Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
I've changed it to H IX above.
GregP
Major
I'll explain why I said what I said above. Numbers from Wiki. I am comparing the Ho.229 A (V3) and the Me 262 A-1a.
1) The Ho.229 had more than twice the wing area of the Me 262 but the weights weren't all that different while the thrust was almost the same. The Ho.229 had an empty thrust to weight ratio of 0.39 and a normal thrust to weight ratio of 0.26. The Me 262 had an empty thrust to weight ratio of 0.47 and a normal thrust to weight ratio of 0.28. So they were about the same power wise when at normal weight and every minute they flew the Me 262 got relatively more powerful, thrust-to-weight-wise.
2) The Ho.229 had an empty wing loading of 18.8 lbs / sq ft and a normal wing loading of 28.2 lbs / sq ft. The Me 262 had an empty wing loading of 35.8 lbs / sq ft and a normal wing loading of 61.0 lbs / sq ft. While wing loading might not always give a direct indication of maneuverability, when the disparity is that high, it does. No matter what condition they met in, the Horten was much more lightly loaded than the Me 262. Ergo, it probably could turn better, all else being equal (I know all else was NOT equal all the time).
3) According to Wiki the Ho.229 A had a projected service ceiling of 52,000 feet while the Me 262 A had a servicer ceiling of 37.565 feet. They both used the Junkers Jumo 004 turbojet and I'm not convinced the Jumo 004 could run at 52,000 feet. Maybe … but maybe not. The service ceiling of the Ho.229 should be higher than the Me 262 if only due to wing loading delta, but I'm not sure it would get that high. In the real world, it never did.
Everything else is conjecture and also due to the fact that I know the pilot of our Northrop N9M-B Flying Wing of similar configuration. He would never pull that aircraft into a stalling turn because it would likely tumble like a Maple leaf in a stall. So while the wing loading says it will turn well, the real world situation is it will turn better if the pilot does it and is comfortable with the stall margin. If the Me 262 was making … say … 500 mph and loaded up into a 5 g turn, the Horten could easily out-turn it a similar speed only by turning at a higher g-level. I don't know the limit strength of the Ho.229, but it might be constrained by airframe strength to be no more maneuverable at higher speeds than the Me 262. At lower speeds it SHOULD have a better maneuvering envelope than the Me 262 since it should have the capability to generate considerably more lift than the Me 262.
1) The Ho.229 had more than twice the wing area of the Me 262 but the weights weren't all that different while the thrust was almost the same. The Ho.229 had an empty thrust to weight ratio of 0.39 and a normal thrust to weight ratio of 0.26. The Me 262 had an empty thrust to weight ratio of 0.47 and a normal thrust to weight ratio of 0.28. So they were about the same power wise when at normal weight and every minute they flew the Me 262 got relatively more powerful, thrust-to-weight-wise.
2) The Ho.229 had an empty wing loading of 18.8 lbs / sq ft and a normal wing loading of 28.2 lbs / sq ft. The Me 262 had an empty wing loading of 35.8 lbs / sq ft and a normal wing loading of 61.0 lbs / sq ft. While wing loading might not always give a direct indication of maneuverability, when the disparity is that high, it does. No matter what condition they met in, the Horten was much more lightly loaded than the Me 262. Ergo, it probably could turn better, all else being equal (I know all else was NOT equal all the time).
3) According to Wiki the Ho.229 A had a projected service ceiling of 52,000 feet while the Me 262 A had a servicer ceiling of 37.565 feet. They both used the Junkers Jumo 004 turbojet and I'm not convinced the Jumo 004 could run at 52,000 feet. Maybe … but maybe not. The service ceiling of the Ho.229 should be higher than the Me 262 if only due to wing loading delta, but I'm not sure it would get that high. In the real world, it never did.
Everything else is conjecture and also due to the fact that I know the pilot of our Northrop N9M-B Flying Wing of similar configuration. He would never pull that aircraft into a stalling turn because it would likely tumble like a Maple leaf in a stall. So while the wing loading says it will turn well, the real world situation is it will turn better if the pilot does it and is comfortable with the stall margin. If the Me 262 was making … say … 500 mph and loaded up into a 5 g turn, the Horten could easily out-turn it a similar speed only by turning at a higher g-level. I don't know the limit strength of the Ho.229, but it might be constrained by airframe strength to be no more maneuverable at higher speeds than the Me 262. At lower speeds it SHOULD have a better maneuvering envelope than the Me 262 since it should have the capability to generate considerably more lift than the Me 262.
