Best Fighter III

[Hunter368]

The "best fighter" does not mean the best performance OK? It means it's effect on and place in history. That's why I choose the P-51. It was the catalyst that provided the resolve to continue daylight ops in the ETO. It was a better machine for the average pilot to excel in. It was on equal or better terms in any fight since the 190 and 109s that filled out the Luftwaffe's inventories were not dominant in every aspect such as they were compared to a P-40.

I'm sorry guys but the whole point is not comparing top speed specifications of prototypes that didn't meet P-51s. Is a P-51B/C's top speed of 439 at 25,000 feet blown away by a 190D-9s of 440MPH at 21,653 feet? (Most of the reference sources attribute 426MPH to the D-9 but that's irrelavent as is a small difference in top speeds.) That truly is meaningless and if you know the narratives of pilots on all sides you know that.

When I said it was eclipsed in speed by a "handful" the your top speed list proves that.

Arado 240- a few prototypes built, project terminated in 1942 well before it ever could have met the P-51

DO 335- again an scant few prototypes built that never saw action

Ta 152C/Ta 152H- 67 prototypes and pre-production aircraft ever built

FW 190D-9- Enough entered service to be valid at 1,805

Bf 109K-4 great plane, debuted in January 1945, more were lost to bombers than fighters

He 162- a few arrived at a minute to midnite on the Luftwaffe clock had no known encounters with P-51s

He 163- Bomber interceptor 370 built, had few kills against bombers none against P-51s known.

Me 262- a great machine but too few too late

Go 229- 2 prototypes built!

While I will champion the German technology brilliance anytime. There are actually many more fast planes from the Luftwaffe arsenal. We could put the Bachem Natter at 621MPH on there along with the Ju 248 aka Me 263. But looking up stats in a book doesn't begin to tell the story. Top speeds do not automatically place a plane in a "best of" category.

Again it's not whether the 190D-9 had superior performance in some aspects or the 262 was far faster. The Mustang was instrumental, as I believe, in the historical aspect of a placement in history.

This is all opinion anyhow so it matters very little. Hey I'm not an enemy here.

Henk- let's start a thread about the advanced German designs and see how many we can profile.

Twitch you seem to be trying to defend yourself here some what, you don't have to. I never said that you are wrong on anything you said, just not totally agreeing with you 100% either that's all. P51 was a great plane, its just some people think it was the best plane made in WW2. Now it depends, like we both have said, how do you determine or define what is the best plane. You are no enemy, never said you were. Its just very very hard to say "this is the best plane in WW2". It all depends what are you asking that plane to do? Ground attack? Fighter bomber? Pure combat fighter ? Long range? Short Range ? High or low altitude? One vs one? Trained pilots or green pilots? Etc etc

 

[Twitch]

Sorry to over react.....

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Twitch you are correct that paper stats do not prove what aircraft is better than another, I have argued that many, however with the argument that you gave, my paper stats contradicted you and then you got defensive. As Hunter stated you do not have to, we are a friendly bunch here for the most part, just discussing.

However if you actually look at combat reports, losses, and actuall aircraft accounts of maneuverability you will see that your P-51 was just an average of the mill fighter. It was great for escort duties but compared to a Fw-190D it is not the same.

You also can not base a greatness of a fighter off of speed. Do you really think they were dog fighting at 450mph? Nope.

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

The "best fighter" does not mean the best performance OK? It means it's effect on and place in history

actually i think the best fighter does mean just that, the fighter that proved itself to be the best (with a reasonable number of sorties/kills credited to it), which most of the time means the best stats and views of the aircraft, if you start looking at historical impact you're looking at how great an aircraft is, the P-51 wasn't one of the best fighters of the war, but it is one of the greatest, because of it's impact..........

 

[syscom3]

The best fighter or bomber or transport is rated by the sum of all its parameters.

For example, you can argue that the P51 wasnt the best in any single thing, but it was good enough in all of them.

