P-51 Mustang Vs. Me 262

[renrich]

bp, all the Mustang had to do with a ME262 on his six but before the attacker had come within gun range, was to execute a max G turn. If the ME tries to follow, if his speed is higher than the Mustangs he will not be able to turn as tight or obviously pull any lead. If he continues to try and turn with the Mustang he will be forced into an overshoot and if the Mustang reverses, he might get a snap shot. The pilot of the ME would probably be too smart for this and will go on to easier prey.

 

[timshatz]

I thought the 262 in the air had greater accelaration,

My understanding is the fragility of the engines made it impossible to hammer the throttle wide open on the 262 without a flameout. I would give the edge to the mustang in that realm. Again, maturity of design.

If you toss in an engine from the 50s, even late 40s, with a burner, then it would definitely be the jet's way.

But I gotta believe the acceleration was on the mustang's side, especially with the 262 that was produced in 1944/45.

 

[Njaco]

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.

This was used during the BoB by Stuka units as a defense against the Spits and Hurris. Blow the dive brakes, let the RAF overshoot and use your forward guns or dive away.

 

[beaupower32]

This was used during the BoB by Stuka units as a defense against the Spits and Hurris. Blow the dive brakes, let the RAF overshoot and use your forward guns or dive away.

bp, all the Mustang had to do with a ME262 on his six but before the attacker had come within gun range, was to execute a max G turn. If the ME tries to follow, if his speed is higher than the Mustangs he will not be able to turn as tight or obviously pull any lead. If he continues to try and turn with the Mustang he will be forced into an overshoot and if the Mustang reverses, he might get a snap shot. The pilot of the ME would probably be too smart for this and will go on to easier prey.

Thanks for the info guys. I was just wondering if it did happen or not, but I know my answer now. I wouldnt think the pilot flying the 262 would try to stay with a mustang in a turn for very long, unless he was a novice.

 

[renrich]

An interesting point about P51s. I was sent a site online about air racing in the period right after the Second World War. Some of the Mustangs racing had the air scoop on the belly relocated to nacelles on the wing tips that looked like extra gas tanks. Others had the belly scoop removed and relocated to the gun bays with air inlets in the wing leading edges.

 

[Vincenzo]

So many of you agree with:
Hurricane it's best of Mustang (it's more mature design, turning best a low speed)....
so Gladiator it's best of Hurricane (it's more mature design, turning best a low speed)....
damn was so good the Camel why they developped other fighters...

 

[Colin1]

Hurricane it's best of Mustang (it's more mature design, turning best a low speed)....
so Gladiator it's best of Hurricane (it's more mature design, turning best a low speed)....
damn was so good the Camel why they developed other fighters...

I'm not sure that was the sentiment being expressed
within the context of piston-engined fighters, the Hurricane wasn't a 'more mature design' than the Mustang, it was just older.

Within the context of piston engine vs jet engine however, the former was a more mature design, still able to take advantage of the fledgeling jets with the one or two tricks still left to them.

 

[riacrato]

So many of you agree with:
Hurricane it's best of Mustang (it's more mature design, turning best a low speed)....
so Gladiator it's best of Hurricane (it's more mature design, turning best a low speed)....
damn was so good the Camel why they developped other fighters...

8) Well put, Vincenzo.

 

[timshatz]

So many of you agree with:
Hurricane it's best of Mustang (it's more mature design, turning best a low speed)....
so Gladiator it's best of Hurricane (it's more mature design, turning best a low speed)....
damn was so good the Camel why they developped other fighters...

Vincenzo, you're setting up a straw dog (and idea produced as a fallicy in order to prove the opposite point).

It was not the technology which is in question, it was the effective maturity of the technology. The 262 was a revolution, not an evolution. As such, it had a lot of problems to work through and some of them were just beyond the ability of the engineers in the time available or the materials availabe. That is not to say the 262 would not've been a better aircraft in time, but that it didn't have the time to become a better aircraft.

The argument for the Mustang is not that it was best aircraft, but best available and most reliable.

 

[Vincenzo]

Vincenzo, you're setting up a straw dog (and idea produced as a fallicy in order to prove the opposite point).

