I agree she is definatly a beautiful aircraft. I have seen a 262 a few times at various locations and to me she is one of the best looking aircraft of WW2 and still has a killer looking quality to her.
Fw better then Me-262?
- Thread starter Wespe
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
agree Erich and Chris...
Erich
the old Sage
guys I think we need a few images ......... right ?
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Right! 
I could not even imagine trying to provide parts and servicing fighters in the pacific, see how Japanese failed in WW2. I wonder how many Japanese planes were lost to enemy action and how many were lost to lack of parts or just worn out do to lack of proper servicing. Bet that number might be closer then many would believe LOL.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
And I recently seen a paper where a Japanese fighter pilot complains about the quality of JAAF aircraft...
Civettone,
Even if the Me-262 could've been produced in half as many numbers as the FW-190 it wouldn't have made much if any difference, the reliability of its engines was way too poor, they were simply too ahead of their time. Way more time would've been spent putting new engines on or repairing the ones still running than the Me-262 would ever spend flying....
Even if the Me-262 could've been produced in half as many numbers as the FW-190 it wouldn't have made much if any difference, the reliability of its engines was way too poor, they were simply too ahead of their time. Way more time would've been spent putting new engines on or repairing the ones still running than the Me-262 would ever spend flying....
For the most part the quality of the a/c when leaving the factory was good (except near the end of the war), however like Hunter mentioned servicing of the aircraft in the field was most certainly not always optimal, esp. in the late war period .
I would bet that the number lost to enemy action compared to lost to no spare parts or poor repairs were very close to each other. Japanese were very bad at supplying their bases with parts.
Civettone
Tech Sergeant
I didn't say that. I said the Fw 190 wasn't better than the allied fighters. I AM saying the Me 262 is better (once airborne).
Ok, that's all I'm saying. I don't agree with the Me 262 being the answer to the German problems. I'm just saying that once airborne and the wings holding it was the best fighter aircraft. If it's not, then another fighter is, and I wouldn't know which one. Which could beat the Me 262 in a one-on-one (theoretically of course, so no surprise attacks, pilot errors, etc)?
I know but I don't see many people saying the same stuff about the Ta 152 as they say about the Me 262. Both had technical problems and weren't ready yet. But yet many consider it to be the best piston engined fighter. That doesn't make sense IMHO.
No, they could have gotten more jet fuel than C3 fuel. They didn't, what makes this is a what-if. But a plausible one. I am making a point that the Germans should have concentrated on Me 262 production sooner than continuing with the Fw 190. So sure this is a what-if. Does that mean one cannot discuss these things?
In some of the previous posts you'll read that one of the advantages of jet fighters is that they can keep up their maximum speed for a longer period.
As bigZ pointed out, what's the expected service duration of a German late-war fighter aircraft? And I'll ask you this for the second time, where and how did Me 262s lose fights due to structural problems?
Thanks for clearing that out for me!Delcyros said:
I also think you're right about the Jumo 004D. It has to be the 004E which had the modified governor. I just knew that they were going to build it, so I assumed it was with the 004D. Has to be with the next version.
)Kris
Morai_Milo
Banned
- 43
- Jan 22, 2007
Was jet fuel really in short supply?
On April 22 1945 Luftwaffenkommando West reported the following fuel stocks on airfields in Bavaria:
B-4 = 350,000 liters
C-3 = 284,000 liters
J-2 = 1,897,000 liters
That is 5.42 times as much as B4 and 6.7 times as much as C3, at least in Bavaria.
Only if it is not overwellmed by enemy fighters. Erich allready touched up on that.
Civettone said:
That is because the problems of the Ta-152 were no where near those of the Me-262. Read reports from the people who flew it and they will tell you they did not encounter serious problems.
Civettone said:
Yes but people take that kind of What if as "The Germans would have just gotten more fuel". Well they did not...
Civettone said:
True, but how long can they actually do it? A jet guzzles fuel. It is going to run out very fast at max speed.
Civettone said:
That I do not know... I do know one thing though, that when you build an aircraft you try to build it so that it will last. Building an aircraft with disimiliar metals is not going to last...
Civettone said:
I did not answer you because I do not know.
However if you go back and re-read my post (here you go again manipulating words) I never said that Me 262's were documented coming apart in flight. I do know however (because of experience working on aircraft) that eventually the structures would have failed because of the disimiliar metals and rather rapidly.
Once this kind of corrosion starts it build rapidly and decays the aircraft. That my friend is fact!
Civettone read some stuff here about the Me 262.
Me 262 PROJECT TECHNICAL DATA
It will tell you a bit about the problems with construction and the engines and a bit about jet fuel consumption.
It also describes how the Me 262 was not good at low airspeed and at high airspeeds it would vibrate and eventually not be controlable.
