P-80 v Me 262 v Gloster Meteor....

[Shortround6]

Without getting into "what ifs" it has to be the Me 262 by default.

It was the only one to get into combat in any large numbers and did show an advantage over the Meteor that did get into combat.

Once you start playing the "what if the war had lasted to 194X" game it becomes which country could have improved their aircraft the fastest and/or actually turned proposed improvements into operational hardware in multi-squadron numbers.

 

[Coors9]

Well hell, I'm goin' with the P-80.........Just to be the only one

 

[88l71]

I'd go with the P-80 or Meteor, given the quality of the *average* German pilot (not the uber-aces with 3 digit kills) at that point in the war.

 

[riacrato]

And the Corvette is better than the Ferrari because American highways are longer.

 

[Konigstiger205]

And the Corvette is better than the Ferrari because American highways are longer.

Too right mate

 

[vikingBerserker]

And the Corvette is better than the Ferrari because American highways are longer.

Ok, that was funny.

 

[woljags]

meteor for me,although all early jet were reported at the time to be slow on pick up and slowing down as so would proberly have been hard to control in close combat

 

[Ruud]

Numbers are going to be pretty small on each side though. Far more likely for the Me 262+ to be destroyed on the ground by P-51Hs or Tempest IIs.

Yep, and P-47Ms (and N's too maybe).

My opinion: the M2-262 has great anti-bomber cannons, but in a dog fight, those slow firing rounds aren't going to work so well (see the MiG-15 and 17). Of course one hit does a lot. Both the Meteor and the P-80 proved to be sturdy and much used planes. The Me-262 was not the easiest to fly and the engines/fuel gave problems. So my guess would be that the Meteor and P-80 would win 60% of the time. This does not take into account pilot skill. Those who flew the 262 (the few) were very skilled, but had there been more planes and fuel available, how would below average pilots have fared in a 262...

 

[drgondog]

www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org - Luftwaffe Resource Center - Messerschmitt Me 262
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-80/P-80A-85075.pdf

Draw your own conclusions - The engine thrust differences are negligible P-80A=3790, Me 262 =3960

The max climb rate of the P-80A at 5k was 4400fpm, max speed=548mph, TO wt = 11560 which included full internal fuel and 117# ballast for ammo. WL=49, T/W=.32. From other sources op ceiling = 48,500 feet.

The Me 262A-1a according to the spec sheet had max speed=540 (no TO wt specified), climb rate=1200m/s=3936fps, ceiling 11.5Km=37.K feet. Max gross TO (assume 2x1000 pound bombs, full fuel)= 14,272 -----> assume 12,272 for equivalent TO to P-80A conditions: WL=52.4 TW=.32

The Me 262 had heavier armament, the P-80A was reputed to be very stable gun platform vs 262 having yaw issues at high speeds, Me 262 slightly faster, P-80 climbs faster and has higher ceiling. My guess based on equivalent T/W and lower wing loading that the Me 262 was less manueverable in all aspects, especially roll and turn and slightly less than P-80A in climb.

Both ships made their first flights within 2 months (Late Jan 44 for P-80 and Apr 44 for Me 262). The US fighter had no critical materials issues for sustained development of jet engines.

To me the P-80A has a slight edge, the YP-80 was same including engine so combat wise from dimension/performance range perspective the YP-80 has the same slight edge in manueverability - having said that, the flight test referenced above shows significant differences between the airframes and engines in the performance of the five P-80A's. I suspect the Me 262A-1a fares no better in consistency.

 

[Ruud]

and... it the rest... of the story.

 

[jim]

me 262 had low pressure tires so could use mediocre quality airfields, had 2 engines=increased safety,swept back wings (and the potential for mor swept), 360 canopy, a wide variety of weapons too choose (4x30mm, 4x20mm, 4x302x20, 1x55mm, R4m rockets, x4 rockets,bombs) ,It was very easy to fly ,very easy to taxi,care was needed in engine managemed In April45 improved engines were in production.The single seater was cabable for both day and night missions. With 4x20mm could deal with the alleid fighters as F4U dealed with A6Ms but had to focus on the terrorfliegers and protect the german population.
Its high mach snaking was better than Meteors F3 and could easily eliminated with rudder auto stabilisation given a little additional time .From the above its clear that it was more complete and versatile weapon system.
But even performance wise could easily outfly Meteor f3. As far the P80A is concerned even the biased american test pilot gave me262 better speed and accelaration and equal climb(Me 262 Arrow to the future ,page 139) And that with a machined cruedly maintained by american unexperienced mechanics. Finally possesed much more development potential (not only engine wise but aerodinamicly wise too)despite the fact that its succesor was ready to fly.
PS I apologise for the murder of the english language

