P-51 Mustang Vs. Me 262

personally after reading and re-reading and interviewing Me 262 pilots the prestn jet at the time was not enough even in the hands of an experten. The only thing going for it was it's speed and that is by surprise from the rear. the jet and according to German LW vets as well as many Us STang pilots was thus : the jet could not turn on a dime and that was it's doom in the air. poor fuel reserves crappy and literally damned no Flak defense to keep Mustangs from shooting down the 262 upon landing. back to earlier sentance the jets turning radius was way to wide and large allowing many P-51 and P-47 pilots to get inside and nail the jet to destruction. now if the newer streamlined 262 with inline fuel cells would of been in service then a possibility it could of been on par, still does not add as a bonus it's plaging wide circle though ......,would of been interesting had there been enough 262's to equal the US 8th AF escort might in 45.

E ~

drgondog said:

Fast forward to Korea - the Mustang still wins over the MiG 15 - right? Same criteria.

Click to expand...

The P-51 did have some early success in Korea, but the jets eventually overcame it, and It pretty much spent the remainder of the war doing ground attack.

Erich said:

...would have been interesting had there been enough 262s to equal the US 8th AF escort might in 45

Click to expand...

With numerical parity
the P-51 escort would have been spectators to massacre, the Me262 had no reason to get involved with a P-51; the same parity would have reduced the effectiveness of P-51 tactics who would be effectively bystanding whilst their 'mark' zipped past them and tore up a bomber.

My entire focus on calling the Mustang superior was the maturity of the design versus that of the 262. The concept and potential of the 262 was far more substantial than that of the P51. Like Eric noted, the only real benefit you have in the 262 is speed. After that, everything goes the P51's way.

Keep in mind, about half the losses (in WW2 aircraft) were caused by operational and not combat events.

the 262 pilots at first were ordered not to engage the US escorts but that changed as conditions upon surprise permitted in 45.....

remember gents the 262 units never had upwards high flying escorts in their favor only a dismal JG 54 and JV 44 Fw 190 help when landing back to base and even then they did such a muck up job the jets were still shot down almost at will.

beaupower32 said:

The P-51 did have some early success in Korea, but the jets eventually overcame it, and It pretty much spent the remainder of the war doing ground attack.

Click to expand...

BeauP - a couple of MiGs were miraculously shot down by 51's and one (?) Corsair. In each case it was a fleeting golden B-B on a 90 degree deflection shot after being caught on the deck in fighter bomber mode.

It wasn't the same scenario as WWII - I just used it as an illustration of late piston fighter in hopelsss situations where the attacker had all of the options.

Gimme the legs and numbers over high speed, powerful armament, short range, failure prone engines, and poor mass production capability.

Clay_Allison said:

Gimme the legs and numbers over high speed, powerful armament, short range, failure prone engines, and poor mass production capability.

Click to expand...

But a German commander playing at home, principally against bombers, would put up with the range/engine/production issues if the high speed was giving him a comfortable degree of separation from the escorts and the armament had the hitting power to make most strikes on target a sure thing

Colin1 said:

But a German commander playing at home, principally against bombers, would put up with the range/engine/production issues if the high speed was giving him a comfortable degree of separation from the escorts and the armament had the hitting power to make most strikes on target a sure thing

Click to expand...

I'd put up with everything except the production issues. They never had and never could have had enough Me 262s to make a real difference. IMO, I still think a better developed He-162 type was the way to go. A single jet engine on a light, cheap ultra-fast plane that could be mass produced might have had a chance of producing a large enough force to turn the tide. If it were possible to combine it with the Mauser MG 213, it would have been pretty fearsome.

One way of looking at it, understanding that the two AC evolved into two different roles, the P51 from a pursuit plane into an escort fighter, and the ME262, from a bomber, (because of Hitler) to an interceptor is to see if they could do the other's job. The P51 could have been a decent interceptor but the ME262 was too short ranged to be much of an escort fighter.

I resent that logic. That would make the Do 335 look better than the Me 262, which is wrong.

drgondog said:

BeauP - a couple of MiGs were miraculously shot down by 51's and one (?) Corsair. In each case it was a fleeting golden B-B on a 90 degree deflection shot after being caught on the deck in fighter bomber mode.

It wasn't the same scenario as WWII - I just used it as an illustration of late piston fighter in hopelsss situations where the attacker had all of the options.

Click to expand...

I have no doubt that the P-51 scored kills on a few migs. I have read stories about it and find it very intresting. Is this the F4U you were talking about?

On 10 September 1952, Captain Jesse G. Folmar, USMC (VMA-312), in an F4U-4B (BuNo 62927) shot down a MiG-15 off the North Korean coast near Chinnampo. MiG pilot was seen to bail out, afire, and the MiG observed to crash into the sea. Moments later another MiG shot down Folmar. He bailed out and was rescued by a SAR plane, called by his wingman, Lieutenant Walter E Daniels, USMC, spending about eight minutes in the water.

