Me262 vs. P-80 (1 Viewer)

P-80 v Me-262?

  • Total voters
    155

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


I don't know how you could make that assumption as during combat you're not changing power settings on a jet as you would on a piston engine aircraft. Both aircraft were limited to about 5 minutes at 100% RPM.

The "spring 1945" Me 262s were probably more reliable than the P-80s being produced at the same time.
 
Last edited:
My understanding is that the metallurgy on the 262 was more dicey and the engines, more temperamental. The Jumo was a more efficient design but the metals weren't developed yet to handle the stresses and the Whittle design was more stable.
 
aurora-7 said:
My understanding is that the metallurgy on the 262 was more dicey and the engines, more temperamental. The Jumo was a more efficient design but the metals weren't developed yet to handle the stresses and the Whittle design was more stable.
Click to expand...
You're right about the material but wrong about the reliability. The Jumos being fielded during the spring of 45 was still lasting longer than the early J33s going into the P-80s (the Jumo had a 50 hour TBO). The P-80 had numerous fuel control problems that killed test pilot Milo Burchan and later Richard Bong. I don't know what type of "stress" you're saying the Jumo couldn't handle as both engines, like all turbines and especially those of that period were limited in how long they could be operated at max. power. I suggest reading "Arrow to the Future," the Me 262 was a lot more reliable than you think.
 
Last edited:
Perhaps.

I have the P-80 on my mind because of a group build I'll be doing in the modeling section. In my research I came across the fuel pump issue that killed Bong.

I thought I had heard about issues of turbine blades coming apart in the Jumos if care was not taken in acceleration with them.

I know the 262s were lethal in combat and it's probably just wishful thinking on my part -don't have a 262 kit -yet.
 
aurora-7 said:
I thought I had heard about issues of turbine blades coming apart in the Jumos if care was not taken in acceleration with them.
Click to expand...
Not really true. There's more of a chance of the engine flaming out due to the unstability of the fuel control. The early J33 had the same problem too. A J33 threw its turbine disk during March 1945 over the city of Lancaster just south of Edwards AFB, it almost killed test pilot Tony LeVier.
 
How about the fuel quality? I heard that was an issue for the 262 as well that could cause flame
outs. Not an aircraft design problem but a logistics one for maintenance.

I'm essentially banking on end of the war conditions for the Luftwaffe working to my advantage.
 

Not really true as well - a turbine engine will burn almost anything flammable. 262s used a diesel fuel and I suspect it would have made that much of a difference as opposed to the fuel that US jets "would have" used, aside from leaving a lot of soot on the turbine blades.

Bottom line, there were little difference between the P-80 and Me 262. The P-80 of May 1945 still had many bugs to be worked out of it when compared to the last of the Me 262s being produced. I believe had the war progressed both aircraft would have seen improvement and both would have had advantages and disadvantages in combat.
 
Last edited:
FLYBOYJ said:
The "spring 1945" Me 262s were probably more reliable than the P-80s being produced at the same time.
Click to expand...
I would think this is true in that the P-80 was much less developed at that time and still in the infant failure mode. It probably needed a good six months of war time development to stabilize. I am not sure the J-33 was a big contributor to this deficiency compared to the Me-262.

FLYBOYJ said:
You're right about the material but wrong about the reliability. The Jumos being fielded during the spring of 45 was still lasting longer than the early J33s going into the P-80s (the Jumo had a 50 hour TBO).
Click to expand...

From a mission reliability standpoint, the engine of a two engined aircraft must have significantly better MTBF (double?) than a single engine aircraft to perform equally.

The P-80 had numerous fuel control problems that killed test pilot Milo Burchan and later Richard Bong.
Click to expand...

I believe these problems were fuel pump problems and were not due to engine failure. I believe Bong failed to follow instructed procedure.

I don't know what type of "stress" you're saying the Jumo couldn't handle as both engines, like all turbines and especially those of that period were limited in how long they could be operated at max. power.
Click to expand...

