p-80 V Me 262

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

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
They did not fly the YP-80A's without problems. They were even grounded after a crash.

Oh and Jank please downsize your siggy.
Click to expand...


I know the YP-80As in general had problems, and certainly wasn't denying that fact. I know one of the 2 stationed in England crashed (killing test pilot Major Frederic Borsodi ), which resulted in grounding. Though IIRC the 2 stationed in Italy didn't have any failures durring the short period when they flew a few sorties (without conflict or incedent) before being grounded. To be clear, I was saying that neither of these 2 YP-80As in Italy had any acedents prior to being grounded, IIRC. Weather this was due to better orientation, care of the pilots, or sheer luck, I'm not sure.

The early Y/P-80As also had boundary layer problems at the intakes causing loss of power under high G's, this was solved with airbleeds around in the intakes.(this would have hindered the early P-80s compared to the 262) The fuel cap problem was just neglegence...

Delcyros, I was trying to suggest an armament that would be effective aganst fighters and bombers, and honestly I hadn't expected both weapons to be used simultneously.(pilot would choose which set of guns to fire depending on situation) As for 4x MG 151/15, good for dogfights but not for bomber busting, and why not 5 or 6 MG 151/15, the 262 should have been capable of this. Though since firing all guns is important and the trajectory needs to be the same as you said, maby 5 or 6x MG 151/20 with mine rounds, effective aganst fighters and bombers; balistics not quite as good as the 151/15 (or MK 103, but ROF and ammo was better) but the HE made up for that and was certainly better than the MK 108's balistics. (and there were fewer duds IIRC)
How does 5 or (maby) 6x MG 151/20 cannons with 150 RPG sound? Even if only 4 were reasonable with 150 RPG or possibly 200 RPG, it would still have been decent for both dogfighting and Bomber busting. Like the Meteor's armament or the F2H Banshee's or the F9F Panther's with 4x Hispano 20mm cannons. (though ballitics were a little different, I don't think they could hold nearly the HE as the Mine rounds)
 
delcyros said:
The KG-51 used Me-262 A1b´s with a structurally different nose section for the two nose ETC´s. It is possible that the gunmounts were somehow messed up in this event, as structure weight indeed was removed to counter cog issues.
The nose section of the normal -262 (without ETC´s) was very rugged and a formidable weapon placement space. The Messerschmidt AG Aktenvermerke indeed show us an overconfidence with the nose structure, rapidly expanding requirements from four nose mounted 30mm to six and then to a variety of different guns, including MK 112 and BK-5´s.
Neither the Ekdo-262 nor Kdo. Nowotny experienced the troubles which KG-51 experienced, which makes me think it is not related to the armement discussion for the fighter variant.
Click to expand...

Wasn't the Me 262A-1b the trial version of the A-1 with BMW 003 engines? I heard only a handful were built and top speed was only 497 mph. I don't think KG-51 used this model. Maby you mean the Me 262A-2a? What do you mean be ETC?
 
delcyros said:
The KG-51 used Me-262 A1b´s with a structurally different nose section for the two nose ETC´s. It is possible that the gunmounts were somehow messed up in this event, as structure weight indeed was removed to counter cog issues.
The nose section of the normal -262 (without ETC´s) was very rugged and a formidable weapon placement space. The Messerschmidt AG Aktenvermerke indeed show us an overconfidence with the nose structure, rapidly expanding requirements from four nose mounted 30mm to six and then to a variety of different guns, including MK 112 and BK-5´s.
Neither the Ekdo-262 nor Kdo. Nowotny experienced the troubles which KG-51 experienced, which makes me think it is not related to the armement discussion for the fighter variant.
Click to expand...
If that is the case and the gun mounts were messed up, then it should show up on all the other 262s that had racks fitted. As far as I can tell, all the noses with MK108s were the same. Me262s of JG7 had racks fitted.

Most of the rack was attached to the main fuselage. (~3/4)
 
Just a side note, but the video on the Me 262 project's stormbirds webside has many inacuricies, both historical ans technical. Many of which are contradicted by more accurate statements in writing on the site. Specicifically the statement on the "Video with great in-flight footage of White 1 Tango Tango." here: STORMBIRDS presents the Me 262 Project that states that the "top speed was 650 knots, just like the originals" which is 745 mph and well above the structural limit of the airframe, not to mention supersonic over ~1000 ft. (actually 650 kts was the max speed rating for tests on the XP-86) It explicitly states elsewhere that the planes are not supposed to go beyond the 540 mph (470 kts) rating, and if this is done they are flying in "test pilot" mode. It's more than a little frustrating when a group dedicated to the accurate reproduction of the original Me 262 would have a narration that was so wrong on their own site...


