- Thread starter
-
- #61
A
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
acesman said:Not to imply that the Me-262 did not hold its own in air combat, but the Luftwaffe after 1943 was so grossly outnumbered that no individual skill, technology or bravery could reverse the outcome. Me-262's were especially targeted on their takeoff or landing, if possible, and the USAAF put a premium on harassing the airfields used for jets.
delcyros said:I agree in the problem with a higher kinetic energy. While the Me-262 was a pretty stable gunplatform at high speeds (allowing an increasement of up to six (!) MK 108 weapons into the nose or a BK 5 or MK 214 gun on a few planes), it would clearly suffer in it´s stability by firing three MK 103. However, all guns are in the nose, beeing close to the energy axes, this would greatly reduce the effects of the heavy recoil. But the plane still sufferd from heavy blinding. That´s why it always could fire a very few rounds per attack pass, only. (fine aiming becomes impossible with the blinding of four MK 108) In this way I see problems with both weapons making prolonged aiming very difficult for the pilot. While the high rof of the MK 108 would serve well for 8 seconds, the MK 103 with lower rof would serve also well in another way: The flat trajectory and the high velocity makes aiming quite easy (compared to a MK 108). The probability of hits would be much better. And the MK 103 still has it´s advantage in general prurose.
delcyros said:I simply have no sources regarding the recoil energy of different weapons. All remains estimation (for me), but I would like to see some datas, maybe You can help? Yes, it sounds silly to mount heavy guns in the upper part of the nose. The nose gear took a great deal of space and because of the nose geometry I doubt that four MK 108 could be mounted on the botton, MG 151 and MK 103 are more unprobable because of their longer barrels. Maybe two single MK 108, mounted on each side of the gear are possible? The soviets have tried to bring two 23 mm Shvak and a single 37 mm gun into the nose of their Suchoi -"Me-262"-modification. It proved to be a very stable gun platform, but I don´t know about the recoil energy of these weapons, too.
Short bursts are not unlethal, but remains for experienced pilots, exclusively. Most german Experten preferred a heavy cannon armement over smaller calibres with higher rof.
delcyros said:
Thanks for the informations. After what I have read, the Fw-190 A5 / U11 had an armement of 2 engine cooling mounted MG (MG 17?), 2 MG 151/20 in the wing roots and two additional MK 103 under the outer wing. The recoil pulses made the weapon nealy useles, so only a very few Fw-190 have been refitted in this way. The total recoil energy is very close to a Me-262 (MK-103 modified), but the excentric fitting in the outer wings rendered the Fw-190 weapons nearly useless. Would it be different if the recoil energy pulses are located closer to the energy axes as in a Me-262?
There were a few Me-262 equipped with even heavier weapons, like single BK 5 and MK 114. These weapons are mounted in the nose, also. They do have a comparable total recoil energy (the BK 5 a little less, the MK 114 more...) and an even worse recoil pulse. However, the Me-262 seems to be a very stable gun platform, since the main problem in this weaponry was -again- the immense blinding of such heavy weapons (beside of a tactical use). The total recoil energy of a MK 103 equipped plane would be doubled, compared to a MK-108 equipped plane. However, the energy pulse would be more concentrated, as you pointed out. I think a structural reinforment of the weapon hardpoints in the nose is necessary to deal with the forces. Thus would probably increase the weight further. (a BK 5 need a total of 96 kg reinforcemt of the nose, so between 50 and 80 kg are needed?) You made a good point in this, Lunatic.
delcyros said:25mm would be interesting. But are you sure with a ~40 g/round? Even the MG 151/15 had 72g/round (MG 151/20 ~112 g/round). The blast effects of a 40 g mine round would be minimal. 25 mm and usual cartridge length implies between 150 and 200 g/round or aren´t they?
In this way, the development of MG 213 B/20 mm could provide the best weaponry for the plane (and for all purposes). But it wasn´t avaiable in the timeframe of early-late 1945 in numbers. Even with them, the blinding of nose mounted guns (in the Me-262 way) would still make prolonged aiming difficult. However, the nose design looks really good
delcyros said:HE makes more sense, yes.
Steel is not that a bad metal for durable purposes (look at the MiG-15). The main problem was -of course- the reliability of the jet engine. Otherwise the Me-262 was quite easy to operate. The numbers deployed works in general favour for the Me-262 up to late 1945. The experience of jet tactics, which have been developed in 1945 would make the first encounters jet vs. jet probably a bad surprise for the P-80 pilots. But as I told above, surely more and more jet vs. jet combats would result in US victories. In general a single engined jet has an advantage over a twin engined, esspecially if they field the same rate of thrust. Later jet engines, like Jumo-004 D (940 kp thrust, serial production in march 1945) or Jumo-004 E (1000 kp thrust, ability to field afterburner (1200 kp thrust with ab)- tested in february 45, runs 50 and 100 hours several times under laboratory conditions, serial production aprroved in late april 1945)and more swept back wings (35 degrees like HG-II) could improve the performance of this jet greatly in comparison to P-80 or P-84. But it remains a first class bomber interceptor and not a dogfighter...
RG_Lunatic said:delcyros said:HE makes more sense, yes.
Steel is not that a bad metal for durable purposes (look at the MiG-15). The main problem was -of course- the reliability of the jet engine. Otherwise the Me-262 was quite easy to operate. The numbers deployed works in general favour for the Me-262 up to late 1945. The experience of jet tactics, which have been developed in 1945 would make the first encounters jet vs. jet probably a bad surprise for the P-80 pilots. But as I told above, surely more and more jet vs. jet combats would result in US victories. In general a single engined jet has an advantage over a twin engined, esspecially if they field the same rate of thrust. Later jet engines, like Jumo-004 D (940 kp thrust, serial production in march 1945) or Jumo-004 E (1000 kp thrust, ability to field afterburner (1200 kp thrust with ab)- tested in february 45, runs 50 and 100 hours several times under laboratory conditions, serial production aprroved in late april 1945)and more swept back wings (35 degrees like HG-II) could improve the performance of this jet greatly in comparison to P-80 or P-84. But it remains a first class bomber interceptor and not a dogfighter...
Jet engine tests in the lab were nortoriously non-reflective of production engines. Those engines are built by hand by the most experianced engineers and craftsmen, with increadible attention to every detail. Also, stresses on the Bench do not reflect real life. Look at the R2800, three of them on the bench ran for 11 strait days at about 3500 HP power output without a single part failing - but that is hardly reflective of what real-world experiance would be if trying to sustain such power output.
=S=
Lunatic