I was referring to the Skyraider vs Mig 17 post video and the range of the Skyraider's 20mm cannon vs. the Mig's 37 mm Nudelman N-37 cannon and 23 mm Nudelman-Rikhter NR-23 cannon.
Last edited:
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
I was referring to the Skyraider vs Mig 17 post video and the range of the Skyraider's 20mm cannon vs. the Mig's 37 mm Nudelman N-37 cannon and 23 mm Nudelman-Rikhter NR-23 cannon.
Shortround6
Major General
Who out-ranges who in a head on pass with closing speeds of around 340 m/s (assuming the jet is only doing 450mph and the Skyraiders are doing 300mph) is a mighty slim margin. Plane that is hit first could already have shells in the air that will hit the enemy plane.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
125 mph
GregP
Major
How the heck do you know that Joe?
Not disagreeing, just wondering where the information came from as I have never seen a stalling speed verssu weight chart for the Me 262, and it might be a good source!
Not disagreeing, just wondering where the information came from as I have never seen a stalling speed verssu weight chart for the Me 262, and it might be a good source!
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
From the flight handbook put together by Lt. Van Wart, Wright Patterson AFB, 1946. 125 MPH full fuel, full flaps, gear down.
http://www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com/Images/Me262/262PilotHandbook.pdf
At 400 mph i know that the p51 and p38 have a slight edge over the 190, p 51 and 190 are really close at that speed, what ive found for non boosted ailerons at 400 mph is the 262 is best 3.6 too 3.8 seconds followed by the p51 4.2 too 4.5 seconds then the 190a at about 5 seconds, after which it seems the p 51 roll starts to slow down more than the 190...
im suprised by the Spit XIV being as good as the above AC, ive only seen test for the spit IX and V (metal covered ailerons of course) and the rates 7.2 and 9 seconds to complete a full 360 roll at 400 mph. but there was a book i read in B&N years ago, a question was asked to XIV pilots, what where the worst qualities of the Spit, two things came up the most, its poor dive(acceleration in the dive, said to be poor compared to its contemporaries, but better than the spit IX) and its poor roll rate at speed.
Oh, another prop fighter with good roll at speed is the Tempest V, a fantastic energy fighter, im a 262 fanboy, but my fav piston engine fighter jump from the Spit XIV to the 190 D9/13 and the Tempest V. The TA 152 H1 has out of this world specs, but i just dont like those high aspect ratio glider wings when it comes to looks.
drgondog
Major
I did some calcs on the 262 to get a sense of one engine performance. First, I used the data from RAE flight test results for 510mph and 3580 pounds of Thrust (1790 pounds of thrust for each Jumo 004). Then I used Wright Pat post war results of 514mph and 1980 pounds of thrust at SL.
The Wright Pat test results drove a higher CDo = .021 when compressibility was factored so I used the best case of RAE
My calc yield (Best case) CDo= .02099 BUT that is for .67M at SL so there is a compressibility factor of perhaps 5% of CDo so CDo= .0200.
At 510mph TAS with .000412 CDi at 14,000 pounds GW and CD0 of .0200 I proceeded to iterate to yield the new V for 0nly one engine..
If the Me 262 loses an engine and the 'good' engine functions flawlessly, with no allowance for trim drag for rudder displacement and NO Delta DRAG on the DEAD engine while in Yaw condition, the Max calculated TAS is approximately 375mph.
That said, the noted single engine performance at Wright Pat (and they had three due to engine failures) was 280mph-310mph. The crash was caused by both engines failing during the test flight. This indicates that the combination of Trim Drag, Profile drag on the Yawed nacelle, plus flat plate drag on the dead jet engine with little airflow passing through the engine is Considerable.
Note: At Wright Pat, two of the best condition aircraft plus 10 brand new engines were available for the flight tests. In 22 total flights for the two Me 262s, nine combined engine changes, one crash, three single engine return flights over 15 total combined flight hours illustrates the probable challenges all the Me 262 units faced in the ETO.
Further note - the take off roll for 14,000 pounds, 3960 pounds of thrust is 4600 feet for concrete and 5500 for grass field. The further aggravate the comparison (4x+ further than Mustang and even more than Spitfire, the warm up on the Jumo 004 including getting exit temps in the green was longer than the P-51 and Spit. Throttle advance to take off power for the Merlin was within 30 seconds with take off in about 20 seconds or less. I still have to calculate the Me 262 take off time but it probably is closer to a minute or more to go from zero to 120 mph with nosewheel off at 100mph.
