p-80 V Me 262 (1 Viewer)

[Soren]

Adler,

I present sources when asked, go ahead and check. If I'm not asked you cannot blame me for not presenting any. But I can assure you Adler, I do not debate about subjects which I haven't got excellent detailed information on collected over many years.

There are certainly subjects in which I am not very well educated, but you'll also notice I will rarely ever debate on these but rather ask for confirmation or mostly not even participate but just read.

And yes I often do ask for evidence of my claimed patronising, but for once I'd like to actually see some, its very frustrating being accused of something you don't feel is correct and then is offered no proof of it.

Delcyros,

You pretty much wrote my response to Juha, but you missed some which I am going to fill in.

Juha,

To get close at night was necesary because like it is said (And like you are taught in the military) distance is so very very easy to get horribly wrong at night - and the targeting fire-control computer [KommandoGerät] is only as good as the range figures are correct, a wrong distance setting will seriously alter angle deflection needed to score a hit.

However with sufficient moonlight long range attacks at night could be carried out very successfully as target ID and bow to stern measurements of unknown targets could then be carried out with a good degree of certainty.

 

[Soren]

Note on U-boat torpedo targeting computers:

The US were actually sligthly ahead of the Germans in this area as their TDC's could to some degree track the target in fog, this meant some rather more dubious shots could be made with a better chance of a hit (It never beat an experienced target operator in a clear visibility situation though, but it made quick shots against slightly obscurred targets easier), otherwise they were the same as long as the right figures were plugged in. The US subs however seriously lacked the efficient and advanced torpedoes navigational computers deployed by German subs, as-well as the excellent optics provided by Zeiss, something which had a greater effect on accuracy.

Anyways just thought I'd let you guys know that the US weren't completely behind in terms torpedo targeting as their TDC was slightly ahead all others with its limited ability to track targets in fog. Overall US torpedo targeting was still behind the German though. (Mainly due to the better optics torpedoes deployed by German subs)

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Adler,

I present sources when asked, go ahead and check. If I'm not asked you cannot blame me for not presenting any. But I can assure you Adler, I do not debate about subjects which I haven't got excellent detailed information on collected over many years.

Really? You just did.

And yes I often do ask for evidence of my claimed patronising, but for once I'd like to actually see some, its very frustrating being accused of something you don't feel is correct and then is offered no proof of it.

Soren I dont have to give you any proof. The proof is in your posts in other threads. I told you to go back and read all your damn posts in just about every thread. You are called out on this by everyone.

I challenge you to actually go and read your posts.

This discussion is dead here now. If you wish to discuss this in a PM that is fine with me. I will be back from Munich tomorrow. We can carry this on there.

 

[kool kitty89]

So back to the original topic? Or is that dead too...

Maby we should stary another best jet of the war topic, or maby worst jet.


So to sum up what I've got, the speeds were about equal ith the 262;s higher crit-mach making it the faster diver. The P-80 had a better dogfighter armament (though the 262 could have had other weapons fitted fairly easily if needed). The P-80 had better initial acceleration with standard load and better normal and max range. The P-80 had a significant ceiling advantage and pressurized cockpit. The P-80 had a computing gunsights. Both had unreliable engines (though partially for different reasons, and only in the early P-80s: J33-A-9 engine had less of a flameout problem and more of a stalling one). The YP-80A had the fuel-pump problem,though the back-up pump allieviated this partially. Some early P-80 pilots underestimated the differences between jets and prop planes and treated it as "just another plane" which contributed strongly to the early accedent rate. (though pilots that had already had conversion training in a P-59 would have had less of a problem, and better if the pilot was fully experienced in the characteristics of the P-80) (the P-80 tended to be a pretty hot aircraft to handel, which showed the need for new trainers, resulting in the T-33)

Unsure: which was more maneuverable (it seems many say it was the P-80 at lower speeds and the 262 at higher speeds, others claim the P-80 was more agile in general) Also unsure of which had better armour...

The range of the P-80 would have made it usable as an escort if the 262's interceptions were persistant though.

