Best Jet Fighter of WWII?

[dedalos]

All aircraft have a record of killing their pilots...there are NO exceptions. The Spatz was a design that was rushed to the front lines from it's inception due to deperation, not aerodynamic advancement. No other airforce on the planet copied it's design or considered it for any role...it was a dead end.


Better spend more time reading about the machines you speak of, reducing weight also enhances speed.
The Ar234 was designed as a high-speed bomber and some were even used in the role of high-speed recon. It was NOT a fighter, never was intended to be a fighter and never used in the capacity as a fighter.
As far as "claims", I am not making any, I am simply repeating fact. If this bothers you, then learn a little more about the Ar234 and it's operational record.


I am going to assume that you mis-read my statement, because nowhere did I say the P-80 could "out fly" the Me262. I said the P-80 would "come up short" in a contest.
What this means, is that the P-80, while being close to performance profiles of the Me262, lacked the heavy armament and pilot experience in jet operations in a combat environment and would take a great deal of work to prevent themselves from falling victim to the Me262.

No i insist. Removing the 130-140 kgr of the mg 151s and their ammo from a 9000kgr jet while does not reduce the drug, is not going to add a single km/h in Top speed.
You repeat the fact that the 234 can fly only in a strait Line? i am sorry but its not a fact. Read the pilots Reports. i have.
Perhaps i indeed misanterstood your comment about the p80vs 262
The 234A was tested The 234c with almost double thrust could be dangerous with proper tactics even in daylight against bombers.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

P80was killing its pilots 2 years after its First flights

so was ever other early jet aircraft. I posted some of the P-80 mishaps from 1944 on and there weren't very many attributed to the aircraft malfunctioning. It's obvious early jets weren't reliable but there was also a high attrition rate due to pilot error.

 

[GrauGeist]

In the "armed" version you refer to: if you're talking about the Ar234B-2/N, only two were made. If you're talking about the sub-varient C-3, it was virutally non-existant and the nightfighter, C-3/N was never made. Only 14 C models were made and the bulk of them sat on the ground for lack of engines.

As far as weight not influencing performance, you are sadly mis-informed. If weight was not a factor in flight dynamics, then the YB-40 would have been a spectacular success and there would have been no need for escorts to protect the B-17s over Europe. The bottom line, is that weight can be a penalty to performance.

Fact of the matter is, there is no documented downing of an attacking enemy by the defensive rear cannon and many Ar234 pilots had them removed.

In addition, the recon pilots were advised not to turn when engaged by Allied fighters during their missions, but instead rely on their forward speed to get them out of harm's way. What this means, is fly in a straight line.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Ar 234 able to fly only in strait Line????? Brown loved the plane. Which is your scource for this claim? And the c with almost double thrust was even better

The AR 234 was a wonderful machine and had a lot of growth potential, but for the most part, it was not going to maneuver with any fighter of the day, I encourage you to calculate the wing loading of this aircraft and although light for a bomber, it was not that maneuverable and this regardless of what Brown said about the aircraft. With a top speed of almost 470 mph it was not going to consistently sustain that speed as we already showed that turbine aircraft cannot be operated at 100% rpm for long periods of time. It's cruising speed was well within the recip piston engine fighters of the day.

 

[dedalos]

In the "armed" version you refer to: if you're talking about the Ar234B-2/N, only two were made. If you're talking about the sub-varient C-3, it was virutally non-existant and the nightfighter, C-3/N was never made. Only 14 C models were made and the bulk of them sat on the ground for lack of engines.

As far as weight not influencing performance, you are sadly mis-informed. If weight was not a factor in flight dynamics, then the YB-40 would have been a spectacular success and there would have been no need for escorts to protect the B-17s over Europe. The bottom line, is that weight can be a penalty to performance.

Fact of the matter is, there is no documented downing of an attacking enemy by the defensive rear cannon and many Ar234 pilots had them removed.

In addition, the recon pilots were advised not to turn when engaged by Allied fighters during their missions, but instead rely on their forward speed to get them out of harm's way. What this means, is fly in a straight line.