 

[FLYBOYJ]

me 262 had low pressure tires so could use mediocre quality airfields, had 2 engines=increased safety,swept back wings (and the potential for mor swept), 360 canopy, a wide variety of weapons too choose (4x30mm, 4x20mm, 4x302x20, 1x55mm, R4m rockets, x4 rockets,bombs) ,It was very easy to fly ,very easy to taxi,care was needed in engine managemed In April45 improved engines were in production.The single seater was cabable for both day and night missions. With 4x20mm could deal with the alleid fighters as F4U dealed with A6Ms but had to focus on the terrorfliegers and protect the german population.
Its high mach snaking was better than Meteors F3 and could easily eliminated with rudder auto stabilisation given a little additional time .From the above its clear that it was more complete and versatile weapon system.
But even performance wise could easily outfly Meteor f3. As far the P80A is concerned even the biased american test pilot gave me262 better speed and accelaration and equal climb(Me 262 Arrow to the future ,page 139) And that with a machined cruedly maintained by american unexperienced mechanics. Finally possesed much more development potential (not only engine wise but aerodinamicly wise too)despite the fact that its succesor was ready to fly.
PS I apologise for the murder of the english language

Jim - what's your basis for the ability of the 262 to operate "day or night" as opposed to any other early turbine aircraft of the day? Additionally I'd like to know specifics about test aircraft being "crudely maintained by American unexperienced mechanics." What were these mechanics doing for you or any writer to say that these aircraft were being maintained no better or worse than Luftwaffle personnel??? I too have read "Arrow to the Future" and I have not seen any indication of any of the captured 262s not being properly maintained, as a matter of fact, the American OIC responsible of operating the first batch of captured 262s (Col Harold Watson) ensured that he had plenty of assistance from former Luftwaffe personnel and this is emphasised in Arrow to the Future as both German air and ground crew trained US pilots and crew chiefs to operate 10 captured aircraft. The flight test program in country was quite successful.

Rudder stabilization? Please explain.

"Would have, could have, should have." I think Dragondog's points are spot on.

 

[jim]

Mr Flyboy j
1)I had no intention to insult american mechanics. But to assume that a couple of weeks of "training" made them experts on Me 262 is something diferent. In europe takes years of training for a mechanic to claim adequate training on an aircraft. The luftwaffe personel often provided false information or even sabotaged the aircrafts (see Erich brown and Ar 234 case) .German systems were unknown to these mechanics. Further more none of them had even seen a jet aircraft before!!! And in a few days became experts?! The german crew of cruiser Prinz Eugen was forced to train american crew in their ship . Then the americans took the ship for the america . Within days they broke it!!! It had to be towed to the pacific for the atomic test! And Prinz Eugen was not any revolutionary technology! And we well know how budly maintained were varius FWs ,Bfs in alleid captivity ( and still used to draw conclusions!)
2)Since you have the "Arrow to the future"you can find the sentence "the comparison was so favorable to the Me262 that the results were supressed" on page 139. On page 70 when Col.watson tryied to fly the Me262a FE110 found the elevators reversed and was barely able to recover from a dive. Does it sound as a proper maintained aircraft?
3) Eric brown writes: "If asked to nominate the most formidable combat aircraft to evolve in WW2 i would unhesitatingly propose Me262A" Wings of the Luftwaffe, page58 . On page 68 writes : " a hard hitter that outperformed anything that we had immediately available" He writes a lot of other good staff
4)The Me262A did flew combat night missions and scored victories . I believe that Mr Erich can confirm this. P80 and Meteor I/III could have/should have/would have fly in night but they never did .
5)Heinz Bar scored victories with 4x30mm 2x20mm, Major Herget flew them 55mm in action, Jg7 used R4M rockets and 21cm mortar rockets and scored,Jumo004c&e were in production lines, protoypes were flying with higher degree swept wings and low drug canopies, x4 was in operational testing phase. If i wanted to speak for could/should/would iwould speak for pressurized cocpits, EZ42 gyroscopic sights, Mk213 revolver cannons, take off assist rockets,air brakes,advanced navigation and radar direction equipment(all of which were in final development stage), versions with the engines buried in the wingsroots,Henscel engines and finally Ta183
6) Me 262 had accidents because of the unavailable raw materials. Lets look the P80 record manifactured in rich America . 3 Prototypes crashed with a dead pilot and a another badly injured, Yp80 crashed in England in 28/01/1945 .Finally Richard Bong ,the man who claimed the most victories, killed in a P80 on August 1945 because of material failure.
7)Of course I like p80, everybody loves the T33