 

[delcyros]

You pretty much summerized it up, koolkitty!
I would add computing gunsights for the Me-262 (EZ-42 were delivered for the Me-262 program) and the Berger G-siuts for the P-80.
As far as I know, the -262 had considerable armour in the cockpit front, the nose and the cockpit rear and three fireproof bulkheads in the fuselage.
The whole amount of armour is 577.5 lbs. I do have no idea what the P-80 had but I would expect cockpit armour, too.
What is more interesting for me is the skin of both planes. I have no figures but would expect substantial differences depending on which area we look. This is actually more important for the Me-262 against .50cal API. The 30mm mine round, containing actually twice the amount of explosive as a Bofors 40mm HE round has to much blast and fragmentation effects and usually would destroy a P-80 if hit (barring a wingtip hit).

 

[AL Schlageter]

Who has read the 4 books on the Me262 put out by Classic Publications and authored by Smith Creek?

 

[Juha]

Delcyros, on Type XXIII you are right, I remembered the early 45 coastal campaign, but most U-boats lost in it seemed to be "ordinary" schnorkel-boats.
On XXI, it easy to claim some successful post-VE-Day engagements but impossible to verify them, because no shots were fired and so no hits to verify the claims. So I don't count them. As I wrote the Type XXI was the base of post-war submarine development, but they missed the war. Or at least they sunk nothing.

PBB, now they were heavily armed rather slow commercial raiders. Allies had no use of that kind of ships and in seacombat between warships they didn't do exceptionally well. And this tonnage vs sunk tonnage comparison isn't very good indication when comparing combat worth of warships, KM's aux. cruiser Atlantis, Schiff 16, sunk or captured nearly 20 times it's own tonnage, was it clearly better warship than Adm Scheer?

PE shooting was exceptionally good during Bismarck cruise, but Hipper's was poor during the battle of Barents Sea, and probably not very good when HMS Glowworm rammed it in April 40, I would say fair during combat with escorts of convoy WS5A on 25 Dec 40.

Mk 24 FIDO was a torpedo, slow it was but 12 kts on own power with a range of some 5½ km made it a torpedo not a mine. The mine term was used on it as a cover term but it wasn't a mine. Allies didn't have so desperate need for submarine homing torpedoes and German didn't have so desperate need for A/S homing torpedoes that's why Allies developed FIDO and Germans T5.

 

[delcyros]

On XXI, it easy to claim some successful post-VE-Day engagements but impossible to verify them, because no shots were fired and so no hits to verify the claims. So I don't count them. As I wrote the Type XXI was the base of post-war submarine development, but they missed the war. Or at least they sunk nothing.

You may find it easy but it shows very well that type XXI boats repeatedly were able to work up into a task force and develop a fortunate firing solution against an enemy cruiser and enemy carrier, despite massive ASW screening. And U-2511 shadowed a british sub off norway for two days, for the whole duration beeing undeteced by the submarine hunter-sub. It did not fire LuT torpedoes due to uncertainities whether or not this sub was german or british and only post war analyses showed the latter to be the case. In all three cases the reports were not believed in the first as british ASW-operations were running high and they didn´t detected anything. Only when log positions were compared did they realized that the incidents indeed happened. To not count them as submarine due to they haven´t fired torpedoes in anger is acceptable in case it would have been a prototype sub or an experimental testbed but there were 120+ boats type XXI servicable at wars end. The type XXI wasn´t rushed into combat (like rockets or jets) but that doesn´t make it less lethal or advanced, quite the opposite I would assume.

PBB, now they were heavily armed rather slow commercial raiders. Allies had no use of that kind of ships and in seacombat between warships they didn't do exceptionally well. And this tonnage vs sunk tonnage comparison isn't very good indication when comparing combat worth of warships, KM's aux. cruiser Atlantis, Schiff 16, sunk or captured nearly 20 times it's own tonnage, was it clearly better warship than Adm Scheer?