 

[delcyros]

I am not going to offend anybody here regarding Me-163 and P-51 dogfights.
Just for others to verify:

Me-163 aerial victories, 5th august 1944, around Leipzig:

P51----Lt. Silcox (352th FG)
P51----Lt. Fernandes (20th FG)
B-17(probable)---(by Lt. Ryll)

16th of august, area Halle-Leipzig-Brandis:

B-17---(305th BG?) by Fw.Schubert
B-17---(305th BG) by Lt. H. Bolt
B-17---(305th BG) by Fw. Straßnicky (WIA)

24th of august, central Germany:

2 B-17---(379th?BG) by Fw. S. Schubert (made only Me-163 guncam footage)
B-17-----(379th?BG) by Uffz. Schiebler
1 P51----(?FG) around Leuna, Lt. Bolt (another one claimed probable)

10th of september, central Germany:

1 B17---by Lt. Schreiber

11th of september, central Germany:

1 kill---by Lt. Schreiber (7th confirmed kill of 1. /JG400)

6th of october, central Germany:

B-17---(95th BG) -Lt. Schubert (KIA at landing accident)
B-17---(95th BG) -Uffz Bott

There are no records avaiable for nov.44 - march 45. (I count 3 P-51)
Anyway, the P-51 is a good choice.

 

[Henk]

Twitch buddy please calm down. Myself or any one else are attacking you.

I must agree with DerAdlerIstGelandet on this one.

Henk

 

[JonJGoldberg]

For Twitch Hunter368, Others,
I find myself both enjoying the exchanges, experiencing 'flashback'. The excerpts should clarify…

(http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/about962-0-asc-320.html)

Edited From > JonJGoldberg > Posted: Sat Oct 15, 2005 2:33 pm
… "To argue weight be given to sheer performance, or to the ease of manufacture, or to the aircraft's ability to perform it's specified task negating it's actual environment, is, simply nonsense.

Create 'Weighted' awards if you'd like. But the 'Best' award should be for the best, period.

Best fighter of WW-2 without question, was/is the North American P-51." …

… "If I were asked which fighter I was to fly during WW2, it would be …the P-47. Wow, why not the plane I said was the best? …the '47' seems the WW2 package that is most survivable in my eyes. Fast enough to walk away from all except the Me-262, and rare variants of other types, heavily armed, armored, wide landing gear, simple (although not without development problems) powerful, robust, air cooled radial; no fuel in the wings (-N/K the exception); and from all accountings ( stats that I can recall), extremely well made, even the Curtis built ships."

The replies were quick in coming! I was surprised.

Edited From > plan_D > Posted: Sat Oct 15, 2005 3:11 pm
"I would like to point out that you just contradicted yourself almost throughout that entire posting. You state that the P-51 was the greatest fighter of World War II on the basis that it gives an all-round package. But then move on to wondering if the P-51 would be able to handle itself in other roles." …

Edited From > lesofprimus > Posted: Sat Oct 15, 2005 5:52 pm
"U know, if the P-40 had the range of the P-51, and flew in as many #'s as the -51, people would be saying the P-40 was the greatest fighter in WW2...."

My response:

Edited From > JonJGoldberg > Posted: Sat Oct 15, 2005 10:44 pm
"…I should have been clearer.... It was better at defeating Fw-190s than the Fw-190 was at defeating bombers. It was better at defeating Me-109s than Me109s were at defeating bombers. Part of the reason the 190s 109s suffered bad or no gas, and or the shortage of supplies and or skilled pilots is because of the '51's contribution. The 190s 109s deserve no handicap due to this 'hardship'. Their hardships affirm, in my opinion, their inability to 'handle' their jobs/circumstance effectively." …

Basically, I was disappointed with what followed, as it completely bypassed my points...

(http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/about962-0-asc-340.html)

Edited From > DerAdlerIstGelandet > Posted: Sun Oct 16, 2005 12:19 pm
"I completly disagree the P-51D only made such an impact because of the massive amount of numbers that were in the air. Just as Les pointed out if it had been the other way around and P-47's were the most numerous then it would be the P-47 that you are talking about. The P-47 was even a better aircraft all around than the P-51D as was the Fw-190D."

Edited From > plan_D > Posted: Sun Oct 16, 2005 4:39 pm
"That is hardly a fair comparison for the fighter itself if you're basing it on what the side the said aircraft is on achieved. The Fw-190D was a remarkable interceptor and certainly something the Luftwaffe needed most but because Germany lost the war, it's not the best." …

Edited From > Gnomey > Posted: Sun Oct 16, 2005 5:33 pm
"Well said pD, I agree also."