Last edited:
I have seen is a minutes of a meeting concerning comparison flights between Me262 and the Ar234 at E-Stelle Rechlin in late 44
which does say that the 262 has excessive elevator forces,that it can not pull up at speed,and the forces acting on the ailerons was too high
so going by that, it not going to take much to out manoeuvre a 262 at any speed.
which does say that the 262 has excessive elevator forces,that it can not pull up at speed,and the forces acting on the ailerons was too high
so going by that, it not going to take much to out manoeuvre a 262 at any speed.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
And yet there's a good number of Luftwaffe pilots that would disagree with your statement.
Additionally, there were several "Experten" who were successful at engaging and defeating Allied fighters with their Me262.
GregP
Major
It easy to shoot someone down if you get them from ambush. Not very sure any Me 262's were successful in dogfighting an opponent who was aware of them.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
why are people so surprised that the Me262 could stand and fight?
This wasn't a DC-2, people...it was a twin-engined turbojet that was heavily armed. Yes, it could stand and fight, especially with an experienced pilot at the stick.
Quite a few Allied pilots found this out.
This wasn't a DC-2, people...it was a twin-engined turbojet that was heavily armed. Yes, it could stand and fight, especially with an experienced pilot at the stick.
Quite a few Allied pilots found this out.
GregP
Major
I'm not surprised, I just don't believe it.
In WWII the Me 262 killed piston fighters mostly from ambush. One cannon hit tended to "slow up" the piston airplane a lot, sometimes in big pieces.
If anyone got shot down in a dogfight with one or several, he wasn't paying much attention to the Me 262 that actually got him, and that wasn't all that unusual. It was mostly the one that you didn't see that got you.
If any piston fighter SAW the Me 262 that was attacking him, it wasn't all that hard to get out of his attack path. If you didn't see him ... then it was your time.
Bombers weren't all that able to dodge the Me 262, especially in formation. They don't change direction as quickly as fighters. But you KNOW that, Graugeist.
My post wasn't aimed at you and this isn't an argument.
It's just what I have heard from, oh ... maybe 250 pilots from WWII. That's WAY more than enough for me to believe it. Versus the P-80 it would have been a fight. Versus the P-51 was about as good a versus a P-26 ... it just changes direction too rapidly for an Me 262 to mostly follow. Some timing errors might have gotten some, sure, but not a lot relative to what was attempted.
I'm not trying to convince you of anything. It's just what I think ... by myself along with a bunch of former WWII fighter pilots.
It might or might not be that way in a flight simulator. I pretty much quit flying them some time back when I discovered the P-51 in most flight sims usually doesn't mimic a real P-51 very well except near straight and level flight. Get a Microsoft Flight Sim P-51 into a turning fight and it quickly becomes a pile of dung. A real one doesn't.
In WWII the Me 262 killed piston fighters mostly from ambush. One cannon hit tended to "slow up" the piston airplane a lot, sometimes in big pieces.
If anyone got shot down in a dogfight with one or several, he wasn't paying much attention to the Me 262 that actually got him, and that wasn't all that unusual. It was mostly the one that you didn't see that got you.
If any piston fighter SAW the Me 262 that was attacking him, it wasn't all that hard to get out of his attack path. If you didn't see him ... then it was your time.
Bombers weren't all that able to dodge the Me 262, especially in formation. They don't change direction as quickly as fighters. But you KNOW that, Graugeist.
My post wasn't aimed at you and this isn't an argument.
It's just what I have heard from, oh ... maybe 250 pilots from WWII. That's WAY more than enough for me to believe it. Versus the P-80 it would have been a fight. Versus the P-51 was about as good a versus a P-26 ... it just changes direction too rapidly for an Me 262 to mostly follow. Some timing errors might have gotten some, sure, but not a lot relative to what was attempted.
I'm not trying to convince you of anything. It's just what I think ... by myself along with a bunch of former WWII fighter pilots.
It might or might not be that way in a flight simulator. I pretty much quit flying them some time back when I discovered the P-51 in most flight sims usually doesn't mimic a real P-51 very well except near straight and level flight. Get a Microsoft Flight Sim P-51 into a turning fight and it quickly becomes a pile of dung. A real one doesn't.
Last edited:
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
There's several instances where the Me262 overtook a PRU, like an F-5 and shot it down...but the PRU pilot was counting on speed as a defense. Of course, this wouldn't work with the Me262 in pursuit.