Click to expand...

beaupower32 said:

I have no doubt that the P-51 scored kills on a few migs. I have read stories about it and find it very intresting. Is this the F4U you were talking about?

Click to expand...

Yes it would be..

timshatz said:

My entire focus on calling the Mustang superior was the maturity of the design versus that of the 262. The concept and potential of the 262 was far more substantial than that of the P51. Like Eric noted, the only real benefit you have in the 262 is speed. After that, everything goes the P51's way.

Keep in mind, about half the losses (in WW2 aircraft) were caused by operational and not combat events.

Click to expand...

I thought the 262 in the air had greater accelaration, and in a sustained climb it was better. What about max altitude. Unsure about which aircraft could dive better. The 262 also had the advantage in terms of firepower, at least close in, with those 30mm cannon, surely.

I agree with your basic statement about maturity of design however

parsifal said:

I thought the 262 in the air had greater acceleration...

Click to expand...

Most of the trials during and at the close of WWII
that pitted a piston against a jet, saw the piston leap off the start line (in mid-air) and build up quite a lead; the jet would then begin to gain until, at the instant it was level with the piston, it was rapidly overhauling it. WWII jets couldn't spool up very quickly.

parsifal said:

I thought the 262 in the air had greater accelaration, and in a sustained climb it was better. What about max altitude. Unsure about which aircraft could dive better. The 262 also had the advantage in terms of firepower, at least close in, with those 30mm cannon, surely.

I agree with your basic statement about maturity of design however

Click to expand...

Firepower was definitely superior.

beaupower32 said:

I have no doubt that the P-51 scored kills on a few migs. I have read stories about it and find it very intresting. Is this the F4U you were talking about?

Click to expand...

F-51's in Korea weren't officially credited with any MiG-15's, nor did they actually down any as far as I can tell. In a few cases MiG's were claimed but not officially credited and those are included in some books and listings, but in all the specific cases I know of, the Soviets recorded combats with F-51's that match but didn't lose any MiG's. Per the USAF's 1953 Statistical Digest 8 F-51's were lost in air combat in Korea in the period of MiG-15 activity.

The MiG downed by Folmar was confirmed by the 1953 NK MiG defector's accounts, as being an NK a/c. Besides Folmar's a/c, two USN F4U's were downed by MiG'15's on the east coast of Korea during 1952 (the Folmar action was on the west coast). NK accounts also indicate those were their a/c, so coincidentally all the conclusive F4U actions were against NK MiG units, though those were relatively rare opponents in Korea. Soviet and Chinese units each also claimed a number of F4U's in actions also recorded by the USN and USMC (sometimes as F-47's or even as F-51's) but no F4U's were actually lost in any.

As is well known, an FAA Sea Fury was also credited with a MiG-15 in 1952. Those opponents were Chinese, but available Chinese accounts seem to deny they lost an a/c in that combat.

The MiG-15 and Me-262 were hardly comparable in performance. I think the point is just that in something like endurance the P-51 was still greatly superior to the MiG-15, also to jets long after that in practical combat radius w/o aerial refueling, but by Korea the MiG's superiority in speed made that moot as far as using the F-51 as a real fighter.

Re: acceleration between jets and props, even besides the issue of throttle response of the early jet engines, the thrust of a jet is inherently approximately constant with speed, while the thrust of the prop disk of (especially constant speed controllable pitch) will increase as speed decreases, so a prop with similar power to weight ratio as a jet will accelerate better, and have better 'vertical plane' performance at low speed. This effect is washed out by the enormously greater power to weight ratio's of later jets, but in case of WWII jets the props would out-accelerate them at low speed, and it was another whole new category of disadvantage for the jet to agree, or be forced, to engage the prop at low speed, more than the advantage given up by say a P-51 agreeing to engage an F4F at low speed.

Joe

JoeB said:

Re: acceleration between jets and props, even besides the issue of throttle response of the early jet engines, the thrust of a jet is inherently approximately constant with speed, while the thrust of the prop disk of (especially constant speed controllable pitch) will increase as speed decreases, so a prop with similar power to weight ratio as a jet will accelerate better, and have better 'vertical plane' performance at low speed. This effect is washed out by the enormously greater power to weight ratio's of later jets, but in case of WWII jets the props would out-accelerate them at low speed, and it was another whole new category of disadvantage for the jet to agree, or be forced, to engage the prop at low speed, more than the advantage given up by say a P-51 agreeing to engage an F4F at low speed.

Joe

Click to expand...

In many of our discussions this is missed even when comparing recip fighters in performance. So much is emphasised about a few MPH in airspeed or a few degrees per second in turning, but a great factor that always seems missing is how well the aircraft can accelerate during combat maneuvers.

FB, I agree with you that acceleration is a quality which is often overlooked by us arm chair pilots.

Got a stupid question here.

Could they use the prop as a breaking force for slowing down? Jets (Me-262?) have a relative clean airframe compaired to a plane with a big ol prop hanging out in front, so would it be easier for the mustangs to slow down and cause teh 262 to overshoot. I dont think this would or has ever happened, but Just curious if it was possible.