# Questions about the Me-262



## syscom3 (Sep 20, 2008)

There's some things about the Me-262 that I am still not clear on. 

1) Was the delay in the introduction of the jet really due to political interference, or the engines were still unreliable enough for a single sortie?

2) Why were so few actually employed? 

3) How come the kill rate was so low for such a jet that was a generation ahead of the allied escort fighters?


----------



## comiso90 (Sep 20, 2008)

syscom3 said:


> 3) How come the kill rate was so low for such a jet that was a generation ahead of the allied escort fighters?



I would surmise that the 262 spent much of it's time engaging bombers and dodging swarms of fighters. It's easier to rack up kills on a fighter sweep with numerical superiority then bomber destroying and having 6 Jugs diving on your ass.

If a CAP or 100 P-51's and a CAP of 100 262's ran into each other, I'm sure the ME 262 would have a higher kill ratio.


----------



## syscom3 (Sep 20, 2008)

I think its due to the high closing rate meant the pilot only had time for one shot, then had to use its high speed to run away.

I could be wrong .....


----------



## Gnomey (Sep 20, 2008)

It would partly correct sys. The other reason would be the lack of expert pilots to fly them at the end of the war and also the fact that you have swarms of escorting fighters diving on you as you make your attack run probably doesn't really help matters either. And with the low muzzle velocity of the 30mm cannons for a good shot it has to be close to hit accurately. With the conditions listed above to get close enough for a good accurate shot whilst being chased by escorting fighters when your not a expert pilot with the aircraft all results in the number of kills being lower than expected (in addition to the fact they were attacking bombers mainly not fighters). If they had been in operation with air superiority the kills would of been higher and likely the losses lower as well.


----------



## KrazyKraut (Sep 20, 2008)

1) no single reason, both had their share

2) again I'd say there's multiple reasons: lack of pilots, constant pressure making conversions from piston to jet squadrons pretty hard, political intervention on their use, overall bad situation in terms of logistics and production...

3) its kill ratio was okay and i'd even say pretty good cosidering it only really saw extensive service from late '44 on. They were often manned by inexperienced pilots and usually vastly outnumbered and down low they rather were easy targets for fighter sweeps.


----------



## Airframes (Sep 20, 2008)

Hi Syscom. Gnomey has answered the second question for you. Regarding the delay, it was a number of factors that prevented the 262 entering service sooner, and in greater numbers. Yes, the political interferance had something to do with it to an extent, with the well-known fact that old Adolph virtually insisted on the aircraft being employed as a high-speed bomber. And the reliability of the engines played a large part also. Added to that were the problems of materials and fuel, plus actual production and logistics. As far as materials were concerned, due to the war situation at the time, certain metals required in the production of the engines were in short supply, and physically getting those metals to the factories was a problem due to disruption of the transport system and general infrastructure, not only in Germany, but the occupied countries. (This is a point very often overlooked by critics of the allied bombing campaign.) Also, the German aircraft industry was dispersed, with various companies trying to fulfil requirements for a number of different aircraft, and armaments manufacturers (tanks, guns ,small-arms etc.) all competing for materials, labour, transport and so on. Then of course there was the fuel problem. Even by the end of 1943, fuel in general was a problem for Germany's forces, and the correct grade required for this new generation of (jet) engines was no doubt heaping more strain in demand on an already struggling industry.
Considering the actual period, from design through development and into service, it's a wonder any 262's actually got into operational use. compare that with the standards of today, or even, say, the 1950's!
On top of all this, there was the physical requiremnts of not only learning to fly the aircraft, convert onto type and training, but then having to take it into combat!
Perhaps, in fact almost certainly, it's a good job the Germans DIDN'T get things moving quicker; we might not be in a position to be discussing this now if they had!
I admit that this is a fairly general overview of the reasons, and no doubt someone will provide a far better explanation, but, hopefully, it's answered at least part of your question.
Regards, Terry.


----------



## Erich (Sep 20, 2008)

the unit was designed to kill US/RAF bombers not engage in a hand to hand struggle in the air with opposing fighters..............look how wide the turns were of the 262 allowing Allied fighters to close within and deal the lethal blows


----------



## Soren (Sep 20, 2008)

1.) Hitler's insistance on it being a fighter-bomber or nothing at all (Willi had to design a new model)

2.) Low production, low fuel few good pilots.

3.) IMO a roughly 7:1 to 10:1 kill ratio is pretty darn good, pretty spectacular infact.


----------



## Soren (Sep 20, 2008)

Erich said:


> the unit was designed to kill US/RAF bombers not engage in a hand to hand struggle in the air with opposing fighters..............look how wide the turns were of the 262 allowing Allied fighters to close within and deal the lethal blows



Well it all depends on at what speed the Me-262 turns. If at low speed, then yes you're right, but if at high speed the piston engined fighters will be left behind unable to anything. The Me-262 turns better than any of the WW2 propjobs at high speed, but at medium to low speeds it is at a distinct disadvantage. 

Only an unwise jet pilot will enter a tight turn at low speed when enemy propjobs are near, the turn radius is simply too wide and acceleration too low.

The Me-262 was designed as a pure fighter, so it was definitely designed with dogfighting in mind, just at different speed regimes, that's all. Getting slow in a fight with a propjob is a very bad idea in any jet.


----------



## HoHun (Sep 20, 2008)

Hi Syscom,

>1) Was the delay in the introduction of the jet really due to political interference, or the engines were still unreliable enough for a single sortie?

From the strength reports at The Luftwaffe, 1933-45, listing the Me 262 aircraft with the different units:

07/1944: 6 @ KG 51
08/1944: 20 @ KG 51
09/1944: 32 @ KG 51
10/1944: 52 @ KG 51, 5 @ KG 54
11/1944: 72 @ KG 51, 8 @ KG 54, 38 @ JG 7
12/1944: 100 @ KG 51, 21 @ KG 54, 14 @ JG 7, 23 @ EJG 2, 6 @ Kommando Braunegg

(Note that Kommando Nowottny is not listed until it becomes JG 7.)

So one could say that there was a delay of about three to four months in getting the Me 262 into service as a fighter. 

However, note that the strength of JG 7 drops after its initial establishment - they transferred 15 aircraft to "different units", which I believe must have meant EJG 2 primarily which was a jet fighter conversion unit. From single-engine piston fighter to twin-engine jet fighter it was a great step, and the Luftwaffe found that the pilots had to be re-trained in order to be able to use the jets properly.

The materials question, on the other hand, had introduced a delay of about one year. It's hard to quantify that exactly since it was clear from the beginning that the Jumo 004A was not suitable for mass production, but as a rough benchmark, we can look at the first flight with Jumo 004A engines in July 1942 compared to the first flight with Jumo 004B engines in October 1943.

The Jumo 004A engine went into small-scale series production in 1942 (40 examples ordered), and while it was not as mature as the later Jumo 004B-2, being somewhat heavier and slightly less powerful, it had made a successful 100-hour run in 1943 (and in late 1942 it had even been bench-tested with an afterburner, by the way).

The work that resulted in the Jumo 004B was begun in early 1943, and it first flew in the Me 262 in October of the same year. As the main difficulties encountered with the Jumo 004B were caused by the problems resulting from insufficient supplies of temperature-resistant materials (that had been used liberally in the Jumo 004A engines), it appears that it might have been possible to save some six to nine months in getting the jets into combat if these materials could have been supplied somehow.

For the delay through the Blitzbomber orders, I'd still say it's three to four months as otherwise, JG 7 might have been in its confused status in 07 to 08/1944 instead of the historical 11 to 12/1944.

Also of interest might be a look at the genesis of the jet fighter and its interaction with the propeller fighter Messerschmitt and his arch-enemy Milch were striving to build instead. Here is a timeline I based on Irving's Milch biography (so be cautious about its accuracy):

xx.02.1943 German comparison report is prepared
xx.04.1943 Milch considers Me 209 and Me 410 to be the most important next-generation aircraft
22.05.1943 Galland test-flies a Me 262 prototype and reports to Milch
25.05.1943 Milch decides to cancel the Me 209 in favour of the Me 262, and not to build a new generation of piston-engined fighters at all
02.06.1943 Messerschmitt claims high fuel usage and doubtful altitude performance as disadvantages of the jet fighter
27.06.1943 Messerschmitt repeats comment on jet fighter fuel usage to Hitler
xx.06.1943 Messerschmitt claims Me 209 is 95% production-ready
xx.08.1943 Me 209 cancellation is revoked
07.09.1943 Messerschmitt suggests to Hitler to produce the Me 209 as fighter and the Me 262 as bomber
xx.09.1943 RLM staff and Galland oppose Me 209 after asked for opinion by Milch
27.09.1943 US troops occupy Foggia, Milch regrets that this ends his hopes of building the Fiat G.55
21.11.1943 Me 209 cancelled by Göring.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 20, 2008)

Soren said:


> 3.) IMO a roughly 7:1 to 10:1 kill ratio is pretty darn good, pretty spectacular infact.



Where did you come up with those kill ratio?

Oh JoeB!!!!!!!


----------



## syscom3 (Sep 20, 2008)

Let me rephrase "kill ratio" ....

I meant kills per sortie.

It seemed like the -262 was only shooting down one bomber per sortie or less.

Erich, regarding the quality of the pilots, didn't the LW have a couple hundred "quality" pilots at any given time, dispersed among the various fighter groups? Couldn't they have been tapped to fully man the jet groups if the order was given?


----------



## runningdog (Sep 20, 2008)

Soren said:


> 1.) 3.) IMO a roughly 7:1 to 10:1 kill ratio is pretty darn good, pretty spectacular infact.


The really important stat would be how many 262's were left after each engagement and how quickly could they be replaced. Then you have to ask, how quickly could the Allies replace their losses. I'm talking aircrew here as well as equipment..........


----------



## Erich (Sep 20, 2008)

Note that JG 7 as a whole with only 2 gruppen does not become of much importance until after January 15, 1945 when the bulk of the day-time JG's move to the Ost front. III./JG 7 over and over again is fitted out with more than 30-35 jets at a time about 1/2 to 25 jets will be in action on a daily basis not counting it's sister I./JG 7 who flew daily averages of 7-10 jets on a mission maybe more, will have to hunt in my data base.

sys there was not the time nor means to take away needed pilots from the JG's to fit into the small and existing 262 JG's. Had the so-called squad of experten in JV 44 really flown together enmasse they may have been felt but with only sending up some 5-7 jets on a few missions they were nothing and a total pin-prick, and there has been a noterity that Gallands bunch of RK experts retreated from thew ar by joining his outfit as his select group no more than 15-20 ever flew the jet operationally

more coming and as to JG 7 some very young boys became men and aces in a short time, unknown names even till today


----------



## syscom3 (Sep 20, 2008)

HoHun, look at your figures for November and December 1944.

Why were there so many 262's available for use, yet so little to show for it.

I am not disparaging the aircraft or pilots, but something has to be explained.

Could it be in fact that the jets in those squadrons were hanger queens with engine issues?


----------



## Erich (Sep 20, 2008)

not armed for combat nor enough combat hours or flight training-pre-flight for the pilots

April 10, 1945 ~ JG 7 as a whole puts up 55 Me 262's the largest jet armada ever flown on one mission. the date is a death struggle for both sides........


----------



## syscom3 (Sep 20, 2008)

Erich said:


> April 10, 1945 ~ JG 7 as a whole puts up 55 Me 262's the largest jet armada ever flown on one mission. the date is a death struggle for both sides........



As always, I'm interested in your accounts of that aerial encounter.

Erich, I am also curious in the pilot losses per sortie for non combat accidents. Do you have any figures?


