# Me262 vs. P-80



## Anonymous (Jan 4, 2005)

Just for fun, lets compare the Me262 to the P-80, since had WWII proceeded into fall 1945 these two jets would surely have met in combat.

*Me262-1A Specifications -*
*Engines:* 2 x Jumo-004B engines with 1,980 lb S.T. (900 kg) each.
*Weights - empty:* 8,380 lb (3,800 kg) *Operational:* 14,110 lb (6,400 kg) *Maximum:* 15,720 lbs (7,130 kg)
*Maximum speed - typical:* 503 mph (810 kph) @ sea level, 519 mph (835 kph) @ 19,685 feet (6000 m)
*Maximum speed - best:* 515 mph (825 kph) @ sea level, 540 mph (870 kph) @ 19,680 (using -4A engines)
*Cruise Speed:* unknown
*Initial climb:* 3937 fpm (1200 m/min)
*Sustained Climb:* 6.8 mins to 19,685 ft (6000 m)
*Service ceiling:* 37,565 ft (11,450 m) 
*Range:* 650 miles (1,050 km) on internal fuel
*Gunsight:* Revi 16b reflector sight
*Armament:* 2 x 30mm MK108 cannon with 100 rpg, 2 x 30mm MK108 cannon with 80 rpg, all nose mounted

*P-80A specifications -*
*Engine:* One General Electric J33-GE-11 or Allison J33-A-9 with 3,850 lb S.T. (1,746 kg)
*Weights - empty:* 7920 lbs. *Operational:* 11,700 pounds *Maximum:* 14,000 lbs
*Maximum Speed - typical:* 558 mph (898 kph) @ Sea Level, 577 mph @ 6000 feet (1828 m), 492 mph (792 kph) @ 40,000 ft (12,192 km)
*Maximum Speed - best:* 624 mph (929 kph) @ unknown alt (probably with -17 4000 lbs S.T. engine, Sept. 1946) 
Cruise Speed: 410 mph (660 km/h)
*Initial climb:* 4580 fpm 
*Sustained Climb:* 5.5 minutes to 20,000 ft (6,096 m) 
*Service Ceiling:* 45,000 ft (1,3716 m) 
*Range - Normal:* 780 miles (1,255 km) *Maximum:* 1,440 miles (2,317 km) {note: wingtip tanks actually improved performance!}
*Gunsight* K-14 lead computing gunsight
*Armament:* 6 x .50 caliber M2 machine guns with 200-225 rpg , 10 x 5" HVAR's or 2000 lbs bombs.

I think the numbers speak for themselves. On top of these figures, the Me262 rolled poorly, the P-80 rolled extremely well. The P-80 also out-turned the Me262. I really cannot see any aspect of the Me262 that beats the P-80.

The P-80 would have blasted the Me262 from the skies with ease!

Let the debate begin!  

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 4, 2005)

Despite that Im saying Me-262. Better armament and combat proven. The P-80 might have been weak and unreliable.


----------



## plan_D (Jan 4, 2005)

Yes, RG you stick too closely to specs. Okay, use them but you have to take into account pilot accounts and opinions, proven combat and such. Specifications don't always show the true combat potential.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Jan 4, 2005)

F-80 Shooting Stars were active in Korea, and while they may not have been overly successful against the Mig-15's there (thanks largely perhaps to the F-86 Sabre), against the Me-262 I believe they would have proven to be superior in a dog fight. The 'bugs' in the P-80 would have been rectified fairly quickly, once it began to see combat.

Agility I think would be a crucial factor, which the P-80/F-80 had in spades over the 262. It was a relatively nimble aircraft. In a one on one fight with equally skilled pilots at the controls, I have little doubt that the P-80 would win.


----------



## plan_D (Jan 4, 2005)

Don't get me wrong, I firmly believe the P-80 was the superior aircraft of the two.


----------



## R Pope (Jan 4, 2005)

The T-33 two seat development of the P-80 was a delight to fly, and soldiered on for decades. I actually read a comparison of the P-80 and the Me-262 years ago, and they came out about equal, but the 262 was harder to fly, due mostly to the lack of vital alloys making it heavy.t


----------



## Nonskimmer (Jan 4, 2005)

Hmm, interesting.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 4, 2005)

but the pilots in the 262s would have more combat experience..........


----------



## plan_D (Jan 4, 2005)

They would but if both pilots are the same skill, checking aircraft against aircraft. I don't think the P-80 would have swept the -262 away with ease. I do think it was a better aircraft though, in conditions on which they were both built.


----------



## Gnomey (Jan 4, 2005)

It would have been a close fight had they met in combat but if the pilots where of the same skill then the P-80 with its better turning ability and agilty would probally win but if the 262 was behind its heavier armament would come in to its own. It would be close but I think the P-80 would just win. Maybe someone could put a poll on this thread?


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 4, 2005)

Ill add it to the thread 8)


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Jan 4, 2005)

plan_D said:


> Yes, RG you stick too closely to specs. Okay, use them but you have to take into account pilot accounts and opinions, proven combat and such. Specifications don't always show the true combat potential.




I've said it before and I'll say it again, if specifications were everything, the Me-163 would have been the best of the war (as well as being fast, it was pretty agile), and the Stringbag would have been one of the worst..!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 4, 2005)

Yes, but as a matter of fact it was the other way around


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Jan 4, 2005)

Exactly!


RG, SPECS ARE NOT EVERYTHING!


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 4, 2005)

I certainly agree. However, when making this particular comparison the "specs" are all we have to go by. The P-80 never faced the Me262 in combat. It did face the Mig-15, but that plane was far superior to either of them.

As for the armament, I totally disagree. The 6 x .50's were far superior for dogfighting than the 4 x MK108's. It is unlikely that the Me262 would have been able to hit the P-80 from any range beyond 100 meters (and even that would require an expert marksmen), where the P-80 could have reached out over 400 meters and touched the 262. The MK108 was an anti-bomber weapon, nearly useless in a high speed dogfight.

Furthermore, the .50 M3 was available at this time, and was in fact mounted on the F8F's, of which 2 carriers full of them were steaming toward Japan on VE day. The .50 M3 BMG fired at 1200 rpm, giving the six guns the firepower of 9 M2's. The .50's could also be loaded with the M23 incendiaries, which reduced effective range to about 250 meters but were specifically made to quickly kill the Me262 (these were in use in early 1945).

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## DaveB.inVa (Jan 4, 2005)

Im saying the P-80, it just has more and better dogfighting qualities. Better roll rate, climb, speed, turning radius. More reliable engines with better metalurgy, probably could accelerate a lot better too. The Jumos had to be throttled up fairly slowly or a flameout would occur. Ive never read of this being a problem with the J33!!

Plus 6 .50 Brownings can throw out a lot of lead faster than the MK108's. Sure one 30mm from the MK108 would do a lot of damage, but your less likely to get a hit from one if your rate of fire is lower. 

A larger slower firing 30mm is an ok weapon for a bomber thats not doing much maneuvering, but in a quick moving dogfight with a fighter a smaller faster firing .50 is an advantage.


----------



## kiwimac (Jan 4, 2005)

OTOH the heinkel He-280 would have been much more manouverable.









> Origin: Ernest Heinkel
> Type: Single-seat fighter
> Engines: two 1,852lb (840kg) thrust Junkers Jumo 004A turbojets
> Dimensions: Span 12m; Length 10.20m; Height 3.19m
> ...



Source: http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/LRG/he280.html

Kiwimac


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 4, 2005)

It's not just the slower RoF of the MK108 that makes it unsuitable for dogfighting, it's also the very low velocity. The MK108 muzzel velocity was only 505 m/s, where then M8 API muzzel velocity was up around 900 m/s and the M23 Incendiary up around 1000 m/s (but it slowed down more quickly than the M8 due to its lower weight of 34.5 grams).

Gunnery estimates are that increasing velocity by 33% will double the chances of scoring hits. Based upon this, it would be reasonable to assume that the .50 BMG firing the M23 would score about 7 times more often for a given shot than the Me262. Factor in the volume of fire of the 262's 4 x Mk108's at 40 rps vs. the P-80 at 80 rps (M2) and you'd expect the P-80 to score at least 14 times before the Me262 scored once, all other factors being equal. With the M3, you'd expect it to score 20 times before the Me262 scored once.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Jan 4, 2005)

If you're going to do a what-if, make a probable comparison...


The Me-262 was an interceptor that could double as a fighter...

While I could go on about the possibility of the Go-229, since it actually flew, I won't...


The more suitable match-up would be the He-162, which though unstable, could have proven to be quite a match.


----------



## lesofprimus (Jan 4, 2005)

> As for the armament, I totally disagree. The 6 x .50's were far superior for dogfighting than the 4 x MK108's. It is unlikely that the Me262 would have been able to hit the P-80 from any range beyond 100 meters (and even that would require an expert marksmen), where the P-80 could have reached out over 400 meters and touched the 262. The MK108 was an anti-bomber weapon, nearly useless in a high speed dogfight.


I totally agree....



> Plus 6 .50 Brownings can throw out a lot of lead faster than the MK108's. Sure one 30mm from the MK108 would do a lot of damage, but your less likely to get a hit from one if your rate of fire is lower.
> 
> A larger slower firing 30mm is an ok weapon for a bomber thats not doing much maneuvering, but in a quick moving dogfight with a fighter a smaller faster firing .50 is an advantage.



I absolutly, totally agree.....



> it would be reasonable to assume that the .50 BMG firing the M23 would score about 7 times more often for a given shot than the Me262. Factor in the volume of fire of the 262's 4 x Mk108's at 40 rps vs. the P-80 at 80 rps (M2) and you'd expect the P-80 to score at least 14 times before the Me262 scored once, all other factors being equal. With the M3, you'd expect it to score 20 times before the Me262 scored once.



Ur not taking into account the accuracy of the certain pilot.. U know as well as I do that some pilots had a much higher accuracy rating than some others.... 

I have seen, as Im sure u have seen, movie clips of guys placing a 30mm shell right into the sweet spot at 300 meters.....

Those stats u put up are nice for a generic look, but to get into a detailed conversation, those #'s dont help much.... We all know that a .50 cal fired faster and had a higher probability of hitting..... Anything else is pumping sunshine up our asses, cause individual accuracy and combat experience change those #'s dramatically in certain circumstances....

BUT....... Ur point is well-recieved... Ud be better off by far with the .50's over the cannons, in a dogfight...


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jan 4, 2005)

I've never been a fan of the WWII 30mm weapons in a dogfight for all of the reasons that have been mentioned.

One thing that worked against the P-80 is the realtively low ammo load. At 1200rpm, 200 rounds of ammo will only last 10secs. That being said, the combat endurance of the P-80 would be relatively low and the pilot would need to be an accurate shooter to get the most out of his ammo.


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 5, 2005)

lesofprimus said:


> Ur not taking into account the accuracy of the certain pilot.. U know as well as I do that some pilots had a much higher accuracy rating than some others....
> 
> I have seen, as Im sure u have seen, movie clips of guys placing a 30mm shell right into the sweet spot at 300 meters.....
> 
> ...



Actually, I am taking into consideration pilot skill. To be specific, US fighter gunnery school instructors asserted that increasing the velocity (through its entire path of flight) of a weapon by 25% would increase the number of hits scored by 50%. This was in fact verfied by using different ammo propellant loadings in tests using both instructors and gunnery school graduates (i.e. rookies) making attack passes at towed banner targets (which dodge some by virtue of pull cables from the towing plane). The German's and the British both conducted similar tests and came up with the figure of a 1/3rd increase doubling the number of expected hits. Use either figure you like, the differential is huge when we are talking about one gun firing with more than double the velocity (through the flight of the round) than the other. The whole "skill" of the pilot issue is mute, the analysis says that any given pilot will score thus many more hits given greater weapon velocity. If he's a bad shot, he will do a little better but still be bad relative to other pilots. If he's a good shot, he will score even better.

As far as individual pilots landing a 30mm in the sweet spot from 300 meters... first off can you reference this? A single shot, not after a lot of misses please. Secondly, guncam film of this nature is not really meaningful even if it does exist, as you don't see anything but guncam footage showing successes.

I'll also point out that this all considers the unusual case of "mutually aware" combat. It must be remembered that something around 90% of fighter pilots who survived being shot down reported they never saw the plane that shot them down or never saw it until they'd already taken hits. On the otherhand, by 1945 US fighters had warning radars, and I would assume German planes would have had these too. So the sneak attack so favored by Galland and most other top aces of the earlier years of the war were not so easily accomplished in 1945.

Another factor I left out was the difference in gunsights. The US (and British) fighters had the lead computing gunsights, the German's were working on one but had not accomplished a successful design by the end of the war. Assuming they had not, you can double the difference again, in which case the P-80 would enjoy at least another 2:1 better chance of scoring hits.

After thinking about it I need to revise my statement. The difference in volume of fire accounts for about a doubling of the number of expected hits when the pilot's aim is on target. The rest of the factors tend more to influence weather hits will be scored at all. So revising my analysis, all other things being equal (which they're not because the P-80 is more manuverable and a more stable gun platform) you'd expect the P-80 pilots to score at least twice as many hits when they do score (probably more because of the "fly between the shots" factor), and to score hits between 7-10 times more often than the 262 pilot assuming the 262 has a lead computing sight. If the 262 only has a reflector sight then the P-80 is again around 14-20 times more likely to score hits.

Finally, none of this applies for a point-blank shot. If you can get a shot within 100 feet or so of the target, you are extremely likely to hit it regaurdless of gun type. But, in high speed mutually aware combat, espeically at jet speeds, such shots are extremely rare.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## DaveB.inVa (Jan 5, 2005)

Heres an excellent page for this discussion of firepower. Since the P-80 isnt listed on this page refer to the P-51 as both have 6 .50 caliber Brownings.
Note however that this list only incorporates kenetic energy (1/2mv^2) not whether the rounds are explosive, incendiary etc. The 6 .50s can be seen to almost equal the kenetic energy provided by the 4 30mms in the 262. The 6 .50s spread this level of KE over more rounds though! More rounds flying faster means a greater chance of a hit. This is inherently why the .50 Browning is a better choice for a dogfighting gun than the MK108.

http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/8217/fgun/fgun-fi.html


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 5, 2005)

Here is my gun page... well sorta. It was up for a long time and then I moved and my webspace got cleared out. Somewhere in there I lost the source directory and had to recreate the page to re-post it. I only did this for the tables, so much of the text is missing. I'll have to fix it soon, after I'm done reading "Flying Guns of WWII" I think.

http://members.cox.net/rg_lunatic/gunpage/

Note I've since come up with more info, such as that the Hispano HE/I carried 11.5 grams of chemical payload, and that the muzzel velocity figures for the BMG are at 78 feet and the Hispano are at 90 feet (where Germans are calculated at the actual muzzel). But even so, look at the Estimated Ballistics Data table and consider the range at which the round goes below 1.5 mach and where it goes sub-sonic. These are good indicators of the relative effective range of each gun.

My new page will contain a lot more info.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## lesofprimus (Jan 5, 2005)

All your typing and info and stats are all great, but my grandfather flew in WWII and was a pretty good shot... He knew some guys who couldnt shoot a Betty outta the sky, let alone a Zero.... If one pilot can fire 50 rounds of .50 cal and get 10 hits, and another pilot can blow off 500 rounds of .50 and get 10 hits, i think that difference is HUGE..... 


> The whole "skill" of the pilot issue is mute.


Thats a load of crap.... 


> As far as individual pilots landing a 30mm in the sweet spot from 300 meters... first off can you reference this? A single shot, not after a lot of misses please.


Reference??? No..... But i do specifically recall seeing a certain video clip where an Fw-190A-8 comes up, u see the bracketing of the smaller MG's, then 3-4 cannon rounds that strike the fuselage, no misses.... The bomber rolls off to the left and starts breaking up....


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Jan 6, 2005)

Lightning Guy said:


> I've never been a fan of the WWII 30mm weapons in a dogfight for all of the reasons that have been mentioned.
> 
> One thing that worked against the P-80 is the realtively low ammo load. At 1200rpm, 200 rounds of ammo will only last 10secs. That being said, the combat endurance of the P-80 would be relatively low and the pilot would need to be an accurate shooter to get the most out of his ammo.



But then again...



Say it gets ten hits on a fighter's wing, those ten hits (ten rounds) will do much more damage than ten round from the Mustang's guns, in the same place, on the same wing, even though they had the same guns...


Why?


Concentration of the six guns is a lot better for stopping power than the spread out layout on the P-51...



That being said, there is a *bit* of a counterbalance for the low ammo count...


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 6, 2005)

Look, the skill issue is mute because no matter the pilot, he will do better with the higher velocity guns (all other factors being equal). If he's a crappy shot, he's a crappy shot, but he will still do better.

Or are you arguing that Axis pilots were just better shots than allied pilots? If so that is pure crap.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 6, 2005)

Lightning Guy said:


> I've never been a fan of the WWII 30mm weapons in a dogfight for all of the reasons that have been mentioned.
> 
> One thing that worked against the P-80 is the realtively low ammo load. At 1200rpm, 200 rounds of ammo will only last 10secs. That being said, the combat endurance of the P-80 would be relatively low and the pilot would need to be an accurate shooter to get the most out of his ammo.



You are right. 200 rpg in the M3 provide a mere ten seconds of fire. On the other hand, 100 rpg in the MK108 provide.... TEN SECONDS OF FIRE! I didn't mention ammo loads because in this respect, the two planes are equal, both have identical fire times (actually the 262 a little less since 2 of its guns only have 8 seconds of fire).

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Jan 6, 2005)

RG_Lunatic said:


> Look, the skill issue is mute because no matter the pilot, he will do better with the higher velocity guns (all other factors being equal). If he's a crappy shot, he's a crappy shot, but he will still do better.
> 
> Or are you arguing that Axis pilots were just better shots than allied pilots? If so that is pure crap.
> 
> ...




Actually, the thing about the pilots isn't _entirely_ true...


I happen to be quite the pilot in flight sims, but my aim is *ATROCIOUS!*


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 6, 2005)

GermansRGeniuses said:


> RG_Lunatic said:
> 
> 
> > Look, the skill issue is mute because no matter the pilot, he will do better with the higher velocity guns (all other factors being equal). If he's a crappy shot, he's a crappy shot, but he will still do better.
> ...



You should come fly with me in FighterAce sometime. There is a free 2 week trial, let me know if you're interested.

In FA we have "padlock view", which basically lockes your eyes onto the target from the cockpit view. In the upper level rooms, cockpit views are the only flyng views you get. It is very interesting to see just how much harder it is to score hits from the cockpit view than from the bogus "front view" most sims provide.

This is one reason why I think the "nose guns are better" argument is bunk for single engin props. In a single engine prop, espeically one with the gun mounted to fire through the spinner, it is impossible to cant the guns upwards very much. In wing gun armed planes, like the P-51, this was easily done. So in a nose gun armed plane, you must pull more effective lead to hit your target, and when you do, espeically when up close, you cannot see the target under the nose (and a good foe knows this and will barrel roll onto your six right at the instant you loose sight of him). With wing guns, you don't have to pull quite so much lead.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Jan 6, 2005)

True, but as I said, the resulting damage is less.


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 6, 2005)

GermansRGeniuses said:


> True, but as I said, the resulting damage is less.



Well of course it is. The issue is can you score a hit with the thing, and the answer is "only if you are both very skilled AND very lucky".

Mounting a 75mm semi-auto cannon on your fighter would give even more hitting power... but the odds you could land a shot would be practically nil, so what does it matter? The same is true of the MK108 armament on the 262 vs the .50's on the P-80, the MK108 is almost that bad.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Jan 6, 2005)

We're both forgetting something that partially ends this argument...


The K-14 lead computing gunsight!


----------



## DaveB.inVa (Jan 6, 2005)

Dogfighting with a big heavy cannon is akin to going bird hunting with a deer rifle! You might get a hit in somewhere, and when you do you can be pretty sure its a kill, but the chances of that happening are low. Using a shotgun you put a good spread out there. Sure a lot of the pellets are going to miss, but youve got a lot more in the air so youve got more chances for a hit. Thats why you go bird hunting with a shotgun.

If both pilots are average then Id put my money on the guy with the highest rate of fire. You might have one guy whos God's gift to cockpit and can throw 30mm all day with excellent accuracy, but thats just one guy. There are a lot more average joes out there, and for the average joe Id go with the .50.


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 6, 2005)

GermansRGeniuses said:


> We're both forgetting something that partially ends this argument...
> 
> 
> The K-14 lead computing gunsight!



I factored that in as typically doubling the chances of scoring on a given shot.

Also, it should be noted that while the K-14 was a huge leap forward in gunsights, it also had some issues. Most significantly, it could not be used while engaging in harsh aerobatics, in particular hard rolls. In fact, right on the base of the gunsight in large print is "CAGE ALL GYROS BEFORE ENGAGING IN AEROBATICS". Before executing such a manuver, the pilot had to "cage" the gyros. If he did this, the sight became a fixed reflector sight, if he failed to so, it would proably blow a circuit and he'd have no gunsight at all! The K-14 was excellent for longer shots, but if it got into a turn-n-burn duel, then it had to be flipped to the caged mode before every hard roll, and probably the pilot would not flip it back on unless there was a period of seperation. If it weren't for this requirement, I'd probably have given the K-14 a 4x factor rather than a 2x factor.

The K-14 really came into its own in the A-4 version during the Korean war, which used a radar ranger instead of the pilot twisting a ranging handle to bracket the target. This probably increased the odds of scoring hits by another order of magnitude. However it still had to be caged in hard rolls.

=S=

Lunatic

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 6, 2005)

DaveB.inVa said:


> Dogfighting with a big heavy cannon is akin to going bird hunting with a deer rifle! You might get a hit in somewhere, and when you do you can be pretty sure its a kill, but the chances of that happening are low. Using a shotgun you put a good spread out there. Sure a lot of the pellets are going to miss, but youve got a lot more in the air so youve got more chances for a hit. Thats why you go bird hunting with a shotgun.



Your analogy misses the velocity difference. The deer rifle at least has good velocity. I think the better comparison would be a colt .45 vs. an semi-auto 20 gauge shotgun firing birdshot. If you're shooting at Ostridges (bombers), the .45 might actually be better than the shotgun, but if your shooting at flying ducks (fighters), the shotgun is clearly much better.



DaveB.inVa said:


> If both pilots are average then Id put my money on the guy with the highest rate of fire. You might have one guy whos God's gift to cockpit and can throw 30mm all day with excellent accuracy, but thats just one guy. There are a lot more average joes out there, and for the average joe Id go with the .50.



Greater RoF is nice, or more appropriately "volume of fire" (which accounts for all guns), but velocity is also important. The .50's on the P-80 had the significant advantage in both these aspects, while the Mk108 certainly had the advantage in hitting power (but also remember 1 in 4 rounds were duds).

Even the great shot is not going to hit many ducks with that .45, and he's certainly going to hit a lot more with the 20 gauge in any event right?

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## kiwimac (Jan 6, 2005)

There can be no doubt that *IF* a pilot can hit an enemy aircraft with his guns, a higher calibre weapon will do more damage BUT there is a lot of pilot skill there too.

Erich Hartmann managed to shoot down a Sturmovik on ONE occasion with a single well placed shot, Von Richthofen in WW1 managed the same feat ONCE.

No matter the size of the weapon skill plays an emormous part.

Kiwimac


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 6, 2005)

kiwimac said:


> There can be no doubt that *IF* a pilot can hit an enemy aircraft with his guns, a higher calibre weapon will do more damage BUT there is a lot of pilot skill there too.
> 
> Erich Hartmann managed to shoot down a Sturmovik on ONE occasion with a single well placed shot, Von Richthofen in WW1 managed the same feat ONCE.
> 
> ...



But that is really not the kind of combat we are talking about. Remember, something like 90% of actual kills, especially early in the war, were scored against an enemy who never saw the attacker. This is espeically true of the high German kill tallies early in the war and even moreso on the E. Front. I believe somewhere Hartmann (or one of the other very high scoring German aces on the E. Front) is even quoted as saying something to the effect "if they saw me, I'd just fly away and seek another target". In these instances, the attacker usually attacks from above and behind, sweeps down to the low six position of his target, from which he cannot be seen, closes in to a range of less than 100 meters, and opens up with a carefully placed shot.

By 1945 this type of kill was not very common. Most of the pilots were well trained (at least on the Allied side) and also the US (and some British) planes had tail warning radars to prevent such attacks. Also, early war planes tended to have poor visability to start with, by the end of the war, especially for most allied fighters, this was no longer the case.

The surprise bounce attack really has to be discounted from this type of discussion. Any plane that is fast enough to catch its target at its cruise speed can achieve such a kill with almost any armament. It is the mutually aware engagement that we are discussing right?

=S=

Luntatic


----------



## delcyros (Mar 2, 2005)

Great site! This is my first post, so lets go!
1.) Armament of Me-262 A1(b) also include some 12-24 R4M unguided air-to-air missiles (they are missing). But of course they do not contribute much to an arial jet dogfight.
The general weapon layout of the P-80 with .50 M3 is well suited for high speed dogfights, even the .50 M2 would have done very well. (I didn´t noticed that .50 M3 have been fielded in P-80A prior to early 1947, so I would really like to read some references about that)
2.) Me-262 has a higher critical mach speed (0.86 after calculations of Messerschmidt) thanks to its swept back wings with high aspect ratio.
Some pilots praise its exceptionally good high speed handlings (E. Rudorffer to name one) compared to Bf-109 and Fw-190. It could outdive the P-80 anytime. (but a terminal Dive remains a problem for the Me-262 because the P-80 has some nice air-brakes..)
3.) Acceleration and wingload makes me think the P-80 is probably the better dogfighter. 
4.) Fall 1945? Well, there are some Me-262 developments to take notice of: HG I (V 09 prototype) was flown (35 degrees wing inlay, flat canopy, new tail design) and HG II (yeah, new 35 degrees swept back wing!) completed in february ´45 (it was never flown, thanks to an ground accident). And I´m not talking about HG III...
Conclusion: I have not voted for now, but I think that the P-80 is a better dogfighter than the Me-262 A1, so more and more jet vs. jet dogfights would probably result in american victories. Just for fun.


----------



## KraziKanuK (Mar 2, 2005)

Actually the P-80 and 262 did have a fly off. This was post war out of Wright Field. Al Boyd was the pilot in charge. The results (speed, RoC at different altitudes, turn radius) were so in favour of the 262 that the report was suppressed.

The M3 did not do that well in Korea vs the MiG15.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Nonskimmer (Mar 2, 2005)

Well then, I guess _my_ thoughts were totally out to lunch! 
Nothing new about that, I suppose.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 2, 2005)

Lunch eh? Sounds good. What did they order?


----------



## Nonskimmer (Mar 2, 2005)

A nice heaping plate of neurons. They need it.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 2, 2005)

Errm, I think I get it


----------



## Nonskimmer (Mar 2, 2005)

Just smile and nod, that's all _I_ ever do when I don't really get someone!


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 2, 2005)

KraziKanuK said:


> Actually the P-80 and 262 did have a fly off. This was post war out of Wright Field. Al Boyd was the pilot in charge. The results (speed, RoC at different altitudes, turn radius) were so in favour of the 262 that the report was suppressed.
> 
> The M3 did not do that well in Korea vs the MiG15.



I'd love to see the report on that "fly off". The P-80 has better thrust to weight ratio, better time to altitude figures, and better speed figures, so how would the 262 come out on top?

Hmmm... the F-86 sported 6 x .50 M3's and scored an 8:1 kill to loss ration vs. the Mig-15 according to Soviet figures, an 11:1 ratio according to USAAF figures. So how did it "not do that well"?

Besides, Jets like the Mig-15 or F-86 are much much tougher to shoot down than prop planes.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## KraziKanuK (Mar 2, 2005)

"8:1 kill to loss ration vs. the Mig-15 according to Soviet figures"

Source required.

The lastest ratio is 2:1. Not that good considering most of the MiG pilots were Chinese and Korean.


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 2, 2005)

KraziKanuK said:


> "8:1 kill to loss ration vs. the Mig-15 according to Soviet figures"
> 
> Source required.
> 
> The lastest ratio is 2:1. Not that good considering most of the MiG pilots were Chinese and Korean.



Current figures are 792 Mig-15's killed for 76 Sabres lost, source: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-86.htm .


http://www.aviation-history.com/mikoyan/mig15.html <-- quotes "better than 8:1 in favor of the F-86)

http://www.exn.ca/flight/flightpath/plane.asp?ID=43 <--- quotes 8:1 in favor of F-86

Here's a site that presents the Soviet perspective and claims: http://wind.prohosting.com/flyaces/...andeightsjetengineaces_russianacesinkorea.htm

Notice most of the claimed Soviet kills are not F-86's, and that very often they do not correspond to a UN lost plane.

No matter how you look at it, the F-86 beat the Mig-15 during Korea. Post war testing has shown the Mig-15 was a seriously flawed plane. It could not exceed mach 1 in a dive, it had poor roll control by comparison to the F-86 at all speeds, and was un-rollable at near mach speeds, it had a much inferior gunsight, dive stability was generally poor, the engine tended to flame out under high G loads, and the pilots did not have G-Suits.

It is very hard to get a true perspective on Soviet success, because if a Mig was lost, it was a chineese pilot flying it!

Anyway, the point is that the .50 was sufficient to kill the Mig - though I admit the 20mm was a better choice (as fitted to the late entry F-86H).

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## KraziKanuK (Mar 10, 2005)

Since RG like to play 'what ifs', there was plans to fit the 262 with MG151/20s and also MK213C 20mm cannon.


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 11, 2005)

I didn't initiate the "what if" scenario here.

The MK213C was experimental and the bugs had not been worked out by war's end. Work continued but it was not until about the mid-50's that a successful revolver cannon was developed. It was a great idea, but it would have been even futher into the future - by then the F-84 would have been in the war.

The MG151/20 would have improved the ballistics of the 262 only slightly, it was not a gun with particularly good ballistics either, but it would certainly have been better in a jet vs. jet dogfight than the MK108.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## delcyros (Mar 12, 2005)

The weapon layout of the Me-262 was against heavy bombers in general. A few were modified to carry six MK 108 /30mm. Others did carry four and 24 unguided missiles R4M. That high caliber armament is a similarity to the MiG-15. And the MiG did very well against B-29 with it´s armament. The poor ballistics of the MK 108 caused also concerns by OKL regarding it´s ability "vis a vis" in dogfights. They preferred the high velocity MK 103/30mm because of it´s very flat trajectory for late jet fighter projects (like Ho-229). I think this does also undeline the superiority of .50 as mentioned by Lunatic. Blinding the pilot in a Me-262 was also a problem when firing all four MK108/30mm. That is not good while in a hot dogfight with P-80´s... However, if hit by a Me-262, you can say good by. 
Has anyone Informations about the "Fly off" between Me-262 and P-80? Is the report still closed for public or hard to get?


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 12, 2005)

delcyros said:


> The weapon layout of the Me-262 was against heavy bombers in general. A few were modified to carry six MK 108 /30mm. Others did carry four and 24 unguided missiles R4M. That high caliber armament is a similarity to the MiG-15. And the MiG did very well against B-29 with it´s armament. The poor ballistics of the MK 108 caused also concerns by OKL regarding it´s ability "vis a vis" in dogfights. They preferred the high velocity MK 103/30mm because of it´s very flat trajectory for late jet fighter projects (like Ho-229). I think this does also undeline the superiority of .50 as mentioned by Lunatic. Blinding the pilot in a Me-262 was also a problem when firing all four MK108/30mm. That is not good while in a hot dogfight with P-80´s... However, if hit by a Me-262, you can say good by.
> Has anyone Informations about the "Fly off" between Me-262 and P-80? Is the report still closed for public or hard to get?



I agree the MK108 was primarily a bomber killing gun. But I think comparing it to the guns of the Mig-15 is inappropriate. The MK108 30mm had a RoF of ~600 rpm and initial velocity of 505 m/s. The N-37 37mm (note: not the NS-37) of the Mig-15 had an RoF of ~450 rpm and an initial velocity 670 m/s, the NS-23 had an RoF of 550 rpm and initial velocity of 670 m/s. Both rounds had significantly better velocity than the MK108, though the RoF was definitely lacking. While it is true the focus of these Soviet weapons was the killing of bombers, they were more suitable for fighter combat than the MK108.

The MK103 was quite a bit heavier than the MK108, necessitating less be carried (2?), and coupled with the low RoF of ~400 rpm, it was not a great choice for fighter combat either. The MK103 was really intended for bomber targets, but expected to be able to score hits from much longer range.

Personally, I think the best German gun for fighter vs. fighter combat in the 262 would have been the MG151 15mm. Its 700 rpm RoF was not too shabby (and this could have been improved had they put more focus on it), its 905 m/s initial velocity is excellent, and its .407 g/sq. mm sectional density and good ballistic shape would have given it excellent energy retention (and thus range).

However, in the end, I think the 6 x M3 BMG was still the superior fighter vs. fighter weapon. The volume of fire difference is just too significant - 120 high velocity rounds per second makes for much easier gunnery than any of the 262 gun options.

I agree the MK108 hit would be devestaing if everything goes right. But, first it has to hit the target. It has to not bounce off. And it has to detonate (remember, approx. 1 in 4 were duds).

I've heard tell of this "Me262 vs. P-80 fly-off", but no one has ever been able to provide any documentation concerning it.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## delcyros (Mar 13, 2005)

Yes, the guns of a MiG were better against jets than the MK 108. The similarity I mentioned belongs to the general weapon layout (against bombers), only. 
It´s a shame that we don´t have any documents of that fly-off. The soviets had also a fly off between Me-262 and their own "interpretation" of that plane, the Su-7 Fishbet (same but larger and straight wings). The Me-262 (not suprisingly) was the superior plane. A question regarding the engine: The Jumo 004 A had a total weight of 840 Kg and 830kp static thrust, only (at 9000 rpm). It was fitted in some prototypes (The V2 had no complete swept back wing), only. The Jumo 004 B fitted in all but a very few Me-262 A had a total weight of 740 Kg and a static thrust of 890 kp. The materials used in this engine limited the rpm to 8700 max. So why belongs the higher speed to the Jumo 004 A as you mentioned? (Source: H.J. Nowarra, Die Deutsche Luftrüstung 1933-1945, vol. 4 (Koblenz 1993), page 116f.)


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 13, 2005)

That's a very good question. Something seems wrong to me!

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## KraziKanuK (Mar 16, 2005)

Ask Wright-Patterson or Walter Boyne from the NASM for the report.


----------



## delcyros (Mar 16, 2005)

As far as I understand, the Jumo 004 A engine was tested on the ground for a max output of up to 1000 Kp. That was a clear overrew (9400 + rpm). The Jumo 004 B could not overrew, rpm was limited to 8700 max. However, it was never intended in an airplane to overrew a jet engine nor was it tested prior to january 22nd. 1945 (in case of a BMW 003 E powerplant with a He-162). The Me-262 V-prototypes with Jumo 004 A engines miss the top speed because they do not have the complete swept back wing. There is no source that any Me-262 with Jumo 004 A was flown with an overrew. it would be very interesting to know what particular plane was flown by top speed mesurements (beside of V-9).


----------



## acesman (Mar 21, 2005)

It is an interesting pairing, but the P-80 did not get a chance to participate in much (any?) air-to-air combat in WWII, and in Korea its performance was not good enough, since they were withdrawn from air-to-air combat as soon as possible after encounters with the MiG. Remember, Germany at that point in the war was scrambling for many types of strategic materials that we had readily available, if not in large amounts. And the Me-262 was swept from the skies by propeller aircraft. It was never a fair fight after 1943.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 22, 2005)

i wouldn't say the -262 was "swept from the skies"..........


----------



## acesman (Mar 23, 2005)

Not to imply that the Me-262 did not hold its own in air combat, but the Luftwaffe after 1943 was so grossly outnumbered that no individual skill, technology or bravery could reverse the outcome. Me-262's were especially targeted on their takeoff or landing, if possible, and the USAAF put a premium on harassing the airfields used for jets.


----------



## evangilder (Mar 23, 2005)

They were a premium target because it was the biggest threat.