It s anothe said thing what are you saying now, that it was inadvisable for the 234 to turn, and another think what you wrote earlier that the 234 could fly only in a strait Line

You keep insisting in the weight and speed Number. what has to do the YB40 with the case 234? The yb 40 was 1800 kgr heavier than standardt b17s on take off and about 3000 kgr heavier after bomb release. Additionaly the Extra turret caused drug
Drgondog, i ask you too because you hurried to like Grau geist post. reducing the weight of the ar 234 by about 140kgr ,wiht NO drug reduction would cause any speed gain?

 

[dedalos]

The AR 234 was a wonderful machine and had a lot of growth potential, but for the most part, it was not going to maneuver with any fighter of the day, I encourage you to calculate the wing loading of this aircraft and although light for a bomber, it was not that maneuverable and this regardless of what Brown said about the aircraft. With a top speed of almost 470 mph it was not going to consistently sustain that speed as we already showed that turbine aircraft cannot be operated at 100% rpm for long periods of time. It's cruising speed was well within the recip piston engine fighters of the day.

Of course it could not turn fight with fighters . I disagree with graugeist s earlier statement that could fly only in a strait line

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Of course it could not turn fight with fighters . I disagree with graugeist s earlier statement that could fly only in a strait line

I think you're taking his comment out of context, the aircraft was flown straight and level and little evasive maneuvers undertaken. It obvious that it was able to turn...

 

[GrauGeist]

It s anothe said thing what are you saying now, that it was inadvisable for the 234 to turn, and another think what you wrote earlier that the 234 could fly only in a strait Line

That's exactly what I said...the Ar234 was designed to go straight. Like any bomber. Bombers are not "twisty-turny" aircraft, they are designed to fly to their target, drop bombs and return home. This is what the Ar234 did.

Again, like I mention before, the Ar234 was not a dog-fighter, it was a bomber. To further that point, again, like I mentioned earlier, the Ar234 pilots are advised against turning to evade interceptors, but rather use speed as a means to evade.

So if you're not turning, you're flying straight. I'm not sure how I could make that any clearer than I already am.

You keep insisting in the weight and speed Number. what has to do the YB40 with the case 234? The yb 40 was 1800 kgr heavier than standardt b17s on take off and about 3000 kgr heavier after bomb release. Additionaly the Extra turret caused drug
Drgondog, i ask you too because you hurried to like Grau geist post. reducing the weight of the ar 234 by about 140kgr ,wiht NO drug reduction would cause any speed gain?

Drgndog most likely "liked" my comment because he is well versed in the laws of aerodynamics. Weight can have a parasitic effect on performance just as much as drag does. I am not sure why you keep insisting otherwise. Either you don't fully understand the weight penalty or you're just bored and looking to argue over this factor.

As far as the YB-40 example, yes, the additional turrets added "drag" but the additional tonnage of the M2 .50 MGs and their ammunition was what put it over the edge. That was an extreme example, I admit, but it does show that additional weight can incur a serious penalty in aircraft performance.

We can cite many other examples or we can start posting performance charts along with mathematical equations, I suppose...or you can just accept the fact that the Ar234 pilots did not have any use for the defensive armament and had them removed to increase (even if marginally) thier speed. By the way, I might add that not all pilots did this, but many did.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Of course it could not turn fight with fighters . I disagree with graugeist s earlier statement that could fly only in a strait line

I think you are taking it too literally...

 

[awack]

The He162 was not a reliable platform and can be considered more of an anomaly of military aviation born of desperation than an avenue to follow. In otherwords, it should have never been built, let alone put into combat.

Agree, it could be a hand full for even a experienced pilot, it didnt seem to have allot of growth in it either, couple of reasons why i would never pick it as best jet, but more than one pilot after the war thought very highly of it especially as a dog fighter, it could turn as sharp as a P51D, and could out roll a FW 190, infact it had the highest peak roll rate ever achieved (Eric Brown) with the exception of boosted ailerons.. on the flip side it was also the most stable jet at speed, best snaking characteristics..but, yeah, the whole concept of the peoples fighter was pretty insane.

The Ar234 and it's variants were high-speed bombers and recon units. Their only defense was to run like hell and in order to achieve a higher speed, some even had their fixed rear defensive cannon removed. There is no way one would be able to dogfight or do anything other than haul-ass in a straight line.

The Me262 was designed with the prospect of a pressurized cockpit (look at the cross-section of the cockpit/fuselage and see the "tub") but it was never implemented.