Me 262 PROJECT TECHNICAL DATA
It will tell you a bit about the problems with construction and the engines and a bit about jet fuel consumption.
It also describes how the Me 262 was not good at low airspeed and at high airspeeds it would vibrate and eventually not be controlable.
And that would also be used up twice as fast as the other fuels because of the high consumption rates of the early jets.
Morai_Milo
Banned
- 43
- Jan 22, 2007
And the LW had over a 1000 se fighters operational for what maybe 100 Me262s operational. Even a twice jet fuel consumption, the piston fighters would run out of available fuel before the jets.
"Postwar tests in the West confirmed that at very high airspeeds airframe vibration levels and buffeting grow increasingly worse until the jet enters into a shallow dive and becomes all but completely uncontrollable."
It says VERY high speeds not high speeds which means near its Mach limit. A/c shake when near their Mach limit.
"Postwar tests in the West confirmed that at very high airspeeds airframe vibration levels and buffeting grow increasingly worse until the jet enters into a shallow dive and becomes all but completely uncontrollable."
It says VERY high speeds not high speeds which means near its Mach limit. A/c shake when near their Mach limit.
Maybe in peace time but not in war time. In 1944 Germany built some 20,000 se fighters and only had 14-1500 servicable in early Jan 1945. They were not to worried about the longtivety of a combat a/c with such combat losses. Soviet equipement was crudely made because they knew it would not last to old age.
Never said how high I was talking about. I left that for the reader to read in the link.
Morai Milo said:
No you allways build an aircraft to last. You dont know how long that aircraft is going to be needed. You dont want to assume the aircraft is going to be lost soon and then it is not lost but ends of crashing because of bad construction.
Civettone
Tech Sergeant
That goes for all fighters. But at least the Me 262 could get away from its enemies. The Fw 190 was slower at all speeds and had less climb rate.
Engine life expectancy was 25 hours.
And most late-war Luftwaffe aircraft suffered from technical construction problems.
Yes, that's spot on. It's also my main criticism on the Me 262, and why I think they shouldn't have built a twin engined jet fighter in the first place.
Yet, the advantage in being able to fly with diesel fuel is immense. I don't really understand what you're trying to say about the "gotten more fuel" comment but I'll tell you that the Germans could have gotten more jet fuel if they wanted to. That maybe hard to believe but it's like that. The chemical industry provided 97% of the aviation fuel. Most diesel oil came from refineries of crude oil of inferior quality. The diesel oil went to the army for their trucks and to the navy for their subs. But the jet fuel mainly kept coming from the chemical industry because that's what they were ordered to deliver. I guess that for every submarine mission the Germans could have provided fuel for about two hundred Me 262 missions.
Sure, it's a what if but it was possible. It wouldn't have changed the logistical problem of getting the fuel there or let alone the outcome of the war but it's a rational consequence of what would have happened if the Luftwaffe went for jets sooner.
C'mon, I was asking a question, how can I be manipulating your words that way?
It doesn't say much about construction. It's mainly about the metals used in the engines...
The low airspeed is also old news, that's why it took so long for the Me 262 to take off and build up speed. The Me 262 was a sitting duck during take-off and landing (but then again, all aircraft are vulnerable in that stage, though still more capable).
Kris
Civettone
Tech Sergeant
That's simply not true! German officials saw the Bf 109 (or Me 262) as an expendable weapon. Read Speer's memoirs in which he writes that he preferred to have built new Bf 109s instead of repairing them. Milch wrote that he complained about the German aircraft industry putting too much effort in quality instead of quantity, and compared it with what the British did. It was bad quality for German standards but good enough for war necessities. He urged a similar philosophy for all German war products (aircraft, tanks, guns, ...) but failed to because of the power of the German
industrials. That was until Speer came along.
From all the things you've said that is really the one is least agree with. I suspect you're writing what you would have done, instead of what you think the Germans did...
But just look at how many aircraft were lost in 1944/1945 and you'll understand that these were not built to last. I suspect the average was three months...
Kris
Because I said over time due to the construction with disimiliar metals the Me-262 would lose its structural integrity. You asked me how many came apart basically saying that I said they did do so. Here are your words:
"And I'll ask you this for the second time, where and how did Me 262s lose fights due to structural problems?"
Again I never said that the aircraft did that. I said over time it would and that is fact because of the construction.
So please again if you do not understand what I am saying then ask me and I will try and explain it better, but dont twist my posts.
I am more than likely going to leave this discussion now because this is going no where. It is me and you stating the same things over and over again and it is pointless.
And where is proof that they were not built to last. Show me facts of construction. I can only think of one and that is the Me-262 and it was constructed very poorly. Actually I take that back all aircraft from 1944 on were constructed poorly.
Civettone said:
I would not have mass produced the Me-262 until it was ready...
Civettone said:
Being shot down is not a fact pertaining to construction of the aircraft.