----------



## Njaco (Sep 20, 2008)

> Hitler's insistance on it being a fighter-bomber or nothing at all (Willi had to design a new model)



I don't think that is entirely correct, Soren. While visiting the new jet Hitler asked Willi if it could carry bombs. Without thinking Willi said yes to which Hitler replied something to the effect, "Here is my Blitz bomber!" Several months later Hitler asked how many 262s were bombers and when told none, he went into a rage and ordered all to be made bombers. Shortly after Galland was able to get Hitler to conceded to making one fighter from every 3 or 4 bombers IIRC.

It wasn't so much as new design but adding racks and all the other little pieces that convert to bomber status. The fifteen or so fighters available then had to brought back and converted. But only for a very short time as Galland did get at least a few fighters and then later production of fighter version was increased. But the special 262 fighter schools at least had a few to use in the beginning.

This added to the problems but wasn't the only one or the nail in the coffin.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Sep 20, 2008)

Fuel supply problems did not extend to jets as they ran on J2 (diesel) fuel which (according to the US Strategic Bombing Survey) was still stockpiles of diesel oil on the order of 100,000 tons in reserve at the end of the war. (while there was almost no Avgas left)

THere were problems with supply due to the damaged trasportations system and the frequent movement of the Jet groups. 



An important note on Jet engines (particularly noticed by the British air ministry) is that jet engines can be made to run on practically any fuel (the Derwent I could run on anything from 100 Octane Avgas to heavy paraffin oil). Paraffin provides the longest range/gallon due to the higher energy content per volume, but has problems with gelling at low temps, so aviation kerosene was fuel of choice. (AvGas has the lowest energy density of the 3 and poses more of a fire hazard in addition to being more expensive)

The USN required all their early jets to be capable of running on AvGas as well to have interchangable fuel with their piston-engined a/c. (and of course, for their mixed-powered aircraft)


----------



## kool kitty89 (Sep 20, 2008)

syscom3 said:


> HoHun, look at your figures for November and December 1944.
> 
> Why were there so many 262's available for use, yet so little to show for it.
> 
> ...



Only 38 (in Nov) and 31 (in Dec) of those are in fighter units, the rest are fighter-bombers.



> 07/1944: 6 @ KG 51
> 08/1944: 20 @ KG 51
> 09/1944: 32 @ KG 51
> 10/1944: 52 @ KG 51, 5 @ KG 54
> ...


----------



## HoHun (Sep 21, 2008)

Hi Sycom,

>HoHun, look at your figures for November and December 1944.

>Why were there so many 262's available for use, yet so little to show for it.

As Koolkitty pointed out, the majority of the jets were flown in the fighter bomber role (by KG 51, KG 54 according to Ethell/Price seems not to become active yet in that period). After Nowotny's death in early November, Kommando Nowotny (redesignated JG 7) had been pulled out of the front line for additional training as the transition to twin-engined jet fighters had been more difficult than expected for single-engine propeller fighter pilots. EJG 2 was an operational training units anyway, and Kommando Braunegg was a reconnaissance unit.

As a result, there effectively was no jet fighter force on the front line in this period. To a certain degree, this can be attributed to Hitler's order to use the Me 262 as a bomber, since KG 51 could (and probably would) have been established as a fighter unit instead if it hadn't been for this order.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## Juha (Sep 21, 2008)

Hello
First of all the right unit designation of KG 54 was in fact KG(J) 54, it was a fighter unit. Because of German single engine fighter pilots were not used to or trained to instrumental flying the idea was to use redundant bomber pilots, who also had also multi engine experience as fighter pilots. That was thought to be especially useful when weather was overcast. There is a good unit history of KG 54 by Radtke.

Kommando Nowotny had shown that fighter pilots needed more training for effective use of Me 262 as a fighter and KG(J) 54 showed that converting bomber pilots to Me 262 fighter pilots wasn’t a rapid solution either. There was no fast track for getting Me 262 into service as a fighter.

I doubt that KG 51 would have been more successful as a fighter unit than KG(J) 54 was.

Juha


----------



## Soren (Sep 21, 2008)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Where did you come up with those kill ratio?



?? I didn't come up with anything. It's a simple matter of counting confirmed aerial kills vs confirmed aerial losses. Going by claims alone the kill/loss ratio was even higher FLYBOYJ.


----------



## Erich (Sep 21, 2008)

but it is not a simple matter according to existing LW records nor even with US fighter and bomber losses

case in point is 18 March 45 the first use of the dreaded R4M's from III./JG 7 8th Af records give losses to Flak and 8 B-17' lost. we know due to the carnage wasted by I. and III./JG 7 flying 37 Jets this date that the R4M's and 3cm cannon fire accounted for 25 B-17's. the attack was like a lighting blast and even 8th Af accts give it thus : the most concentrated and successful attack by Me 262's on the bombers to date.

so the question remains whom is hiding whom when it comes to the record books. the cracked up B-17's on the ground, trees and hills gives one story but .........


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 21, 2008)

Soren said:


> ?? I didn't come up with anything. It's a simple matter of counting confirmed aerial kills vs confirmed aerial losses. Going by claims alone the kill/loss ratio was even higher FLYBOYJ.


And as pointed out, even the "confirmed" kills were sometimes flawed - and does this include only bomber to bomber conflicts or an over all kill ratio?

From sources I've seen I see no more than a 4 to 1 kill ratio in favor of the 262.


----------



## Soren (Sep 21, 2008)

You think the USAAF has held back the official losses ? 

Isn't there full access to bomber fighter losses of the USAAF for researchers these days?


----------



## Soren (Sep 21, 2008)

FLYBOYJ said:


> And as pointed out, even the "confirmed" kills were sometimes flawed - and does this include only bomber to bomber conflicts or an over all kill ratio?
> 
> From sources I've seen I see no more than a 4 to 1 kill ratio in favor of the 262.



Well when people talk of the Corsair's kill/loss ratio they are also just counting claims vs losses so..


----------



## Erich (Sep 21, 2008)

I feel the same way about RAF/RCAF and other Allied losses, a definate about Soviet losses. not everything has come to light..........yet. too many LW unknowns still that will never be resolved

I've been argued to death since the 1970's on this whole issue, but it is my opinion nobody is trying to hide anything, it is just the records are not 100 % sure


----------



## HoHun (Sep 21, 2008)

Hi Juha,

>I doubt that KG 51 would have been more successful as a fighter unit than KG(J) 54 was.

The point is, the timeline shows if there hadn't been Hitler's bomber order, the Luftwaffe would have been in 7 or 8/1944 where it historically was in 11 or 12/1944. That's the impact of Hitler's interference.

Whether it was smart to have bomber pilots fly the Me 262 a fighter is a different question, though I suppose it would probably not have happened without Hitler's jet bomber decision that allowed the Kampfflieger to get a foot into the door.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 21, 2008)

Soren said:


> Well when people talk of the Corsair's kill/loss ratio they are also just counting claims vs losses so..


Soren, we're not talking about Corsairs here - bottom line the 262 did not have a 7 to 1 kill ratio. 4 to 1 tops as low as 1.05 to 1 (150 kills to 100 losses) depending who to talk to. In the book Arrow to the Future by Walter Boyne he states JV 44 scored 50 victories through out is limited existence. This is based on interviews with Galland and Stienhoff.


----------



## Soren (Sep 21, 2008)

Erich said:


> I feel the same way about RAF/RCAF and other Allied losses, a definate about Soviet losses. not everything has come to light..........yet. too many LW unknowns still that will never be resolved
> 
> I've been argued to death since the 1970's on this whole issue, but it is my opinion nobody is trying to hide anything, it is just the records are not 100 % sure



I agree. However it was my understanding that USAAF losses were completely covered, only many of the causes being unknown. While on the other hand many LW loss claim records have been lost.


----------



## drgondog (Sep 21, 2008)

Soren said:


> You think the USAAF has held back the official losses ?
> 
> Isn't there full access to bomber fighter losses of the USAAF for researchers these days?



No to 'hold back', and yes to complete records. subscribe to footnote.com if you want access to all USAAF MACR's.

From my own perspective that is the first place to start to get a very accurate compilation of the losses over enemy territory. There will not be MACR's for ditched bombers and fighters because they weren't 'missing'.

The total losses for 8th AF in very significant detail is found in places like 'Bits and Pieces" and the Mighty Eighth Combat Chronology. While even these are not totally accurate to cause, they are accurate to all operations losses including ditching. What is more difficult to pin down is the 'damaged Category E - salvaged' as those records are painfully assembled by researchers like Ted Damick - who is pretty near complete now.

Ken Miller's Fighter Units and Pilots of the 8th AF is accurate on the Fighters lost to all causes but not the damaged a/c. In my opinion he has at least a 5-10% error rate on the Cause because he did not research all the Macr's individually and relied on other published workds like my own - and I made mistakes also (and Kent has my mistakes in his book).

In compiling my own set of tables for losses and awards, I did research ALL of the claims and awards to get the counts on German types awarded as well as the cause of losses (8th AF Fighters only). I also researched the accident and damage reports with great assistance and body of work provided by Ted Damick. With all the research on losses for 8th FC I still 'feel' a 5% error in cause of loss and always assign 'lost to fighters' if last seen or heard from in the presence of the LW - so I will err on the high side to Air Losses.

You will often find Macr's with annotations lsuch as 'last seen', or 'last heard from' so you will never know for sure whether it was flak or fighters or gas fumes or oxygen failure or bad weather unless there were survivors. The Causalty Questionnaires are attached to Macrs to help close that loop.

Having discussed the flaws, the USAAF records are far more complete and accurate than the LW - particularly post late 1944. 

So exactly how have you been able to definitively get the 'facts' about Me 262 scores and losses? Have you found a better compilation than Tony Woods Awards tables for LW? 

And having noted his stuff, which is drawn from many years of research as well as piggy backing on folks like Prien and Goyat, Erich, etc you know that even the official 'Awards' in Tony's works are perhaps 70-80% overstated to actual 8th AF Losses?

So what source do you use that is closer to reality and more comprehensive?


----------



## The Basket (Sep 21, 2008)

It needed to be up and running at least fully operational in 1942 and in full production....to make a mark in 1944.

It was simply too late.

I can see the 262 as a bit of drama but not as a working combat machine.

It needed time....plenty of time...which it never had.

Now the He 280....


----------



## Soren (Sep 21, 2008)

Bill I don't just choose a single source and go by that, it is my opinion that one has to go through them all to gain a proper perspective. 

Tony Woods award list is far from complete.

For Me-262 losses I also took careful note of what Erich has written in the Jets vs Propjobs thread.

As for 'definite facts', well I never called the final figures that and I don't think any of us has the 'definite facts', but I reached a 7:1 to 10:1 kill/loss ratio for the Me-262 in the air by noting Tony Woods figures and Erich's.


----------



## syscom3 (Sep 21, 2008)

As for the -262 engines, when was it being produced in quantity and considered reliable enough for operations? I suspect that the bugs weren't fully worked out of it until after summer 1944.

So regardless of whether the LW had a few or lots of -262's .... if the engines weren't working, then everything is moot.

Erich, as for retraining the pilots, did anyone come up with a figure on how extensive it had to be? One month of retraining? Two months?


----------



## drgondog (Sep 21, 2008)

Soren said:


> Bill I don't just choose a single source and go by that, it is my opinion that one has to go through them all to gain a proper perspective.
> 
> *I absolutely agree*
> 
> ...



So, what sources are you using for actual US and UK and USSR losses to Me 262's? or the actual (or even convincing) numbers for Me 262 losses?

The single most difficult task I have had as a serious student of airpower over Europe is attempting to match awards to actual Losses - and the ETO was perhaps the best documented combat theatre until the emergence of USSR records for Korea. But 1945 is simply impossible to develop any accuracy at all relative to LW losses.


----------



## Soren (Sep 21, 2008)

By summer of 1944 the biggest problem was fuel supply, trained pilots and usable airfields.