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 24, 2005)

acesman said:


> Not to imply that the Me-262 did not hold its own in air combat, but the Luftwaffe after 1943 was so grossly outnumbered that no individual skill, technology or bravery could reverse the outcome. Me-262's were especially targeted on their takeoff or landing, if possible, and the USAAF put a premium on harassing the airfields used for jets.



The Luftwaffe' was not grossly outnumbered until late Spring 1944, when during Big Week they lost around 1/3rd of their aircraft and 1/5th of their pilots. Also, the P-51's and a few P-38's were the only planes able to reach them, and those were sorely outnumbered at the time. The German's goofed by spreading out their fighters too much, allowing the comparatively small number of US fighters to tackle them at fairly even odds.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## delcyros (Mar 28, 2005)

I have checked the waeponry again. A layout with 4-6 MG 151/15 as suggested by Lunatic would be excellent for a jet vs. jet fight, agreed. But it would be worse on interceptions against heavy bombers.
I would choose a weaponry of three MK 103/30 mm with 80 rounds each. The weight would be no problem if the Me-262 sacrifice half of it´s armor plates. This would remove the forward plates, but not the cockpit armor. With 80 rounds it would have enough ammo for 12 seconds (instead of 10 for the P-80). The trajectory of the Mk 103 would be excellent for high speed dogfights. It still has only a combined speed of fire of 20-22 shots per second, compared to 120 for the P-80. That are 6 shots fired by the P-80 and a single fired by the Messerschmidt, while the chance to hit would be roughly the same. I regard a single 30 mm/Mk103 hit far more destructive than 6 0.50 M3 hits. Such a modified weaponry would postively effect interception duties and ground attacks also.


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 29, 2005)

First off, 3 x MK103's weigh 932 lbs - and the ammo is heavy too. Conversly, 6 x .50's weigh 396 lbs, and the ammo is relatively light. So you are putting roughly 2.5x the weight into the nose of the 262, this would drastically effect performance, you are roughly doubling the gun/ammo weight as compared to the MK108's.

Secondly, the most common type of firing solution in high speed combat is a leading deflection shot. In this kind of shot, you lay down fire in front of your target and let him fly through the stream. But, with only about 20 rps in that stream, the odds of the target flying through it w/o taking any hits are quite high. Gunnery against fast fighter targets using the MK103, with it's 420 rpm RoF would be very difficult.

Thirdly, the recoil from three MK103's would be quite high, making gunner even more difficult.

Forth, for attacking bombers with an MG151/15 armed Me262, it seems to me the underwing rockets are the perfect solution. This way you get the best of both worlds. Guns suitable for fighting fighters, rockets to take out heavy bombers.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## delcyros (Mar 30, 2005)

The weight would never increase up to twice the weight of a MK 108 equipped plane:
Me-262 A1: 4 MK 108 (232 Kg) + 360 rounds (220 Kg) + 282 Kg armor=
734 Kg (100%)
Me-262 mod: 3 MK 103 (426 Kg) + 240 rounds (216 Kg) + 140 Kg reduced armor = 782 Kg (106,5%)

The removal of it´s nose armor is necessary because of the change of it´s center of weight. Cockpit armor would be about the same. With these numbers in mind I see no justification for a "drastic" performance change thanks to a "doubling of gun/ammo weight" compared to a Mk108 equipped plane.  
A MG 151/15 equipped plane would be lighter. Total weight including ammo for 12 seconds would be: 
6 MG 151 (288 Kg) + 840 rounds (172 Kg) + full armor (282 Kg) = 742 Kg (101 %)
The nose armor cannot be reduced, since the MG 151/15 have a shorter and much lighter barrel (or additional weight has to be put in the nose).
20-22 rps are about the same of a single 0.50 M3. I regard that rate of fire enough. A higher rate of fire would increase the probability of multiple hits on a certain space in a given time drastic. But a single Mk 103 hit is enough to get a P-80 kill (except maybe for wingtip hits or duds). The velocity and trajectory of a MK 103 shell is amazing, making aiming much easier (as shown for the 0.50 M3 by You). The recoil would be a problem, agreed. However, the MK 103 doesn´t blind that much (compared to 4 MK 108 with high rof). Both weapon layouts (Mg 151/15 and MK 103) are better than the original one, I think.


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 30, 2005)

The ballistics of the Mk103, firing the Ausf. A mine round, were not as good as those of the .50 BMG. The MK103 hits mach 1.5 (sea level) at approximately 550 meters, the .50 BMG at ~900 meters. The ballistic shape of the Ausf. A mine rounds was quite poor. Even the Ausf B rounds (where these available for the MK103?) shape is not that good.

With such a low volume of fire, the pilot could not afford to fire at long range. It would eat up his limited ammo supply for a low chance of scoring a hit. If he cannot afford to fire at long range, why carry the MK103 over the MK108?

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## delcyros (Mar 31, 2005)

I do not question the gerneral superiority of the 0.50 M3 compared to the MK 103 or MK 108 equipped plane in a dogfight situation. But I tried to underline, that MK 103 weaponry (as suggested by OKL on 21st. of december ´44) would make the jet probably a better one. 
Hits beyond 500 m were not very common, the usual shooting distance was under 300 m (which also was the limit range for MK 108, thanks to it´s poor ballistics). A MK 103 could increase the range a lot, that would be very good at ground attacks and interceptions. On the other hand this weapon layout would also work positively at high speed dogfights in close to middle range. The ammo would allow to fire the guns two seconds more:
Me-262 mod. : 3 x MK 103 (80 rounds= about 12 seconds)
Me-262 A1: 2 x MK108(80 rounds=about 8 sec) + 2 x MK 108 (100 rounds= about 10 sec.)
The advantage of a much higher rof (compared to MK 103)would last for 8 seconds only (in which it has doubled total rof of around 40 rps) the next two seconds (8-10) the total rof would be the same (around 20 rps) and in the last two seconds the MK 108 equipped Me-262 would be silenced, while the MK 103 equipped one could still fire at 20 rps. In that view the Me-262 A1 would run out of ammo much sooner than the MK 103 equipped one. And I think this would allow the pilot to fire at longer ranges and against different targets with equally chances of succes: Bombers, vehicles, fighters, shipping, light and medium tanks. This may justify the use of MK 103 over MK 108.


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 31, 2005)

You are not factoring in the negative effects of recoil at all. Each Mk103 has more than 3 times the kinetic energy of the MK108. When you factor in the gas effect, it is probably over 4 times the recoil. Three MK103's would have between 2.5 and 3 times the recoil energy of four MK108's. And because the recoil is spread out across half as many pulses per second, it's going to be much more severe. It's going to be a lot harder to hold your aim with MK103's than with MK108's. They'd probably only be able to be used for very short bursts (~3 rounds per gun?).

Two seconds additional fire time is not very significant, especially when those two seconds involve half the volume of fire.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## delcyros (Apr 1, 2005)

I agree in the problem with a higher kinetic energy. While the Me-262 was a pretty stable gunplatform at high speeds (allowing an increasement of up to six (!) MK 108 weapons into the nose or a BK 5 or MK 214 gun on a few planes), it would clearly suffer in it´s stability by firing three MK 103. However, all guns are in the nose, beeing close to the energy axes, this would greatly reduce the effects of the heavy recoil. But the plane still sufferd from heavy blinding. That´s why it always could fire a very few rounds per attack pass, only. (fine aiming becomes impossible with the blinding of four MK 108) In this way I see problems with both weapons making prolonged aiming very difficult for the pilot. While the high rof of the MK 108 would serve well for 8 seconds, the MK 103 with lower rof would serve also well in another way: The flat trajectory and the high velocity makes aiming quite easy (compared to a MK 108). The probability of hits would be much better. And the MK 103 still has it´s advantage in general prurose.


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 1, 2005)

delcyros said:


> I agree in the problem with a higher kinetic energy. While the Me-262 was a pretty stable gunplatform at high speeds (allowing an increasement of up to six (!) MK 108 weapons into the nose or a BK 5 or MK 214 gun on a few planes), it would clearly suffer in it´s stability by firing three MK 103. However, all guns are in the nose, beeing close to the energy axes, this would greatly reduce the effects of the heavy recoil. But the plane still sufferd from heavy blinding. That´s why it always could fire a very few rounds per attack pass, only. (fine aiming becomes impossible with the blinding of four MK 108) In this way I see problems with both weapons making prolonged aiming very difficult for the pilot. While the high rof of the MK 108 would serve well for 8 seconds, the MK 103 with lower rof would serve also well in another way: The flat trajectory and the high velocity makes aiming quite easy (compared to a MK 108). The probability of hits would be much better. And the MK 103 still has it´s advantage in general prurose.



Again you are missing the point about the recoil pulses. Even if you added enough MK108's to have equal recoil energy to the MK103, it would not be as detrimental to aiming because the recoil energy is much more concentrated. In air-to-air combat, it is very hard to score any hits with a weapon that can fire only very short bursts - espeically with only a reflector gunsight to aim with.

As for the blinding effect, I have to wonder why the Germans didn't redesign the 262 nose such that they could mount the guns on the bottom.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## delcyros (Apr 1, 2005)

I simply have no sources regarding the recoil energy of different weapons. All remains estimation (for me), but I would like to see some datas, maybe You can help? Yes, it sounds silly to mount heavy guns in the upper part of the nose. The nose gear took a great deal of space and because of the nose geometry I doubt that four MK 108 could be mounted on the botton, MG 151 and MK 103 are more unprobable because of their longer barrels. Maybe two single MK 108, mounted on each side of the gear are possible? The soviets have tried to bring two 23 mm Shvak and a single 37 mm gun into the nose of their Suchoi -"Me-262"-modification. It proved to be a very stable gun platform, but I don´t know about the recoil energy of these weapons, too. 
Short bursts are not unlethal, but remains for experienced pilots, exclusively. Most german Experten preferred a heavy cannon armement over smaller calibres with higher rof.


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 1, 2005)

delcyros said:


> I simply have no sources regarding the recoil energy of different weapons. All remains estimation (for me), but I would like to see some datas, maybe You can help? Yes, it sounds silly to mount heavy guns in the upper part of the nose. The nose gear took a great deal of space and because of the nose geometry I doubt that four MK 108 could be mounted on the botton, MG 151 and MK 103 are more unprobable because of their longer barrels. Maybe two single MK 108, mounted on each side of the gear are possible? The soviets have tried to bring two 23 mm Shvak and a single 37 mm gun into the nose of their Suchoi -"Me-262"-modification. It proved to be a very stable gun platform, but I don´t know about the recoil energy of these weapons, too.
> Short bursts are not unlethal, but remains for experienced pilots, exclusively. Most german Experten preferred a heavy cannon armement over smaller calibres with higher rof.



Yes, but by "heavy cannon armament" they meant the MK108, not the MK103.

Recoil energy is the same as the round energy plus perhaps another 10-20% for the gas effect which is from any unexpended propellent power as the round leaves the barrel. So you can figure the recoil is a little more than the number of joules of ke listed in many sources. For the MK103, this is a little more than 3x that of the MK108.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## delcyros (Apr 4, 2005)

Thanks for the informations. After what I have read, the Fw-190 A5 / U11 had an armement of 2 engine cooling mounted MG (MG 17?), 2 MG 151/20 in the wing roots and two additional MK 103 under the outer wing. The recoil pulses made the weapon nealy useles, so only a very few Fw-190 have been refitted in this way. The total recoil energy is very close to a Me-262 (MK-103 modified), but the excentric fitting in the outer wings rendered the Fw-190 weapons nearly useless. Would it be different if the recoil energy pulses are located closer to the energy axes as in a Me-262?
There were a few Me-262 equipped with even heavier weapons, like single BK 5 and MK 114. These weapons are mounted in the nose, also. They do have a comparable total recoil energy (the BK 5 a little less, the MK 114 more...) and an even worse recoil pulse. However, the Me-262 seems to be a very stable gun platform, since the main problem in this weaponry was -again- the immense blinding of such heavy weapons (beside of a tactical use). The total recoil energy of a MK 103 equipped plane would be doubled, compared to a MK-108 equipped plane. However, the energy pulse would be more concentrated, as you pointed out. I think a structural reinforment of the weapon hardpoints in the nose is necessary to deal with the forces. Thus would probably increase the weight further. (a BK 5 need a total of 96 kg reinforcemt of the nose, so between 50 and 80 kg are needed?) You made a good point in this, Lunatic.


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 5, 2005)

delcyros said:


> Thanks for the informations. After what I have read, the Fw-190 A5 / U11 had an armement of 2 engine cooling mounted MG (MG 17?), 2 MG 151/20 in the wing roots and two additional MK 103 under the outer wing. The recoil pulses made the weapon nealy useles, so only a very few Fw-190 have been refitted in this way. The total recoil energy is very close to a Me-262 (MK-103 modified), but the excentric fitting in the outer wings rendered the Fw-190 weapons nearly useless. Would it be different if the recoil energy pulses are located closer to the energy axes as in a Me-262?
> There were a few Me-262 equipped with even heavier weapons, like single BK 5 and MK 114. These weapons are mounted in the nose, also. They do have a comparable total recoil energy (the BK 5 a little less, the MK 114 more...) and an even worse recoil pulse. However, the Me-262 seems to be a very stable gun platform, since the main problem in this weaponry was -again- the immense blinding of such heavy weapons (beside of a tactical use). The total recoil energy of a MK 103 equipped plane would be doubled, compared to a MK-108 equipped plane. However, the energy pulse would be more concentrated, as you pointed out. I think a structural reinforment of the weapon hardpoints in the nose is necessary to deal with the forces. Thus would probably increase the weight further. (a BK 5 need a total of 96 kg reinforcemt of the nose, so between 50 and 80 kg are needed?) You made a good point in this, Lunatic.



Thank you. I've actually studied this before. A long time ago I calculated that each round coming out the pair of Ho155's on the Ki-84-1c would slow the plane approximately 11 mph. Such huge recoil forces are a real issue for effective weaponry in aircraft.

What Germany really needed was something in the 25 mm class, firing mine-type ammo (~40 grams/round) at decent velocity (750 m/s?) and decent RoF (750 rpm?). 30mm were fine for bombers but not really well suited for dogfighting, and it was hard to carry enough ammo. Four 25mm guns of the nature described above would deliver enough HE to down bombers, and enough volume of fire and velocity to be effective against fighters.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## delcyros (Apr 13, 2005)

25mm would be interesting. But are you sure with a ~40 g/round? Even the MG 151/15 had 72g/round (MG 151/20 ~112 g/round). The blast effects of a 40 g mine round would be minimal. 25 mm and usual cartridge length implies between 150 and 200 g/round or aren´t they?
In this way, the development of MG 213 B/20 mm could provide the best weaponry for the plane (and for all purposes). But it wasn´t avaiable in the timeframe of early-late 1945 in numbers. Even with them, the blinding of nose mounted guns (in the Me-262 way) would still make prolonged aiming difficult. However, the nose design looks really good


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 13, 2005)

I've had the opportunity to fly T-33s, with and without tip tanks, and although I'm no honcho fighter pilot (I wasn't even trained as a military pilot) but I could tell you I would take the P-80 any day based on what I saw on the T-33. Its easy to fly, manueverable and very forgiving. \/ 

I think the biggest advantage the P-80 would of had over the ME-262 is durability. As we know much of the 262 was steel and other non-strategic material. We knew that the engines only lasted a few hours. Even if the war went on a few months longer, if the ME-262 was available in numbers, and if the P-80 was deployed against it, I think the 262 would have been a maintenance logistical nightmare and would of been overwhelmed by vast numbers of P-80s that were more reliable, easier to maintain and operate! The amount of lead thrown at each other wouldn't of mattered if the ME-262 couldn't even get off the ground.


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 13, 2005)

delcyros said:


> 25mm would be interesting. But are you sure with a ~40 g/round? Even the MG 151/15 had 72g/round (MG 151/20 ~112 g/round). The blast effects of a 40 g mine round would be minimal. 25 mm and usual cartridge length implies between 150 and 200 g/round or aren´t they?
> In this way, the development of MG 213 B/20 mm could provide the best weaponry for the plane (and for all purposes). But it wasn´t avaiable in the timeframe of early-late 1945 in numbers. Even with them, the blinding of nose mounted guns (in the Me-262 way) would still make prolonged aiming difficult. However, the nose design looks really good



I meant 40 grams of HE, not 40 grams projectile weight. I'd expect the projectile to be in the 160-180 gram range.


----------



## delcyros (Apr 13, 2005)

HE makes more sense, yes.
Steel is not that a bad metal for durable purposes (look at the MiG-15). The main problem was -of course- the reliability of the jet engine. Otherwise the Me-262 was quite easy to operate. The numbers deployed works in general favour for the Me-262 up to late 1945. The experience of jet tactics, which have been developed in 1945 would make the first encounters jet vs. jet probably a bad surprise for the P-80 pilots. But as I told above, surely more and more jet vs. jet combats would result in US victories. In general a single engined jet has an advantage over a twin engined, esspecially if they field the same rate of thrust. Later jet engines, like Jumo-004 D (940 kp thrust, serial production in march 1945) or Jumo-004 E (1000 kp thrust, ability to field afterburner (1200 kp thrust with ab)- tested in february 45, runs 50 and 100 hours several times under laboratory conditions, serial production aprroved in late april 1945)and more swept back wings (35 degrees like HG-II) could improve the performance of this jet greatly in comparison to P-80 or P-84. But it remains a first class bomber interceptor and not a dogfighter...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 13, 2005)

Yep - Like the Mig-15. Although maneuverable, it was designed to bring down bombers!

I think the jet-to-jet tactics would not have made a big impact. Its a little different when you're trying to shoot down a 250 mph bomber with a 500 mph jet than going head to head with another 500 mph jet, in fact it's actually easier. When shooting at a bomber, you're firing on the horizontal plane, lots of math and calculations. During the basic fighter to fighter encounter, energy management and using that energy management to exploit your adversaries is key, getting as close as possible and then basing away! In Korea, when in a twisting and turning dogfight Mig/ Saber speeds were not much faster than dogfights in WWII. In fact, these jets accelerated a lot slower than WWII fighters in certain situations.


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 13, 2005)

delcyros said:


> HE makes more sense, yes.
> Steel is not that a bad metal for durable purposes (look at the MiG-15). The main problem was -of course- the reliability of the jet engine. Otherwise the Me-262 was quite easy to operate. The numbers deployed works in general favour for the Me-262 up to late 1945. The experience of jet tactics, which have been developed in 1945 would make the first encounters jet vs. jet probably a bad surprise for the P-80 pilots. But as I told above, surely more and more jet vs. jet combats would result in US victories. In general a single engined jet has an advantage over a twin engined, esspecially if they field the same rate of thrust. Later jet engines, like Jumo-004 D (940 kp thrust, serial production in march 1945) or Jumo-004 E (1000 kp thrust, ability to field afterburner (1200 kp thrust with ab)- tested in february 45, runs 50 and 100 hours several times under laboratory conditions, serial production aprroved in late april 1945)and more swept back wings (35 degrees like HG-II) could improve the performance of this jet greatly in comparison to P-80 or P-84. But it remains a first class bomber interceptor and not a dogfighter...



Jet engine tests in the lab were nortoriously non-reflective of production engines. Those engines are built by hand by the most experianced engineers and craftsmen, with increadible attention to every detail. Also, stresses on the Bench do not reflect real life. Look at the R2800, three of them on the bench ran for 11 strait days at about 3500 HP power output without a single part failing - but that is hardly reflective of what real-world experiance would be if trying to sustain such power output.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 14, 2005)

RG_Lunatic said:


> delcyros said:
> 
> 
> > HE makes more sense, yes.
> ...



Very True - in later years there has been lawsuits between engine and airframe manufacturers over test cell data and what was actually achieved when the engine was mounted on the airframe  

One big killer of turbine engines is Foreign Object Damage (FOD) ingested into the engine. Compressor and turbine erosion because of dirt kills any engine and I could of only imagined what it did to a Jumo made out of very poor quality steels. If you go to any airbase, maintenance personnel perform continual FOD walk-downs picking up the smallest pebble from the tarmac. I don't think Luftwaffe personnel were thinking about this in the spring of 1945

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## delcyros (Apr 14, 2005)

Here we have several points. 
First off, while it is true that desperate morale and shortness suffered Luftwaffe units in 1945 badly, Luftwaffe ground crews have been quite careful to new engines (esspecially on jet engines, check the aircraft picture album here...). There have been accidents also, but that´s not a surprise on pioneering techniques (also in Russia and the US).
To the Jumo engines: Actually I agree that tests under laboratory condition doesn´t reflect much the serial versions. That´s why I stated "lab-conditions". On the other hand, the technology difference between Jumo-004 B and 004 D is minimal (bigger air intake only), even the Jumo-004 E has only higher working temperature (and a slightly increase of the max rpm: 8900 instead of 8700 rpm) and a afterburner equipment. And it introduced a second variable jet needle (which never makes problems on the Jumo-004 B or at tests). The technology is still the tech of Jumo-004 B. I estimate that at least 30 % of the serial produced engines work properly. (comparable to Jumo-004 B)
the main problem have always been heat resistent metal for the hot surfaces. The Matprüf institution had a major break throgh in a heat resistent alloy of unrestricted metals at early 1945 for jet engine purposes. This would not take into effect for industrie prior to mid 1945 but afterwards it could enhence production quality in a bigger scale. 
In my mind the biggest mistake in engine developing was the favouring of the complicated He-S011 jet engine, which was really complicated because it was a dual (axial and radial) engine. Had they focussed more on pure axial engines, the Jumo-004 H would have come to testing stage. The BMW 018 axial jet engine was the most powerful jet engine produced in 1944 (only tested on the ground, two prototypes destroyed unfortunately at an air attack in late 1944).
At least I really disagree in unimportance of jet tactics. This view would have cost US pilots badly. (actually they could manage to deal after a short time) German jet tactics not only included jet vs. bomber fights. Do not reduce it to interceptions. Climbing, acceleration and high speed manouvering proved to be keyfactors (I source in the moment reports of US escort fighters, trapped by Me-262 in march 1945). Tactics are even more important for high speed fighters than for prop driven planes (you need more airspace for manouvering). Look at Korea, tactics really made a difference there. The korean MiG´s have been easy prey for good trained UN pilots, even if they fly inferior planes. The soviet units incorporated german Me-262 tactics on the other hand have been a match.
On early P-80 vs. Me-262 encounters, it surely would have made an impact, but only a shortliving one (this has to be underlined).


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 14, 2005)

Well we'll agree to disagree  ENERGY MANAGEMENT - That's the first thing taught in fighter pilot 101, and it don't matter if you're flying a recip or a jet. As far as more airspace, yes you need more but you only need to worry about what's below you! It actually gets easier when you fly in the "vertical." Remember, WWII and Korean war tactics were reintroduced when Top Gun and USAF Air Combat training became vogue again in the 1980s. Sure tactics were modified for the equipment, but when it came down to it, it was fighter pilot 101 - ENERGY MANAGEMENT

I think the 262 would of put up a good fight but would of eventually been slowly defeated


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 14, 2005)

OH - one last thing - the P-80, Meteor and Vampire had centrifigal flow compressors. Although not putting out as much as an axial flow configuation, historically they are more reliable and could take a real beating. Again I question the reliability factor of any German engine of that era, especially under the conditons they were being built and the materials they were made from.


----------



## delcyros (Apr 14, 2005)

(to P-80 performanceThat´s probable. 
The high command of the Luftwaffe (OKL) shares this view. They expected the Me-262 to be inferior in case of the advent of the first allied jet designs.
There are several reasons for this. The most important was the unfavourable position of the engines in underwing nacelles and the engines itself. Most others have been discussed above. I do estimate that the P-80 is a better dogfighter (in particular comparison to the Me-262 A). Just tried to outline that the very first US jets to encounter Me-262 in mid or late of 1945 would have a bad surprise because of different jet handlings (engine controll, stall behavior, ENERGY MANAGEMENT -as you say!). The Me-262 would have been flown by pilots which knew about the problems and which have considerable combat experience in a jet plane. But I don´t doubt that the generally well trained US pilots could keep up with them in short time and from this point on the benefits of the P-80 would weight twice. On the other hand what would a Me-262 look like in late 1945? In terms of speed it could close the gap to the P-80 with either more powerful engines or more swept back wings. How would design react to the P-80 advent? And what also is very important: How would the US designers modify the P-80, how about their engine development, the P-84 and so on.
I think that radial (or centrifugal flow) engines are excellent in the timeframe from 1940 to 1946. They are more reliable, they do not weight as much as axial engines and they are not that fuel gulping. Their development on the other side is limited (the Nene to name). Good working axial engines have been avaiable much later (and benefitted from german design much), their development would cost the UK and US designers a considerable time (1946 is more probable than 1945, while very early working axial flow engines have been avaiable sooner, but haven´t been succesful), while german jet engines design have been on the right way. Remember that the the SU produced very succesful axial engines based on the BMW-018 design! And that are the mid fifties...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 14, 2005)

delcyros said:


> (to P-80 performanceThat´s probable.
> The high command of the Luftwaffe (OKL) shares this view. They expected the Me-262 to be inferior in case of the advent of the first allied jet designs.
> There are several reasons for this. The most important was the unfavourable position of the engines in underwing nacelles and the engines itself. Most others have been discussed above. I do estimate that the P-80 is a better dogfighter (in particular comparison to the Me-262 A). Just tried to outline that the very first US jets to encounter Me-262 in mid or late of 1945 would have a bad surprise because of different jet handlings (engine controll, stall behavior, ENERGY MANAGEMENT -as you say!). The Me-262 would have been flown by pilots which knew about the problems and which have considerable combat experience in a jet plane. But I don´t doubt that the generally well trained US pilots could keep up with them in short time and from this point on the benefits of the P-80 would weight twice. On the other hand what would a Me-262 look like in late 1945? In terms of speed it could close the gap to the P-80 with either more powerful engines or more swept back wings. How would design react to the P-80 advent? And what also is very important: How would the US designers modify the P-80, how about their engine development, the P-84 and so on.
> I think that radial (or centrifugal flow) engines are excellent in the timeframe from 1940 to 1946. They are more reliable, they do not weight as much as axial engines and they are not that fuel gulping. Their development on the other side is limited (the Nene to name). Good working axial engines have been avaiable much later (and benefitted from german design much), their development would cost the UK and US designers a considerable time (1946 is more probable than 1945, while very early working axial flow engines have been avaiable sooner, but haven´t been succesful), while german jet engines design have been on the right way. Remember that the the SU produced very succesful axial engines based on the BMW-018 design! And that are the mid fifties...



*NOW YOU'RE TALKING!* - and you're on the money about centrifugal engines too. It would have been very interesting to see how a "1946" Me-262 would have compared to the P-80, especially if American designers were also pushing the design effort to keep up or surpass German technology.  Would we have seen such radical designs as the P-79 or P-83? Maybe some "lost" projects like the L-133 fighter and the L-1000 engine would of resurrected themselves.  

Another thing to keep in mind - producability. Lockheed at its peak was able to produce between 46-60 P-38s a day, a much more difficult aircraft to build than the P-80 (and we're talking airframe only) Imagine 100 P-80s a day coming off the assembly line! Do you think the ME-262 producers could of kept up with that while still being constantly bombed?  I think if you put the best-case technology situation with the 262, and kept the P-80 the same, you might of seen the same scenario like the Sherman and Tiger tanks during D day - it would of taken 4 P-80s to down one 262!


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 15, 2005)

The F-84 project would have been accelerated. By mid 1946 they would have been in ful production.

Delcros - are you saying the F-86 was inferior to the Mig-15?

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## delcyros (Apr 15, 2005)

Maybe I have been misunderstable, RG, I don´t wanted to say that a F-86 is inferior to the MiG-15. (actually I had F-80´s and Meteors in mind, when I spoke of "inferior" planes) I believe that MiG-15 and F-86 are somehow comparable planes, each has advantages on their own (the F-86 maybe a few more), a really "classic" combination. 
The interesting Lockheed projects are paper projects (as many of the german like Triebflügel, Sänger and so on...far away from beeing useful designs). The F-84 isn´t. 
The producability is another problem. In general spoken, the US had clearly the largest industrial capabilities and a very advanced basic tooling level (as pointed out above several times by RG). In a production "race" between german jets and US jets, I would like to bid my money on the US. But how about real numbers? 1433 Me-262, around 200 Ar-234, 364 Me-163 and 114 He-162 have been produced during ww2, 5000 Jumo-004 B (30% useful) and 800 BMW-003A and E (70% useful) produced. The Kahla underground facility in Thuringia was about to begin serial production at VE-day (estimated 1250 Me-262 in a month) Languste and Wien underground facilities produced at wars end 200 He-162 a month (accelerating), with some 800 airframes waiting for engines at wars end (estimated output in mid 1945: 1000 planes, each) and there have been a huge dispersal program taken effect. From my point of view the strategic bombing campaign is much overrated (regarding it´s effect on weapon industries) because of Speers dispersal program. The deliveries of planes, tanks and guns have been extremely high in 1944 (even with bombing campaign), and the few months of 1945 produced even more than the comparable months in 1944! Production reduced at the point, where terretory was occupated by allied ground troops, not that much because of the bombing campaign. Another story is the fuel bombing campaign...
I think that the Luftwaffe could keep it´s numerical advantage in jets up to late 1945.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 15, 2005)

delcyros said:


> Maybe I have been misunderstable, RG, I don´t wanted to say that a F-86 is inferior to the MiG-15. (actually I had F-80´s and Meteors in mind, when I spoke of "inferior" planes) I believe that MiG-15 and F-86 are somehow comparable planes, each has advantages on their own (the F-86 maybe a few more), a really "classic" combination.
> The interesting Lockheed projects are paper projects (as many of the german like Triebflügel, Sänger and so on...far away from beeing useful designs). The F-84 isn´t.
> The producability is another problem. In general spoken, the US had clearly the largest industrial capabilities and a very advanced basic tooling level (as pointed out above several times by RG). In a production "race" between german jets and US jets, I would like to bid my money on the US. But how about real numbers? 1433 Me-262, around 200 Ar-234, 364 Me-163 and 114 He-162 have been produced during ww2, 5000 Jumo-004 B (30% useful) and 800 BMW-003A and E (70% useful) produced. The Kahla underground facility in Thuringia was about to begin serial production at VE-day (estimated 1250 Me-262 in a month) Languste and Wien underground facilities produced at wars end 200 He-162 a month (accelerating), with some 800 airframes waiting for engines at wars end (estimated output in mid 1945: 1000 planes, each) and there have been a huge dispersal program taken effect. From my point of view the strategic bombing campaign is much overrated (regarding it´s effect on weapon industries) because of Speers dispersal program. The deliveries of planes, tanks and guns have been extremely high in 1944 (even with bombing campaign), and the few months of 1945 produced even more than the comparable months in 1944! Production reduced at the point, where terretory was occupated by allied ground troops, not that much because of the bombing campaign. Another story is the fuel bombing campaign...
> I think that the Luftwaffe could keep it´s numerical advantage in jets up to late 1945.



Interesting stuff my friend, but I don't know - even at 1250 ME-262s a month, you'll still looking at 3,000 P-80s! And as RG commented, if the P-84 was excellerated, well the numbers are staggering!


----------



## delcyros (Apr 15, 2005)

I agree. At full scale production, the US industry beats everything, hands down. But the numerical advantage would still work for the Luftwaffe until very late 1945. (just check how many jets have been produced by UK and US until august 1945, a time of which we can estimate high pressure for industries to deploy as many jets as possible, it is still far away from the Luftwaffe numbers in april 1945) To conclude: If we only look on jet industries, developing and research (difficult, because the advance of allied ground troops clearly renders this thinking hypothetical) Germany has a considerable time advantage. By late 1945 I estimate about 7.000 jets (all types) produced by german industry (and some 2000 of them delivered to Luftwaffe units). How about the Meteors and P-80´s? Even at full scale deploying it cannot be excluded that prototype trials and training are just finished for the first combat units (I don´t estimate them to be rushed into combat without very good reasons). By this time, prototypes of next generation (swept back wings) single engined Luftwaffe fighters would have been finished, known designs like Me-262 and He-162 greatly improved by means of more poweful powerplants and swept back wings. I think this could offset the high numbers of P-80´s and Meteor MK IV to come into effect in early 1946. The P-84 is truly a great plane, but improvements compared to the P-80 are not that convincing. Better engines, avaiability of fuel and well trained pilots on the other hand would greatly work for US-planes, I estimate them to fly much more sorties over Germany, giving the Me-262 a hard time. By the time the P-84 reaches full production, let´s say late 1946, nothing could stop the allies to get air superiority over Germany (except maybe the radar/infrared guided SAM with air proximity fuse).


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 15, 2005)

HMMM - I don't know, RG, help me out while I give this one some thought


----------



## delcyros (Apr 15, 2005)

Well, it´s not that hard to estimate, my friend  
The biggest advantage for the allies beside their huge industrial capabilities would be the advance in centrifugal jet engine design, like the Rolls Royce Nene. Or the Derwent V. With US toolings they could have been produced in high numbers. And they are really great engine for their time. Imagine a P-80 driven by a 5000 lbs Nene powerplant in late 1945! 
The german jet engines would surely have improved their axial Jumo and BMW designs to a high degree (Jumo-004 H: 1800 kp, late BMW-003 (P3306): 1700 kp thrust), but it still has not the output of a Nene. Jumo-012 or (more probable BMW-018) develop more thrust, but they are heavier designs, too. (..and in case of Jumo-012 far away from beeing deployed, never left the drawing board)


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 3, 2005)

Hey, been away from this for awhile, let me see....

Considering that the "1945" ME-262 was basically an interceptor, snaked in the air, and had very unreliable engines, I think I would take the "1945" P-80A any day although admittedly I may be prejudiced considering I've flown a T-33 and just loved it. I think in an outright dogfight the P-80 can easily exploit the 262s weaknesses in maneuverability and actual combat performance. Although there were test conducted in the US that alleged that the 262 was better, I think that was used as a case to continue military turbine engine and aircraft development....


----------



## delcyros (May 6, 2005)

Under normal circumstances I would give any single engined plane a considerable advantage over a twin engined one. However, the things are not that easy here. The US report, which is said to imply that the Me-262 is better cannot be confirmed since it is not accessable. I would rather not argue with anything unaccesabble. The reliability of it´s Jumo-004 B engines is based on the materials (normal TfZh-Blech for heat effective surfaces), from which we know that analyses of some much better alloy was concluded in early 1945 (and introduced into industry at mid april (for -004 B/D at Dessau plant and (probably) also -004 E for later development). The reliabilty factor of the engines of a 1945 Me-262 depends on it´s engines date. I believe that none of these engines made it to an Me-262 airframe (maybe for the czech made S-92, but I don´t know in detail). 
The next point goes to the maneoverabilty. This depends on the speed. The higher the speed, the better the Me-262 is (compared to the P-80). At speeds of Mach 0.80 the P-80 start to suffer from buffeting, unlike the Me-262 (which starts at Mach 0.84), which is said by many veterans to have an excellent high speed handling. The critical Mach speed is very important for 1st generation jet fighters, in fact the increasement of the critical speed was a reason to justify a new design (XP-86 (with straight) and XP-86 (with swept back wings)for example). You are right, the Me-262 is an interceptor and probably under comparable (in terms of pilot quality) circumstances less probable to be the winner. A late 1945 Me-262 (with jumo-004 E or/and 30 degrees swept back wings, call it Me-262 D) on the other hand is more reasonable to be the winner in a dogfight situation (better acceleration, high altitude performance, Mach speed and probably a comparable top speed, if not better) against a P-80 A. -just my opinion, impossible to proof.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 6, 2005)

> The next point goes to the maneoverabilty. This depends on the speed. The higher the speed, the better the Me-262 is (compared to the P-80).



Understand that when you go into combat you're not going to be at mach .80 unless you're being chased, and even then you're going to bleed off speed as you start to maneuver. This is where I think the P-80A (1945) will have the advantage over the 262 (1944 1/2 - 45').

During the maneuvering process you are continually changing power settings, internal components are heating up and cooling down at rapid rates. I think this would have played havoc on the early Jumos, being an axial flow engine initially made from poor materials. On the other hand, the early J-33s being a centrifugal flow engine were a lot more reliable and the basic design remained the same throughout its use, further proving the engine's robustness.


