Best Jet Fighter of WWII?

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Dedalos, unless you were there, operating Ar234s and have a personal experience to offer, I suggest you just accept the word of the people who were there.

If they thought the MG151/20 was on no use to them, why shouldn't they remove it to save weight?

I have no idea why you cling to the fact that they never removed the MG151/20 defensive armament.
 
The Ar234B never had rear firing cannons installed in the fuselage. Some had gun packs installed below the fuselage.
 
Actually, the B did have fixed twin MG151/20s mounted to the rear and the pilot used the periscope to view their target (adjusting the aircraft to aim the cannon)

If you look closely at a photo of an Ar234B, you can see the muzzle ports on the lower portion of the rear of the fuselage, near the brake-chute door, just below the leading edge of the horizontal stabilizer.

I'll see if I can find a photo or diagram...

*edit*
Found the schematic of the Ar234B-2, I'll attach the file. Look for items #32 and #34, these will be the port and starboard MG151/20 cannon locations.

This is a very detailed (and large) diagram of the Ar234, I'm sure it will be great to have for anyone interested in the aircraft (modeling, research or just looking at it's construction)

View attachment Ar234b2_schematic.zip
 
Last edited:

Read more carefully the posts. We agree that they were removing the guns in service. They saved maintance work, weight and space. The discussion is if they were doing it for more speed. My opinion is that they had zero speed benefit by removing those particular guns.
In the bf 109g of the 3400kgr take off weight the EXTERNALYY mounted mg 151s caused a loss of speed of about 10 km/h. Imagine what speed loss the Ar 234 had from its Internal , firing towards the rear 151s.
 
I have read the posts, I'm pretty good with English, blagodarya

The point is, that they were removing the rear defensive cannon to save weight in the hopes of getting every last bit of speed out of their aircraft.

As I have said before, weight can be just as costly to performance as external drag is. There is no written record or evaluation of speed before removing the cannon and after removing the cannon. There may have not been any real difference except in the minds of the pilots. No one will ever know for sure. But the fact remains that some of the pilots had them removed.
 
Instead of just considering drag, what about balance? The guns are well aft of the CoG, and firing them, even if the "empties" are retained, will adversely affect it, leading to trim adjustment. In the reconnaissance role, with light(ish) cameras in place of bombs, things could be made worse, and any reconnaissance pilot knows that the photos are the important item, so would prefer to use acceleration as his main defence, rather than stay and mix it.
 
The removal of weight has a more significant impact on climb and ceiling than it does speed. Maybe the 234 didn't go any faster without the guns but if it could go just about as fast and climb even a few hundred ft/min while doing so it would get better separation from a pursuer. Or be able to cruise a few hundred meters higher ?
 
IIRC the 6 x MK103 in the Me262 was for the same reason as the RAF went to x8 7.7mm Brownings pre war. Closing nose on to a B17 in an Me262 gives a closing speed in the region of 1200kph. The range of the MK103 is limited so there is just a tiny window of opportunity between being in range and flying past the target. However a such a forward attack limits the time for the bombers defensive fire to act and for any escorts to react and maneuvre so is safer for the fighter. By adding extra guns the firepower at the critical time can be more effective. Dash in flat out from in front. Short powerful squirt of cannon fire when close and dash past to set up for another pass or go home to rearm. A bomber killer process. For a fighter killer process then the x2 guns would make more sense as x2 is enough to kill a fighter and extra ammunition will give more chances to hit an elusive target. When you run out of ammunition the bomber doesn't come back after you but a missed escort fighter will. Perhaps the nearest comparison post war was the Hawker Hunter which was grossly over gunned with x4 Adens as a fighter but the damage those could do when fired at ground targets only US A10 pilots could imagine were they to use HE rounds. It was one of the reasons why second hand Hunters still sold readily into the 1980's and were still sought in the 1990's in some cases. You could sink smaller naval vessels by gunfire alone and any tank was a mission kill if hit by a full blast of the four guns, never mind any other ordnance.