----------



## Soren (Sep 21, 2008)

Bill,

Just like loss records undoubtedly have gone missing, so have the records of pilot claims. Remember that by late 44 many of the kills scored by the LW were never confirmed by the OKL, which undoubtedly is the reason behind why many Allied a/c are listed as missing, there being no possibility to cross reference the details with LW records of Allied a/c claimed shot down.

As for my sources, I didn't directly cross reference with USAAF or RAF loss records, however I took into account overstatement of kills. Far more than 600 a/c were claimed shot down by the Me-262.


----------



## Erich (Sep 21, 2008)

sys well this will tweek a few by in-experienced and experienced prop job boyz would start flying the 262 in a matter of a couple days....scary proposition but true. we are going to cover this in our jet NF-Mossie book with some of the pilots we interviewed and it was the same training as they flew A-1a's

wel for claims and losses I use ............. ? dang how many reference data sheets from individual Us/LW fighter units/histories are there ? woods for just the area, there is too large and borad a scope of claims made on several missions, overall basic histories covering what scan info is out there on Lw attacks and losses. US combat reports fighter and bomber, I have many individual days covered from the bomber perspective during 1944 and this helps somewhat pin-point location of attacks from the Lw fighters on the bomber formation, co-inciding incidently with several known LW fighter gruppen so this can be ascertained neatly. MACR reports are a god-send as Bill pointed out previously. may footnote have the graces to secure every one of those well needed items in the future, using www.armyairforces forums with former bomber crew vets and in the ase of facing the Me 262's from Jg 7 some very interesting side-lines have been drawn up since the early 2000's to go along with the JG 7 history, Classic pubs 3/4 volumes on the machine, 262 war diary, several auto-biographys of former jet pilots done up in the German, JV 44 book by Classic obviously and the the EE book(s) on the Würger staaffel and the Dora pilots thoughts on protecting JV 44 262's. Alfred Prices books on the German jets. Any of the Ww 2 8th AF chrono's done up by Freeman, Hess's book on the jets vs the US army air forces, though it needs an overhaul it is still a good companion volume. Numerous US fighter group newsletters with articles pertaining to combat with the 262,Ar 234 and Me 163 Komet.

what am I getting out here guys ? you see the picture form, there is not just ONE good source of info you have to expand and procure as much as possible through private, and public sources and compare, compare and compare ~ research in-depth. and of course there will always be more published or re-hashed out in a slightly different way


----------



## HoHun (Sep 21, 2008)

Hi Syscom,

>As for the -262 engines, when was it being produced in quantity and considered reliable enough for operations? 

Did you ever read anything about the Me 262 being grounded for lack of engines? This seems to be a popular assumption, but I haven't found any source to confirm it.

In my opinion, many writers confuse short engine life with poor reliability or non-operability. You can fly operations just fine with a short engine life, it's just that the engine won't last long before having to be replaced.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## syscom3 (Sep 21, 2008)

HoHun said:


> Hi Syscom,
> 
> >As for the -262 engines, when was it being produced in quantity and considered reliable enough for operations?
> 
> ...



There is an issue of when the engines were being produced in quantity that were acceptable for use.

While having a few hand built engines available early on looks good from an aviation enthusiasts point of view, it isn't exactly something that makes the aircraft operational.

I have heard so much about the -262 being capable for fighter ops early in 1944, that I am asking these questions, as they are nuances that have to be explained.

My perspective is that the -262 had an airframe ready for production early on, but there were engine issues that slowed the program down until the end of summer 1944.

Erich ..... another question for you. Why did it take until the middle of March 1945 that the LW finally put a whole group of them into the air at one time? Did it really take that amount of time to work out the tactics?


----------



## syscom3 (Sep 21, 2008)

HoHun said:


> Hi Syscom,
> 
> >As for the -262 engines, when was it being produced in quantity and considered reliable enough for operations?
> 
> ...



There is an issue of when the engines were being produced in quantity that were acceptable for use.

While having a few hand built engines available early on looks good from an aviation enthusiasts point of view, it isn't exactly something that makes the aircraft operational.

I have heard so much about the -262 being capable for ops early in 1944, that I am asking these questions, as they are nuances that have to be explained.


----------



## Erich (Sep 21, 2008)

dissposition of elements of the Jet staffeln. JG 7 is just a narrow example, the bomber units and recon had to be trained up knowing full well that the later along with bomber would be in a struggle with Allied fighters at any time on any mission. JG 300 was going to be equipped with the jet or so they thought in the future

think there needs to be more research on the Erpo-test kommando(s) in operation test evaluation of the 262 and why it was not ready or released. It is obvious that their own findings were not suitable to the high command to release the jet any earlier than what was seen


----------



## drgondog (Sep 21, 2008)

Soren said:


> Bill,
> 
> Just like loss records undoubtedly have gone missing, so have the records of pilot claims. Remember that by late 44 many of the kills scored by the LW were never confirmed by the OKL, which undoubtedly is the reason behind why many Allied a/c are listed as missing, there being no possibility to cross reference the details with LW records of Allied a/c claimed shot down.
> 
> ...



Then you are largely assuming in contrast to gathering facts and unknowns - then separating the two categories into 'known' vs 'speculation', aren't you?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 21, 2008)

Does any one have info on what the individual units "claimed?" As stated earlier JV 44 - 50 claims, I show JG 7 with 200.


----------



## HoHun (Sep 21, 2008)

Hi Syscom,

>I have heard so much about the -262 being capable for fighter ops early in 1944, that I am asking these questions, as they are nuances that have to be explained.

With regard to engine reliability, you're not asking a question but actually presenting speculation lacking a source, and then asking for data to contradict it.

That's a good way to get a discussion going, but it's a bit dangerous with regard to the conclusions casual readers might make.

I'm not aware of any evidence suggesting that the teething troubles of the Jumo 004B were bad enough to have more than a marginal effect on operations.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## Micdrow (Sep 21, 2008)

Production figures from schiffers book, Me262 developement, testing and production


----------



## Erich (Sep 21, 2008)

Joe 

yes in a form and a single German source from the 1960's/1970's .......... jet kills : 760. note this figure has been published elsewhere in the more present day and age.

obviously not at all correct. will try and dig out just what units did what.

JV 44 is given 50 and so is 10./NJG 11 and that is not correct though.

give me some time unless some-one else posts something of interest on this


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 21, 2008)

I'm interested Erich - as always you're a wealth of information


----------



## Timppa (Sep 22, 2008)

syscom3 said:


> I have heard so much about the -262 being capable for fighter ops early in 1944, that I am asking these questions, as they are nuances that have to be explained.



Quoting a summary of an old Alfred Price's article of the Me262 in Air International Magazine:

"Several postwar writers have censured Luftwaffe leaders for failing to get the Me262 into production early enough. Yet, if anything, production of the aircraft was initiated too early with the result that Me262 airframes were starting to come off the assembly lines before them were ready to enter mass production. Nor did Adolf Hitler's edict regarding the initial use of the Me262 as a fighter-bomber cause appreciable delay in the type's operational introduction in the fighter role.

The most important factor constraining the employment of the Me262 in operational service was the extremely short running life of the Jumo 004 power unit. Despite the valiant and imaginative efforts of the Junkers engineers, by the spring of 1945 the state of development of the Jumo 004 had not reached the point where it could be regarded as a fully reliable unit. As a result the Me262 was never able to fulfil its original promise."


----------



## KrazyKraut (Sep 22, 2008)

What exactly made the airframes coming out of factories "not ready for mass-production"?


----------



## Njaco (Sep 22, 2008)

I don't think the engines were ready at the same time so therefore the frames were slowed, and yada,yada, like dominoes. I belive that is what was meant.


----------



## KrazyKraut (Sep 22, 2008)

Yeah I agree, the wording just seemed odd.


----------



## HoHun (Sep 22, 2008)

Hi Timppa,

>Nor did Adolf Hitler's edict regarding the initial use of the Me262 as a fighter-bomber cause appreciable delay in the type's operational introduction in the fighter role.

Since I think rather highly of Price's work, I used to follow him in that regard until I had a look at the actual jet fighter strengths. The first fighter bomber unit received Me 262 aircraft in 6/1944, while JG 7 predecessor Kommando Nowotny received their first Me 262s in 9/1944. That's the delay Hitler's order is responsible for.

>Despite the valiant and imaginative efforts of the Junkers engineers, by the spring of 1945 the state of development of the Jumo 004 had not reached the point where it could be regarded as a fully reliable unit. 

Probably true, but the question is - what was the operational impact of this lack of reliability? A 25 hour lifetime engine can still yield 16 flights of 1.5 hours each, and if half of these are flown in combat, you get 8 combat sorties per set of engines. About 6000 Jumo 004 engines were built during WW2, so we can approximate very roughly that there were two sets of Jumo 004 engines available for each of the ca. 1400 Me 262 fighters produced.

This doesn't look like the engines were a bottleneck that could have hampered Me 262 combat operations ...

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## SoD Stitch (Sep 22, 2008)

Timppa said:


> Quoting a summary of an old Alfred Price's article of the Me262 in Air International Magazine:
> 
> "Several postwar writers have censured Luftwaffe leaders for failing to get the Me262 into production early enough. Yet, if anything, production of the aircraft was initiated too early with the result that Me262 airframes were starting to come off the assembly lines before them were ready to enter mass production. Nor did Adolf Hitler's edict regarding the initial use of the Me262 as a fighter-bomber cause appreciable delay in the type's operational introduction in the fighter role.
> 
> The most important factor constraining the employment of the Me262 in operational service was the extremely short running life of the Jumo 004 power unit. Despite the valiant and imaginative efforts of the Junkers engineers, by the spring of 1945 the state of development of the Jumo 004 had not reached the point where it could be regarded as a fully reliable unit. As a result the Me262 was never able to fulfil its original promise."




I have read essentially the same thing in Mr. Price's book, "_Fighter Aircraft (Combat Development in World War II_)". Also, development of the 004 was "frozen" early in it's development (late '43, I believe) in order to facilitate rapid production of the engine, so there were virtually no improvements in the 004 between 1943 and 1945; in fact, if anything, due to the decline in the quality of materiel affecting all aspects of the German manfacturing industry, the lifespan of the 004 actually decreased, instead of increased, as the War went on. By War's end, the BMW 003 was probably a more reliable powerplant than the 004 due to it's longer gestation period.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Sep 22, 2008)

That is incorrect on the engine life issue, the 004B may have been more or less "frozen" but by the time of the 004B-2's introduction service life had already improved: while the B-1 (with uncooled turbine blades) fell far short of the official 25 hour interval the B-2 came much closer to this, and the B-4 further improved this.

In addition there is are the 004D and similar 004E to consider. They were improved considerably (with TBO ~60 hours) and with improved combustion chambers giving significantly improved feul economy and thrust. Additionally other alterations eliminated the vibration problems at higher RPM allowing the 8,700 rpm limit to be removed and allowing nominal thrust (9,000 rpm) of 930 kp (2,049 lbf) and 1,050 kp (2,313 lbf) at 10,000 rpm. The 004E had an improved exhaust that improved altitude performance, it also optionally featured an afterburner. Improved fuel control also increased reliability, reduced the risk of damage durring spool-ups and reduced the possibility of flame-outs.

The 004D had entered production just before the war's end and the 004E was ready to enter production.


----------



## syscom3 (Sep 22, 2008)

Ok, so are these true statements:

1) Regardless of Hitlers meddling, the airframes were not put into quantity production untill May/June 1944. And they would have been unavailable untill then due to airframe development. [in other words.... even if Hitler had not meddled, it was still no use in building them in quantity in early 1944 due to factors beyond anyone's control]

2) The engine was available for use (although with a short lifetime) throughout the first 1/2 of 1944, and all that was needed were airframes.