I think all the early jets were problematic in operation. I also believe limited operation time in max is still common. There was certainly a time limitation on the amazingly reliable TF-33s used in the C-141. There was thermal expansion concern for the turbine blades if max takeoff rated thrust (TRT) was maintained too long.
 
davparlr said:
From a mission reliability standpoint, the engine of a two engined aircraft must have significantly better MTBF (double?) than a single engine aircraft to perform equally.
Click to expand...
In later times that was a definite consideration, but during initial 262 deployment i think it was just a matter of getting the thing to work.
davparlr said:
I believe these problems were fuel pump problems and were not due to engine failure. I believe Bong failed to follow instructed procedure.
Click to expand...
Actually you are correct about the fuel pump failure. Bong forgot to switch on a back up boost pump. Around 1989 I interviewed Tony LeVier for a small newspaper I was writing for part time. Tony told me he never had a chance to brief Bong and felt if he did he would have never been killed. Here's some info on the pump.

"The engine was fitted with a throttle to control fuel (the engine was fitted with a control valve that could not be called a fuel control in the modern sense of the term), a barometric to compensate for altitude changes, and a governor to prevent over speed. Early P-80A models initially had engines fitted with a simple single stage fuel pump with no engine-driven back-up fuel pump. These aircraft had an electrically driven emergency fuel pump fitted, a Pesco I-16 pump, and it was up to the pilot to activate this pump in case of main pump failure or during critical flight conditions. To provide the high fuel pressure necessary to run the jet engine meant that the electric motor driving this pump drew extremely high current. I was told that this was the same type of motor used in propeller feathering systems. Later model J33 engines would be fitted with a dual fuel pump; one side being the normal fuel pump and the other side the emergency fuel pump. There was a simple flapper valve installed in the line between the two pumps and it was actuated by fuel pressure differential. The main pump was set a few pounds above the emergency pump and when the emergency fuel pump pressure became greater, the flow would automatically change. This installation removed the I-16 pump and its electrical complexities from the aircraft"


Stories Essays 3


Yep!
 
FLYBOYJ said:
In later times that was a definite consideration, but during initial 262 deployment i think it was just a matter of getting the thing to work.
Click to expand...
I have read/heard that the Jumo engine was difficult to start but I suspect all of the early jet engines were temperamental. For WWII, jet engine operations was really a learning experience.

As for my opinion of the two aircraft, the Me-262 was a superb aircraft and very impressive for an initial combat jet (look how poorly the P-59 and earlier meteor performed). It was limited in growth as a fighter due to the pod engine mountings that would always impede its aerodynamic performance. The P-80 was a later design and the large fuselage mounted engine would point to later fighter designs (and would seemingly fly forever as the T-33). I think the performance of the two were similar enough (along with the Vampire, and maybe later Meteors) so that had the war continued it would be as before, pilot performance, superior manufacturing and attrition would win out.
 
the lancaster kicks ass said:
but the pilots in the 262s would have more combat experience..........
Click to expand...

Perhaps, perhaps...before March 1944. when the P-51 finally got into the fight, they were not there to escort bombers, although thats what the bomber crews were told. they were there to destroy the German Air Force. A task they did quite nicely. Withe the P-80 having just taken its first flight barely 2 months prior in January 1944. With Hitlers constant meddling with the Me-262 (Its a fighter, its a bomber, its a fighter/Bomber)she didn't come on full force until after D-Day...and if it had greater success with greater numbers, the P-80 would have been rushed into service with experienced allied combat pilots. the Brits already had their jet, which i think the Whittle engine was far superior than the German turbine design at the time; that tended to fly apart because it needed to be overhauled every 25-30 hours due to the lack of proper alloys for its turbine disks. The RAF would have used and continued to produce its jets until the P-80 arrived. by that late time, August-October 1944, the best German Pilots were either KIA or grounded due to lack of fuel, parts and aircraft. The Me-262 would have stood little chance against the Gloster Meteor, let alone the P-80!
 

I think you need to do a little homework!!!