So I got 'childish', as I catered to the derailment, replying…

Edited From > JonJGoldberg > Posted: Sun Oct 16, 2005 7:58 pm
"…plan_D…You are fun. Achievements are to be considered especially when talking of the 'best', when achievements by the individual contribute in such a manner, as to allow the whole (the team) to achieve. That is an MVP. MVPs are rarely, if ever, chosen form the side of lesser accomplishment (at lest in the States).

Although capable the '38 required too many parts, pristine service facilities, and suffered severe engine problems in Europe…

The '47 however, that plane could have, as seen with the '47 aircraft starting with P-47-D-RE-25, especially the P-47N replaced the '51 and it is debatable weather or not it could have been as effective…

At a 31,000 dollar or $61,000 savings (Vs the P-47, or P-38, in 1945 dollars) for what appears on paper to be the same thing. Could the US economy absorb this; plus the added cost to operate the '47, or '38? Yep. …These 'cheap' escort fighter aircraft (the P-51) do have claim to 1 vital stat. 1 that I didn't want to mention, as I hate stats. The '51 by war's end had destroyed 4,950 enemy aircraft in the air, more than any other fighter in Europe."

This caused a continuation of exchanges dealing with relevant tangents, 'if what if' scenarios, the likes. But the most significant reply, to me, was the following…

Edited From > DerAdlerIstGelandet > Posted: Sun Oct 16, 2005 12:19 pm
... "I dont believe aircraft should be judged off of there accomplishments but rather there ability and I am sorry the P-51 was nothing more than a long range escort. The Fw-190, P-47, and Spitfire were all more capable fighters and better. Well atleast me and pD seem to understand this."

Wow!!! I felt it important to serve as my contribution to the members here, ultimately to render performance 'envelope' of any individual fighter as 'meaningless' with regard to this issue, to develop a performance table 'weighted for the FIGHTER role'. This should clearly prove the 'ability' of the aircraft insignificant, as compared to one another, much like Coke, Pepsi; prove their 'accomplishment' clearly is the determining factor, as performance is not 'personal' or 'historical' it is numerical, has no bearing on 'best', as clearly Achilles is a better warrior than the current javelin record holder. This table should prove that history accomplishment are the sole criteria for the award of best.

Coke is clearly superior to Pepsi; as demonstrated by Coke's accomplishment of market share dominance. Each product's 'performance' if you were, is too close to the other to call, as enforced by the ingredients listed on the label; as unquantifiable as the reason may be, Coke's #1; Burger King found out the 'hard way', they sold less Whoppers when Pepsi products were at the fountain. People do not ask for a Cola, and most do not ask for a Pepsi (diet cola may be another thing all together).

During the many exchanges that followed, and the evolution of my 'tables' a strange thing happened. I found a new argument, one that focused our point; accomplishment history are relevant, not 'ability' or 'stat'; but it also replaces the '51 as best WW2 fighter…

(http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/about962-0-asc-540.html)

Edited From > JonJGoldberg > Posted: Wed Dec 14, 2005 1:34 am
"Is it possible that a 'match' between WW2 fighters can be confined to altitude 'X', assuming that one or the other contestant isn't wiped out on the first pass? ...

Is a plane that climbs at 3,000 fpm, when its adversary climbs at 4,000 fpm, at a disadvantage, when the plane that climbs at 3,000 fpm can maintain climb angles keeping its guns on the target? ...

Will a pilot, who knows his mount is not a turn/stall fighter, change his proven zoom boom tactics, to turn/stall fight an adversary even if the foe is a multi-engine bomber out of bullets? ...

My 1st three paragraphs represent what I view on these threads, in conclusion to most digressions; 'members' stating that plane X is better at medium altitudes than plane Y, or it climbs better, or performs better in a turn fight. All important aspects to be sure, but not overall the right approach to determining which was best in my opinion, rather, I feel it perpetuates this circular exchange among us, prevents us from moving past, quoting the lancaster kicks ass, "…it all comes down to what you look for in a fighter."

… I'm thinking we are all wrong. My vote for the P-51 most other posts I've seen avoid this plane… the answer was in front of us all along.

Edited from an article which can be found, beginning at http://www.stormbirds.com/squadron/home.htm

"Some of the most unnerving German advances to emerge late in the war were embodied in the jet aircraft; especially the Messerschmitt 262 fighter. While the forces of the Wehrmacht were in a full retreat across the continent, this sleek warbird was a cause for great alarm among the Allies. At a time when the rest the world's jet aircraft were little more than docile test beds,* the Me 262 was sweeping the sky for intruding bomber formations. The potential for disaster had not gone unnoticed."