The Wright Pat test results drove a higher CDo = .021 when compressibility was factored so I used the best case of RAE
My calc yield (Best case) CDo= .02099 BUT that is for .67M at SL so there is a compressibility factor of perhaps 5% of CDo so CDo= .0200.
At 510mph TAS with .000412 CDi at 14,000 pounds GW and CD0 of .0200 I proceeded to iterate to yield the new V for 0nly one engine..
If the Me 262 loses an engine and the 'good' engine functions flawlessly, with no allowance for trim drag for rudder displacement and NO Delta DRAG on the DEAD engine while in Yaw condition, the Max calculated TAS is approximately 375mph.
That said, the noted single engine performance at Wright Pat (and they had three due to engine failures) was 280mph-310mph. The crash was caused by both engines failing during the test flight. This indicates that the combination of Trim Drag, Profile drag on the Yawed nacelle, plus flat plate drag on the dead jet engine with little airflow passing through the engine is Considerable.
Note: At Wright Pat, two of the best condition aircraft plus 10 brand new engines were available for the flight tests. In 22 total flights for the two Me 262s, nine combined engine changes, one crash, three single engine return flights over 15 total combined flight hours illustrates the probable challenges all the Me 262 units faced in the ETO.
Further note - the take off roll for 14,000 pounds, 3960 pounds of thrust is 4600 feet for concrete and 5500 for grass field. The further aggravate the comparison (4x+ further than Mustang and even more than Spitfire, the warm up on the Jumo 004 including getting exit temps in the green was longer than the P-51 and Spit. Throttle advance to take off power for the Merlin was within 30 seconds with take off in about 20 seconds or less. I still have to calculate the Me 262 take off time but it probably is closer to a minute or more to go from zero to 120 mph with nosewheel off at 100mph.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Great info Bill. Was that based on data from that hand book?
drgondog
Major
Part of it Joe - but the part about the engine count, failures and crash were on page 4 "Factual Data" of the 1947 Report - revised from the Wright Patterson post war tests.
The pilots Handbook had the raw data regarding takeoff distance - which was a little longer than my calculated take off run - because I ignored rolling friction and reduced induced drag due to ground effect.
As SwampYankee noted the Takeoff length calcs are a little speculative,- In one case because of the coefficient for rolling friction varying from .02 for smooth concrete and .10 for a grass field.
Additionally 'phi' is a calculation for reduced induced drag and requires an iterative numerical approach to calculate the Delta to drag and look at the velocity profile from zero to 120mph.
I was off about 5% for the combined effects.
Hoerner's Fluid Dynamic Drag has the CDo of the Me 262 at .021 which agrees with my calcs of Sea Level speed runs for two load and thrust conditions.
Both the P-51 with 72" boost and the Spit XIV at 18 pounds climb better than the 262. The 262 at say 4G has a better velocity in the turn than both the Spit and the 51 but they both have a MUCH faster turn rate sustained so if a 262 tries to turn with either, they will both have a long deflection solution period to play with - as noted in the Encounter reports.
On the other hand, as experience tells us, the 262 when it keeps its speed up always has the advantage and can trade the speed for altitude all day long... Oops - for several minutes before it runs out of fuel.
Last edited:
[QUOTE=drgondog;1163712..
.[.
Note: At Wright Pat, two of the best condition aircraft plus 10 brand new engines were available for the flight tests. In 22 total flights for the two Me 262s, nine combined engine changes, one crash, three single engine return flights over 15 total combined flight hours illustrates the probable challenges all the Me 262 units faced in the ETO.
.It s out of question that simply illustrates the propable challenges that the US GROUND CREW faced having to deal with Foreign equipment? Or the fact that the us ground crews had 0 experience with jet aircraft? You suggest that because us crews were unable to maintain correctly the german aircraft that represents also the service history of the aircraft in luftwaffe service. It s unacceptable to you that the german mechanics knew the me 262 a bit better than the American mechanics?
It s well known that even captured Fw190 s were not correctly serviced while in us captivity
.[.
Note: At Wright Pat, two of the best condition aircraft plus 10 brand new engines were available for the flight tests. In 22 total flights for the two Me 262s, nine combined engine changes, one crash, three single engine return flights over 15 total combined flight hours illustrates the probable challenges all the Me 262 units faced in the ETO.
.It s out of question that simply illustrates the propable challenges that the US GROUND CREW faced having to deal with Foreign equipment? Or the fact that the us ground crews had 0 experience with jet aircraft? You suggest that because us crews were unable to maintain correctly the german aircraft that represents also the service history of the aircraft in luftwaffe service. It s unacceptable to you that the german mechanics knew the me 262 a bit better than the American mechanics?