The first Me 262s entered service with Erprobungskommando 262 as a test unit and first saw combat in July 1944. Although the first units to receive the aircraft were basically "test fighter bomber units" the 262 did take on allied fighter and bombers. Have you ever heard of "Kommando Nowotny?" That unit was the first real 262 operational squadron and they started flying during the summer of 1944. JG-7 was formed in January 1945 and was the first true fighter 262 fighter wing, there were pilots available to fly the aircraft and the best of them flew with JV44.

With regards to the Meteor - 616 Squadron operated the aircraft during the late spring of 1945. Neither the F.1 or F.3 (which were Welland powered and entered service in December 1944) could match the 262.

The P-80 of April 1945 was barely combat ready but probably came close to matching the 262 in some performance parameters. It wasn't until late model P-80As and early P-80Bs came rolling off the production line where the USAAF had a combat ready jet fighter and even then there were still reliability issues with the aircraft and no "rushing it into production" was going to change anything. A total of only 83 P-80s had been delivered by the end of July 1945 (and that was still at a priority production rate), hardly enough to make a difference had the war progressed.

All three jets had reliability problems with regards to their engines and depending on how they were operated could last as little as 25 hours and as many as 100. We could open up an entire thread (and probably have) on early turbine engine reliability

Hitler's meddling in the 262 actually helped in the end because many were built as Me 262 A-2a (fighter bomber version) and allowed airframes to be fielded and sometimes utilized as a fighter (KG54).
Bottom line, neither the Meteor or P-80 of early 1945 would have been able to compete with the 262. There were still experienced pilots around to fly them and although fuel was scarce they still managed to get into the air and cause damage, again I suggest a little homework and you might rethink some of your last post….
 
Last edited:
NX34DG said:
...when the P-51 finally got into the fight, they were not there to escort bombers, although thats what the bomber crews were told. they were there to destroy the German Air Force...
Click to expand...
And the Luftwaffe was there to destroy the bombers (at least that's what the German pilots were told).

But they ended up encountering the P-51s by accident.
 
FLYBOYJ said:
With regards to the Meteor - 616 Squadron operated the aircraft during the late spring of 1945. Neither the F.1 or F.3 (which were Welland powered and entered service in December 1944) could match the 262.
Click to expand...

Some F.1s were in action in July 1944 - chasing down V-1s.

Only the first few F.3s had the Wellend. The remainder had Derwent Is.
 
p-51s flying cover for the b-17s were employing 'loose escort" tactics, as opposed to "close escort". loose escort was basically flying ahead and above the bombers, not necessarily within sight and engaging the interceptors before they got within range of the bomber formations. Germans did the same thjing during the boB, but were forced to fly close escort by order of goring, due to the unsustainable losses they were suffering. There were simply too many RAF fighters in 1940 (or not enough LW fighters, depending on how you want to cut it), but in 1944 this problem did not really arise. the allies did not have a great numbers advantage in 1944, but they had fighters controlled and directed far better, and pricelessly had good endurance with their fighters. unlike the 109s in 1940, Mustangs could, and did stay with the bombers for a lot longer
 
The me 262 was the superior jet according to the US air force...the testing was done on a 1946 p80, which had some changes made to it.

Dont have much time, but the average p80a(unpainted had a top speed of 525 mph at 5000 ft, the 262 they tested it against had a true top speed of 568 mph, this speed was achieved during UK test as well, at 20200ft, during other test the 262 achieved 548 mph, just depends on the aircraft and conditions, it had better acceleration, better dive, held its speed better in a turn, ive read that once, about the turn...the were equal in climb, the p80 a wing loading of 53 ibs, and had laminar flow wings, plus carried less fuel than the 262, so once they met in combat and had burned up some fuel combined with the full leading edge slats of the 262, i beleive that the 262 should have a tighter turn, but the p80 had a peak roll of 135 degrees a second, thanks to its powered ailerons, the 262 had a peak roll of 100 or slightly higher..im sure people know about the encounter of 30 p51 and 15 me 262s, the p51 pilots stated that the 262 was faster and had a better climb rate, they also stated that the 262 had a fantastic roll rate which is usually left out on forums for some reason...the british had the Vampire 1 but could only acheive 500 mph or so and had a mach limit of around 0.76 i think. the 262 was with out questio the best jet in the world in 1945, an amazing machine, number 2 would be the Ar 234 C.