"What made the Me 262 such a force to be reckoned with? The most obvious -- and relevant -- answer lies in it's blinding speed. In 1944-45, the North American P-51 Mustang was among the quickest and most agile performers in the Allied arsenal. In a clean configuration (without drop tanks), it's top speed was in the neighborhood of 440 miles per hour with "everything wide open except the toolbox."

"By way of contrast, when the Me 262 joined the battle in the skies over Europe, it was capable of passing through a bomber formation at 540 mph with relative ease. This gave it a speed advantage over Allied escort fighters of between 100 and 150 miles per hour, and rendered traditional tactics ineffective."

"Many U.S. bomber crews began to complain that, when they attempted to track the Me 262 from their defensive positions, the electric gun turrets could not slew fast enough to keep up with the Stormbird."

"The weapons fitted to the aircraft were no less impressive. The standard Me 262 carried four Mk 108 30mm cannons in the nose, and was later equipped with R4M 50mm rockets mounted on racks under the wings. Both were devastatingly effective against any adversary, and Stormbird pilots ran their scores up quickly against the American bomber formations."

To end… My arguments previously posted proclamations about the P-51, Hurricane as rightful owner runner up to the best fighter title I now retract. I retract my statements about MVPs having to come from the 'wining team'. I was in error, I was wrong.

The Me 262 was not so much "ahead of it's time" as it was the harbinger of an entirely new era in aviation, which I now concede as historically of more value than the fighter most responsible for winning a battle, or theater, regardless of the terrible philosophy practiced by some of its creators. Additionally, the Me-262 held clear performance edges of unmatched speed, unmatched firepower. …The amount of effort expended by the Allies, Soviets in the finding, securing, rebuilding, testing of Me-262s, is the final testimony of its status, Best Fighter Of WW2."

Another lesson I learned is that most members have closed their minds long ago… See below as I fence with DerAdlerIstGelandet; as the holder of an opinion in opposition to his, not a personal attack, as I respect his efforts, not his wavering opinions in this matter.

 

[JonJGoldberg]

DerAdlerIstGelandet,
For the 'longest time' I felt it important to try to get you to see the validity of history vs 'paper capability'.

Finally, for reasons unknown to me, as I catch up from an unusually busy period at work, on my reading here, I find, low behold a flip flop from you.

If you read fully my previous post (big job, I write too dam much 'nothing', even for me as I look back on my own crap), on Oct. 16 you state (I put my interpretations to your quotes I posted 'above') you believe the reason for the Mustang's success was volume, accomplishments be dammed its ability that counts. Reasonable, even if flawed, arguments.

Today I find you posted: "Twitch you are correct that paper stats do not prove what aircraft is better than another, I have argued that many, however with the argument that you gave, my paper stats contradicted..." What's this?

Let me offer the following facts you've informed me of in the past... Although the 'spec' shows the aircraft on your list had the 'ability' to run with, or out speed the '51 they in large part did not, they could not, as 'fielded', either run with, or out handle the Pony, due to, as you love to proclaim, the lack of: Quality parts, gas / any parts, or any gas; quality opportunity as German pilots usually found themselves climbing to meet the bombers / no opportunity as while climbing, diving in on them were '51s in numbers greater than or equal to their own.

I really can't believe you honestly feel aircraft were dog fighting, for the most part in WW2. The Japanese Italians in general, thought the same; didn't take them as long to see their errors, as it has for you, although for them this error was far more costly. I've read from countless fighter pilots of the time, over and again, that speed, was above all, was the most important attribute while engaged in combat in the days before 'radar-locked, fire and forget' weapons. During WW2 if I could out speed you, I will not need to out maneuver you, I just need to wear you out, keep my composure distance, for fate or opportunity will show their hand. Yet I remain in control, until I give your maneuverable aircraft my opportunity by slowing down, then, only then may you may maneuver to serve me your fate.

And others agreed with you DerAdlerIstGelandet...

Oh man the flip flop… You are still saying that it was mass that made the Mustang great, and 'true ability' that makes the 'fighter' of your choice, I believe it to be the '190-D, the best. There has been no wavering here. The flip-flops occur when we look at your arguments as they relate to your views.

