Me 262 deutsch marine prototype

[riacrato]

The Me 262 development history is well documented even the pure paper projects. I have never seen anything that would resemble an attempt at a carrier borne fighter. Moreover, there were no serious plans for a new carrier in 1944 that I knew of and the technical feasibility seems rather low.

So I still say this is a pure fantasy project.

 

[parsifal]

I dont think anyone here is now seriously suggesting that Me 262s were ever projected or designed for carrier work. I seem to recall Hitler being sceptical that cartriers could survive into the age of jets and guided rockets, which suggests to me that Hitler, and presumably the Germans as a whole, were sceptical of Jet technologies ever being taken aboeard carriers. Perhaps this had something to do with the German experiences with their early catapult systems, which are said to have suffered numerous difficulties. Perhaps the Germans were simply extrapolating their own experiences with carrier technologies and drawing the conclusion that carriers could not embark jets. This may have been true for their own carrier, but I would need to know a lot more about their catapults and arresting gear before any conclusions could be drawn on this issue.

But I still dont see it as being technically impossible for the 262 to get airborne from a carrier. Given that the Brits were abale to make the first deck landings on the Centaur by December '35, using Vampire jets, I dont see it as being too far fetched to extrapolate and say it would be possible for the 262 to also undertake such evolution. It would depend a lot on the characteristics of the unfinished Graf Zeppelin in many respects, but I dont see any reall prevention on the part of the 262 design

 

[davebender]

Possible perhaps but an unlikely choice. Assuming Germany remains intact when the war ends there would probably be a CV variant of the Ta-183 fighter.

The Ta-183 had a lower wing loading and a superior power to weight ratio. It's also smaller. Those characteristics result in an aircraft much more suitable for CV operations.

 

[mikewint]

it was my understanding that the kreigsmarine had kustenflieger units for coastal and sea patrol. the pilots were luftwaffe but were not the planes under the tactical command of the kreigsmarine?
Bordfliegerstaffeln units were ship based and surely would have been under the captains command.
bluring the lines even further the luftwaffe had ships such as the Togo a floating HQ for night fighters in the eastern sea.
call it what you will but it sure seems like naval aviation
as to the 262 as a carrier-based plane, the germans had an almost unmatched way to solve problems though some of these way were just to "hit it over the head with a bigger and biger club". if the enemy is killing your tanks just make them bigger and bigger until you have the 100 ton MAUS. the turbine engines on the 262 were simply to slow for carrier operations. even on land the 262s had to have prop cover to take off and land, but, modify those engines...
how about the Do 335 arrow it was almost as fast as the 262 and quite a bit faster than the p-51s

 

[Shortround6]

When considering if a plane is really suitable for carrier use the landing and take off speeds need to be considered.
While catapults can help with take off the heavier an aircraft is the greater trouble a given catapult has. The catapult WILL get the plane clear of the deck but if the plane has not achieved flying speed the plane impacts the water just in front of the carrier and is usually run down by it.
Carrier flight decks usually were built to handle a certain impact load. Landing significantly heavier aircraft was not a good idea. this is not just the arrester wire system but the strength of the deck itself. many allied carrier planes hit the deck with the equivalent of 6-10mph ? vertical speed. Imagine a few hundred landings as being the equivalent of a a 3-4 ton truck hitting a wall at 6mph a few hundred times. Now change to a 6 ton truck at the same speed and hit the wall a few hundred times. Larger, heavier aircraft require heavier decks.

 

[davebender]

You are comparing an experimental vehicle with a mass production vehicle. That doesn't work. The 100 ton Maus never got past the prototype stage. Neither did the American 95 ton T28.

