Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
IMO all of these three planes were typical intermediate designs which always pop up when a new technology matures. None of the were "dominant designs" and they were never pitted against each other thus its hard to say which would've been better than the other.Back on topic. was the landing/take off handling of the aircraft compromised unduly? The weight in relation to thrust of the P-80? The short span of the He 162? The t5win boom layout of the Vampire? I don't begin to know this, I'm just wondering out loud in the hope that I will be answered.
If the Vampire is underpowered, what does that make the Me 262? The F.1 has a significantly higher power to weight ratio. Thrust to weight ratio is very similar to the He 162. The climb rate is very similar as well. Speed of the F.1 is slightly down at 540mph over 562mph which is the biggest problem. Handling is more difficult to quantify but there were no problems identified with the Vampire. The only real problem was the cockpit framing restricting vision, which was rectified with a single piece type.
None of the following fighters were anything like the Me 262 and the Meteor F4 beats the Me 262 hands down in performance whilst being available only months later.
Sorry wrong again. Check your sources, the only Vampire available in very late 45 weighed 5620 kg and featured the Goblin I engine providing 10.2 kN of thrust. Thats a T/W value of 550 kg/kN, while the Me-262A-1a of 1943 weighed 6400 kg a featured two Jumo 004B engine providing 17.6 kN of thrust, giving a T/W value of 363 kg/kN!
Define "push the envelope". It certainly had advanced features like an ejection seat. The projected version pushed the envelope just as much as the projected developments of the Me 262.The He-162 cannot be described as advanced. It never tried to push the envelope, the way the Messerschmidt jets did.
The ejector seat was a reality in the production version and an certainly an advanced feature at the time.the ejector seat and the projected versions do not make the He 162 advanced though, any more than the DH 108 being a supersonic research aircraft would make the Vampire advanced.
You wrote your share of nonsense on this very page, so get off your high horse.Nonsense as usual from Soren.
You wrote your share of nonsense on this very page, so get off your high horse.
The ejection seat was already in service in other planes like the He-219 and Ar-234 by the time the He-162 still was on the drawing board, so it hardly qualifies for advanced in context of other LW A/C. It was state of the art but nothing fundamentally new by then.Define "push the envelope". It certainly had advanced features like an ejection seat. The projected version pushed the envelope just as much as the projected developments of the Me 262.
Yeah, right. And barely later = 12 months. And having a tailless fighter design years after others had it makes you advanced.
I would also consider it not impossible to install a RR Nene into the Vampire´s fuselage if need is. You can´t install a Nene into a Meteor´s wing easily but You could try to use the Vampire´s wider fuselage for this application.
I don't disagree, I was just referring to delcyros position that Messerschmitt was pushing the envelope where Heinkel wasn't. The He 162 had other features that were novel for fighter aircraft such as the back mounted engines. They were not particularly long lived however and were appropriate only for a rather short period of time. That's why I said i don't see the basic design layout becoming dominant over the next years. However the same can be said about the Me 262 to some degree: While it set the trend considering several features such as wing design, the overall design layout was short lived. This goes for the Meteor and the Vampire aswell.The seat was an advanced feature, but that does not make the He 162 an advanced design, just an aeroplane with an advanced escape mechanism.
I was asking what is it about the He 162 itself that was advanced. I think it was Soren on another thread that described it as an advanced jet fighter design, I'm just asking how?
I think it was an ingeneous design, squeezing so much out of such a small plane like than, an attractive design even, but I don't see the 'advanced' in it is all.
I was referring to redadmiral. I don't care who built the first tailless design, I was just stating that a) the D.H.108 was more than a year away and not "barely later" and b) its airframe wasn't particularly innovative.Also, (if you were referring to red admiral mentioning the DH 108 - apologies if you were not)
The DH 108 was not a fighter, nor was it ever intended to be. If having the first tailless fighter flying is a measure of being advanced though that would likely be Britain ahead of Germany with the Westland Pterodactyl prototype fighter of the early 30's.