I can only talk about the B variant, since it was the only one tested after the war that i know of, it was said to have a high roll rate with some of the lightest stick forces ive seen, since there are no props the engines are placed very close to the fuselage , which helps with low speed roll, it had 60 ibs wing loading, but carried almost 7000 pounds of fuel, which gave it around 1000 mile range, most jet air craft of the time ranged from 240 miles to 550 miles, so if you reduce fuel load to interceptor specs, its wing loading is lighter than a p38 or p47(my estimate could be wrong) high command stated that its defense as a bomber/recon was to fly straight and level or climb. I wouldnt want to dog fight a P51 or Spitfire, thats for damn sure, the AR 234c would be a high performance interceptor with a phenomenal rate of climb and good good handling,well, since your adding 2 more engines to the wing, i cant comment on the handling for the AR 234C.

The "6-gun" Me262 mentioned (Me262A-1a/U1) was a one-off version to try and increase range against the bombers, while retaining defensive armament. It's performance wasn't impressive enough to make any others. The other "6-gun" version was the Me262A-1a/U5 packing 6 Mk108 cannon...and again, not impressive.

I think that the Mk108 was enough of a devastating weapon to the point that the rule of "less is more" should have applied. Only two cannon would have been sufficient and the weight savings from two less cannon would allow for a higher ammunition capacity. All it took was a single 30mm Minengeschoss round to tear a wing from a P-51 or devestate the cockpit of a B-17.

Yep there is actually some confusion in which variant Bar(i think) used to shoot down one or two P47s, the the one with 2x 103 or the one with 6x 108s..you and i think the same, ive always thought for WW2, that 2x mk108s were more than enough, i mean one me 163 shot down 2x b17s(confirmed) with only 2x mk 108s and only 60 rnds per gun, by eliminating two guns and ammo, your saving between 400 and 500 pounds, which of course is good for climb and acceleration. Oh, from my understanding, by the end of the war, the mk108 was firing at 850 rpm..times 4/6, thats 3400/5100 rpm, thats basically a gatling gun firing grenades.

 

[swampyankee]

He 162 unreliable platform?? Why ? Becauce thre were fatal accidents the First 6 monts of its existence? P80was killing its pilots 2 years after its First flights
Removing the 20mm guns of ar234 increased its speed? They were causing no drug. They were removed just because were not useful
Ar234C was also having two forward firing 20mm.
Ar 234 able to fly only in strait Line????? Brown loved the plane. Which is your scource for this claim? And the c with almost double thrust was even better

About the P80 vs 262. Since P80, as you say, could outfly the 262, why you say it would come short against the 262?
I agree with you that the 262 was over gunned. But instead of 2x30 mk108s i would choose 3x Mg151s . more than enough against fighters and would Free weight for additional rockets against bombers

Of course armament causes drag: first, it has weight, which has to be lifted, which causes induced drag. Second, armament, especially turreted weapons, causes drag because of the wart-like execrecense destroying a smooth shape and the gaps that must be present. Forward-firing armament isn't quite as bad, but having a hole facing the wind increases drag. Rearward-firing fixed armament is probably the least bad, drag-wise, but something like a tail turret bollixes up the shape of the rear of the fuselage. There's a reason subsonic aircraft have finely tapered back ends: air doesn't like to make sharp turns, especially when it's slowing down, and a tail turret will increase drag.

If you're going to argue about aerodynamics, please read some books first. I recommend you start with von Mises, go through Schlicting, McCormack, Prandtl, Kuchemann, Hoerner's Fluid Dynamic Drag and Fluid Dynamic Lift, and maybe some books on CFD, like Kuethe Chow. Don't bother reading things like Squadron Publications or Luft'46.

Also, we all know that any aircraft can turn. I do not know about the Ar234's maneuver capabilities, but it would seem, from the roles into which the Luftwaffe placed it, that "fighter" wasn't in its job description, and maneuverability was likely low on its list of design priorities. Several bombers have had good maneuverability, but remained firmly "bombers" or "recon aircraft"; possibly the closest to an iconic example was the Canberra/B-57 which, from what I've read, had stellar maneuverability. So, apparently, did the B-47 and the Vulcan.