----------



## Erich (Sep 22, 2008)

sys the engines had a short life .....period something the ground techs could never get worked out unless a totally new system approach was to be had and this was destined into the new streamlined 262 variants for 1946

Jope from one source and I think I just may as well go on a quest and look at each member of JG 7's pilot roster which is enormous later on

Stab with III./JG 7 425
I./JG 7 had 80 kills
II./JG 7 never had their own jets and did not operate no matter what any book states otherwise
III./EJG 2 had 25 kills
JV 44 had 56 kills
Kommando Nowotny had 35 kills possibly up to 50
10./NJG 11 has been given anywhere from 45 to 50, maybe even more
I./KG (J) 51 had 5 kills
I./KG (J) 54 had 50 kills
Ekdo 262 had 25 kills
Ekdo Lechfeld had 3 or more kills

the above position is that JG 7 had over 500 kills and my personal opinion is that it may of had 200-250 maximum.


----------



## drgondog (Sep 22, 2008)

KrazyKraut said:


> What exactly made the airframes coming out of factories "not ready for mass-production"?



A flurry of Engineering Change Orders due to Design changes required to solve problems encountered in prototypes for which new tooling had to be made (or make them as piece parts/cutomized) would be one possible reason.

You could make the decision to not make those changes and use existing tools, then send field mods out to retrofit to a production block number..that might happen if it was not a flight safety issue.

Just a couple of possibilities


----------



## kool kitty89 (Sep 22, 2008)

Also, in terms of the hinderance of Hitler's order that it be used as a bomber meant that (while delay in introduction as a fighter was only moderately delayed) there were far less fighter versions available (~1/4) than would have been had the fighter-bomber model not been produced. (possibly moreso given that this requirement slowed development as a whole somewhat as well)


----------



## syscom3 (Sep 22, 2008)

But it looks like it only effected production by two months or so.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Sep 23, 2008)

The order also proabably reduced the time taken to ramp-up into full production. (even after the couple months are taken into account)

But the biggest detrimental effect I'd say would be the diversion of actual aircraft produced to bomber units instead of fighter units. 

And if the bomber variants were used as fighters there performance would still be somewhat less due to the added drag of the bomb racks. I believe there were also some structural problems with the revised nose structure used on the (A-2) bomber versions. (lightened to maintain the CoG) In particular mention of the nose failing while firing the cannons.




Transition to the jets was gramted still a problem. It may have been a bit easier to convert twin-engine fighter pilots, if there'd been a truely capable twin day-fighter in service with the LW. (ie the Fw 187) Even better would have been another twin jet in service earlier (ie. the He 280), even if only in limited usage it still could have helped a great deal in getting the Me 262 fully operational. 


*But of course, now I'm getting into what-ifs and alternat histories, which is a bit off topic. (interesting of course) But something to think about with the He 280 is: while it had gone through testing significantly earlier than the 262 and was somewhat more suited to the lower thrust engines available, but the big question would the HeS 8 engines have been able to reach production quality early enought to make a difference. (and getting into the HeS 30 is an even bigger discussion)


----------



## KrazyKraut (Sep 23, 2008)

> A flurry of Engineering Change Orders due to Design changes required to solve problems encountered in prototypes for which new tooling had to be made (or make them as piece parts/cutomized) would be one possible reason.
> 
> You could make the decision to not make those changes and use existing tools, then send field mods out to retrofit to a production block number..that might happen if it was not a flight safety issue.
> 
> Just a couple of possibilities


Yeah, if airframes had to be retrofitted with components or other alterations that would be a solid indication that production started too early. However with new technology there are always certain issues that only surface once the thing is put to use, so it'll be hard to tell if it was rushed. I have never heard of any changes regarding the 262-airframe that are out of the ordinary.



syscom3 said:


> Ok, so are these true statements:
> 
> 2) The engine was available for use (although with a short lifetime) throughout the first 1/2 of 1944, and all that was needed were airframes.


That is exactly the opposite of what the books say on this topic


One point on the "political meddling" aspect. When you say airframes weren't ready or engines weren't ready you see this as a sign that political interference didn't matter. But I think the political interference and especially the initial lack of interest had a lot to do with why engines and airframes weren't ready fast enough. They didn't get the attention they needed.


----------



## Timppa (Sep 23, 2008)

KrazyKraut said:


> What exactly made the airframes coming out of factories "not ready for mass-production"?



I misquoted, sorry. The quote should read
"Yet, if anything, production of the aircraft was initiated too early with the result that Me262 airframes were starting to come off the assembly lines before **the engines to power** them were ready to enter mass production"

Couple of more quotes regarding the engines:
" Due to Allied economic blockade, German industry was critically short of nickel and chromium from the summer of 1941. These elements were essential ingredients for effective high temperature-resistant steel alloys, but Junkers engineers were forced to use substitutes whenever possible.
Jumo 004 turbine blades were manufactured from a steel-based alloy containing 30% nickel and 15% chromium, a material sufficiently resilient to withstand the very high temperatures and high tensile stresses encountered. Under these conditions the blades soon developed 'creep', gradually deforming and increasing in length. When blade creep exceeded a laid-down limit the engine had to be changed.
Jumo 004 flame tubes were formed out of mild steel sheet, with an oven baked spray coating of aluminium to prevent oxidation. This inelegant material did not survive long at the extreme temperatures generated in the hottest part of the 004, and during running the flame tubes slowly buckled out of shape.
Limited by turbine blade creep and flame tube buckling, as exacerbated by problems with the fuel regulation system, the running life of pre-production Jumo 004 engines rarely exceeded 10 hours. Then the Me262 had to be grounded for new engines to be fitted.
...
In September 1944, following a series of incremental improvements, the nominal running life of the the Jumo 004 at last reached 25 hours. Although the engines' life was still short, given the desperate war situation that was considered sufficient for the design to be frozen so that mass production could begin.
...
Walther Hagenah described the problems facing III/JG7 when he joined the unit:" By the time reached III/JG7 there were insufficient spare parts and insufficient spare engines; there were even occasional shortages of J-2 fuel. I am sure all of these existed and production was sufficient, but by that stage of the war the transport system was so chaotic that things often failed to arrive at the frontline units".


----------



## Juha (Sep 23, 2008)

Hello HoHun
Quote:” The point is, the timeline shows if there hadn't been Hitler's bomber order, the Luftwaffe would have been in 7 or 8/1944 where it historically was in 11 or 12/1944. That's the impact of Hitler's interference.

Whether it was smart to have bomber pilots fly the Me 262 a fighter is a different question, though I suppose it would probably not have happened without Hitler's jet bomber decision that allowed the Kampfflieger to get a foot into the door.”

Now EKdo Lechfeld was formed at the beginning of 44 got the V8 proto in April and its first Me 262A-1as in May, and the latter were not front-line capable because of many quality problems. First interception around mid-July. Named EKdo 262. Even the experiences of Kommando Nowotny, which got its 262s with production standard engines in Sept 44, showed that still pilots needed more training and a/c weren’t really ready for first line combat.

On use of bomber pilots as Me 262 fighter pilots, as I wrote “Because of German single engine fighter pilots were not used to or trained to instrumental flying the idea was to use redundant bomber pilots, who also had also multi engine experience as fighter pilots. That was thought to be especially useful when weather was overcast.” 
There was a clear rationality behind the use of bomber pilots. But IMHO very important reason was organizational jealously. LW bomber barons saw their units disbanded and probably wanted to save at least a few bomber units besides V-1 launching unit (KG53/3 IIRC) etc, even if as fighter. So IMHO in any case we would have seen KG(J) unit designation. That influence of bomber barons might explain why they didn’t use more NJG pilots. EKdo Lechfeld was formed mostly out of III./ZG 26.

KK
where you got the info
Quote:” in terms of the hinderance of Hitler's order that it be used as a bomber meant that (while delay in introduction as a fighter was only moderately delayed) there were far less fighter versions available (~1/4) than would have been had the fighter-bomber model not been produced. (possibly moreso given that this requirement slowed development as a whole somewhat as well)”

According to Price’s article in International Air Power Review Vol. 23 Me 262A-1a production was about 1,000 and A-2a more than 100. On 9 Apr 45 Me 262 situation in operational units: 163 day fighters (JG 7, KG(J) 54, JV 44), 21 fighter-bombers (KG 51), about 9 NFs and 7 Tac Recce. 


I recommend Boehme’s JG 7 and Radtke’s KG 54 book to those who want more reliable info on Me 262 as a fighter, Boehme’s book covers also EKdo Lechfeld/262/Kommando Nowotny. The newest article by Price is in International Air Power Review Vol. 23.

Juha


----------



## HoHun (Sep 23, 2008)

Hi Juha,

>Even the experiences of Kommando Nowotny, which got its 262s with production standard engines in Sept 44, showed that still pilots needed more training and a/c weren’t really ready for first line combat.

Well, if the KG 51 aircraft had been given to Kommando Nowotny, they'd have given the Luftwaffe fighter arm 3 months worth of a headstart by providing the training that historically was lacking. Nowotny perhaps was not the optimum leader for a new jet fighter unit either - he was an accomplished ace, but maybe a cool, methodical tactician like Wolfgang Späte (who had led the Me 163 operational trial squadron JG 400) would have been a better choice. The fighter arm was not well-prepared for the Me 262 introduction, but I'd speculate that's because they only sneaked in through the back door ...

However, what would you see as the specific shortcomings of the Me 262 as first line fighter aircraft in September 1944?

>There was a clear rationality behind the use of bomber pilots. But IMHO very important reason was organizational jealously. 

I absolutely agree that there was a bomber arm vs. fighter arm turf war going on. However, I think the rationality for preferring bomber pilots followed the desire of the bomber arm to run the show, not because bomber pilots really made better jet fighter aces. In fact, I think you'd have needed a fighter pilot mindset to successfully exploit the strengths of the Me 262, though the technical experience of the bomber pilots might have been a bonus. Just assigning jet fighters to an existing Kampfgeschwader could not provide the fighter mindset requried for jet fighter operations ...

>So IMHO in any case we would have seen KG(J) unit designation. 

With the Kampfflieger having gained a lot of standing at the expense of the fighter arm, you might be right. Fighter advocates like Milch and Galland lost influence over the jet fighter issue, and the bomber arm was also seen as politically more reliable than the fighter arm, whatever good that might do in combat. Steinhoff actually described how fighter units were required to install a "national-socialist liaision officer"- more or less a political commissar. Still, I think integrating bomber pilot with cadre-staffed fighter units would have been a more promising course of action that the KG(J) approach ...

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## HoHun (Sep 23, 2008)

Hi Timppa,

>Walther Hagenah described the problems facing III/JG7 when he joined the unit:" By the time reached III/JG7 there were insufficient spare parts and insufficient spare engines; there were even occasional shortages of J-2 fuel. I am sure all of these existed and production was sufficient, but by that stage of the war the transport system was so chaotic that things often failed to arrive at the frontline units".

Hm, this site points out that Hagenah was transferred to a Me 262 only in March 1945:

Aces of the Luftwaffe - Walter Hagenah

Of course, at that time German logistics had pretty much broken down, but the resulting problems did not affect the mid-1944 introduction of the Me 262 yet.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## Timppa (Sep 23, 2008)

HoHun said:


> Hm, this site points out that Hagenah was transferred to a Me 262 only in March 1945:



That is right, I should have mentioned it. The whole article is 9 pages though, including a cutaway of night fighter version of Me262B-1a/U1 version with radar, I'm too lazy to type it all.

