p-80 V Me 262

But by the time the Canadair T-33 was produced, the J33-A-35 engine was in production (produced up to 5400 lbf with W/A injection) compared to the Nene's 5000 lbf (or slightly higher). The J33-A35 was used in later T-33 models and in the F-80C.

kool kitty89 said:

But by the time the Canadair T-33 was produced, the J33-A-35 engine was in production (produced up to 5400 lbf with W/A injection) compared to the Nene's 5000 lbf (or slightly higher). The J33-A35 was used in later T-33 models and in the F-80C.

Click to expand...

But the nene powered T bird was an all round better flyer much like the merlin powered P51. Flyboy should be more knowledgeable about this

pbfoot said:

But the nene powered T bird was an all round better flyer much like the merlin powered P51. Flyboy should be more knowledgeable about this

Click to expand...

And that it was - it seemed the nene powered Tbirds had more power and the fuel control responded better - I don't know if there was internal differences between the two fuel controls....

But wasn't CT-133 Silver Star somewhat slower than the Shooting Star? (top-speed around 570mph).

kool kitty89 said:

But wasn't CT-133 Silver Star somewhat slower than the Shooting Star? (top-speed around 570mph).

Click to expand...

It was as all T-33s - extra cockpit, controls and the seat...

But wasn't the T-33A's top speed 600 mph (with boost), the same as the P-80C? Though, a few feet longer and the 2-person cockpit, the T-33 is little diferent from the P-80 and from the figures I've seen is actually about 100 lbs lighter empty. While the CT-133 is about the same weight and has longer wings.

The (licenced) Nene-powered F9F Panther had symilar performance to the CT-133 with a top-speed of 575 mph, though it was heavier empty its max weight and range were about the same to the Silver Star. It also had a water-injection system that boosted its J42 engine from 5000 lbf to 5950lbf.

kool kitty89 said:

But wasn't the T-33A's top speed 600 mph (with boost), the same as the P-80C? Though, a few feet longer and the 2-person cockpit, the T-33 is little diferent from the P-80 and from the figures I've seen is actually about 100 lbs lighter empty. While the CT-133 is about the same weight and has longer wings.

Click to expand...

Alls I know it's the preferred version of the T33 I believe there are more Canadair T birds flying then Lockheed's in the US whether thats because the CAF kept them up until the mid 90's or other reason's. I also believe the cruise in the CT133 was about 15mph faster or at least thats what they flight planned .

Ok, well the performance difference either way isn't much and the T-33 was little used in combat (as the attack or recon combat variants) and I dont think the CT-133 used at all in combat

kool kitty89 said:

But wasn't the T-33A's top speed 600 mph (with boost), the same as the P-80C?

Click to expand...

I don't believe so and many were delivered with slightly derated engines from what I understand, and I don't think many if any T-33s had water injection unless they were RT-33s.

kool kitty89 said:

Though, a few feet longer and the 2-person cockpit, the T-33 is little diferent from the P-80 and from the figures I've seen is actually about 100 lbs lighter empty. While the CT-133 is about the same weight and has longer wings.

Click to expand...

I'm not too sure about that - the 100 pounds empty weight don't mean much, it's the take off weight you'll work with. I'm not sure about the CT-133's wings being longer either - I believe most of the tooling that built the aircraft was made from drawings supplied from Lockheed.

BTW - the T-33s I dealt with at Mojave rarely saw more than 500 mph. All had their tip tanks bolted on and at higher speeds the tip tanks would "flap."

Yeah, I'd imagine the T-33's large wing-tip tanks would cause some significant aerodynamic interferance, especialy compared to the P-80's smaller teardrop tanks wich, despite increasing drag slightly, improved roll rate significantly (like the F9F Panther's permanant wing tanks did), though I assume top-speed was negatively impacted.

I don't know where the original figures came from for the P-80 speed
but the following is what the Air Force says in "Post World War II Fighters 1945-1973":
MAX SPEED P-80A 484.5 kn @ s.l. (556.9 mph)
P-80C 503.6 kn @ 7,000' (580 mph)
T-33A 471.5 kn @25,000' (543 mph)

Monogram Close-Up 17 Mw 262A-1 says:
MAX SPEED Me262A-1a 514 mph (828 kph) @ s.l.
540 mph (870 kph) @ 19,686'
510 mph (820 kph) @ 32,811'

In addition the USAAF report on the Me 262, F-TR-1133-ND "Evaluation of the Me 262" saya in it's conclusion "Despite a difference in gross weight of nearly 2000 lbs, Me 262 T-2-711 was superior to the average P-80A in acceleration and speed and approximately the same in climb performance." It also says the handling of the P-80A was better.

