P-51 Mustang Vs. Me 262 (1 Viewer)

Which plane do you think is better?


  • Total voters
    61

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

With regards to a modern airforce, I don't think an F-15 sitting on the apron at Holloman AFB in 2010 has the same engines it rolled out of Long Beach with in 1974. I don't know that for certain but it doesn't sound feasible so the statement 'engines have to last because that's how long the plane lasts' feels limited in accuracy to me.
As mentioned surely the plane has had it engines changed out several times. But the engines which started in one F-15 way back (well F-15A's built back in mid 70's are becoming rare, though most are still relatively old) might still be in another now. They've been overhauled and rebuilt replacing wearing or fatigue life parts, but P&W hasn't built several complete fleets worth of completely new F100 engines for F-15's i in the last 30 years. You might say the engines are kind of like your grandpa's old hammer where your dad replaced the handle and you repaced the head :D, though not quite, some parts neither physically wear nor come under much stress in operation.

But TBO's for fighter engines, which is really what we're talking about, the Me262 engines wouldn't necessarily be completely sh*tcanned either I wouldn't guess, have multiplied if anything more than the lives of the a/c themselves, especially if you compare on an apples to apples basis their lives in peacetime service. Though, the fact that a WWII combat a/c would likely be destroyed in a weeks or months in a combat zone, or else become obsolete not long after that, or simply wear out itself (for example Soviet fighters with wooden and fabric parts) was a factor in considering equipment life, obviously. Perhaps it should have been in more cases (as in criticism of US Browning .50 of being a long lived machine gun heavy for its performance compared to shorter lived Soviet 12.7mm a/c mgs). But late war German jet and some piston, engines had short enough TBO-lives to cause servicibility/availability problems with the planes they were fitted in.

Joe
 
At the time in question the different compressors had different advantages and dis-advantages. BOTH offered about the same effective pressure ratio although the axial would eventually (early 50s) easily far surpass the capabilities of the axial in that regard.

Axial was much shorter, lighter and simpler. It was also much fatter which meant more frontal area and drag.
There is a reason a two seat Venom can be side by side.:lol:

In 1943-45 you pay your money and take your choice.
 
As far as military engines in WW2 are concerned, I remember reading that Lindberg while in the PTO was trying to teach pilots to extend the range of their aircraft. One of the methods he used was to run the engines with a leaner mixture than the manual advised. When some of the pilots protested about abusing the engines that way, he countered by saying that they were military engines and were designed to be abused. Of course, if one is a pilot flying over the Pacific Ocean, the last thing you want is an abused engine but on the other hand you don't want to run out of fuel either. When in a light plane I have always noticed that the engine seems to begin to sound "funny" as soon as I am over a large body of water.
 
When in a light plane I have always noticed that the engine seems to begin to sound "funny" as soon as I am over a large body of water.

Or at night over unfamiliar terrain..."What was that?":D
 
But TBO's for fighter engines, which is really what we're talking about, the Me262 engines wouldn't necessarily be completely sh*tcanned either I wouldn't guess, have multiplied if anything more than the lives of the a/c themselves, especially if you compare on an apples to apples basis their lives in peacetime service. Though, the fact that a WWII combat a/c would likely be destroyed in a weeks or months in a combat zone, or else become obsolete not long after that, or simply wear out itself (for example Soviet fighters with wooden and fabric parts) was a factor in considering equipment life, obviously. Perhaps it should have been in more cases (as in criticism of US Browning .50 of being a long lived machine gun heavy for its performance compared to shorter lived Soviet 12.7mm a/c mgs). But late war German jet and some piston, engines had short enough TBO-lives to cause servicibility/availability problems with the planes they were fitted in.

Joe
Joe - you'd have to look at what type of failure the engine had to determine if the whole thing was tossed. Compressor and turbine bearing failure was common as well as burner cans coming apart. Let's not forget compressor and turbine blades coming apart as well. If the failure involved penetration of the engine case by failing parts that have flung off the compressor or turbine disk, or if the engine caught fire and burned for a while, I don't see much being salvaged. When early centrifugal flow turbines failed and started throwing parts, there usually wasn't much left. As we know axial flow engines fared much better again providing there wasn't any prolonged fire or engine case penetration, and even then, one half the case can be replaced.
 
