do 146 mph observed and got about 19 mpg at highway speeds. My 2006 Infiniti G35 coupe with a 3.5 liter twin cam which is about the same size and slightly lighter than the 928 will do 155 mph electronically limited and gets around 28 mpg on the highway. The new technology is marvelous but I believe that the reputation that German engineering is so superior is largely a myth.


----------



## tomo pauk (Mar 25, 2011)

It's not fair to compare cars 30 years apart consumption-wise.

That being said... my father bought Audi 80, 1,6L, with 200 000km in Germany, made another 250K, sold it my brother who managed another 50K before crashing it. The two things father changed were valve rubbers (sp?) and front suspension rubbers (sp?; 8 pcs, paid 400 DM 10 years ago).
I'm driving VW Transporter 2 for last 4 years, 180 days a year, day after day (I sell fruits during 6 warm months). Car is 25 years old. Engine was repaired once, and I did not have any problems so far. With 1,6L diesel, 4 gear crash box, makes 90km/h uphill empty, 80 with 600 kg of stuff.
I was driving before BMWs (316, 520i), have had no reliability issues.
But the car with maintenance-free award is Nissan Micra, I admit that


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 25, 2011)

I am not a believer that the Germans have a monopolgy on the greatest in technology and engineering, I believe the Germans are just like everyone else. Somethings great, somethings not so great. I also believe that any piece of machinery can have its moments.

I will however say that my family has owned lots of Mercedes and Audis and we have never had problems with any of ours. For instance the 2002 MB that we have has over 100,000 on it and still going strong, never been in the shop for anything but routine maintenance. The only German cars that I would never recomment to anyone are BMWs. They are overpriced pieces of **** in my opinion. Volkswagen are absolutely great cars. Top quality and not very expensive.


----------



## Shortround6 (Mar 25, 2011)

the problem with the BMW motorcycle was that at the time they made three displacement engines. A 600, a 750 and a 900. All had the same stroke but had bigger diameter bores and pistons. There was one crankshaft which could only be counter weighted for one set/size of piston. While the 600/750 versions seemed to do fairly well ( I never owned one) the 900s vibrated at certain RPMs, This is not a manufacturing or quality control issue, it is an engineering/cost accounting issue. They tried to cheap out but any good engine man should have been able to tell them there would be problems even if they didn't know what kind. The end result was that the vibration traveled through the frame and caused the rear loop of the frame that passes around the rear of the fender and supports the rear of seat and tail lights to fatigue crack on the left side behind the shock absorber. First time ( cracked three times total) in under 8000 miles and the local mechanic started telling me where the crack was part way through the call. Not the first one he'd seen.


----------



## renrich (Mar 25, 2011)

I agree that it is not fair to compare technology that is many years apart. One comparison though is valid. The 1982 928 cost about $ 50000 USDs in 1982. The 2006 Infiniti G35 coupe cost about $38000 USDs in 2006. If they had been making 928s in 2006 they would have been well over $100000 USDs. And, IMO, it would not be a better car than the Infiniti. Something is wrong here. One could observe that I was not very smart, buying those cars. They would be right!


----------



## fastmongrel (Mar 26, 2011)

As someone who works for an independent garage specialising in Mercedes I might be a touch biased but I think Adler is right about Beemers. For all the reputation they are overpriced crap that is not a patch on lots of similar models across the range. For example if you want a 3 series Beemer you would be much better off buying a Ford Mondeo twice the car, much more reliable and much cheaper to run. Every time we get a beemer in the shop I am always surprised how cheaply made they are, underneath the shiny exterior they are a bodge particulary the wiring if you own a beemer and it develops an electrical fault sell it straight away before it incinerates you.

Its all about the badge if you want a good German car buy a Merc or a VW, buy an Audi if you dont mind everyone thinking your a dickhead or buy a Porsche if you just like spending money.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 26, 2011)

renrich said:


> I agree that it is not fair to compare technology that is many years apart. One comparison though is valid. The 1982 928 cost about $ 50000 USDs in 1982. The 2006 Infiniti G35 coupe cost about $38000 USDs in 2006. If they had been making 928s in 2006 they would have been well over $100000 USDs. And, IMO, it would not be a better car than the Infiniti. Something is wrong here. One could observe that I was not very smart, buying those cars. They would be right!