On the one hand, you do not accept 'history''… The stats for the Pony you believe are inaccurate due to their number, as you posted since, lets say Oct 16th. Most of us know the '47 was the American fighter type built in the most number, not just for WW2, but in American History, therefore it was the most numerous Allied or American fighter type found in the sky, period.

So you flip, you argue, the '190-D was more capable, more developed, well rounded, offering stats. Big deal, for one thing; come again for another? After the BOB, during the time of its introduction, when the '190 ruled the air, what did it do to effect history, in a scale that rivals the Mustang? OOPPS I mentioned history, invalid argument. As for stats, they are too close to call, and you do not believe in them. So for the moment, lets say I agree that Dora was more well rounded than the Pony. Dora's job was to eliminate the bombers 1st. I guess it preformed well. It was often given the opportunity, bombers dispenced, to carry out those other tasks it was 'developed' for. The Pony's job was to protect the bombers. I guess it performed poorly. Ponies rarely strayed and performed 'secondary' roles, as they were too busy trying to adequately defend the bombers, and remained at their side.

So you flop… You stated again recently that stats are meaningless to you, its ability that counts, as proven by... Just how do you go and convey your points. The flip flop prevents anyone from presenting you with valid points. In essence, you are a masochist who because he likes the discomfort of ice cold showers in the winter takes warm showers instead.

… by the way, I still believe the Me-262 to be the best fighter of WW2, welcome arguments in challenge.

 

[syscom3]

The me-262 was perhaps the best interceptor, but not an air superiority fighter.

Plus didnt its performance get really bad at lower altitudes?

 

[JonJGoldberg]

syscom3
Was the Me-262 ever in a position to demonstrate any other capability besides that of interceptor effectively?

When the timing was right, the Germans 'blinked' as they say, tried to develop a bomber. Finally when fielded, the Germans needed to rid the sky of the ever present bombers, so its weaponry was kept from its ground attack duties, heavy delivery of fire power, at the expense of weight, and agility among others, the most interesting I believe was the problem of 'harmonizing' the firing of the weapons, not because of their mismatch, as is the usual reason, but as their simultaneous firing produced more breaking force than the forward thrust of the engines.

Interceptor was the need of the day, from the German standpoint, at which the 262 was formidable. Air superiority is easily within the 262's potential, if it were to have happened.

Most 'occurrences' I've read about that detail combat events at lower altitudes that involve 262s describe them as taking to the air, or trying to land. Erich may be able to tell us if they performed low altitude 'fighter' sweeps, but to me this would be silly, except I could see it being a 'propaganda' bonus; I do not know of any 'characteristic' that warrants your belief that the 262 did not perform well below, strike that, at low altitudes.

 

[delcyros]

The main problem for Me-262 low altitude sorties is the fuel consumption of it´s Jumo-004B3/4. As it was the limiting factor for all 1st gen. jets. In low altitude they have a fuel consumption of 21.6 ltr. /min, at high altitude (35.000 ft) it only was around one third of that: 7.1 ltr. /min. (both figures for 100%=890 Kp)
Despite this the Me-262 performed low level bomber attacks (Remagen, Kleve), reconnesaince and interceptor sorties.

 

[Henk]

Yes, the Me-262 was not good at low altitute, but it was almost all the same wiht the first jets.

Henk

 

[syscom3]

Wasnt the Me262 very vulnerable at lower speeds? Someone mentioned that the engines took a long time to "spool up" and were prone to compressor stalls?

And I swear someone somewhere mentioned that the swept wings were not "good" at low speeds ( I could be wrong, so dont throw darts at me.....).

And werent those 30mm cannons were the low velocity types?....Seems they would be great against bombers but against a maneuvering fighter, the trajectories would be hard to judge, even with a computing gun site.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Wasnt the Me262 very vulnerable at lower speeds? Someone mentioned that the engines took a long time to "spool up" and were prone to compressor stalls?

And I swear someone somewhere mentioned that the swept wings were not "good" at low speeds ( I could be wrong, so dont throw darts at me.....).

And werent those 30mm cannons were the low velocity types?....Seems they would be great against bombers but against a maneuvering fighter, the trajectories would be hard to judge, even with a computing gun site.

Your first 2 comments Sys - true - Early jet engines (especially centrifugal flow) spooled up very slowly, and swept wings provide very poor low speed handling characteristics. To remedy this automatic slats and wing fences are incorporated in the wing design...