 

[Elmas]

Do remember that almost all of the innovations that the Luftwaffe fielded in WW2 were developed and published before WW2: transonic aerodynamics was an active field of investigation for at least a decade before WW2. Indeed, there was a very famous conference in Rome, where Mussolini paid for people to attend from, among other countries, the US. During WW2, Robert T Jones, among others at NACA (and probably the ARC) was actively investigating swept wings for transonic flight, including the incredibly important areas of high AoA behavior, stall recovery, etc. Since the US, thanks to NACA's work on laminar flow profiles, had airfoils, like the NACA 6-digit series, e.g., 65-215, with better transonic characteristics than the Germans were using, sweep was less needed for the US aircraft (and we were talking to the British...)

As any engineer will tell you, one of the definitions of "expert" is having a foreign accent. This is why Deming wasn't accepted in the US, but was in Japan. Sometimes managers will ignore the guy down the hall who says "hey, if we sweep the wing, we can solve that problem with transonic drag rise," but listen to the $500/hr consultant say, "ach, if ve sveep the ving, you can solve all zat problem vith transonic drag rise."

But, if I remember well, Kelly Johnson in person, in his book, admits that in the field of aerodinamics Germans in 1945 were ahead.

 

[Shortround6]

Also, we all know that any aircraft can turn. I do not know about the Ar234's maneuver capabilities, but it would seem, from the roles into which the Luftwaffe placed it, that "fighter" wasn't in its job description, and maneuverability was likely low on its list of design priorities. Several bombers have had good maneuverability, but remained firmly "bombers" or "recon aircraft"; possibly the closest to an iconic example was the Canberra/B-57 which, from what I've read, had stellar maneuverability. So, apparently, did the B-47 and the Vulcan.

Quotes about maneuverability have to be put into context. AS in "good maneuverability for a bomber". Too often the context is left out. The US had different "G" loading requirements for fighters than they did bombers. The Bombers had a much lower "G" loading. So even if you could get super pilot to somehow get enough control authority (elevator) to make a bomber turn at 6 'Gs' you would probably break the airplane, tear wing off.

 

[swampyankee]

But, if I remember well, Kelly Johnson in person, in his book, admits that in the field of aerodynamics Germans in 1945 were ahead.

I didn't say that they weren't, at least in some areas (I think that US airfoil technology was superior, as was US expertise in aircraft engine cooling), but that their aerodynamic developments during the war had well-publicized pre-WW2 antecedents, which were known in aerodynamics US and UK. This included the beneficial effects of wing sweep in reducing transonic drag rise. Jones was, at some level, studying the application of swept wings for this very purpose as early as 1943, based on pre-war work by, among others aerodynamics. Johnson (or his design team) had also shown some evidence of ignoring outside knowledge. That's why an early P-80 prototype sucked fuselage parts that were improperly designed through the engine.

 

[swampyankee]

As for pilots getting killed during the development of military aircraft, this used to be pretty routine, at least into the 1960s or so, when ejection seats became reliable enough. It has also happened during the development of civilian aircraft: a Challenger, during departure testing, went into a flat spin and killed the flight crew. And helicopters: at least one S-70 crashed during development, a S-65 had a fatal accident during ground resonance testing (although the story I heard was that it was really executive-ego satisfaction testing), a S-69 (ABC concept) test vehicle had a fatal crash on takeoff. (Note that these incidents all stick in my mind as I worked at Lycoming, specifically on the ALF-502, and at Sikorsky, mostly on the S-65).

We engineers try to prevent this -- we've no animus towards test pilots -- but we also have to find the edges beyond which normal pilots shouldn't go, and for a very long time, the only way to find those edges was to go past them. Occasionally, this would put the aircraft into a position from which recovery was impossible. Before ejection seats, this could result in a situation where the pilot couldn't get out. Hitting the ground or the water at at high speed is not compatible with life.

 

[dedalos]

Of course armament causes drag: first, it has weight, which has to be lifted, which causes induced drag. Second, armament, especially turreted weapons, causes drag because of the wart-like execrecense destroying a smooth shape and the gaps that must be present. Forward-firing armament isn't quite as bad, but having a hole facing the wind increases drag. Rearward-firing fixed armament is probably the least bad, drag-wise, but something like a tail turret bollixes up the shape of the rear of the fuselage. There's a reason subsonic aircraft have finely tapered back ends: air doesn't like to make sharp turns, especially when it's slowing down, and a tail turret will increase drag.