You are correct in recognizing that PBB´s were slow and heavily armed and the allied had no use of such a type. But this doesn´t make them less worthy! The allies had no use of a commerce raider BECAUSE there was no large german / italian merchant fleet operating in the Atlantic. The germans, however, had a target rich environment requiring this type of ship. Tonnage sunk vs tonnage laid down is an exceptionally well indicator for the strategic usefulness of a design CLASS. Atlantis was only one ship in a CLASS which didn´t did well at all but the three PBB´s as a CLASS had very positive returns as did the subs (which is exactly why the german navy changed to submarine warfare). I don´t know where You rely on that the PBB´s didin´t well in combat, only one lengthy naval battle emerged in which Graf Spee, despite beeing slower, low on ammunition and outnumbered 3 to 1 did well against 3 RN cruisers. The damage received in this action was not compromising combat abilities of Graf Spee but mislead Langsdorff to enter the wrong harbour, politically.

PE shooting was exceptionally good during Bismarck cruise, but Hipper's was poor during the battle of Barents Sea, and probably not very good when HMS Glowworm rammed it in April 40, I would say fair during combat with escorts of convoy WS5A on 25 Dec 40.

How do You qualify "poor" shooting at Barent Sea. According to every reliable naval history, Hipper did better with her gunnery in worse conditions, compared to other ships operating this day. You may justifiedly blame other aspects, but Hipper particularely was not "poor".
Glowworm was hit repeatedly by Hipper during it´s approach on her, what do You expect more from Hippers main artillery? Later Hipper showed quite good gunnery against HMS Jupiter, a tanker and a troop transport (all sunk).

Mk 24 FIDO was a torpedo, slow it was but 12 kts on own power with a range of some 5½ km made it a torpedo not a mine. The mine term was used on it as a cover term but it wasn't a mine. Allies didn't have so desperate need for submarine homing torpedoes and German didn't have so desperate need for A/S homing torpedoes that's why Allies developed FIDO and Germans T5.

The USN referred to it as a homing mine. The MK 24 mine was to be dropped by B-24 bombers and activated it´s own powersource only if it found noises in it´s vicinity, a unique weapon. The range at 12 Kts,however was only 4.000 yards (3.66 Km), not 5 1/2 km. The hit rate was ~ 12%. Out of 340 Fidos dropped in 264 attacks, 40 submarines got sunk or damaged. This weapon turned out to be to slow for use against submarines. You need to place the Fido in the very vicinity of the submarine to have a reasonable hit rate (type XXI and XXIII could outpace it).
The first acoustic homing US torpedo was the post war Mk 35 mod.1.

 

[Juha]

Hello Delcyros
"log positions were compared did they realized that the incidents indeed happened"

I don't doubt that Type XXIs observed the British formations but how to verify how close they got?

"Atlantis was only one ship in a CLASS which didn´t did well at all"
That's entirely untrue. First of all Germans were not so stupid that they would build a class of disguised aux. cruisers, that would have made the game too easy to Allies. All their disguised aux. cruisers were different. And as a TYPE they were rather successful.
Orion Schiff 36 sunk 10 times it's tonnage
Thor, Schiff 10 sunk nearly 40 times it's tonnage
Pinquin, chiff 33, sunk almost 20 times it's tonnage

The 9 disguised aux. cruisers which got to open seas sank altogether 890'000BRT of merchant ships and one light cruiser and one British aux. cruiser. Smallest of these 9 was Komet, 3'287 tonnes and largest Kormoran, 8'736 tonnes. So their average was better than that of best of PBBs in tonnage sunk vs own tonnage.

"Graf Spee, despite beeing slower, low on ammunition and outnumbered 3 to 1 did well against 3 RN cruisers"

IIRC Graf Spee wasn't low on ammo at the beginning of the battle, after all it shot away 414 11" shots/shells during the battle but at the end of battle it had run rather low in its ammo and that had an effect on it's CO's later decisions. And Exeter and Ajax and Achilles were "small" CA and CLs, British County class CAs had 33% more 8" guns than Exeter and the new Town class CLs had 50% more 6" guns than Ajax-class CLs. So IMHO Graf Spee would have had harder time against those bigger CAs and CLs.