 

[mikewint]

Dave, that is true but the germans seemed to have a way of mass producing those prototypes no matter how unsuited they were to the real world of battle/war. the tiger I was unsuited to rail travel and most bridges yet the germans went even more massive with the tiger II with engines and transmissions that could barely move it. most were abandoned by their crews after they broke down than were ever "killed" by the shermans
the 262 was a marvelous achievement but without proper metals to make the turbine blades you had an engine that need replacement every 10 -20 hours that's a poor combat aircraft. though there are two engines i don't think you could land one with only one engine and that off center thrust.
with all its problems the 262 could have made the difference in the air war and its problems were enginering problems which could have been solved eventually

 

[Shortround6]

the 262 was a marvelous achievement but without proper metals to make the turbine blades you had an engine that need replacement every 10 -20 hours that's a poor combat aircraft. though there are two engines i don't think you could land one with only one engine and that off center thrust.

You could, see: http://www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com/Images/Me262/ME262WendeL.pdf

Item # 12.

of course an approach speed of 260kph pretty much rules out single engine carrier landing.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

the 262 was a marvelous achievement but without proper metals to make the turbine blades you had an engine that need replacement every 10 -20 hours that's a poor combat aircraft. though there are two engines i don't think you could land one with only one engine and that off center thrust.

That 10 - 20 hour lifetime was typical for all turbine engines of the period. What made this situation dangerous is you didn't know when the failure would occur and most failures on early turbine engines were catastrophic. Some recips of the period only lasted 50 hours in combat but usually gave signs that they were failing (low manifold pressures, not making RPM at certain power settings, backfiring when reducing power, etc.). Additionally the operators set manditory time for overhauls.

Off center thrust could easily be flown with proper training and technique, providing the good engine doesn't crap when you need it the most.

 

[davebender]

the tiger I was unsuited to rail travel and most bridges yet the germans went even more massive with the tiger II

Limited production vehicles designed for breaking through tougher then normal defenses. Tiger tanks served the same purpose as the U.S. M4A3E3 "Jumbo" and Soviet KV series, which were also produced in small numbers relative to overall tank production.

 

[Waynos]

That 10 - 20 hour lifetime was typical for all turbine engines of the period.

But thats not right is it, FBJ? According to the website enginehistory.org (quoted for convenience) "The Rolls-Royce Welland entered service with the RAF Meteor Mk.1 jet fighters EE211-229 and Meteor Mk.3/EE230-244. The first of these Meteors was delivered to No.616 Squadron RAF in May 1944, equipped with 1,600 lb thrust engines rated at180-hours between overhauls".

 

[mikewint]

Davebender, i do not want to get off the subject since this is an aviation forum but the tiger I tank was limited production only because it took 350,000 man hours to assemble one and cost 250,000 reichmarks per tank. total production was a bit over 1400 to the shermans 40,000 and something like 50,000 T-34s. i have no exact numer but i'd bet a lot more tigers were lost to mechanical/fuel/crashes than to enemy action
as to turbines, i recall reading somewhere that the blades would stretch due to heat and the high temps. by 1943 or so german manufacturing was begining to suffer from shortages of raw materials so they "made due" with what they had, the result was inferior performance.
i guessed that the 262 could fly with one engine, just like the p-38s but lots of planes were lost when one engine suddenly failed and the pilot did not react quickly enough.
the 262 was a tremendous advance and could have turned the war IF it had been developed properly, AND as a fighter

 

[Erich]

the Kriegsmarine never considered the jet for any of it's purposes as during the era of 44-45 it was shrinking fast there was nothing the jet could fit in to their means except to say for the KM's own survival the only ships worth mentioning in 44-45 that were killing anything Allied were still the U-Boots and the Schnellboot arm. the heavy units were used for blasting the Soviets back to their own country as they invaded in the Baltic

 

[GrauGeist]

...i guessed that the 262 could fly with one engine, just like the p-38s but lots of planes were lost when one engine suddenly failed and the pilot did not react quickly enough...

The '262 was flyable with a single engine, but was very unstable at speeds under 190mph, and this would make for an extremely dangerous carrier landing attempt.


