If the Rare Bear became a ww2 fighter.

[BiffF15]

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.

Dedalos,

This is a great place to "vet" what you know or think. I came in here and thought I was fairly knowledgeable about quite a bit of things from WW2 fighter aviation. Now after having been on here for a few years I have gained quite a bit more insight, and sharpened things I suspected or "sort of" knew.

Whether it was your intention or not to insult that is the way it comes across in your postings. I have done it unknowlingly, and found I was better off to apologize and try to clarify what I was typing. The folks on here are a fabulous data base and are outstanding for vetting what you know or think. The vast majority will debate with your opinions and supply reference, and do it in a chipper manner. Just give them a chance.

Cheers,
Biff

 

[stona]

.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

After the war the Germans cooperated closely with the Allies involved in all the various programmes. For example Dornier technicians completed a Do335 (M17, a B-6 prototype) with their French colleagues over a 25 month period post war. After all that it only flew for a total of 6 hours and 30 minutes.

The Germans also cooperated with British testing programmes. The well known pilot Eric Brown had the advantage of speaking fluent technical German which he had learnt before the war, at the behest of Ernst Udet who happened to be a family friend.

The idea that US, British or French technicians were in some way less able to look after the captured materiel than the Germans, with whom they were working, is as ridiculous as some of the other nonsense in this thread.

During the war the biggest problem for the RAF testing captured aircraft (what became the Enemy Aircraft Flight) was a lack of spares, not knowledge or ability. Aircraft captured by individual units and sometimes used as hacks were a different thing. They were often abused until they broke, if they were made flyable at all.

Cheers

Steve

 

[GrauGeist]

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

Also notice about 3/4 into the film, the Me262 in a flat spin, taking hits?

As far as Me262's dogfighting abilities, let's hear from the pilots who flew them:
Johannes Steinhoff:

"What I had to learn, was that unlike in the Me 109, I could not easily reduce power or flaps to tighten a turn, getting in behind an enemy fighter. It would not work; you could flame out the engines, or go into an unrecoverable stall, usually a flat spin. Bleeding off airspeed by pulling up into the enemy was also not as effective due to the higher speeds, but it would work. The great danger was in diving into the attack.You could rapidly build up so much airspeed the control surfaces would freeze, and bailing out would not be possible due to the external forces.
We also learned that dogfighting against these fighters sheer suicide; hit and run, close in fast, fire and get away, and the return for another pass is possible was the only feasible way to successfully engage, especially if the enemy fighters were in large numbers.
By late 1944 through the following year, it was pretty much all we had; swarms of American fighters hitting every corner of Europe. I would say that the best attack method was the ambush, but if you could dive in, close fast, sight in and fire a one to two second burst accurately, your target went down, often brilliantly."

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Also consider that you could only fly the Me 262 at 100% for 5 minutes at takeoff (8,700 +/- 200 RPM) and then for 10 minutes for "war emergency." After that the high power setting was 90% (8,400 RPM).

 

[cimmex]

Also consider that you could only fly the Me 262 at 100% for 5 minutes at takeoff (8,700 +/- 200 RPM) and then for 10 minutes for "war emergency." After that the high power setting was 90% (8,400 RPM).

Is there any fighter which can go with max power continuous?
cimmex

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Is there any fighter which can go with max power continuous?
cimmex

Not that I'm aware of...

You and I know that, I think there's many who don't...

 

[dedalos]

It was not that easy. Not all germans co operated. Eric Brown also says that several of the german mechanics were not that happy to work with him. To the point that one of them sabotaged the engine of a Ar234. It exploded while Brown was ready for take off .The guilty mechanic was sent to a prisoner camp.
He also Reports lack of manuals, documents, engines history booklets. Several of his flights were conducted without having the Official german manual
He Reports that had severe maintance problems with the 335.
Finally he confess that did not test the latest german aircraft to their full capabilities since they had not MW50 or gm1 in england.
Finally ,very often the captured german aircraft showed lower performance in us, British and soviet captivity than in german tests . Doesn t it means somethink?

PS By the way Flyboy J, is not that easy to install PROPERLY a metric screw using an anglosaxon tool...

 

[cimmex]

In case of the Me262 I think it was not easy for American mechanics. They had never worked at an axial jet engine before.
cimmex

 

[FLYBOYJ]

It was not that easy. Not all germans co operated. Eric Brown also says that several of the german mechanics were not that happy to work with him. To the point that one of them sabotaged the engine of a Ar234. It exploded while Brown was ready for take off .The guilty mechanic was sent to a prisoner camp.