But there's some good accounts where the Me262s were tearing up a bomber formation and were confronted by furious escorts and the pilots of the Me262s had to stand their ground. The Me262 could outclimb just about any piston powered fighter when there was advanced warning, but when bounced by escorts with a speed and altitude advantage, there was no alternative. Stand and fight or get shot down.
But there's some good accounts where the Me262s were tearing up a bomber formation and were confronted by furious escorts and the pilots of the Me262s had to stand their ground. The Me262 could outclimb just about any piston powered fighter when there was advanced warning, but when bounced by escorts with a speed and altitude advantage, there was no alternative. Stand and fight or get shot down.
GregP
Major
OK.
The Horton Ho 229 was designed as a fighter or strike bomber. It had a bomb bay. Gotha was involved only so much as providing a manufacturing facility.
It conformed to Hermann Goering's edict that he would only support new fighters with a 1000km/h x 1000km(range radius) and 1000kg(bomb load).
It was armed with a pair of 30mm canon because it was thought it would be a capable fighter as well. Given its performance it would ideally never meet a Vampire as a bomber: it was far faster due to the Vampire's relatively (to Me 262 and Meteor III/IV) low Mach limit.
A level bombing sight was probably not necessary. Electronic aiming could be done by the Luftwaffe's single engine aircraft using EGON and Zyklops. The Go 229 had air brakes. It would be a suitable candidate for the Luftwaffe's toss bombing sight the TSA 2D which was being combat tested successfully on the Me 262 and due to the good view over the nose the Stuvi 5B computing dive and shallow angle slide bombing site would also be good.
Dr Kurt Tank conducted an analysis of flying wing versus conventional configuration aircraft. His broad conclusion was that in General that flying wings offer no advantage in speed or other areas of performance but do offer an notable advantage in altitude due to their lower wing loading. He however concluded that due to the extra flight testing required of a flying wing that it would take longer to reach service. I would tend to think range was a little better as well.
Things went slightly wrong in that the aircraft was designed around the BMW 003, then upgraded to the Junkers Jumo 004 which was progressing faster and more powerful. At one point Junkers had moved an accessories gearbox. Unfortunately nobody informed Horton (this is today still and all too common mistake in fast moving tech projects) and this gearbox now went though the spar area and would have forced the spar to be too thin in that area. The short term solution was to thicken the wing/fuselage in the centre area slightly. It was thought this might effect mach limit and the solution was to be a slight scaling up of the aircraft to restore fineness. The first two prototype were to be test beds and the subsequent ones slight scaling ups (about 5%). The final versions were already under construction. It is these units that incidentally would have incorporated that supposed 'anti radar' sandwich ply.
The Germans didn't exactly have an oversupply of Ecuadorian balsa as DeHaviland had so the sandwich material they used was formholz (plastic wood) consisting of sawdust, glue and graphite(charcoal) to form a lightweight 1 inch thick 'filler' between plys. Graphite, as was already being used in tires, was the original 'nano' material and added strength. It also was semi conducting and would have partially absorbed radar waves rather than reflecting them back to the enemies radar or transmitting them only to be scattered by underlying metallic structures. Furthermore the absence of propellers and radar traps such as the area between wing and tail was absent.
One of the types of radar absorbers the German navy used for masthead stealth was a "Jaumann Absrober". One can make a Jauman absorbers by impregnating paper/cardboard/plastic with graphite. By layering several sheets (say 7 is about what was used) starting with a low density of graphite to high raising in exponential fashion radar will be absorbed. Such an absorber should be about half a wavelength thick but will work well from 1/4 upwards. 1 inch is perfect for both 9cm and 3cm radar.
The mental analogy would be the difference between a sea wave hitting a flat sea wall (causing a perfect reflection) versus it hitting a sloped shore line with a variety of rocks that absorb the wave. Without the exponential layering the wooden construction with graphite would still absorb radar but nowhere near as well.
We do know the Hortons were interested in radar 'camouflage' and may have encountered the work of German stealth material researchers such as Jaumann. The work tended to be focused on U-boats masts and conning towers but also efforts to hide targets from ground mapping radar (mainly by spoofing with corner reflectors).
The Ho 229 did have a slight pitch instability which died away in a few oscillations but could interfere in aiming, it was eliminated by partial deployment of the air brakes but gunnery trials were undertaken to determined how the air brakes it would be used air to air combat. There may have been an aerodynamic solution but the rate gyroscopic yaw damper that had been developed in Germany in 1942 could have been applied in pitch just as well.