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Mr Flyboy j
1)I had no intention to insult american mechanics. But to assume that a couple of weeks of "training" made them experts on Me 262 is something diferent. In europe takes years of training for a mechanic to claim adequate training on an aircraft. The luftwaffe personel often provided false information or even sabotaged the aircrafts (see Erich brown and Ar 234 case) .German systems were unknown to these mechanics. Further more none of them had even seen a jet aircraft before!!! And in a few days became experts?!

Having worked for almost 35 years on a wide variety of military and civilian aircraft I can assure you that you don't have to be an "expert" to maintain an aircraft in the field and under the conditions that the first captured 262s were subjected to. Even as the 262 was viewed as "state of the art" technology during that period, ground operation of that aircraft and its contemporaries of the day was quite simple. Maintain fluid levels, establishing pre and post flight procedures checking such things as brake and tire wear and following structural inspection criteria from the airframe and engine manufacturer are all part of the procedure and that's why Col Watson relied on German ground crews for their expertise so his mission could be accomplished. Attempting to learn a forigen captured aircraft system without the benifit of manuals and instruction is a trial by error artform and those attempting to gain intelligence in this situation can hardly be blamed for "poor maintenance." Additionally I can also assure you that those American maintainers were well seasoned mechanics and knew what they were doing.

The german crew of cruiser Prinz Eugen was forced to train american crew in their ship . Then the americans took the ship for the america . Within days they broke it!!! It had to be towed to the pacific for the atomic test! And Prinz Eugen was not any revolutionary technology! And we well know how budly maintained were varius FWs ,Bfs in alleid captivity ( and still used to draw conclusions!)

And this has what bearing on this discussion?!? I know little about ships and did do a quick internet search on this and it seems the USN was only interested in the phase array radar of the ship. Regardless Prinz Eugen would have been placed at Bikini regardless as many captured and operation ships were destroyed during the atomic tests. Once again I ask you provide "specifics" on how the Americans made this ship inoperable, I see nothing to validate your claim.

Again, you say "badly maintained" tell me in what context? Were the aircraft NOT being maintained in accordance with original maintenance practices? Were wrong lubricants being used? Were aircraft being operated with control surfaces adjusted out of travel tolerances? These were captured aircraft and I'm not saying that early operation of these aircraft were done exactly the way the manufacturer intended , there was a lot of guess work behind how to operate these aircraft and I'm willing to say that abuse by maintenance personnel was never documented in detail.

2)Since you have the "Arrow to the future"you can find the sentence "the comparison was so favorable to the Me262 that the results were supressed" on page 139. On page 70 when Col.watson tryied to fly the Me262a FE110 found the elevators reversed and was barely able to recover from a dive. Does it sound as a proper maintained aircraft?

No it sounds like ground crews assembled a captured aircraft wiout the benifit of proper maintenance instructions, and this type of incidient was common during that era. Col. Watson holds some responsibility for this as he should of verified rigging prior to take off, especially when test flying a captured ship. I do have issues with this story however as if the elevators were reversed, Col. Watson should not have been able to take off and probably would have discovered this problem early in his flight. The fact that it is mentioned that he went into a dive with this condition is a bit stretched.

3) Eric brown writes: "If asked to nominate the most formidable combat aircraft to evolve in WW2 i would unhesitatingly propose Me262A" Wings of the Luftwaffe, page58 . On page 68 writes : " a hard hitter that outperformed anything that we had immediately available" He writes a lot of other good staff
4)The Me262A did flew combat night missions and scored victories . I believe that Mr Erich can confirm this. P80 and Meteor I/III could have/should have/would have fly in night but they never did

I can agree with Brown's assessment to a point, but over the years he's been proven to be very biased in many of his opinions. Yes, the 262 flew at night, the Meteor and P-80 had the capability to fly at night as well but never did so. Your original statement about night flying makes the 262 no better in this operation than any other aircraft. The only thing that can be said about the 262 is it actually flew combat at night during WW2. It wasn't until 5 years later when later versions of both the Meteor and P-80 (now F-80) actually flew many sorties at night, that being during the Korean war.