----------



## delcyros (May 7, 2005)

The higher Mach speed is a general advantage, allowing the pilot to choose wether he wants to disengage or not on his own initiative. Excellent trained pilots would keep this in mind, the Me-262 can maneuver at speeds, at which the P-80 cannot (resp. have poor performance). As well as for the energy keeping. Unlike the P-80, the Me-262 doesnt loose much energy while turning. This would work positively at the pilots energy management. These are two of the rar advantages the Me-262 has over the P-80. Changing the power settings for the Jumo´s isn´t a problem as long as you do it smoothly. Under rapid change of power setting conditions the Jumo´s are prone to flame out, as for extreme slipping. Restarting the powerplants is possible but it wouldn´t be good news while in a hot dogfight, agreed.  
I do not question that the P-80´s centrifugal powerplant is better than the Jumo´s axial for the Me-262. But I still believe that the axial design is the only reasonable for the Me-262 airframe. Centrifugal jet engines have a huge size in diameter, this would generate very large engine nacelles and further increasing the weight and drag (and reducing the crit mach) on this airframe.I do also believe that some of the Jumo´s shortcomings would have been solved with proper heat resistant alloys for later Me-262. The Jumo-004 E went in serial production in russia as the RD-10F, also.
However, it is hard to ignore the advantages (speed, agility, air brake, weapon systems) of the P-80 over the Me-262, if you factor them properly you will find a lot of reasons why a P-80A could outmatch a Me-262.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 7, 2005)

delcyros said:


> However, it is hard to ignore the advantages (speed, agility, air brake, weapon systems) of the P-80 over the Me-262, if you factor them properly you will find a lot of reasons why a P-80A could outmatch a Me-262.



Agreed! 

Keep in mind that when initially engaging, yes you want to go in with speed, but not to the point where the aircraft is already bufferting.


----------



## Glider (May 7, 2005)

The debate between the P80 and the Me262 is an interesting one, but can I ask for peoples opinion of the Meteor III as a comparison to the 262 or the Mk 4 against the P80. 
I say this as they seem to be the best comparison timescale wise.

To start off with, 
Weapons
I believe that the 20m Mk V is better than either the 0.5 in the P80 or the 30mm in the 262. Its rate of fire was 12.5 rds per second compared with 13 rds per second of the 0.5. in other words no difference at all. MV was 830 m/s compared with 890 which is a little less but not a disaster. The weight of the shell is 130 grammes compared with 43 in the 0.5 which would help with the slightly lower MV and improve the trajectory. The weight of fire is probably 4 to 1 in favour of the 20mm. When you add the difference in explosive content in each shell and its case closed.

Agility
Mk 3 would be a decent match for the 262 but roll could be difficult as the controls were made heavy to reduce the chances of stressing the aircraft.
Mk 4 sorted these problems out and had a noticable increase in its power but would almost certainly lose out to the P80 in the agility stakes but would probably do well in the vertical axix due to its additional power. In Korea the Meteor was outclassed by the F86 and Mig 15 as a fighter but found its mark in GA due to the additional thrust.

Range
For a jet fighter of the period I think the Meteor did quite well

Pilots
For the purposes of this I think we have to assume that the pilots are well matched. 

An aside. Eric Brown the Test Pilot considered the He 162 to be the best jet fighter at the end of the war. It should be noted that he was probably the only pilot with combat experience who had flown all the jets then in existance both, British, German and American.

As ever all comments welcome


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 7, 2005)

Glider said:


> The debate between the P80 and the Me262 is an interesting one, but can I ask for peoples opinion of the Meteor III as a comparison to the 262 or the Mk 4 against the P80.
> I say this as they seem to be the best comparison timescale wise.
> 
> To start off with,
> ...



I worked for two individuals who operated T-33s, a Meteor NF-11, and a Vampire F-3. These guys would take these things and go ripping across the dessert on many weekends during days when home heating oil was cheap and commonly run in these types of jets registered here in the states before rules changes this. I spoke one of the owners today and he said the T-33 was definitely faster, but the vampire was more maneuverable, however the T-33 could "keep up" if you flew it without the tip tanks. He went on to state that the Meteor excelerated very quickly and was very sturdy in the air. I know we're talking earlier models and single seat versions (P-80 vs T-33) but this might give you an idea how these planes stacked up to each other. These guys are still alive but have given up these aircraft to other owners or museums.


----------



## Glider (May 7, 2005)

FJ, Thanks for your comments. Don't yuou just wish you could have toys like this!!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 8, 2005)

Glider said:


> FJ, Thanks for your comments. Don't yuou just wish you could have toys like this!!



It was great working for these guys when I lived in California, like a kid in a candy store! I go back there at least once a year to work with these guys, they always have some project going where they need my help. For the most part they pay me well, but I'm not into it for the money, I have memories with these guys that will put a wide grin on my face when I'm 10 feet under!


----------



## Nonskimmer (May 8, 2005)

Good info there, FJ.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 8, 2005)

Thanks!


----------



## delcyros (May 8, 2005)

Indeed, Flyboy, I would think the same. I had once the opportunity to visit (again and again and...)the restauration of the Horten flying wing gliders in Berlin. These have been handled over from NASM for restauration. Just the same, like a child in a candy shop!
But back to Glider:
I think the Meteor MK III is not a real contender in an dogfight against either, a Me-262 or a P-80. It lacks so much in speed (473 mp/h against 540mph (Me-262) resp. 577 mp/h (P-80)...), acceleration and crit mach. Without proper initiative it would soon go running for it´s life. And the Meteor makes a comparably big target to hit...
The MK IV, however, is more reasonable to do so. With almost twice the power output of either a Me-262 or a P-80 it could accelerate and climb much better. It top speed is great, no doubt. And the combination of a high powerload with a low wingload makes it highly agile for medium speeds, as long as not turned flat. And it still suffers from a low crit Mach with all it´s disadvantages. At the time the MK-IV is probable to arrive on the continent it would face a better generation of Me-262 (discussed above) and probably a numerically larger german jet air fleet.I agree that the He-162 is -with all it´s shortcomings-probably the best single jet dogfighter. Nimble, fast, agile and very tiny, a plane often underrated. The P-80 on the other hand is a great allrounder, I just ask myself how the Vampire would have done. It also is a potent jet fighter.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 8, 2005)

delcyros said:


> I just ask myself how the Vampire would have done. It also is a potent jet fighter.



You know some componenets were made out of wood?!? I was really surprised to see that, even in an early jet fighter!


----------



## Glider (May 8, 2005)

Delcryos, thanks for your comments which I would find it hard to disagree with. I hadn't thought of the Vampire, don't know why, but it had a reputation for being an agile thing and FJ's comments would back that up.
Vampires and Venoms were used across the world in a number of countries for a long time after the war. There must have been something in it.
So what do you think, He162 for Germany, Vampire for the UK and P80 for the USA?


----------



## delcyros (May 9, 2005)

8) If we compare single engined fighter (which would have an agility advantage under dogfight circumstances) this would be a comparable jet competition. Both, the Vampire as well as the He-162 have a metal fuselage and wooden wings, especially the wooden wings are often questioned because of concernings about their stiffnes during high subsonic speeds. Well, if you use proper methods and the right glue agent, you will reduce these concernings to a high degree. On the other side the heat factor is counting more and more as you enclose to the speed of sound. 
The P-80 is free of these shortcomings, it bears an all metal structure, making the airframe more reliable than either He-162 or Vampire.The Vampire has the advantage of the better accelleration, the He-162 is by far the most maneuverable, the P-80 has the best high altitude performance. Crit Mach goes to the He-162 with it´s sleek wings, it also is the smallest plane, a hard target to hit, but it has a comparably low punch with two Mg151/20, only. As well as the shortest range. The P-80 without wingtip tanks is an excellent plane in many aspects. 
However, I would not rate the He-162 A as the best german jet plane, while it was serial equipped with an early ejection seat, fast (905+ Km/h) and nimble it also was a bit shortlegged. The Me-262 is more versatile and by far the best bomber interceptor (making it the more important plane of both) but not a great dogfighter as the He-162 was. Maybe if we add the He-162 C with its swept back wings, but this is (like the Me-262 HG) not a historic development in the timeframe till wars end.


----------



## evangilder (May 9, 2005)

I watched a special about Luftwaffe experimental aircraft and one of the problems with the He-162 was the glue that held the wings on. There was footage of the wings popping off because the glues they used were not very good.


----------



## delcyros (May 9, 2005)

The special series of pictures (originally from a b/w small-movie) are connected to the fatal accident of the He-162 V-1 on 10th of december 1944. This was the date of the official introduction of the new Heinkel peoples fighter (the official maiden flight was on december the 6th). This accident originated in the wrong glue agent, you mentioned. This was figured out and the problem was solved. It belongs to the V-1, V-2, V-3 and V-4, only (they have been ordered to fly them at speeds of 500 Km/h, only because of this). It is not a general problem to be connected with the He-162. However, its lifetime wasn´t that long, resulting in another accident of a He-162 with a british pilot in post war times. The biggest advantage of the He-162 was the much more reliable powerplant. The BMW-003 E-0, E-1 and E-2 are very reliable and not that sensitive to throttle settings (esspecially compared to the Me-262´s Jumo-004 B)and they have a slightly higher lifetime. This powerplant also weights less than a Jumo and it produces for 30 seconds a higher thrust (920-930 Kp instead of 800 under normal 100% power setting, call it overrew). Unlinke the Me-262, this allows the pilot to maneuvre the plane up to the pilots confidence. I think there are four claims of aerial victories of the He-162 from which one has been confirmed officially by the Luftwaffe:
No.--------date----------area--------pilot------------------eyewitnesses-----
1---------?2./3.45------Lechfeld--Ot Ihlefeldt----------- Fw. Sell
2----------19.4.45------Ngerm----Fw G. Kirchner-------captured british pilot
3a--------26.4.45------Ngerm----Uff Rechenberger----Olt Demuth, Stabint Siegfried
3b--------2.5.45-------Ngerm----Uff Rechenberger----*probably identical with 3a, in my mind the date of this claim is false (e.g. 26.4., since Rechenberger died on that date)
4---------4.5.45--------Ngerm---Lt R. Schmitt----------Htm H. Künncke

Plane types: #1: ? ;#2: P-47; #3a/b: Typhon/Tempest; #4: Typhon/Tempest 
No. 2 (Fw. G. Kirchner) was officially (posthumus) confirmed by the Luftwaffe, since the british pilot shot down was captured and interrogated. He stated that a He-162 like plane got him down. Kirchner died while shot down by another P-47 during landing procedure.

While the He-162 is a good dogfighter (if flown by a good pilot, since additional training for this plane is needed, just like the ww1 Sopwith Camel)it still suffered from a fuel gulping engine (compared to the D.H. Ghost or J-33), many of the losses of 1./JG1 can be connected with planes simply running out of fuel.


----------



## evangilder (May 9, 2005)

Thanks for the clarification. They didn't delve too deeply into the glue issue. They did say that it would prove a difficult target to hit, especiaaly since it made a small target.


----------



## Glider (May 9, 2005)

Re the 162 I have an article written by Eric Brown on what it was like to fly the 162. 
Harmony of control is described as excellent with the rudder a little light. The aircraft had excellent directional snaking characteristics and it was a good gun platform. Handling at 30,000 ft still displayed very good handling and control. Rate of roll at 400mph was the highest he ever experienced outside hydraulically ailerons and the stick forces were still light. Minimum looping speed was around 350mph and stall characteristics gentle.
Landing was an area where care had to be taken as you couldn't go around again once the engine was set to idle, the landing approach speed was 125mph and touchdown at around 105. The elevator was powerful and it could be used to keep the nose up reducing the landing run to a considerable degree. 
Its Achilles heel was the rudder and fin assembly which was weak and if used excessivley would break off. Interestingly he doesn't mention the glue problem in the entire article. 
I would suggest that the 2 x 20mm MG151's were as good as the P80's 6 x 0.5. The 151 was as good as the UK 20mm. A little light for taking on a B17 or B24 but nore than enough for a fighter.
Theres a what if for you, The Me262 to go for the bombers escorted by He 162 to take care of the escort. A scary thought as the Germans were very close to such a combination.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 10, 2005)

Although we hear the accolades of the Mosquito, I could tell you maintaining and repairing any wood aircraft could be a nightmare, especially if you have ill trained maintenance personnel. Just to plug a hole in a wood structure could be a real nightmare, heaven forbid you get a round through a spar!

The glue issue was probably fact as this is common on many wood or wood/ composite aircraft.


----------



## delcyros (May 10, 2005)

Agreed, the glue issue is a general manufacturing problem. The Ta-154 was faded out because of this. On the other side, the Ho-IX wasn´t. they did not got the fuel resistent glue from Dynamit Nobel (Troisdorf) AG but they got the same (AeDx-310), which also was used for the He-162. Carefule methods are needed to handle that glue properly. In case of the He-162 V-1 they made several mistakes at the Heinkel plant at Rostock-Marienehe:

1) dry areas on the nose spars (not careful enough glued)
2) the wooden nose rips did not had the proper thickness (reduced stiffness)
3) wrong metals used in the airleron-wing connections
These are the reasons for the accident on 10th of december. Had they not found out what´s wrong, the complete project would have been canceled in days.
The wooden structure remained a bit suspect, since the plans for He-162 B and C with swept forward/ resp. -back wings would take dural or steel wings.The claim of the good He-162 weapon platform is a bit suspect to me, since the He-162 A-1 with it´s two 30 mm MK108, because it wasn´t stable enough, was replaced by the He-162 A-2 with it´s two 20 mm MG 151. I disagree that two MG 151/20 are comparable to the 6 0.50 M3 (more probable M2) of the P-80A. They don´t have the volume of fire or the striking velocity. You may argue that a 20 mm HE grenade cause more damage and is more probable to ignite the early US jet fuel than a 0.50 to ignite the german jet fuel. However the two 20 mm of the He-162 A-2 are more reasonable to destroy a fighter than the low velocity 30 mm MK 108.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 10, 2005)

When using glues on aircraft wood structures also consider cleanliness requirements. This could be a major problem in a combat environment. You should have clean surroundings, methods to thoroughly clean the structure to be glued, methods to keep the structure clean during the curing process etc. Metal structures are so much easier to repair and environmental cleanliness is generally not a problem. When completing a sheet metal repair, the only environmental worries to be considered is cleaning the interior of the aircraft structure from metal shavings and any other debris left behind during the repair process.


----------



## delcyros (May 14, 2005)

Using wood has both, advantages and disadvanteges over metal surfaces.
One point important for the He-162 is the weight: Using wooden wings will decrease the weight (important if you have such a low thrust powerplant). Another problem is the avaiability of metals. Dural was comparably rare in late war Germany, so they depend on even heavier steel.
The next point is the productivity: Unlike the Me-262 or P-80 the He-162 wasn´t constructed to be used over years. It was designed as a comparably short living plane. Therefore it was important to reduce the construction time of this particular plane (in order to field enourmeous numbers in short time).
For Dural an average german production plant needs 2200 Kw/h energy for working out a single Kg (1000 Kw/h per single lbs), while you need only 2-3 Kw/h per Kg for wooden structures. The time is also staggering: Dural: 5000 hours per ton for working it out on a plane, while wood needs only 200 hours. You also don´t depend on very skilled labours, if using wood instead of Dural.
The costs for this are both, the reduced cleanliness you mentioned and a higher weather dependence factor.
Even for the damage profile a wooden wing is ambivalent: Some damages would be more devasterous on metal wings (HE based grenade hits for example) some would be less (the probability of a low velocity hit to glance off is higher on a metal one).
There have been good reasons to favour the wooden wing in the He-162 at all. Resulting in an uncomparable production program. In only 5 months the plane got from construction board to operational status. Some 114 planes delivered to the Luftwaffe and around 800 airframes produced by wars end. Quantity has it´s own quality.
However, the He-162 (except for its ejection seat) is not as advanced as either, the P-80 or Me-262, but it´s probably the better dogfighter.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 14, 2005)

Weight and producibility are a definite plus in this area considering that you are are building a "throwaway" as mentioned. I could tell you however that repairing wood aircraft structures, if accomplished wrong, is very unforgiving as opposed to an aluminum aircraft. As a maintainer myself, I shy away from working on wood structures for that reason. I have aircraft owners take their aircraft to guys who specialize in wood and fabric. I personnaly like sheet metal.


----------



## delcyros (May 14, 2005)

Understandable. I use to specialise on wood for gliders. They do need some careful handling, those old planes...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 7, 2005)

Well I know that this is late in the game here but I just noticed something about this topic. The stats that are being used in the comparison are very unreliable anyhow. 

He is using a max speed that was not obtained until 1946. Now I agree that had the war continued then yes the two would have met. But at the time the two aircraft were in the airtother this was not known.

Dont take me wrong though. The P-80 could have proven better than the Me-262 but one also has to take into account why the P-80 did not see combat. And that would be because it was just as unreliable as the 262. She sufferered many crashes due to engine problems and fires. One of the 2 sent to England in 1945 before the war ended crashed because of an engine fire and hence the fleet was grounded.

Secondly since this is sort of a "What if comparison" had the war carried into 1946 surely the P-80 would have fought against the Ta-183 and the P.1101. Both of these aircraft would have out performed turned and flew better than the P-80.


----------



## delcyros (Jul 16, 2005)

A problem why the speed figure wasn´t acieved prior to 1946 lays in the avaiability of the engine: The J-33 radial engine, which was responsible for it´s 577 mp/h speed was first bench tested to 4.000 lbs in early september 1944 ! If you count the additional time to check and produce a number of them, it´s clear that the J-33 simply wasn´t avaiable in numbers. A number of planes, esspecially the XP-80´s have been fitted with J-36, which barely made 2.700 lbs of thrust. Such a powerplant could only secure a speed of around 505-515 mp/h and reducing the thrust to weight ratio to only 0.20 (compared to 0.27-0.28 of the Me-262). But in the end there is no way to deny that the J-33 would have fitted most of the P-80´s in the timeframe, Lunatic wanted, so it´s okey.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 16, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Dont take me wrong though. The P-80 could have proven better than the Me-262 but one also has to take into account why the P-80 did not see combat. And that would be because it was just as unreliable as the 262. She sufferered many crashes due to engine problems and fires. One of the 2 sent to England in 1945 before the war ended crashed because of an engine fire and hence the fleet was grounded.



While you do have a point there Adler, keep in mind that the same problems that grounded the P-80 fleet (BY AAF direction) would have been noted, investigated and repaired "On the fly" by the Luftwaffe. I think the USAAF was very conservative by 1945 standards in deploying and grounding the P-80 fleet - remember, many western leaders thought that their jet technology was more advanced than Germany's!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 17, 2005)

You are correct. It is also understandable why the USAAF was conservative. They had to oppurtunity to be so unlike the Luftwaffe which had to push them out as quickly as possible.


----------



## syscom3 (Sep 14, 2005)

I was just looking at the German expected production numbers of the jets.

I doubt the Luftwaffe had a training program in place to allow enough time to get pilots in the cockpits that were minimally qualified for it.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 16, 2005)

I believe they recieved most of there training in combat.


----------



## Erich (Sep 16, 2005)

it was about a 3 hour training session if that long.....


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 16, 2005)

Yeap and then off to more than likely die.


----------



## balburdio (Nov 4, 2005)

Anonymous said:


> Just for fun, lets compare the Me262 to the P-80, since had WWII proceeded into fall 1945 these two jets would surely have met in combat.
> 
> *Me262-1A Specifications -*
> *Engines:* 2 x Jumo-004B engines with 1,980 lb S.T. (900 kg) each.
> ...



Numbers wold speak for themselves...if they were correct.

You are, like all tendencious people do, comparing the best of a type with the worst of anhoter type.
The P-80A didn't perform all that well, in those ages, it was very unreliable with many engine troubles and max speed was only 792Km/h

It then improved with time but so whold the Me


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 4, 2005)

balburdio said:


> Anonymous said:
> 
> 
> > Just for fun, lets compare the Me262 to the P-80, since had WWII proceeded into fall 1945 these two jets would surely have met in combat.
> ...



WOULDA SHOULDA COULDA


----------



## balburdio (Nov 5, 2005)

Anonymous said:


> I certainly agree. However, when making this particular comparison the "specs" are all we have to go by. The P-80 never faced the Me262 in combat. It did face the Mig-15, but that plane was far superior to either of them.
> 
> As for the armament, I totally disagree. The 6 x .50's were far superior for dogfighting than the 4 x MK108's. It is unlikely that the Me262 would have been able to hit the P-80 from any range beyond 100 meters (and even that would require an expert marksmen), where the P-80 could have reached out over 400 meters and touched the 262. The MK108 was an anti-bomber weapon, nearly useless in a high speed dogfight.
> 
> ...



The planes were built for quite diferent porpoises.
The P-80 was still prety much on tests, but intended as an escort fighter. The Me-262 was designed as a bomber killer.
The fact is that both aircrafts are quite hard to maneuver at high speeds since their relatively weak engines wold led to great speed loss.

The specs are all wrong, the P-80A WW2 series performances were:
P-80A
engines: J33-GE11 or J33-A-9 centrifugal flow turbojet at 3850lbst
max speed: 
sea level: 558 mph
40.000ft : 492 mph
climb rate : 4580 ft/min (in fact 20.000 ft in 5.5 min)
max ceiling:45.000 ft
range : 780m combat; 1440m max
weapons: 6 .50 cal MGs

ME-262A1:
Engines 2xJumo 004B 1984 lbst totaling 3968lbst , axial flow turbojet
(the axial-flow type performs better as air-speed and altitude increases)
max speed: 
sea level : +/- 540 mph
20.000ft : 540 mph
climb rate: 1200m/min (3937 ft/min)
max ceiling: 37.729 ft
range : 650 m
weapons:
Me-262A1a : 4 MK-108 30mm cannon
Me-262A1a/U1 : 2 MK-103 30mm cannon, 2 MK-108, 2 MG-151 20mm
Me-262A-1b : 4 MK-108 , 24 R4/M 55mm rockets
(soon wold be armed with Ruhrstahl/Kramer X-4 wire guided AA missiles)

----
Has for the guns, Me-262s were flown by top german aces, like many P-52 pilots discovered, the Mk-108 cold kill a P-51 with just one shot at it.
And german pilots soon mastered that art.

The early version P-80 was regarded by pilots as a flying dead-trap, many good pilots, WW-II veterans died in it.
----
to finalize, if the war went on, the germans had far better machines than the Me-262 like the:
Ho-229 (607 mph, stealth, wold be armed with the X-4 missile +4 MK-108)
He-162 (562 mph, 2 MG 151, wold be armed with MK-108)
Focke-Wulf Ta-183 Huckebein (the planed replacement/complement for the Me-262)
speed: 596 mph (expected)
weapons : 4x MK-108
The war ended before initial flights but after the war this design was used in several contries:
russia : MIG-15
sweden: J29 Tunnan
Argentina: Kurt Tank's Pulqui II
all of them were far superior fighters.
The fact is, the germans lost the war because of Hitler megalomaniac ideias, not because they didn't had the "right stuff"


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 5, 2005)

balburdio said:


> The fact is, the germans lost the war because of Hitler megalomaniac ideias, not because they didn't had the "right stuff"



Agree - my point is the P-80 did improve and would of improved much quicker had the war lasted longer. All the mods that went into the "B" and "C" models were ready to be implemented in 1945, the government didn't want any disruption in the production line. Into the "C" models and into the T-33 the aircraft served well, it was reliable and easy to fly.

The statement that many pilots died while flying the early P-80 is not really true. We know about Bong and Tony LeVeir had a compressor wheel come apart on one he was flying, but the P-80 was no more deadly than any other early jet, it fact i believe it was more reliable. What killed pilots in early jets were the fact that they were hard to spool up (engine thrust) and hard to slow down. Many pilots (German, British and American) were killed during takeoff and landing because of this, you had to always be 30 seconds ahead of the aircraft as opposed to high performance WW2 piston engine aircraft


----------



## plan_D (Nov 5, 2005)

The Go-229 wasn't stealth. And the X-4 wouldn't be capable of anti-fighter duty, it's cable guided and the mother-ship has to be on a stable run for at least ten seconds before breaking away.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 6, 2005)

And the 262 was also not originally designed as a bomber killer either. It was a bomber.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 6, 2005)

And the Ho-229 and Ta-183 stats are all well and good, but there was no fuel to power them or ammo to arm them. Ta-152's and He-162's were already experiencing this at the wars end and they were already in minor production.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 6, 2005)

Plus the Ta-183 and the Ho-229 are still speculation since they did not actually fly. The 229 flew as a glider but not under jet power. I personally believe the believed performance for these 2 aircraft to be reasonalbe and believable but we will never know.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 6, 2005)

Also had the war gone on longer, Kurt Tank would probably not have gone to Argentina and the Pulqui II would not have materialised at the time.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 6, 2005)

Maybe it would have materialized in Germany? Who knows?


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 6, 2005)

Well wasnt the Pulqui pretty much the Ta-183 anyway? If it is then I know.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 6, 2005)

I believe it was based off of his design for the Ta-183 but it is not exactly the same.


----------



## Parmigiano (Nov 7, 2005)

Adler, the Go 229 did actually fly with jet power, it actually crashed because of engine flame out during landing approach. There are posts in other threads, I also remember to have posted pictures of the 229 taxying but I don't remember where ...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 7, 2005)

Hmm I dont recall that, but I could be wrong.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 7, 2005)

You are correct, I just looked back into my files and read that. I just did not remember for some reason.


----------



## balburdio (Nov 8, 2005)

plan_D said:


> The Go-229 wasn't stealth. And the X-4 wouldn't be capable of anti-fighter duty, it's cable guided and the mother-ship has to be on a stable run for at least ten seconds before breaking away.



Actualy it was, by then, almost ABSOLUTELY stealth!, since most WW2 radars were incapable of picking up things like birds.
And the radar cross section of the HO-229 was lower than the F-117 one(a much larger aircraft).

The plane was made of a special kind of plywood and covered with a radar absorbing paint (that suposedly state of the art technology is in fact old news, and like many other things it's a german WW2 invention).

Fightersweren't realy the main problem for germany. Alone they coldn't win no war. Bombers cold! 
A transonic fighter JG armed with X-4 missiles cold wipe out an entire bomber formation before the fighter escort cold even react.

As for the 10 seconds rule, get real! The X-4 had a speed of 325m/s so in 10 seconds it cold travel 3250m, thats almost maximum range.
The only problem with the X-4 was the manual guidance, requiring a second crew member to operate the weapon. So only 2 seaters were adequate to use the weapon, the single seaters wold escort the bomber killers


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 8, 2005)

balburdio said:


> Actualy it was, by then, almost ABSOLUTELY stealth!, since most WW2 radars were incapable of picking up things like birds.
> And the radar cross section of the HO-229 was lower than the F-117 one(a much larger aircraft).



Very true, but I remembering reading that the Stealth characteristic was more by accident rather than an intentional design characteristic. The Mosquito was "Stealthy" not by intent...


----------



## evangilder (Nov 8, 2005)

If you are referring to the Jauman absorber, it was not paint and was only used on submarines as the absorbent material was 3 inches thick. Radar Absorbent Material or RAM, was concurrently being developed in America, Germany and Britain. To call it a German invention is a bit of a stretch. I also don't think it would have been practical for an airplane in 1945. If it had, there would have been planes made with that material in the 1950s.


----------



## balburdio (Nov 8, 2005)

FLYBOYJ said:


> balburdio said:
> 
> 
> > The fact is, the germans lost the war because of Hitler megalomaniac ideias, not because they didn't had the "right stuff"
> ...



Veterans praised the Mustang, but not a single one had a nice word for the P-80. There is a reson for that!
P-80 development and early operational problems were eventualy mitigated, but the shooting star realy earned it's name, the hard way.

In the end of the war, the huckebein was ready for testing, wind tunnel tests revealed incredible (for the time) all round performances. It wold become the follow on for the Me-262 and the volksjagger. 

The B and C models were only available in 1947, after the US got it's hands on secret german research material.
One of the german inspired mods was the ejector seat, absent in early models.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 8, 2005)

balburdio said:


> FLYBOYJ said:
> 
> 
> > balburdio said:
> ...



The initial design for the first P-80 "Hot Seat" was started in 1944, Kelly Johnson stated that during a Lockheed management Club meeting I attended in 1982. It was stated by him that the last thing the AAF wanted to do was disrupt the production line. I don't know what veterans you are referring to disliking the P-80, Robin Olds flew -38s, -51s and thre P/F-80 and talked about new technology teething pains, but that's about it.

The Seats developed after the war had some German influance, in fact US Air Force research showed that the Heinkel ballistic system was not powerful enough to use on anticipated Air Force jet aircraft, as the catapult velocity was insufficient for safe ejection at the new Lockheed P-80's maximum operating speed.


----------



## balburdio (Nov 8, 2005)

FLYBOYJ said:


> balburdio said:
> 
> 
> > Actualy it was, by then, almost ABSOLUTELY stealth!, since most WW2 radars were incapable of picking up things like birds.
> ...



The mosquito "stealthness" was an accident, but not the the HO-229 's
It was designed with that intent. 

So secret was the weapon, that the americans toke extra planning to capture it (yes, they knew of it's existance) so they launch a massive preliminary bombing raid on Thuringia, sparing the development complexes but killing some 8000 civilians around the area, just to prevent a possible evacuation of critical material.
The area was supposed to be on the planned russian offensive path. But Eisenhower spare no eforts to secure Thuringia long enough to allow the transfer to US soil of all german research material he cold find.
It's a known fact that at least 5 ME-262 were assembled under US orders in the german factory.

Aircraft historian Curtiss Peebles, in his "Dark Eagles: A History of Top Secret U.S. Aircraft Programs" (Presidio, 1995) relates just abouth ALL post war US jet development with assets, plans and personel transfered from germany to US in the so called "operation papper clip".
Face it! Like Von Brown said in the "right stuff": -'howr germans are better than their's!'. 
You see, back in the 50s and 60s, aerospace technology was just another word for "volunteered german scientists"


----------



## balburdio (Nov 8, 2005)

FLYBOYJ said:


> The initial design for the first P-80 "Hot Seat" was started in 1944, Kelly Johnson stated that during a Lockheed management Club meeting I attended in 1982. It was stated by him that the last thing the AAF wanted to do was disrupt the production line. I don't know what veterans you are referring to disliking the P-80, Robin Olds flew -38s, -51s and thre P/F-80 and talked about new technology teething pains, but that's about it.
> 
> The Seats developed after the war had some German influance, in fact US Air Force research showed that the Heinkel ballistic system was not powerful enough to use on anticipated Air Force jet aircraft, as the catapult velocity was insufficient for safe ejection at the new Lockheed P-80's maximum operating speed.



Yeap, and you expect those guys to be telling the truth, right!!
Sure!! American did made one great development in aerospace science back then: spin doctoring!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 8, 2005)

balburdio said:


> The mosquito "stealthness" was an accident, but not the the HO-229 's
> It was designed with that intent.



Not denying this statement, but do you have proof of this? The reason why I ask is I've written many articles on Stealth Technology and it would of been apparent that this technology, if in full bloom would of been exploited right after the war. Lockheed engineers played with he concept during the 1950s developing "Iron Ball" paint and finally developing RAM material used on the leading edges of the SR-71's wings. Stealth wasn't taken seriously until the 1970s when "Have Blue" came on scene and the works of Russian mathematician Pyotr Ufimtsev was exploited. It just seems that if US intelligence was real interested in this, the technology would of blossomed much sooner.


----------



## balburdio (Nov 8, 2005)

evangilder said:


> If you are referring to the Jauman absorber, it was not paint and was only used on submarines as the absorbent material was 3 inches thick. Radar Absorbent Material or RAM, was concurrently being developed in America, Germany and Britain. To call it a German invention is a bit of a stretch. I also don't think it would have been practical for an airplane in 1945. If it had, there would have been planes made with that material in the 1950s.



uhh, big confusion!!
Jauman is an early type of RAM material. I'am talking about paint, not material. Not the same thing you know?

As for the last argument, same thing goes for the swept wing, the ME-262 and the He-162 had swept-wings, but only 10 years lather wold the US adopt a swept-wing fighter (the F-86)


P.S.
A British BIOS report entitled "Production and Further Investigation of Wesch Anti-Radar Material, CIOS Black List Item 1 RADAR, BIOS Target No. 1/549" details the production of many types of RAM material by the germans with several intents in mind, including the so called "Schwarzflugzeug" (black aircraft) client project.

P.S. II
A more recent german come-back:
http://www.xmsnet.nl/hdejong/curious/Lampyridae.htm


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 8, 2005)

balburdio said:


> As for the last argument, same thing goes for the swept wing, the ME-262 and the He-162 had swept-wings, but only 10 years lather wold the US adopt a swept-wing fighter (the F-86)



Now that's incorrect - the first US fighter with swept back wings was the XP-55. The 86s wings were swept back in 1947. the -163 did not have a swept back wing, the -262 wasn't flying in 1937....

Work on the NA-134 project began in the late autumn of 1944. The NA-134 had a straight, thin-section wing set low on a rather tubby fuselage. It featured a straight-through flow of air from the nose intake to the jet exhaust that exited the aircraft under a straight tailplane. The wing was borrowed directly from the P-51D, and had a laminar-flow airfoil. It was to be powered by a single General Electric TG-180 gas turbine which was a license-built version of the de Havilland Goblin. The TG-180 was designated J35 by the military and was an 11-stage axial-flow turbojet which offered 4000 lb.s.t. at sea level. The Navy ordered three prototypes of the NA-134 under the designation XFJ-1 on January 1, 1945. On May 28, 1945, the Navy approved a contract for 100 production FJ-1s (NA-141). 

At the same time that North American was beginning to design the Navy's XFJ-1, the USAAF issued a requirement for a medium-range day fighter which could also be used as an escort fighter and a dive bomber. Specifications called for a speed of at least 600 mph, since the Republic XP-84 Thunderjet already under construction promised 587 mph. On Nov 22, 1944, the company's RD-1265 design study proposed a version of the XFJ-1 for the Air Force to meet this requirement. This design was known in company records as NA-140. The USAAF was sufficiently impressed that they issued a Letter Contract on May 18, 1945 which authorized the acquisition of three NA-140 aircraft under the designation XP-86. 

The Navy's XFJ-1 design had to incorporate some performance compromises in order to support low-speed carrier operations, but the land-based USAAF XP-86 version was not so constrained and had a somewhat thinner wing and a slimmer fuselage with a high fineness ratio. However, the XP-86 retained the tail surfaces of the XFJ-1. 

The XP-86 incorporated several features not previously used on fighter aircraft, including a fully-pressurized cockpit and hydraulically-boosted ailerons and elevators. Armament was the standard USAAF equipment of the era--six 0.50-inch Browning M3 machine guns that fired at 1100 rounds per minute, with 267 rounds per gun. The aircraft was to use the Sperry type A-1B gun/bomb/rocket sight, working in conjunction with an AN/APG-5 ranging radar. Rocket launchers could be added underneath the wings to carry up to 8 5-inch HVARs. Self-sealing fuel tanks were to be fitted, and the pilot was to be provided with some armor plating around the cockpit area. 

In the XP-86, a ten percent ratio of wing thickness to chord was used to extend the critical Mach number to 0.9. Wingspan was to be 38 feet 2 1/2 inches, length was 35 feet 6 inches, and height was 13 feet 2 1/2 inches. Four speed brakes were to be attached above and below the wings. At a gross weight of 11,500 pounds, the XP-86 was estimated to be capable of achieving a top speed of 574 mph at sea level and 582 mph at 10,000 feet, still below the USAAF requirement. Initial climb rate was to be 5850 feet per minute and service ceiling was to be 46,000 feet. Combat radius was 297 miles with 410 gallons of internal fuel, but could be increased to 750 miles by adding a 170 gallon drop tank to each wingtip. As it would turn out, these performance figures were greatly exaggerated. 

A mock-up of the XP-86 was built and approved on June 20, 1945. However, early wind tunnel tests indicated that the airframe of the XP-86 would not be able to reach the desired speed of 600 mph. It is highly likely that the XP-86 project would have been cancelled at this time were it not for some unusual developments. 