On Hipper, IMHO it would be difficult to ram well shooting CA. On Hipper's case maybe part of the blame is on overconfident CO and maybe underestimating the fighting spirit of RN. So let's say that Hipper's shooting was not adequate for the CO's needs.
Barents Sea, I think that HMS Jamaica and HMS Sheffield shot better, after all they hit thrice Hipper in 5 minutes and sunk DD Eckholdt in minutes

On torpedoes, air-launched torpedoes were rather short-ranged, British Mk XII 1,500 yards (1,370 m) / 40 knots 3,500 yards (3,200 m) / 37 knots, Mk XV 2,500 yards (2,290 m) / 40 knots 3,500 yards (3,200 m) / 33 knots, USN Mk 13 6,300 yards (5,760 m) / 33.5 knots. So Mk 24 was slow but longer ranged than air-dropped torpedoes used by RN but had only 2/3 range of USN air-dropped torpedo. It seems you had got your figures from "US Navy Torpedoes" by Frederick J. Milford, notice the title, bolding by me. And according to Milford only 204 of the 264 attacks were against submarines, so success rate was almost 20%. I don't have success rate of T5, but I doubt it was much better, probably worse.

 

[delcyros]

I don't doubt that Type XXIs observed the British formations but how to verify how close they got?

Without GPS tracks nobody could doubtless verify how close the subs came (even torpoedoes, had they been launched could have originated from another sub). But this technology doesn´t exist in ww2. You would need to question the submarine CO and officers credibility as eyewitnesses in order to question the events, per se. Which I -in turn- regard as a very questionable approach to the matter.

The 9 disguised aux. cruisers which got to open seas sank altogether 890'000BRT of merchant ships and one light cruiser and one British aux. cruiser. Smallest of these 9 was Komet, 3'287 tonnes and largest Kormoran, 8'736 tonnes. So their average was better than that of best of PBBs in tonnage sunk vs own tonnage.

I stand corrected with this. And now show me an allied aux. cruiser, cruiser or any gunfire capital ship-class which sunk that many tonnage as a PBB or an KM aux. cruiser as a class...

IIRC Graf Spee wasn't low on ammo at the beginning of the battle, after all it shot away 414 11" shots/shells during the battle but at the end of battle it had run rather low in its ammo and that had an effect on it's CO's later decisions.

This is only superficially true, my friend. Graf Spee, following a lengthy south Atlantic cruise was indeed low on the kind of ammo, which was best suited for this engagement: HE rounds. The 11.1" APC went right through the ship as neither of the RN cruisers had armour to stop them (as a matter of fact, even lateral fragmentation of the 11.1" HE round could pierce the turrets from near hits)

Exeter and Ajax and Achilles were "small" CA and CLs, British County class CAs had 33% more 8" guns than Exeter and the new Town class CLs had 50% more 6" guns than Ajax-class CLs. So IMHO Graf Spee would have had harder time against those bigger CAs and CLs.

I do not doubt that it would have been harder with other CA´s. But the fact still remains: three individual ships against a single, two turretted vessel leaves one ship (at least) unengaged, which is a tactical advantage, worthy beeing mentioned as such. HMS Exeter, effectively driven out of the engagement due to damage received by Graf Spee had a max. displacement of 10.688t.; Ajax and Achilles each a displacement of 9.740t. max while Graf Spee had a max. displacement of 16.020 t., around half as much as the RN ships combined. Not only had the RN ships strategic (Graf Spee has no hope of any assist and the allied presence was growing with Dunkerque and Strassbourg detached), tactical (visibility), numerical, conditional (torpedoes, nearby allies) and force advantage (30.168t. vs. 16.020 t.) but they were also faster than their german counterpart. The RN force thus should have been more than able to sink Graf Spee in this engagement, if Graf Spee is nearly as bad as Your statements imply.
But this didn´t happened. Countrary to this assumption, the 6" common and 8" SAP ammo had not the ability to penetrate into Graf Spee´s vitals and thus only superficial damage was inflicted to the ship (an exception is a single 8" training round penetrating the main belt. But this round was a solid APC-shot, with inherent advantages as to AP-capabilities and without filler. No damage occurred) This is a point of interest as it shows that other RN cruisers likely wouldn´t have differed in this regard if they had six, eight or twelve guns as long as the rounds do not penetrate. USN 8" CA´s do have generally much better APC rounds issued, but not by 1939.