It was not the technology which is in question, it was the effective maturity of the technology. The 262 was a revolution, not an evolution. As such, it had a lot of problems to work through and some of them were just beyond the ability of the engineers in the time available or the materials availabe. That is not to say the 262 would not've been a better aircraft in time, but that it didn't have the time to become a better aircraft.

The argument for the Mustang is not that it was best aircraft, but best available and most reliable.

idk "straw dog" but the "idea produced as a fallicy in order to prove the opposite point" (if fallicy is fallacy) was just my intention.

the technology was mature, if not at firsts tiem sure late as the last war winter. so passage from old style biplane to a monocoque monoplane is a evolution and to change to jet engine it's a revolution, i thinked both as revolution. So we change Meteor (this no problem with material and other things..) vs Mustang what is the result?

 

[Clay_Allison]

idk "straw dog" but the "idea produced as a fallicy in order to prove the opposite point" (if fallicy is fallacy) was just my intention.

the technology was mature, if not at firsts tiem sure late as the last war winter. so passage from old style biplane to a monocoque monoplane is a evolution and to change to jet engine it's a revolution, i thinked both as revolution. So we change Meteor (this no problem with material and other things..) vs Mustang what is the result?

A very mature Biplane could beat an immature attempt at a monoplane. Give me a Cr.42 Falco over a Dewoitine D.500 any day.

 

[timshatz]

idk "straw dog" but the "idea produced as a fallicy in order to prove the opposite point" (if fallicy is fallacy) was just my intention.

the technology was mature, if not at firsts tiem sure late as the last war winter. so passage from old style biplane to a monocoque monoplane is a evolution and to change to jet engine it's a revolution, i thinked both as revolution. So we change Meteor (this no problem with material and other things..) vs Mustang what is the result?

I gotcha on the point of technology being mature. The Meteor's technology was superior in terms of reliabliity to that of the 262.

But if the Me262 is changed to a Meteor, then I'm going with the Meteor too. While the Meteor had it's flaws, especially when you compare it to other Jet Fighters, it was a superior aircraft to the 262 visa vie the engines. The 262 was a more advanced design, but hampered by unreliable engines.

However, when you change the question to a Meteor vs Mustang, it becomes a much more complex question. For starters, the problem with the engines flaming out is much less pronounced. Also, reliablity of the same engines is much better on the Meteor. Two strikes against the 262 (reliability and flameout) are advantages to the Meteor.

The question between the Mustang vs Meteor is one of numbers. Not only does the Meteor have to deal with the Mustang, it has to deal with the Tempest, Spitfire, Thurnderbolt, you name it. If it's an Allied fighter in NW Europe in 1945, it's going to take a crack at any targets available.

Hard question now. But I would give the edge to the Meteor. But it is close, very close. It is a question of numbers vs technology. Also, the Meteor (262 position) was in a tactical and strategic disadvantge situation of losing. Even with all that superior technology, it's only a matter of time before you've lost.

 

[Vincenzo]

A very mature Biplane could beat an immature attempt at a monoplane. Give me a Cr.42 Falco over a Dewoitine D.500 any day.

my fault i want descrive a "modern monoplane" like hurricane, 109, ms 406 (for end the examples to western europe)

 

[Colin1]

... so passage from old style biplane to a monocoque monoplane is a evolution

and to change to jet engine it's a revolution,

I thinked both as revolution...

Whatever they were, they had a prop out front and as piston engines go faster they become less efficient
Evolution


As jet engines go faster they become more efficient
Revolution

 

[Vincenzo]

I gotcha on the point of technology being mature. The Meteor's technology was superior in terms of reliabliity to that of the 262.

But if the Me262 is changed to a Meteor, then I'm going with the Meteor too. While the Meteor had it's flaws, especially when you compare it to other Jet Fighters, it was a superior aircraft to the 262 visa vie the engines. The 262 was a more advanced design, but hampered by unreliable engines.

However, when you change the question to a Meteor vs Mustang, it becomes a much more complex question. For starters, the problem with the engines flaming out is much less pronounced. Also, reliablity of the same engines is much better on the Meteor. Two strikes against the 262 (reliability and flameout) are advantages to the Meteor.