The Me 262 had good handling and an excellent turn rate, it couldn't turn inside many aircraft but it could run around the outside of many aircraft. Any WW2 aircraft had stiff controls over 400mph including Spitfire, Meteor, Mustang. With the Me 262 the complains came in at about 480mph, one temporary solution was a telescoping joystick to give the pilot extra leveredge in the roomy cockpit for high force small deflections. The only true way around it is power controls. You might try spring balance tabs but would then face the danger of flutter and they also take a long time to debug due to flutter and overbalancing at high mach, you also lower the roll rate at low speed. Only the P-38 had these on a combat aircraft. The non combat P-80 had power controls as did the Dornier Do 335.
A small turn radios is only an problem for an opponent if he doesn't have a speed or climb advantage, the Me 262 did.
It conformed to Hermann Goering's edict that he would only support new fighters with a 1000km/h x 1000km(range radius) and 1000kg(bomb load).
It was armed with a pair of 30mm canon because it was thought it would be a capable fighter as well. Given its performance it would ideally never meet a Vampire as a bomber: it was far faster due to the Vampire's relatively (to Me 262 and Meteor III/IV) low Mach limit.
A level bombing sight was probably not necessary. Electronic aiming could be done by the Luftwaffe's single engine aircraft using EGON and Zyklops. The Go 229 had air brakes. It would be a suitable candidate for the Luftwaffe's toss bombing sight the TSA 2D which was being combat tested successfully on the Me 262 and due to the good view over the nose the Stuvi 5B computing dive and shallow angle slide bombing site would also be good.
Dr Kurt Tank conducted an analysis of flying wing versus conventional configuration aircraft. His broad conclusion was that in General that flying wings offer no advantage in speed or other areas of performance but do offer an notable advantage in altitude due to their lower wing loading. He however concluded that due to the extra flight testing required of a flying wing that it would take longer to reach service. I would tend to think range was a little better as well.
Things went slightly wrong in that the aircraft was designed around the BMW 003, then upgraded to the Junkers Jumo 004 which was progressing faster and more powerful. At one point Junkers had moved an accessories gearbox. Unfortunately nobody informed Horton (this is today still and all too common mistake in fast moving tech projects) and this gearbox now went though the spar area and would have forced the spar to be too thin in that area. The short term solution was to thicken the wing/fuselage in the centre area slightly. It was thought this might effect mach limit and the solution was to be a slight scaling up of the aircraft to restore fineness. The first two prototype were to be test beds and the subsequent ones slight scaling ups (about 5%). The final versions were already under construction. It is these units that incidentally would have incorporated that supposed 'anti radar' sandwich ply.
The Germans didn't exactly have an oversupply of Ecuadorian balsa as DeHaviland had so the sandwich material they used was formholz (plastic wood) consisting of sawdust, glue and graphite(charcoal) to form a lightweight 1 inch thick 'filler' between plys. Graphite, as was already being used in tires, was the original 'nano' material and added strength. It also was semi conducting and would have partially absorbed radar waves rather than reflecting them back to the enemies radar or transmitting them only to be scattered by underlying metallic structures. Furthermore the absence of propellers and radar traps such as the area between wing and tail was absent.
One of the types of radar absorbers the German navy used for masthead stealth was a "Jaumann Absrober". One can make a Jauman absorbers by impregnating paper/cardboard/plastic with graphite. By layering several sheets (say 7 is about what was used) starting with a low density of graphite to high raising in exponential fashion radar will be absorbed. Such an absorber should be about half a wavelength thick but will work well from 1/4 upwards. 1 inch is perfect for both 9cm and 3cm radar.
The mental analogy would be the difference between a sea wave hitting a flat sea wall (causing a perfect reflection) versus it hitting a sloped shore line with a variety of rocks that absorb the wave. Without the exponential layering the wooden construction with graphite would still absorb radar but nowhere near as well.
We do know the Hortons were interested in radar 'camouflage' and may have encountered the work of German stealth material researchers such as Jaumann. The work tended to be focused on U-boats masts and conning towers but also efforts to hide targets from ground mapping radar (mainly by spoofing with corner reflectors).
The Ho 229 did have a slight pitch instability which died away in a few oscillations but could interfere in aiming, it was eliminated by partial deployment of the air brakes but gunnery trials were undertaken to determined how the air brakes it would be used air to air combat. There may have been an aerodynamic solution but the rate gyroscopic yaw damper that had been developed in Germany in 1942 could have been applied in pitch just as well.
