Me 262 vs. early postwar jets

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

The following information:
In December 1944 on test the 011 achieved 1333kp (2940lb) which triggered the release of production drawings, the first mass-produced engine being scheduled for May 1945.
is directly from Dr Max Bentele's autobigraphy "Engine Revolutions" page 51. Bentele was responsible for 011 development. Postwar he made a successful career in the U S engine industry.
 
This is not inconsistent with what Kay said "Altogether, the four engines had accumulated 184 hours by January 1945. Of these, 154 hours were at thrust below 800kp (1764lb) and only 3 hours of the remainder were at thrust in excess of 1,100kp (2425lb)." It is not unreasonable to believe that one of these test achieved 2940lb thrust for a short period of time. He also said "By the end of 1944 Heinkel-Hirth was forced to turn its attention prematurely towards the first pre-production engine, the 109-011 A-0, despite the fact that its speeded -up efforts had still not produced a satisfactory experimental engine." he also listed some problems that needed to be solved for a pre-production engine, the compressor assembly was still imperfect and performance was poor. Another was a re-design of the combustion chamber and a major redesign for production. As I have said, there was no evidence in the book that this significantly redesigned engine was ever run.

I do need to modify my statement that the Germany had never run an engine over 2800 lbs. It should now read over 3000 lbs, still 1000 lbs less than the J-33 just entering production and 2000 lbs less the the already satisfactory tested Nene.
 
"Neuer Triebwerkseinbau" likely refers to the new inner-wing engine installation although the speed graph claims using a Heinkel HeS 11 engine + the airframe improvements as stated in image 2
 
Eric Brown had a positive impression of the Me 262. He noted that many early jet fighters were lower in performance and made poor gun platforms.

One of the things I have noticed from accounts of post-WW2 aircraft developments in the US concerns widespread problems with availability and reliability of the engines. There were quite a few dead ends and several types that did go into service suffered appalling accident rates due to aerodynamic and/or engine problems. The F-86 seems to have been the outstanding success story in its day.
 
GrauGeist said:
The Me323 was a glider with 6 radials installed, the Me264 was a purpose-built 4 engined heavy bomber.
Click to expand...

In many ways, the Me 264 has similarities to aircraft designed to break distance records. It required a very long takeoff run and, heavily loaded, would be unable to maintain altitude with the loss of an engine. This issue, coupled with the deteriorating war situation, would have been factors in the abandonment of further development. In practice, one could expect significant losses from random engine failures on long range missions. Morover, the performance was insufficient to reliably avoid interception in the later war years.
 
NO bomber was immune from interception, including the Mosquito and Ar234.

The main issue with the Me264, was it's mainwing, which had high loading. Otherwise, with it's upgrade to the BMW 801G radials, it would have been a fairly capable bomber.

And of the three prototypes built, none ever crashed. They were all destroyed on the ground during bombing raids.
 
Last edited:
The Me-262's control forces got so high at high speed that the stick unfolded to give the pilot extra leverage.

The turn rate of the Me-262 was effectively about the same as that of the P-51D, because the P-51 could turn tighter but the Me-262 could fly around the circle faster. That is according to Maj Kit Carson, who fought a 262 that came out to strafe a PBY that was picking up some downed aircrew.

The USAAF alone shot down 175 German jets in WWII. Those are not claims but verified kills.
 
MIflyer said:
The Me-262's control forces got so high at high speed that the stick unfolded to give the pilot extra leverage.
Click to expand...
That's news to me, where did you hear that at?

All the comments I have read from pilots praised it's handling in all conditions with the exception of landing, where it's lower speeds created a sluggish response. At high speeds, it was exceptionally responsive.

Also, I'd like to know more about the "unfolding" control column.
 
"Unfolding" is slightly misleading. The feature was more properly termed "telescoping", or "extending". The stick's handle could be pulled "up", lengthening the entire control column, and gaining effective leverage, at the cost of less overall movement available in the confines of the cockpit. Since high-speed maneuvers rarely needed full stick travel, this was deemed a valid trade-off. I have heard of this feature mentioned, but never described in any detail. Poor man's flight control boost.
 


My understanding is that the joystick of the Me 262 was telescopic. At high speed the pilot could extend it to gain more leverage. This probably reduced maximum deflection a little but it wouldn't have mattered as that amount of deflection may have been beyond g limits anyway. The Me 262's roll rate is known and at high speed (400mph) it was greater or equal to the P-51B.
 
To be entirely honest, I have never heard of a telescoping feature to the Me262's control column in all the years I have studied it.
This is not to say it didn't exist, but I don't understand why it would have been needed as the Me262's controls remained responsive up to the Mach .86 threshold and even then, as the nose was tucking, reducing the throttle and pushing forward on the control column was enough to recover.

Also, how would one take the time to extend and lock in place a control column during combat?
 
Koopernic said:
My understanding is that the joystick of the Me 262 was telescopic.
Click to expand...

The problem with telescoping the joystick is that although the top of the stick has a greater range of movement, the lower part is still located between the pilot's thighs, which would restrict its upper movement. it doesn't give that much more deflection. Does anyone have any proof of this?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

C
An early Me 264
Replies
5
Views
603
tonycat77
Spitfire vs Me-109
Replies
3
Views
1K
PAT303
P
An early 'Me 209' instead of the Me 309?
2
Replies
21
Views
1K
TM06
S
Spitfire vs. Dora mass battle
2
Replies
33
Views
3K
Snautzer01
Mustang with the early Merlins
Replies
10
Views
556
Shortround6
S
Menu
Log in
Register