PS.
I have heard that Böhme's book, "Jagdgeschwader 7: Die Chronik eines Me 262-Geschwaders, 1944/45" is a good read, from development/design standpoint also.
Amazon.com: Jg 7: The World's First Jet Fighter Unit 1944/1945 (Schiffer Military History): Manfred Boehme, David Johnston: Books


----------



## Juha (Sep 23, 2008)

Hello HoHun
Only one thing to say, EKdo Lechfeld/EKdo 262 were forerunners of Kommando Nowotny, and got their first Me 262 in April at latest and first series production a/c in May, so fighter arm had its head start, thanks to Milch who saw it that all Me 262s were produced as fighters contrary to Hitler's orders up to when Hitler lost his head in late May conference just because that fact dawned to him. What happened in June I cannot recall, probably EKdo 262 was put on ice as fighter EKdo. It was at this stage than the lost time loss to fighter use of Me 262 happened according to Price IIRC. I'll read the newest Price article when I'll have time but it might take a while.

Of course if KG 51 planes were given to Nowotny that would have helped but Germans would still need more time to train fighter pilots and to develop tactics.

Juha


----------



## SoD Stitch (Sep 23, 2008)

KrazyKraut said:


> That is exactly the opposite of what the books say on this topic



Agreed; in fact, the first tail-dragger 262 airframes used a Jumo Ju 210G recip engine in the nose to test the airframe, because the 004's weren't ready yet. When the BMW 003's were (supposedly) ready, they tested them on the same airframe that already had the Jumo recip installed, just in case the engines failed in-flight, which they did.


----------



## Njaco (Sep 23, 2008)

IIRC, even though they started pulling Me 262s back for modifications because of Hitler's orders in late May 44, Ekdo 262 was allowed to retain a few Me 262s and so continued with training.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Sep 24, 2008)

SoD Stitch said:


> Agreed; in fact, the first tail-dragger 262 airframes used a Jumo Ju 210G recip engine in the nose to test the airframe, because the 004's weren't ready yet. When the BMW 003's were (supposedly) ready, they tested them on the same airframe that already had the Jumo recip installed, just in case the engines failed in-flight, which they did.



It wouldn't have been because the 004 wasn't ready as the BMW engines had been originally intended and the V1 was the only one to use the Jumo 210. 
Also the BMW engines tested on the V1 prototype were early "flight worthy" prototype P.3302 (109-003) engines and only produced 1,100-1,200 lbf of thrust.
(incedentally the BMW P.3302 engines, while smaller than the 004's were still a bit larger than originally anticipated, possibly meaning the abandoned P.3301/109-002 were originally chosen.)


----------



## kool kitty89 (Sep 24, 2008)

Juha, I'm not sure about 1945, but according to HoHun's figures only 1/3 of the Me 262's in service were fighters at the end of 1944.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Sep 24, 2008)

Timppa said:


> I misquoted, sorry. The quote should read
> "Yet, if anything, production of the aircraft was initiated too early with the result that Me262 airframes were starting to come off the assembly lines before **the engines to power** them were ready to enter mass production"
> *This would imply that the Me 262 had had all the major bugs worked out by this point and the necessary tooling was in place, or being geared up for full production. Which means in a technical sense that it was not entering production prematurely.*
> Couple of more quotes regarding the engines:
> ...




I'm not sure when the "freezing" of the design takes place in terms of the model, or to what it actually refers to as developments certainly continued up until the wars end with the much improved 004D entering production/pre-production just prior to the end.

Delcyros seems to have a good deal of information regarding the jets, perhaps he could expand on my comments on these issues.


----------



## Juha (Sep 24, 2008)

Hello KK
in the message I quoted you wrote 1/4.

And at the end of 44 fighter Me 262 units were training their pilots after the hard lessons of Kdo Nowotny.

And anyway according to Price's newest article and according to his mid 90s articles "on 10 Jan 45 I. and II./KG 51 had 52 Me 262s and intensive training effort was in progress, involving around 180 of jet fighters, to work up units preparing to go into action, JG 7, I. and II./KG(J) 54, and the pilot conversation unit III./EJG 2.

And the 6 @ Kommando Braunegg were in a big need as it was TacRec unit.

jUHA


----------



## kool kitty89 (Sep 24, 2008)

Ok, sorry I meesed up with that 1/4 comment.


It seems the fighters got more priorety by early '45.


----------



## HoHun (Sep 24, 2008)

Hi Juha,

>Only one thing to say, EKdo Lechfeld/EKdo 262 were forerunners of Kommando Nowotny, and got their first Me 262 in April at latest and first series production a/c in May, so fighter arm had its head start

"Erprobungskommando" means "Trial Command" - they tested the operational aspects of flying a fighter with ground-breaking new technology, not a job you could simply skip. They didn't have enough aircraft to train new fighter pilots anyway, and this breakdown of breakdown of early Me 262 deliveries (until 10 August 1944) provided by Price shows that KG 51 had first priority even early on:

I./KG 51: 33
Erpr. Kdo. 262: 15
Erprobungsstelle Rechlin: 14
Messerschmitt testing: 11
Junkers engine testing: 1
Two-seater conversion at Blohm und Voss: 10

If the KG 51 aircraft would have gone to the Erprobungskommando, this would have tripled its capacity, effectively making it possible to being the training of jet fighter pilots in addition to the trial duties. Instead, Hitler's order diverted the jets to KG 51 ... at the expense of the fighter arm.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## Juha (Sep 24, 2008)

Hello HoHun
I agree, even if EKdos had some capacity to train pilots, without it it/they would not have pilots to fly its/their Me 262s.

But the overlook of need of 2-seater model in time meant that conversion training wasn't going on as effectively as it should have been.

Juha


----------



## Timppa (Sep 24, 2008)

kool kitty89 said:


> The alloy referred to doesn't seem to match quite right either as those used on the 004 should be:
> "The production Junkers Jumo 004B-1 and the Jumo 004B-4 turbines and
> stator blades used an austinitic 'stainless steel' like steel alloy
> called tinadur or an concurrently used alternative called cromadur.
> ...



This source:
http://www.enginehistory.org/German/Me-262/Me262_Engine_2.pdf

says the blades were made alloy containing 30% nickel, 14% chrome, 1.75% titanium and .12% carbon.

Also, "exhaust cone is made up of aluminized mild steel".


----------



## syscom3 (Sep 24, 2008)

OK, so you are all saying that even without Hitlers interference, the Me-262 still wasnt available in quantity untill the fall of 1944.

And even then, because of training issues and no effective tactics, the -262 still was not effective untill 1945.

I am also wondering about the numbers of airframes on hand. What were the true numbers for aircraft available for use? It must have been a fraction of the total, at any given month.


----------



## Erich (Sep 24, 2008)

what do you mean by not-effective till 1945 ? it wa very effective in the terms of chaos in 1944 to bomber crews flying over the Reich mis-matching ID of LW A/C, the bomber crews never seeing a jet till later in the war.

at least for propaganda purposes the ruse worked till Nowotny could get airborne.

the Ekdo's were palnned for training and testing new weapons systems as well as A/C, and if need be during that training to schedule military operations if need be. the jet was ready in the summer of 1944 to be filled to the units, the jets were not in mass production nor acceptable for a variety of reasons to replace any one particular JG, the reason behind Nowotny's small band of experimental staffel, the same applied to KG 51 and 54 who trusted their own small twin engine Me 410's


----------



## HoHun (Sep 24, 2008)

Hi Syscom,

>OK, so you are all saying that even without Hitlers interference, the Me-262 still wasnt available in quantity untill the fall of 1944.

"In quantity" is a qualitative rubber term that doesn't permit any conclusions. Here are the quantified quantities, which I had posted earlier:

From the strength reports at The Luftwaffe, 1933-45, listing the Me 262 aircraft with the different units:

07/1944: 6 @ KG 51
08/1944: 20 @ KG 51
09/1944: 32 @ KG 51
10/1944: 52 @ KG 51, 5 @ KG 54
11/1944: 72 @ KG 51, 8 @ KG 54, 38 @ JG 7
12/1944: 100 @ KG 51, 21 @ KG 54, 14 @ JG 7, 23 @ EJG 2, 6 @ Kommando Braunegg

Note that due to "Hitler's interference", jet fighters made only an average 30% of the available Me 262 strength in the second half of 1944.

>And even then, because of training issues and no effective tactics, the -262 still was not effective untill 1945.

"Effective" again is a rubber term. What is "effective" supposed to mean?

>I am also wondering about the numbers of airframes on hand. 

The strength reports of for one specific point in time each month. During the course of the month, the units received additional aircraft and lost (or transferred) other aircraft so that at any other date, they might have a larger or smaller number available, depending on re-supply and combat results.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## Erich (Sep 24, 2008)

Henning your figures for JG 7 in November 44 is from where ? the unit did not exist........yet, still Kommando Nowotny unless you are using JG 7 is the broadest terms ?

E ~


----------



## HoHun (Sep 24, 2008)

>Henning your figures for JG 7 in November 44 is from where ?

Flugzeugbestand und Bewegungsmeldungen, III./JG7


----------



## Erich (Sep 24, 2008)

III./JG 7 still in the training mode at Lechfeld did start to operate at Decembers beginning though this was in 1's and 2's. JG 7 as a JG did not really become one till January 45.

of interest hopefully from the focus of the 9. (J) Fliegerdivision under G. von Maltzahn, January 1945 converting bomber pilots over to fighters as an advisement. From the GdF as a request: JG 7 at present undergoing conversion at the Brandenburg facility, to conclude by the end of March 1945.

this is almost too funny: Jg 300 and Jg 301 to be converted, from April 45 probably to the Me 262. avoidance of double conversion of the units of IX. (J) Fliegerkorps
the units of the above Korps have beeter blind flying training than JG 300 and JG 301 pilots............ my thoughts it does not matter during the spring of 45 time frame, it was of essence to produce and expand the Jg fighter arm to include as many 262's as possible.

December 44 it was planned to produce some 681 262's but OKL only received 499 crates. almost 200 were lost due to storage part probs, only 186 were delivered, while the remainder were smashed out due to bombings, ferry flight accidnets and railway transportation being attacked by Allied ground attack. the reports contine with supplied night fighter units, for the sturmgruppen and to the Versuchsverband.

really weird stuff. In ?De3cmber of 44 Welter was only testing a breif few examples of 262 -2 of them an an Ar 234 as for comparison trials. Obviously the Sturmgruppen never recieved any as the Fw 190A-8/R2 and R8 variants were expressly used.


----------



## Erich (Sep 24, 2008)

one step further on JG 7

moved to bases outside of Berlin in late December 44 as I. gruppe was trying to form up as well as the abortive II. gruppe; it was not yet recorded as being on operational strength with Luftflotte Reich during this winter month .........


----------



## syscom3 (Sep 24, 2008)

Effective meaning that it was taking down more than one bomber per sortie, in mass formations. Just like what Erich mentioned what happened on March 17th.

Of course the jet was very capable on its own. But if it wasnt inflicting punishing losses (alone or in groups) then it wasnt effective so to speak.

From what people are saying, although it had tremendous capabilities and potential, by the time it all fell into place for the LW, the airwar was already won by the allies. And even if Hitler had left developement alone, it still wouldnt have changed things to any degree.


----------



## HoHun (Sep 24, 2008)

Hi Erich,

>III./JG 7 still in the training mode at Lechfeld did start to operate at Decembers beginning though this was in 1's and 2's. JG 7 as a JG did not really become one till January 45.

The point is, the timeline shows that for several months, the jets went to KG 51 and not to fighter units. Whatever the fighter training timeline might be, these months were lost for building a jet fighter force.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## Erich (Sep 24, 2008)

Henning I agree the bomber units were filled first, am just pointing out the time frame for JG 7, much of it looked great on paper and it had to as viewed for encouragement by the higher ups in the LW general stab then off to the small moustached kook der "F"


----------



## HoHun (Sep 24, 2008)

Hi Syscom,

>Effective meaning that it was taking down more than one bomber per sortie, in mass formations. 

During the Battle of Britain, Fighter Command "took down" one bomber per 104 sorties (in daylight combat). Considering that the RAF won the battle anyway, I think your definition of effectiveness still needs some polishing.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## syscom3 (Sep 24, 2008)

Hohun, my definition of 'effective" is quite explicit.