The Me 262 had good handling and an excellent turn rate, it couldn't turn inside many aircraft but it could run around the outside of many aircraft. Any WW2 aircraft had stiff controls over 400mph including Spitfire, Meteor, Mustang. With the Me 262 the complains came in at about 480mph, one temporary solution was a telescoping joystick to give the pilot extra leveredge in the roomy cockpit for high force small deflections. The only true way around it is power controls. You might try spring balance tabs but would then face the danger of flutter and they also take a long time to debug due to flutter and overbalancing at high mach, you also lower the roll rate at low speed. Only the P-38 had these on a combat aircraft. The non combat P-80 had power controls as did the Dornier Do 335.
A small turn radios is only an problem for an opponent if he doesn't have a speed or climb advantage, the Me 262 did.
Last edited:
kool kitty89
Senior Master Sergeant
Lift to drag ratio was likely better on the Ho 229 and thrust/weight wasn't much worse, so sustained turn rate and energy lost in maneuvers was likely lower, but (even without considering stall characteristics) the Me 262 might have been able to turn tighter for short periods at the expense of losing more energy. (if G-forces weren't the primary limiting factor, the LE slats would have come into play and even if the CLmax wasn't higher than on the Ho 229, the critical Angle of Attack should have been much higher, good for pulling sharp turns to get a lead on a target or even force a high speed stall without spinning)
52,000 ft might have been closer to the absolute ceiling. It might be worth noting that the absolute ceiling of the XP-59A was just short of 48,000 ft, though I forget which engines it managed that with. Plus it was pressurized. In an unpressurized cockpit, pilots might not have fared well in the 50,000 ft range. (then again a number of other first gen jet fighters managed >40k ft ceilings without cockpit pressurization)
Adding leading edge slats or fixed slots near the wing tips might allow for more aggressive maneuvering without fear of dangerous stall+tumbling. (the Me 163 featured slots, I'm not sure if that was one of the reasons, but with such a tailless design, it might have had similar risks without them) The YB-49 had wing-tip slots as well, but I think they were only open for takeoff/landing as with flaps. (not retractable like automatic slats, but they had flaps/doors that could open and close the LE slots -I wonder if some of the YB-49's dangerous stall characteristics would have been aided more if they'd compromised for fixed open slots at the cost of drag)
But as it was, the stall region likely was very dangerous to approach in high speed flight.
Me 262s would make sense to 'dogfight' using energy tactics, dive boom and zoom-climb and repeat, don't drop to speeds where prop thrust/weight is greater than jet thrust/weight (ie much below 350~400 MPH depending on altitude) and break off before loosing too much energy from successive passes. Turning fights would be no good due to how fast you'd bleed away energy. The thrust to weight ratio was just way too poor with early jets to perform well at low speeds, and with the Me 262 relying on LE slats for peak lift, the L/D ratio would be horrible once you got near stalling. (maybe useful for pulling a split-S while on the cusp of a stall at the peak of a zoom climb, but a really bad idea to try on the level in the thick with piston engine fighters)
That said, that would only make sense if the jets were actually focused on taking on fighters and with limited numbers, resources, and endurance, and the fact they were bomber interceptors, not fighter interceptors. With the high closing speeds, the trajectory and time in flight of the MK-108 might have been more problematic too. (and higher G-forces for tight turns for leading a target -before breaking off to zoom away) 4x MG 151/20s or even 151/15s for their high velocity would have been much better for killing fighters. (a BMW-003 powered variant should have fared better too, especially with overrev)
I remember the old(ish) IL-2 combat sims being fairly faithful as far as reported flight characteristics went with a few exceptions (P-38 comes to mind). I'm pretty sure the rear-tank CoG instability dynamics were included there.
Me 262s were pretty vulnerable to the tactics one would expect and any one caught slow and without an altitude advantage would be an easy kill if it didn't just bug out and dive ... or would be meat if caught slow on the deck with no room to dive away. Engines were really sensitive too, though I think they exaggerated the turbine failures a bit. (getting simple flame-outs were nearly impossible, but throttling up too quickly could easily cause turbine damage or very often engine fires -that may have actually been accurate, but most articles I've read simply note tendency to flame out or possibly overheat the turbine -combustion runs rich/hot by over-throttling, not usually catch fire)
Short of reaching critical mach (mach .84~.86 depending on reports -latter was Messerschmitt's official figure), the Me 262 was usually repoted in having relatively light and responsive controls. Near critical mach, the elevator tended to stiffen and the nose tucked under, though ailerons remained effective. (I forget about rudder, but the Ailerons make sense given the thin airfoil and distance from the wingroot/fuselage shockwave propagation)
The Me 262 claimed 85 US fighters though the actual figure is much lower. It's something I looked into a couple of years ago. Tallying with allied losses is quite difficult, but from various sources (Foreman and Harvey's 'Me 262 Combat Diary' is good for one side, my copy is on loan, soon to return) I came to the conclusion that the actual US fighter losses to the Me 262 may have been around a quarter of that number. It's hardly relevant at all.