As far as the guns - sounds good to me!

 

[delcyros]

At low altitude AND low speed the Me-262 is as vulnarable as any other twin engined plane.
= easy prey
It wasn´t specially vulnarable at low altitude as you might imagine here, Syscom.
The compressor stall is no typical low altitude engine behavior it is an especially HIGH altitude engine behavior (the higher the altitude, the more reduced is the speed of sound (even at a higher compression rate), the more airflow at high will be produced but less consumed by the turbine, this leads to a compressor stall. At lower altitudes the SoS is far higher).
The spool up time is a concern of the engine at 0-4000 rpm (initiate spool up), which had to be made very careful. According to the operations manual of the Jumo-004 B3 jet engine also the acceleration from 4.000 to 6.000 rpm has to be made smoothly. Once 6.000 rpm is exceeded the engine isn´t that prone to throttle setting changes.
The handling of Me-262 at low speed wasn´t more difficult than those of Me-109. The plane had full wing length automatic leading edge slot to provide additional lift at low speed (this offsetted the swept wing disadvantages. The same system was overtaken for the F-86 later for the same reasons).
Once full rpm was engaged, the thrust to weight ratio implies that the Me-262 accelerated at low altitude exactly like a late P-47 D. The take off speed, however, was way higher.
And You are right about the low velocity MK 108. They are not that suited for dogfights but they have a high battery output and single even single hits will cause considerable damage. More gunnery skill is required to get the best out of the 3 cm mine rounds.

 

[JonJGoldberg]

… Low altitude increase gas burn, decreased range are not considered, by me, to be the 'handicaps' you guys refer when you ask "Plus didn't its performance get really bad at lower altitudes?"; as this was/is true of all aircraft power-plants, airfoils, even those of today. There is still a sweet spot in any aircraft performance envelope, a density air that is optimal, as we still strive to create better adaptive power-plants, airfoils of ever greater efficiency, expanding 'sweet spots'.

The swept wings do reduce in effectiveness as speed decreases, so those clever designers used automatic leading edge slats. Did this completely erase the problem, no; the 262 pilot's job is to keep his mount in it's sweet spot, why slow down, it will only add to your problem? No American fighter until say mid '44 could turn with a Zero (P-38J/L or Grumman Bearcat [mid '45; never saw combat in WW2 but was 'in field']), especially the early ones, or an Oscar (…but only through 180 degrees or so, after which it must reduce it's turn rate or stall, less even when against torque for the 'Bear'), yet Wildcat P-40 pilots were able to use what little advantages their aircraft offered, combined with tactics, to defeat the Zero more often than they became the defeated. When the P-40s or Wildcats slowed to engage in a turn fight, especially if their wing man or tactic were compromised, they almost always lost.

The 30mm cannon would have surely been replaced, as the primary roll of the 262 changed from interceptor to 'air superiority' roles; it's not as if the Germans lacked other mountable highly effective 'anti-fighter' weapons; as for the complex trajectory… yes, and no; they were centrally mounted. In regards to the slow firing rate you are very correct; they were intended to bring down bombers effectively. Please consider that these weapons firing faster might have brought down the aircraft firing them.

As for 'engine spooling' at this point, I may only offer that to all that flew her, when power was reduced she held speed for an extremely long period of time, even to a '51 pilot. Engine response, prop effects are dynamics I'm educating myself in now. After reading recently acquired pilots manuals, I find it fascinating that inverted flight could only be of durations of less than 10 to 15 seconds on average. That we all use boosted or 'over-boosted' piston engine outputs for our 'max' performance 'debates' even though we all know the fact is that these conditions could only be maintained for short infrequent 'emergency' durations.

Below I post info that you may find at (www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com).

 

[delcyros]

Shame I couldn´t download the whole document (website not online).
I have been searching after it for a while.
Please all notice paragraph B!
"(...) ...it is also reported, that once the speed of sound is exceeded, you regain control"

This fit´s with Mutkes reports as it does with the aerodynamic transsonic estimation of the Me-262 (if we assume the airframe survives the stress for which it never was designed). Would be interesting to know the source of these "reports" as well...
Cheers JonJ!

 

[Henk]

Nice info thanks, great work.

Henk

 

[JonJGoldberg]

The full document can be downloaded here http://www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com/Images/Me262/262PilotHandbook.pdf