With all of the advantages the 262 had over the allies, Im trying to figure out why they didnt have a sterling record untill the waning months of the war.

Erich answered some of it. Lack of training and tactics.

Others showed that the airframes were there but obviously not many got into the air and did something spectacular.

And obviously, even if the bomber versions of the 262 were magically converted to fighters, I dont see how they would have added much to the fight untill training and tactics were improved.

As for the 262's being made available earlier, it looks like those engines were limiting operations and only a few 262's were available at any given time untill the fall of 1944.


----------



## Juha (Sep 24, 2008)

HoHun
question is what kind of sorties? If you incl all FC sorties then you incl sortie types which Me262A-1s didnt flew, for ex convoy protection sorties, standing patrols etc even if standing patrols were not so common during the BoB convoy patrols were rather significant job for FC.

Juha


----------



## HoHun (Sep 24, 2008)

Hi Syscom,

>Hohun, my definition of 'effective" is quite explicit.

Well, if you want to stick to it ... 

Your definition is completely unrealistic and thus totally useless.

To calibrate your expectations: The 1970 "Saber Measure (Charlie)" study shows that the average kill rate in WW2 was about 0.02 enemy losses per sortie (and additionally it showed that success in air war depended strongly on the relative sortie ratio).

If you set up an impossible goal (requring the Me 262 to do 50 times better than the average, while being strongly outnumbered), of course the Me 262 will fail to accomplish it - that proves nothing. The failure to meet unrealistic expectations doesn't mean that there was anything wrong with Luftwaffe jet fighter operations ... if you judge it by fantasy expectations, you are not able to tell the difference between good and poor operations.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## Soren (Sep 24, 2008)

Syscom3,

Had Hitler not cut the program in 43 then the engines would've been up and running much sooner, and on top of that also improved a lot sooner. The Jumo 004D would've seen widespread use, greatly adding to the performance, range reliability of the Me-262. And this is exactly what would be the decisive blow against the Allies as it would allow the LW to strike down the Allied bombers fighters before they ever left the ground, the Me-262 being immune to interception because of its far superior performance. 

Furthermore you would see the German nightfighter force equipped with a large amount of Me-262B-1a's instead of just a few, and they will all possess enough range to both intercept the bombers when the are about to arrive and hunt then down when they turn around to leave.


----------



## Erich (Sep 24, 2008)

well the Posters origins of this thread had some questions so let us try and reason it all out with fact and not what-ifs as this thread is starting to border on that .....


----------



## syscom3 (Sep 24, 2008)

Soren, regarding the engines. Are you absolutely sure that even without Hitlers interference, the technology was advanced enough to introduce them sooner? Or was it a case that the engines would have been ready when historically they were, because problems had to be solved at their own timeframe?

Erich provided evidence of "what might of been" in that March 17 mission when lots of them flew together and tore up the allied formations.

But considering the general technical excellence of the LW and the pilots that did fly the 262, there are underlining reasons why they didnt fly them in mass earlier. Maybe the numbers of 262's that could actually get airborne was still low untill late in the war?

As for the seemingly low number of kills the jets had, perhaps the 30mm guns were good for only one pass and untill the R4M rockets were used, the chances of actually hitting the bomber was low?


This is what I am trying to get at.


----------



## Erich (Sep 24, 2008)

correct to your latter assumption sys on the 3cm reason being the aces in the props that were led over easily enough to fly the jet made the largest impact of kills, they had former experience on the West/East fronts. now of course looking a the top 20 Me 262 aces one can see some unknowns amdist that bunch, in fact the rep for all Me 262 units today, A. Ambs was an unknown ace with 7+ kills all while flying in JG 7.


----------



## Soren (Sep 24, 2008)

The technology was there Syscom3, however like all designs there were some small quirks to solve before the final product could enter full production status. In the case of the Jumo 004B it was some vibration problems, which were solved by an expert in accoustics who located the problem. Max engine rpm was cut to 8,700 rpm and the problem was solved. The point however is that this could've been done in 43 had Hitler not temporarily cut the budget and that would've meant a sooner introduction of the Jumo 004D which added the all extra important range reliability needed.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Sep 24, 2008)

Also I believe there had to be changes to the 004B due to decreased availabillity of nickel. (not a redesign of the full refractory metal 004A, but a change in the alloys used on the prototype 004B's to the production models)

I'm not sure of the specifics on this though. It would explain why that article on the 004 lists an alloy of 30%Ni/14%Cr/1.75%Ti (balance low-carmon/mild steel) opposed to the Tinadur alloys used in the production engines of 18%Ni/12%Cr/6%Ti. (and of course the alternative Nickel-Free Cromadur) 
Or this is wrong about the composition of Tinadur:
listed here: Early jet engines



On the vibration issue I don't see why you'd need an accoustics specialist to tell you to limit the RMP below the speed wiere vibration occurs. I can see needing one to resolve the problem to allow higher operating RMP. (ie. 004D)

There were additional problmes with vibration of the compressor blades earlier on in development (on the 004A) which was aided by an accoustics expert, but this is asererate problem unrelated to the turbine resonance.



On another note the B-1 series used solid turbine blades, but they were air cooled with cooling air bleed flowing along the blades after flowing over the turbine disc face. This resulted in uneven cooling and much higher temperatures at the middle and outer portions of the blades. 
The B-4 used hollow blades (and a lighter disc) that were much more satisfactory and additionally reduced engine weight by 40 lbs. (and reduced the amount of alloy used)

(I'm not sure what differences 004B-2 and B-3 had)


----------



## kool kitty89 (Sep 24, 2008)

Anselm Franz and the Jumo 004


Something odd about the mention of resonance problems in this article is that it mentions 3 struts down stream of the turbine rotor, but on all the pictures, diagrams, and discriptions of the exhaust nozzel assembly of the 004B (including elsewhere in that same articly) there are 6 struts, not 3.


----------



## syscom3 (Sep 24, 2008)

Soren, so can you list the production figures (for 1944) of the Jumo, as accepted by the LW?


----------



## HoHun (Sep 24, 2008)

Hi Syscom

>can you list the production figures (for 1944) of the Jumo, as accepted by the LW?

Here is a graph showing early Jumo engine life data.

The diamond signifies the acceptance run of each engine, the coloured bar the use (blue: flight testing, red: ground testing, green: not explained, must be delivery). An X means the engine was "terminated".

Time is on the left-hand axis, engine serial is on the top axis, grouped by engine type.

The graph was on display in the Luftfahrtmuseum Hannover-Laatzen, who have Jumo 004A-022 on display.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## kool kitty89 (Sep 25, 2008)

I'm not sure I see the green marks, whaich ones are you referring to?

And the diamons you are reffering to are at the top of the bars? (they look more like circles) 
Or are you reffering ti the dots at the bottom of the bars?


----------



## HoHun (Sep 25, 2008)

Hi Koolkitty,

>I'm not sure I see the green marks, whaich ones are you referring to?

It's my impression that the marks on the right-hand side of the diagram are green, starting around Jumo 004B-020. However, using the colour-analysis tool with the full-size original reveals that there are more blue pixels than green pixels in there, so I guess my "green" is actually supposed to be blue, too.

>And the diamons you are reffering to are at the top of the bars? (they look more like circles) 

Yes, the diamonds are the circles at the top of the bars 

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## kool kitty89 (Sep 25, 2008)

What does the dot at the bottom of some the bars mean? (opposed to the X which would mean a failure or an otherwised compromised engine)


----------



## HoHun (Sep 25, 2008)

Hi Koolkitty,

>What does the dot at the bottom of some the bars mean? (opposed to the X which would mean a failure or an otherwised compromised engine)

I could only guess. Even the X is uncertain, "Absetzung" is not really an accurate term if you don't know the specific Junkers usage.

LEO Results for "absetzung"

Regards,

Hennnig (HoHun)


----------



## kool kitty89 (Sep 25, 2008)

I got "Joggle" when I tried to translate it using Yahoo! Babel Fish - Text Translation and Web Page Translation


----------



## syscom3 (Sep 26, 2008)

According to this chart, it looks like the LW only had enough engines (by the end of April 1944) to only equip ALL of their jets in the test units.

A more telling figure would be to see the number of engines on hand and available for use at the end of Aug 1944.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Sep 26, 2008)

Also note that in the graph's timeline the latesest engines are the pre-production 004B-0's so we haven't even gotten to the first production models. (B-1)


----------



## HoHun (Sep 26, 2008)

Hi Syscom,

>According to this chart, it looks like the LW only had enough engines (by the end of April 1944) to only equip ALL of their jets in the test units.

Note that the graph only indicates engines accepted until March.

So how many jets were in the test units by the end of April 1944?

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## syscom3 (Oct 11, 2008)

Ok, this is what I have figured out from all of your opinions and facts.

1) The LW didn't have a lot of airframes untill the end of 1944. And even then, the availability rate must have been low to begin with, thus the number of 262's available on any given day was quite low.

2) Inadequate training and poor tactics meant that it had a low kill per sortie untill 1945.

Now , I am wondering this. If the 262 had been employed more effectively in Dec 1944 or Jan 1945, would the allies been able to limit its effectiveness by saturating with a CAP over the airfields and hitting them with medium bombers prior to the heavy bombers entering German airspace?


----------



## HoHun (Oct 12, 2008)

H Syscom,

>And even then, the availability rate must have been low to begin with

Why "must"?

>2) Inadequate training and poor tactics meant that it had a low kill per sortie untill 1945.

"Low" meaning "not more than 1 kill per sortie" in your book?

>If the 262 had been employed more effectively in Dec 1944 or Jan 1945, would the allies been able to limit its effectiveness by saturating with a CAP over the airfields and hitting them with medium bombers prior to the heavy bombers entering German airspace?

That's what they historically did.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## razor1uk (Feb 20, 2012)

IIRC, as stated already by some, they're's many reasons as to why the 262 and in particular the manufacturers of both airframes engines not always being able to do they're jobs more effectively.
I think if the connected sub thread topic with regards the 04's 03's, gets more... I'd maybe have to show some info from a book I have; German Jet Engines Gas Turbines 1930 - 1945, it is an engineering devolopment history, technically very good, but a boring read if your after a good read.

I wouldn't knock musical experts helping 'tune' aspects of the engines, back then before electronic computers, with regards to resonance, vibration and however you wish to term it, fluctuations within something be it air, metal etc, are stll fluctuations, and as such, equivelent in an analogeous way to sound - music.

The support spiders had there own fairings - seperate to the once used for engine control/regulation by hydraulic, pneumatic, geared shaft or other means. 
Due to resonance, the later designs of how the outer arms of the spiders passed through the engines airflow was changed from equally spaced and the uniform hormonics created by them. 
To having the arms unequally aligned/spaced to cancel or to shift their harmonc range they imparted in to the airflow away from other problematic engine vibrations and airflow cavitations ranges in an attempt to provide better running at.. general operating speeds/usual harmonics and the like, this gave a slight increase in fuel efficenecy, lessened combustion fluctuations at which also gave some benifits to engine life from more stable combustion.
Apologies, I have summed up a few years of technical back and forth of early German jet development into a few paragraphs.


----------



## johnbr (Feb 20, 2012)

The book German Jet Engines Gas Turbines 1930 - 1945 sat on the shelf for or 20 yrs before it was published and when it was it got no updating.It was to have rocket engines in it to but the publisher said to take it out.


----------



## TomM (Feb 20, 2012)

johnbr said:


> The book German Jet Engines Gas Turbines 1930 - 1945 sat on the shelf for or 20 yrs before it was published and when it was it got no updating.It was to have rocket engines in it to but the publisher said to take it out.



Do you have a copy? Any chance it has a schematic for the Reidel starter motor???


