drgondog
Major
OK - but I will direct YOU to the Encounter reports of Mustang and P-47 vs Me 262.. draw your own conclusions. These are 'practical' vs 'theoretical' discussions and may be enlightening
If the Rare Bear became a ww2 fighter.
- Thread starter breadbasketbomb
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
OK - but I will direct YOU to the Encounter reports of Mustang and P-47 vs Me 262.. draw your own conclusions. These are 'practical' vs 'theoretical' discussions and may be enlightening
I will never use the words "respected opponent" again.
No Combat aircraft flies at maximum speed all the time, they have a cruising speed. If a 262 is at cruising speed and encounters an AC then it must gain speed but spooling up its jets takes time, the faster the enemy AC the less time you have and the less speed differential. Additionally the Tempest had 4 canons which can make a mess of anything. I only mentioned the Tempest which did see action against the 262 because it was the fore runner of the Sea Fury which to all intents and purposes was on par with the bearcat both were carrier based however so maybe the original fury would have been the best bet. Enough 262s were lost to P51 and P 47 to show that the 262 was vulnerable in certain situations...all aircraft are. The kill to loss ration shows that the 262 was a great plane but only unbeatable at maximum speed and high altitude.
No Combat aircraft flies at maximum speed all the time, they have a cruising speed. If a 262 is at cruising speed and encounters an AC then it must gain speed but spooling up its jets takes time, the faster the enemy AC the less time you have and the less speed differential. Additionally the Tempest had 4 canons which can make a mess of anything. I only mentioned the Tempest which did see action against the 262 because it was the fore runner of the Sea Fury which to all intents and purposes was on par with the bearcat both were carrier based however so maybe the original fury would have been the best bet. Enough 262s were lost to P51 and P 47 to show that the 262 was vulnerable in certain situations...all aircraft are. The kill to loss ration shows that the 262 was a great plane but only unbeatable at maximum speed and high altitude.
GregP
Major
The Merimac would have ruled the waves if not for the fact that they ran out of both tobacco and whiskey and had to turn back for some more. While they were restocking, an entirely new technology rendered the ship obsolete, and it wound up sailing over a large electromnagnet and being sucked under to the detriment of the tobacco and whiskey supply, not to mention the crew.
This explains everything about a 701+ year old race plane being turned into a combat fighter ...
This explains everything about a 701+ year old race plane being turned into a combat fighter ...
Last edited:
drgondog
Major
I would think that just about every front line fighter in 1945 should be able to do so, but specifically the Spit XIX, Tempest, P-51D/H and P-38L plus La 7 and Yak 3. While the 262 had a lot of thrust - it also had 2x to 50% more W/L and was slow to accelerate. The fighters could run at WEP for the 2+ to 3 minutes it takes to get to 10K. I doubt the Jug for reasons shown below related to take off run.
During the climb, Induced Drag dominates for both the Jest and Piston types but particularly affects the 262 as acceleration is less initially. If you took off with minimum fuel it would be more interesting.
Dto=~ 1.44*W^^2/(g*RHO*S*CLmax*T) where Dto = take off distance, W=weight, Rho = density of air, S=wing area, CLmax= max CL, T=Thrust.
I would have to calculate thrust as a function of Velocity and Hp for the Piston engine and integrate it for take off time to get off the ground, but there is another factor working against the Me 262 - namely tricycle landing gear - which means that the CL during take off is much less than CLmax because of low angle of attack during the roll. The tail draggers are getting lift immediately even though they will reduce AoA as they accelerate.
The Net comparisons then are a.) the 262 is nearly 2x Gross weight over the Spit XIV and 40+% more than the 51 so the numerator is a huge factor for take off distance (i.e. P-47 vs P-51 or Spit), the CL for the 262 is much less for most of the take off run but the thrust is at least 2.5-3x in favor of the 262 when it finally spools up to max power.