But I think the bottom line here, is that even in the far, remote chance, that the Me262 was considered as a carrier based naval fighter, it simply wouldn't work. The negatives far outweighed any advantages.

The Me262 was NOT a fighter in the traditional sense and would not be an asset to protect it's carrier or other assets attached to the fleet. It wasn't a dog fighter, and lacked the ability to effectively defend itself in a turning fight. The Me262 was more of an interceptor or "heavy fighter" than anything.

If there were any existing jet in the Luftwaffe inventory that would be a possible candidate, I would say (and this is really reaching) that the He280 would have been a better candidate, simply because it was capable (and did prove itself) of dogfighting as well as being 3 tons lighter @ max. takeoff weight. But like the Me262, it needed more room for takeoff than the Graf Zepplin's deck could afford.

The maintenance on the machines would have been time material consuming in an environement that demands constant air-worthiness/air-readiness.

And considering how unreliable the jet aircraft were at the time, I would suggest that a navalized version of the Fw190 (perhaps an A-8) would have been a better successor to the Bf109, plus alot more practical and economic than any jet of that time period (now how about this as a topic for a thread?).

Don't get me wrong, I have been a huge fan of the Me262 since I was a kid (this translates into a real long time) and I'd think it would be cool to have seen something like that.

 

[davebender]

tiger I tank was limited production only because it took 350,000 man hours to assemble one and cost 250,000 reichmarks per tank. total production was a bit over 1400 to the shermans 40,000 and something like 50,000 T-34s.

~250. Sherman Jumbo Assault Tank.
1,361. Tiger I Heavy Tank.
5,219. KV1 Heavy Tank.
Now we are comparing apples with apples.

Taking the comparison further....
569 x Tiger II heavy tanks produced during the final year of WWII.
3,854 x IS II heavy tanks produced during WWII. Plus another 2,311 x IS III tanks after WWII ended.

It appears to me the Tiger tank series fell out of favor once the 45 ton Panther tank was available in quantity. The Soviets took a different approach, producing heavy tanks in large numbers throughout the 1950s.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

But thats not right is it, FBJ? According to the website enginehistory.org (quoted for convenience) "The Rolls-Royce Welland entered service with the RAF Meteor Mk.1 jet fighters EE211-229 and Meteor Mk.3/EE230-244. The first of these Meteors was delivered to No.616 Squadron RAF in May 1944, equipped with 1,600 lb thrust engines rated at180-hours between overhauls".

Initially I believe the Welland was given a guesstimate of 20 hours and that was later raised. The I-40 and later J-33 were also around 20 hours and later raised, however....

"Rated" I challenge you to find out how long they really lasted on the average.....

 

[FLYBOYJ]

i guessed that the 262 could fly with one engine, just like the p-38s but lots of planes were lost when one engine suddenly failed and the pilot did not react quickly enough.

The time that occurred most was during take off and eventually pilots were trained to quickly recognize an engine out and respond accordingly. In some situations it would be easier to deal with in the Me 262 as you didn't have to feather or deal with torque.

 

[Colin1]

One of the problems I understand with the Me262 at take-off
was having the zwiebel* detach itself from its mountings and completely block off the exhaust end of the engine nacelle. As I recall, the sudden asymmetric drag coupled with one remaining engine that was now trying to do the work of two and was sluggish to spool anyway, gave the pilot next to zero opportunity to do anything about his predicament.

*zwiebel - the German word for onion

 

[Waynos]

Initially I believe the Welland was given a guesstimate of 20 hours and that was later raised. The I-40 and later J-33 were also around 20 hours and later raised, however....

"Rated" I challenge you to find out how long they really lasted on the average.....

Well, I'll search through my resources if you will too, to support the 20ish hours figure of course

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Well, I'll search through my resources if you will too, to support the 20ish hours figure of course

I think you'll find that the Wellend was eventually replaced by the Derwent because of reliability problems....