SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
I think one of them belongs to Chuck Yeager.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
I still have not been able to get my books out of storage, but I beleive one of the books by Greil covers those numbers.Is there any info on the cause of the 262 shoot downs, ie by the bombers while attacking, by fighters while attacking the bombers, in ACM with fighters, while landing, etc?
I would be interested to see such numbers, even if only for the 76 sorties & 31 losses on 10 April 1945.
Near airfields was a high percentage, but looking at the 100+ 8th AF Encounter Reports, an equally high percentage was chase after air to air combat in which a 262 was hit and speed reduced enough to be caught in airfield area.I still have not been able to get my books out of storage, but I beleive one of the books by Greil covers those numbers.
I beleive the leading cause of Me262 losses were due to being intercepted while landing.
I believe a majority of operational 262s in 1945 were located in Munich-Magdeburg-Prague triangle - well out of range of B-26s. Most damage in March -April 1945 were 8th AF fghter units.It was really moot how many 262's were notionally 'available', be it 44 or 72 or 200 - when the USAAF solution to them was to simply fly 400 medium bombers over any suspected airfield operating them and turn it into a good facsimile of the moon.
Was that the magic number where the pixie dust didn't work any more?
So why were piston powered fighters (without contra-props) exceeding this magic 450mph number by 1944?No, that's the magic number when beyond it took vastly more horsepower to gain much more speed as the propellors got huge and the tips neared supersonic speeds and lost efficiency.
See they brief move to contra-rotating props to gain some respite from the aeronautical dead end.
Even the early jet engines were shoving out twice the equivalent horsepower of the best piston engines, without the losses through a prop turning that into speed.
I believe a majority of operational 262s in 1945 were located in Munich-Magdeburg-Prague triangle - well out of range of B-26s. Most damage in March -April 1945 were 8th AF fghter units.
Well as you can see there were OPERATIONAL (without contra-rotating props) that flew in excess of 450 mph. If this is a magic number in your mind, please show us the equation that validates this claim with the applicable propeller/ aircraft combination!No, that's the magic number when beyond it took vastly more horsepower to gain much more speed as the propellors got huge and the tips neared supersonic speeds and lost efficiency.
See they brief move to contra-rotating props to gain some respite from the aeronautical dead end.
Even the early jet engines were shoving out twice the equivalent horsepower of the best piston engines, without the losses through a prop turning that into speed.
Agreed before Rheine was over run - but largely Defense of the Reich had consildated eastward near Berlin and south toward Regensburg, Munich, Obepfaffenhofen, Augsburg. IIRC one of Galland's last actions with JV 44 was against B-26s. That said, the end of the Bulge was the end of 262s being based anywhere near Munster, Gelsingkirchen, Rheine, etc.B-26's crossed swords with 262's frequently over Bavaria near wars end.
I always forget there were P-51s after the D.Well as you can see there were OPERATIONAL (without contra-rotating props) that flew in excess of 450 mph. If this is a magic number in your mind, please show us the equation that validates this claim with the applicable propeller/ aircraft combination!
View attachment 685343
10 April is a bad day for analyses because fighter control did not succeed to assemble the 262s properly and numerous escort fighters broke down most of the small 262 formations so 262s attacked mostly in fours or pairs so most of the lost ones are simply marked as missing.Is there any info on the cause of the 262 shoot downs, ie by the bombers while attacking, by fighters while attacking the bombers, in ACM with fighters, while landing, etc?
I would be interested to see such numbers, even if only for the 76 sorties & 31 losses on 10 April 1945.
Well as you can see there were OPERATIONAL (without contra-rotating props) that flew in excess of 450 mph. If this is a magic number in your mind, please show us the equation that validates this claim with the applicable propeller/ aircraft combination!
View attachment 685343
That is just the laws of physics. Jets required the same doubling of power to get comparatively small increases in speed, it was easier to double the power of a jet though, and then double it again..Ah yes, the decidedly unsuccessful P-51H, (quickly cancelled at wars end), a super stripped down ultra lightweight airframe fitted with a 2,270 hp Merlin to gain just 40MPH of performance over the much more durable P-51D that only required 1,315 hp while doing much the same job.
As we can see, the P-51D had a long post war service, because it rather proved the point, the extra bit of performance the P-51H provided with such great effort, was simply not worth the squeeze - and the huge extra maintenance headaches of running what was effectively a race plane.
There are plenty of other examples of late war piston engined fighters that required 50% or more power and the extra fragility to gain only an incremental gain in speed while even the first jets low powered were leaving them trailing helplessly in the slipstreams.
Once again you are incredibly wrong! The P-51H (of which 555 were produced) was used by the USAF and National guard units well into the 1950s, 1957 to be exact, far from unsuccessful!!!Ah yes, the decidedly unsuccessful P-51H, (quickly cancelled at wars end), a super stripped down ultra lightweight airframe fitted with a 2,270 hp Merlin to gain just 40MPH of performance over the much more durable P-51D that only required 1,315 hp while doing much the same job.
And once again you make a laughable but yet almost delusional statement! If anything the P-51H offered better performance, lessons learned from the earlier P-51 series, so once again, please show us your basis for this bovine statement?!?!?As we can see, the P-51D had a long post war service, because it rather proved the point, the extra bit of performance the P-51H provided with such great effort, was simply not worth the squeeze - and the huge extra maintenance headaches of running what was effectively a race plane.
Really? Name them! And I'm still waiting about your 450 mph rationale!There are plenty of other examples of late war piston engined fighters that required 50% or more power and the extra fragility to gain only an incremental gain in speed while even the first jets low powered were leaving them trailing helplessly in the slipstreams.
Ah yes, the decidedly unsuccessful P-51H, (quickly cancelled at wars end), a super stripped down ultra lightweight airframe fitted with a 2,270 hp Merlin to gain just 40MPH of performance over the much more durable P-51D that only required 1,315 hp while doing much the same job.