After the surrender of Germany in May of 1945, the USAAF (along with a lot of other air forces) was keenly interested in obtaining information about the latest German jet fighters and in learning as much as they could about secret German wartime research on jet propulsion, rocket power, and ballistic missiles. American teams were selected from industry and research institutions and sent into occupied Germany to investigate captured weapons research data, microfilm it, and ship it back to the USA. 

*By the summer of 1945, a lot of German data was pouring in, much of it as yet untranslated into English. As it turned out, German aeronautical engineers had wind-tunnel tested just about every aerodynamic shape that the human mind could conceive of, even some ideas even only remotely promising. A particular German paper dated 1940 reported that wind tunnel tests showed that there were some significant advantages offered by swept wings at speeds of about Mach 0.9. A straight-winged aircraft was severely affected by compressibility effects as sonic speed was approached, but the use of a swept wing delayed the effects of shock waves and permitted better control at these higher speeds. Unfortunately, German research also indicated that the use of wing sweep introduced some undesirable wing tip stall and low-speed stability effects. American researchers had also encountered similar problem with the swept-wing Curtiss XP-55 Ascender, which was so unstable that it flipped over on its back and fell out of the sky on one of its test flights. 

In 1940, these German studies were of only theoretical interest, since no powerplants were available even remotely capable of reaching such speeds. However, such studies caught the attention of North American engineers trying to figure out ways to improve the performance of their XP-86. 

It would do no good to build an aircraft capable of high speeds that would be so unstable that it would fall out of the sky at low speeds. The cure for the low-speed stability problem that was worked out by North American engineers was to attach automatic slats to the wing leading edges. The wing slats were entirely automatic, and opened and closed in response to aerodynamic forces. When the slats opened, the changed airflow over the upper wing surface increased the lift and produced lower stalling speeds. At high speeds, the slats automatically closed to minimize drag. 

In August of 1945, project aerodynamicist L. P. Greene proposed to Raymond Rice that a swept-wing configuration for the P-86 be adopted. Wind tunnel tests carried out in September of 1945 confirmed the reduction in drag at high subsonic speeds as well as the beneficial effect of the slats on low speed stability. The limiting Mach number was raised to 0.875. 

Based on these wind-tunnel studies, a new design for a swept-wing P-86 was submitted to the USAAF in the fall of 1945. The USAAF was impressed, and on November 1, 1945 it readily approved the proposal. This was one of the most important decisions ever made by the USAAF--had they not agreed to this change, the history of the next forty years would undoubtedly have been quite different. 

North American's next step was to choose the aspect ratio of the swept wing. A larger aspect ratio would give better range, a narrower one better stability, and the correct choice would obviously have to be a tradeoff between the two. Further tests carried out between late October and mid November indicated that a wing aspect ratio of 6 would be satisfactory, and such an aspect ratio had been planned for in the proposal accepted on November 1. However, early in 1946 additional wind tunnel tests indicated that stability with such a narrow wing would be too great a problem, and in March the design reverted to a shorter wingform. An aspect ratio of 4.79, a sweep-back of 35 degrees, and a thickness/chord ratio of 11% at the root and 10% at the tip was finally chosen. 

All of these changes lengthened the time scale of the P-86 development in comparison to that of the Navy's XFJ-1. The XFJ-1 took to the air for the first time on November 27, 1946, but the XP-86 still had almost a year more of work ahead of it before it was ready for its first flight. 

On February 28, 1946, the mockup of the swept-winged XP-86 was inspected and approved. In August of 1946, the basic engineering drawings were made available to the manufacturing shop of North American, and the first metal was cut. So excited was the USAAF over the performance of the XP-86, on December 20, 1946, a Letter Contract for 33 production P-86As was approved by the USAAF. No service test aircraft were ordered. Although the 4000 lb.s.t. J35 would power the three XP-86 prototypes, production P-86As would be powered by the General Electric TG-190 (J47) turbojet offering 5000 lb.s.t. *
The wing of the P-86 was to be constructed of a double-skin structure with hat sections between layers extending from the center section to the outboard edges of the outer panel fuel tanks. This structure replaced the conventional rib and stringer construction in that region. This new construction provided additional strength and allowed enough space in the wing for fuel tanks. 

The wing-mounted speed brakes originally contemplated for the XP-86 were considered unsuitable for this type of wing, so they were replaced by a hydraulic door-type brake mounted on each side of the rear fuselage and one brake mounted on the bottom of the fuselage in a dorsal position. The speed brakes opened frontwards. These speed brakes had the advantage in that they could be opened at any attitude and speed, including speeds above Mach One. 

The first of three prototypes, 45-59507, was rolled out of the Inglewood factory on August 8, 1947. It was powered by a Chevrolet-built J35-C-3 turbojet rated at 4000 pounds of static thrust. The aircraft was unarmed. After a few ground taxiing and braking tests, it was disassembled and trucked out to Muroc Dry Lake Army Air Base, where it was reassembled. 

Test pilot George "Wheaties" Welch took the XP-86 up into the air for the first time on October 1, 1947. The flight went well until it came time to lower the landing gear and come in for a landing. Welch found to his shock that the nosewheel wouldn't come down all the way. After spending forty minutes in fruitless attempts to shake the nosewheel down into place, Welch finally brought the plane in for a nose-high landing. Fortunately, the impact of the main wheels jolted the nosewheel into place, and the aircraft rolled safely to a stop. The swept-wing XP-86 had made its first flight.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 8, 2005)

Wow I have to say this has all been very very good reading. I did not even know that anyone had developed RAM during WW2. I knew they were researching it but that they developed it, that I did not know.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 8, 2005)

Early "Iron Ball" paint was applied to corning towers and snorkles of US submarines...


----------



## evangilder (Nov 8, 2005)

I have seen no evidence of radar absorbing paint in German aircraft in WWII. Material, yes, paint, no. That was my point. I do know the difference. Joe has already addressed your comment on swept wing designs. I suppose next you are going to tell me that the Germans invented the jet engine?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 8, 2005)

They were not the first but they were developing at the same time as the Brits.  

Even I have not either.


----------



## delcyros (Nov 8, 2005)

May I add some things?

The max speed of the Me-262 a1 at sea level wasn´t 540 mp/h. Why could it be as fast at sea level as it would be in most optimal altitude? Equipped with Jumo-004 B3 or B-4 it could reach around 504 mp/h at sea level at best. A good number wasn´t even capable of 500 mp/h because they have been fitted with -004 B1 or -004 B2 powerplants.
The fastest produced subtype of the Me-262 was either the rocket assisted Me-262 C3 or the Me-262 HG-II. There are no certain datas avaiable (the HG-II with 30 degrees sweep back was damaged during taxiing badly and never took off), but most scholars estimate a top speed (powerplant Jumo-004D4) of something between 575 and 590 mp/h. The HG-I (V-9 prototype) delivered a speed of over 895 Km/h. 
The stealthy abilities of the Ho-229 are possible but unproven. I read an article by it´s designer, Reimar Horten, who wrote in the mid fifties that it was indeed intended to be stealthy, esspeccially for the nightfighter duties. But it should be noted that no wartime evidence supports this claim, it´s post war.
Turingia wasn´t occupied mainly because of the Horten plane.
If you may take a single action than maybe the accumulation of german nuclear material in central Turingia, but even this is very doubtful.
Why has the Me-163 no sweep back? It indeed has.
Why should the He-162 have a sweep back wing? It indeed hasn´t (it was planned, yes, but not executed).
Thanks for your patience.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 8, 2005)

balburdio said:


> Yeap, and you expect those guys to be telling the truth, right!!
> Sure!! American did made one great development in aerospace science back then: spin doctoring!


 Yea and I hate to say it, WHO WON THE WAR!

And I have no reason to disbelieve them - Kelly Johnson (designer of the P-38, P-80, F-104, U-2, and SR-71 and Robin Olds (11 kill ace of WW2 and a 4 kill ace of Viet Nam, retired Brigadiar General), yea right, they have real motive to lie.


----------



## book1182 (Nov 8, 2005)

I have to agree with most people I think and go with the P-80. It had the benefit of coming later than the Me-262. I think if the Me-262 could have been developed more it might have been a closer fight. The Me-262 you have to remember was thrown into combat as a last attempt to stop the allies in world war 2. While the P-80 got to sit it out because the piston engine airplanes were winning for the allies. I would say the if the Me-262 would have had time it would have been just a good as the P-80.


----------



## syscom3 (Nov 8, 2005)

The biggest prob;em with the -262 was its engines were crap. Whether by design or lack of alloys, it doesnt matter.

The Germans had to get their jets in the air ASAP. The allies had the luxury of time to work out the bugs.

Note - once the allies were in Normandy in strength, the defeat of the nazi's was assured. The bombers made things easier, but in the end, the only thing that would have changed was the casualties on the allied side, and whether the Soviets would gotten into Germany sooner.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 9, 2005)

book1182 said:


> I have to agree with most people I think and go with the P-80. It had the benefit of coming later than the Me-262. I think if the Me-262 could have been developed more it might have been a closer fight. The Me-262 you have to remember was thrown into combat as a last attempt to stop the allies in world war 2. While the P-80 got to sit it out because the piston engine airplanes were winning for the allies. I would say the if the Me-262 would have had time it would have been just a good as the P-80.



If the 262 had had better engines the P-80 would have had no chance. Besides by that point if the P-80 had seen combat that would have meant the war was dragging on and the Ta-183 and the Me P.1011 would have been in service and the P-80 would have been all but outclassed.


----------



## Parmigiano (Nov 9, 2005)

.. just some points about German tech achievements...

- Germans were maybe not the first in patenting a jet (I believe F. Whittle did it before Von Ohain) but were the first to actually fly a jet powered experimental plane (He 178), a fighter jet prototype (He 280) and at least two serviceable jet planes (Me 262 and Arado 234). 

- German Jet engine design was the 'right' one (axial flow), British design was a dead end (centrifugal flow). History has proved that.

- Ejection seat was standard on Heinkel 219 night fighter and on Arado 234 Blitz (jet reconnaissance bomber), way before any other nation 

- swept wing theory was presented in a meeting in Rome around 1935 by a German guy (don't remember details but I can document it once I get home). Research on swept wing planes was way ahead in Gemany by 1945, production designs were ready to go in production. No other nations was even close to that. 

- Also the famous 'area rule' for supersonic flight was an outcome of Dornier (or Heinkel? not sure, i am going by memory) 

There is little to argue about the fact that German aeronautical research and technology in 44-45 was far advanced than any other nation.

Luckily they did not had the chance to translate all this in industrial output.


----------



## plan_D (Nov 9, 2005)

The centrifugal jet engine is still used on helicopters ...so it's not the 'wrong' one. And the British were also developing axial flow engines during World War II. Britain also produced the most powerful jet engine of the war, the Rolls Royce Nene - for the times, the British were ahead of the Germans in jet engine technology. Germany was living in fantasy land with it's paper statistics and pipe dream engines ...

And the X-4 was designed to be fired from single seat aircraft, it was tested on the Fw-190. That means the pilot had to control the missile while keeping his plane straight, level and slow ...prime pickings for any fighter escort. And the U.S escort would react in the blink of an eye ...the interceptors wouldn't want to stay in any one place long but the X-4 would make them have to.


----------



## evangilder (Nov 9, 2005)

I would call the jet engine invention a dual person invention. While Frank Whittle got the patent, the first engine was built by von Ohain and he was also the first to have one fly. The Heinkel S-1 was first run at the end of February, 1937. Whittle's engine, the W-1 was first run in April of 1937. Very close in time for those 2. The big difference was the time to actually fly one. 

The He-178 first flew on August 27, 1939, almost 2 years before the Gloster E28/39, which first flew on May 15, 1941. It would be more than a year after the Gloster first flew that the US would fly it's first jet, the Bell XP-59 Aircomet on October 2, 1942.

So the British engineer got the patent, but the German engineer had a faster "time to market" to put it in business terms.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 9, 2005)

Parmigiano said:


> .. just some points about German tech achievements...
> 
> - Germans were maybe not the first in patenting a jet (I believe F. Whittle did it before Von Ohain) but were the first to actually fly a jet powered experimental plane (He 178), a fighter jet prototype (He 280) and at least two serviceable jet planes (Me 262 and Arado 234).
> 
> ...



There is no denying German technical achievement, they had the lead, however as stated in many posts before the allies had the "producibility" factor that overwhelmed Germany with numbers.

Centrifugal Flow engines turned out to be more suited for helicopters although you cannot argue the use of a Centrifugal Flow engine on the Mig-15.....


----------



## plan_D (Nov 9, 2005)

I have to admit I used to be one of those, Germany had everything kind of person. But as time wears on I've learnt the Germans weren't that drastically advanced except in rocket technology. 

In aerodynamic design the German scientists had the lead with innovations such as the swept wing but there were minor advancements in the Allied field that kept them on par, if not better for the times. The G-suit, the Germans did not have. The computing sight, the Germans did not have. While the Germans have the obvious achievements that can be seen on an aircraft, the Allies weren't left behind because their advance was small but significant - and they didn't have to use much more resources because these advancements made a tried and tested machine that much better. No design time, no extra cost.


----------



## Parmigiano (Nov 9, 2005)

PD,
about jet engines, I disagree a bit: we're talking about high performance planes, and axial jet is the design that delivers more power.
Centrifugal jets were like rotary engines in 1914 : on par with other technology in a short timeframe but with no development potential.

All the first UK and US jets used centrifugal powerplants, actually all of UK design. But as soon as they could develop something from the captured know how they promptly switched to axial flow designs.

The Nene first ran on Oct 27, 1944 (RR document), over two years after the Jumo004 (first flight in March 1942 on a Me 110 testbed), was a good design and was used for sure on Meteor, F80 and many others including the famous Mig15 affair. 
But the units available in wartime were far from the thrust and reliability of the fully developed versions, and in those fast development times you cannot compare engines designed in a two year gap.
EDIT : actually I've found in this site http://www.memagazine.org/backissues/september97/features/franz/franz.html
that the first run of Jumo 004 was in march 1940, so there are 4 1/2 years between the 004 and the Nene

I know a single Meteor was tested with an UK built axial jet (don't remember the name) but was a failure.

About the industrialization power and general technology we are in full agreement, there is no doubt that US (and even USSR...) had more power than Germany (UK being roughly on par), and about other branch of technology there is no doubt that UK, US and Ussr were on par or ahead of Germany, specially in electronics ( ... i still love of an absolute love the QUAD ESL and tube amplifiers that Peter Walker designed when after the war he stop to play with radars and started to design audio gear)


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 9, 2005)

Good point's there D - the technology lead wasn't enough to change the face of the war, although you had the leadership issue as well. There were many things on the allied drawing boards, while not that refined, would of kept pace with the German advancements.

It's also hard to do R&D work when major portions of your country is being bombed....


----------



## kiwimac (Nov 9, 2005)

Yes it is and so the amount of R D the Germans managed is truly phenomenal. Let's just remember we lose nothing by admitting that the Germans had superior materiel for most of the war and were quite definitely ahead of the allies in innovative tech.

The problem, of course, was that Nazism, as a philosophy is inherently conservative and so the dissonance was profound. But that is a discussion for another thread! 

Kiwimac


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 9, 2005)

Very True!


----------



## delcyros (Nov 9, 2005)

We already have discussed the jet tech matter.
I would partly go with Plan_D here. Except for:
*Nene was the most powerful Engine of ww2
I believe this belongs to a prototype of the BMW-018, bench tested
in october 1944 right before it should take off in a Hs-130E testbed.
The two prototypes have been destroyed during a bomb raid in october 1944.
There are little documentations left to proof, but it should be noted that no
engine will go on a plane first and on a benchtest second. The weight of the V-1 was around 2.500 Kg, very heavy indeed (serial versions should weight around 2.200 Kg), the max thrust was around 3.500 Kp (7.700 lbs) estimated. Until april, 3rd most parts of the V-3 and some of the V-4 have been produced, destroyed in order to prevent them from falling into US hands. The Jumo-012 jet engine was way inferior in development stage compared to the BMW-018. Beside of this the BMW-003 E2 was - in my minds- the best german jet engine of ww2, if you factor things like performance, thrust rating, spool up time, reliabilty, lifetime, thrust to weight factor, numbers produced and units put into ww2 fighter (in this case the He-162 A1/A2 exclusively). In the timeframe from turn 44/45 to mid may 45 it was probably the best jet engine in active service world wide. The Jumo-004 E and Dervent V weren´t that bad either but they belong to some prototypes and preserial engines only in this timeframe.
The Nene was better but they had no plane to be fitted with the Nene in ww2. You may say that the US build J-33 and J-36 are excellent designs also, but they have been proofed to be unreliable in this timeframe plus there are only very few planes fitted with them in ww2. However, their performance is better. Generally it is not right to say axial or radial engines are better, esspeccially in this timeframe. I expect that radial engines are more reliable and not that fuel gulping, while axial engines allow a cleaner aerodynamic design. Deeper digging reveals that fuel gulping may be the case for BMW-003A and Jumo-004B but not for - for example- the axial DB-006. Each philosophy has it´s own advantages and disadvanteges and generally spoken, radial engines safe weight up to a thrust rating of arounf 5000 lbs.


----------



## plan_D (Nov 9, 2005)

Well, during the first three years of war, Germany was only on par or advanced beyond the Allies in the aerodynamic field. In everything else they were behind practically. What made them such a powerful force was the tactical ability and the genius General Staff. 

And, Parm, centrifugal engines are still used to this day on helicopters. And the Rolls Royce Nene was still the most powerful engine of the war at 5,000 lbs thrust.

No proof, no sale, del. And we've been through this estimated 7,700 lbs ...


----------



## delcyros (Nov 9, 2005)

Actually I said little proof. Not no proof.
It is proofen that parts of the V-1 and V-2 prototypes have been completed till september 44, it is proofen that at least the parts of the V-2 have been assembled in late september 44 (BMW source) and it is proofen that the Hs-130 E testbed was prepared for taking a BMW-018 prototype jet engine in the air in december 44 (source is dated to oct. 12th.). It is also proofen that - from november 44 till wars end and beyond- all engineerers calaculated with the weight and thrust of 7.700 lbs for the BMW-018 and I see no reasons to deny this technically (three stage turbine!). It should be noted that prior to october 44 this engine was nominally called "BMW Gerät der 3.000 Kp Klasse", it wasn´t prior to it´s assembling and (unproofen) testing that this changed to 3.500 Kp (keep in mind that testbeds usually result in higher thrust outputs than serial engines, this was the case for Jumo-004 A, Nene and others). So far there has come not a single evidence for its bench test to daylight, but I don´t wonder. We may have different opinions here, Plan_D. But You know: The winner takes it all.


----------



## plan_D (Nov 9, 2005)

It's got nothing to do with winner's taking it all ...it's got all to do with this unproven engine. You, and they, claim it was at 7,700 lbs ...but there's no proof!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 10, 2005)

Parmigiano said:


> ..- swept wing theory was presented in a meeting in Rome around 1935 by a German guy (don't remember details but I can document it once I get home). Research on swept wing planes was way ahead in Gemany by 1945, production designs were ready to go in production. No other nations was even close to that.



It was Dr. Adolf Busemann, a scientist from the Aerodynamic Experimental Institute in Goettingen, Germany. It was at the Volta Conference held in Rome from Sept. 30, 1935 to Oct 6, 1935. Basically everyone there laughed at him and did not believe in his theory and research.


----------



## delcyros (Nov 10, 2005)

It should be noted that also german scientists disbelieved his maths. It wasn´t prior to very late 44 that DFS mathmatics developed a suited calculation method for transsonic speeds. 
However, the trans- and supersonic windtunnels confirmed his theories in 1940/41.
By the way, Plan_D, the problem is that a lot of valid files are lost because of various reasons. I spent a lot of time in the archives to read the BMW / RLM files, some of them are privately owned. This is producing a lot of frustration from the missing documentation because of destruction caused by germans or bombings or becuase it simply disappeared in archives, splitted to different owners (Who overtook the BMW files in post war time? Why wasn´t more than 15 % of the material handled back in the mid 70´s?) and so on.
I just said that there indeed is a probability that the BMW-018 was testbenched in late 1944, and You cannot deny this. How big or small this probability is belongs to the accessable files and is arguable. I just want You to keep it´s possibility in mind.
Personally, I rate the Nene about equal or better (it simply weighted less than one third of the BMW-018) while the BMW-018 has more power and is more developable.


----------



## plan_D (Nov 10, 2005)

Has more power? You mean, could have had more power. You haven't got proof that it did have more power. Yeah, alright, there's possibility it did ...but, as always, no proof, no sale.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 11, 2005)

From all my sources the 109-018 BMW 018 had 7490 lb of dry thrust.


----------



## plan_D (Nov 11, 2005)

Estimated 7,000 + lbs thrust ...the actual records of bench testing results don't exist. So there's no proof!


----------



## Parmigiano (Nov 11, 2005)

Ok PD, in 1982 Italy won 3-2 with Brazil in one of the best soccer match ever played in a world cup. 
Countless discussions followed, where Brazil supporters stated that their team was actually the best, and would had won 8 out of 10 times with Italy.
But they had no proof, since the two teams never met again with the same players, and it was useful to me to bring this point...
... but I KNOW that they were right !

Sounds similar to some of the discussions in this forum?


----------



## plan_D (Nov 11, 2005)

Okay, the Spitfire could reach 1,000,000,000 MPH on 20% throttle. I know I don't have proof ...but it could have done it.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 11, 2005)

Parmigiano said:


> Ok PD, in 1982 Italy won 3-2 with Brazil in one of the best soccer match ever played in a world cup.
> Countless discussions followed, where Brazil supporters stated that their team was actually the best, and would had won 8 out of 10 times with Italy.
> But they had no proof, since the two teams never met again with the same players, and it was useful to me to bring this point...
> ... but I KNOW that they were right !
> ...



LOL that is a funny way to put it. However you are correct. If something does not suit someones own beliefs nothing can be true other than what they know and there is no way it can be true. They demand proof. Now if it goes for there cause, proof is not needed. It has to be true!


----------



## kiwimac (Nov 11, 2005)

We are discussing possibilities here, the ME 262 and P-80 never met, except perhaps in the universe next-door, you know, the one where the Nazis won?

Kiwimac


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 12, 2005)

Yes you are correct in that.


----------



## delcyros (Nov 12, 2005)

Well, I may admit that there might be another possibility, too:
The engine was testbenched, overrewd and it blasted away. Our records don´t confirm this version (since we have proof that V-1 and V-2 were lost during bombing raids) but it is possible, yes.
Technically, the BMW-018 was well able to exceed 7.000 lbs of static thrust (diameter: 1250 mm, compression rate 7 to one, 12 stage axial compressor, three stage turbine combined with a very high airflow could well result in 3.500 Kp at 6.000 rpm), the Spitfire, however, was unable to exceed 1000 mp/h, we don´t need a proof here.The Nene was testbenched in october 44 and our records confirm that it eventually exceeded 5.000 lbs of thrust in early 45 on the testbench.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 12, 2005)

Good info there. 

There is an interesting website that gives some statistics for jet engines.

http://www.jet-engine.net/miltfspec.html


----------



## delcyros (Nov 13, 2005)

I must say it shouldn´t play any role here, since the BMW-018 was unable to be fitted into a Me-262 airframe. 
I checked out the max speed of ww2 variants once more.
The Me-262 C1a was about 975 Km/h ~ 608 mp/h
Me-262 C-2b was 950 + Km/h, 593+ mp/h
Me-262 C3 -unknown, prototype did not fly
It would be helpful to duoblecheck the performances with other sources, so any help would be fine.
(source: J. Dressel/M. Griehl: Die deutschen Raketenflugzeuge 1939-1945 (Augsburg 1995), page 101.)


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 13, 2005)

That is pretty much the info I have. However I believe the Me-262C's could only achieve that high speed with the Walter Rocket that was installed in the tail. The design was meant to recieve an extraordinary climb rate so as to reach the bombers. It was a point defence interceptor.


----------



## delcyros (Nov 13, 2005)

That´s my understanding, too. There was enough fuel to operate for around 20-26 min in case of the -C1a with a max climb of 2,2 min to 10.000m altitude. In the end that´s more than the Me-163 B had but too less to be used for anything except point defense as you said.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 13, 2005)

I dont believe the Walter would have eneogh fuel for 20 minutes in the 262. Once they got to alltitude anyhow and the rocket burned off they were just using the 2 Jumos.


----------



## kiwimac (Nov 14, 2005)

man, 10k in 2.2 minutes, thats quick!

Kiwimac


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 14, 2005)

For WW2 that is quick.


----------



## delcyros (Nov 14, 2005)

Yes. 20 min is the maximum flight time for full power (jet engines) at sea level. The rocket fuel was burned out after a max of 4-6 min. So it could be used to climb and accelerate. I always disliked that mixture of high volatile rocket fuel and jet fuel. Fast climbing, rocket-jet propelled interceptors did got out of use after the wide distribution of jet engines with afterburner.
A Me-262 with Jumo-004-E or F would be more wise.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 14, 2005)

here's a what if, what if the Me-163 had been fitted with a small jet engine, such as the 004? would it've worked?


----------



## delcyros (Nov 14, 2005)

In case of the Me-163 B I would say no (probably). 
The fuselage was too short and the shift of cg with an over 1000 lbs
heavier engine would render the airframe uncontrollable.
The lack of a useful landing gear is also problematic.
A stretched airframe (Me-163 C/D/Me-263) is more reasonable.
Actually were have been several projects by Dr. Lippisch to
replace the rocket egnine with a BMW-003 or Jumo-004. In the end he transformed the Me-263 and He-162 into a useful airframe, Lippisch P-15. The front fuselage, including cockpit section and weaponry would have been taken from the He-162 A, the wings from the Me-263. The rear fuselage and the wingroots with air intake would have been needed to be the only new components. A HeS011 engine should give it a speed of around 625 mp/h (calculated according to the maths of march 45*).
You could also replace it with a BMW-003 E, saving over 1000 lbs of weight (for a reduced top speed of around 570 mp/h). Thrust to weight ratio, wingload and speed would have been excellent, as would the handling according to the Me-263 glider tests. Beside of Mock ups and wind tunnel models there was nothing left. 
I expect that the plane could be realized pretty soon by overtaking of most parts from other serial build planes. 

*) it wasn´t until early 45 that german methmatics developed a solution to calculate speeds at transsonic speeds correctly


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 14, 2005)

I agree with that conclusion.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 15, 2005)

very interesting to hear your thoughts on that, you're right you'd baisically be sitting on the jet engine so the power to weight ratio would be great, not sure about fuel though


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 16, 2005)

It would be like a sort of early EE Lightning...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 16, 2005)

that's what i was thinking too.......


----------



## plan_D (Nov 18, 2005)

Yes, because the Lightning was like sitting on TWO jet engines.


----------



## pbfoot (Apr 16, 2006)

the f80 has to be the one as it morphed into the T33 or TB1rd and its still going strong something that just can't be said about the 262 it spent its last days as a squadron hack or basic ecm machine


----------



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

i hardly think that's the -262's fault, the F-80 evolved into other machines because it was in a country where it could, the -262 could ahve been developed more, but it was in a country that lost the war, people learnt from her, but they weren't gonna carry on developing her, although the Czechs did a bit i think.........


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 17, 2006)

Was just wondering. Lunatic started this thread and now he is anonymous. Did he quit or did someone ban him again.


----------



## syscom3 (Apr 17, 2006)

I dont think the ME262 could have been developed to much. Hanging those engines under the wings does limit your options.


----------



## lesofprimus (Apr 17, 2006)

I agree.... It was pretty much at its limit.... Maybe incorperating the engine into the fuselage, but thats about it....


----------



## Erich (Apr 17, 2006)

underground trials at Oberammergau looked very promising for the 262 in 1945; still the undergound "barracks" as the US likes to call them still house some Luftwaffe secrets known too only a handful

I'll let your minds wander on my statements but yes the 262 was to be revamped as I have stated previously in the night fighter version so it would of made sense to include the day fighters as well and also the concept of swept back wings was to be standard fit


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 18, 2006)

The Stage II and III would have been a big improvemnt. The engines in the fuselages also was in the works and would have been a good improvement.


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Aug 3, 2006)

Why did Lunatic get banned?

Anyway, I think the Me262 could have made a great bomber interceptor, night fighter, heavy fighter, dive-bomber and ground-attack plane.

The 50mm cannon could decimate Bombers, I remember reading, IIRC, Battles with the Luftwaffe and the fear this stand-off weapon gave to bomber crews.

Also using it ike a A10 Warthog may have been a good idea? - If those troublesome engines could be protected.

BTW: New Me262's are apparently to be made using modern, reliable jet engines!

The P80 may have been a better fighter, but add the He1078 and HoIX to the equation...


----------



## syscom3 (Aug 3, 2006)

Once the US (and brits) put its entire aviation establishment behind jet technology, theres little if anything the Luftwaffe could have done to stop the onslaught.


----------



## johnbr (Aug 3, 2006)

I look at the fact that the me 262 would have been 1 ton or more lighter if it was made in the west. For power go with junkers jumo oo4h


----------



## Erich (Aug 3, 2006)

the Me 262A-1a had already proven itself even in January of 45 to be the ultimate NF mosquito chaser in Kommando Welter till wars end


----------



## JohnnyL (Aug 4, 2006)

Chuck Yeager flew both planes, and said that they were identical in all respects.


----------



## Cowboy1968 (May 11, 2007)

I see a lot of people talking about the Me262 pilots being experienced...yes initially they were experienced pilots. But, as time went on those experienced pilots were shot down and pilots with as little as 10 combat hours were being put into the 262. Nearly 200 of these inexperienced pilots were killed during training. 

Now, for what the US was putting into play....we could have very well had jet v. jet during WWII two fighter groups were in the process of transition to the P-80 Shooting Star. both groups were made of very experienced P-51 and P-47 pilots that had experience in dealing with the Swallow. Given the specs of the P-80, and the experience of the Mustang and Thunderbolt pilots..the Shooting Star would have lent itself well with the tactics developed while these pilots were in their prop planes.

Given the fact that the P-80 could out run, out roll, out climb...and the fact that the US was putting their best pilots into the Shooting Stars, while the Germans had used up all their best pilots...I give the edge to the Shooting Star.


----------



## Cowboy1968 (May 11, 2007)

And yes i have always said that the Me-262 looked very modern in design.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 11, 2007)

Cowboy1968 said:


> I see a lot of people talking about the Me262 pilots being experienced...yes initially they were experienced pilots. But, as time went on those experienced pilots were shot down and pilots with as little as 10 combat hours were being put into the 262. Nearly 200 of these inexperienced pilots were killed during training.
> 
> Now, for what the US was putting into play....we could have very well had jet v. jet during WWII two fighter groups were in the process of transition to the P-80 Shooting Star. both groups were made of very experienced P-51 and P-47 pilots that had experience in dealing with the Swallow. Given the specs of the P-80, and the experience of the Mustang and Thunderbolt pilots..the Shooting Star would have lent itself well with the tactics developed while these pilots were in their prop planes.
> 
> Given the fact that the P-80 could out run, out roll, out climb...and the fact that the US was putting their best pilots into the Shooting Stars, while the Germans had used up all their best pilots...I give the edge to the Shooting Star.



That is a myth that the Germans had lost all of there best pilots. For the most part the best pilots were put into the 262 as well. Yes they lost some expirienced pilots for the most part but the Luftwaffe was not depleted of Experten as many like to believe...

Only 2 P-80 became operational in Europe in 1945 and they only flew CAP missions away from the front lines.

Also just like the Me 262 the P-80 had very unreliable engines in 1945. The aircraft was even delayed getting to operational status due to the aircraft being grounded.

Lets see German experienced 262 pilots who survived the war or were not killed until the last few days of war:

Kurt Welter: 63 kills/29 in a Me 262
Franz Schall: 116 kills/17 in a Me 262 (killed Apr 10, 1945 in a landing accident)
Rudolf "Rudi" Rademacher: 126 kills/16+ in a Me 262
Heinz "Pritzel" Bär: 221 kills/16 in a Me 262
Georg-Peter Eder: 78 kills/24 in a Me 262
Erich Rudorffer: 224 kills/12 in a Me 262
Adolf Galland: 104 kills/7 in a Me 262 

I can list a lot more, but will not as I dont feel like typing.

Then there are the Luftwaffe Experten (yes some were killed but they were all very experienced pilots at the end of the war.).