Not the case with Col. Watson.

Operation Lusty - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Read Arrow to the Future by Walter Boyne. He documented Operation Lusty in detail in this book

He also Reports lack of manuals, documents, engines history booklets. Several of his flights were conducted without having the Official german manual
He Reports that had severe maintance problems with the 335.
Finally he confess that did not test the latest german aircraft to their full capabilities since they had not MW50 or gm1 in england.
Finally ,very often the captured german aircraft showed lower performance in us, British and soviet captivity than in german tests . Doesn t it means somethink?

Again, that was Brown the the British experience with these aircraft. the biggest issue was spare parts as was previously mentioned.

PS By the way Flyboy J, is not that easy to install PROPERLY a metric screw using an anglosaxon tool...

Only if you use a left handed wrench!

 

[FLYBOYJ]

In case of the Me262 I think it was not easy for American mechanics. They had never worked at an axial jet engine before.
cimmex

Nonsense - Basically it's the same, that's like saying a trained recip mechanic who worked on in-line engines couldn't work on radials.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

In case of the Me262 I think it was not easy for American mechanics. They had never worked at an axial jet engine before.
cimmex

Tell me - what part of performing maintenance you think would be harder?

 

[GrauGeist]

Finally ,very often the captured german aircraft showed lower performance in us, British and soviet captivity than in german tests . Doesn t it means somethink?

Very few captured Axis aircraft were "factory fresh" and in some cases, war weary. It will be difficult to get exacting results from such aircraft.
The Allied test pilots also had to famiarize themselves with the idiocyncracies of the Axis aircraft just as much as Axis pilots had to take some time to learn the nuances of captured Allied aircraft.

PS By the way Flyboy J, is not that easy to install PROPERLY a metric screw using an anglosaxon tool...

I had to laugh a little at this comment...

This may come as a total surprise, but mechanics know the difference between a 13mm bolthead and a 1/2" bolthead. Metric tools weren't that difficult to obtain or use back then.

I had no difficulties working on my 1966 VW bug with a Type I 1.3L engine or my 1979 BMW 320i (E21) with a 2.0L M10 engine.

 

[GrauGeist]

In case of the Me262 I think it was not easy for American mechanics. They had never worked at an axial jet engine before.
cimmex

The Americans had been working on domestic turbojet engines: General Electric J31 and the Allison J33

So there wasn't any mystery or earth shaking revelations causing mass panic when the Me262's engine cowls were raised for the first time

 

[drgondog]

Assumptions: Me-262 has a higher "rate" of turn with a larger "turn circle" than a Mustang.

Biff - this assumption isn't true. The Me 262 has a higher Velocity than the Mustang in a sustained turn, say at 4G, but the slower Mustang has so much smaller turn Radius that it will complete a 360 turn much faster, and therefore keep the 262 in the pipper at will. Also the 51 pilots were 100% using Berger type G suits.

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.

Agreed - but because the G limits on the pilot are more likely to dictate the ability to sustain the turn, the Mustang (or Spit or Tempest or Jug) pilot is able to turn at a higher G than the 262 pilot. Someone can step in and tell me that the 262 pilots wore G suits and that would kill my argument here.

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.

If you put both aircraft in sustained 3G turn at SL (one with G suit and one without), then at 3G and a W/L of 60 at GW =14000, and CLmax of 1.6 (w/o compressor stall), the Me 262 Velocity around the circle is about 210mph or 308fps. The Mustang (slowest rate of turn compared to Spit and Tempest) at 3G with a WL of 41 at GW=9600 and a CLmax of 1.4 is moving at 273fps = 186mph and get around the 771 ft radius circle in 13% LESS time than the 262 around its 982 ft radius circle..

At 6.6G the Me 262 V= 297mph and the P-51 is at 263mph but the turn Rate for the same diameter circles as at 3G is about 13%less for the 262 than for the P-51 at 6.6G - but the P-51 has a.) reached max Limit load for 9600 pounds GW whereas the 262 still has some room - if the pilot and a/c can handle it... The 51 will rapidly lose energy and airspeed faster than the 262. Somewhwere between 4g and 7g a 262 pilot w/o G suit will have a problem but the 51 will run out of sustained energy in that range. .