The question between the Mustang vs Meteor is one of numbers. Not only does the Meteor have to deal with the Mustang, it has to deal with the Tempest, Spitfire, Thurnderbolt, you name it. If it's an Allied fighter in NW Europe in 1945, it's going to take a crack at any targets available.

Hard question now. But I would give the edge to the Meteor. But it is close, very close. It is a question of numbers vs technology. Also, the Meteor (262 position) was in a tactical and strategic disadvantge situation of losing. Even with all that superior technology, it's only a matter of time before you've lost.

i'm not agree on your opinion on the reliability of 262 engines (the engine has low life but this is not a important trouble, in war).

i'm agree with you in the last point

 

[timshatz]

i'm not agree on your opinion on the reliability of 262 engines (the engine has low life but this is not a important trouble, in war).

i'm agree with you in the last point

Yeah, the numbers always get you. Eventually. Sucks.

The engines of the Meteor and the Me262 had a big difference in reliability and ease of use (from what I've read). If you firewalled the throttle on the 262, the engines flamed out. Whereas the Meteor could take a more aggressive action on the throttle (I do not know the specifics of that point).

Further, they had more engine life. With the 262, you are looking at 10 hours before a changeout. That is a very short time. Scary short, cause that is probably an average. That means some of them conked out in the middle of their first or second flights. That definitely will affect the way you fly the bird and how aggressive you are.

Another thought about the maturity of the Meteor, it really wasn't so much mature as more reliable. I don't know if fighter jet design hit mature states in the first generation. They were more experimental. Wings were straight more often than swept, it was more a piston design with jet engines than a mature jet design.

I would consider the Mig/Sabre/Vampire designs more made with a jet engine in mind than the generation preceeding.

Again, all this is IMHO.

 

[Cromwell]

Another thought about the maturity of the Meteor, it really wasn't so much mature as more reliable. I don't know if fighter jet design hit mature states in the first generation. They were more experimental. Wings were straight more often than swept, it was more a piston design with jet engines than a mature jet design.

You hear a lot of negatives about the Meteor, but I think it was the kind of plane that was open to development - and quite rapidly too. (see also The Gloster Meteor )

(Just) Post war it held the Speed Record - 606 MPH (975 Klicks/h) in NOV 1945 - Thats JUST after the war end - not bad eh ?

Thnk of the NF14 'Queen of the Skies' - which was an excellent NF and High Altitude interceptor and was kept in service till 1960s

Note. The USAAF pilots found it a real handful in War Games and Mock Combat high altitude.

ALSO - the Whittle Cetrifugal-type jet was not only much more reliable, it gave a lot more Horses per Pound (power to weight) that the German jets

AND was more economical too - and was developed into excellent Turboprop engines that were used for Decades after WW2

NB: For the Allies working from Britain in-to Europe, Reliability, Power to Weight and Economy were exceedingly important

The Germans were on an ever-shrinking piece of turf, so for them they could maybe get away with more in terms of reliability and economy- and I say Maybe, just maybe.

 

[timshatz]

You hear a lot of negatives about the Meteor, but I think it was the kind of plane that was open to development - and quite rapidly too. (see also The Gloster Meteor )

(Just) Post war it held the Speed Record - 606 MPH (975 Klicks/h) in NOV 1945 - Thats JUST after the war end - not bad eh ?

Thnk of the NF14 'Queen of the Skies' - which was an excellent NF and High Altitude interceptor and was kept in service till 1960s

Note. The USAAF pilots found it a real handful in War Games and Mock Combat high altitude.

ALSO - the Whittle Cetrifugal-type jet was not only much more reliable, it gave a lot more Horses per Pound (power to weight) that the German jets

AND was more economical too - and was developed into excellent Turboprop engines that were used for Decades after WW2

NB: For the Allies working from Britain in-to Europe, Reliability, Power to Weight and Economy were exceedingly important

The Germans were on an ever-shrinking piece of turf, so for them they could maybe get away with more in terms of reliability and economy- and I say Maybe, just maybe.

Learn something new everyday. Thanks for the post Cromwell.

 

[Vincenzo]

As i read the jet planes of WWII flying constantly at high throttle, so don't need many thtottle movemevent as piston planes.

never read of so short life of jumo 004 what's the source?

 

[Vincenzo]

the fai record of meteor was possible only why not fai record in war of germans jet planes