One further point, only 4 YP-80s deployed to Europe, Operation Extraversion, before wars end, 2 to Italy and 2 to Britian. One of each were lost due to technical problems. No squadron deployment were made to Europe until mid-1946, when the 55th FG was re-equiped with P-80As.

My 2 cents worth,

Walt

Does anyoune have a sourse for the US's service evaluation of the Me-262?

kool kitty89 said:

Yeah, I'd imagine the T-33's large wing-tip tanks would cause some significant aerodynamic interferance, especialy compared to the P-80's smaller teardrop tanks wich, despite increasing drag slightly, improved roll rate significantly (like the F9F Panther's permanant wing tanks did), though I assume top-speed was negatively impacted.

Click to expand...

The T33 was an obvious better aircraft then the the 262 simply by the fact its still flying operationally today and it was a great airshow performer the RCAF used the T B 1 RD as a aerobatic solo demo bird for years for smaller airshows . The 262 was produced by the Czechs post war and flew into the 50's
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QUvsQ6kY-1A
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6OSJpD2eups

The original Me-262 was produced with materials that weren't that time-enduring (many components corroded or simply wore-out). There also was little further development of the design (the HG III being the most promising) and there were only a few used in Cezch service (around 100). In addition to this there were few organizations that were able to save the existing 262's from the scrapyard, and none of these kept them flight-worthy (engines being the main problem). While the T-33 is very durrable and has a tough, reliable engine and is still in military service in some countries.

Another interesting thing I found out is that though the Me-262 entered operations in May of 1944 (in conversion training) its first combat mission wasn't until August of that year. The Gloster Meteor Mk I started operations (as a conversion trainer) in June of 1944 and entered its first combat mission (V-1 interception) in late July, before the 262. So technically the meteor was the first jet aircraft to see combat, if only by a few days. Though, of course, the Mk I wasn't fully combat ready, so the first fully combat operational, and first jet to see operations (albeit in training) was the Me-262.

If you really want to split hairs, the Mk I Meteor was the first jet aircraft to shoot down another jet-powered aircraft (albeit an unmanned pulse-jet powered one).

Also the YP-59As were undergoing service testing in 1943, but they were far from combat worthy, though it might have been feasible to send a few to help with V-1 hunting if conditions were dire (though this would more likely be done with the P-59As) they might have been usefull at this too with the 37mm M4 cannon they carried. Though the P-51 would be jus about as useful.

The only version of the Airacomet with any real combat advantage (if only slight) was the P-59B wich had a top speed of 450mph at about 36,000 ft (413mph at 30,000 ft and ~390mph at SL), decent handeling, and the highest ceiling of any military aircraft at the time of 46,200 ft (it actually set an onofficial record in tests at around 47,600 ft) and with its 2000 lbf J31-GE-5 turbojets and a loaded weight of 11,00 lbs the T/W ratio was a respectable .36 cmpared to the 262's .28 or the early P-80A's .32.

(note: the Me-262 was actually fairly underpowered and made up with good aerodynamics,the Airacomet having the opposite problem, and would have done best with engines producing around 2400 lbf each, though the 2300 lbf 004Ds would have been a substancial improvement with better fuel effiency and reduced spool-up/flameout problems would have resulted in the epitome of 262 performance, especially if used in the HG III design, I wonder why the USSR didn't copy the 004D engine.) Nevermind they did in the RD-10E, and with an afterburner in the RD-10F.

I too haven´t seen the original evaluation report between -262 and P-80A, everybody seems to know so good. It would be a fruitful enterprise to search for this doc in US archives!

However, the Ar-234 was probably the first jet plane to enter combat service-altough as a photo recon over Normandy.
The Me-262 beats the Meteor-I by a narrow margin. The Ekdo 262 did combat sorties with the Me-262 in mid jule 1944, including the very first aerial kill in this month. The Ekdo 262 is no regular combat unit (rather a more preliminary combat evaluation unit).
The Meteor indeed semms to have been the first jet to enter REGULAR service.

The early thrust / weight ratios of -262 and P-80A are both around .28. It was long after end of ww2 that the improvements in jet engines benfitted the P-80A.

One of the big advantages of jets against V-1 bombs lies in their ability to sustain max. power much longer than piston A/C. A jet don´t has WEP (except for the BMW-003E, but that´s another story) and thus was not limited to 5 min. at max. power! Good when hunting V-1´s....

