Back to the original topic.
Like the F4U-4, the conflicting performance data on the P-80 is confusing, and commentaries on the P-80 referencing unavailable books and documents add to the confusion.
The comment that most confuses me is that the P-80 was tested against the Me-262 and was found wanting and so embarrassed the AF that the test results were withheld.
I bought "Arrow to the Future" by Walter J. Boyne and he indeed makes the statement that test were conducted by a Al Boyd and the test results were only recently found that showed the Me-262 "had better speed, rates of climb at different altitudes, and turning radius and that this data was "suppressed". He also referred a book "The Lockheed P-80", which I ordered and now have. That information surprised me in two ways. First, in 1946, military budgets were being decimated. Typically, today, the AF emphasizes it aircraft short comings in order to scare congress into more money to develop new fighters, the XP-86 was in the concept cycle at this time and may have benefited from a poor review of the P-80. Of course times do change and maybe the AF was concerned about cuts to the fighter program because of lack of performance.
The second issue I have is with other data I have on the P-80 that tends to contradict the possibility of such poor performance. The Me-262 may have out performed the P-80 but shouldn't have embarrassed it. First, the XP-80, which was a bit smaller than the XP-80A, was able to do 502 mph, or only 38 mph less than the Me-262 with 62% of the thrust of the Me-262. In addition the XP-80A, with 4000 lb thrust was able to do 553 mph. The P-80 design was definitely clean.
Data review of my own data, "Spitfireperformance", and other googled sites revealed several data source for the two planes. These are the data source I have found for the Me-262.
Spitfireperformance document on British test on German jet propelled aircraft. Although they claim to reflect performance of data provided by Germans, it has lower performance levels for the Me-262 and the thrust appears low.
German documents on speed of Me-262 with the Jumo 004B engine. This is the speed I will show although it appears faster airspeeds at lower levels than other sources.
Russian data that appears as just published data. I will show climb data from this site since it conforms to other sources.
Me-262 Pilot Debrief . German pilot Hans Fey who apparently flew acceptance test on the Me-262 and stated that minimum airspeed was 515 mph at some altitude below 13,000 ft., which is quite a bit below the airspeed stated in the German document above.
Arrow to the Future, a book on Me-262 by Walter J. Boyne which was a bit of a disappointment in performance data. What it did show was standard data points. It did show that the climb rate of the Me-262 was 3937 ft/min at SL.
This is the data source I have found for the P-80.
From Spitfireperformance:
3 December, 1946 test by AAF on airspeed comparison of production P-80A vs modified wing tips and nose. Document is signed by the afore mentioned Col. Albert Boyd. This aircraft was flown with the J-33-11 engine.
7 November, 1946 test by AAF on surface treatments. Document is signed by Col. Albert Boyd.
14 February, 1947, test by AAF on best, worst and average P-80A with J-33-9 engine
Document is signed by Col. Albert Boyd.
The P-80 Shooting Star, a book by E.T. Wooldridge, which shows a performance comparison of the P-80A versus the XP-84. While this data referenced an AF memorandum, I did not use this data. It showed a much higher speed than some of the other tests, including 562 mph at sea level.
So this is basically what I have.
Me-262 per German document for airspeed, common data for climb, and for the P-80A, with J-33-9/11 engines. The two P-80 engines were interchangeable and were rated at 3570 lbs thrust.
For airspeed, I made four comparisons based on spotty data. Me-262 (1) is worst case based on test pilot report that min airspeed was 515 mph and other airspeed estimates based on delta to best performance. Me-262 (2) is best case based on German data. For the P-80, (1) is worst case per test and (2) is best case.
Airspeed
SL
Me-262 (1) 515
P-80 (1) 520
Me-262 (2) 521
P-80 (2) 548
10k
Me-262 (1) 520
P-80 (1) 524
Me-262 (2) 531
P-80 (2) 544
20k
Me-262 (1) 529
P-80 (1) 523
Me-262 (2) 540
P-80 (2) 531
30k
Me-262 (1) 509
P-80 (1) 505
Me-262 (2) 518
P-80 (2) 510
40k
Me-262 (1) NA, above Me-262 ceiling
P-80 (1) 481
Me-262 (2) NA, above Me-262 ceiling
P-80 (2) 493
Climb
SL
Me-262 3960 ft/min
P-80 (1) 4300
P-80 4640
20k
Me-262 2160
P-80 (1) 2500
P-80 2830
30k
Me -262 1080
P-80 (1) 1650
P-80 1910
Ceiling
Me-262 37,560 ft
P-80 45,000
Looking at this data, the lowest performing P-80A is equivalent to the poorest performing Me-262 in airspeed and the best performing P-80A is equivalent to the best Me-262 in airspeed. In both cases, the P-80A is superior to the Me-262 in climb. It also must be noted that the P-80 has over a mile more ceiling than the Me-262. This, as demonstrated in Korea by the Mig-15, is a significant advantage.
In my opinion, the P-80A with specified performing of J-33-9/11 would be very competitive to the Me-262 in the fall of 1945, certainly to the extent that the P-80 would be produced in considerably more quantity than the Me-262. With the higher ceiling, the P-80 could exploit higher energy levels.
Why the disparity in the reported flight test pilots and the concern about the performance compared to the Me-262? Well, there may be a couple of reasons. One, which I think is the case, is that the engine performance of the early engines was erratic and difficult to measure, and that the P-80 used for reference just did not perform. This was a case in one of the test documents where an engine had to be replaced. Two, the Me-262 that was tested performed quite a bit better than all the referenced data.
It must be noted that I am not in possession of the flight test data of the AAF testing of the Me-262.