On Hipper, IMHO it would be difficult to ram well shooting CA. On Hipper's case maybe part of the blame is on overconfident CO and maybe underestimating the fighting spirit of RN. So let's say that Hipper's shooting was not adequate for the CO's needs.
Barents Sea, I think that HMS Jamaica and HMS Sheffield shot better, after all they hit thrice Hipper in 5 minutes and sunk DD Eckholdt in minutes

Compare the number of ammo expanded on Sheffield Jamaica with the number of hits claimed and do the same for Hipper. Quite enlighting as to who had the better hit rate...
Hipper never showed "poor" gunnery or- assumning she did- than her contemporary allied cruisers had even poorer gunnery, respectively -which isn´t true. Therefore Hipper had very good gunnery for a cruiser as had Prinz Eugen. I think we both agree on the CO underestimating Glowworm´s fighting spirit and overestimating Hippers tactical position, hardly something one could blame the ship for.

On torpedoes, air-launched torpedoes were rather short-ranged, British Mk XII 1,500 yards (1,370 m) / 40 knots 3,500 yards (3,200 m) / 37 knots, Mk XV 2,500 yards (2,290 m) / 40 knots 3,500 yards (3,200 m) / 33 knots, USN Mk 13 6,300 yards (5,760 m) / 33.5 knots. So Mk 24 was slow but longer ranged than air-dropped torpedoes used by RN but had only 2/3 range of USN air-dropped torpedo.

Fido: 4000 yards @ 12 Kts
US MK 13 air dropped torpedo: 6.300 yards @ 33.5 Kts
Soviet TAV-15 air dropped torpedo: 6.500-9.800 yards @ 30 Kts
Soviet 45-36AV-A air dropped torpedo: 4.370 yards @ 39 Kts
British 18" MK XV air dropped stand. torpedo: 3.500 yards @ 33 Kts
German F5B air dropped torpedo: 6.560 yards @ 24 Kts
japanese type 91 air dropped torpedo: 2.200 yards @ 41-43 Kts

To put this into prospect: adding 4 Kts to the speed of a uniform waterplane area submarine requires a rough approximate doubling of the energy. If we use the lowest performing air dropped torpedo (the german F5b at low speed configuration) and let the Fido run 24 Kts, it will have a range no more than 500 yards compared to the 6.560 of the F5b. Doing the opposite, letting the F5b run at Fido´s 12 Kts equals to a capacity range of theoretical 52.480 yards compared to Fido´s 4.000.

And according to Milford only 204 of the 264 attacks were against submarines, so success rate was almost 20%. I don't have success rate of T5, but I doubt it was much better, probably worse.

That is true but I added the non US successes of the Fido and hence You should add the 62 non US attacks on submarines with the Fido. That totals to a hit rate of slightly under 15%.

 

[Juha]

"Graf Spee, following a lengthy south Atlantic cruise was indeed low on the kind of ammo,"

Now IIRC PBB capacity was 600 – 700 11" shells, at the end of La Plata action it still had some 20% left, so it seemed to have had at least some 80% of its 11" ammo when the action started. So how much under 100% is low?

"three individual ships against a single, two turretted vessel leaves one ship (at least) unengaged,"
you forget the 8 5.9" guns on Graf Spee, one could use at least the 4 on one side against one enemy ship, and they were used, firing IIRC 377 5.9" shells without hitting once.

"Compare the number of ammo expanded on Sheffield Jamaica with the number of hits claimed and do the same for Hipper. Quite enlighting as to who had the better hit rate..."