The 004 engine was not really ahead of its time. Though it used an axial compressor opposed to the first operational allied jets, it was a very conservative design meant to work with little developmental issues. This was done to expedite time to production. Overall this decision was a good one as it enabled the 004 to enter production ahead of other designs, but it was bulky, especially for an axial design, and actually wider than the radial HeS-8 (001) engine (though it was significantly more powerful) and had a low thrust/weight (around 1.2). The fully developed version of the original design was the 004D which was a decent engine in all and competitive to other production designs of the time, but still was a bit behind its potential.

Quote: ("Franz opted for a design that was at once conservative and revolutionary. His design differed from von Ohain's in that he utilised a new type of compressor which allowed a continuous, straight flow of air through the engine (an axial compressor), recently developed by the Aerodynamische Versuchsanstalt (AVA - Aerodynamic Research Institute) at Göttingen. The axial-flow compressor not only had excellent performance, about 78% efficient in "real world" conditions, but it also had a smaller cross-section, important for a high-speed aircraft design.

On the other hand, he aimed to produce an engine that was far below its theoretical potential, in the interests of expediting development and simplifying production. One major decision was to opt for a simple combustion area using six "flame cans", instead of the more efficient single annular can. For the same reasons, he collaborated heavily on the development of the engine's turbine with Allgemeine Elektricitäts-Gesellschaft (AEG - General Electric Company) in Berlin, and instead of building development engines, opted to begin work immediately on the prototype of an engine that could be put straight into production. Franz's conservative approach came under question from the RLM, but was vindicated when even given the developmental problems that it was to face, the 004 entered production and service well ahead of its more technologically advanced competitor, the BMW 003.)"

The only German engine that could have been produced in war-time to be usefull (at least by early 1944 and possibly before the 004 reached full production) would have been the HeS-30 (006) design, it was far ahead in effeciency, had thrust equivelent to the 004, but weighed under 900lbs and with a diameter of only 24in it was also the smallest. (about the same weight and thrust as the J31 or Derwent but with the thinness of an axial design) It was also quite short at around 104in in length. It also used the simpler flame cans like the 004 which posed fewer problems than the annular one of the 003. Of course this engine was originally a Junkers design, but Muller left when Jumo was baught an their engine (004) took priority. I wouldn't consider the HeS-011 that great because, despite it being advanced and powerful, it was unrealistic for the short-term and was soon outclassed by allied engines like the J33 and J35. It was also not as ready as the 004H which was more powerfull and copperable to the nonafterburning production J35 from 1947. (the J35 beig designed in the early 40's as a turboprop and redesigned and tested to symilar results to the 011, in 1944)

It should be noted that the HeS-30 (006) was originaly a Jumo designed engine but in a 1939 merger the head designer and half the team decided to leave and was quickly taken up bu Heinkel. Had Jumo taken more interest in this design it might have been ahead of the 004 as it took over a year to transfer the whole projest to Heinkel and as it was the 006 was only a few months behind the 004 the prototype running on the bench shortly after the 004A. The 006's overall performance wan't matched until late 1947.

Many american designs, and a few british ones were also ahead of the times and quite advanced. The Metrovick F.2, Britain's first working axial engine, was an awsome design, its performance being symilar tho the D.H. Goblin and smaller but was too unreliable for war use. It was tested in the Meteor I a few months after the Halford H-1 and welland powered ones were in late 1943, both the welland, and F.2 powered prototypes crashed in April of 1944. The F.2 was developed further into the successful A.S. Saphire engine.
The Lockheed L-1000 (later J37) was also very advanced, but ultimately was never produced. The J35 was already mentioned above and was also very advanced. The J35 was developed from the turboprop TG-100 / TG-31 project, the TG-180 had an out put of 2,545lb of thrust, being run for the first time on the 21/4/1944. The first all-American design produced in the US was the Westinghouse J30 first run in early 1943 the final version was in the same class as the BMW-003 (at 1600 lbf thrust, later 1650 lbf) and entering production by early 1945. The only production aircraft to use it was the FH Phantom. But it was developed into the 3000 lbf J34 which powered several planes, most notably, the Phantom's successor, the F2H Banshee.

The jet engine that was most ahead of its time would have to be the first operating one: Conada's "air reactive" engine, a motorjet, built in 1910!
see: Coanda
and Coandă-1910 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Of course the motor-jet wasn't a long-term jet design but could have paved the way for turbojets much earlier, particularly in terms of combustion-chamber and exhaust design.

As a note on the WEP the J33 was fitted with W/A injection, and later a version of the US licenced Nene was also fitted with water injection.

The Canadian version was an uprated Nene made by Orenda I haven't found out how it was uprated

The water injection is really a boost not WEP, but it's not that big of a mistake. Either way both are limited, though water injection is not nearly as deyrimental to the engine as overrev in the 003E.