Parmigiano said:
OK, but then I still have some doubt about the effectiveness of a 262 and the opportunity to have it perform that job
- If the attack speed is the same attainable by a FW190, the advantage of attacking at high speed (less time for AA to shoot at me and for the defensive fighters to shoot me down, if nothing else...) is lost
- the 262 was less rugged than a FW190F, making it more vulnerable to return fire
- Also the 262 weakness was the acceleration, I don't recall the exact figures but I think a 190 was faster in changing speed: the jet would have performed worse than the FW in zoom climbing to a safe height.
- A 262 was much more expensive than a Stuka or a FW, attacking tanks at 250 Mph you must consider losses due to AA fire and fighters (and at that speed the 262 was a sitting duck)
The A10 is armored enough to sustain AA fire, and anyway (like ANY of this specialized aircrafts) can be used only when air control is absolute, otherwise it would have the same loss rate of the IL 2.
In my opinion the best compromise between anti-tank effectiveness and survivability in a 'non-air-superiority' scenario was the FW 190 F fitted with Panzerbliz II
At the mid-high altitudes the advantages of even primitive jet fighters was clear right across the flight envelope, it was certainly more restricted at lower altitudes especially in terms of overheating (thicker air, hotter burning), ground fire vulnerability (them turbojets just loved bursting into flames at the slightest provocation), and general airframe design (high stall speeds, poor low-speed manoeuvring characteristics, etc.).
Where their low altitude advantage was definitely clear was in sheer acceleration and climb rate. Put simply they did this more cleanly, more suddenly and with much more power than any piston engined aircraft (although some modern turboprops match 262 climb rates according to pilots who've built accurate reproductions).
The main advantage of using something like a 262 for ground attack is the inherent ability to get back up to speed quickly and sheer climb rate.
The main disadvantage was the vulnerability of early jet engines to ground fire on the necessarily "low and slow" approach of level ground attack and tricky engine management. The Me262 just wasn't designed for that and you're quite right about the 190F being much better suited to the role. Even better again would be a heavily armoured jet-engined attack aircraft if you can sort out those early turbojet bugs.
The idea that an Me262 was out accelerated by a piston engined aircraft of any description, at any altitude is frankly ridiculous. Below around 5000m altitude the margin by which the it utterly dominated piston engine's performance was simply lesser.
But before you go getting extreme, yes a Thunderbolt can shoot down a 262. Just if you put both in a civilian airshow their pilots will tell you plainly the jet dominates, right from the 262, it's just no contest under any conditions.
Most aircraft documentarians and historians unhesitantly refer to the Me262 as, "...the best fighter of the war, without question."
But I wouldn't be ignorant enough to quite start that debate at a forum like this.
And finally, in a survey taken of all peanut butter brands, people just preferred the Me262. Keep one in your cupboard, please for the children's sake. Think of the children.