I would like to do that if you can give me a reliable info on how many hits Eckholdt suffered. Without that info one cannot count hit rate. In the gun battle between cruisers Hipper was hit thrice without hitting the RN cruisers. Hipper fired only some 20 shells towards RN cruisers before running away.

On air-drop torpedoes my point is that they tended to be rather short range weapons because of aiming difficulties. The range and speed of Mk 24 FIDO was fairly enough against pre Type XXIII subs, one can see it from 15 - 18% hit rate which I think was better than that of T5.

"And now show me an allied aux. cruiser, cruiser or any gunfire capital ship-class which sunk that many tonnage as a PBB or an KM aux. cruiser as a class..."

As you know, there were not so many merchant ships to be hunted by Allied ships outside Pacific. Some German ships were captured/forced to scuttle in Atlantic but I cannot remember their sizes or that of their captors. One other possibility is Force K in Med but it was operating in much more hazardous environment and it still had far fewer potential targets than German raiders. But if we look from other angle. Allied succeeded to cripple Afrika Korps supply service, strangle Japan imports rather effectively but Germany's aim to force GB to surrender by economic blockade failed.

 

[Soren]

So back to the original topic? Or is that dead too...

Maby we should stary another best jet of the war topic, or maby worst jet.


So to sum up what I've got, the speeds were about equal ith the 262;s higher crit-mach making it the faster diver. The P-80 had a better dogfighter armament (though the 262 could have had other weapons fitted fairly easily if needed). The P-80 had better initial acceleration with standard load and better normal and max range. The P-80 had a significant ceiling advantage and pressurized cockpit. The P-80 had a computing gunsights. Both had unreliable engines (though partially for different reasons, and only in the early P-80s: J33-A-9 engine had less of a flameout problem and more of a stalling one). The YP-80A had the fuel-pump problem,though the back-up pump allieviated this partially. Some early P-80 pilots underestimated the differences between jets and prop planes and treated it as "just another plane" which contributed strongly to the early accedent rate. (though pilots that had already had conversion training in a P-59 would have had less of a problem, and better if the pilot was fully experienced in the characteristics of the P-80) (the P-80 tended to be a pretty hot aircraft to handel, which showed the need for new trainers, resulting in the T-33)

The difference between the Me-262 the P-80 is that by late 1944-45 the Me-262 was actually safe to fly and the P-80 wasn't. The P-80 had serious teething problems when first fielded and was quickly deemed unsafe to fly after a series of accidents and was pulled away from service.

Unsure: which was more maneuverable (it seems many say it was the P-80 at lower speeds and the 262 at higher speeds, others claim the P-80 was more agile in general) Also unsure of which had better armour...

The Me-262 was definitely the more agile in the horizontal, being able to pull harder turns because of its automatic LE slats. The P-80 must have had an advantage in roll rate with those stubby wings though. Speed Climb rate goes to the Me-262 with its ~4,000 ft/min climb rate fully loaded (6,700 kg).

The range of the P-80 would have made it usable as an escort if the 262's interceptions were persistant though.

The US just couldn't have had it ready in time. The XP-72 was a better solution IMO as it could've been fielded in time and didn't suffer from any serious reliability issues, plus it was VERY fast at high altitudes, so it would have had a good chance of catching an Me-262 busy attacking the bombers by diving in on it.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

The difference between the Me-262 the P-80 is that by late 1944-45 the Me-262 was actually safe to fly and the P-80 wasn't.

In what terms? The only problem the P-80 had was a fuel control problem at full power (which killed Bong and Burcham) and that was rectified by the summer of 45. Not to say that both aircraft had their problems but the P-80 didn't have 25 hour engines and did not have the same engine out on landing problems the 262 had.

 

[AL Schlageter]

The difference between the Me-262 the P-80 is that by late 1944-45 the Me-262 was actually safe to fly and the P-80 wasn't. The P-80 had serious teething problems when first fielded and was quickly deemed unsafe to fly after a series of accidents and was pulled away from service.

Sure Soren. Got the stats to back up your statement?

