Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
I should point out that some people believe that the servo tabs were fixed for some reason, [/QUOTE
Some (all?) of the Me 262s examined by the allies at the end of the war had inoperable, fixed, tabs. That's a fact not a belief.
The reason was simply a production expedient. Me 262s were built in a hurry and generally very badly. For example almost no removable panels, access points or skins were interchangeable between aircraft as the screw/rivet holes were drilled to fit. At least two reports mention the large amounts of filler used in an attempt attempt to smooth the badly fitting air frame parts. This was a feature of late war German aircraft production not exclusive to Messerschmitt or the Me 262
Cheers
Steve
The RAND report (http://www.mossekongen.no/downloads/2008_RAND_Pacific_View_Air_Combat_Briefing.pdf) made reference to "recent scholarship" of F-86 v MiG-15 combat over Korea and concluded that the actual kill:loss ratio for the F-86 was 1.8:1 overall, and likely closer to 1.3:1 against MiGs flown by Soviet pilots.
Here's an excerpt from a US report on the Me 262 showing how the 'servo tab' was actually fitted. It was nothing more than a ground adjustable trim tab, barely more advanced than the bent metal tabs seen on earlier German aircraft.
Here are some comments on the standard of construction. They echo comments made by the Germans themselves when they compared their Bf 109 K with a US P-51. A huge gulf in quality had emerged.
Incidentally the 'unusual construction feature' mentioned was common to many Messerschmitt aircraft. It was highly regarded by both British and American engineers who examined earlier Messerschmitt aircraft. See the Vultee report on the Bf 110 for an example. By 1944/45 the German aircraft industry lacked the ability to put the rather well and cleverly engineered air frames together properly.
Cheers
Steve
Sorry, but there's so much wrong there, I don't really know where to start.
Sorry, but there's so much wrong there, I don't really know where to start.
The He178 (powered by a Hirth engine) made it's first flight in 1939 and the He280 made it's first flight on 22 September 1940 (powered by Hirth engines)
The Me262 (V1) made it's first powered flight on 18 April 1941, powered by a Jumo 210 piston engine in the nose, because the BMW003 jet engines weren't ready.
V3 became the first Me262 to fly under jet power, on 18 July 1942, powered by Jumo004 engines.
The first Jumo004 was crudely tested in 1940 and officially benchtested three months later.
True, but it's really a shame when facts are so readily available and yet people go to such great lengths to put out wrong information.You can't argue with someone who lets their bias get in the way.
True, but it's really a shame when facts are so readily available and yet people go to such great lengths to put out wrong information.
If the engineers hadn't resolved several issues with the 004a, the P-59 would have flown under jet power before the Me262 as the P-59's first flight was 1 October, just 2 1/2 months after the Me262.
You're tossing out a mix of information that is out of context and misleading. For starters, the Me262s that the USAAF tested were late war, forest factory assembled and war-weary as were many Luftwaffe (and Japanese) aircraft captured and evaluated. VERY few aircraft manufactured late in the war had a clean fit and finish and the few airframes that survived the war had been used extensively (flying sorties from sun up to sun down) in an attempt to stem the overwhelming Allied tide.View attachment 306673
As seen from the colour chart, the mild steel flame tubes were glowing "dull red."
They were coated with aluminium oxide to reduce the rate of oxidation.
See http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA800524 with regard to reliability and general flyability.
Factual data:
1. Introduction
The Me 262 is a German jet fighter bomber powered by two JUMO 004 axial-flow jet engines rated at 1980 lb thrust at 8700 rpm."
"Two airplanes Nos T-2-711 and T-2-4012 were used in this test program. General maintenance was very difficult on both airplanes. Number T-2-711 was flown 12 flights for a total of 10 hr 40 min, and No. T-2-4012 was flown eight times for a total of 4 hr and 40 min. Four engine changes were necessary on [the former] and five on [the latter]. Power failure in flight resulted in abandonment of the airplane and complete destruction of No. T-2-711. Tests were discontinued on No T-2-4012 after two single-engine landings resulting from engine failure in flight, because the value of further flights was not believed to be worth the risk and trouble of maintaining the airplane…"
The average engine life before overhaul (or throw-away) above is a bit over 3 hrs.
About 1400 Me 262s were produced and delivered, but the best that the Luftwaffe managed to get into the air on any given day was about 55. Twenty to thirty was much more typical.
Not any wonder...
The Jumo004B was much improved over the 004A and had a life of 12 to 15 hours under proper use and during ambient weather conditions. The BMW003 used in the He176 was a bit more reliable.
With a more reliable engine the Me 262 would have been able to take the USAAF strategic bombing arm out of action.
But that would just have delayed the inevitable until the A-bomb was ready.
One wonder weapon doesnt win a war it doesnt always win a battle.
Errr, don't know about that!