5)Heinz Bar scored victories with 4x30mm 2x20mm, Major Herget flew them 55mm in action, Jg7 used R4M rockets and 21cm mortar rockets and scored,Jumo004c&e were in production lines, protoypes were flying with higher degree swept wings and low drug canopies, x4 was in operational testing phase. If i wanted to speak for could/should/would iwould speak for pressurized cocpits, EZ42 gyroscopic sights, Mk213 revolver cannons, take off assist rockets,air brakes,advanced navigation and radar direction equipment(all of which were in final development stage), versions with the engines buried in the wingsroots,Henscel engines and finally Ta183

Your point? Within 2 years after the war you had such aircraft as the F-86 coming off production lines with many of the same systems developed independent of German technology. Aside from swept wing technology, systems within postwar US and British aircraft were well established and at the end of the war the allies had just about caught up with german turbine engine technology.

6) Me 262 had accidents because of the unavailable raw materials. Lets look the P80 record manifactured in rich America . 3 Prototypes crashed with a dead pilot and a another badly injured, Yp80 crashed in England in 28/01/1945 .Finally Richard Bong ,the man who claimed the most victories, killed in a P80 on August 1945 because of material failure.
7)Of course I like p80, everybody loves the T33

Are you trying to say that if germany didn't have a raw material problem, there would not have been any 262 crashes? Again you make no points here. The Me 262 had its share of developmental crashes as any early jet did. The 262 had an extremely high attrition rate during its initial operations. The P-80 crashes (including Bong's) have no bearing in comparing the two aircraft, in fact Bong's crash was preventable as he forgot to turn on a boost pump during takeoff. The early J33, like early Jumos, failed at take off.

So again I invite you to show "specifics" where US or even British maintainers conducted improper maintenance practices with regards to operation of captured German aircraft. The only real "abuse" that could be apparent was the lack of information or purposely being told wrong information.

 

[Shortround6]

And this has what bearing on this discussion?!? I know little about ships and did do a quick internet search on this and it seems the USN was only interested in the phase array radar of the ship. Regardless Prinz Eugen would have been placed at Bikini regardless as many captured and operation ships were destroyed during the atomic tests. Once again I ask you provide "specifics" on how the Americans made this ship inoperable, I see nothing to validate your claim.

The Prinz Eugen may not have been able to complete a Voyage from Europe to the west coast of America even with a German crew. The German high pressure steam plant, operating at around double the pressure of WW II US steam plants, had a rather notorious reputation for unreliability in German service when manned and maintained by German crews in most large warship classes. Blaming an American crew for for a break down in 5 year old ship that probably had not been adequately maintained for several years is a bit like your brother-in-law blaming for you for blowing up the engine in his 150,000mile car that he hasn't changed the oil in for the last 40,000 miles when you borrow it for one weekend.

This myth of superior German engineering is getting a bit tiresome. Wonder weapons and engines that only took 4-8 more years of development after the war ended to see service that would, in German hands, have turned the war around in 1946?
In my life I have owned 1 German motorcycle (a BMW R90/6), several German cameras including a Lieca, four Anschutz target rifles/pistol, a Walther PP, a Mauser M1914 pocket pistol and a variety of West German airguns from Olympic quality to just as cheap and nasty as anything the Chinese turned out. Some were well thought out and well manufactured and others had some rather striking flaws. Not all were price related. The Motorcycle had a vibration problem due to a rather fundamental engineering problem, crankshaft was not properly counter weighted for the pistons. Some target shooters routinely carried spare firing pins for their Olympic quality Anschutz target rifles because they broke. A problem unknown to Winchester 52 shooters, a look at the two firing pins would revel why.
The Germans did and do make good stuff. Just don't tell me they were nearly infallible in engineering, they weren't, and it is not just because of material shortages.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

The Prinz Eugen may not have been able to complete a Voyage from Europe to the west coast of America even with a German crew. The German high pressure steam plant, operating at around double the pressure of WW II US steam plants, had a rather notorious reputation for unreliability in German service when manned and maintained by German crews in most large warship classes. Blaming an American crew for for a break down in 5 year old ship that probably had not been adequately maintained for several years is a bit like your brother-in-law blaming for you for blowing up the engine in his 150,000mile car that he hasn't changed the oil in for the last 40,000 miles when you borrow it for one weekend.