Last edited:
Joe - you'd have to look at what type of failure the engine had to determine if the whole thing was tossed. Compressor and turbine bearing failure was common as well as burner cans coming apart. Let's not forget compressor and turbine blades coming apart as well. If the failure involved penetration of the engine case by failing parts that have flung off the compressor or turbine disk, or if the engine caught fire and burned for a while, I don't see much being salvaged.
I was thinking more of scheduled overhaul/rebuilds of mature engine designs with predictable life, where most are overhauled without failing first. For early jets with less predictable life and no previous experience, you're probably right, many probably failed in operation in ways that completely ruined the engine (not to mention causing destruction of the whole airplane sometimes, usually so in case of single engine jets).

Joe
 
something I only recently found out. The Vampire used the same plywood laminar construction as had been developed for the Mosquito, though more metal was used in the Vampire. This mixed wood/metal construction was continued in both the Venom and Sea Venom types, which were not retired until 1967 in the RAN.

The Sea Venom had an initial climb rate of 5900 feet per minute. Does that not suggest superior accelaration, I assume that climb rate and accelaration are related in terms of their power demands?

Acceleration dependent on available Thrust less drag.

Climb also based on thrust available as well as the lift of the airplane and the angle of the climb.

rate of climb = (T-D)*V/W for unaccelerated flight

for high angle of climb (a) and unaccelerated flight you have to account for change in Induced Drag and that must be accounted for in the above equation (L= W*cos a and as induced drag changes with changes to CL then Di (1) = Di (0) cos>>2 a..

where Di(1) is induced drag at a climb angle, Di(o) is induced drag at level flight and cos>>a is cos squared of a.

So the Vampire (and Me 262) climb rates are more about the Velocity enting the climb) rather than acceleration, as well as lift loading of the aircraft based on the wing.

Anybody ever see a U-2 climb..? not much acceleration but gawd what a climbe rate for a relatively low T/W ratio (not much induced drag on that beast but a very low lift loading)
 
At the time in question the different compressors had different advantages and dis-advantages. BOTH offered about the same effective pressure ratio although the axial would eventually (early 50s) easily far surpass the capabilities of the axial in that regard.

Axial was much shorter, lighter and simpler. It was also much fatter which meant more frontal area and drag.
There is a reason a two seat Venom can be side by side.:lol:

In 1943-45 you pay your money and take your choice.

One issue is that most super / turbo-chargers were based on Centrifugal fans (like Hoover cleaners) and so the technology was quite well developed on this side of the fence i.e. the Allies

See this Quote * :-


The engine was renamed the Welland after the English river, and entered production in 1943 for use on the Gloster Meteor. It was beaten into the air only slightly by the Junkers Jumo 004. Unlike the 004, however, the Welland was a reliable and generally safe engine, due largely to Britain's]better metallurgy and Rolls-Royce's considerable experience in the related field of superchargers .


* This is from a very interesting article on the RR Welland version of the 'Whittle engine' in Wikipedia


Rolls-Royce Welland - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Last edited:
Acceleration dependent on available Thrust less drag.

Climb also based on thrust available as well as the lift of the airplane and the angle of the climb.

rate of climb = (T-D)*V/W for unaccelerated flight

for high angle of climb (a) and unaccelerated flight you have to account for change in Induced Drag and that must be accounted for in the above equation (L= W*cos a and as induced drag changes with changes to CL then Di (1) = Di (0) cos>>2 a..

where Di(1) is induced drag at a climb angle, Di(o) is induced drag at level flight and cos>>a is cos squared of a.

So the Vampire (and Me 262) climb rates are more about the Velocity enting the climb) rather than acceleration, as well as lift loading of the aircraft based on the wing.

Anybody ever see a U-2 climb..? not much acceleration but gawd what a climbe rate for a relatively low T/W ratio (not much induced drag on that beast but a very low lift loading)

A. Can you define some of the terms please such as T , D ,V , W so on

B. So in the end which was a faster climber - the Me262 or the Vampire ? (or the Meteor come to that)
 
Colin, you choose. I only have a limited view of each aircraft and any comparision is perfectly fine by me. And plus, wounldn't seeing who would win in a dogfight be one deciding factor in the better fighter?