It s well known that even captured Fw190 s were not correctly serviced while in us captivity
fastmongrel
1st Sergeant
dedalos if you hang around this forum a bit longer you will find that drgondog is extremely knowledgeable and even handed when talking about aircraft. You seem to think he has a bias against Luftwaffe aircraft which is not the case. You possibly dont have english as a first language which might explain something but some of your posts have come across as rude and aggressive.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Please spare us the rhetoric. Read about "Watson's Whizzers" and Operation Lusty that involved the first Me 262s falling into US hands. Pilots AND ground crews received great training from the Germans who totally cooperated with US forces. It's pretty obvious you know nothing about maintaining a jet engine because there is really little to maintain during normal operations if the plane is flown correctly and not damaged in combat. One would inspect the general condition of the engine for any obvious leaks or cracks around the compressor casing, one would check the compressor and turbine blades for cracks and distortion and lastly fluid levels and filters when they are required to be serviced or changed, so to imply that those documented failures had anything to do with the maintainers is just plain ignorant.
What Dragondog posted was factual history - early jet engines had short lifespans. The first American maintainers who worked on these aircraft knew exactly what they were doing, especially by 1946.
Please consider that some of us actually work on aircraft for a living and assessments may be based on professional views, rather from guessing or reading a book.
Now you know my thoughts...
drgondog
Major
Are we having a problem with facts Dedalos? The US 'ground crews' at Wright Pat were fooling with YP-59 in 1943 and YP-80 in 1944. This sequences of tests was performed in 1946 and included the P-80.
I hear a little bit of a whine in your post. So, do your own calcs and show us what ya got?
PS - you think that the Jumo 004 was so airworthy that US mechanics couldn't learn from the German mechanics? or that German trained mechanics weren't used?
You have any data regarding Mean Time Between Servie/Overhaul in 1944 and 1944 for this marvelous engine?
Last edited by a moderator:
I am not aircraft mechanic. But i am of Technical profession. What i mean is that no manual, no training time can replace experience. Often even two engines of the same type appear different behavior. There are tips and tricks that noone can teach. You learn them only by long time experience. So working a few weeks on the 262 made the us ground crew equals to the germans? No way. Technical duties required experience , and the experience requires A LOT of time.
Additionaly , very naturally, American technicians were familiar with American procedures, tools, ways of design,metrical units and the General philosophy of aircraft Construction. So its not insult to claim that they could not provided the same quality levelof maintance as the german crews
You will agree with me that often there were unexpected problems even when a perfectly reliable on American soil us plane was flying in england. So why is unreasonable my thesis that me 262 in us captivity had poorer reliability than in german service? Which of course was not perfect
Additionaly , very naturally, American technicians were familiar with American procedures, tools, ways of design,metrical units and the General philosophy of aircraft Construction. So its not insult to claim that they could not provided the same quality levelof maintance as the german crews
You will agree with me that often there were unexpected problems even when a perfectly reliable on American soil us plane was flying in england. So why is unreasonable my thesis that me 262 in us captivity had poorer reliability than in german service? Which of course was not perfect
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
There's a saying in aircraft maintenance;
"A plane, is a plane, is a plane."
They may vary in size and be constructed a little different but after working on them awile they all become similar.
The American techs had ample time and training to get this elusive experience you speak about - again there is little to do when maintaining a turbine engine at the squadron level. When it makes inspection intervals, you inspect it, when it reaches overhaul intervals it's usually sent to a back shop and overhauled. The Jumos being run on the 262 (like many engines of the day to include US and British) many times never made it to overhaul. Trouble shooting is easier on a turbine engine than on a recip and many of the times when an early turbine started showing issues (hot starts, not reaching full rpm, unusual vibrations) they usually just removed it from the aircraft.
Again, based on your experience on jet engines??? I've been in this business for 35 years and that's utter nonsense. By the time some of the 262s were being operated at Wright Patterson some of the US techs actually had MORE time around the 262 then some of the German techs who worked on them later in the war. (I believe 262s were operated at Wright Patterson untill the end of 1946)
Again, total hogwash - maintaining these aircraft had nothing to do with "General philosophy of aircraft Construction," unless you're going to tell me there's some special way to install a metric screw!!!
No early jet was perfect and many if not all of the failures of the Me 262 engines, to include those that were flown in captivity and especially those flown at Wright Patterson AFB were well documented. It had NOTHING to do with ground maintenance or "experience" so unless you have some turbine engine experience yourself or have documented evidence that these aircraft were mis-maintained, I suggest you show us!