That is because you bought an import. Try buying an American "upper class" vehicle over here in Germany. For instance my Jeep Grand Cherokee cost $43,000 brand new in the United States, here in Germany it went for 58,000 euros (that is approx. 80,000 US dollars). Spare parts are very expensive for it here in Germany and if I take it to a shop it is extremely expensive. 

I see so many young Americans over here buy brand new BMWs and Mercedes because they can afford them over here, then they get to the states and realize how expensive parts and maintenance is there.

As for the engine blowing up on the brand new Porsche on the way home, that can happen to any brand (it was probably built on a Monday ). A friend of mine over here ordered a brand new Ford Expedition, had it shipped over from the states to the base over here and on the way home the same thing happened.

I think we have gotten way off topic now though...


----------



## Milosh (Mar 26, 2011)

I have a friend who is trying to restore a Bimmer 75. He is getting ulcers trying to get it to run properly. His biggest headache is the electrical system.


----------



## renrich (Mar 26, 2011)

We are off topic but it was a 1972 MB 280SE 4.5, not a Porsche Brand new, white with red leather. I paid $10000 for it. They came and picked it up. I went to the dealership and they said we will repair it, give you another one or give you your money back. I said I was out of the notion for a MB so they gave me back my check. A year later I bought a 1973 MB 450SL for $12700. Three years later and 36000 miles the transmission was going out. Can't remember what I did exactly then but like a fool got another MB.


----------



## drgondog (Mar 29, 2011)

I had the opposite experience with a 1977 MB 300TD that I drove 250,000 miles with one warranty covered turbo replaced and gearbox repaired at 210,000 - sold it for 3k in 2005. In between the second vehicle was a 1978 928 Porche that cost me about 25K in various repairs before we dumped that and started buying Suburbans.. 1995, then 2004 and stll driving the 2004 dogmobile (wolfhounds).

loved the looks and handling of that 928 more than any car I have ever had but it was a hanger queen.


----------



## davparlr (Mar 29, 2011)

drgondog said:


> I had the opposite experience with a 1977 MB 300TD that I drove 250,000 miles with one warranty covered turbo replaced and gearbox repaired at 210,000 - sold it for 3k in 2005.


 
What do you expect from a taxi!


----------



## davparlr (Apr 1, 2011)

Back to the original topic.

Like the F4U-4, the conflicting performance data on the P-80 is confusing, and commentaries on the P-80 referencing unavailable books and documents add to the confusion.

The comment that most confuses me is that the P-80 was tested against the Me-262 and was found wanting and so embarrassed the AF that the test results were withheld.

I bought “Arrow to the Future” by Walter J. Boyne and he indeed makes the statement that test were conducted by a Al Boyd and the test results were only recently found that showed the Me-262 “had better speed, rates of climb at different altitudes, and turning radius and that this data was “suppressed”. He also referred a book “The Lockheed P-80”, which I ordered and now have. That information surprised me in two ways. First, in 1946, military budgets were being decimated. Typically, today, the AF emphasizes it aircraft short comings in order to scare congress into more money to develop new fighters, the XP-86 was in the concept cycle at this time and may have benefited from a poor review of the P-80. Of course times do change and maybe the AF was concerned about cuts to the fighter program because of lack of performance.

The second issue I have is with other data I have on the P-80 that tends to contradict the possibility of such poor performance. The Me-262 may have out performed the P-80 but shouldn’t have embarrassed it. First, the XP-80, which was a bit smaller than the XP-80A, was able to do 502 mph, or only 38 mph less than the Me-262 with 62% of the thrust of the Me-262. In addition the XP-80A, with 4000 lb thrust was able to do 553 mph. The P-80 design was definitely clean.

Data review of my own data, “Spitfireperformance”, and other googled sites revealed several data source for the two planes. These are the data source I have found for the Me-262.

Spitfireperformance document on British test on German jet propelled aircraft. Although they claim to reflect performance of data provided by Germans, it has lower performance levels for the Me-262 and the thrust appears low.