Bullshit. The first prototype was designed to evaluate low speed flying characteristics and wasn't capable of speeds in excess of 450 km/h. The second flew in June and also wasn't able to go supersonic. Only the third prototype went supersonic and it didn't do so before 1948. Not to even mention that all aircraft crashed killing their pilots. And having more wing sweep than a 1941 design sure is a great feat in 1946. But I'm glad you woke up from your dream that the D.H.108 was anywhere near available in WW2.It wasn't 12 months though. The d.H. 108 was built in winter 45 and delivered for testing in April 46. It had significantly greater wing sweep than the Me 163 and was able to go supersonic.
But I'm glad you woke up from your dream that the D.H.108 was anywhere near available in WW2.
The Me 163 was not at all underdeveloped. The airframe was perfected over a course of several years, there was nothing rushed about its introduction. The propulsion system proved to be a failure, that's the plain truth. But that was only really found out when the type was used in combat.I think this is an opportune time to pose another question that has niggled me while reading threads of this kind.
I think it is easy to leap to the conclusion that the Germans were further ahead than they actually were in 1945 by investigationg the various aircraft programmes superficially. The P1101, Ta 183 and other genuinely impressive projects that had moved beyond the paper stage making this an easy assumption to make.
The DH 106 design of 1944 was for a tailless swept wing mail and passenger transport, at least as advanced as anything else being seriously engineered at the time. This being a long term plan for a peace time project after the war was concluded meant there was none of the urgency that was being felt in Germany at the same time though. The fact that the Germans were so hard pressed that they put a highly dangerous and underdeveloped rocket powered fighter that shared the same layout actually into service does not, in itself, prove a more advanced thinking.
What ultrathin straight wing are you referring too? How many of the fighter jets after World War 2 used straight wings as compared to those that used swept wings?The Germans were undoubtedly in front in terms of utilising swept wings for higher speed flight by delaying the onset of drag, despite the fact that none of the designs that were created to make use of this knowledge reached service.
There is more than one way to skin a cat though and the British developments of an ultra thin straight wing and all flying tail for flight and controllability at very high speeds up to and beyond the speed of sound were at least as advanced too,
That sounds a lot like typical nationalist excuses. British airframe design somewhat lacked behind their much better engine design progress, simple as that.I know that once the captured German material on aerdynamics was made available to the British industry there was a crisis of confidence in our own findings with lots of projects then being launched based directly on German examples (the Gloster P.275 from the Lippisch P.13a for instance) but very few of these materialised either, suggesting that once properly researched they proved not to be all they had been cracked up to be.
Is there truth in this, or do you all think it is cobblers?
You've just run completely out of arguments to support your obviously wrong statements made here. In this thread, the only one claiming designs to be available that weren't is you.Its available far sooner than the various Nazi napinwaffe that so many here are enamoured with.
Exactly right. There is no reason to believe that these aircraft would not have been competitive with one another any more than piston fighters were competitive. There was just not that much differences in performance. Like the Battle of Britain, and the battles in the south Pacific, circumstance and pilot training and tactics would rule. The Germans had a six to nine month difference in engine technology and operation, but that would close quickly due to more available allied developmental resources.KrazyKraut said:IMO all of these three planes were typical intermediate designs which always pop up when a new technology matures. None of the were "dominant designs" and they were never pitted against each other thus its hard to say which would've been better than the other.
I don't disagree, I was just referring to delcyros position that Messerschmitt was pushing the envelope where Heinkel wasn't. The He 162 had other features that were novel for fighter aircraft such as the back mounted engines. They were not particularly long lived however and were appropriate only for a rather short period of time. That's why I said i don't see the basic design layout becoming dominant over the next years. However the same can be said about the Me 262 to some degree: While it set the trend considering several features such as wing design, the overall design layout was short lived. This goes for the Meteor and the Vampire aswell.
Waynos said:I know that once the captured German material on aerdynamics was made available to the British industry there was a crisis of confidence in our own findings with lots of projects then being launched based directly on German examples (the Gloster P.275 from the Lippisch P.13a for instance) but very few of these materialised either, suggesting that once properly researched they proved not to be all they had been cracked up to be.