Ademeit Horst
Adolph Walter
Adrian Ulrich
Ahnert Heinrich-Wilhelm
Achleitner Franz
Aistleitner Johann
Albrecht Egon
Arnold Heinz
Arnoldy Hans-Jakob
Augenstein Hans-Heinz
Augustin Jacob
Baagoe Sophus 
Baake Werner
Babenz Emil
Badum Johann
Bacsila Erwin
Bahr Günther
Bachnick Herbert
Balthasar Wilhelm
Bareuther Herbert 
Barkhorn Gerhard 
Bartels Heinrich
Barten Franz
Batz Wilhelm
Baudach Heinz-Helmut
Bauer Franz
Bauer Herbert
Bauer Konrad
Bauer Viktor
Becker Martin
Beerenbrock Franz-Josef
Beese Artur
Beisswenger Hans
Belser Helmut
Bendert Karl-Heinz
Bennemann Helmut
Berres Heinz-Edgar
Bertram Otto 
Bethke Siegfried 
Beutelspacher Ernst
Birkner Hans-Joachim
Bitsch Emil
Bleckmann Günther
Blechschmidt Joachim
Bley Paul
Bob Hans-Ekkehard
Bock Eberhard
Borris Karl 
Börngen Ernst
Bösch Oskar
Böwing-Treuding Wolfgang
Brandis Felix-Maria
Brandt Walter
Brock Friedrich
Broennle Herbert
Broch Hugo
Bretnütz Heinz 
Bretschneider Klaus
Budde Alfred
Bucholz Max
Burath Eberhard
Burkhardt Lutz-Wilhelm
Carganico Horst 
Christl Georg
Clade Josef-Emil
Clausen Erwin 
Crinius Wilhelm
Crump Peter 



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dahl Walther 
Dahmer Hugo 
Denk Gustav
Dickfeld Adolf
Dinger Fritz 
Dommeratzky Otto
Dortenmann Hans 
Döbele Anton 
Döring Arnold
Dörr Franz
Druschel Alfred
Düllberg Ernst 
Ebeling Heinz 
Ebener Kurt
Eckardt Reinhold
Eckerle Franz
Eder Georg-Peter
Ehlers Hans
Ehrenberger Rudolf
Ehrler Heinrich 
Eichel-Streiber Diethelm von 
Eisenach Franz
Engel Walter
Engfer Siegfried
Engst Hubert
Erichsen Dieter
Ettel Wolf
Falck Wolfgang
Fink Günther
Franke Alfred
Franz Richard
Franzisket Ludwig 
Frey Hugo 
Freytag Siegfried 
Frielinghaus Gustav
Fözö Josef
Fuss Hans



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Gaiser Otto
Galland Adolf
Galland Paul 
Galland Wilhelm-Ferdinand 
Gammel Fritz
Geisshardt Friedrich
Gendelmeyer Wolfgang
Gerth Werner 
Glunz Adolf 
Golinski Heinz
Gollob Gordon Mc
Graf Hermann 
Grasser Hartmann
Greiner Georg-Hermann 
Greisert Karl-Heinz
Grislawski Alfred
Gromotka Fritz
Gross Alfred
Grünberg Hans 
Götz Hans 
Hackl Anton 
Hafner Anton
Häfner Ludwig
Hagenah Walter 
Hahn Hans "Assi" 
Hahn Hans von 
Hahn Hans
Hahn Franz
Hammer Alfred
Harder Harro
Hartmann Erich
Heckmann Alfred 
Henz Helmut
Hermichen Rolf-Günther
Heyer Hans-Joachim
Hirschfeld Ernst-Erich 
Hofmann Wilhelm 
Hoffmann Heinrich
Hoffmann Reinhold
Hoffmann Werner
Hohenberg Werner
Höfemeier Heinrich
Homuth Gerhard 
Huppertz Herbert
Iffland Hans
Iro Ilk 



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jenne Peter 
Jennewein Josef
Johnen Wilhelm
Joppien Hermann-Friedrich 
Kageneck Erbo Graf von 
Kaminski Herbert
Keil Josef 
Keller Lothar
Kennel Karl 
Kientsch Wilhelm
Kirchmayr Rüdiger von 
Kittel Otto
Klemm Rudolf
Knappe Kurt 
Koall Gerhard
Koenig Hans-Heinrich
Kolbow Hans
Kornatzki Hans-Günter von
Kosse Wolfgang
Köhne Walter
Körner Friedrich
Krafft Heinrich
Krahl Karl-Heinz
Krupinski Walter
Lang Emil
Lange Heinz
Lasse Kurt
Leie Erich 
Lemke Siegfried
Lemke Wilhelm
Lent Helmut
Leschert Heinrich 
Leykauf Erwin
Lignitz Arnold
Linke Lothar
Lipfert Helmut
Lippert Wolgang
Litjens Stefan
Loos Walter 
Lücke Hermann
Lüddecke Fritz
Lützow Günther



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Machold Werner
Marburg Gerhard
Marquardt Heinz
Matoni Walter 
Maximowitz Willi 
Mayer Egon
Mayer Hans-Karl
Mayer Wilhelm
Mazurek Marian 
Meckel Helmut
Meier Johann-Hermann
Meister Dieter
Meister Ludwig 
Menge Robert
Metz Rudolf 
Meurer Manfred 
Mietusch Klaus 
Michalski Gerhard
Missner Helmut 
Moritz Wilhelm 
Mors August 
Munz Karl
Modrow Ernst-Wilhelm
Mölders Werner 
Müller Friedrich-Karl 
Müller Friedrich-Karl "Nasen"
Müller Rudolf
Müller Siegfried 
Müncheberg Joachim
Nacke Heinz
Necesany Kurt
Neu Wolfgang 
Neuhoff Hermann 
Neumann Klaus 
Nowotny Walter 
Oesau Walter 
Olejnik Robert
Omert Emil
Osterkamp Theo
Ostermann Max-Hellmuth 



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Petermann Viktor
Petzschler Horst
Pflanz Rudolf
Piffer Anton-Rudolf
Pingel Rolf
Pöhs Josef
Priller Josef 
Puschmann Herbert
Quast Werner
Rademacher Rudolf 
Radener Waldemar-H.
Radusch Günther 
Rall Günther 
Rammelt Karl 
Remmer Hans
Reschke Willi 
Roehrig Hans
Rohwer Detlev
Rollwage Herbert
Romm Oskar
Rökker Heinz
Rudorffer Erich
Ruhl Franz
Rupp Friedrich 
Rüffler Helmut
Sachsenberg Heinz 
Seifert Johannes 
Schack Günther
Schall Franz 
Scheel Günther
Schnaufer Heinz-Wolfgang
Schäfer Hans
Seeger Günther
Seelmann Georg
Scheffel Rudolf
Schellmann Wolfgang
Schiess Franz
Schleef Hans
Schlichting Joachim
Schmid Johann
Schmidt Dietrich
Schmidt Erich
Schmidt Winfried
Schnell Siegfried 
Schnörrer Karl
Schott Georg
Schroer Werner 
Schöpfel Gerhard
Schulz Otto
Sigmund Rudolf
Sinner Rudolf 
Sochatzy Kurt
Sommer Franz
Sommer Gerhard
Specht Günther
Sprick Gustav 
Stahlschmidt Hans-Arnold
Staiger Hermann 
Stammberger Otto
Steinbatz Leopold 
Steiner Franz
Steinhausen Günther
Steinmann Wilhelm
Stolle Bruno
Strassl Hubert
Straznicky Erwin
Strelow Hans
Strüning Heinz
Stumpf Werner



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tange Otto
Tanzer Kurt
Teumer Alfred
Thiel Edwin
Tietzen Horst
Tichy Ekkehard
Tonne Wolfgang
Tratt Eduard
Trautloft Hannes
Trenkel Rudolf
Ubben Kurt
Unger Willi 
Venth Heinz
Vivroux Gerhard
Vogt Gerhard 
Wagner Edmund
Wandel Joachim
Weber Karl-Heinz
Weik Hans 
Weiroster Gottfried
Weiss Robert
Welter Kurt 
Werra Franz von
Wessling Otto
Wever Walter
Wick Helmut
Wiese Johannes
Wilcke Wolf-Dietrich
Willius Karl
Winterfeldt Alexander von
Wintergerst Eugen
Wischnewski Hermann
Wohlers Heinrich
Wöhnert Ulrich
Woitke Erich
Wolf Hermann
Wurmheller Josef
Wurzer Heinrich
Zellot Walter
Zorner Paul
Zweigart Eugen-Ludwig
Zwesken Rudolf 


Please go to this website to read further:

Kacha`s Luftwaffe Page

I might be mistaken but I think one of our fellow moderators here *Erich* helps contribute to this site. Please correct me if I am wrong Erich.


----------



## Parmigiano (May 11, 2007)

Adler, great site.
One question: are these reliable victories?
Because if so we could finally have some ground for the endless discussion about the effectiveness of the Me262: by adding up the LOWEST possible numbers in the 'Duesenjaeger' list we have 353 kills only for the jet-aces, 40 pilots in total. 

That would mean for the 262 a score at least in the range of 400 kills (it seems fairly prudent assessment that all the other about 250 non-jet aces pilots who flew the 262 could have achieved at least another 50 kills in total) 

Now: 150 losses for EA (including losses during landing approach) vs 400+ kills is 2.7 ratio : simply astonishing, if we consider the overwhelming odds.

If this numbers are confirmed for me there is no more doubt: in spite of all engine reliability problems the 262 was by far the best combat machine who took the air. 
Nothing else could have done that: I mean, take 300 of any other fighter, send them to the missions that the 262 took in the same conditions of numerical disparity and go figure out what they could have achieved.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 11, 2007)

I can not confirm the 262 kills. I think Erich can shed some light to this.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 11, 2007)

Great post Chris - KICK ASS!


----------



## Erich (May 11, 2007)

yes it's little ol me that has helped Petr in the past and I wrote up some of the bios for day fighter pilots, gave him some nf pilots as well but he has not printed them out yet.

Welter's score can be disputed with ease, he never scored 63 kills that is fact

JG 7 claimed over 400 US/RAF a/c in the 262. I think the score is also a bit on the high side. Personally ALL the 262 jet units together probably scored maybe 450 kills total kills ..........


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 12, 2007)

Thanks Erich.

What other sites do you help out with and what book titles have you worked on. If you can list them please so I can check out the sites and look up the books.


----------



## pbfoot (May 12, 2007)

After looking at the list of experten and realizing I know one 
I have to ask what is the difference between an ace and an experten?


----------



## Parmigiano (May 13, 2007)

Well, if Erich's assessment is 'about 450' in total for the 262, my conclusions based on 400+ estimation should not be very wrong...

That's funny, before starting to dig into numbers I was convinced (only by reading magazines and geneal literature) that the 262 had scored no more than 60-70 victories and was more a experiment than a real combat plane.

PS: I think 'experten' is the Luftwaffe way to define an 'ace', not sure if the requirement (5 kills) is the same


----------



## lesofprimus (May 13, 2007)

Experten translated means experts.... The Luftwaffe recorded results as points rather than kills.... IIRC, 10 points were required for experten classification....

Erich would know...


----------



## Dragontech64 (May 18, 2007)

DaveB.inVa said:


> Im saying the P-80, it just has more and better dogfighting qualities. Better roll rate, climb, speed, turning radius. More reliable engines with better metalurgy, probably could accelerate a lot better too. The Jumos had to be throttled up fairly slowly or a flameout would occur. Ive never read of this being a problem with the J33!!
> 
> Plus 6 .50 Brownings can throw out a lot of lead faster than the MK108's.
> 
> ...


----------



## Jackson (May 23, 2007)

During the first months of 1945 a number of P-80A prototypes were tested by the USAAF in Italy. The idea was to gather information on the behavior of the new fighter under combat conditions without risking an exposure to the German Luftwaffe.

After the Allied invasion of Italy and the subsequent surrender of Italy in 1943 the southern front had been relatively quiet during 1944. In February 1945 however, the German army launched a counter attack and quickly advanced south through Italy. In their advance they overran the airbase near Rome where the P-80s were stationed. 

The US personal tried to evacuate all classified equipment and documents, the P-80s taking of literally minutes before the German army arrived. One of the P-80s suffered an engine failure on takeoff and had to abort. The plane was captured before the pilot could destroy it and was transferred to Rechlin where if was tested by the famous "Beute Zirkus Rosarius". 

It received the code T9+YK. It was painted Dark Green RLM 71 over Yellow RLM 04. It was flown in mock combat against the Ta-152 and Me-262. In these simulations it was found superior to the Ta-152 but, except for the engine, the Me-262 was to be preferred. The Me-262 was faster and better maneuverable. After intensive testing the aircraft was transferred to the Heinkel Werke in July. There is was broken up and its construction studied. 




not sure if any of this is true

Captured P-80


----------



## Parmigiano (May 24, 2007)

I never heard about this story, the only documented info of P80 in Italy is about 2 machines stationed in Puglia region (far south than Rome, let's say in the 'heel' of Italy 'boot')
I have also no historical evidence that in feb 1945 the Germans were near Rome: the front was around highway 64, between Tuscany and Emilia region(some 200km north than Rome).
It is hard to believe that the Wermacht, who had to manage the Russians at east and the main Allied offensive at west, would had been so silly to waste resources in an offensive on a secondary front like the southern front was in feb 45.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 24, 2007)

I too have never heard of anything like that.


----------



## Matt308 (May 24, 2007)

Like many modelling sites, this was a fabricated story to entertain fellow modelers and serve as the basis for a one-off model of the P-80. Cool idea. But fantasy.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 24, 2007)




----------



## syscom3 (May 24, 2007)

I dont even think the P80's were deployed to Italy untill the final days of the war.


----------



## Jank (May 24, 2007)

.
.
.
.


----------



## Matt308 (May 24, 2007)

.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 25, 2007)




----------



## drgondog (Jul 3, 2007)

syscom3 said:


> I dont even think the P80's were deployed to Italy untill the final days of the war.



The pre-production YP-80s were delivered to 1FG in January 1945 but a fatal accident grounded them.

The USAAF accepted the P-80A in February, 1945 and delivered 30 to Operational groups in US by VE Day. Re` 'Final days' you may be thinking about Bong's fatal fuel pump problem in Aug 45?

Regards,

Bill


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 3, 2007)

drgondog said:


> The pre-production YP-80s were delivered to 1FG in January 1944 but a fatal accident grounded them.



You mean Jan. 1945 correct?

The P-80 did not fly for the first time until 8 Jan. 1944....

On 28 Jan 1945 after Major Frederic Borsodi was killed in a crash of a YP-80, all were aircraft were grounded and because of this none saw combat in WW2.


----------



## drgondog (Jul 3, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> You mean Jan. 1945 correct?
> 
> The P-80 did not fly for the first time until 8 Jan. 1944....
> 
> On 28 Jan 1945 after Major Frederic Borsodi was killed in a crash of a YP-80, all were aircraft were grounded and because of this none saw combat in WW2.



Correct Chris, pencil 'slip' - the XP-80 actually flew in Jan 1944 (its first test flight) and YP-80 was deployed to Italy in Jan 1945 where one YP-80 crashed during operational training. I think the RAF got a couple for evaluation in Nov 1944?

Regards,

Bill


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 4, 2007)

I thought the one that crashed actually crashed up in England at RAF Burtonwood and killed Major Frederic Borsodi.


----------



## drgondog (Jul 4, 2007)

you are right (again) - 1/28/45 Burtonwood during Operational training and eval. The two at Lesina were grounded at same time.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Oct 25, 2007)

Also the original XP-80 using the J36 (licenced 2,700 lbf copy of the Goblin)
was much smaller and lighter than the following XP-80As using the I-40, though it was slower at a top speed of only around 500mph. The YP-80s had the biggest engine problems particularly with fuel pumps. The early P-80As with the J33-A-9 engine (same as the YP-80) had some flameout and reliabillity problems. (I think they would also cut out if throttled up/down too rapidly, this tended to be more common than flameouts) The fuel cap problem was a matenence issue that didn't last long. These engines were later repalced with better ones later in the A series.
see: LockheedXP80
and XP-80A

The 4 YP-80s made it to europe as said and were grounded due to the accidents. By the end of the war ther were a group of P-80As ready to enter the Pacific in the planned invasion of Japan. Of course the advent of the Atomic bomb ended the war before this could happen. Also I've read that the 2 YP-80s in the Mediterranean actually flew some operational sorties but never came in contact with enemy aircraft. (I believe this was before the grounding of P-80s due to accedidents.) see: Lockheed YP-80A Shooting Star

As for the best engine design it'd have to go to the the HeS-30 (006) axial engine. Small, light, powerful (at least as much as the 004B) and fuel efficient. It weighed under 900 lbs put out around 2000 lbs thrust on the bench (though higher thrusts were expected at speed) and had only a 2 ft diameter and 9 ft length ( .609m and 2.74m). Thats less than half the frontal area of the 32 in 004B and about 2/3 the length compared to 152 in. It would also have required less materials and had good spool-up time. It was on a fast trak of development the prototype running at full power around the same time as the 004A. It was simply the best of the class 1 engines, overall performance not matched untill the 1950s. I already know delcyros agrees on this engine. Too bad it was canceled to work on the 011 which was complex, problematic, would never enter production in time and couldn't produce projectd thrust. The RLM said that the design was excelent but they simply didn't need another class 1 engine since Jumo and BMW were "so far ahead". This prooved to be rather ironic when Jumo ran into problems in production and even more the 003 since it hadn't even reached full power by the time the HeS-30 had an it took at least another 2 years from the 1942 cancellation for the 003 to enter production. (by this thime the HeS-30 would likely be ahead of the 004 in production)

As for a jet powered Me-163, they had actually considdered Argus pulsejets when the rocket engine development was having problems. But for a realistic jet powered version I'd againturn to the HeS-30. It was small, light, and powereful enough to be practical in it and would leave room for decent fuel amounts. At 9 ft it was only half the 163's length. Though compared to the walter rocket's 3800 lbf thrust the jet would only have about half that (optimistically maby 60%) but thrust / weight would still be a decent .22 when loaded and the added duration would make up for this lack. (especially conciddering the plane's loaded weight was nearly twice its empty weight) (actually delcyros suggested this idea here too http://72.14.253.104/custom?q=cache...t=clnk&cd=3&gl=us&client=pub-4602161893446225 I'd use the Me 163C as that is the best overall varient IMHO.
we both came to the same conclusion, though I'd use the Me 163C instead of the 163D as that is the best overall varient IMHO.)
RATO/ solid rocket boosters would also help with takeoff and initial climb as seen in the Natter. Though even with the added endurance and greatly reduced dangers of operation it would still remain a point interceptor, though fuel might last long enough to eliminate the volnernable glide landings.

For the Me 163 C-0 and D (263 V1) as well as the Full blown 263 see: http://richard.ferriere.free.fr/3vues/me263_3v.jpg though I still think the C version is the best. Just look at the nose and canopy!


----------



## Geezer (Dec 17, 2007)

Everyone becomes mesmerized by those swept back wings of the 262 and the fact that it was the first of the two jets to become operational (not by years but months). Unfortunately for the Germans, that didn't translate to a viable jet fighter.

The 262 was designed for high speed runs against American bombers. That's what the 37mm cannons were for. As the Koreans (and the Russians) learned later in Korea, canons of that era, no matter what their rate of fire, wern't as suitable for dog fighting as six fast firing 50's. Canons are the rule now, but their rate of fire is light years beyond what the "rapid firing" canons of WW II were capable of.

The P-80 was simply a better combat fighter in every aspect. It was a single engine jet with the body built around the jet engine. The ME 262 had under wing placement of the two engines as found in the B52 or Boeing 7"whatevers". The under wing configuration was, to my knowledge, never used again by any subsequent jet fighter to this very day.

The swept back wings of the ME 262 were also of no advantage at the speeds these planes flew. The P-80 actually had less drag and was the faster of the two. It also performed better over 20K feet and was the more reliable and rugged of the two planes.

The reality is that the P-80 actually beats the ME 262 in every single combat category, such as speed, rate of roll, manuverability, etc. The P-80 was also an easy transition for American pilots of P-51's, P-47's and P-38's (with the exception of Dick Bong of course). At War's end, the Germans didn't have many good pilots left while top rate WW II American pilots were in abundance. Francis Gabreski, for example, was an ace with a P47and went on to be an ace with the F-86 later in Korea. 

There are really two things to keep in mind. The P-80 was built by Lockeed with the help of a man named Kelly Johnson, the same Kelly Johnson who gave us the P-38, the U2 and the SR 71 Blackbird. Secondly, in actual air to air combat, the ME 262 was bested by the P-51. The Germans lost as many 262's in the air against P51's escorting the B-24's and B-17's as they did when landing or taking off or strafed while parked on the ground.

Pretty clear to me that the ME 262, while revolutionary and quite the plane, was simply no match for the P-80, straight wings and all.


----------



## Soren (Dec 17, 2007)

You are however completely wrong Geezer.

The Me-262A-1a was both faster more maneuverable than the P-80A, esp. at high speed! During US comparative tests the Me-262 proved superior in accelleration, climb speed to the P-80.

The Me-262A-1a featured full span automatic LE slats, greatly improving the turn rate of the a/c at all speeds, esp. at high speed for this new jet however. The high AR of the Me-262's wing also meant minimal induced drag and a high L/D ratio, which means a lower loss of speed in tight turns.

As to your ridiculous argument about the engine placement, well this was of ZERO importance for these first generation jets. First of all there were no disadvantages with this configuration, only advantages, advantages such as better accessability = easier maintenance. Drag was NOT increased, the use of two engines by then meant mounting them externally was the most efficient.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 17, 2007)

Soren said:


> As to your ridiculous argument about the engine placement,.



And you say you are not patronizing.....


----------



## Glider (Dec 17, 2007)

Soren said:


> The Me-262A-1a featured full span automatic LE slats, greatly improving the turn rate of the a/c at all speeds, esp. at high speed for this new jet however. The high AR of the Me-262's wing also meant minimal induced drag and a high L/D ratio, which means a lower loss of speed in tight turns.


I always thought that automatic LE slats were for slow speeds, not all speeds and definitely not at high speed.
As for the high AR of the 262's wing, it would certainly have a lower induced drag (but a higher parasite drag). However, higher AR wings have a lower roll rate and putting the heavy engines on the wing doesn't do you any favours on the roll rate, only helping to slow it down. 
The best place for the engines is in the centre of the plane, no question and it’s also causes less drag. I believe the Russians instead of copying the 262 came up with an aircraft which had two engines in the fuselage because of the reduced drag.

This bit is a guess on my part, but my guess is that the LE slats were to assist in the problem of loss of lift that happens with swept wings at slow speed. With a swept wing the airflow tends to be 'swept' to the wing tips instead of going straight over the wings. This causes a loss of lift at slow speed and one of the things that the LE slats will do is assist with the slow speed handling. 
The 262 was built for speed not agility and the Germans would have found this problem out in tests, had considerable experience in LE slats and would have known how to address the problem


----------



## drgondog (Dec 17, 2007)

Glider said:


> I always thought that automatic LE slats were for slow speeds, not all speeds and definitely not at high speed.
> As for the high AR of the 262's wing, it would certainly have a lower induced drag (but a higher parasite drag). However, higher AR wings have a lower roll rate and putting the heavy engines on the wing doesn't do you any favours on the roll rate, only helping to slow it down.
> The best place for the engines is in the centre of the plane, no question and it’s also causes less drag. I believe the Russians instead of copying the 262 came up with an aircraft which had two engines in the fuselage because of the reduced drag.
> 
> ...




Glider, I can't speak definitively for Mtt but you are 100% correct with respect to functional reason for LE slats on F-86 - stability at low speed (as in final approach) for swept wing config. The MiG15 solved that problem with large wing fences to assist flow in straight (more or less) flow over wing.

I would also believe the drag would be higher for two nacelles than for an engine imbedded in fuselage - which is a primary reason twin engine fighters ALL are designed that way. I'm really having a hard time recalling a fighter with T/E imbedded in (or suspended) wing that started design after 1950.

That said, boundary layer control into a 'cheek' inlet has always been a strong focus for aero guys - particularly for high transonic to supersonic flow in which the mach (and shock wave angles) change significantly. 

Compressor stalls were harder to prevent than a nacelle config engine mount.

I suspect (without proof) that the reason for the two engines on the Me 262 and Meteor was that no single engine was of high enough thrust at time airframe design started, to give the airframe the hoped for performance... and that the P-80 was the first that had an engine design on the horizon to cause Kelley Johnson to go with imbedded fuse engine.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Dec 17, 2007)

I think the Yakovlev Yak-25 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia was the last fighter (albeit an interceptor) with outboard nacelle-mounted engines. Yakovlev Yak-25 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Also the Me 262 was considered in having wing-root buried engines (a design incorporated in the HG III, somewhat similar to the P-59A's layout, albeit much more streamlined) but the external surfaces of 004's got too hot for this placement iirc, and required regular maintenance which nacelle placement facilitated.

The original concept of the 262's design was to have engines that were far smaller than those that developed (closest was the HeS-30, 006) and were to be mid-mounted in the wing, similar to the Meteor, but much smaller.

I'm not sure where Soren is getting this info on the 262's agility, and that comparison he sites is insubstanciated and possibly a comparison to the original Goblin-(under)powered XP-80 (2,400 lbf); a completely different design (the L140) of which only one prototype was made (now at the NASM adjacent to a Me 262 and FH Phantom), the XP-80A (L141) was a drastic improvement in aerodynamics (more streamlined with rounded wing and tail tips and thin "knife edge" wings), technology, and performance. Pluss that "comparison" he sites doesn't even say the 262 is more maneuverable, only faster and with better acceleration, climb, and crit. Mach number. (which it certainly would compared to the XP-80 which barely broke 500 mph and had fairly thick wings and low thrust/weight)

Though I certainly don't agree with Geezer either, the Me 262 was certainly viable! And it had flown with 004A's nearly 3 years before the original XP-80 (though only months prior to the rather poor, as it was, XP-59A) But the 262 had been in development since late 1939! The major problem was the engines, a problem exacerbated by the cancelation of Heinkel's class-1 engine designs. Otherwise the 262 (and/or the He 280) could have been in production by early 9943 and in active service by the end of that year. 
And though .50's were certainly better for dogfighting than Mk 108's (note: this is a 30mm weapon, not 37mm as was wrongly stated, a 30mm shell is ~1/2 the size of a 37mm) the rof of the M2 was only ~20% higher so this would result in less firepower lead-wise. The reason for the superiority is the higher velocity and better ballistics, as well as the higher volume of fire. Mk 103's would be good but were heavier, slower firing, and with a much higher recoil. Personaly the Brits 4x 20mm Hispano Mk V cannons were one of the best of the war. The MG 151/20 was good, but with a lower muzzel velocity, ROF, and poorer ballistic shape. The best dogfighting gun of the war was probably the 15mm MG 151/15, with high ROF (comperable to the M2), excelent ballisics, very high Muzzel velocity (considderably more than the M2 BMG) with the very powerful 15mm round. Immagine a Me 262 sporting 6 of those! Even the faster-firing M3 machine gun was of limited use in Korea, while still quite powerful, was virtually inaffective aganst almost every part of a Mig 15, except the engine. 20mm cannons or .60 calliber guns (incedentaly, developed from the MG 151/15, but with similarly improved ROF to the M3) would have been a better choice fot the ASAF fighters.


One interesting thing though, is that the US has dever used fighters with outboard jet engines. The P-59 had the nacelles half-burried in the fusalage into the wing-roots. The Navy's FH Phantom and F2H Banshee had the engines burried in the wing-roots.

And about the LE slats, they were generaly retracted at high speeds, even often in maneuvers, but durring hard turns the LE of the wing would loose pressure, allowing the slats to extend, so turning would have been marginally improved by them.

One thing the P-80 had (again absent in the YP-80A) was air-breaks, this was an obvious advantage on the Me 262...


----------



## Soren (Dec 18, 2007)

Glider Bill,

The Me-262 F-86 were both fitted with the LE automatic slats because of a desire to improve slow high speed maneuverability in the horizontal plane. That they lower the stall speed and increase the controllability of the a/c close to the stall is why they're also very useful at landing take off.

The LE slats work by delaying boundary layer seperation, increasing the critical AoA CLmax of the airfoil by approx. 25% in the covered areas. The slats function by means of airpressure, as the the pressure starts to decrease on the top of the wing the slats start to deploy, the speed of which is completely determined by how quick the change in AoA is. Bf-109, Me-262 F-86 pilots generally all loved this device because of its very positive effect on the turn rate stalling speed of the aircraft.

Later versions of the F-86 featured an extended sharp leading edge instead which gave better high alt performance (6-3), but at the expense of decreased maneuverability in the horizontal and a higher stall speed. For this reason the Canadians kept the slats on their versions and in comparative tests the Canadair Sabre would always outturn their US counterparts. The later developed F-86F-40 went back to using LE slats for this reason, and it also decreased stalling speed by 21 mph compared to the earlier 6-3 equipped F-86F.


----------



## drgondog (Dec 18, 2007)

Soren said:


> Glider Bill,
> 
> The Me-262 F-86 were both fitted with the LE automatic slats because of a desire to improve slow high speed maneuverability in the horizontal plane. That they lower the stall speed and increase the controllability of the a/c close to the stall is why they're also very useful at landing take off.
> 
> ...


----------



## drgondog (Dec 18, 2007)

kool kitty89 said:


> I think the Yakovlev Yak-25 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia was the last fighter (albeit an interceptor) with outboard nacelle-mounted engines. Yakovlev Yak-25 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> QUOTE]
> 
> You are right. Instead of 1950 I should have stated 1951 as last time a twin nacelle jet fighter was designed.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Dec 18, 2007)

The 86 sure did rely heavily on research from the Me 262 program. Just look at how poor the XP-86 was doing with the original strait-wings based on the Mustang's (with much thinner chord), speed performance was wors than that of the much heavier P-84, which used the same engine and had thicker wings. (it was also worse than the P-80B and C)


----------



## Soren (Dec 18, 2007)

> And about the LE slats, they were generaly retracted at high speeds, even often in maneuvers, but durring hard turns the LE of the wing would loose pressure, allowing the slats to extend, so turning would have been marginally improved by them.



That is incorrect Koolkitty. As have already been explained the slats work by means of airpressure, deploying and re-deploying depending on the AoA being pulled, therefore they are AoA dependant devices, they are completely independant of speed. 

And an increase in lift and critical AoA of ~25% is hardly something you can call "marginal" KoolKitty. The slats are infact hugely beneficial to turn rate at both high low speeds, hence them being used on nearly every fighter since WW2. 

A great invention indeed, kudos to Handley Page for being the first to patent it.


----------



## Glider (Dec 19, 2007)

Soren
Can I ask if the slats on the 262 were spring operated?


----------



## Soren (Dec 19, 2007)

They were not. They were essentially free moving devices, but in flight airpressure determined wether they were to deploy or re-deploy, the shifting airpressure gradually pushing them out as AoA increases or gradually pushing them in as AoA decreases.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Dec 19, 2007)

Sorry, I meant that in slow maneuvering (low G) the slats would not deploy, but with harder maneuvers the slats would extend to prevent a stall.

Thanks for correcting on the operation of the slats, I knew they were air-pressure operated but I wasn't sure if it was pressure on the LE of the wing or elsewhere. Sorry, I misspoke with the "marginal" comment...

Though this still doesn't mean it will be more maneuverable than the P-80, it just means it will be more maneuverable than a 262 w/out slats.

Plus, as stated, the high-aspect-ratio wing, despite decreasing induced drag, increased parasitic drag, and both the P-80 and 262 have very thin (for the time) airfoils, its just that the AR of the P-80's was somewhat lower (but not by too much) and that the wing roots on the P-80 were thicker at the wing-fuselage junction. In fact, if you compare the wing-area and span of each craft, both are almost the same, the span is less than 3ft longer in the 262, and area is less than 5 ft2 more on the P-80, the shortness of the P-80's wings is exaggerated by the sharper taper of the wing.

Also these planes wouldn't be meeting at top-speed (probably ~480-500mph at the start of combat, assuming no dives) and speed would quickly drop tho the 400 mph range once maneuvering began, possibly even lower, so medium-speed handeling would be far more important...


----------



## Soren (Dec 19, 2007)

Koolkitty,

A difference in AR of over 1.0 is considered much, esp. when looking at the change in the L/D curve. Plus the AR of the Me-262's wing is higher than 7.23 when you start to incorperate the sweep of the wing.

Parasite drag is completely irrelevant in maneuvering flight Koolkitty, while induced drag is very important being an absolutely essential factor to the turn performance of the a/c here. Parasite drag, which relates very much to frontal area, is important in straight flight as it has a great effect on the top speed of the a/c, but in maneuvering flight it is irrelevant.

So lets look at it;

The Me-262A-1a has a empty equipped weight of 3,800 kg, while the P-80 has a empty equipped wieght of 3,819 kg. Thats a wing loading of 175 kg/m^2 vs 173 kg/m^2 respectively, and now consider that the Me-262 has a CLmax approx. 20% higher than that of the P-80, when taken into consideration the result is a 35 kg/m^2 lighter wingloading for the Me-262.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Dec 19, 2007)

But role was certainly much better on the P-80...

And this comparison test:


> The USAAF compared the P-80 and Me 262 concluding: "Despite a difference in gross weight of nearly 2,000 lb (907 kg), the Me 262 was superior to the P-80 in acceleration, speed and approximately the same in climb performance. The Me 262 apparently has a higher critical Mach number, from a drag standpoint, than any current Army Air Force fighter."[7] The Army Air Force also tested an example of the Me 262A-1a/U3 (US flight evaluation serial FE-4012), an unarmed photoreconnaissance version, which was fitted with a fighter nose and given an overall smooth finish. It was used for performance comparisons against the P-80. During testing in May-August 1946, the aircraft completed eight flights spanning four hours and 40 minutes. Testing was discontinued after four engine changes were required during the course of the tests, culminating in two single-engine landings.



With the gross weight difference of 2000lb statement (assuming this comparison test is real) they were obviously referring to the Goblin (under)powered (2,400 lbf) XP-80 which, as said before was a drastically different design, and it's top speed was barely past 500 mph and climb was barely past 3,000 ft/min.

I've never seen a comparison between the XP-80A or mention of agility...


----------



## Soren (Dec 19, 2007)

Yes, the roll rate was better on the P-80.


----------



## Glider (Dec 19, 2007)

There is no doubt that Induced drag is more important in manoeuvring as it comes into play at lower speeds. Obviously, the one thing that you lose when manoeuvring, is speed.
The problem for the Me262 is that induced drag is considerably higher for aircraft with swept wings, due to the greater upwash.

At the end of the day the 262 was designed for speed not manoeuvring. The swept wing has huge advantages for speed which can be translated into climb and acceleration. However the wing is not good for a turning fight.
The slats were I am sure a solution to the slow speed handling and may have helped to some degree at high speed but dogfighting a 262 wasn't playing to its strengths.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Dec 20, 2007)

The 262 was built for more speed than she could do in level flight... With some 004D/E engines it might have pushed her into the maximum designed range... Or maby if the HeS-30's (006) had been fully developed and used on her...

Still she was a good a/c, no doubt about that, I'm just not sure that she would have been the better dogfighter of the two... The 280 with better matching engines (fully developed HeS-8 engines, or preferably, HeS 30's) would have probably been the best dogfighter of the war, even capable of out-turning piston fighters. Optimised for medium speed maneuvering (realitively high speeds for dogfights at 400+ mph, with turn performance at 500 mph probably lower than the 262 or P-80) and with excelent wing-loading, thrust/weight (especially with 006 engines) and a good fighter armament. Wings fairly thick compared to the P-80 or 262, but thinner than the Meteor's (about the same as the Vampire's or Spitfire's) and with a decent Mach limit of .79 (same as the long-nacelle Meteor III/4 and the Vampire I). The eliptical wings also offered a good lift to drag ratio, particularly if they were also laminar flow.(not sure of the airfoil type, and the high lift:drag is an inherant quality of the eliptical planform iirc)


----------



## Soren (Dec 20, 2007)

Koolkitty,

Laminar flow wings don't offer a better L/D ratio, they only reduce drag at the expense of an also reduced CLmax and critical AoA. Therefore laminar flow airfoils are not good for turnfighters as they display dangerous low AoA stalls with little to no warning and provide too little lift in turns compared to conventional airfoils. That is why nearly every modern fighter since WW2 either uses LE slats or flaps to move forward and increase the chamber of the wing in turns.

Glider,

First of all the sweep of the Me-262's wing is no more than 17.3 degree's, so I don't know how you came up with the idea that this considerably increased induced drag because of greater upwash, esp. when you consider that a high wing taper ratio, as that of the P-80's wing, has the exact same effect. So can I ask what's your point ? 

Also the higher AR of the Me-262's wing more than makes up for the sweep of the wing in terms of reducing induced drag.


----------



## Glider (Dec 20, 2007)

Soren said:


> Glider,
> 
> First of all the sweep of the Me-262's wing is no more than 17.3 degree's, so I don't know how you came up with the idea that this considerably increased induced drag because of greater upwash, esp. when you consider that a high wing taper ratio, as that of the P-80's wing, has the exact same effect. So can I ask what's your point ?
> 
> Also the higher AR of the Me-262's wing more than makes up for the sweep of the wing in terms of reducing induced drag.



Any swept wing suffers from increased induced drag, it cannot be avoided as its part of the dynamics. Straight wings don't have the same problem. 
The increased drag comes from the greater upwash, its not my idea, its aerodynamics.

As for the higher AR of the 262 more than making up the difference of the increased induced drag, I don't know as it would need information I don't have and to be honest, I doubt if you have the information either. 
The 262 doesn't have a significantly high AR, so my personal guess is that it wouldn't, but I admit that is a guess. If you have the detail to support your statement I am more than happy to go with your comment

Re the high wing taper ratio of the P80 having the same effect on the Induced Drag I agree. However, if the question is does it have a greater or lesser degree than the swept wing on the 262 again, I don't know.


----------



## Soren (Dec 20, 2007)

Glider said:


> Any swept wing suffers from increased induced drag, it cannot be avoided as its part of the dynamics. Straight wings don't have the same problem.
> The increased drag comes from the greater upwash, its not my idea, its aerodynamics.



Yes Glider its aerodynamics, and aerodynamics don't support your claim that induced drag is greatly increased with 17.3 degrees of sweep. Get my drift ?



> As for the higher AR of the 262 more than making up the difference of the increased induced drag, I don't know as it would need information I don't have and to be honest, I doubt if you have the information either.



You may doubt it all you want but I do have that information Glider:

Cdi = (Cl^2) / (pi * AR * e)

Try plotting in some figures and see what effect just a 10% increase in AR actually has on induced drag.



> The 262 doesn't have a significantly high AR, so my personal guess is that it wouldn't, but I admit that is a guess. If you have the detail to support your statement I am more than happy to go with your comment



Is 7.23 not high ? And thats without considering wing sweep.



> Re the high wing taper ratio of the P80 having the same effect on the Induced Drag I agree. However, if the question is does it have a greater or lesser degree than the swept wing on the 262 again, I don't know.



Its very close to the same Glider.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Dec 20, 2007)

Both the P-80 and 262 used Laminar Flow airfoils though, right?

So both laminar flow and elliptical wings have dangerous stall characteristics, but elliptical wings would be better durring maneuvers, and tapered, high AR wings would be perfered except for roll-rate, and stictural strength issues...

With that in mind, the He 280 probably wouldn't have used a laminar flow airfoil. (one interesting thing with Heinkel fighters is that, short of an elliptical wing, a TE-tapered wing with straight LE was used, as seen in the He 100 and He 162)


And still, I've never seen a direct comparison between the maneuverabillity of the P-80 and Me 262, though the He 162, DH.100 Vampre, and certainly the He 280 were more agile, but that's a different story... (the Meteor Mk-4 was probably less maneuverable above 400-500 mph (depending on altitude) due to air-flow separation on the thick tail surfaces, rectified in the F-8)


----------



## SoD Stitch (Dec 20, 2007)

kool kitty89 said:


> Both the P-80 and 262 used Laminar Flow airfoils though, right?