Shifting tack slightly. It may be revealing that the RAF kept the Meteor for fighter work but used the Vampire more in the ground attack role. The Meteor is (I use the current tense as there is still at least one Meteor in active use on behalf of HMG in the UK) an awful lot of metal to haul around in tight maneuvres at ground level whereas the Swiss also found the Vampire (and later Venom) perfect for that role.

Possibly there is the perennial problem of 'the best' as a question. Best fighter to gain air superiority, best at downing bombers or even best all rounder for both and ground attack?
 
I thought this thread was about the best jet fighter of WW2? The AR 234 was a pioneering jet recon aircraft developed into a light bomber. It did very well in this role if you consider that the allies had total air superiority, yet it still over flew the UK without detection. Its primary defense was its speed, and whether or not a couple of 20mm cannons were in the tail, or removed at the pilots request is a little academic really. While Smith and Creeks text on the AR 234 describe it as 'fully aerobatic", it was not a fighter by any means. The He 162 was an act of desperation and achieved nothing more than a waste of resources and German pilots lives. The P80 saw no operational combat as such, even if 4 were sent to Europe in 1945 and flew a couple of patrols over Italy. Strictly speaking, it really should not even be included. Maybe "Best jet fighter in the Korean conflict " would better suit. The Meteor failed to down a single manned opponent, although it did account for 16 V1's. The rocket powered Me 163 Komet, although not actually a jet, claimed 9 bombers destroyed, despite a catastrophic accident rate. That only leaves the Me 262.......
 
Edgar Brooks said:
Bit difficult, as it never met one.
Click to expand...
Actually a meteor did engage a Storch, which easily outmanouvred it at low speed, landed and discharged its crew before the meteor had the chance to strafe it on the ground. They were deliberately kept away from operational engagements over German held territiory in case they fell into enemy hands. As if the Germans would benefit from the meteors 'Technology"......Even the oft mentioned Capt. Brown stated that the Me 262 would have made 'cats meat" out of the meteor. Adolf Galland flew them in the 1950's and still regarded the 262 as superior. The nickname for the meteor was "meatbox' due primarily to the amount of pilots killed in them, while the 262 was referred to by its pilots as the "Turbo" or "Swallow" which speaks for itself. Made from poor quality materials by semi- skilled labour in forest factories and still out performed anything fielded by the allies. Even the much vaunted mosquito was no match. Had the roles been reversed, would the meteor have fared anywhere near as well against massed bomber and fighter escort formations? I highly doubt it. Advanced piston engined German fighters like the Ta 152 would have made short work of the meteor if they had met as well.
 
pattern14 said:
They were deliberately kept away from operational engagements over German held territiory in case they fell into enemy hands. As if the Germans would benefit from the meteors 'Technology.
Click to expand...
It was the better quality metal, in the engines, which the Air Ministry didn't want the Germans to get their hands on, and it's suspected that the Germans would have benefited from that; once the war was nearly over, the restriction was lifted, but too late for the single Flight (not a complete Squadron until the end of March 1945.)
Advanced piston engined German fighters like the Ta 152 would have made short work of the meteor if they had met as well.
Click to expand...
Oh, and the Meteor III walked all over the Tempest V, in trials, even managing to turn inside, and get on its tail within 4 turns.
 
Last edited:
True enough about the better metals, although a crashed meteor would have done nothing to benefit a war already lost. It continues to be an enduring myth that the Me 262 could have turned the tide if it had been available in greater numbers. I'm curious about the mock dogfight between the Meteor and the Tempest though; do you have any more info about that?
 

The Germans knew all about metals required for the turbine blades. The metal was used in the Jumo004A engine. They didn't have enough of the metal tho.
 
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

W
The scarcity of fighter to fighter FW-190A pilot combat accounts...
2 3
Replies
52
Views
3K
GrauGeist
Best piston engined fighter of 1945?
7 8 9
Replies
168
Views
15K
PAT303
P
S
Day fighter Ta 154
Replies
0
Views
574
spicmart
S
Questions Bugging Me on Jet Engines
Replies
11
Views
1K
Engineman
E
Best "general purpose" prop fighter also capable of best high altitude performance
2
Replies
31
Views
3K
PAT303
P
Menu
Log in
Register