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 51's ability to sustain the turn at a constant airspeed and altitude and smaller radius is limited to about 180-200 mph even though its Corner Velocity is about 273-276mph at 6.6G. I honestly don't know what the 262 capability is given the issues with the engines and AoA sustenance in a higher G turn. With engines of today at 2000 pounds each thrust is should be able to get up to 4G perhaps with no compressor stall issues of the Jumo and it will match the turn RATE of the 51 at 3G while traveling faster along the 984x2x3.14ft diameter circle. Any sustained turn above 4G will be advantage Me 262 while the 51 is trucking at 3G

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.

The ones that lived past May 1945 mostly chose this approach.

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.

Agreed - and it did have perhaps .02-.04M advantage over the 51/47 but perhaps zero edge vs Spit.

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.

Another case of don't get target fixated - and become a target of the unseen foe. Nothing a 262 does to stay in a maneuvering fight against a piston engine fighter in 1945 can be a good thing. I would suspect that using speed advantage to go vertical is the best of all options.

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

Good perspective Biff. Thanks for taking the time.

 

[Shortround6]

Very few captured Axis aircraft were "factory fresh" and in some cases, war weary. It will be difficult to get exacting results from such aircraft.
The Allied test pilots also had to famiarize themselves with the idiocyncracies of the Axis aircraft just as much as Axis pilots had to take some time to learn the nuances of captured Allied aircraft.


I had to laugh a little at this comment...

This may come as a total surprise, but mechanics know the difference between a 13mm bolthead and a 1/2" bolthead. Metric tools weren't that difficult to obtain or use back then.

I had no difficulties working on my 1966 VW bug with a Type I 1.3L engine or my 1979 BMW 320i (E21) with a 2.0L E21 engine.

A few of them actually do interchange, 7/16 and 11mm works pretty good. And for those with Whitworth tools there are a few more happy coincidences.

You are much more likely to get into problems with thread diameters and pitches than the size of the bolt heads. 6 point sockets can solve a few points too.

I mean it's not like metric threads are left hand or something else really weird.

 

[GrauGeist]

A few of them actually do interchange, 7/16 and 11mm works pretty good. And for those with Whitworth tools there are a few more happy coincidences.

You are much more likely to get into problems with thread diameters and pitches than the size of the bolt heads. 6 point sockets can solve a few points too.

I mean it's not like metric threads are left hand or something else really weird.

lol...yep, classic one is the M8-1.0 versus 5/16-18 bolt...which a 1/2" or 13mm wrench will fit the M8 nicely. Other SAE wrenches that fit metric boltheads are 3/8" (10mm), 9/16" (14mm) and so on...

What it boils down to, is that American mechanics aren't stupid and if they learned how to build and maintain the warplanes in their charge, then it wouldn't be all that difficult to learn the ins and outs of the Luftwaffe aircraft.

I also suspect that when the Allies overtook a Luftwaffe airbase or maintainance facility, they had access to the tools, manuals, supplies and R&R equipment as well.

Or they could have waited for any Thursday and the Snap-On tool truck would stop by

 

[GregP]

We work on SAE, metric, and Whitworth at the Planes of Fame, and try to stick with SAE when possible. But the Merlins are British standard (Whitworth) and the German and Japanese planes have metric fasteners that have not been changed out for SAE items as yet. Eventually, they will be all SAE ... except for the engines. You're pretty much stuck with what the original design used in engines as there is not sufficient material to bore holes bigger in most cases.

But with airframes, conversion is simple with the possible exception of fitted, tapered wings mount bolts. These are specific to a particular hole and are NOT interchangeable. As long as you KNOW this, it is simple, If you donlt a puzzle is created and a lot of the possible combinations must be tried to attain reassembly. The moral is to investigate any aircraft not produced here in the USA before throwing the hardware into a box during disassembly. After you make the mistake once, you won't again, I guarantee it! That assume YOU have to figure it out when you screw up.

Maybe it's easy for me since I competed on Japanese, Spanish, and Italian motorcycles for 20 years. They were ALL metric and I rapidly got used to metric fasteners. so moving to other standards isn't daunting in the least ... go get a new set of wrechs and sockets and you're most of the way there.

 

[cimmex]

Tell me - what part of performing maintenance you think would be harder?

variable nozzle, Riedel- Starter, to name only two things the J31 J33 did not have…

 

[GrauGeist]

The Allies (British, French, Russian and American) all were able to operate and maintain captured German jets by using the German texts, personnel and pilots for orientation. It's not that hard to figure out.

Conversely, the Germans were able to repair, operate and evaluate captured Allied aircraft without benefit of manuals or advisers.

 

[Shortround6]

variable nozzle, Riedel- Starter, to name only two things the J31 J33 did not have…

Yep, that would totally baffle any and all US aircraft engine mechanics.