Me262 vs. P-80

During the first months of 1945 a number of P-80A prototypes were tested by the USAAF in Italy. The idea was to gather information on the behavior of the new fighter under combat conditions without risking an exposure to the German Luftwaffe.

After the Allied invasion of Italy and the subsequent surrender of Italy in 1943 the southern front had been relatively quiet during 1944. In February 1945 however, the German army launched a counter attack and quickly advanced south through Italy. In their advance they overran the airbase near Rome where the P-80s were stationed.

The US personal tried to evacuate all classified equipment and documents, the P-80s taking of literally minutes before the German army arrived. One of the P-80s suffered an engine failure on takeoff and had to abort. The plane was captured before the pilot could destroy it and was transferred to Rechlin where if was tested by the famous "Beute Zirkus Rosarius".

It received the code T9+YK. It was painted Dark Green RLM 71 over Yellow RLM 04. It was flown in mock combat against the Ta-152 and Me-262. In these simulations it was found superior to the Ta-152 but, except for the engine, the Me-262 was to be preferred. The Me-262 was faster and better maneuverable. After intensive testing the aircraft was transferred to the Heinkel Werke in July. There is was broken up and its construction studied.




not sure if any of this is true

Captured P-80

I never heard about this story, the only documented info of P80 in Italy is about 2 machines stationed in Puglia region (far south than Rome, let's say in the 'heel' of Italy 'boot')
I have also no historical evidence that in feb 1945 the Germans were near Rome: the front was around highway 64, between Tuscany and Emilia region(some 200km north than Rome).
It is hard to believe that the Wermacht, who had to manage the Russians at east and the main Allied offensive at west, would had been so silly to waste resources in an offensive on a secondary front like the southern front was in feb 45.

I too have never heard of anything like that.

Like many modelling sites, this was a fabricated story to entertain fellow modelers and serve as the basis for a one-off model of the P-80. Cool idea. But fantasy.

I dont even think the P80's were deployed to Italy untill the final days of the war.

.
.
.
.

.

syscom3 said:

I dont even think the P80's were deployed to Italy untill the final days of the war.

Click to expand...

The pre-production YP-80s were delivered to 1FG in January 1945 but a fatal accident grounded them.

The USAAF accepted the P-80A in February, 1945 and delivered 30 to Operational groups in US by VE Day. Re` 'Final days' you may be thinking about Bong's fatal fuel pump problem in Aug 45?

Regards,

Bill

drgondog said:

The pre-production YP-80s were delivered to 1FG in January 1944 but a fatal accident grounded them.

Click to expand...

You mean Jan. 1945 correct?

The P-80 did not fly for the first time until 8 Jan. 1944....

On 28 Jan 1945 after Major Frederic Borsodi was killed in a crash of a YP-80, all were aircraft were grounded and because of this none saw combat in WW2.

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:

You mean Jan. 1945 correct?

The P-80 did not fly for the first time until 8 Jan. 1944....

On 28 Jan 1945 after Major Frederic Borsodi was killed in a crash of a YP-80, all were aircraft were grounded and because of this none saw combat in WW2.

Click to expand...

Correct Chris, pencil 'slip' - the XP-80 actually flew in Jan 1944 (its first test flight) and YP-80 was deployed to Italy in Jan 1945 where one YP-80 crashed during operational training. I think the RAF got a couple for evaluation in Nov 1944?

Regards,

Bill

I thought the one that crashed actually crashed up in England at RAF Burtonwood and killed Major Frederic Borsodi.

you are right (again) - 1/28/45 Burtonwood during Operational training and eval. The two at Lesina were grounded at same time.

Also the original XP-80 using the J36 (licenced 2,700 lbf copy of the Goblin)
was much smaller and lighter than the following XP-80As using the I-40, though it was slower at a top speed of only around 500mph. The YP-80s had the biggest engine problems particularly with fuel pumps. The early P-80As with the J33-A-9 engine (same as the YP-80) had some flameout and reliabillity problems. (I think they would also cut out if throttled up/down too rapidly, this tended to be more common than flameouts) The fuel cap problem was a matenence issue that didn't last long. These engines were later repalced with better ones later in the A series.
see: LockheedXP80
and XP-80A

The 4 YP-80s made it to europe as said and were grounded due to the accidents. By the end of the war ther were a group of P-80As ready to enter the Pacific in the planned invasion of Japan. Of course the advent of the Atomic bomb ended the war before this could happen. Also I've read that the 2 YP-80s in the Mediterranean actually flew some operational sorties but never came in contact with enemy aircraft. (I believe this was before the grounding of P-80s due to accedidents.) see: Lockheed YP-80A Shooting Star

As for the best engine design it'd have to go to the the HeS-30 (006) axial engine. Small, light, powerful (at least as much as the 004B) and fuel efficient. It weighed under 900 lbs put out around 2000 lbs thrust on the bench (though higher thrusts were expected at speed) and had only a 2 ft diameter and 9 ft length ( .609m and 2.74m). Thats less than half the frontal area of the 32 in 004B and about 2/3 the length compared to 152 in. It would also have required less materials and had good spool-up time. It was on a fast trak of development the prototype running at full power around the same time as the 004A. It was simply the best of the class 1 engines, overall performance not matched untill the 1950s. I already know delcyros agrees on this engine. Too bad it was canceled to work on the 011 which was complex, problematic, would never enter production in time and couldn't produce projectd thrust. The RLM said that the design was excelent but they simply didn't need another class 1 engine since Jumo and BMW were "so far ahead". This prooved to be rather ironic when Jumo ran into problems in production and even more the 003 since it hadn't even reached full power by the time the HeS-30 had an it took at least another 2 years from the 1942 cancellation for the 003 to enter production. (by this thime the HeS-30 would likely be ahead of the 004 in production)