----------



## GregP (Feb 21, 2012)

Me-262 pilots claimed a tiotal of 562 Allied kills against a loss of about 100 aircraft. As we know today, the real kills are considerably less than claims. So it is likely the real kills are in the neighborhood of 150 -200, if Me-262 claims follow the claims from other types. That is a kill ratio of about 5.6 : 1 for claims and probably near 1 : 1 to 2 :1 in real life. Unimpressive for a new "technological wonder." Even if the real kills are as high as, say, 350, the ratio is unimpressive, especially since the losses are much better documented.

The Me-262 had a 60 pounds per square foot wing loading, and was easy for any piston fighter to out-turn. Of course the real vulnerability was during takeoff or landing where the Me-262 was unmaneuverable and unresponsive in the extreme. In the Me-262's best performance, it cost the Allies 12 planes from a 1200 plane raid, a 1% loss. It never got that good in another engagement. Even the Brewster Buffalo (in Finnish service) did better.

That, of course, is with hindsight since I KNOW the results. To me, the Me-262 was a neat look at the future that was relatively ineffective. It did little to win the war and cost a lot of resources. Of course, the results could not have been known in advance and the Germans probably needed to expend the Me-262 effort in order to try to make a dent in the large daily Allied bomber streams.

In the end, although it pointed heavily to the future, the Me-262 was a failure as a fighter, a failure as a bomber destroyer, and a failure as a weapon. It was a wonderful experiment that was simply not ready for the challenge in time to make be effective enough to make a difference.

I know many in here revere the Me-262 and that is OK. I am simpy not one of its admirers, except as the "first of the beed" of jet fighters that owed a lot to the Me-262's design and combat tactics. For that, it deserves its place in history as an innovative aircraft that was ahead of its time.


----------



## Siegfried (Feb 21, 2012)

GregP said:


> Me-262 pilots claimed a tiotal of 562 Allied kills against a loss of about 100 aircraft. As we know today, the real kills are considerably less than claims. So it is likely the real kills are in the neighborhood of 150 -200, if Me-262 claims follow the claims from other types. That is a kill ratio of about 5.6 : 1 for claims and probably near 1 : 1 to 2 :1 in real life. Unimpressive for a new "technological wonder." Even if the real kills are as high as, say, 350, the ratio is unimpressive, especially since the losses are much better documented.
> 
> The Me-262 had a 60 pounds per square foot wing loading, and was easy for any piston fighter to out-turn. Of course the real vulnerability was during takeoff or landing where the Me-262 was unmaneuverable and unresponsive in the extreme. In the Me-262's best performance, it cost the Allies 12 planes from a 1200 plane raid, a 1% loss. It never got that good in another engagement. Even the Brewster Buffalo (in Finnish service) did better.
> 
> ...



1 It was certainly possible for a piston engined fighter to turn inside an Me 262 when at full speed, it was however NOT possible for say a P-51 to out turn the Me 262 and get on its tail. The Me 262 could simply fly faster around the outside of the circle. Turn radious and turn rate are different. The Me 262 had full span leading edge slats, which apart from increasing coefficient of lift by 40% probably helped with spanwise flow issues from the wing sweep but also gave it a slightly higher Mach than the P-80A and Meteor III since Mach dimmimishing wing twist (washout) was unnecessary; moreover it gave the aircraft a gentle well annuciated stall in all conditions.

The Me 262 was not a failure, by the time it was fully ready, around October/November 1944 the D-day invasions had created an impossible situation for it. The over claims of Me 262 pilots need to be considered in the context of all of those overclaims of allied aircraft that claimed to have bagged an Me 262 but simply fired their guns in anger and saw the small group of Me 262 (often only two) disengage witth the typical soote produced by early turbojets. Their common sense tactics involved full use of their stunning speed advantage precluded interest in a dogfight except perhaps to rescure a buddy. Me 262 shot down several Mustangs but I doubt they were silly enough to repeatedly use their speed advantage to position themselves for repeated boom and zoom tactics while the Allied fighters mustered their superior numbers.

Some of the technology designed to support the Me 262 was simply stunning: The Elfe gunnery computer which integrated a FuG 248 ranging radar with the EZ-42 or EZ-45 lead computing gun sight would have made the Me 262 a monster as it allowed accurate long range and flank attacks by both unguided missile and gun. The TSA-2D toss bombing sight, which did see some trials level combat service, allowed accurate bombing attacks from the jet.

The Me 262 was delayed by its engines protracted development. It's likely that the Jumo 004 could have been made available several months earlier in a reliable form. The engineering mistake was not to fully develop the fuel control system to moderate throttle demanded fuel flow in consideration of actual engine air mass flow conditions. This was a mistake typical of all of the early jet engines; allied and German. In reality the fuel controls needed to be about as complicated as the fuel injection system and integrated propeller rpm and pitch system used on a typical German mid war fighter engine. Another decision was to be excessively frugal in use of refratory materials, bearings etc. These decisions were all forced errors caused by shortages of specialist materials, labour and damage to factories. The allies, particulary the Americans who were safe on the other side of the Atlantic with a plentifull nickel supply in Canada never had to face.

Erhardt Milch is said to have stated that the Me 262 needed to be ready by 1943 for it to change the course of the war, he was probably correct though even then if the aircraft had of been advanced by 6 months to say 3 months before the d-day landings to 3 months after its impact would have been considerable: especally in the area of photo reconaisance. 

German alloy development as well as turbine blade design did apparently progress. In addtion there were two other avenues; water cooled turbine blades and ceramic turbine nozzle blades. Both were in an experimental stage. Both systems work quite well but have not found much use in modern engines as alloys have allways managed to stay one step ahead of ceramics and avoid the complications of a water recirculation system.


----------



## Siegfried (Feb 21, 2012)

kool kitty89 said:


> Also note that in the graph's timeline the latesest engines are the pre-production 004B-0's so we haven't even gotten to the first production models. (B-1)



The B-0's were reputadly more reliable than the B-1's, a reversal of the usual order, since the engines experienced quality issues from mass production. A major improvement in reliabillity came around November with the introduction of deep drawn hollow aircooled blades of the same tinidur alloy in the B-4 (or B-3) engines. Febuary also sees supllimentary service use of hollow trailing edge seam welded turbine blades of the alloy Cromidur; this inferior alloy was actually somewhat superior in actual use due to ease of m. April was supposed to see introduction of a new fuel control system, which would have maintained turbine temperature conditions within tighter parameters as well as prevented flameouts from throttle handling as well as prevent turbine damage from excess fuel burn. Such a system did make it into service on the little used BMW 003 engine (on He 162 and Ar 234C)


----------



## riacrato (Feb 21, 2012)

GregP said:


> Me-262 pilots claimed a tiotal of 562 Allied kills against a loss of about 100 aircraft. As we know today, the real kills are considerably less than claims. So it is likely the real kills are in the neighborhood of 150 -200, if Me-262 claims follow the claims from other types. That is a kill ratio of about 5.6 : 1 for claims and probably near 1 : 1 to 2 :1 in real life. Unimpressive for a new "technological wonder." Even if the real kills are as high as, say, 350, the ratio is unimpressive, especially since the losses are much better documented.


Wrong way to look at it. The kill-loss ratio of other German fighters in the same time period those 562 claims (allegedly) were made was certainly much, much worse. I dare say that, even though I have zero data at hand. I have read claims from former USAAF pilots it was as bad as 1:10, maybe the real figure is 1:5, hard to say. So the Me 262 was a vast improvement over the current piston engined LW fighters (including Fw 190 Ds) and that is what counts. The fact that any LW daytime fighter was at all able to score an even ratio under those circumstances is astonishing.

Relatively speaking.

Regarding the total outcome, the Me 262 was but a drop on the hot stone, as we say in Germany.


----------



## Milosh (Feb 21, 2012)

Over claiming of Me262s

March 24 1945

31 Me262s took off in 2 groups, Stab and 11./JG7, and 9. and 10./JG7
The first group claimed 5 B-17s. The second group claimed another 5 B-17s.

The USAAF 31st and 322cd FGs claim 8 Me262s. Only 4 Me262s were lost.

Uffz Giefing 11./JG7 in WNr 110968 near Grussen
Lt Ambs 11./JG7 in WNr 110999 near Wittenberg
Oblt Worner 9./JG7 in WNr 111676 near Northeim/Harz
Oblt Kulp unknown WNr

All survived.

I./JG7 claimed 2 P-51s and a P-38 near Neumunster though no P-38s were lost.

Obslt Bar III.EJG2 claimed a B-24 and P-51.


----------



## razor1uk (Feb 21, 2012)

It does have a description of the Reidel Starter under the Junkers section if TomM, but I'm not 100% sure it has any in-depth blueprints or schematics - from the 'off the top of my head' memory... the books at home; and I'm having a coffee in a café while 'pillaging' their WiFi connection te he ;P I'll check it later and see if their might be something useful.

I don't mind if this book spent a longtime on the less usual shelves, if half of what there is within is at least half accurate and engineering wise it seems reasonably so, then the history of developmental problems issues, with the conflicting theories, opinions, ego's agendas of Germanies members of its Acedemic Community, DVL, RLM, NSDP Party Militarty Arms etc, it's both amazing they progressed as far as they did and yet lucky they only got as far as they did with all that happened the around them.. be it; the beautiful, the good, the bad, the ugly, and the despicable.


----------



## TomM (Feb 24, 2012)

razor1uk said:


> It does have a description of the Reidel Starter under the Junkers section if TomM, but I'm not 100% sure it has any in-depth blueprints or schematics - from the 'off the top of my head' memory... the books at home; and I'm having a coffee in a café while 'pillaging' their WiFi connection te he ;P I'll check it later and see if their might be something useful.
> 
> I don't mind if this book spent a longtime on the less usual shelves, if half of what there is within is at least half accurate and engineering wise it seems reasonably so, then the history of developmental problems issues, with the conflicting theories, opinions, ego's agendas of Germanies members of its Acedemic Community, DVL, RLM, NSDP Party Militarty Arms etc, it's both amazing they progressed as far as they did and yet lucky they only got as far as they did with all that happened the around them.. be it; the beautiful, the good, the bad, the ugly, and the despicable.



Any help would be appreciative in my project.

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/me262-reidel-starter-motor-31613.html


----------



## razor1uk (Apr 2, 2012)

I am afraid TomM, it doesnt have any blueprints or much data upon the Rediel, apart from i being a 210cc 10,000rpm 2-stroke of very little hp - the pic in the book is the usual one that is seen on google - the paragraph pertaing to the Reidel is of roughly equal to one half page of A4. And after looking around the net, there is next to nothing upon it that you'd seem to require - maybe the early post war 'bubble car' engines of a similar displacement could be an avenue of though...


----------



## krieghund (Jul 26, 2012)

GregP said:


> In the end, although it pointed heavily to the future, the Me-262 was a failure as a fighter, a failure as a bomber destroyer, and a failure as a weapon. It was a wonderful experiment that was simply not ready for the challenge in time to make be effective enough to make a difference.



I partially have to agree, however the aircraft itself is not a failure, it was born into bad family circumstances.....everything boils down to...... Location! Location! Location!

Remove it from bad management..the Hitler touch
Remove it from a place that rains bombs all the time
Fuel is not a problem only its distribution
Provide it enough qualified trained pilots 
Build in a place that has the right resources...say like Paine Airfield in Everett Wa.

And what do you have........a successfully aircraft only 65 years tardy


It would have been interesting to see what Howard Hughes would have done with the aircraft after the war if the USAAF would have granted his request for one!!


----------



## model299 (Jul 26, 2012)

An interesting choice of a tow vehicle...


----------



## Milosh (Jul 26, 2012)

I guess they beefed up the nose gear as that was a big no-no in WW2.