The net difference in time to get off the runway is a huge factor in the time to climb to 10K
During the climb, Induced Drag dominates for both the Jest and Piston types but particularly affects the 262 as acceleration is less initially. If you took off with minimum fuel it would be more interesting.
Dto=~ 1.44*W^^2/(g*RHO*S*CLmax*T) where Dto = take off distance, W=weight, Rho = density of air, S=wing area, CLmax= max CL, T=Thrust.
I would have to calculate thrust as a function of Velocity and Hp for the Piston engine and integrate it for take off time to get off the ground, but there is another factor working against the Me 262 - namely tricycle landing gear - which means that the CL during take off is much less than CLmax because of low angle of attack during the roll. The tail draggers are getting lift immediately even though they will reduce AoA as they accelerate.
The Net comparisons then are a.) the 262 is nearly 2x Gross weight over the Spit XIV and 40+% more than the 51 so the numerator is a huge factor for take off distance (i.e. P-47 vs P-51 or Spit), the CL for the 262 is much less for most of the take off run but the thrust is at least 2.5-3x in favor of the 262 when it finally spools up to max power.
The net difference in time to get off the runway is a huge factor in the time to climb to 10K
swampyankee
Chief Master Sergeant
- 4,036
- Jun 25, 2013
The thrust available for a jet engined aircraft is roughly constant with airspeed and that of propeller aircraft is roughly inversely proportional to airspeed. This means that a pilot flying a jet aircraft who gets into a turning flight with one flying a propeller aircraft is stupid, as the available excess thrust of a propeller aircraft increases as speed decreases. Add to that, swept wings tend to have lower maximum lift coefficients that straight wings, which will reduce maximum instantaneous turn rate at any given wing loading, and tend to have lower effective aspect ratios, which will reduce maximum sustained turn rates, and a dogfight between a jet and a prop aircraft is playing to the prop aircraft's strengths. Add that early jets had poor throttle* response and inlet design was in its infancy, so the combination of high AoA and rapid thrust change may not have gone well, and it's not looking good for the jet in a low-speed, turning flight.
Several MiG jet fighters have been shot down by AD pilots, and the MiG-15 and MiG-17 were much better aircraft than the Me262 (they should have been: they were at least a generation newer).
As an addendum: all aircraft increase drag in turns, because the wings have to produce more lift, causing more induced drag. Unless the aircraft has enough thrust (either through a prop or through a jet) to overcome this drag, it will slow down. It doesn't matter if the aircraft is an Me262, a P-51, or an F-22.
-------
* Jet engines don't have throttles; they have power levers, but "throttle" seems to be the de facto, albeit incorrect, term for the loud lever for the engine.
Several MiG jet fighters have been shot down by AD pilots, and the MiG-15 and MiG-17 were much better aircraft than the Me262 (they should have been: they were at least a generation newer).
As an addendum: all aircraft increase drag in turns, because the wings have to produce more lift, causing more induced drag. Unless the aircraft has enough thrust (either through a prop or through a jet) to overcome this drag, it will slow down. It doesn't matter if the aircraft is an Me262, a P-51, or an F-22.
-------
* Jet engines don't have throttles; they have power levers, but "throttle" seems to be the de facto, albeit incorrect, term for the loud lever for the engine.
Last edited:
Would this also be true when comparing the P-39/P-400 vs F4F?
I'm thinking Guadalcanal here.
swampyankee
Chief Master Sergeant
- 4,036
- Jun 25, 2013
On the other hand, a tail dragger has higher drag than a tricycle-geared aircraft until the tail rises. The tail dragger's lift may be beneficial during takeoff on surfaces with high-rolling resistance, in that they are generating lift before the elevator can be effective, but a tricycle-geared aircraft can usually lift the nose as soon as the elevator is effective, which will cause the same sort of reduction in rolling resistance.
Have fun in the world of takeoff performance analysis.
Have fun in the world of takeoff performance analysis.
drgondog
Major
The wing loadings are close to the same, the Gross weights for P-39 and P-40 are within 2-3%, CLmax is the same but low AoA of the P-39 until rotation keeps it a t ~ 1.0 for P-39 so advantage P-40.