The Me 262 was not a dogfighter, nor was it targeting the US escorts. Any Me 262 pilot who slowed down and engaged in a turning fight with a piston engine fighter deserved to get shot down
Cheers
Steve
The Me 262 was not a dogfighter, nor was it targeting the US escorts. Any Me 262 pilot who slowed down and engaged in a turning fight with a piston engine fighter deserved to get shot down
Cheers
Steve
GregP
Major
A small turn raduius is a problem whenever you attempt to shoot at anything that turns better than you do. I am assuming the pilot of the thing you are shooting at sees you, of course. If he doesn't, then you get an ambush kill easily.
The slower target can't run away, of cousre but if it is a piston, it probably has MUCH more fuel and loiter time than you do in an early jet.
Where do you get the idea that a plane that turns inside you is easy prey?
It might be if you have 2 - 4- 6 planes in your formation but, one on one, he can't run away but CAN evade and shoot YOU down if you aren't careful in your attacks.
Do you really belive an Me 262 could shoot down, say, a Red Bull air racer if the pilot SAW the attack coming? If so, we think VERY differently. If so, that's OK, I just don't agree and it isn't a big deal. We already KNOW how the Me 262 did in the war. Me 262 pilots claimed 542 Allied kills after introduction in April 1944. So it had almost exactly ONE year to fight against the Allies. That's 45 klills a month.
The P-51 was introduced in the Merlin-powered variant in Dec 43. That gives it 18 months of combat in which it shot down 4,950 aircraft (and a very similar number on the ground which I discount from aerial combat). That's 275 a month.
How impresive IS the Me 262? To me, from a technological standpoint, VERY. From an effectiveness standpoint, it doesn't rank very high.
I really LIKE the Ta 152, but as a combat aircraft it SUCKED when you look at the effort expended versus the combat results. Can't say the same for the Fw 190 series in general, which was excellent, as was the BF 109, which is probably THE most effective combat fighter aircraft of all times. I'm sure the war situation and the fact that the "production" Ta 152's were really production prototypes with no spare and a LOT of Allied hunters in the sky affected that a lot. The standard was high but the wartime effect was almost nil.
The wartime effect of the Me 262 was similarly very low though respectable, and it DID portend a huge change in aerial warfare in the near future and set the stage for many future fighters. The Ta 152 would doubtlessly have done the same if we had continued with piston fighters, shich we didn't ... and it didn't.
The Me 262 was definitely NOT a dogfighter and EVERYTHING we flew could out-turn it easily. Not outgun, outclimb, or go faster ... just out-turn. It was enough to spell the end of the Me 262.
Captain Eric Brown, Chief Naval Test Pilot and C.O. Captured Enemy Aircraft Flight Royal Aircraft Establishment, who tested the Me 262 noted: "This was a Blitzkrieg aircraft. You whack in at your bomber. It was never meant to be a dogfighter, it was meant to be a destroyer of bombers... The great problem with it was it did not have dive brakes. For example, if you want to fight and destroy a B-17, you come in on a dive. The 30mm cannon were not so accurate beyond 600 meters. So you normally came in at 600 yards and would open fire on your B-17. And your closing speed was still high and since you had to break away at 200 meters to avoid a collision, you only had two seconds firing time. Now, in two seconds, you can't sight. You can fire randomly and hope for the best. If you want to sight and fire, you need to double that time to four seconds. And with dive brakes, you could have done that."[44]
Eventually, German pilots developed new combat tactics to counter Allied bombers' defenses. Me 262s, equipped with R4M rockets, approached from the side of a bomber formation, where their silhouettes were widest, and while still out of range of the bombers' machine guns, fired a salvo of rockets with strongly brisant Hexogen-filled warheads, exactly the same explosive in the shells fired by the Me 262A's quartet of MK 108 cannon. One or two of these rockets could down even the famously rugged B-17 Flying Fortress,[45] from the "metal-shattering" brisant effect of the R4M rockets' explosive warheads, weighing only some 520 grams (17.6 ounces) per projectile out of a total launch weight of 4 kg (8.8 pounds) apiece.
Though this tactic was effective, it came too late to have a real effect on the war, and only small numbers of Me 262s were equipped with the rocket packs.