----------



## davebender (Jul 26, 2012)

Makes a nice automobile advertisement but I doubt that vehicle was used to tow the aircraft.


----------



## vikingBerserker (Jul 26, 2012)

Heck you could just sling it underneath and carry it with you.


----------



## davebender (Jul 27, 2012)

Me-262A2 could carry two 500kg bombs. I doubt that vehicle weighs more then 1,000kg. Might not fit on the bomb rack though.


----------



## A4K (Jul 28, 2012)

model299 said:


> An interesting choice of a tow vehicle...



We had a similar idea when I waas in the RNZAF...


----------



## Wayne Little (Jul 28, 2012)

Very interesting Evan...


----------



## davebender (Jul 28, 2012)

I used to own a 1974 Mercury Capri. Never towed aircraft with it though.


----------



## krieghund (Jul 28, 2012)

Yes I too had a brand new 1974 2.8L Ford Capri with the big rubber bumpers. I got stationed in Germany in 1976 and took it there. I soon discovered that VW beetles were passing me up. The gearing was optimized for the USA cruising on the interstate. Top speed was 107mph but I could exceed slightly that going downhill on the autobahn on the way to Ramstein AB.


----------



## davebender (Jul 28, 2012)

My 1965 VW Beetle topped out around 70mph. The Beetle that passed you must have been powered by a Porsche 911 engine.


----------



## krieghund (Jul 28, 2012)

No they just standard bugs geared for the autobahn. I later got to drive a German buds Black Gold Capri. It had the 3.0 liter engine and was made for Europe with a 5-speed. Big difference!!!!


----------



## Gixxerman (Jul 28, 2012)

krieghund said:


> No they just standard bugs geared for the autobahn. I later got to drive a German buds Black Gold Capri. It had the 3.0 liter engine and was made for Europe with a 5-speed. Big difference!!!!



I was going to say.
Too right, both the UK/Euro 3.0 litre 2.8i (not to mention the RS3100) Capris were 125mph+ machines on a good day.
Never had one myself but used to play with them on the motorway once I started riding decent bikes.

I always had a fancy for a last of the line 2.8 Brooklands Capri, shame they were made by Ford tho, most of them will have dissolved into oxide in the rain by now.
The owners club sometimes come through my town we get to see a whole bunch of them (various models, mk1 facelift 3.0 litre GXLs were another fave) in mint condition.


----------



## davebender (Jul 28, 2012)

Sounds like we Americans are getting a bad automotive deal. Who do I complain to so this problem can be fixed?


----------



## tyrodtom (Jul 28, 2012)

73-75 was about the worse years for American cars, heavily stifled with poorly designed smog equipment.
That's when I started my civilian career, sometimes we'd run the new cars batteries down, just trying to start them, so we could drive them off the transporters


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 28, 2012)

davebender said:


> Sounds like we Americans are getting a bad automotive deal. Who do I complain to so this problem can be fixed?



How about those that make us drive 55-65 (sometimes 70 if we are lucky) on a perfectly good straight interstate that has hardly any traffic on it. 

I want my Autobahn back...


----------



## krieghund (Jul 29, 2012)

You could also go to that short stretch of interstate in Texas where 85 is the new speed limit.


----------



## Gixxerman (Jul 29, 2012)

tyrodtom said:


> 73-75 was about the worse years for American cars, heavily stifled with poorly designed smog equipment.



A pal of mine had a 2.8 Ford Mustang II, it was not a fast car by any stretch of the imagination.....and the handling was about as far from European tastes as possible, very soft very wallowy.
It was comfy (for 2) had a lot of toys as I recall (at a time when things like aircon was rare in our cars).
Horses for courses I guess, made for those big straight US roads with low speed limits.


----------



## Njaco (Jul 29, 2012)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> How about those that make us drive 55-65 (sometimes 70 if we are lucky) on a perfectly good straight interstate that has hardly any traffic on it.
> 
> I want my Autobahn back...



Welcome to America! Land of the automobile governor!


----------



## fastmongrel (Jul 29, 2012)

Just to show how cars have got faster and better handling over 30 years or so. The Capri 2.8i was considered a hot ship now my little 1.6 Astra would blow it into the weeds on anything other than a flat straight roads where they would be equal in top speed. Point them both at a bend and the Capri would upside down and in flames if it tried to follow me foot down. The only thing the Capri wins hands down on is looks my Astra is so dull looking I can barely remember what it looks like.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 29, 2012)

Njaco said:


> Welcome to America! Land of the automobile governor!



I don't think higher speeds would work anyhow here in the States. Not with the majority of people thinking it is uncool to use turn signals, and almost everyone texting and talking on their phones while driving. 

As much as I love my country, i am not impressed with us as drivers. I think it is time to implement real driving schools like in Europe. I now know why everyone complains about American drivers in Germany.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 29, 2012)

krieghund said:


> You could also go to that short stretch of interstate in Texas where 85 is the new speed limit.



85? 

Thats nothing...


----------



## krieghund (Jul 30, 2012)

It is for 'Mericans slowly inching away from 55. Here in Saudi the official speed limit is 70 on the highways but ignored mostly so 100+ traveling cars are routinely observed. Cell phone usage and texting while driving is allowedand gas is 98 cents a gallon. If your a man you can drive (no real drivers ed). The usual passenger restrain system is the windshield. The mortality rate on the highway is the highest in the world and all these factors contribute. FYI


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 30, 2012)

I have driven in the Middle East in several countries, no desire to do it again. 

Boy are we off topic huh?  

Lets try and get back to the 262...


----------



## Gixxerman (Jul 31, 2012)

Did I ever mention the British Aerospace guys in Saudi?
Lots of ex-military ex-pats who 'advised' the local boys but seemed to end up doing a lot of the flying.
This comes from my father-in-law who was out there as a Brit Aero big-wig.
One early evening as a bunch of blokes headed for a town for a night out on one of the long straight desert roads a guy from the base flew so low that he 'compressed' the car roof with the underside rear strakes on the Jaguar he was flying.

Something of a 
_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hvDDDKnNhuE_I think......

OK ok back to 262's............



razor1uk said:


> apart from i being a 210cc 10,000rpm 2-stroke



Wow, 10,000rpm that's impressive for 40's tech (esp late 44 - 45 Germany), I wonder how long they lasted (I'd expect the crank seals to wear out pretty fast at that rate).


----------



## stona (Jul 31, 2012)

There's a manual available for the Riedel motor here.

Luftfahrt-Archiv Hafner

Scroll in Jumo to Jumo 004 and then down to "Riedel-Anlasser, Technische Unterlagen, Werksausgabe, Benzin-Anlasser Baumuster RBA/S10. 1943."

I am no expert but my information is that the motor gave 10hp at a much more reasonable 6,000rpm.







And from the RAE report.






Steve


----------



## cimmex (Jul 31, 2012)

7100rpm at the crank, geared down to 6000 by a planetary gear.
cimmex


----------



## davebender (Jul 31, 2012)

A starter motor doesn't run long before being turned off. It wouldn't even have time to completely warm up.


----------



## Gixxerman (Jul 31, 2012)

Even 6,000rpm is impressive.....the Japanese 200/250 machines weren't doing that much more than that in the mid 1970s when 2 strokes were common.

Dave

I would imagine spinning a Jumo up to a high enough speed to get it working was making that little engine work for its living.
I expect it would be well truly warmed up by the time it had done its job......I'm sure I have seen conflicting reports on the engine too. One British report spoke of it being very well engineered another mentioned it was unreliable (bias against the 2 stroke engine?).....or maybe the engine was fine but it wasn't quite up to starting the jet?
The power output doesn't seem very high (it has a plain exhaust pipe so it's probably too early for the expansion pipe exhaust which did so much to increase 2 stroke power outputs).
Just my surmising.....maybe someone knows for sure?


----------



## davebender (Aug 1, 2012)

What happened to all those compact 10 hp engines after the war ended?

Enterprising German teanagers should have acquired them @ scrap price. They could have invented the mini bike and/or go kart.


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 1, 2012)

They were used for go kart racing.


----------



## fastmongrel (Aug 2, 2012)

The Reidel seems a very expensive way of starting a jet engine. A twin 2 stroke even if built very cheaply is going to come out quite expensive theres a lot of parts. Wouldnt a cartridge or electric starter be a cheaper and more reliable alternative. Wouldnt fancy trying to start a cold 2 stroke to try and restart an engine with the ground getting closer.


----------



## cimmex (Aug 2, 2012)

I don’t think that you need the starter motor to restart the engine during flight, the airflow should be enough to turn the rotor. Electric starters would need external power because a internal battery is to weak. No clue whether gas cartridge works at jet engines at all.
cimmex


----------



## fastmongrel (Aug 2, 2012)

I know some early British jets used cartridge starters this is a Venom starting up at 1:00 you can see the plume of smoke.


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KePs8Rd7DN8_

and a Canberra


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g9fkmqPHTDE_

What a fantastic noise


----------



## vikingBerserker (Aug 2, 2012)

I believe the F-111 Ardvard used them as well.


----------



## Gixxerman (Aug 2, 2012)

davebender said:


> What happened to all those compact 10 hp engines after the war ended?
> 
> Enterprising German teanagers should have acquired them @ scrap price. They could have invented the mini bike and/or go kart.



Funnily enough Dave I was just recently listening to a show on the BBC iPlayer about the 1961 defection of Ernst Degner, he took the secrets of the disc valved 2 stroke the expansion chamber tuned exhaust (it used the shock waves in the exhaust to enormously increase the power of the engine.....doubling power output is mentioned) to Japan when he defected with the help of the Suzuki race team.
The program mentions that at the end of the war with the transport distribution system in Germany destroyed that one of the local factories had hundreds of completed 125cc motorcycles engines lying around.
People just helped themselves made use of them as they could.
Interesting story show.


----------



## stona (Aug 2, 2012)

fastmongrel said:


> The Reidel seems a very expensive way of starting a jet engine. A twin 2 stroke even if built very cheaply is going to come out quite expensive theres a lot of parts. Wouldnt a cartridge or electric starter be a cheaper and more reliable alternative. Wouldnt fancy trying to start a cold 2 stroke to try and restart an engine with the ground getting closer.



A two stroke motor is a relatively simple thing to build. There is a lot of "gubbins" assocciated with a cartridge starter for a jet engine which might not make it an easier,cheaper or lighter option.
Cheers
Steve


----------



## razor1uk (Aug 3, 2012)

For a reciprocation engine (pistoned internal combustion engine) the 2 stroke is the simplest and generally more powereful (HP/BHP) of equivalent size, though with less torque.

The Reidel system wasn't perfect, but it was small, compact was already available - I hate to think of some having some inertia starting system for a Jumo or BMW, it'd be just unfeasably big, heavy much more complex.
I'd also imagine that with little imagination if of not true, Reidels being used as well maybe for air compressor power units, small scale electrical generators (for portable welders, water/fluid pumps..) etc.

Incedently, wasn't some of the early (Heinkel) bubble cars powered by an 250-ish cc engine, possibly derived from a/the Reidel - effectively it only needed mating to some gearbox and drive system, with some fueling ignition changes for lower rpm with more 'stonk'/torque.

Sorry for carriing sub topic onward..

No Denger, = no (well it'd taken longer if at all)... Super Six, RGR/RGV, Waterbuffalo, NSR, YR/RD/DT, etc...


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 3, 2012)

Cartridge starters can provide a lot of power (torque) for a short period of time. Turbines usually take a while to spool up. you can adapt one to the other but it might require a clever intermediate stage. I believe some jets used what was called a "air-combustion starter" that used bottled air and the jet fuel to power a turbine clutched and geared to the main engine. Apparently things could get real interesting if the starter failed to de-clutch after the main engine "caught" and went from starting rpm to even idle rpm. Starter turbine could be overdriven to around 100,00rpm with a corresponding loud bang and flying pieces.


----------