Last edited:
drgondog
Major
Independent of your 'intention', you are quite accomplished at insults. Insulting thoughts transcribed on paper or written in a forum become public expressions rather than private thoughts?
If you wish to differ in opinion, you will find many folks here that will debate facts to support their position - and do so Very well. If you see a comment you don't like, find facts from reliable sources to use for your thesis. Opinions are less valuable unless supported by a foundation of referencable fact.
Why did the last piece of the film about P-51s shooting down Me 262s include some gun camera footage of the destruction of a V-1? TV documentary producers forever show film out of time or context like this and it really grinds my gears 
Considering how few Me 262s saw active service a lot were indeed shot down by their allied, piston engine, adversaries. They were far from invincible.
Cheers
Steve
Considering how few Me 262s saw active service a lot were indeed shot down by their allied, piston engine, adversaries. They were far from invincible.
Cheers
Steve
Oh, about the 262 climb rate, obviously once at speed no prop fighter comes close to the jet, one way to look at it, is that any climb at high speed, say max speed..531 too 570 mph, is a zoom climb, a vertical or near vertical climb in a 262 from dive at sea level, will get you to medium altitudes (15000/16000)(most prop jobs are between 4500 and 6500 feet after dive) feet in the blink of an eye...but you will be low on energy at top of climb, or if you want to get to 20000 to 30000 ft(at or above bomber altitude, you can start your high speed climb from a much more shallow angle, the 262 will bleed energy/speed off very, very slowly, like an actual P80a pilot told me...and as ive shown actual combat reports to demonstrate, piston engine fighters are of course poor at this, this is pretty much common knowledge, once at max speed, jets out climb there piston engine counter parts by a huuuuuuuge margin.
I dont know allot about the detail of this stuff, so correct me if im wrong, every where ive read in the past says 4000 pnds of thrust to 6000 plus HP, even 7000 Hp...aprox at 568 mph, 1 pound of thrust equals 1.8 HP or actually 2.6/2.7 HP since prop efficiency has dropped from 80% to roughly 60% at that speed. Basically piston engine fighters average just over 5 to 1 power to weight ratio, in comparison the 262 has a 2-1 power to weight ratio..now add to that a speed advantage of 160 to 210 mph at sea level and you will start to see why climbing ability of the 262 was seen as almost super natural combat reports from allied pilots, stating that the 262 could accelerate while in a vertical climb.
Another aspect of the 262 climb is to remember that the best short range interceptors (and the p 51D, about 1100 or so pounds of fuel as tested at 3410 fpm at sea level) had about 700 or 800 pounds of fuel,spitfire and 109 and had a range of 390/410 miles..(some spits had of corse extra internal tanks installed and could fly had a range of 450 or so miles) the GD 262 carried 4700 pounds of fuel, and had a range of 652 miles, so take off at 12700/13200 pnds instead of 15700 pnds, you end up with an fighter with an out standing ROC from take off too a breath tacking ROC at high speed, but having said all this prop fighters still hold the edge from brake release to lift off due the poor thrust of early jets when compared to prop fighters, especially fighters like the 109 K4 and 25 boost spitfire IX.
More than any thing, it gave the pilot the impression of being invincible as Heinrich Bär felt he was invincible while flying the 262, of course he if i remember correctly was an me 262 test pilot, so he had a huge advantage over other luftwaffe pilots .. again, if im not mistaken, he was shot down 18 times while flying on the eastern and western fronts, but was never shot down while piloting the 262 and at that point in the war the jets were heavily out numbered and i dont think there was any thing more difficult than trying to shoot down 4 engine bombers with all their def arm and amazing US pilots trying to shoot you down from take off to landing, pretty amazing.
I dont know allot about the detail of this stuff, so correct me if im wrong, every where ive read in the past says 4000 pnds of thrust to 6000 plus HP, even 7000 Hp...aprox at 568 mph, 1 pound of thrust equals 1.8 HP or actually 2.6/2.7 HP since prop efficiency has dropped from 80% to roughly 60% at that speed. Basically piston engine fighters average just over 5 to 1 power to weight ratio, in comparison the 262 has a 2-1 power to weight ratio..now add to that a speed advantage of 160 to 210 mph at sea level and you will start to see why climbing ability of the 262 was seen as almost super natural
combat reports from allied pilots, stating that the 262 could accelerate while in a vertical climb.Another aspect of the 262 climb is to remember that the best short range interceptors (and the p 51D, about 1100 or so pounds of fuel as tested at 3410 fpm at sea level) had about 700 or 800 pounds of fuel,spitfire and 109 and had a range of 390/410 miles..(some spits had of corse extra internal tanks installed and could fly had a range of 450 or so miles) the GD 262 carried 4700 pounds of fuel, and had a range of 652 miles, so take off at 12700/13200 pnds instead of 15700 pnds, you end up with an fighter with an out standing ROC from take off too a breath tacking ROC at high speed, but having said all this prop fighters still hold the edge from brake release to lift off due the poor thrust of early jets when compared to prop fighters, especially fighters like the 109 K4 and 25 boost spitfire IX.