German documents on speed of Me-262 with the Jumo 004B engine. This is the speed I will show although it appears faster airspeeds at lower levels than other sources.

Russian data that appears as just published data. I will show climb data from this site since it conforms to other sources.

Me-262 Pilot Debrief . German pilot Hans Fey who apparently flew acceptance test on the Me-262 and stated that minimum airspeed was 515 mph at some altitude below 13,000 ft., which is quite a bit below the airspeed stated in the German document above.

Arrow to the Future, a book on Me-262 by Walter J. Boyne which was a bit of a disappointment in performance data. What it did show was standard data points. It did show that the climb rate of the Me-262 was 3937 ft/min at SL.

This is the data source I have found for the P-80.

From Spitfireperformance:

3 December, 1946 test by AAF on airspeed comparison of production P-80A vs modified wing tips and nose. Document is signed by the afore mentioned Col. Albert Boyd. This aircraft was flown with the J-33-11 engine.

7 November, 1946 test by AAF on surface treatments. Document is signed by Col. Albert Boyd.

14 February, 1947, test by AAF on best, worst and average P-80A with J-33-9 engine 
Document is signed by Col. Albert Boyd.

The P-80 Shooting Star, a book by E.T. Wooldridge, which shows a performance comparison of the P-80A versus the XP-84. While this data referenced an AF memorandum, I did not use this data. It showed a much higher speed than some of the other tests, including 562 mph at sea level.

So this is basically what I have.

Me-262 per German document for airspeed, common data for climb, and for the P-80A, with J-33-9/11 engines. The two P-80 engines were interchangeable and were rated at 3570 lbs thrust.
For airspeed, I made four comparisons based on spotty data. Me-262 (1) is worst case based on test pilot report that min airspeed was 515 mph and other airspeed estimates based on delta to best performance. Me-262 (2) is best case based on German data. For the P-80, (1) is worst case per test and (2) is best case.

Airspeed

*SL* 
Me-262 (1) 515
P-80 (1) 520
Me-262 (2) 521
P-80 (2) 548

*10k*
Me-262 (1) 520
P-80 (1) 524
Me-262 (2) 531
P-80 (2) 544

*20k*
Me-262 (1) 529
P-80 (1) 523
Me-262 (2) 540
P-80 (2) 531

*30k*
Me-262 (1) 509
P-80 (1) 505
Me-262 (2) 518
P-80 (2) 510

*40k*
Me-262 (1) NA, above Me-262 ceiling
P-80 (1) 481
Me-262 (2) NA, above Me-262 ceiling
P-80 (2) 493

Climb

*SL*
Me-262 3960 ft/min
P-80 (1) 4300
P-80 4640

*20k*
Me-262 2160
P-80 (1) 2500
P-80 2830

*30k* 
Me -262 1080
P-80 (1) 1650
P-80 1910

Ceiling 
Me-262 37,560 ft
P-80 45,000

Looking at this data, the lowest performing P-80A is equivalent to the poorest performing Me-262 in airspeed and the best performing P-80A is equivalent to the best Me-262 in airspeed. In both cases, the P-80A is superior to the Me-262 in climb. It also must be noted that the P-80 has over a mile more ceiling than the Me-262. This, as demonstrated in Korea by the Mig-15, is a significant advantage.


In my opinion, the P-80A with specified performing of J-33-9/11 would be very competitive to the Me-262 in the fall of 1945, certainly to the extent that the P-80 would be produced in considerably more quantity than the Me-262. With the higher ceiling, the P-80 could exploit higher energy levels.

Why the disparity in the reported flight test pilots and the concern about the performance compared to the Me-262? Well, there may be a couple of reasons. One, which I think is the case, is that the engine performance of the early engines was erratic and difficult to measure, and that the P-80 used for reference just did not perform. This was a case in one of the test documents where an engine had to be replaced. Two, the Me-262 that was tested performed quite a bit better than all the referenced data.

It must be noted that I am not in possession of the flight test data of the AAF testing of the Me-262.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 1, 2011)

Great post Dave! I believe its been mentioned that Chuck Yeager flew the Me 262 and he stated the performance of the P-80A and Me 262 "was about the same."


----------