Well, I know the Me 262 did not use a laminar-flow wing, it couldn't; the tolerances for a laminar-flow wing were, by 1944, beyond the capability of the German aircraft industry. You must have exceptionally high tolerances to properly build and maintain a laminar-flow wing and, frankly, the Germans were more concerned with simply completing airframes as fast as possible by '45, let alone completing them well. If you've ever looked at the surface of an Me 262 made after 1943, you can see what I mean; the finish was very rough, especially on the fuselage. The wings were somewhat better, but there were still countless rivets in the wing that weren't all that smooth. The Germans actually used tape on the fuselage seams were the various sheet metal panels joined in order to alleviate the roughness of the finish; you can see it in some of the photos of unpainted Me 262's captured during after the War.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Dec 21, 2007)

Ok, and I'm pretty sure the P-80 used laminar flow wings. (the P-59 did too, but with wings that large and thick, 45.5ft span 386 ft2 area, this canceled out any low drag benifits... Plus there was the general lack of streamling and wind-tunnel testing durring development; no wonder it ended up a lemon.)

It is interesting though, that no US jet-powered fighter has ever used external engine nacelles, the Airacomet was the closest they got, and even it had the engines incorporated into the wing-fusalage junction...


----------



## Glider (Dec 21, 2007)

Soren said:


> Yes Glider its aerodynamics, and aerodynamics don't support your claim that induced drag is greatly increased with 17.3 degrees of sweep. Get my drift ?


Yep and the drag is increased to some degree





> You may doubt it all you want but I do have that information Glider:
> 
> Cdi = (Cl^2) / (pi * AR * e)
> 
> Try plotting in some figures and see what effect just a 10% increase in AR actually has on induced drag.


Its the 'e' value thats missing for me. DO you know anywhere where these can be obtained? Its not just for this its something that I have looked for.




> Is 7.23 not high ? And thats without considering wing sweep.


Nope, not when your used to figures of 16-25  Seriously, you are correct iro aircraft, my mistake.





> Its very close to the same Glider.


I wouldn't disagree with this


----------



## kool kitty89 (Dec 21, 2007)

One thing the P-80 certainly had aganst it was the paint scheme, or lack there of. The bare aluminum would have been alot easier to spot than the 262's camo... Though all USAAF planes produced by this time were like this
since they were no longer trying to hide from the LW. Plus the original Pearl-Gray (still not camo) prooved to be too hard to maintain too... But the lack of paint saved a bit on weight ad drag... 

Though in Korea this didn't make a difference since the migs were bare too...


----------



## Soren (Dec 22, 2007)

Glider,

The only way to determine the Oswald Efficiency factor ('e') is with full scale windtunnel tests, so I therefore don't have the accurate figures here either. But e is often very similar between aircraft, esp. of the WW2 era, so I assume that the Me-262 and P-80 have rather similar e values.

Koolkitty,

The Me-262 didn't use laminar type airfoil.

Stitch,

The Germans were fully capable of making laminar flow airfoils, however being well aware of its negative effects on lift and stalling characteristics it was decided not to use it on any a/c.


----------



## SoD Stitch (Dec 22, 2007)

Soren said:


> Stitch,
> 
> The Germans were fully capable of making laminar flow airfoils, however being well aware of its negative effects on lift and stalling characteristics it was decided not to use it on any a/c.



I'm sure the Germans were capable of building laminar-flow wings; they were capable of just about anything but, as you pointed out, the benefits did not outweigh the negatives, so it was decided not to pursue that line of development. 

And, as I stated above, by the end of the War, the Germans were using any every able bodied person, German or not, to produce war armaments; so the people assembling Me 262's weren't exactly of the highest caliber skill-wise.


----------



## Soren (Dec 22, 2007)

Another reason for why the Germans did not implement the laminar flow airfoil into their designs was that actually achieving fully laminar flow over the wing was all but impossible back then. First of all the surfaces of the wing had to be kept in absolute perfect condition, no small lumbs or the laminar flow would by ruined, something which was impossible in the field - hence the P-51's in service didn't achieve a full laminar flow over their wings.


----------



## syscom3 (Dec 22, 2007)

The issue of laminar flow wings is the precise tooling needed to build the wings. Tolerances are critical.

NAA figured out a way to build them in a mass production environment. Germany didn't, thus they stayed with the more traditional wings.


----------



## Soren (Dec 23, 2007)

Thats incorrect Syscom3, the Germans deliberately decided not to use laminar flow airfoils for their designs entirely because of its negative effects.


----------



## Kurfürst (Dec 25, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I thought the one that crashed actually crashed up in England at RAF Burtonwood and killed Major Frederic Borsodi.



Hi,

Does anybody have any kind of biograpical data on Borsodi - pictures, aircraft he flew, service record etc? If so, please contact me in email or PM!


----------



## delcyros (Dec 26, 2007)

Some Ho-IVb flying wings were build with a laminar flow wing and flying in mid 43. Laminar flow wings were considered for the improved Ta-152 and Do-335 but these projects were not carried out.
I too believe that tooling technology in Germany was not improved enough to allow their mass implementation by 44.
Laminar flow wings of otherwise comparable properties will stall both, earlier and more violently (often with direct translation from laminar to seperated flow, bypassing turbulent airflow). In a prolonged turn this is critical and gives the -262 a distinctive advantage (LE-slats furtherly delay the stall to higher AoA-figures). 
But I really doubt this plays a role here. The -262 pilot who keeps turn maneuvering until LE-slats deploy will waste his "e" and thus becomes an easy target for others. Staying fast is what increases survivability chances. Turning is ww1 style fighting. The roll charackteristic is not affected by LE-slats and the roll behavior of the 262 cannot be better than the P-80 with all the mass of the engines placed so far outbordly, hands down.
Laminar flow wings do not only allow a lower drag figure but also structural improvements (the wing can be build more stiff or an equally stiff wing can be build lighter) and advantages in wing space (laminar flow wings allow larger wing fuel tanks, one of the major advantages of the P-51).
Finally some words to engine nacelle placements. Early jet engines delivered insufficiant thrust and thus designers had to reduce the AIR INTAKE and EXHOUST losses to optimize the low thrust powerplants. Tests with 6m intake
pipes and 2m exhoust pipes on a Me-262, carried out in feb. 45 for evaluation of the HG program, showed that the losses are 6% thrust for the intake and 3% thrust for the exhoust, respectively.
These intake / exhoust losses are often neglected in thrust / weight or powerload figures of embedded designs as in the P-80 / Vampire.
It is a tradeoff. external mounts (Meteor, He-162, Me-262, Ar-234) add drag but will allow 100% of the nominal thrust of the powerplant and internal mounts cannot always be made as perfect as in the short bodied Ho-IX.

best regards and a merry Christmas,


----------



## kool kitty89 (Dec 27, 2007)

Though the Vampire was a bit better than the P-80 for thrust loss since the twin-boom design allows for a very short jet-pipe. There will still be some intake losses, but they are still somewhat short on the Vampire, though angled.
And don't forget the P-59's semi-fusalage-embeded nacelle configuration, which would also promote minimal loss.


----------



## Robin olds (Jan 3, 2009)

In real life it goes like this. The P-80, is likely to be faster,more agile in a dogfight but the 262 have far superior firepower and better pilots. In realistic air warfare the aircrafts scores an equal due to better luthwaffe pilots and better guns


----------



## Colin1 (Jan 3, 2009)

Anonymous said:


> I think the numbers speak for themselves. On top of these figures, the Me262 rolled poorly, the P-80 rolled extremely well. The P-80 also out-turned the Me262. I really cannot see any aspect of the Me262 that beats the P-80.
> 
> The P-80 would have blasted the Me262 from the skies with ease!



That's the problem with numbers, they're only any good at speaking for themselves.

The F86 wasn't as fast as the MiG-15, it wasn't as heavily armed and couldn't climb anywhere near as rapidly; three key attributes in air combat. Despite this, the kill ratio of F86:MiG-15 was about 1:13 if you included MiG pilots of all nationalities involved (Chinese, Korean and Russian).

In yet another twist, this is unlikely to have been the case in the ETO where the USAAF squadrons had gotten pretty competent at taking on the Luftwaffe. Their personal piloting attributes generally and team skills by this stage of the war would have allowed them to maximise the advantages of the F80 against the Me262 whilst the same would have prevented the Luftwaffe from deploying its own experience decisively.

The strategic advantage (near-uninterceptable bomber destroyer) offered by the Me262 would have been lost to the F80 but as we're talking about a potential combat somewhere in the fall of 1945 then we can't project for one side in the conflict without doing the same for the other, at the risk of skewing the argument unrealistically.

It might be wise to remember that the Me262 wasn't the only iron that the Luftwaffe had in its fire; by fall of that year it may well have been relying on something else - the Focke-Wulf Ta183 anybody? Difficult to know for certain but it isn't hard to visualise it keeping the F80 squadrons tied up whilst the Me262 returned to its duties running at the bomber streams.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 3, 2009)

Colin1 said:


> The F86 wasn't as fast as the MiG-15, it wasn't as heavily armed and couldn't climb anywhere near as rapidly; three key attributes in air combat. Despite this, the kill ratio of F86:MiG-15 was about 1:13 if you included MiG pilots of all nationalities involved (Chinese, Korean and Russian).


New research has revealed that the actual kill ratio was more like 6 to 1 and maybe 2 to 1 aganst Soviet Units. In either case the F-86 still had the upper hand on the MiG-15.


----------



## Soren (Jan 3, 2009)

Robin olds said:


> In real life it goes like this. The P-80, is likely to be faster,more agile in a dogfight but the 262 have far superior firepower and better pilots. In realistic air warfare the aircrafts scores an equal due to better luthwaffe pilots and better guns



In real life everything you have said (except the part about firepower), is incorrect. 

The Me-262 is faster, accelerates quicker, climbs better turns better than the P-80. The P-80 likely has a higher roll rate though.

The P-80A's sent to the ETO only achieved roughly a 795 km/h top speed, it wasn't until after the war that performance was boosted to over 800 km/h.

And as for pilots, the LuftWaffe didn't possess better pilots than the USAAF, infact by late 44 45 the USAAF pilots were in general much better trained.


----------



## Timppa (Jan 4, 2009)

From another forum:
"Comparison testing at Wright Field showed that the P-80A was superior to the Me 262 in every performance category except dive acceleration. In a sustained dive, the 262 pulled away slightly initially. However, it entered full compressibility at Mach 0.84 and continued diving would result in the 262 nosing over through vertical and suffering a sudden catastrophic break-up. On the other hand, the P-80A pilot could simply pop his speed brake...."


----------



## Soren (Jan 4, 2009)

Hehe, testing at Wright Field showed the Me-262 to be faster, climb faster accelerate faster than the P-80A. So who'ever wrote that on the other forum didn't have a clue what he was talking about.

From the Wright Field Report:
_"Despite a difference in gross weight of nearly 2,000 lb (907 kg), the Me 262 was superior to the P-80 in acceleration, speed and approximately the same in climb performance. The Me 262 apparently has a higher critical Mach number, from a drag standpoint, than any current Army Air Force fighter."_


----------



## Timppa (Jan 5, 2009)

Soren said:


> Hehe, testing at Wright Field showed the Me-262 to be faster, climb faster accelerate faster than the P-80A. So who'ever wrote that on the other forum didn't have a clue what he was talking about..



You have the original report or link to it ?


----------



## delcyros (Jan 13, 2009)

The speed numbers seem to be representative for a single test. Judging from the mass test of 125 production Me-262A1 carried out in late 1944 the corresponding average speed at the given altitudes appears to be:

Sea level: 521 mp/h ( P-80´s best altitude, Me-262A beeing significantly slower here)
15.000 ft.: 537 mp/h (slightly slower than the P-80 here)
20.000ft.: 543 mp/h (best altitude for the Me-262, slightly faster here than the P-80)
33.000 ft.: 518 mp/h (slightly faster than the P-80, here)
40.000 ft. altitude is barely in within service ceiling of the Me-262A at a gross weight of in between 6000 Kg (=service ceiling 39.222 ft.) and 5000 Kg(= service ceiling 42.700 ft.). Depending on the load and state of the airplane it would do in between 440 and 465 mp/h at 40.000 ft.

I know that at least two, but probably more like three comparisons were made between Me-262A and P-80. One of them is versus the less able XP-80, which didn´t climbed as well and was slower, too.


----------



## Colin1 (Jan 13, 2009)

delcyros said:


> The speed numbers seem to be representative for a single test. Judging from the mass test of 125 production Me-262A1 carried out in late 1944 the corresponding average speed at the given altitudes appears to be:
> 
> Sea level: 521 mp/h ( P-80´s best altitude, Me-262A beeing significantly slower here)
> 15.000 ft.: 537 mp/h (slightly slower than the P-80 here)
> ...


Judging by that
I would say that one of the two key combat advantages of the Me262 

i. enormous hitting power
ii. considerable speed margin

is lost (considerable speed margin) with advantage varying depending on what altitude the two planes met; this was generally the pattern of things when prop job met prop job and the guy with the slight disadvantage mostly worked out a strategy to nullify the threat.
I don't how much faster 'slightly faster' is between 20,000 and 33,000ft but it doesn't sound like a considerable speed margin any more, the advantage offered there by the Me262 sounds like it would have been lost, the P80 probably in with a good chance of making an interception before the Me262 pulled away.


----------



## Soren (Jan 14, 2009)

The problem with the P-80A in service in 45 was there appauling performance, reaching 795 km/h in level flight at best.

As for the Me-262's service ceiling, it was 13.1 km at 6,400 kg.


----------



## Timppa (Jan 16, 2009)

Soren said:


> The problem with the P-80A in service in 45 was there appauling performance, reaching 795 km/h in level flight at best.
> 
> As for the Me-262's service ceiling, it was 13.1 km at 6,400 kg.



Source for the ceiling ?

I've waited two weeks of yours "Wright Field" comparison of Me262 vs. P-80A.

Are you just trolling here ?


----------



## SoD Stitch (Jan 16, 2009)

Interesting quote from "American Raiders", by Wolfgang W. E. Samuel, published by University Press of Mississippi, concerning the Me 262/P-80 tests at Wright Field (pp. 21-23):

'(Walter) McAuley thought the Me-262 "performed slightly better than the F-80 (sic) but was a dog as far as handling characteristics, and a maintenance man's nightmare." McAuley's finding was contrary to the experience of Hal Watson and his men at Lager Lechfeld, where in the course of their exploitation efforts they recovered a number of Me-262 jets for return to the United States. Another Wright Field test pilot, Gustav Lundquist, felt that the "engines did not hold up well when operating near the redline limits and I had to make a couple single engine landings." After the war Chuck Yeager chose to become a Wright Field test pilot. It was General Arnold's policy to allow his fighter aces to choose any assignment they wanted, and Yeager wanted to try his hand at test flying. Yeager was one of several aces flying under Major Kenneth O. Chilstrom, the chief of the Wright Field Fighter Operations Section. Chilstrom had Yeager fly the Me-262. Yeager commented, "I was busy doing air shows and flight test work; being the most junior test pilot in the shop, I was lucky to be asked to make coffee, but I did manage to get a few interesting jobs. One of them was comparison testing between the _Shooting Star_ and a captured German Me-262 jet fighter . . . . I was fascinated to discover the the 262 and the _Shooting Star_ performed identically - the same range, top speed, acceleration, and rate of climb."

The final report published by Wright Field on the Me-262 concluded that it suffered from poor brakes, something common to all German aircraft and certainly no reflection on the Me-262, and that engine changes were a frequent requirement. The latter finding, of course, attested only to the early stage of jet engine development and the German inability to obtain critical raw materials such as chromium, nickel, and molybdenum. As for the 262's handling characteristics, the Wright Field test pilots rated them as poor. The probable cause was aileron and elevator servotabs which for some reason had been disconnected. This may have occured during disassembly for shipment, with the servotabs never being reconnected during reassembly. "The overall conclusion was that T2-711" - the number assigned to the aircraft by the Technical Intelligence at Wright Field - "was superior to the average Lockheed P-80A in acceleration and speed, and comparable in climb performance, despite a weight penalty of 2,000 lbs. A miximum True Air Speed of 568 mph was measured at a pressure altitude of 20,200 feet."

Any way one chose to look at the Me-262 jet fighter, it was a remarkable airplane. Bob Strobell, a P-47 pilot and one of Watson's Whizzers, said about the Me-262/P-80 comparison tests, "The final test report stated that the comparison tests were pretty close. No enormous advantage of one over the other. I don't really believe that. I think the Me-262 was superior to the P-80 across the board. I flew the 262, and that's what I believe." Other Whizzer pilots who flew the German jet, like Bob Strobell, felt that the Me-262 was a superior airplane, the very best of it's day.'


----------



## delcyros (Jan 17, 2009)

That fits´well into the general picture.
Colin is basically right, there is not much of a speed difference at typical combat altitudes. The Me-262 tested with 568 mp/h mentioned by SoD stitch above, is likely a better than average performing Me-262A. It´s 25 mp/h faster than the average of 125 Me-262A tested in 1944 at this altitude.
Differences between individual planes are not suprising, we know that the JV-44 had some, which were preferred over others in their inventory due to obvious differences in performance.
Dare to say that production quality controll was much less effective in Germany during the 1944/45 timeframe than was in the US. A given US made P-80 is more likely to be in a more narrow proximity to it´s legend performance than a german produced Me-262 (I admit this is speculation but a qualified one). 
On the other hand, the mass test is what we do judge the performance of the Me-262, with tighter quality controll alone, the legend performance is likely to rise significantly. What I wanted to say is that the definitions of legend performance appearently do not match well in these two cases, this must be kept in mind.


----------



## Soren (Jan 20, 2009)

Well Stitch you beat me to it. 

Brown has also on numerous occasions made it clear that they [RAE] achieved an average top level speed of over 900 km/h in the Me-262 and that handling characteristics were superb. 

As for service ceiling, read the Me262 performance charts if you want to know it Timppa, calling me a troll for no reason has put you on my ignore list.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 20, 2009)

Stich - interesting post.

Something else to consider folks with regards to acceleration and speeds with these two jets.

Upon an engagement, whatever speeds they enter the engagement at is basically what they will be fighting with. As we know ALL early jets did not accelerate quickly and you were looking at up to a 30 second spool up time in some cases. Also remember that during any kind of combat speed will build up quickly and just as quick you'll find yourself in a terminal dive with only the speed brakes to save your tail.

Turning and roll rates will also be key but in the long run the slight advantage in speed and acceleration will be negligible if both aircraft are not accelerating quickly.

So with this said the one who manages energy the best will be the winner


----------



## Waynos (Jan 21, 2009)

kool kitty89 said:


> It is interesting though, that no US jet-powered fighter has ever used external engine nacelles, the Airacomet was the closest they got, and even it had the engines incorporated into the wing-fusalage junction...



Operationally there was none, but there was the Curtiss XP-87 prototype


----------



## Soren (Jan 25, 2009)

Eric "Winkle" Brown on the Me-262:

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

Quote: _"The top speed of this aircraft was 568 mph"_

Thats 915 km/h as tested by Brown himself. He has previously quoted that the average top speed of the examples tested by the RAE in level flight was over 900 km/h. 

The Germans achieved similar results, but because of the varying quality between each batch of engines coming off the production lines, the average top speed achieved by the Germans with 125 a/c tested was 873 km/h. 

It should be mentioned that the Me262's tested by the RAE were in excellent condition, not something which could be expected from each a/c late in the war.


----------



## Timppa (Jan 28, 2009)

For those who don't want to rely on YouTube clips entirely, RAE test results (from WWII Aircraft Performance)
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/me262/RAE-german-jets.pdf


----------



## Waynos (Jan 28, 2009)

Strange, but the graph showing the top speed of the He 162 (if I am reading it correctly) seems to show the max speed as about 470mph when above 25,000ft.

This is the lowest figure I have seen and is almost 100mph less than the much publicised and generally accepted figure. Is there any particular reason for it being so low? Even in my own thread (I only have the one so I can call it that) I was asking whether the 'official' figure printed in Janes 1945/46 of 522mph was correct, but this seems much too low.


----------



## delcyros (Jan 29, 2009)

The test says that the reason for the He-162 eeing that low is connected with the engine, which did not develop the thrust they were designed for.


----------



## delcyros (Jan 29, 2009)

One thing aout the RAE test worth pointing out is that the critical altitude for the He-162 tested was somewhere between 26.000 and 28.000 ft., while the specifications call for something around 20.000ft. as top altitude for the plane.
I understand that the same effect is testimonied once in a Me-262 level speed test, which again was based on somehow underperforming powerplants. The crit altitude raises but why? Has this something to do with the distance to their respective critical Mach figure? Just wondering.


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Jan 29, 2009)

> Yeager commented, "I was busy doing air shows and flight test work; being the most junior test pilot in the shop, I was lucky to be asked to make coffee, but I did manage to get a few interesting jobs. One of them was comparison testing between the Shooting Star and a captured German Me-262 jet fighter . . . . I was fascinated to discover the the 262 and the Shooting Star performed identically - the same range, top speed, acceleration, and rate of climb."



Interesting quote of Yeager. I suspect he wasn't fooling when he wrote that.


----------



## drgondog (Jan 29, 2009)

Soundbreaker Welch? said:


> Interesting quote of Yeager. I suspect he wasn't fooling when he wrote that.



the one thing to keep in mind is that when Yeager flew the 262 and F-80 one was still being improved upon and the other had 'suspended' development for more than 18 months.


----------



## fly boy (Jan 29, 2009)

if anything within the 1945-1954 to shoot down a 262 with ease would be a f-86


----------



## dragonandhistail (Jan 29, 2009)

The P-80 was faster, more maneuverable, and had much more reliable armament. The German MK 103 cannon were short ranged and unreliable as well. Also the 262's turbojets were a danger to the pilot. P-80 hands down.


----------



## SoD Stitch (Jan 30, 2009)

dragonandhistail said:


> The P-80 was faster, more maneuverable, and had much more reliable armament. The German MK 103 cannon were short ranged and unreliable as well. Also the 262's turbojets were a danger to the pilot. P-80 hands down.



Here it comes . . . . . .


----------



## parsifal (Jan 30, 2009)

SoD Stitch said:


> Here it comes . . . . . .



Yep...I know what you are thinking and I agree


----------



## KrazyKraut (Jan 30, 2009)

Shhh. Don't feed the troll.


----------



## yellowtail3 (Dec 9, 2009)

Robin olds said:


> In real life it goes like this. The P-80, is likely to be faster,more agile in a dogfight but the 262 have far superior firepower[] and better pilots. In realistic air warfare the aircrafts scores an equal due to better luthwaffe pilots and better guns



ludicrous. US pilots generally had far more flight time and better training the Luftwaffe pilots in 1945. You're repeating a myth by those who think every German pilot was an 'experten' - BIG myth. 

Myth.


----------



## peterpro (May 28, 2010)

I voted the me-262 because it had the armament and the speed to do the job while us jet experiments before the p-80 were a miserable failure


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 28, 2010)

peterpro said:


> I voted the me-262 because it had the armament and the speed to do the job while us jet experiments before the p-80 were a miserable failure



The only " jet experiments" before the P-80 was the P-59 - is that what you're referring to?

Reactions: Dislike Dislike:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## firejack007 (May 18, 2012)

A squadron of P-80's were sent to Italy to hunt and shoot down AR-234 jets that were giving the Germans knowledge of everything that went on. If a P-80 had shot one down and knowledge of P-80s in the war, you can bet the Germans would've sent at least a squadron of 262's. Then you would've had your first jet to jet dogfights.


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O3viiJ4g5G8_


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 19, 2012)

firejack007 said:


> A squadron of P-80's were sent to Italy to hunt and shoot down AR-234 jets that were giving the Germans knowledge of everything that went on. If a P-80 had shot one down and knowledge of P-80s in the war, you can bet the Germans would've sent at least a squadron of 262's. Then you would've had your first jet to jet dogfights.
> 
> 
> _View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O3viiJ4g5G8_




A Squadron???? Try "2" (two) II

Reactions: Dislike Dislike:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 19, 2012)

firejack007 said:


> A squadron of P-80's were sent to Italy to hunt and shoot down AR-234 jets that were giving the Germans knowledge of everything that went on. If a P-80 had shot one down and knowledge of P-80s in the war, you can bet the Germans would've sent at least a squadron of 262's. Then you would've had your first jet to jet dogfights.
> 
> 
> _View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O3viiJ4g5G8_


. 

Huh? Where did you hear this? Sorry but that is wrong. Only 2 P-80's were sent to Italy, and it had nothing to do with the Ar 234.


----------



## parsifal (May 19, 2012)

There were only four AR 234s transferred to Utaly, and by the time the P-80s had deployed these aircrafdt were grounded. To be fair there were plans to upgrade the flight to squadron status at the very end of the war, and whilst they were flying the AR 234s did provide valuable recon in the Ancona area


----------



## delcyros (Jan 2, 2013)

P80A flighttestdata from USAAF trials conducted 1946 and 1947. I excluded trial data for specially prepared high speed aircraft with shallow canopy and clipped wings, which would not be employed in operational fighters. Specially treated surface trial testdata are included and represent the fastest A/C in these trials. Turbine thrust output seems to have been differed significantly between individual engines.
The mean curve in black is representative for an average P-80A, the thinner curves represent poor or very good performing airplanes.






Below attached the Me-262a average speed curve, representative for A/C produced 1944.





These testdata are the mean curve of a rather scattered cloud of points from a total of 125 serially produced Me-262a1 acceptance speed tests. The corresponding curve shows somehow comparable A/C with regard to average top speed. The P-80 holds a slight advantage at Sea Level while the -262A holds an advantage in medium and high altitude. The differences in speed are not as large as differences between individual A/C, thus no conclusive statement can be drawn which A/C is faster.





enjoi.


----------



## sturmbock44 (Jan 2, 2013)

Im an American but it seems clear to me Germany outclassed the allies in pilots regardless of how many inexperience German pilots where flying at wars end. Why did the allies come no where near the amount of aces and fall horribly short in the tallys of our highest aces? Also if we had such great designers of our own why was Germany first to use and deploy so many different types of weapons and technology? As far as aircraft go and rocket design go i think their is a reason why the allies rushed to rip off designs and take designers out of Germany. Funny these are "evil" people but you will gladly take them and make them citizens of your country lol! Im an American and i can say i think we faced the cream of the crop when i comes to Germany in WWII it took the best of the world 5 or so years depending on where you come from to beat them into submission. I really doubt any one of the allies could have faced Germany 1 on 1 technologically or just in terms of all out war. Seems to be a huge amount of smart people on this board. Had the Ho 229 made it into beyond just test flights how do you think it would have compared against other luftwaffe jets and allied jets? The P1101 would have been the real contender if you ask me , being that Americans and soviets both leaned heavy on this design for thier post war AC. Like we are supposed to believe the AK 47 isnt a rip off of the STG 44...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 2, 2013)

sturmbock44 said:


> Im an American but it seems clear to me Germany outclassed the allies in pilots regardless of how many inexperience German pilots where flying at wars end. Why did the allies come no where near the amount of aces and fall horribly short in the tallys of our highest aces?


American pilots flew a limited amount of missions and were rotated home. LW pilots flew until they were killed and were also flying in "combat rich enviornments." Examine some of the missions and paces of the top LW and US aces - some of them on both sides shot down aircraft at the same rates.



sturmbock44 said:


> Also if we had such great designers of our own why was Germany first to use and deploy so many different types of weapons and technology?


It didn't seem to help much did it?!?!? 



sturmbock44 said:


> As far as aircraft go and rocket design go i think their is a reason why the allies rushed to rip off designs and take designers out of Germany. Funny these are "evil" people but you will gladly take them and make them citizens of your country lol! Im an American and i can say i think we faced the cream of the crop when i comes to Germany in WWII it took the best of the world 5 or so years depending on where you come from to beat them into submission. I really doubt any one of the allies could have faced Germany 1 on 1 technologically or just in terms of all out war. Seems to be a huge amount of smart people on this board. Had the Ho 229 made it into beyond just test flights how do you think it would have compared against other luftwaffe jets and allied jets? The P1101 would have been the real contender if you ask me , being that Americans and soviets both leaned heavy on this design for thier post war AC. Like we are supposed to believe the AK 47 isnt a rip off of the STG 44...


 I was going to respond to the rest of your "rants' but I'm going to honest with you - this is the first "Totally Ignorant" post on this site for 2013. I'm giving you some advice and I'm going to tell you once - you better start to back up your BS with DOCUMENTED facts and stop putting up ignorant rants on this site or your time around here is going to be VERY short!!!

Reactions: Dislike Dislike:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Njaco (Jan 2, 2013)

> I really doubt any one of the allies could have faced Germany 1 on 1 technologically or just in terms of all out war.



England did for about 2 years and had them at a standstill.



> ...and i can say i think we faced the cream of the crop when i comes to Germany in WWII ....



after about 1943, pilot-wise, this statement is not true.



> ...Funny these are "evil" people but you will gladly take them and make them citizens of your country...



To the victors go the spoils.

Reactions: Dislike Dislike:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Matt308 (Jan 2, 2013)

...not again.


----------



## sturmbock44 (Jan 2, 2013)

WOW I guess if you consider that an ignorant rant you must be pretty easily bothered. Also why are you furthering it like this with your opinion about me? I was just responding to a few things i had seen in 20 pages of other people talking about "who won the war" , Ar 234s , rockets, Designers of aircraft , many others where saying who they thought had better designers. Oh god not again another forum with people who will start make something into argument , because they dont like it, state their opinion make fun of someone who didnt attack any member of this forum and hope the other people get banned. You Killed this thread for me ! and im sorry if to the forum(not flygirl) if what i said was so bad im sure the admin. will ban me at your request. Freaking stupid how someone cant say an opinion unless its POPULAR cause of control freaks! Now i see how others get banned because people start a fight and any attempt to speak back is called childish fighting. See ya later everyone thats easy going open minded and generally decent . 

Even Njaco an Admin just wrote what he thought and that was the end of it . like it should be.
why cant other people give an opinion without others getting all personal and acting like nerds!


----------



## Njaco (Jan 2, 2013)

Well, I don't know what to say....






Anyone can have an opinion. Its the name calling and sarcasm that will get a vacation from here.

Reactions: Dislike Dislike:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## sturmbock44 (Jan 2, 2013)

Sarcasm is reason to ban? wow i never new that. And will have to keep it in mind unlike somepeople. Well i really dont feel free to say anything which sucks because im not the one being arrogant. take a look at what was said to me and what i actually said.Especially what you have posted before in your careers on this site. take a "what if poll" about something that never happened and control it. resonse to NJACO cuz you tried to be somewhat civil in your response. Is your right about the pilot quality in 43 and on. I was sticking to number of planes built. being that so many people are ruining good forums because they are looking to show how arrogant they can be, i wont participate in anything but models i guess. Im seriously ed with you as moderator. Sucking the fun out of being a member here , a lot of people stay out of a thread when people like you are looking to " " everything they say, grammar , call them stupid, and then any response will result in a banning? Wow is all i can say to all of this. 
The only response you made a good point on was US flyers could stop after so many missions. 
Ok can anyone with real facts back up what he was trying to say so astutely ? When did an American and or British pilot have the option to stop flying combat? couldnt they volunteer to keep flying if they wish? (in theory they could of flied to they died or finished the war? )

Being that your only one person here and want trouble ill just ignore you.Anyone else who responds to what i said with " " trying to burn me or tries to keep this going as a fight, calls me stupid i hope administrators will see who the real problem is with running good forum . 

If any helpful non arrogant people want to respond , my main question was, if not too off topic was how the Ho 229 compared to the 262 and shooting star? And about Allied flyers could they in theory flew as many missions as a Luftwaffe pilot not? Thanks this kinda is off topic but i hope not too bad based on everything thats been said in 20 pages of comments.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 2, 2013)

sturmbock44 said:


> WOW I guess if you consider that an ignorant rant you must be pretty easily bothered. Also why are you furthering it like this with your opinion about me? I was just responding to a few things i had seen in 20 pages of other people talking about "who won the war" , Ar 234s , rockets, Designers of aircraft , many others where saying who they thought had better designers. Oh god not again another forum with people who will start make something into argument , because they dont like it, state their opinion make fun of someone who didnt attack any member of this forum and hope the other people get banned. You Killed this thread for me ! and im sorry if to the forum(not flygirl) if what i said was so bad im sure the admin. will ban me at your request. Freaking stupid how someone cant say an opinion unless its POPULAR cause of control freaks! Now i see how others get banned because people start a fight and any attempt to speak back is called childish fighting. See ya later everyone thats easy going open minded and generally decent .
> 
> Even Njaco an Admin just wrote what he thought and that was the end of it . like it should be.
> why cant other people give an opinion without others getting all personal and acting like nerds!



1. you posted moronic dribble that had nothing to do with an otherwise good thread.
2. It's one thing to have an opinion, it's another to post WRONG and ignorant rants.
3. You should know better.
4. Now you can take a vacation into cyberspace!

Oh yes - enjoy your new avatar!

Reactions: Dislike Dislike:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Matt308 (Jan 2, 2013)

Yes... again.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 2, 2013)

sturmbock44 said:


> Sarcasm is reason to ban? wow i never new that. And will have to keep it in mind unlike somepeople. Well i really dont feel free to say anything which sucks because im not the one being arrogant. take a look at what was said to me and what i actually said.Especially what you have posted before in your careers on this site. take a "what if poll" about something that never happened and control it. resonse to NJACO cuz you tried to be somewhat civil in your response. Is your right about the pilot quality in 43 and on. I was sticking to number of planes built. being that so many people are ruining good forums because they are looking to show how arrogant they can be, i wont participate in anything but models i guess. Im seriously ed with you as moderator. Sucking the fun out of being a member here , a lot of people stay out of a thread when people like you are looking to " " everything they say, grammar , call them stupid, and then any response will result in a banning? Wow is all i can say to all of this.
> The only response you made a good point on was US flyers could stop after so many missions.
> Ok can anyone with real facts back up what he was trying to say so astutely ? When did an American and or British pilot have the option to stop flying combat? couldnt they volunteer to keep flying if they wish? (in theory they could of flied to they died or finished the war? )
> 
> ...



Well I just caught up to this one - you should have quit while you were ahead, I was only going to give you 2 weeks on the beach. Now you're gone for good! BTW, I would have answered your question at the end of your post but your blantant stupidity rose to the occasion!

Enjoy the bunker

Reactions: Dislike Dislike:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Matt308 (Jan 2, 2013)

Well...


----------



## Njaco (Jan 2, 2013)

yeah...well.....we can do what we want in our sandbox.

Otherwise......

I haven't voted in this poll because it would be pure emotion and nothing based in any facts. I know a bit about the Me 262, its strengths and weaknesses but as for the P-80, not so much. It wouldn't be a fair vote on my behalf.

Reactions: Dislike Dislike:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Jan 2, 2013)

I've noticed a bit of a trend; the 'Luftwaffe Uber Alles' guys are the ones who seem to come out with the most amount of drivel and end up getting censured more often than any other 'group'. Is this actually the case, or is this because on the threads that I frequent there are more of them?

Hard to say which is better out of the P-80 or Me 262. What is the question; which was the best or which is our favourite? With its swept wings and axial flow engines, the Me 262 had advances a plenty, but was unreliable. One thing of interest is that the P-80 did what the 262 could on only one engine, it was more conventional in layout and appearance, but this did not detract from its potential.


----------



## meatloaf109 (Jan 2, 2013)

There may be a lack of "fibre" in their diet. 
Just sayin'

Reactions: Dislike Dislike:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Matt308 (Jan 2, 2013)

I'll speak up as a moderator that does not directly contribute to this subject out of sheer ignorance compared to many of our members and their knowledge... it is not the bias that gets a member into IMC. It is the attitude, backhanded comments and 'know it all' demeanor that get folks into trouble.

For the most part people get along. But those that push buttons knowingly with sniping comments or emoticons that imply same ( e.g.,  i.e., RAZZ ) are only drawing unnecessary attention to themselves that cannot possibly result in good.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Njaco (Jan 2, 2013)

and in case anybody is counting, I'm one of those Luftwaffe Uber Mensch. I know almost zilch about Allied aircraft ( some would say the same for me about the LW aircraft) and I think the LW aircraft were fantastic looking and in some ways and aspects superior in quality and design. Pilot training - at times - were better than others, etc. Well hell, look at my siggy, thats not a PZL 11. But......