 

[delcyros]

Juha,

let´s realize that we are going to totally sidetrack the discussion. If You are interested in continuing, open a new thread in another section (ww2 general). Graf Spee and subs do have absolutely nothing in common with a me-262 or P-80.

thanks in advance,

 

[pbfoot]

The Germans were fielding aircraft in 44/ 45 that would not have met the same safety standards used by them in 39/40

 

[Soren]

In what terms? The only problem the P-80 had was a fuel control problem at full power (which killed Bong and Burcham) and that was rectified by the summer of 45. Not to say that both aircraft had their problems but the P-80 didn't have 25 hour engines and did not have the same engine out on landing problems the 262 had.

By summer 45 the war was over, and the fuel pump problem was serious.

The reliability problem of the Jumo 004's didn't make the Me-262 unsafe to fly, for one it had two of them, secondly everything was done to ensure they didn't fail (Such as for example limiting them to 25 hours of flight time before maintenance). Also if both engine did fail the LE slats coupled with flaps would ensure a slow enough ditching speed to ensure the pilot didn't get hurt - it was actually more unsafe to try and land with only one engine.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

By summer 45 the war was over, and the fuel pump problem was serious.

Yes the war was over and the fuel pump problem was serious and was rectified. The only why Bong died in the P-80 was because he wasn't aware of the "quick fix" which involved engaging the pump (which I believe was in a wheel well) during his pre-flight. This was told to me by Tony LeVier who also stated that if he had an opportunity to brief Bong before his flight he (Bong) might not of been killed.

The reliability problem of the Jumo 004's didn't make the Me-262 unsafe to fly, for one it had two of them, secondly everything was done to ensure they didn't fail (Such as for example limiting them to 25 hours of flight time before maintenance). Also if both engine did fail the LE slats coupled with flaps would ensure a slow enough ditching speed to ensure the pilot didn't get hurt - it was actually more unsafe to try and land with only one engine.

From Steinhoff to Galland, every well known pilot who flew the 262 spoke about its limitations during engine out landings - slats weren't going to help you if you couldn't get directional control of the aircraft and that was the problem with the 262.

The 25 hour maintenance was out of necessity and that's if the engine even made 25 hours. No denying the ability of the aircraft but once again you ignore the fact that these aircraft were being built with "substitute" materials and slave labor - accidents waiting to happen.

 

[Juha]

Hello Delcyros
I agree, I will put some questions in ww2 general section. And thanks for correcting my wrong impression on Type XXIII. It funny when one gets old it easier to remember some old impressions one had got while reading 35 years ago, in this case the Ballantine book on U-boats than something one had read some 15-20 years ago, one book on subs which clearly stats that only 2 Type XXIIIs were lost in open seas.

Juha

 

[Soren]

Yes the war was over and the fuel pump problem was serious and was rectified. The only why Bong died in the P-80 was because he wasn't aware of the "quick fix" which involved engaging the pump (which I believe was in a wheel well) during his pre-flight. This was told to me by Tony LeVier who also stated that if he had an opportunity to brief Bong before his flight he (Bong) might not of been killed.

I know but Bong wasn't the only who had an accident in the P-80.

From Steinhoff to Galland, every well known pilot who flew the 262 spoke about its limitations during engine out landings - slats weren't going to help you if you couldn't get directional control of the aircraft and that was the problem with the 262.

Directional control was great in the Me-262 infact it was excellent. You'd have to go below 160 km/h to loose directional control in the Me-262 (This is with flaps deployed)

Ditching the Me-262 on a field at 160 km/h wouldn't be that risky for the pilot.

The 25 hour maintenance was out of necessity and that's if the engine even made 25 hours. No denying the ability of the aircraft but once again you ignore the fact that these aircraft were being built with "substitute" materials and slave labor - accidents waiting to happen.

The reliability issue was because of the use of substitute metals.

I am not really aware of how big a part of the Jumo 004 production was carried out by slave labor, infact AFAIK the Jumo 004's werent constructed by slave labor but built completely with German hands - I could be wrong about this though.