There is a very interesting article about the Mustang versus Me262 called "Riding Shotgun" in the February 2008 issue of Fly Past magazine (UK publication).

It relays the experience of Lt Joseph Peterbus as a Mustang Pilot during WW2

You might possibly be able to get a back-copy at their webiste FlyPast: At the heart of aviation heritage
 
A. Can you define some of the terms please such as T=thrust , D=drag=induced drag+parasite/profile/skin friction/wave drag ,V=velocity , W=weight so on

B. So in the end which was a faster climber - the Me262 or the Vampire ? (or the Meteor come to that)

I suspect the Vampire but I do not know. What I was trying to communicate is the acceleration per se doesn't have as much effect on climb rate from level steady flight as the Lift Loading, Velocity and Angle of climb
 
I suspect the Vampire but I do not know. What I was trying to communicate is the acceleration per se doesn't have as much effect on climb rate from level steady flight as the Lift Loading, Velocity and Angle of climb

That is interesting :-

So in other words the ability to accelerate is not an over-riding critical function when considering the ability to climb - It would also help to explain why some planes with tremendous acceleration such as the P47 were fairly lousy climbers.


I know that with some planes 'top speed' as such is limited by design so that you could double the power but may not get much more MPH - but much improved Feet per Second

Say, for example, the later models of Hurricane which could climb and also carry much higher loads, but were not significanlty faster because the thick wing section etc etc prohibited any advantage in this area.
 
That is interesting :-

So in other words the ability to accelerate is not an over-riding critical function when considering the ability to climb - It would also help to explain why some planes with tremendous acceleration such as the P47 were fairly lousy climbers
I got the impression that the point was that WWII jets couldn't just pull the nose up into a climb and accelerate away from a pursuing recip. The ability to accelerate anywhere is a critical function, it's just that 1st-gen jets were pretty poor at it, even in level flight.

I'm not sure why you think the P-47 had tremendous acceleration
 
I got the impression that the point was that WWII jets couldn't just pull the nose up into a climb and accelerate away from a pursuing recip. The ability to accelerate anywhere is a critical function, it's just that 1st-gen jets were pretty poor at it, even in level flight.

I'm not sure why you think the P-47 had tremendous acceleration

When I said "not critical function" I meant specifically in terms of climb ability i.e there are some types of plane that do not have particularly high level acceleration or even top speed, but can climb like home-sick angels.

However, I am sure in combat it really helps to be able to accelerate, and climb and all the rest of it, of course it does - and I know early jets had problems spooling-up quickly etc etc

Which is why I believe the US and UK Navies kept prop planes for so much longer in the front line as they were better at rapid acceleration and the need to go around again if they missed the wire (by all means look it up).


P47:

Well I have never flown one, for sure, but when you read about the P47 it had loads of power from a large supercharged engine - but was apparently not so good at climbing to altitude if that makes sense ?

See what you think : P-47 Performance Tests
 
I got the impression that the point was that WWII jets couldn't just pull the nose up into a climb and accelerate away from a pursuing recip. The ability to accelerate anywhere is a critical function, it's just that 1st-gen jets were pretty poor at it, even in level flight.

I think that is why also the Germans covered the 262 with Dora 190s on landing and take-off

Early jets were pretty much commited once they were landing or taking off, which lines up wiith your point pretty much I think.
 
I
Early jets were pretty much commited once they were landing or taking off, which lines up wiith your point pretty much I think.

Not Really - depends on what was to happen and when. On takeoff between wheels up and until you turn crosswind an engine loss usually meant trying to land straight ahead for a single engine aircraft. For a twin jet, it would depend on maintaining climb on one engine and a lot of variables play into that. If you could make to downwind or at least to a speed where gear and flaps are retracted and then have an engine failure, you could probably have some time to find a place to land should you experience an engine failure.

On landing, the key is staying ahead of the airplane and compensating for the 10 - 20 second spool up should you need to go around. The point here is a seasoned pilot should be able to put his aircraft close to the numbers when established on final. In the case of a 262 on a 1/4 mile final and being attacked from behind, the pilot better be carrying a little power and hope for the best....
 
The final was more than a 1/4 mile.

Me262_pattern.png
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back