This myth of superior German engineering is getting a bit tiresome. Wonder weapons and engines that only took 4-8 more years of development after the war ended to see service that would, in German hands, have turned the war around in 1946?

Thanks for the info and agree

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

In my life I have owned 1 German motorcycle (a BMW R90/6)

There is your problem. You bought a BMW.

BMW = Bayrische Mist Wagen = Bavarian **** Car

 

[renrich]

SR, very good post on PE. I would add that the German crew may very well have sabotaged some of the machinery ( I can understand why) or at the least slacked on maintenance.

As far as German engineering is concerned, because of having too much money (which I had earned) and too little good judgment, I have owned over the years about a dozen M-Bs, a half dozen Audis, four Porsches and one BMW autos. Almost all were brand new. The first M-B was a 1972 280 SE4.5. The engine blew up on the way home with it. Broken cam shaft. After that numerous SLs, one SLC and a number of SEs and one turbo diesel. Then all the Porsches, 928s. with Audis sprinkled in. All were maintenance hogs, not very reliable and expensive and had poor air conditioning. I had a friend who owned the Porsche dealership who told me that the only Porsches with good ACs were the 924s which had an under dash Japanese unit added on in Houston. The last was a 2000 Audi A6 twin turbo. The service manager at the Audi dealer told me, "Don't let this car get out of warranty." I traded it with 49000 miles on it for an Infinity. I began to see the light when on a whim I bought a new 1982 Toyota Supra. It had a three liter twin cam inline six with about 160 HP. At that time I also had a 1982 928 with the 4.5 V8 single OH cam which I think had about 230 HP. I was driving the Supra from Texas to Colorado and thought, "This car is about nine tenths of the 928, the AC works and it cost $14000 while the Porsche was $50000." Hmmmmm. When you picked up the Toyota at the dealership, you usually seldom saw the dealer often while you were always well acquainted with the German car dealer.

I am a slow learner but I now own two Japanese cars, Honda and an Infiniti, both of which were bought used. I would add that consumer guides often show many German models are used cars to avoid obviously including the Audi A6 twin turbo. This is not a knock on German engineering but the 928s with the 4.5 single cam engine would do 146 mph observed and got about 19 mpg at highway speeds. My 2006 Infiniti G35 coupe with a 3.5 liter twin cam which is about the same size and slightly lighter than the 928 will do 155 mph electronically limited and gets around 28 mpg on the highway. The new technology is marvelous but I believe that the reputation that German engineering is so superior is largely a myth.

 

[tomo pauk]

It's not fair to compare cars 30 years apart consumption-wise.

That being said... my father bought Audi 80, 1,6L, with 200 000km in Germany, made another 250K, sold it my brother who managed another 50K before crashing it. The two things father changed were valve rubbers (sp?) and front suspension rubbers (sp?; 8 pcs, paid 400 DM 10 years ago).
I'm driving VW Transporter 2 for last 4 years, 180 days a year, day after day (I sell fruits during 6 warm months). Car is 25 years old. Engine was repaired once, and I did not have any problems so far. With 1,6L diesel, 4 gear crash box, makes 90km/h uphill empty, 80 with 600 kg of stuff.
I was driving before BMWs (316, 520i), have had no reliability issues.
But the car with maintenance-free award is Nissan Micra, I admit that

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I am not a believer that the Germans have a monopolgy on the greatest in technology and engineering, I believe the Germans are just like everyone else. Somethings great, somethings not so great. I also believe that any piece of machinery can have its moments.

I will however say that my family has owned lots of Mercedes and Audis and we have never had problems with any of ours. For instance the 2002 MB that we have has over 100,000 on it and still going strong, never been in the shop for anything but routine maintenance. The only German cars that I would never recomment to anyone are BMWs. They are overpriced pieces of **** in my opinion. Volkswagen are absolutely great cars. Top quality and not very expensive.