But the factors also include friction resistance of three wheels (P-39) vs two (P-40 about halfway down the runway..). On the flip side the ground effect of the level take off roll for both the 262 and the P-39/38 creates less induced drag..
drgondog
Major
Does anybody know the gear down stalling V for the 262 at 14,000 pounds?
wuzak
Captain
I guess it also depends on the amount of power that can be applied for the take-off roll.
The Spitfire XIV was restricted to a lower boost (<= +12psi boost) during take-off because of the torque effect and the narrow undercarriage. Recommended take-off boost was +6psi. Once in the air they could go to +18psi WEP.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
GregP
Major
Good clip, Joe. Thanks.
Couldn't resist the Civil War dig ... but am back on subject. All I can say is I LOVE Skyraiders. They saved MY butt at least 3 times. And the cklip is right, they can loiter for about 1 1/2 hours if they have to and can shoot SOMETHING almost every pass during that time. Keeps the bad guys' heads down and locked.
Couldn't resist the Civil War dig ... but am back on subject. All I can say is I LOVE Skyraiders. They saved MY butt at least 3 times. And the cklip is right, they can loiter for about 1 1/2 hours if they have to and can shoot SOMETHING almost every pass during that time. Keeps the bad guys' heads down and locked.
drgondog
Major
The Mustang could be launched with rapid run up to MP @61" and 1450Hp for Take off power and keep the right foot on da right rudder pedal with 6 degrees of trim.. The P-51H was more benign.
Which cannon had the greater range?
MINE.......and more accurate with more explosive power, but surely a head on pass is roulette?
GregP
Major
As I recall, when Lyle Shelton first put the R-3350 in, the CG shifted forward by an unacceptable amount and they had to come up with a shorter engine mount. So, YES, it COULD have been done. The thing is, the fuel was only what was required for a Navy mission, not an escort mission, and throwing on an R-3350 only makes it shorter-legged than a standard Bearcat ... which, though a hotrod, is not exactly a long legged fighter in the first palce. Also, Lyle said he pretty much had to 3-point it or clip a prop tip. Not a good thing for a fighter landing either on a carrier or in a farmer's field on the front lines.
Also, in WWII, the R-3350 wasn't exactly a paragon of reliability like it got to be in post-war airline service when they got it sorted out and flight engineers learned what the beast liked to do and what it didn't like to do. Keep it happy and it was reliable. Race it at Reno today and you can expect a large pile of scrap metal instead of an engine every 2 - 4 years or so, sometimes more often if you really don't KNOW the R-3350.
They didn't have the technology to run Merlins at current modern race power, either. Sure, they got some 2,500 HP, but with computers and electronics today, they can get 3,850 HP from a racing Merlin with Allison G-series rods, spray bar, ADI, 3600 rpm, at a VERY low conpression ratio, and with modern computer-designed pistons, and it STILL doesn't last very long at high power ... nor is it expected to do so. So it would not have been suitable for military service at the time, either.
Also, in WWII, the R-3350 wasn't exactly a paragon of reliability like it got to be in post-war airline service when they got it sorted out and flight engineers learned what the beast liked to do and what it didn't like to do. Keep it happy and it was reliable. Race it at Reno today and you can expect a large pile of scrap metal instead of an engine every 2 - 4 years or so, sometimes more often if you really don't KNOW the R-3350.
They didn't have the technology to run Merlins at current modern race power, either. Sure, they got some 2,500 HP, but with computers and electronics today, they can get 3,850 HP from a racing Merlin with Allison G-series rods, spray bar, ADI, 3600 rpm, at a VERY low conpression ratio, and with modern computer-designed pistons, and it STILL doesn't last very long at high power ... nor is it expected to do so. So it would not have been suitable for military service at the time, either.
Last edited:
![](data:image/svg+xml;charset=utf-8,<svg height="16px" width="16px" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" version="1.1"/>)