Its like Matt said, Its not the content but how its presented.


----------



## meatloaf109 (Jan 2, 2013)

No, you got a Zeppelin, fer christ sakes!
And i still say that fibre in the diet could help several folks 'round here!

Reactions: Dislike Dislike:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Jan 2, 2013)

> No, you got a Zeppelin, fer christ sakes!



A 'Led' Zeppelin actually - a Day of Celebration, perhaps?  

Point taken about the LW freaks - it just seems to be a coincidence that a lot of those who do get slaps on the hand are LW Ubermenchen, not saying all of those guys do and because you might be one then you are prone to a belligerent attitude, but it's common is all. Don't get me wrong; I have a healthy respect for the German aircraft and their use of technology, too and there's nothing personal intended in my comment, guys.


----------



## Matt308 (Jan 2, 2013)

Perhaps its just uberassen.


----------



## nuuumannn (Jan 2, 2013)

> Perhaps its just uberassen.





I was thinking about this thread (it's real purpose) and thought maybe that the early Meteor marks and Vampire could be included for interest's sake?


----------



## tyrodtom (Jan 2, 2013)

I worked for a few years with 2 guys who were Holocaust deneirs, Nazi apologists, and KKK too. I've noticed a similarity in some of their idealology and some of our 3rd Reich fans. I've heard it all before.
They tried to convert me, and I tried to convert them, it was a interesting 3 years.
I took one of them several books on the Waffen SS, Gestapo, etc. and it backfired on me, it ended up increasing his admiration of them.
And worse of all, he still has those books.


----------



## meatloaf109 (Jan 2, 2013)

And that is why you never try to teach a pig to sing, 
It is a waste of your time, and it annoys the pig!


----------



## GrauGeist (Jan 2, 2013)

I imagine the reason you get such a high frequency of "Germany know-it-alls" and the die-hard "Germany was such a badass above all else" crowd, is because they are kids enamoured by the "black-shirt - bad guy" syndrome.
Yes, Germany had cool, high-tech equipment, but so did the Allies. The difference is the Allies didn't have the black cross on their equipment and unlike the Allies, the Axis leaders had thier heads so far up thier a** that there was no real chance for success...but the last part isn't cool, so they forget to mention that in thier "uber alles" rants...

As far as the time-worn "Me262 versus the P-80" showdown, both machines were very closely matched and so it would have most likely come down to which pilot was better or who ran out of fuel first...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 3, 2013)

nuuumannn said:


> I've noticed a bit of a trend; the 'Luftwaffe Uber Alles' guys are the ones who seem to come out with the most amount of drivel and end up getting censured more often than any other 'group'. Is this actually the case, or is this because on the threads that I frequent there are more of them?
> 
> Hard to say which is better out of the P-80 or Me 262. What is the question; which was the best or which is our favourite? With its swept wings and axial flow engines, the Me 262 had advances a plenty, but was unreliable. One thing of interest is that the P-80 did what the 262 could on only one engine, it was more conventional in layout and appearance, but this did not detract from its potential.



I think you just take notice of these guys more than the others. There are just as many guys who think anything that had RAF roundels or the words Spitfire in it were the greatest things since bread and butter, and nothing made by anyone else could touch it. There are just the same for the USA fans. They are the lot that think that without the US the world was lost, and that all US made aircraft were miracles of superiority over anything. 

There is a ton of national pride floating around on this forum (British, USA, German), most choose not to admit it. It also just so happens that many people choose to only see the Luftwaffe freaks. The Luftwaffe freaks are no better, don't take me wrong. 

Having said all of this, everyone is entitled to their opinion, but if you make insulting posts, that will get you banned. No one will ever be removed for stating their mind or opinion. Just don't insult people.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 3, 2013)

To add to this is when these people make specific claims without backing them up (The Bf 109 was the fastest fighter of the war, the B-29 was the largest aircraft to fly, etc.) personally, I will challenge and call out the grossly uneducated who come on here with a limited knowledge pool and then think they are going to school us. I don't profess to "know it all" but please, don't come on here, spout off half truths and lies and then think we wont challenge you.

Reactions: Dislike Dislike:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## ccheese (Jan 3, 2013)

You'll notice that I don't post in these "this vs that" threads. My knowledge of aircraft technical specs is non-existent. I think some of these people get their information from computer combat games. However, I do lurk in the background and watch for someone to overload his hummingbird mouth. At that point someone with greater technical know-how than I will jump.... feet first.

Just sayin'

Charles


----------



## oldcrowcv63 (Jan 3, 2013)

meatloaf109 said:


> There may be a lack of "fibre" in their diet.
> Just sayin'



You are bad...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 3, 2013)

Getting this thread back on track - BUMP




delcyros said:


> P80A flighttestdata from USAAF trials conducted 1946 and 1947. I excluded trial data for specially prepared high speed aircraft with shallow canopy and clipped wings, which would not be employed in operational fighters. Specially treated surface trial testdata are included and represent the fastest A/C in these trials. Turbine thrust output seems to have been differed significantly between individual engines.
> The mean curve in black is representative for an average P-80A, the thinner curves represent poor or very good performing airplanes.
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Matt308 (Jan 3, 2013)

nuuumannn said:


> I was thinking about this thread (it's real purpose) and thought maybe that the early Meteor marks and Vampire could be included for interest's sake?


 Especially the Vampire. Quite a machine from what I know.


----------



## Erich (Jan 3, 2013)

for me personally this multi paged thread has run it's due course really getting nowhere........time to close

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Marcel (Jan 3, 2013)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I think you just take notice of these guys more than the others. There are just as many guys who think anything that had RAF roundels or the words Spitfire in it were the greatest things since bread and butter, and nothing made by anyone else could touch it. There are just the same for the USA fans. They are the lot that think that without the US the world was lost, and that all US made aircraft were miracles of superiority over anything.


And they are all wrong, you know Spitfire squadron 322 together with the 1st JaVA won the war singlehandedly. All the rest was just a sideshow....


----------



## nuuumannn (Jan 3, 2013)

> As far as the time-worn "Me262 versus the P-80" showdown, both machines were very closely matched and so it would have most likely come down to which pilot was better or who ran out of fuel first...



Aaah, some perspective. Yes, Adler et al, agree. Meatloaf, this one about the F-111 in Australia: "never wrestle with a pig, you just end up getting dirty and the pig likes it"


----------



## aurora-7 (Jan 10, 2013)

I gave it to the P-80 only because I think it could out last the M-262.

Even thought the Me has better overall performance, it's engine issues could be come more apparent if it was pushed to fight another jet and end up catching fire. The P-80 could be victorious without firing a shot unless the Me had a well disciplined pilot that would not be baited into over stressing his machine.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 10, 2013)

aurora-7 said:


> I gave it to the P-80 only because I think it could out last the M-262.
> 
> Even thought the Me has better overall performance, *it's engine issues could be come more apparent if it was pushed to fight another jet and end up catching fire*. The P-80 could be victorious without firing a shot unless the Me had a well disciplined pilot that would not be baited into over stressing his machine.



I don't know how you could make that assumption as during combat you're not changing power settings on a jet as you would on a piston engine aircraft. Both aircraft were limited to about 5 minutes at 100% RPM.

The "spring 1945" Me 262s were probably more reliable than the P-80s being produced at the same time.


----------



## aurora-7 (Jan 10, 2013)

My understanding is that the metallurgy on the 262 was more dicey and the engines, more temperamental. The Jumo was a more efficient design but the metals weren't developed yet to handle the stresses and the Whittle design was more stable.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 10, 2013)

aurora-7 said:


> My understanding is that the metallurgy on the 262 was more dicey and the engines, more temperamental. The Jumo was a more efficient design but the metals weren't developed yet to handle the stresses and the Whittle design was more stable.


You're right about the material but wrong about the reliability. The Jumos being fielded during the spring of 45 was still lasting longer than the early J33s going into the P-80s (the Jumo had a 50 hour TBO). The P-80 had numerous fuel control problems that killed test pilot Milo Burchan and later Richard Bong. I don't know what type of "stress" you're saying the Jumo couldn't handle as both engines, like all turbines and especially those of that period were limited in how long they could be operated at max. power. I suggest reading "Arrow to the Future," the Me 262 was a lot more reliable than you think.


----------



## aurora-7 (Jan 10, 2013)

Perhaps.

I have the P-80 on my mind because of a group build I'll be doing in the modeling section. In my research I came across the fuel pump issue that killed Bong.

I _thought_ I had heard about issues of turbine blades coming apart in the Jumos if care was not taken in acceleration with them.

I know the 262s were lethal in combat and it's probably just wishful thinking on my part -don't have a 262 kit -yet.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 10, 2013)

aurora-7 said:


> I _thought_ I had heard about issues of turbine blades coming apart in the Jumos if care was not taken in acceleration with them.


Not really true. There's more of a chance of the engine flaming out due to the unstability of the fuel control. The early J33 had the same problem too. A J33 threw its turbine disk during March 1945 over the city of Lancaster just south of Edwards AFB, it almost killed test pilot Tony LeVier.


----------



## aurora-7 (Jan 10, 2013)

How about the fuel quality? I heard that was an issue for the 262 as well that could cause flame
outs. Not an aircraft design problem but a logistics one for maintenance. 

I'm essentially banking on end of the war conditions for the Luftwaffe working to my advantage.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 10, 2013)

aurora-7 said:


> How about the fuel quality? I heard that was an issue for the 262 as well that could cause flame
> outs. Not an aircraft design problem but a logistics one for maintenance.
> 
> I'm essentially banking on end of the war conditions for the Luftwaffe working to my advantage.



Not really true as well - a turbine engine will burn almost anything flammable. 262s used a diesel fuel and I suspect it would have made that much of a difference as opposed to the fuel that US jets "would have" used, aside from leaving a lot of soot on the turbine blades.

Bottom line, there were little difference between the P-80 and Me 262. The P-80 of May 1945 still had many bugs to be worked out of it when compared to the last of the Me 262s being produced. I believe had the war progressed both aircraft would have seen improvement and both would have had advantages and disadvantages in combat.


----------



## davparlr (Jan 10, 2013)

FLYBOYJ said:


> The "spring 1945" Me 262s were probably more reliable than the P-80s being produced at the same time.


I would think this is true in that the P-80 was much less developed at that time and still in the infant failure mode. It probably needed a good six months of war time development to stabilize. I am not sure the J-33 was a big contributor to this deficiency compared to the Me-262.



FLYBOYJ said:


> You're right about the material but wrong about the reliability. The Jumos being fielded during the spring of 45 was still lasting longer than the early J33s going into the P-80s (the Jumo had a 50 hour TBO).



From a mission reliability standpoint, the engine of a two engined aircraft must have significantly better MTBF (double?) than a single engine aircraft to perform equally. 



> The P-80 had numerous fuel control problems that killed test pilot Milo Burchan and later Richard Bong.



I believe these problems were fuel pump problems and were not due to engine failure. I believe Bong failed to follow instructed procedure.



> I don't know what type of "stress" you're saying the Jumo couldn't handle as both engines, like all turbines and especially those of that period were limited in how long they could be operated at max. power.



I think all the early jets were problematic in operation. I also believe limited operation time in max is still common. There was certainly a time limitation on the amazingly reliable TF-33s used in the C-141. There was thermal expansion concern for the turbine blades if max takeoff rated thrust (TRT) was maintained too long.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 10, 2013)

davparlr said:


> From a mission reliability standpoint, the engine of a two engined aircraft must have significantly better MTBF (double?) than a single engine aircraft to perform equally.


In later times that was a definite consideration, but during initial 262 deployment i think it was just a matter of getting the thing to work.


davparlr said:


> I believe these problems were fuel pump problems and were not due to engine failure. I believe Bong failed to follow instructed procedure.


Actually you are correct about the fuel pump failure. Bong forgot to switch on a back up boost pump. Around 1989 I interviewed Tony LeVier for a small newspaper I was writing for part time. Tony told me he never had a chance to brief Bong and felt if he did he would have never been killed. Here's some info on the pump.

_"The engine was fitted with a throttle to control fuel (the engine was fitted with a control valve that could not be called a fuel control in the modern sense of the term), a barometric to compensate for altitude changes, and a governor to prevent over speed. Early P-80A models initially had engines fitted with a simple single stage fuel pump with no engine-driven back-up fuel pump. These aircraft had an electrically driven emergency fuel pump fitted, a Pesco I-16 pump, and it was up to the pilot to activate this pump in case of main pump failure or during critical flight conditions. To provide the high fuel pressure necessary to run the jet engine meant that the electric motor driving this pump drew extremely high current. I was told that this was the same type of motor used in propeller feathering systems. Later model J33 engines would be fitted with a dual fuel pump; one side being the normal fuel pump and the other side the emergency fuel pump. There was a simple flapper valve installed in the line between the two pumps and it was actuated by fuel pressure differential. The main pump was set a few pounds above the emergency pump and when the emergency fuel pump pressure became greater, the flow would automatically change. This installation removed the I-16 pump and its electrical complexities from the aircraft" _


Stories Essays 3




davparlr said:


> I think all the early jets were problematic in operation. I also believe limited operation time in max is still common. There was certainly a time limitation on the amazingly reliable TF-33s used in the C-141. There was thermal expansion concern for the turbine blades if max takeoff rated thrust (TRT) was maintained too long.


Yep!


----------



## davparlr (Jan 11, 2013)

FLYBOYJ said:


> In later times that was a definite consideration, but during initial 262 deployment i think it was just a matter of getting the thing to work.


I have read/heard that the Jumo engine was difficult to start but I suspect all of the early jet engines were temperamental. For WWII, jet engine operations was really a learning experience.

As for my opinion of the two aircraft, the Me-262 was a superb aircraft and very impressive for an initial combat jet (look how poorly the P-59 and earlier meteor performed). It was limited in growth as a fighter due to the pod engine mountings that would always impede its aerodynamic performance. The P-80 was a later design and the large fuselage mounted engine would point to later fighter designs (and would seemingly fly forever as the T-33). I think the performance of the two were similar enough (along with the Vampire, and maybe later Meteors) so that had the war continued it would be as before, pilot performance, superior manufacturing and attrition would win out.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 11, 2013)

I think that is a pretty fair assessment. And pretty much sums it up.


----------



## NX34DG (Sep 17, 2014)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> but the pilots in the 262s would have more combat experience..........



Perhaps, perhaps...before March 1944. when the P-51 finally got into the fight, they were not there to escort bombers, although thats what the bomber crews were told. they were there to destroy the German Air Force. A task they did quite nicely. Withe the P-80 having just taken its first flight barely 2 months prior in January 1944. With Hitlers constant meddling with the Me-262 (Its a fighter, its a bomber, its a fighter/Bomber)she didn't come on full force until after D-Day...and if it had greater success with greater numbers, the P-80 would have been rushed into service with experienced allied combat pilots. the Brits already had their jet, which i think the Whittle engine was far superior than the German turbine design at the time; that tended to fly apart because it needed to be overhauled every 25-30 hours due to the lack of proper alloys for its turbine disks. The RAF would have used and continued to produce its jets until the P-80 arrived. by that late time, August-October 1944, the best German Pilots were either KIA or grounded due to lack of fuel, parts and aircraft. The Me-262 would have stood little chance against the Gloster Meteor, let alone the P-80!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 19, 2014)

NX34DG said:


> Perhaps, perhaps...before March 1944. when the P-51 finally got into the fight, they were not there to escort bombers, although thats what the bomber crews were told. they were there to destroy the German Air Force. A task they did quite nicely. Withe the P-80 having just taken its first flight barely 2 months prior in January 1944. With Hitlers constant meddling with the Me-262 (Its a fighter, its a bomber, its a fighter/Bomber)she didn't come on full force until after D-Day...and if it had greater success with greater numbers, the P-80 would have been rushed into service with experienced allied combat pilots. the Brits already had their jet, which i think the Whittle engine was far superior than the German turbine design at the time; that tended to fly apart because it needed to be overhauled every 25-30 hours due to the lack of proper alloys for its turbine disks. The RAF would have used and continued to produce its jets until the P-80 arrived. by that late time,* August-October 1944, the best German Pilots were either KIA or grounded due to lack of fuel, parts and aircraft.* *The Me-262 would have stood little chance against the Gloster Meteor, let alone the P-80*!



I think you need to do a little homework!!!

The first Me 262s entered service with Erprobungskommando 262 as a test unit and first saw combat in July 1944. Although the first units to receive the aircraft were basically "test fighter bomber units" the 262 did take on allied fighter and bombers. Have you ever heard of "Kommando Nowotny?" That unit was the first real 262 operational squadron and they started flying during the summer of 1944. JG-7 was formed in January 1945 and was the first true fighter 262 fighter wing, there were pilots available to fly the aircraft and the best of them flew with JV44. 

With regards to the Meteor - 616 Squadron operated the aircraft during the late spring of 1945. Neither the F.1 or F.3 (which were Welland powered and entered service in December 1944) could match the 262.

The P-80 of April 1945 was barely combat ready but probably came close to matching the 262 in some performance parameters. It wasn’t until late model P-80As and early P-80Bs came rolling off the production line where the USAAF had a combat ready jet fighter and even then there were still reliability issues with the aircraft and no “rushing it into production” was going to change anything. A total of only 83 P-80s had been delivered by the end of July 1945 (and that was still at a priority production rate), hardly enough to make a difference had the war progressed.

*All three jets had reliability problems with regards to their engines and depending on how they were operated could last as little as 25 hours and as many as 100. We could open up an entire thread (and probably have) on early turbine engine reliability* 

Hitler’s meddling in the 262 actually helped in the end because many were built as Me 262 A-2a (fighter bomber version) and allowed airframes to be fielded and sometimes utilized as a fighter (KG54).
Bottom line, neither the Meteor or P-80 of early 1945 would have been able to compete with the 262. There were still experienced pilots around to fly them and although fuel was scarce they still managed to get into the air and cause damage, again I suggest a little homework and you might rethink some of your last post….

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Sep 19, 2014)

NX34DG said:


> ...when the P-51 finally got into the fight, they were not there to escort bombers, although thats what the bomber crews were told. *they were there to destroy the German Air Force*...


And the Luftwaffe was there to destroy the bombers (at least that's what the German pilots were told).

But they ended up encountering the P-51s by accident.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Sep 20, 2014)

FLYBOYJ said:


> With regards to the Meteor - 616 Squadron operated the aircraft during the late spring of 1945. Neither the F.1 or F.3 (which were Welland powered and entered service in December 1944) could match the 262.



Some F.1s were in action in July 1944 - chasing down V-1s.

Only the first few F.3s had the Wellend. The remainder had Derwent Is.


----------



## parsifal (Sep 21, 2014)

p-51s flying cover for the b-17s were employing 'loose escort" tactics, as opposed to "close escort". loose escort was basically flying ahead and above the bombers, not necessarily within sight and engaging the interceptors before they got within range of the bomber formations. Germans did the same thjing during the boB, but were forced to fly close escort by order of goring, due to the unsustainable losses they were suffering. There were simply too many RAF fighters in 1940 (or not enough LW fighters, depending on how you want to cut it), but in 1944 this problem did not really arise. the allies did not have a great numbers advantage in 1944, but they had fighters controlled and directed far better, and pricelessly had good endurance with their fighters. unlike the 109s in 1940, Mustangs could, and did stay with the bombers for a lot longer


----------



## awack (Sep 22, 2014)

The me 262 was the superior jet according to the US air force...the testing was done on a 1946 p80, which had some changes made to it. 

Dont have much time, but the average p80a(unpainted had a top speed of 525 mph at 5000 ft, the 262 they tested it against had a true top speed of 568 mph, this speed was achieved during UK test as well, at 20200ft, during other test the 262 achieved 548 mph, just depends on the aircraft and conditions, it had better acceleration, better dive, held its speed better in a turn, ive read that once, about the turn...the were equal in climb, the p80 a wing loading of 53 ibs, and had laminar flow wings, plus carried less fuel than the 262, so once they met in combat and had burned up some fuel combined with the full leading edge slats of the 262, i beleive that the 262 should have a tighter turn, but the p80 had a peak roll of 135 degrees a second, thanks to its powered ailerons, the 262 had a peak roll of 100 or slightly higher..im sure people know about the encounter of 30 p51 and 15 me 262s, the p51 pilots stated that the 262 was faster and had a better climb rate, they also stated that the 262 had a fantastic roll rate which is usually left out on forums for some reason...the british had the Vampire 1 but could only acheive 500 mph or so and had a mach limit of around 0.76 i think. the 262 was with out questio the best jet in the world in 1945, an amazing machine, number 2 would be the Ar 234 C.

I should mention a couple interesting things, one was that there were plans to recondition the Me262 T2-711 up to US standards...that aircraft was decribed as a dented, wrinkled, puttied pile of poop(still achieved 568 mph), so i always wondered how that machine would have performed, another thing is that that me 262 was tested against the f84 and was said to have done very well against it, especially at high altitude...one of the US test pilots stated that while the me 262 was the superior aircraft whaen compared to the p80, it was Materially inferior, especially the engines, it was the same test pilot who beat a Bearcat in a mock dog fight by out climbing it while flying a p80, i forgot his name.


----------



## parsifal (Sep 22, 2014)

The true speed performance figures for the p-80A are , according to P-80 Performance Tests , are 

Sea Level 510 
10,000 518 
20,000 520 
25,000 519 
30,000 515 
35,000 507 
40,000 495 

There are some slightly different performance figures for slightly different configurations 


For the vampire f1, I relied on this website de Havilland DH.100 Vampire - Fighter / Fighter-Bomber - History, Specs and Pictures - Military Aircraft . The 3100 lb rated engines were fitted from the 41st aircraft onward, yielding a top speed of 539 mph, at an unspecified altitude. prior to the 41st aircraft, f1 were fitted with an engine with 2700lb thrust. Some 244 of the MkIs were produced, so the main engine type by far was the 3100 lb rated engines

The additional 400lbs of thrust is obviously going to make a difference to performance, but it seems pretty clear that the main version of the f-1 could outperform the P-80A. Comparing the p-80C really needs to be compared to its contemporary, the Vampire F5. again the Vampire has the advantage in speed over its contemporary US counterpart. 

There is a fairly acrimonious debate about the Vampire versus the Me 262 to be found here http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/vampire-vs-262-a-11516-2.html Get past the abuse and the material brought forward is actually pretty good.


----------



## awack (Sep 23, 2014)

For the Vampire I with the 2700 pnd thrust engines, the one flying during the war in Europe (may 7 45) ive read two top speeds...488 and 512 mph, i wish i knew when the 41st aircraft was delivered. 

An interesting tidbit about the p80 was that 548 mph was the fastest speed achieved, that particular aircraft was the p80 chosen to enter the famous race that the me 262 didnt take part in...i can only imagine how a me 262 built by US standards would have performed, especially considering that an me 262 described as being in very poor physical condition achieved 568 mph.


----------



## parsifal (Sep 23, 2014)

262 was the fastest of the 1st gen jets, also the most heavily armed, but the build quality was poor and the engines suffered reliability. I have no idea on its handling in the horizontal, or even its climb or dive rates.

Another issue I think worth at least considering is the "stretchability" of a design. The first gen jets were all pretty limited with regards to engine power mostly, but also a range of other issues. Second gen of the same types were generally far more potent. compare a meteor F8 with an me 262, and the meteor is a far superior aircraft. For the germans we don't really have much information on how adaptable their designs were....the ra ra LW boys will try and tell you they were unstoppable, and yet, these designs were not stretched by the occupying powers after the war. For various reasons they were all found to have pretty severe limits on their applied technology potential.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Sep 23, 2014)

parsifal said:


> ...the ra ra LW boys will try and tell you they were unstoppable...


But they were, right? 

To put the Me262 in perspective, yes, it was a virtually unstobbale beast....for it's time.

Even though Avia continued to build them and the Czech airforce used them into the 1950's, really means nothing.

The Me262 was conceived in the late '30's and built and employed in the mid '40's. That was it's time. Even as the Me262 was going through development and pre-production trials, Willy Messerschmitt already had the next generation Me262 on the drawing board (HG series). *If* time and circumstances had allowed, you would have seen a much better airframe enter service. Much better in regards to it's speed dictated design, more reliable and powerful engines and better handling, armanent, etc.

However, unlike the Allies, German jet development was hampered by resources, a stable environment to develop and test and then the program came to a sudden halt. On the Allied side, they continued developing their technology and passed the German jet program's second generation and continued development (obviously) well beyond that point in time.

The Germans showed their ability to harness jet technology with the He178's successful flights in the late 1930's (with a design that would become commonplace in the 1950's and later), then had the world's first armed and battle capable combat jet (He280) before the Me262 ever flew under jet power. Then shortly after the Me262 entered the picture, you saw the first jet bomber enter the scene...however, as the war wore on, you no longer saw the advancement of technology, you saw the Germans in a desperate struggle to keep production for what they had and then grasping at straws in an effort to save themselves. This was the end of their innovative and progressive jet program.

Yes, German jet technology was impressive and virtually un-matched for it's time.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 23, 2014)

awack said:


> The me 262 was the superior jet according to the US air force...the testing was done on a 1946 p80, which had some changes made to it.


It depends who you talk to. Chuck Yeager thought both aircraft were evenly matched.



awack said:


> An interesting tidbit about the p80 was that 548 mph was the fastest speed achieved, that particular aircraft was the p80 chosen to enter the famous race that the me 262 didnt take part in...i can only imagine how a me 262 built by US standards would have performed, *especially considering that an me 262 described as being in very poor physical condition achieved 568 mph*.



That's an opinion - I believe that jet was brought back during "Operation Lusty" and was probably representative of what was flying may 1945. When Tony LeVier's XP-80A blew up over Rosamond CA., I believe that aircraft was already pushed beyond 560 mph, but was still a test platform and no way a 'combat ready aircraft. BTW, pieces of that aircraft can still be found today if one looks hard enough, the crash site is right off a state highway.



parsifal said:


> 262 was the fastest of the 1st gen jets, also the most heavily armed, but the build quality was poor and the engines suffered reliability. I have no idea on its handling in the horizontal, or even its climb or dive rates.
> 
> Another issue I think worth at least considering is the "stretchability" of a design. The first gen jets were all pretty limited with regards to engine power mostly, but also a range of other issues. Second gen of the same types were generally far more potent. compare a meteor F8 with an me 262, and the meteor is a far superior aircraft. For the germans we don't really have much information on how adaptable their designs were....the ra ra LW boys will try and tell you they were unstoppable, and yet, these designs were not stretched by the occupying powers after the war. For various reasons they were all found to have pretty severe limits on their applied technology potential.



Well said!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 23, 2014)

What makes things somewhat difficult to evaluate is that some of the allied programs _slowed to a crawl_ at the end of the war. This was somewhat matched by the Eastern Europeans (and the Russians) being in no real position to do any real development or follow on work of WW II designs. Many of the German engineers going to either Russia or the United States within months (if not weeks) of the end of the war. Very few wound up in England. With post war air forces shrinking to 1/4 or even less of their end of WW II in Europe size by the end of 1946 the need to introduce _new_ types of aircraft to service use was pretty small. 
Things didn't start to heat back up until perhaps some time in 1947 with the Berlin crises of 1948 putting a real emphasis on the re-equipment of the air forces on both sides. However this also means that they had about 3 years to look things over at a more leisurely pace and make some improvements where they could and start some new programs. The British, being effectively broke at this time and the government unwilling to spend money on basic research, tended to hold onto the end of war designs a bit longer. Of course being able to fit much more powerful engines to some of these end of war designs did prolong their life. The Post war production of the German designs got no such help. And with the easing of raw materiel supply there was no good reason to continue with some of their design features, as implemented at the time, air cooled turbine blades would come back but not in welded sheet-metal form. 
As far as some of the German "gee-whiz" stuff still on paper or even laying about as parts, consider the the Metrovick company had built several axial flow engines during the war (including a pair that powered the 5th Meteor to fly in Nov 1943) and had stared work _on paper_ of the engine that would become the AS Sapphire in 1944, it just took until the early 50s to get any airborne in prototype aircraft and several more years for them to enter service in any numbers, this despite Wright taking out a licence in 1950 and going on to build a modified version as the J-65. 
Granted development might have been suspended and it _might_ have entered service in a lower powered/less finished form had circumstances been dire enough. 
The more technically advanced an item is the longer it takes to go from drawing board/experimental shop to the field.


----------



## soulezoo (Sep 26, 2014)

FLYBOYJ said:


> It depends who you talk to. Chuck Yeager thought both aircraft were evenly matched.



General Yeager told me that one time himself; we were both in the Beale AFB dispensary at the time.


----------



## awack (Oct 7, 2014)

Some of the top speeds of the standard production me 262....US 568 mph at 20200 ft/, UK 568 mph, unknown altitude/...Germany ,564 mph at 16400 ft/ one of the highest speeds that i know for a me 262 is almost 580 mph, the reason for this speed isnt Exactly known, its either because of the low profile canopy, or unregulated 004 B4 engines producing 2205 pounds of thrust each vs 1980 pounds of thrust each.

Here are a few combat reports of the me 262, focusing on climb performance...me 262 went into a zoom climb being followed by p51, the 262 had left the initial p51 far behind, but they were more p51s waiting at higher altitudes, which when the 262 still in a vertical climb picked up the chase...one Mustange pilot said he had never seen such an sustained vertical climb.

Another involved spitfires, with a spitfire on his tail, the jet pilot decided to pull into a zoom, after a few moments the spitfire appeared to stall 6000 too 7000 ft below and the jet was no where near the limit of its climb...there are 1 or 2 reports of me 262s accelerating while in the vertical. 

One of the more well known reports envolving one Mosquito and three escort p51s.... they spotted the me 262 at a lower altitude, one of the escort pilots yelled ( look at that SOB climb)...one of the Mosquito crew stated the jet was climbing like a bat out of hell, the me 262 in no time was making slashing attacks on the Mosquito, but the escorts kept yelling break left, break right etc, when you think about it, conventional fighters found it almost impossible to intercept a lone Mosquito even with an altitude advantage, just shows the unworldly capability of the me 262, as the me 262 attacked the group while in a climb and the p51 were not able to do anything about it ...absolutely amazing!!!!

Another incident involved a recon variant of the Spitfire mk 14, this was at altitude, the me 262 was was creeping up from below and behind, the spitfire pilot noticed the enemy AC below him so pulled his nose up and started to climb...something happened to let the 262 pilot know that had increased power some how by smoke or something, i cant remember, but of course this was a mistake, the spitfire pilot was confident that he could out climb anything especially at that altitude..the spitfire was shot down, the pilot survived, the jet pilot said that the spitfire pilot should have turned, there would have been no way he could have fallowed especially in the thin air.


----------



## gjs238 (Oct 8, 2014)

So what's the lesson learned here?
Prop drivers shouldn't underestimate the climb performance of a jet.


----------



## pbehn (Oct 8, 2014)

gjs238 said:


> So what's the lesson learned here?
> Prop drivers shouldn't underestimate the climb performance of a jet.


Maybe when you think you are flying the dogs balls of an aircraft, prepare for a rude awakening.

I raced motorcylces and mine was as fast as most, suddenly a guy got a new level of tuning and I just couldnt live with him until I had mine re tuned (we had the same tuner) the difference was about 2MPH but it meant he blew me away 10m ahead into every corner. Facing a jet in a prop plane must have been a scary experience although I did read of a mossie evading a 262 by breaking at the last moment.


----------



## pbehn (Oct 8, 2014)

gjs238 said:


> So what's the lesson learned here?
> Prop drivers shouldn't underestimate the climb performance of a jet.


Maybe when you think you are flying the dogs balls of an aircraft, prepare for a rude awakening.

I raced motorcylces and mine was as fast as most, suddenly a guy got a new level of tuning and I just couldnt live with him until I had mine re tuned (we had the same tuner) the difference was about 2MPH but it meant he blew me away 10m ahead into every corner. Facing a jet in a prop plane must have been a scary experience although I did read of a mossie evading a 262 by breaking at the last moment.


----------



## pattern14 (Oct 13, 2014)

Actually, the He 162 was the fastest first generation jet, and the Me 163 Komet the fastest combat aircraft. The Me 262 was slower than both. To the best of my research The He 162 had no kills officially confirmed, and the Komet claimed between 9 and 11, depending on your sources. The Arado Ar234 did very well as the worlds first operational jet recon/bomber, but will always be in the Me 262's shadow. Comparisons and test reports, anecdotal evidence etc will always conflict at some point, because there are so many variables. Gallands appraisal of the 262, Browns comment that the 262 would have made "cats meat" out of the meteor, the post war comparisons by members of Watsons squadron etc. And what about Howard Hughes allegedly being told he could not enter his own private Me 262 in an air race beacause officialdom did not want the P80 to be outclassed....Some of the outlandish claims in this thread are testimony that mixing emotion with facts produces perpetuated urban myths and old wives tales. The Me 262 shot down hundreds of allied aircraft, at a time when the allied airforces had total air superiority. The P80 was grounded because of technical glitches, and even the so called first "Jet vs Jet" victory in Korea has been discounted. The design lived on, as did the meteor, for quite a few years, but they were both obsolete virtually by the time they were operational.In the spring of 1945 the 262, poorly made from 2nd grade material in forest factories, was the most potent aircraft in existence.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 13, 2014)

pattern14 said:


> and even the so called first "Jet vs Jet" victory in Korea has been discounted.


If you're talking about the November 8, 1950 claim by Russel Brown, yes, there is strong evidence that he never shot down a MiG-15 on that day and it looks like the first jet to jet kill was scored on Nov 1 by a MiG-15 over an F-80.


----------



## pattern14 (Oct 14, 2014)

Yes, that is the one. It appears that Brown claimed the Mig, which according to the other side, returned to base undamaged. As an afterthought, some previous posters had suggested that the Mig 15 was developed from the Focke wulf Ta 183, but I suspect this is also incorrect. The Mk 3 version of this aircraft bears a superficial resemblance to the Mig, and the Soviets have always claimed it is an indigenous design. You would have to admit that there was definite advanced Luftwaffe aircraft plans, prototypes and mock ups that fell into the Russians' hands, and they, like the rest of the allies, benefitted from German research. The Ta 183 saw life briefly as the Pulqui in Argentina post war, but never really had its inherant design flaws ironed out, although it actually did fly a couple of armed operational missions. Peron ended up buying Meteors for Argentina's airforce, which Adolf Galland had a major hand in. A strange twist on the WW2 jets that never met, with Galland allegedly stating that the "perfect" weapon would have been the 262 fitted with the Rolls Royce engines. Obviously he was talking about the later model engines, and not the WW2 contemporaries. By the 1950's the Meteor had been sufficiently developed engine wise, and you really can't directly compare the two. In one of my advanced Luftwaffe project hardcovers, it shows a picture of the respective wing profiles of a Mig 15 and an F 86 facing each other, with the caption "Messerschmitt vs Focke Wulf". The author was inferring that the two opposing jets owed their developmental heritage to two seperate companies and schools of thought. Any logical analysis of the closing months of WW2 would support the idea that 2nd generation Jets were just around the corner theoretically, but with no industrial back up, it was never going to happen.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 14, 2014)

pattern14 said:


> Yes, that is the one. It appears that Brown claimed the Mig, which according to the other side, returned to base undamaged. As an afterthought, some previous posters had suggested that the Mig 15 was developed from the Focke wulf Ta 183, but I suspect this is also incorrect.


Totally incorrect, especially in it's construction. The engine bay of a MiG-15 is similar to an F-80 if anything else.



pattern14 said:


> The Mk 3 version of this aircraft bears a superficial resemblance to the Mig, and the Soviets have always claimed it is an indigenous design. You would have to admit that there was definite advanced Luftwaffe aircraft plans, prototypes and mock ups that fell into the Russians' hands, and they, like the rest of the allies, benefitted from German research. The Ta 183 saw life briefly as the Pulqui in Argentina post war, but never really had its inherant design flaws ironed out, although it actually did fly a couple of armed operational missions. Peron ended up buying Meteors for Argentina's airforce, which Adolf Galland had a major hand in. A strange twist on the WW2 jets that never met, with Galland allegedly stating that the "perfect" weapon would have been the 262 fitted with the Rolls Royce engines. Obviously he was talking about the later model engines, and not the WW2 contemporaries. By the 1950's the Meteor had been sufficiently developed engine wise, and you really can't directly compare the two. In one of my advanced Luftwaffe project hardcovers, it shows a picture of the respective wing profiles of a Mig 15 and an F 86 facing each other, with the caption "Messerschmitt vs Focke Wulf". The author was inferring that the two opposing jets owed their developmental heritage to two seperate companies and schools of thought. Any logical analysis of the closing months of WW2 would support the idea that 2nd generation Jets were just around the corner theoretically, but with no industrial back up, it was never going to happen.