The slower target can't run away, of cousre but if it is a piston, it probably has MUCH more fuel and loiter time than you do in an early jet.
Where do you get the idea that a plane that turns inside you is easy prey?
It might be if you have 2 - 4- 6 planes in your formation but, one on one, he can't run away but CAN evade and shoot YOU down if you aren't careful in your attacks.
Do you really belive an Me 262 could shoot down, say, a Red Bull air racer if the pilot SAW the attack coming? If so, we think VERY differently. If so, that's OK, I just don't agree and it isn't a big deal. We already KNOW how the Me 262 did in the war. Me 262 pilots claimed 542 Allied kills after introduction in April 1944. So it had almost exactly ONE year to fight against the Allies. That's 45 klills a month.
The P-51 was introduced in the Merlin-powered variant in Dec 43. That gives it 18 months of combat in which it shot down 4,950 aircraft (and a very similar number on the ground which I discount from aerial combat). That's 275 a month.
How impresive IS the Me 262? To me, from a technological standpoint, VERY. From an effectiveness standpoint, it doesn't rank very high.
I really LIKE the Ta 152, but as a combat aircraft it SUCKED when you look at the effort expended versus the combat results. Can't say the same for the Fw 190 series in general, which was excellent, as was the BF 109, which is probably THE most effective combat fighter aircraft of all times. I'm sure the war situation and the fact that the "production" Ta 152's were really production prototypes with no spare and a LOT of Allied hunters in the sky affected that a lot. The standard was high but the wartime effect was almost nil.
The wartime effect of the Me 262 was similarly very low though respectable, and it DID portend a huge change in aerial warfare in the near future and set the stage for many future fighters. The Ta 152 would doubtlessly have done the same if we had continued with piston fighters, shich we didn't ... and it didn't.
The Me 262 was definitely NOT a dogfighter and EVERYTHING we flew could out-turn it easily. Not outgun, outclimb, or go faster ... just out-turn. It was enough to spell the end of the Me 262.
Captain Eric Brown, Chief Naval Test Pilot and C.O. Captured Enemy Aircraft Flight Royal Aircraft Establishment, who tested the Me 262 noted: "This was a Blitzkrieg aircraft. You whack in at your bomber. It was never meant to be a dogfighter, it was meant to be a destroyer of bombers... The great problem with it was it did not have dive brakes. For example, if you want to fight and destroy a B-17, you come in on a dive. The 30mm cannon were not so accurate beyond 600 meters. So you normally came in at 600 yards and would open fire on your B-17. And your closing speed was still high and since you had to break away at 200 meters to avoid a collision, you only had two seconds firing time. Now, in two seconds, you can't sight. You can fire randomly and hope for the best. If you want to sight and fire, you need to double that time to four seconds. And with dive brakes, you could have done that."[44]
Eventually, German pilots developed new combat tactics to counter Allied bombers' defenses. Me 262s, equipped with R4M rockets, approached from the side of a bomber formation, where their silhouettes were widest, and while still out of range of the bombers' machine guns, fired a salvo of rockets with strongly brisant Hexogen-filled warheads, exactly the same explosive in the shells fired by the Me 262A's quartet of MK 108 cannon. One or two of these rockets could down even the famously rugged B-17 Flying Fortress,[45] from the "metal-shattering" brisant effect of the R4M rockets' explosive warheads, weighing only some 520 grams (17.6 ounces) per projectile out of a total launch weight of 4 kg (8.8 pounds) apiece.
Though this tactic was effective, it came too late to have a real effect on the war, and only small numbers of Me 262s were equipped with the rocket packs.
Being outnumbered a billion to one might have had more to do with it.
GregP
Major
Yup, OBE ...
Overtaken By Events. Not the fault of the designers, but happened anyway. I believe the Me 262 was a BRILLIANT design that just came at the exact wrong place in time and history. 2 - 3 years earlier and things would have been wildly different, with BOTH sides throwing jets into the war meaning combat with one another.
As it is, the jets didn't really DO much for Germany except cement their technological prowess and ability to cut through red tape when all was lost and desperation set in. If they had done it earlier, jets might have been a WWII meaningful weapon. As it is, they weren't, except as a step forward after the war.
Brilliant foresight. Very bad long-term strategy as a nation. The trick is to do it before you REALLY need it, not as you are being beaten.
Overtaken By Events. Not the fault of the designers, but happened anyway. I believe the Me 262 was a BRILLIANT design that just came at the exact wrong place in time and history. 2 - 3 years earlier and things would have been wildly different, with BOTH sides throwing jets into the war meaning combat with one another.
As it is, the jets didn't really DO much for Germany except cement their technological prowess and ability to cut through red tape when all was lost and desperation set in. If they had done it earlier, jets might have been a WWII meaningful weapon. As it is, they weren't, except as a step forward after the war.
Brilliant foresight. Very bad long-term strategy as a nation. The trick is to do it before you REALLY need it, not as you are being beaten.
Last edited:
GregP
Major
Yup, OBE ...
Overtaken By Events. Not the fault of the designers, but happened anyway. I believe the Me 262 was a BRILLIANT design that just came at the exact wrong place in time and history. 2 - 3 years earlier and things would have been wildly different, with BOTH sides throwing jets into the war meaning combat with one another.
As it is, the jets didn't really DO much for Germany except cement their technological prowess and ability to cut through red tape when all was lost and desperation set in. If they had done it earlier, jets might have been a WWII meaningful weapon. As it is, they weren't, except as a step forward after the war.
Brilliant foresight. Very bad long-term strategy as a nation. The trick is to do it before you REALLY need it, not as you are being beaten.
Overtaken By Events. Not the fault of the designers, but happened anyway. I believe the Me 262 was a BRILLIANT design that just came at the exact wrong place in time and history. 2 - 3 years earlier and things would have been wildly different, with BOTH sides throwing jets into the war meaning combat with one another.
As it is, the jets didn't really DO much for Germany except cement their technological prowess and ability to cut through red tape when all was lost and desperation set in. If they had done it earlier, jets might have been a WWII meaningful weapon. As it is, they weren't, except as a step forward after the war.
Brilliant foresight. Very bad long-term strategy as a nation. The trick is to do it before you REALLY need it, not as you are being beaten.
GregP
Major
Yes, I have always thought they resembled each other and was pretty sure a lot of the Me 262 technology was tried out on the Me 309, but cannot prove it with primary documentation to date. Of course, I haven't looked very hard, either.
Kook Kitty,
The Me 262 is 11% thick at the root and 9% at the tip.
I've seen it written that the Horten had an airfoil that developed most of the lift along the centerline of the airfoil and less at the leading and trailing edges, but have never seen an airfoil number for it, so I have no way to estimate it's stalling characteristics. The writing I saw has also not been verified with any primary sources.
So, why would the critical angle of attack have been much higher for the Ho. 229? Do you have any data supporting that? No agenda and not a real disagreement ... just asking as I don't know much about the airfoil on the Horten.
Kook Kitty,
The Me 262 is 11% thick at the root and 9% at the tip.
I've seen it written that the Horten had an airfoil that developed most of the lift along the centerline of the airfoil and less at the leading and trailing edges, but have never seen an airfoil number for it, so I have no way to estimate it's stalling characteristics. The writing I saw has also not been verified with any primary sources.
So, why would the critical angle of attack have been much higher for the Ho. 229? Do you have any data supporting that? No agenda and not a real disagreement ... just asking as I don't know much about the airfoil on the Horten.
Last edited:
One of the reasons for the Me 309 was to guarantee the company financially by ensuring it had a state of the art aircraft should the Me 262 project fail, nobody could be sure of the practicality of the Jet engines.
The Me 309 ended up on low priority several times, Wikipedia.de explains this very well. The Me 210 problems (really caused by premature decision to manufacture and untested aircraft), the need to urgently deploy conventional weapons by perfecting their production. The Me 309 flew in June 1942. This was at a time the Me 109G1 was first deploying and 6 months before the Stalingrad disaster and just at the Me 210 problems had been solved technically but were still at their height from the manufacturing point of view.
If it had of been put on higher priority, if the Me 210 issues hadn't have existed to draw away resources, its easy to imagine the first prototype flying 6-9 months earlier. This is at the beginning of Barbarossa (invasion of Soviet Union) but having a flight in say November 1941 and resources not locked up in Me 210 flight testing changes the outlook on this aircraft. There were no fundamental problems with the aircraft. You might need to lengthen the tail a little or increase tail area, even increase wing area etc, strengthen the nose gear leg. There is 6-7 months to do that and in June 1942 Messerschmitt would present a far more refined aircraft.
As far as turning radius, it would be of little consequence of the aircraft is significantly faster. An aircraft with small wings will always be faster than one with large wings so long as other factors in the aircraft are not too retrograde such as engine power. This is especially so for an aircraft such as the Me 309 which had advanced laminar wing profile.
Users who are viewing this thread
Similar threads