As for a jet powered Me-163, they had actually considdered Argus pulsejets when the rocket engine development was having problems. But for a realistic jet powered version I'd againturn to the HeS-30. It was small, light, and powereful enough to be practical in it and would leave room for decent fuel amounts. At 9 ft it was only half the 163's length. Though compared to the walter rocket's 3800 lbf thrust the jet would only have about half that (optimistically maby 60%) but thrust / weight would still be a decent .22 when loaded and the added duration would make up for this lack. (especially conciddering the plane's loaded weight was nearly twice its empty weight) (actually delcyros suggested this idea here too http://72.14.253.104/custom?q=cache...t=clnk&cd=3&gl=us&client=pub-4602161893446225 I'd use the Me 163C as that is the best overall varient IMHO.
we both came to the same conclusion, though I'd use the Me 163C instead of the 163D as that is the best overall varient IMHO.)
RATO/ solid rocket boosters would also help with takeoff and initial climb as seen in the Natter. Though even with the added endurance and greatly reduced dangers of operation it would still remain a point interceptor, though fuel might last long enough to eliminate the volnernable glide landings.

For the Me 163 C-0 and D (263 V1) as well as the Full blown 263 see: http://richard.ferriere.free.fr/3vues/me263_3v.jpg though I still think the C version is the best. Just look at the nose and canopy!

Everyone becomes mesmerized by those swept back wings of the 262 and the fact that it was the first of the two jets to become operational (not by years but months). Unfortunately for the Germans, that didn't translate to a viable jet fighter.

The 262 was designed for high speed runs against American bombers. That's what the 37mm cannons were for. As the Koreans (and the Russians) learned later in Korea, canons of that era, no matter what their rate of fire, wern't as suitable for dog fighting as six fast firing 50's. Canons are the rule now, but their rate of fire is light years beyond what the "rapid firing" canons of WW II were capable of.

The P-80 was simply a better combat fighter in every aspect. It was a single engine jet with the body built around the jet engine. The ME 262 had under wing placement of the two engines as found in the B52 or Boeing 7"whatevers". The under wing configuration was, to my knowledge, never used again by any subsequent jet fighter to this very day.

The swept back wings of the ME 262 were also of no advantage at the speeds these planes flew. The P-80 actually had less drag and was the faster of the two. It also performed better over 20K feet and was the more reliable and rugged of the two planes.

The reality is that the P-80 actually beats the ME 262 in every single combat category, such as speed, rate of roll, manuverability, etc. The P-80 was also an easy transition for American pilots of P-51's, P-47's and P-38's (with the exception of Dick Bong of course). At War's end, the Germans didn't have many good pilots left while top rate WW II American pilots were in abundance. Francis Gabreski, for example, was an ace with a P47and went on to be an ace with the F-86 later in Korea.

There are really two things to keep in mind. The P-80 was built by Lockeed with the help of a man named Kelly Johnson, the same Kelly Johnson who gave us the P-38, the U2 and the SR 71 Blackbird. Secondly, in actual air to air combat, the ME 262 was bested by the P-51. The Germans lost as many 262's in the air against P51's escorting the B-24's and B-17's as they did when landing or taking off or strafed while parked on the ground.

Pretty clear to me that the ME 262, while revolutionary and quite the plane, was simply no match for the P-80, straight wings and all.

You are however completely wrong Geezer.

The Me-262A-1a was both faster more maneuverable than the P-80A, esp. at high speed! During US comparative tests the Me-262 proved superior in accelleration, climb speed to the P-80.

The Me-262A-1a featured full span automatic LE slats, greatly improving the turn rate of the a/c at all speeds, esp. at high speed for this new jet however. The high AR of the Me-262's wing also meant minimal induced drag and a high L/D ratio, which means a lower loss of speed in tight turns.

As to your ridiculous argument about the engine placement, well this was of ZERO importance for these first generation jets. First of all there were no disadvantages with this configuration, only advantages, advantages such as better accessability = easier maintenance. Drag was NOT increased, the use of two engines by then meant mounting them externally was the most efficient.

Soren said:

As to your ridiculous argument about the engine placement,.

Click to expand...

And you say you are not patronizing.....

Soren said:

The Me-262A-1a featured full span automatic LE slats, greatly improving the turn rate of the a/c at all speeds, esp. at high speed for this new jet however. The high AR of the Me-262's wing also meant minimal induced drag and a high L/D ratio, which means a lower loss of speed in tight turns.

Click to expand...

I always thought that automatic LE slats were for slow speeds, not all speeds and definitely not at high speed.
As for the high AR of the 262's wing, it would certainly have a lower induced drag (but a higher parasite drag). However, higher AR wings have a lower roll rate and putting the heavy engines on the wing doesn't do you any favours on the roll rate, only helping to slow it down.
The best place for the engines is in the centre of the plane, no question and it's also causes less drag. I believe the Russians instead of copying the 262 came up with an aircraft which had two engines in the fuselage because of the reduced drag.

This bit is a guess on my part, but my guess is that the LE slats were to assist in the problem of loss of lift that happens with swept wings at slow speed. With a swept wing the airflow tends to be 'swept' to the wing tips instead of going straight over the wings. This causes a loss of lift at slow speed and one of the things that the LE slats will do is assist with the slow speed handling.
The 262 was built for speed not agility and the Germans would have found this problem out in tests, had considerable experience in LE slats and would have known how to address the problem