If you're going to argue about aerodynamics, please read some books first. I recommend you start with von Mises, go through Schlicting, McCormack, Prandtl, Kuchemann, Hoerner's Fluid Dynamic Drag and Fluid Dynamic Lift, and maybe some books on CFD, like Kuethe Chow. Don't bother reading things like Squadron Publications or Luft'46.

Also, we all know that any aircraft can turn. I do not know about the Ar234's maneuver capabilities, but it would seem, from the roles into which the Luftwaffe placed it, that "fighter" wasn't in its job description, and maneuverability was likely low on its list of design priorities. Several bombers have had good maneuverability, but remained firmly "bombers" or "recon aircraft"; possibly the closest to an iconic example was the Canberra/B-57 which, from what I've read, had stellar maneuverability. So, apparently, did the B-47 and the Vulcan.

It s obvious that you dont know where the rear 20mm guns and their openings were located on the ar 234. Find a cutaway and then tell me what drag they were creating

For the induced drag ,i repeat ar 234 had a take off weight of 9000-9800kgr. Removing 140 kgr what difference would make in speed?
Perhaps, drgondog could make the calculations and tell us the difference.

 

[fastmongrel]

As for pilots getting killed during the development of military aircraft, this used to be pretty routine, at least into the 1960s or so, when ejection seats became reliable enough. It has also happened during the development of civilian aircraft: a Challenger, during departure testing, went into a flat spin and killed the flight crew. And helicopters: at least one S-70 crashed during development, a S-65 had a fatal accident during ground resonance testing (although the story I heard was that it was really executive-ego satisfaction testing), a S-69 (ABC concept) test vehicle had a fatal crash on takeoff. (Note that these incidents all stick in my mind as I worked at Lycoming, specifically on the ALF-502, and at Sikorsky, mostly on the S-65).

We engineers try to prevent this -- we've no animus towards test pilots -- but we also have to find the edges beyond which normal pilots shouldn't go, and for a very long time, the only way to find those edges was to go past them. Occasionally, this would put the aircraft into a position from which recovery was impossible. Before ejection seats, this could result in a situation where the pilot couldn't get out. Hitting the ground or the water at at high speed is not compatible with life.

No test pilot ever got forced into a cockpit, you need to look no further than Chuck Yeager hiding his broken bones to break the speed of sound. The waiting line for Test pilot jobs has always been a long one. Hell even now if someone told me I could go into space but there is a 1 in 3 chance I wont make it back I would just ask where I had to sign.

 

[swampyankee]

It s obvious that you dont know where the rear 20mm guns and their openings were located on the ar 234. Find a cutaway and then tell me what drag they were creating

For the induced drag ,i repeat ar 234 had a take off weight of 9000-9800kgr. Removing 140 kgr what difference would make in speed?
Perhaps, drgondog could make the calculations and tell us the difference.

140 kg out of 9800 is about 1.4%. Induced drag is proportional to lift coefficient squared. Tell you what: you do the math.

If the guns existed and had a way for the bullets to get out, they caused drag. How much drag is difficult to determine without a good CFD program and detailed drawings. Probably one or two drag counts, which is probably in the mud of individual production variation.

 

[dedalos]

140 kg out of 9800 is about 1.4%. Induced drag is proportional to lift coefficient squared. Tell you what: you do the math.

If the guns existed and had a way for the bullets to get out, they caused drag. How much drag is difficult to determine without a good CFD program and detailed drawings. Probably one or two drag counts, which is probably in the mud of individual production variation.

You really need to find a cytaway of ar 234

 

[swampyankee]

You really need to find a cytaway of ar 234

The cutaway doesn't make any difference regarding induced drag. Even with a cutaway, it would be difficult to determine how much affect an armament installation would have on the aircraft's drag. Removing it will reduce drag, but how much is not something I would try to estimate, even with a cutaway (I'd want drawings. I'd also want somebody to digitize them, grid them, and run them through a high-end CFD program. I don't happen to have a Beowulf cluster on hand, nor do I have VSAERO).