The only notable thing really "taken" from German research on both the MiG and F-85 was the 35~ degree swept wing design. North American was developing the FJ-1 in 1944 which became the design basis of the F-86 once it was decided to go with a swept wing design, the rest is history.


----------



## pattern14 (Oct 14, 2014)

Thats right; the rest is history, but many people still believe in the myth of Nazi technological superiority. While you can trace the heritage of the Saturn V back to the V2, I've always been dubious of the claims of the Luft 46 brigade who insist that "if the war had lasted longer etc". The OP wanted an opinion poll on the Me 262 vs The P80, and there were lots of claims and counter claims, but they were never ever going to meet in combat, so any comparisons would be academic at best. Given the poor tactical use of the Me 262,and the conditions it fought under, its achievements were remarkable. The allies had no need to rush their jets into action, as the war would be won with conventional weapons backed by a considerable industrial supply line. So the Me 262 became the stuff of legends, while the P80 and Meteor were "also rans" that were eventually outclassed by the opposition in the Korean conflict. No amount of discussion in this forum will change the Me 262's entrenched "worlds first Jet fighter" status in the urban myths of the general populace, even though this is historically incorrect. Just look in the modelling forums, both static and R/C, and the amount of recognition and popularity the Me 262 enjoys is immense.This is despite being operational for around 8 months, and then literally disappearing into folklore. You hardly ever see a Meteor or P80 as a kit or scratch build, even though they continued on for decades in various guises and roles. What ever potential the 262 had was never realised, and even Willy himself never saw it as anything more than an interim design that was pressed into service out of sheer necessity.


----------



## GrauGeist (Oct 14, 2014)

pattern14 said:


> No amount of discussion in this forum will change the Me 262's entrenched "worlds first Jet fighter" status in the urban myths of the general populace, even though this is historically incorrect.


That's the problem with many legends, is that in some cases, being elevated to "super star" status eclipses the pioneers that arrived first. Sure, the Me262 was the first jet fighter to see combat, but the He280 was the first armed combat jet and yet very few people know of it or how how close it came to being a production fighter, arriving over the skies of Europe at a time when the Luftwaffe still had air superiority.

And has been mentioned before, even if the war lasted 6 months more or 10 months more, the second generations jets may have made a debut. But to what effect? No resources for mass production, no fuel for their engines and no pool of skilled pilots to equip them.

They would have been simply over-run by the ever-increasing Allied fighters no matter how advanced they were.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 14, 2014)

I'll beat this horse again - actually the Meteor was the world's first jet fighter to enter service in an operational squadron.  The first Me 262 units were "test" squadrons although they "tested" the aircraft operationally. Semantics but fact.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Oct 14, 2014)

On 26 July 1944, an Me262 of Ekdo262 attacked and damaged a PR Mosquito of 540 Squadron.

The Meteor first encountered an "enemy" on 27 July 1944, when three Meteors of 616 Squadron intercepted a V-1, though due to weapon malfunction, it was not a successful intercept. However, on 4 August, after addressing gun jamming issues, Meteors of 616 Squadron successfully downed two V-1s.

So, technically speaking, the Me262 drew "blood" first, by 24 hours and in a broader sense, the Me262 was used in combat to oppose Allied aircraft of various design while the Meteor spend the bulk of it's operational service intercepting "buzz-bombs" and later performing ground attack against Luftwaffe airfields for the remaining two months of the war.

The irony in all of this, is the only true jet on jet encounters, was when Ar234 bombers struck the airfield at Fassberg, where 616 Squadron's Meteors were stationed.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 14, 2014)

616 Squadron went operational with the Meteor before July 21, 1944. Ekdo262 was a testing squadron but flew operational sorties. JG-7, the first real 262 fighter squadron was formed January 1945

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Oct 15, 2014)

Sure Joe, but which one saw combat first? 

This is where the history of the first jets gets tricky: 
The He280 was the world's first armed combat capable jet and while proved to be a sound and effective design, was not put into production. 

The Meteor was the first combat jet to reach operational status but did not see combat in a traditional "foe versus foe" role.

The Me262 was the world's second combat jet to see operational status, but was the world's first jet to engage an enemy aircraft as well as seeing combat at all levels.

And if all that is not confusing enough, the first Allied jet to fly was not the Meteor, but the P-59, which took it's first flight on October 1942.

And to the advocates who say that "if the war lasted another 6 months...etc. etc." the de Havilland Vampire was on the verge of production by war's end and the the P-80 was rolling off the production line and ready to head to the front in the final days of the war.

So the combat jet's early days is an intertwined (and very interesting) history.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pattern14 (Oct 15, 2014)

Splitting hairs I know, but the Me 262 was the first operational jet fighter, having actually engaged a Mosquito prior to any other jet powered aircraft firing a shot. Even though this Me 262 was not "officially" operational, it still happened. Officially, the Meteor sqadron was the first, but the262 beat it to the punch, although still classed as experimental at the time. The He 280 was the worlds first jet fighter, true, but never given a contract for development. It is extremely unlikely it would have been ready any earlier given the Heinkel engine problems that were never really ironed out, plus some airframe glitches revolving around the twin tail. Once again potential never realised. As much as it does tend to stick a little in the Allies throat, the Germans pretty much had most of the firsts; First Jet fighter, first operational jet fighter, first kill by a jet, First single engined jet fighter, first Jet recon, jet bomber, Jet fighter escorting jet bomber etc etc etc. Not that it did any good in the long run, but undeniable historical fact.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 15, 2014)

Agree all the way around...


----------



## pattern14 (Oct 15, 2014)

Not intending to derail the thread too much, but does anyone have any credible evidence of the alleged mock dogfight between the He 280 and the FW 190? I have a book on the He 280, which mentions a race between the two, but no evidence of mock battles. From what I have read over the years, the He 280 bested the FW 190 in every aspect of dogfighting, not just outright speed. It was supposedly held in front of high ranking Nazi's to boost the possibility of being awarded a production contract, which of course never came. The He 280 was completing pure jet flights before the Me 262 prototypes were barely getting airborne with a Junkers piston engine. It already had tricycle undercarriage, an ejection seat, and three 20mm cannon fitted in the nose, although it remains unclear if any actual gunnery practice took place. There were plans for a single fin and rudder and improved armament,and it was designed purely as a fighter, with no indications of having any kind of bombing capability. The problems with the engines sealed its fate, and it would have never been ready or reliable enough to enter combat in any numbers, so the "what if" scenario is pretty much dead in the water. I still consider it one of the most elegant aircraft ever made, classically beautiful and unique for its time.


----------



## GrauGeist (Oct 15, 2014)

The RLM had the "golden egg" dropped in their lap in 1939, when the He178 took to the skies, but they dismissed it's significance as a technilogical leap (and potential military value).

Had they embraced it's potential, and provided the needed funding, the HeS011 (the intended engine for the He280) would have been ready by the time the He280 was production ready (at a time when the Me262 was still being developed).

Even still, proper funding for engine development may have seen the "bugs" worked out of the HeS08 engines that were installed in the He280 and carried the He280 aloft for trials and successful demonstrations.

So that oversight by the RLM early on, created a "what fortunately didn't happen" instead of a "what if".


----------



## wiking85 (Jan 26, 2015)

GrauGeist said:


> The RLM had the "golden egg" dropped in their lap in 1939, when the He178 took to the skies, but they dismissed it's significance as a technilogical leap (and potential military value).
> 
> Had they embraced it's potential, and provided the needed funding, the HeS011 (the intended engine for the He280) would have been ready by the time the He280 was production ready (at a time when the Me262 was still being developed).
> 
> ...


Heinkel He 178 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
It wasn't a combat aircraft, it was a proof of concept aircraft. The reason the RLM didn't run with it is there were better options at the time like the Me262 and the Jumo 004. The He178 was not a viable path to a combat model, while the He280 didn't have a viable engine; the Me262 and Jumo 004 were ready first.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jan 26, 2015)

wiking85 said:


> Heinkel He 178 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> It wasn't a combat aircraft, it was a proof of concept aircraft. The reason the RLM didn't run with it is there were better options at the time like the Me262 and the Jumo 004. The He178 was not a viable path to a combat model, while the He280 didn't have a viable engine; the Me262 and Jumo 004 were ready first.


You couldn't be further from the truth, honestly.

The He178 obviously was not a combat aircraft, (and I never said it was) even though in the following decades, jet design would adopt several innovations that the He178 possessed.

Now, the point being, that the He178 proved to the RLM that jet engines were a viable concept and not a "flash in the pan" like several other parallel technologies (like Caproni's ducted fan project), etc. and had the RLM fully backed the jet engine development in earnest in 1938/39, then the Hirth, Jumo and BMW engine development would have been far ahead of the game by the early 1940's. It wasn't until the war was well underway when the RLM suddenly realized their mistake.

So in a nutshell, the RLM looked at early jet technology much like the old school Admiralty looked upon steam engines fitted in ships, back in the day. It was different and they didn't like it. 

And I am not sure where you got your information, but the Me262 was still on paper when the He178 was taking to the air. The He280 was much further along than the Me262 and was demonstrated to the RLM in April of 1941, while the Me262 prototype made it's first flight *under piston power* (Jumo210 mounted in the nose) a few days later (18 April 1941). It wouldn't be until 18 July 1942 that the Me262 flew under jet power for the first time.

The Jumo004 (and BMW003) was still on the bench, being developed in 1940, while the Hirth engine (HeS3, HeS8) had already been used to power the Heinkel aircraft.


----------



## wiking85 (Jan 28, 2015)

GrauGeist said:


> You couldn't be further from the truth, honestly.
> 
> The He178 obviously was not a combat aircraft, (and I never said it was) even though in the following decades, jet design would adopt several innovations that the He178 possessed.
> 
> ...



Several jet engine issues had to be worked out before the RLM started funding jet engine projects in 1939 just before WW2 started; it was on the eve of WW2 that jet engines finally worked out several issues that finally made the RLM realize it was worth it. The He280 never got its engines working though:
Heinkel He 280 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


> Over the next year, progress was slow due to the ongoing engine problems. A second engine design, the HeS 30 was also undergoing development, both as an interesting engine in its own right, as well as a potential replacement for the HeS 8. In the meantime, alternative powerplants were considered, including the Argus As 014 pulsejet that famously powered the V-1 flying bomb.[4] (Using as many as eight was proposed.)[5]
> 
> By the end of 1943, however, the third prototype was fitted with refined versions of the HeS 8 engine and was ready for its next demonstration. On 22 December, a mock dogfight was staged for RLM officials in which the He 280 was matched against an Fw 190. Here, the jet demonstrated its vastly superior speed, completing four laps of an oval course before the Fw 190 could complete three.[citation needed] Finally, at this point the RLM became interested and placed an order for 20 pre-production test aircraft, to be followed by 300 production machines.
> 
> ...


----------



## GrauGeist (Jan 28, 2015)

However, the fact remains, the He280 was presented to the RLM in full battle dress, demonstrated as a capable fighter aircraft, while the Me262 was still being developed. And the Jumo004 was too heavy for the He280, which was designed for the lighter Hirth engines. 

So let's look back to 1938/39: the RLM yawned at the jet program. It didn't fully back and fund the program. So jet engine development was primarily left to the manufacturer. HAD the RLM fully backed and funded the programs (including exotic material aquisition), then the development would have moved forward instead of struggling along as it did historically.


----------



## wiking85 (Jan 29, 2015)

GrauGeist said:


> However, the fact remains, the He280 was presented to the RLM in full battle dress, demonstrated as a capable fighter aircraft, while the Me262 was still being developed. And the Jumo004 was too heavy for the He280, which was designed for the lighter Hirth engines.
> 
> So let's look back to 1938/39: the RLM yawned at the jet program. It didn't fully back and fund the program. So jet engine development was primarily left to the manufacturer. HAD the RLM fully backed and funded the programs (including exotic material aquisition), then the development would have moved forward instead of struggling along as it did historically.



The He280 was presented only in late 1943 when the Me262 was in the process of being introduced and would form its first demonstration unit within 6-7 month; even at that point the engines for the He280 were not production ready and were behind Jumo 004 development. In the 1938-39 period jet engines still had not demonstrated they were worth pursuing, as the He178 was largely a stunt and not militarily viable; when the development level finally demonstrated potential in 1939 Franz Anseln was tapped to start the Jumo 004 project with major funding:
Junkers Jumo 004 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Helmut Schelp - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## GrauGeist (Jan 29, 2015)

I am really curious...where are you getting your information from?

First off, I think calling the He178 a "stunt" plane is a little bit ridiculous...it was a pioneer in the field of turbojet technology and was the world's first turbojet powered aircraft to achieve flight.

I don't see why you're so adamant to point out the He178 was not a military aircraft. *It was never intended to be a combat aircraft.* What it was intended for, was to prove the viability of jet powered flight and it did remarkably well, too. However, the RLM maintained the attitude that piston powered aircraft were adequate and jet development wasn't a priority. 

Now, let's step away from Wiki for a moment and get down to some real information:
The He280 timeline is far ahead of the Me262.

*He280 (Factory designation: He180)*
First mockup and pre-assembly completed 1939
*It should be noted that from the beginning, the He280 had tricycle gear and a compressed air ejection seat system.

He280 V1 (WkNmr 0001) DL+AS
First successful glide test: 22 September 1940
First powered flight: *2 April 1941* - HeS 8 engines
First RLM demonstration at Marienehe airfield, 5 April 1941

He280 V2 (WkNmr 0002) GJ+CA
First flight: March 30, 1941 - HeS 8A engines

He280 V3 (WkNmr 0003) GJ+CB
First flight: 5 July 1942 - HeS 8A engines

He280 V4 (WkNmr 0004) GJ+CC
First flight: August 1943 - As014 engines (pulsejet)

He280 V5/V6
glide tests only (JUly 1943 onward), no engines available

He280 V7 (WkNmr 0007) NU+EB
First flight: 19 April 1943: Jumo004 engines

He280 V8 (WkNmr 0008) NU+EC 
First flight: 19 July 1943: Jumo004 engines
V-tail concept trial tests flight on 29 September 1944

He280 V9 (WkNmr 0009) NU+ED
First flight: 31 August 1943 - BMW003 engines

*Me262 (Factory designation: P.1065)*
First mockup (plywood) inspected by RLM on 1 March 1940
*It should be noted that the first four airframes had conventional landing gear (tail-dragger).

Me262 V1 (WkNmr 0001) PC+UA
First flight: 18 April 1941 - Jumo210G piston engine (mounted in nose)
First jet flight: 2 March 1943 - Jumo004B engines

Me262 V2 (WkNmr 0002) PC+UB
First flight: 2 October 1942 - Jumo004A engines

Me262 V3 (WkNmr 0003) PC+UC
First flight: *18 July 1942* - Jumo004A engines

Me262 V4 (WkNmr 0004) PC+UD
First flight: 22 April 1943 - Jumo004B engines 
(tested by Gen Lt. A. Galland)

Me262 V5 (WkNmr 0005) PC+UE
First flight: 26 June 1943 - Jumo004B engines
First tricycle gear airframe

Me262 V6 (WkNmr 130001) VI+AA
First flight: 17 October 1943 - Jumo004B-1 engines
First fully retractable undercarriage
Demonstrated for Hitler at Insterburg, 26 November 1943

Me262 V7 (WkNmr 130002) VI+AB
First flight: 20 December 1943 - Jumo004B-1 engines

Me262 V8 (WkNmr 130003) VI+AC
First flight: 15 December 1943 - Jumo004B-1 engines
First fully armed version - 4 Mk108 30mm cannon

18 April 1944 sees 13 pre-production (Me262A-0) units completed

And we'll end the statistics at this point.

So now, let's recap on this comment:


> ...The He280 was presented only in late 1943 when the Me262 was in the process of being introduced...



How is this possible when the first He280 airframe was being glide tested in 1940 at a time when the only Me262 in existence was made of plywood?

Also, if the Jumo 109-004 was given major funding, then why did development languish?
There was continuous meddling by the RLM, in particular, Hans Mauch of the the RLM's "Engine Development Bureau". The Helmut Schelp, who replaced Mauch, ordered several changes, which set back the engine developers yet again. And it was during this confusion that the RLM ordered Heinkel to abandon work on the HeS 30 (which was developing well and showed great promise) and instead, work on the HeS 011.

So let's look at the turbojet timeline here:
*Heinkel*
HeS 1 - first test: 1937
HeS 3 - first test: 1939 (first flight: 27 August 1939, He178)
HeS 6 - first test: 1939
HeS 8 (109-001) - first test: 1940 (first flight: 2 April 1941, He280)
HeS 30 (109-006) - first test: 1940
HeS 011 (109-011) - first test: 1943

*Junkers* Jumo 004 (109-004)
004A - first test: 1940
004A-0 - first flight: 18 July 1942, Me262 V3
004B - first test: 1943
004B-0 - first flight: 22 April 1943, Me262 V4

*BMW* BMW003 (109-003)
003A - first test: August 1940
003A - first flight: November 1941, Me262 V1
003C - first test: 1943
003E - first flight: 6 December 1944, He162 V1 (note: 003E was designation for mount modifications)

And even Porsche was in the process of developing a turbojet engine (109-005), but it was a little late in the game and not much came of it's development.

So we can still see a difference in your timeline and what really happened.

Hopefully, these figures might better help you understand the actual timeline of events!

Sources used:
Manfred Griehl; "X-Planes", J. Smith/A. Kay; "German Aircraft of the Second World War", A. Kay; "German Jet Engine and Gas Turbine Development 1930-1945", Jane's "Fighting Aircraft of World War II"

And all are highly recommended reading.


----------



## wiking85 (Jan 31, 2015)

GrauGeist said:


> Also, if the Jumo 109-004 was given major funding, then why did development languish?
> There was continuous meddling by the RLM, in particular, Hans Mauch of the the RLM's "Engine Development Bureau". The Helmut Schelp, who replaced Mauch, ordered several changes, which set back the engine developers yet again. And it was during this confusion that the RLM ordered Heinkel to abandon work on the HeS 30 (which was developing well and showed great promise) and instead, work on the HeS 011.



The airframe was the easiest part of development. Its the engines that held up the whole project. The biggest part of the problem was the lack of nickel and several other metals that Germany did not have a major source for in wartime. So they couldn't get the Jumo 004A, which had no restrictions on metal usage and ready in 1942, into serial production, so had to go back and develop it again with steel parts and improved cooling so as not to melt the metals, which delayed introduction of the Jumo 004B until 1944, which also pushed back Me262 development. The HeS engines were never developed to take the steel parts that the Jumo and BMW did:
Heinkel HeS 8 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The HeS8 never solved its major issues and was much weaker in thrust than the BMW and Jumo engines, while requiring more rare metals.
Heinkel HeS 30 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


> Of all of the designs Müller brought with him, the HeS 30 was simplest and easiest to build. Müller had already built a test engine while still at Junkers, however it was only able to run at about half its designed RPM, which limited compression and required a continuous supply of external compressed air. The design was abandoned when Müller left, the Jumo team's simpler design being used instead. Müller promised Heinkel he could have the engine up and running on a testbed within one year of completing the move, a promise he was ultimately unable to keep.
> 
> Helmut Schelp, in charge of engine development at the RLM, refused to give Heinkel a production contract, an event Hans von Ohain claims brought Ernst Heinkel near tears. Schelp noted that while the design was excellent, BMW and Jumo were so far ahead they simply did not need another "Class I" engine – something that would prove ironic in another two years when both of those engines were still not operational. It also appears he had some misgivings about the compressor arrangement, but if this was the case it was never official. He also cancelled von Ohain's Heinkel HeS 8 at the same time.



There was nothing this engine could offer that wasn't already on the table and would need redesigns to conform to the lack of necessary metals heat resistant metals, which delayed both of the Jumo and BMW projects.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jan 31, 2015)

wiking85 said:


> ...There was nothing this engine could offer that wasn't already on the table and would need redesigns to conform to the lack of necessary metals heat resistant metals, which delayed both of the Jumo and BMW projects.


The HeS 30 had a better Power-to-weight ratio than the contemporary 003 or 004, it was more compact, it was less complex, required less exotic materials and had better fuel economy.

109-006: weight 860 pounds - max. thrust 1,896 lbf
109-003A: weight 1,375 pounds - max. thrust 1,760 lbf
109-004A: weight 1,805 pounds - max. thrust 1,980 lbf

So back to the original point: Had the 109-006 been allowed to develop (along with the rest of the jet engines in the various programs) then they would have been much further along in development and ultimately into production.

It might also be noted that the He280 was designed with the HeS 8 (and ultimately, the HeS 30) in mind...since these engines were lighter, more compact and required less fuel, the He280 was doomed when the ax fell on the HeS 30 development. It simply could not accept a different engine without drastically altering it's performance.

The Me262 even had to be altered from it's original design to accept changes in it's engine installation (hence the "swept" wings) to counter the change in CoG.


----------



## Tagurrit (Jul 4, 2017)

I know this thread is old but I find it very interesting. Especially the discussions of the armaments of the aircraft in question. I always thought the 50cal was a good weapon but not a great weapon. I've watched a lot of gun camera film of FW-190's and ME-109's shooting apart B-17's. Those 30mm's really tear apart a 17. I was surprised to read about the range of the 30mm's being so low. I assumed they'd carry further than a 50cal. I also have read a lot about the 20mm's being very effective. Was the 50cal really that superior to the other machine guns on fighters in WW2?


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 5, 2017)

If by "machine guns" you mean guns with a bore under 14mm then it was in the top 3. If by "machine guns" you include guns with bores larger than 14mm (like 15-20mm ) then it falls (as all the 12.7-13.2mm guns do) a number of places. 

The Russian 12.7mm and Japanese 13.2mm (Navy) guns were sort of a 3 way tie in effect on target with the US .50cal.


----------



## Guv (Aug 3, 2017)

The 262's 30mm cannon would have been a major short coming against the F-80's .50 guns. Such low muzzle velocity would have seriously affected the range and hit probability. The F-80 would have swept the skies.


----------



## wuzak (Aug 4, 2017)

Guv said:


> The 262's 30mm cannon would have been a major short coming against the F-80's .50 guns. Such low muzzle velocity would have seriously affected the range and hit probability. The F-80 would have swept the skies.



How many hits would you need from the .50" hmgs to get the same effect as one hit from the 30mm?


----------



## Fighterguy (Aug 9, 2017)

wuzak said:


> How many hits would you need from the .50" hmgs to get the same effect as one hit from the 30mm?


A hit with a .22 beats a miss with a .44, you have to hit first. The 30mm cannon was designed to take down bombers, the primary target for 262 pilots. A group of hits from a .50 cal, likely using high explosive or incendiary rounds, if not outright destroying the aircraft, will damage sub-systems, causing the stricken fighter to disengage.


----------



## Clayton Magnet (Sep 26, 2017)

If the Me 262 found itself with new jet fighters to oppose, I can not imagine it would have been difficult to fit some MG 151 or perhaps the new MG 213 to the airframe. The machine gun, 50 cal included, was obsolesent as a primary aircraft armament by 1944. 
Perhaps a combination armament, like we saw with the MiG 15, would have been selected. 2 MG 213 and a single mk108 would have been devastating to bombers AND fighters


----------



## drewwizard (Dec 7, 2017)

My bet would be on the ME-262. At the end of the war, it was already evolving. (larger more durable engines were in the works). The p-80 was still a test vehicle. By the time the P-80 would have been available, the ME-262 would be faster and further developed. The advantage to the ME-262 would be dive and run. Cleaner lines and heavier, and with the swept wings no compress-ability issues. Perfect for dive and zoom (P-40 warhawk against the Zero tactics) A better comparison would have been the P-59 which was at least ready for deployment before wars end. (that one would be a bad mismatch and fodder for the ME-262). The meteor also would be a poor match at least one on one. 

Armament would be hard to compare. The .50 can spit out a stream of shells with good velocity which makes it better at deflection shots. The 30mm is just crazy destructive. (explosive energy vs kinetic energy) The estimate was two hits by the 30 mm to take down the average B-17. In a turning battle the 50 would be the better. In a dive and zoom, probably the 30mm. 

Training and experience by the time the 262 was deployed was strongly leaning toward the US. Most of the experienced Luftwaffe pilots were dead, and the training program quality had badly fallen. The US on the other hand now had many experienced pilots, and excellent training. The Germans were working up tactics due to experience which could have shifted the bar a little at least in the initial encounters.

Are we talking about the skys over Europe in 1945? If so, being out numbered 50 to one would still leave the Me-262 out gunned and out maneuvered.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 8, 2017)

drewwizard said:


> By the time the P-80 would have been available, the ME-262 would be faster and further developed.


Providing further development was possible.


----------



## drewwizard (Dec 21, 2017)

The specifications for the original P-80 was maximum speed 502 MPH. Only when improved engines were available in the late 1940's/early 1950's did the P-80 get to 558. You have to look at what the planes were like when the first P-80's were sent to Italy in 1945. The speed was essentially the same in level flight. The two were about equal speed wise, The P-80 better in the turn, the 262 better in dive and zoom. P-80 mechanicals all new and likely trouble probe as were the engines. Near equal specification wise, (P-80 a little out gunned) but also no experienced jet pilots on the P-80 side. Engine development was progressing rapidly on both sides, with the Germans a little ahead (we got their scientists after the war which made the advances in the P-80)


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 22, 2017)

drewwizard said:


> no experienced jet pilots on the P-80 side.



That's irrelevant. There isn't much training needed to prepare you to fly a turbine aircraft, especially if you were an experienced combat pilot.

And NO advances were made to the P-80 through the capture/ liberation of German scientists.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Dec 23, 2017)

The training required for flying jets is primarily on approach and landing, where high residual thrust can result in floating down the runway, vs landing, and slow power lever response can convert aborted landings into crashes.

I also think a lot of the vaunted and largely fictitious German technological "superiority" is because they fielded things like jet aircraft at a stage no one else would consider them ready for service. One rather basic example is the Me262, which engine life that was so poor that its level of serviceability was barely acceptable, even in the desperate state Germany was in at the time.
[added in edit]
The P-80 was taking longer to field because the USAAF wasn't desperate; it wasn't having the crap beaten out of it by a functionally infinite number of high-performance aircraft and the US didn't need to worry about its cities being turned into rubble while its army was being ground down in the East, fighting, and losing, a defensive action in Italy, and already lost in North Africa.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## drewwizard (Dec 28, 2017)

Really? The turbine, especially the early ones required a lot of training. Pushing the throttle too fast stalled the turbine and flamed out the engine. Acceleration was very bad but constant. Really bad when you misjudge the landing approach and the jets higher stall speed.
The Germans found out bomber pilots made the best ME-262 pilots because they had to unlearn less. Tactics were completely different in the original jet fighters because of the way a turbine worked. High angles of attack stalled the engines. That funny nose on the F-86 had a reason. Once you bleed off energy, it was a long time to get speed and altitude back. Killed a lot of early jet pilots in combat trying to play in a turning battle. Engine controls were not automated like it is today.

The original P-59 (an experiment that flew like a dog) was powered like the meteor with a Centrifugal flow turbojet. The British engine. After review of captured ME-262s axial turbojet and with the help of the scientists who made them work, GE resurrected it's origin axial turbojet program and added the fixes. The US had Hastalloy - B, and the Germans created an aluminum coating and were experts on cooling the turbine blades. (The German response to get around limited supply of high temp alloys). 

Here is a quote from the P-80 Wiki page.
After the war, the USAAF compared the P-80 and Me 262 concluding, "Despite a difference in gross weight of nearly 2,000 lb (900 kg), the Me 262 was superior to the P-80 in acceleration, speed and approximately the same in climb performance. The Me 262 apparently has a higher critical Mach number, from a drag standpoint, than any current Army Air Force fighter."[6]

and that's with the new GE engine. The swept wing and cleaner lines made the difference. The P-80 was a little more reliable, but killed pilots like Richard Bong just the same. (Bong didn't engage the auxiliary fuel pump, when the primary failed causing the engine to die at low altitude. No engine in a jet and they fall like a rock. Inexperience in an early jet (P-80) killed Bong and a lot of early ME-262 pilots also)


----------



## swampyankee (Dec 28, 2017)

drewwizard said:


> Really? The turbine, especially the early ones required a lot of training. *Pushing the throttle too fast stalled the turbine and flamed out the engine. * Acceleration was very bad but constant. Really bad when you misjudge the landing approach and the jets higher stall speed.
> The Germans found out bomber pilots made the best ME-262 pilots because they had to unlearn less. Tactics were completely different in the original jet fighters because of the way a turbine worked. High angles of attack stalled the engines. That funny nose on the F-86 had a reason. Once you bleed off energy, it was a long time to get speed and altitude back. Killed a lot of early jet pilots in combat trying to play in a turning battle. Engine controls were not automated like it is today.
> 
> The original P-59 (an experiment that flew like a dog) was powered like the meteor with a Centrifugal flow turbojet. The British engine. After review of captured ME-262s axial turbojet and with the help of the scientists who made them work, GE resurrected it's origin axial turbojet program and added the fixes. The US had Hastalloy - B, and the Germans created an aluminum coating and were experts on cooling the turbine blades. (The German response to get around limited supply of high temp alloys).
> ...



High performance aircraft tend to have quite high wing loadings, but the first generation jets weren't that much higher than the last generation fighters: the P-80C's wing loading was only about 5% greater than the P-51D's (at MTOW). The P-80 probably had a better glide angle than the P-51 and a comparable sink rate. 

The other highlighted text is quite true, and required development of fuel controls, which were -- until FADECS were developed -- analogue computers using fuel (Hamilton Standard a primary proponent), air, cams and gears, or even analogue electronics were required because turbine engine behavior is very non-linear and optimum compressor performance requires being pretty close to the surge line and Fanno flow means the compressor's operating line moves outside of the stable range. It could be a pain to get this to work right, especially pre-FADEC, where a change the fuel vs pressure vs rpm curve would require a cam design and about 2000 hours of engineer time.


----------



## wuzak (Dec 28, 2017)

drewwizard said:


> The original P-59 (an experiment that flew like a dog) was powered like the meteor with a Centrifugal flow turbojet. The British engine. After review of captured ME-262s axial turbojet and with the help of the scientists who made them work, GE resurrected it's origin axial turbojet program and added the fixes. The US had Hastalloy - B, and the Germans created an aluminum coating and were experts on cooling the turbine blades. (The German response to get around limited supply of high temp alloys).
> 
> Here is a quote from the P-80 Wiki page.
> After the war, the USAAF compared the P-80 and Me 262 concluding, "Despite a difference in gross weight of nearly 2,000 lb (900 kg), the Me 262 was superior to the P-80 in acceleration, speed and approximately the same in climb performance. The Me 262 apparently has a higher critical Mach number, from a drag standpoint, than any current Army Air Force fighter."[6]
> ...



The XP-80 flew with the Halford H-1 (de Havilland Ghost) turbojet borrowed from the de Havilland Vampire program after destroying the first engine that had been given to them.

Production P-80s used the J-3, an improved J-31 (based on the Whittle W2B/23), replacing the reverse flow combustors with straight through type (like the Halford H-1). The J-33 was developed by GE but produced by Allison.

The T33 used the J33, the F-94 Starfire used a J48, built by Pratt & Whitney, but designed by Rolls Royce as an enlarged Nene.

So none of the production versions of the P-80 family used an axial type jet. They all used centrifugal compressor types, essentially based on Whittle and Halford's designs.

I can't see that GE had worked on an axial turbojet prior to being asked to produce the I-16/J31. They did design the T31 and J35 late in the war.

In Britain AA Griffith had produced a paper on using aerodynamic principals to design blades in an axial compressor in 1926, including a proposed turboprop aircraft engine.

In the following years Griffith produced a compressor to test his principals (1928), experimented with axial flow compressors (including a counter rotating example) and worked with Hayne Constant and Metropolitan Vickers (Metrovicks) to design the Metrovicks F.1 (after originally designing a turboprop). This was on the test bed in 1941 and flew suspended beneath a Lancaster in 1943.

The follow-on F.2 series was to fly in the prototype Meteor in late 1943 - before the P-80.

In 1939 Griffith moved to Rolls-Royce in order to work on axial flow jets.

Meanwhile, Armstrong Whitworth were told to stop work on their piston projects (Deerhound and Wolfhound) in order to produce an axial flow jet design, the ASX.

After the war AW took over the Metrovick engine program, developing the F.9 into the Sapphire. The Sapphire was produced in the US as the Wright J65.

Westinghouse made the J30, an axial flow engine of entirely US design. It first ran in 1943, and first flew suspended under an F4U in 1944.

So, neither the British or the Americans had to wait until the defeat of Germany to produce axial flow turbojets or turboprops.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 29, 2017)

drewwizard said:


> Really? The turbine, especially the early ones required a lot of training.



And again you're wrong.

There was a minimal ground syllabus and a few hours in the air for most if not all of the early jets that entered service, to include allied aircraft. Read about "Watson Whizzers," they were flying captured German jets with just a briefing from ground crews and some ground instruction from cooperating captured German pilots. There's a few of us here who have flown recip aircraft and jets, yes there are differences but nothing that can't be overcome with just a few hours of training. Yes, the early jets could be a bit squirley and even dangerous it you let the aircraft get ahead of you, especially on landing, and yes, early jet engines were susceptible to flame out if you pushed the throttles up too fast, but guess what? Some 2nd and 3rd generation jet trainers do the same thing and its a matter of learning the aircraft and again a few hours of flight training is all that's needed if you were already a seasoned pilot. It wasn't until 1948 when the T-33 entered service when there was a dedicated jet training and conversion program that had a detained syllabus for both ground and air instruction.

So if you have a reference to show us other then an Osprey book that says "the turbine, especially the early ones *required a lot of training*," I'd like to know what that training was and how longit took?!?!?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 29, 2017)

drewwizard said:


> *Inexperience in an early jet (P-80) killed Bong *and a lot of early ME-262 pilots also)



No, forgetting to complete a task.

Bong had almost 5 hours (12 flights) in the P-80 when he was killed which by WW2 standards was plenty of time for jet conversion. The aux pump he forgot to turn on was a quick mod Lockheed was just starting to implement as 10 months earlier test pilot Milo Burcham was also killed from the primary fuel pump failing. During this time The P-80A was being modded as quickly was the aircraft was being built and its possible that there wasn't even a written procedure in place on where and when to turn on this pump. Some folks were even cautious about even using it because if recall it was a converted hydraulic pump manufactured by Pesco Aircraft Products. I also read that one of the Lockheed mechanics told some of the AAF acceptance pilots that "it wasn't important." Around 1989 I interviewed Tony LeVier and he told me had he had a chance to initially brief Bong instead of one of the other production test pilots, this accident might not have happened, but with the pace of production and the war still going on, chance briefings were many times a luxury.

Bong "forgot" to do a task that killed him, this wasn't due to JET inexperience as there have been many high time pilots who "forgot" to do a task (or ignored something on a checklist) that got them killed.

From Wikipedia

_"At the time of the crash, Bong had accumulated four hours and fifteen minutes of flight time (totaling 12 flights) in the P-80. The I-16 fuel pump was a later addition to the plane (after an earlier fatal crash) *and Bong himself was quoted by Captain Ray Crawford (another P-80 test/acceptance flight pilot who flew the day Bong was killed) as saying that he had forgotten to turn on the I-16 pump on an earlier flight"
*_
BTW - plenty of recip aircraft have boost pumps as well!


----------



## pbehn (Dec 29, 2017)

I think that as far as the early jets were concerned it was the pilots who were writing the manuals reporting back how they recovered from various "scrapes" to the engineers.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 29, 2017)

pbehn said:


> I think that as far as the early jets were concerned it was the pilots who were writing the manuals reporting back how they recovered from various "scrapes" to the engineers.



You got that right!


----------