More than any thing, it gave the pilot the impression of being invincible as Heinrich Bär felt he was invincible while flying the 262, of course he if i remember correctly was an me 262 test pilot, so he had a huge advantage over other luftwaffe pilots .. again, if im not mistaken, he was shot down 18 times while flying on the eastern and western fronts, but was never shot down while piloting the 262 and at that point in the war the jets were heavily out numbered and i dont think there was any thing more difficult than trying to shoot down 4 engine bombers with all their def arm and amazing US pilots trying to shoot you down from take off to landing, pretty amazing.
Last edited:
Okay gents I wanted to take a stab at the Me-262 VS Piston fighters topic.
Me-262:
Pros - Great Top speed, high speed roll rate, armament (air to air)
Cons - slow acceleration, jet engine detriments (throttle movement very limited, MTBF, thirsty, short legged / low sortie time), immature technology, larger turn circle than top piston fighters
P-51:
Pros - Good top speed (for a piston A/C), reliable weapons (+ long trigger time), great legs, mature technology, smaller turn circle than a 262
Cons - Not great top speed
I know there are more pro's and con's, however for the purpose of this conversation these are the ones I will touch on.
Assumptions: Me-262 has a higher "rate" of turn with a larger "turn circle" than a Mustang.
There are two types of turns (for the most part) when talking dogfighting (Basic Fighter Maneuvers or BFM in todays speak). They are energy sustaining or depleting (max performance usually up against airframe / pilot limits). The depleting is what you do to give an offender / attacker the most problem you can or get into a position to employ, and the sustained turn is when you are using patience over time to defeat your opponent.
The way to visualize this is from the God's eye view of two circles, one 20% bigger than the other. The Me-262 would be on the larger, the Mustang on the smaller. When sustaining you are holding a fairly constant airspeed while descending (most likely). If the Me262 is at it's optimum sustained airspeed would go around it's larger circle faster than the Mustang at it's optimum sustained speed.
There are both plus's and minus's to this. We use both to this day. The way it's used from the Me-262 perspective would be to go to lag on a Mustang while holding at optimum airspeed and wait until the Mustang had depleted it's hard turn portion, transitioned to it's sustained airspeed, then misalign turn circles (make the God's eye view look like two circles from the Olympics icon) which allows you to come back inside the smaller turn circle and employ. The downside to this is when the defender (Mustang in this case) watches your nose, and before you can go nose in lead he turns the fight sideways (does some sort of a split S) which moves the Me262 outside his turn circle and forces him to follow or leave. Should he follow he plays into the Mustangs strengths (lower speed maneuver advantage) and Me262s weakness (ability to accelerate or generate energy).
If I were to be employing a Me262, after having flown Me-109s or Fw-190s I would do hit and run, exactly as stated above. That would be only if I had the perfect bounce (tap in todays speak), and then would move on. As for bouncing bombers I would find the speed which allowed me to shoot effectively AND minimized my time in .50 cal hell zone. My motors wouldn't allow me to do big throttle swings due to fear of flameout or engine damage.
Another advantage the Me-262 would have is the ability to leave (as long as he didn't anchor or start the fight too slow). While it's dive Mach is similar to the previously mentioned piston fighters, it also could be attained at a much shallower angle than the piston guys. You just have to make the decision to leave BEFORE it's too late.
It is my opinion that if you were in a Me262 and anchored with a piston fighter you would much more often than not lose.
I flew F15s for many years, and fought F16s many, many times. They turn better than I did/do which required me to adjust the way I fought in order to be successful. Its a matter of knowing his and your strengths weakness's and bringing your strengths to bear on his weakness, all the while staying away from his strengths. Also realize that the Eagle and Viper don't have AOA restrictions for airflow into the engines which I suspect that the Me262 did. The Eagle has a vari ramp which controls the airflow and also provide lift.
Cheers,
Biff
Last edited:
