Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
here is is some of the stuff I can find on thatThere were several US test pilots who gave the -262 high marks in many performance areas but I don't think anyone ever said the 262 was "over all" superior to the P-80
The claims that, in certain respects, the Me 262 was found to be superior to its American counterparts are correct. These claims did cause consternation in the Air Force. Brig. Gen. L. P. Whitten wrote on Oct. 17, 1946:
"1. The results of the ME-262 - P80A comparative speed and climb tests as outlined in Air Materiel Command Flight Test Report, Serial No. TSFTE-2008, are viewed with serious concern by this headquarters. ..."
People keep using the argument of bouncing the jets on their take off and landing. However, this would not happen in this 1944 scenario.
Why?
The effective patrolling over German jet bases started around February 1945. By that time, the Allies were already invading Germany itself. This had two major results, which would be absent in this 1944 scenario.
This assumes that the 262's engines were reliable. From what I have read they were good for little more than perhaps 2-3 short sorties and extremely sensitive to pilot inputs (too much throttle to fast burned them up). By the time the 262 appeared I think it was too late. And, being somewhat patriotic, my gut response is to wink and say, "We'd of shot them down to".
Tom P.
Even as late as the Korean war Mig-15 vs F-86 time, there was sod all difference in their engines' performance between the Russian Nene centrifugal copy and the GE axial flow.
Good point. But you are missing another one: stopping the US bomber offensive means: more German military production and an intact transport network towards Normandy. That might have changed the outcome of the invasion!
Kris
Some one had stated the fact that the me 262 could out climb the p51, then some one said that it would also depend on the fuel load, well yes of course, this is true for many air craft types...actual german test of the me 262 showed a clime rate of about 3800 fpm, at 7000kg, that's 15.432 pounds for the me 262 tested, some one correct me if im wrong but that means that the me 262 is carrying its maximum fuel load of around 4500 pounds...lets compare that to the spitfire xiv which had a climb rate of around 4700 fpm with a fuel load of 950 pounds of fuel, so lets say each each aircraft meets each other in the air at half fuel load, where is the spitfire has gone through hundreds of pounds of fuel the me 262 has gone through thousands of pounds of fuel, this should have a dramatic effect on climb performance. Here are a few combat reports (I don't put a lot of faith in combat reports but) on one or two occasions US pilots one of which was p47 pilot said that chasing an me 262 in a zoom climb that the me 262 could actually accelerate while vertical, obviously it just seemed that way, a 262 following a recon spitfire from below stated that the spitfire pilot after spotting him opened his(by viewing smoke from the spitfire I think) pulled the spit into a climb but the me 262 had no problem out climbing him, spitfire 9 pilots jumping a me 262 while landing said that the german pilot opened out climb him, the key to this is the spitfire pilot stated that the me 262 was able to gain altitude on him not just a faster climb, of course the 262 was coming in to land and most likely low on fuel.
Bear in mind here that while the 262s vertical velocity might not have been as great as the P-51s (by these figures, anyway) it's horizontal velocity at maximum ROC was certainly much more. This is important, because it can mostly negate any advantage the P-51 might get from climbing faster. Post war tests of the Spit XIV vs the Vampire found that the Spit outclimbed the Vamp by about 5000fpm to the jet's 4000fpm (IIRC). However, the pilots noted that in practise the disparity in speed between the two meant that the Spit could not use this advantage in any meaningful way.
Incidentally, the Vampire out-turned the Spitfire easily!
Yes, you are absolutely right. The Germans did not see that coming. They responded by increasing the Flak on its air fields, but this probably took some time.Kris - the 8th AF was shooting up airfields in the Berlin, Leipzig, Munich area in April 1944. While patrolling doesn't express the tactics, April 5th 1944 demonstrates what a co-ordinated and planned Fighter Sweep could do. The 4th hit in the Berlin area and the 355th hit Munich area with devastating effect, destroying more than 130 fighters on the ground in a snowstorm. The Me 262 would have been just as vulnerable.
I agree. But I also don't see any contradiction with what I am saying.I doubt the invasion would have been staged absent air superiority. AFAIK, Ike considered it a huge risk even with it firmly established. But I also consider a superior interceptor denying allied access to German airspace to be a very different battle than establishing air superiority over a Normandy beachhead. I'd be surprised if the 262 could be used in an offensive fighter role with its short legs.
That is a very good point. Even when climbing at the same rate, the Me 262 would outpace its opponent !Bear in mind here that while the 262s vertical velocity might not have been as great as the P-51s (by these figures, anyway) it's horizontal velocity at maximum ROC was certainly much more. This is important, because it can mostly negate any advantage the P-51 might get from climbing faster. Post war tests of the Spit XIV vs the Vampire found that the Spit outclimbed the Vamp by about 5000fpm to the jet's 4000fpm (IIRC). However, the pilots noted that in practise the disparity in speed between the two meant that the Spit could not use this advantage in any meaningful way.
Incidentally, the Vampire out-turned the Spitfire easily!
Kris
If the Germans had a considerable number of 262s, what about put some bombs and sent them to hit and run attacks in the Allied airbases in England?
Thats exactly what Mr Stona is doing in his many of his last posts. Try to devalue the Me 262 and imlyies that is at best equal to P51D ( and naturally inferior to 51H )
He calls the 262 not manouverable, a"brick" when all test pilots report a fully aerobatic aircraft with excellent high speed agility
He calls "fantacies" the 400+++ german jet claims but accepts without question the claims of the american pilots.
He accepts stories of P51s out diving Me 262s, Spitfires XIVs catching on level flight (!!!) 262s
1 The Me 262 was not an agile fighter. Being fully aerobatic and agile are not the same thing. Interestingly on acceptance flights no aerobatics apart from slow rolls were performed. The aircraft had to reach a minimum speed without wrinkling of skins or bits flying off and that was about it.
2 No I don't. Long experience of the Luftwaffe would cause me to be cautious of counting claims as kills, particularly after the autumn of 1944 when the claims verification system broke down. Some pilots provably and fraudulently over claimed and all pilots over claimed, even if in good faith. This, particularly the latter, was not unique to the Luftwaffe and was well known at the time. It was the bane of every debriefing intelligence officer's life.
I do not accept the claims of allied pilots, you presumably either didn't read or misunderstood my post. In fact I have gone to great lengths to match claims with German losses. I said in another post that I still have about 30 German losses that I can't tie to an allied claim. Those aircraft were still lost in or following air combat. The losses, as reported in German records actually outnumber the claims that I have found. This is due to a lack of information available to me, particularly from USAAF records. I would also say that due to inaccurately or badly written werknummern in German records and a propensity for getting dates wrong, some claims are difficult to exactly interpret. Nonetheless a loss was reported and can often be tentatively linked to a claim.
3 Those are mostly from encounter reports or the memoirs of the pilots (both sides) involved. Any allied fighter could easily catch an Me 262 if it wasn't being flown fast, even in level flight. In some circumstances the allied fighters out accelerated the Me 262 in just about all flight regimes. This is not a comment on the Me 262 but the way it was flown.
It is naïve in the extreme to apply the sort of performance achieved by test pilots to the way that service pilots flew the Me 262. Time and again they were caught by piston engine fighters or shot down by bombers having thrown away the one significant advantage their aircraft had, its speed.
I don't think that the Me 262 was a bad aeroplane. It was a significant step into the future. It was however introduced into service in July 1944 well before it was ready. No western allied air force would have introduced an aircraft with such an appalling serviceability record. No air force, except in desperation, would introduce an aircraft with such a lethal safety record. I've seen many aircraft described as death traps but the Me 262, as it entered service in 1944, killed far more of its pilots than the allies did.
Cheers
Steve
Stona,
It would be nice to see the total stats of the 262's losses by squadron, by type(mark) and especially by cause , for exemple: mechanical failure, direct ennemy action(air combat), flak, pilot error, straffed on takeoff/approach. Such stats gives more a decent view than just a list like you've posted.
In a nutshell, I was wondering what the Allies as a whole would have done if the 262 had appeared in the kind of numbers Galland had fantasised about, just as the USAAF was fielding numbers of P-51s on the other side. That is, before D-day, and without the use of bases in occupied Europe.
I'd like to add that no one is sure how many Me 262s actually saw service. Even the most optimistic would probably argue around 300 of the roughly 1500 produced. Of those I know for sure that between 110 and 130 were shot down by allied fighters, bombers or AAA. There are many whose fate is unknown.That makes them far from invincible.
My point is and always has been that no matter how revolutionary a weapon the new jet was, it was far from the war winning wonder weapon that some are suggesting. Its capabilities and that of the men who flew it are being largely over estimated.
Cheers
Steve
In all these years, I have defended the Bf 109 as much as any other. But, I can tell you that the Bf 109G was definitely not able to deal with the P-51, at least not the G-6. When the G-10 and K-4 arrived, they were up to the challenge again. Of course, it mainly depends on the pilot, but that's a no brainer.
What do you mean by P-51 levering the vertical? The Me 262 had superior climb rate and maintained speed better during manoeuvre.