I should mention a couple interesting things, one was that there were plans to recondition the Me262 T2-711 up to US standards...that aircraft was decribed as a dented, wrinkled, puttied pile of poop(still achieved 568 mph), so i always wondered how that machine would have performed, another thing is that that me 262 was tested against the f84 and was said to have done very well against it, especially at high altitude...one of the US test pilots stated that while the me 262 was the superior aircraft whaen compared to the p80, it was Materially inferior, especially the engines, it was the same test pilot who beat a Bearcat in a mock dog fight by out climbing it while flying a p80, i forgot his name.
 
Last edited:
The true speed performance figures for the p-80A are , according to P-80 Performance Tests , are

Sea Level 510
10,000 518
20,000 520
25,000 519
30,000 515
35,000 507
40,000 495

There are some slightly different performance figures for slightly different configurations


For the vampire f1, I relied on this website de Havilland DH.100 Vampire - Fighter / Fighter-Bomber - History, Specs and Pictures - Military Aircraft . The 3100 lb rated engines were fitted from the 41st aircraft onward, yielding a top speed of 539 mph, at an unspecified altitude. prior to the 41st aircraft, f1 were fitted with an engine with 2700lb thrust. Some 244 of the MkIs were produced, so the main engine type by far was the 3100 lb rated engines

The additional 400lbs of thrust is obviously going to make a difference to performance, but it seems pretty clear that the main version of the f-1 could outperform the P-80A. Comparing the p-80C really needs to be compared to its contemporary, the Vampire F5. again the Vampire has the advantage in speed over its contemporary US counterpart.

There is a fairly acrimonious debate about the Vampire versus the Me 262 to be found here http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/vampire-vs-262-a-11516-2.html Get past the abuse and the material brought forward is actually pretty good.
 
For the Vampire I with the 2700 pnd thrust engines, the one flying during the war in Europe (may 7 45) ive read two top speeds...488 and 512 mph, i wish i knew when the 41st aircraft was delivered.

An interesting tidbit about the p80 was that 548 mph was the fastest speed achieved, that particular aircraft was the p80 chosen to enter the famous race that the me 262 didnt take part in...i can only imagine how a me 262 built by US standards would have performed, especially considering that an me 262 described as being in very poor physical condition achieved 568 mph.
 
262 was the fastest of the 1st gen jets, also the most heavily armed, but the build quality was poor and the engines suffered reliability. I have no idea on its handling in the horizontal, or even its climb or dive rates.

Another issue I think worth at least considering is the "stretchability" of a design. The first gen jets were all pretty limited with regards to engine power mostly, but also a range of other issues. Second gen of the same types were generally far more potent. compare a meteor F8 with an me 262, and the meteor is a far superior aircraft. For the germans we don't really have much information on how adaptable their designs were....the ra ra LW boys will try and tell you they were unstoppable, and yet, these designs were not stretched by the occupying powers after the war. For various reasons they were all found to have pretty severe limits on their applied technology potential.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)

Similar threads

M
  • Poll
Which one is overall better between Ta-152H and P-47M/N?
2
Replies
30
Views
7K
_PabloSniper_
  • Poll
AH-4 Apache vs black hawk
2 3 4
Replies
76
Views
15K
Thumpalumpacus
K
  • Poll
P-40F vs P-40M
Replies
1
Views
2K
mjfur
M
  • Poll
Yak3 vs Spitfire IX?
Replies
10
Views
6K
bravenest0
  • Locked
  • Poll
P-51 vs P-47
Replies
1
Views
2K
FLYBOYJ
Menu
Log in
Register