Rantings aside I doubt the mainstream Me 262s had any major structural problems with the nose, from what I've read it was very sound and well built, actually made of steel to provide better durability. (not because dural was scarse, which some sources claim) If the nose was altered as Delcyros said, that would have a significant effect on the structural performance. Though I'm not sure which model he was refering to since the the A-1b was the test version using 003 engines. (possibly the A-2a or A-1/R-1 ?)

And as a final note on the turbine alloys capibilities of countries in WWII (not arguing just noting a few things) the alloys the Germans were forced to use due to shortages were decent: tinadur and chromadur (basically stainless steels, the latter omitting Nickel and the small amount of titanium for Manganese). Apparently, more improvements had been made using non-restricted materials and were ready for use in the 004D just bfore VE day.
(the biggest problem wasn't the alloys themselves, but the cercomstances of the production, though later models of engines had improved in quality and consistantcy, the 004B-4 was an example I believe. Many of the early 004B's used plain steel and not Chromadur or Tinadur so they were significantly less reliable and had much lower TBO. (I beleive it was these models which were the "10 hr" before flameout engines.)

The US had some problems when they first started work on jet engines, despite geed alloys being used in turbochargers by GE (stable at red heat), when GE first built the I-A the turbine was well above red heat and failed frequently, many actualy melting. Later improvements using alloys similar to the british Nimonic alloys. (ie Nichrome) (contrary to what RG said, when he claimed titaniom steels were needed, which aren't even a very good material for high-temp turbines; though Ti is a component but the majoity of most turbine alloys to this day is predominantly Nickel, many similar to Nimonic)

The british were probably the first to make use of the new Nimonic alloys which would allow turbines to run at high speed and very high temperatures. Whittle had been having trouble developing his engine without any good high-temp metals available and quickly made use of the new Nimonc alloys when they became available. This greatly improved the power, efficiency, and reliabillity of his engine.
 
560 knots (1,030 km/h) isn't way beyond the Me-262A-1a's structural limit, the safe flying limit was 1,000 km/h, but 1,100 km/h could be reached quite easily in a dive. Going beyond 1,100 km/h and you'd start to loose control over the a/c.
 
Sorry it should have said 650 knots (747mph), I fixed it. Which wasn't seen in controlled flight until the XP-86. Though the Me 262 HG II might have been capable of it in a dive, though just barely (and only maintain control at lower altitudes since the speed of sound is higher) and couldn't reach Mach 1.0+ and maintain control without a variable incedence or fully trimmable tailplane as seen in the Sabre. (it was supposed to be capible of up to .95 mach IIRC)

Admittedly 560 kts (644mph) is not impossible in the A-1 model in a dive (certainly in the HG I, and obveously in the HG II) but it would be beyond its .86 maqch limit at this speed above ~6500 ft (2000 m) and certainly in "test pilot" mode. And the Me 262 project people would not condone it...

But 650 kts (747 mph, 1203 kph) is beyond unreasonable for the A-1 or B-1 models.
 
I'm still not sure which model Delcyros meant KG-51 used since it certainly wasn't the BMW 003 powered Me-262 A1b. They were ground-attack so would have used the fighter-bomber A-2a right?

Also it has been said before that the specs for the 004D and 004E are from the lab-examples and not reflective of feild performance. While this is true and the Germans never produced them, the Russians however did. The RD-10 is your basic Jumo 004B copy with a few tweaks and some better alloys to greatly reduce reliabillity problems producing 1984 lbf. The RD-10A is a copy of the 004D and produced 2,200 lbf in the production model.(same as the Derwent II) The RD-10F is a copy of the 004H and produced 2,420 lbf. (same as the Derwent IV) So the 004D would have only had a ~100 kp increase in thrust, not the 150 kp of the prototype.

Thus if the 004D was produced as was about to enter production just prior to VE-day it is reasonable to expect it would have made 2,200 lbf giving the 262 an 11% increase in thrust bringing the thrust/weight up to .31 along with the reduced SFC and resulting longer range. Though by this time the Vampire would be entering service with improved fuel capaciy and uprated engine. The Meteor F.III would have 2,400 lbf Derwent IVs and would being outfitted with the new nacelles; top speed would be at least 530 mph (as the nacelles added added 75 mph, so even the Welland powered Meteor IIIs would be pushing 490 mph) and acceleration and climb would be much improved with a thrust/weight of ~.34 though the controls would still be heavy) The poor P-80s would still be grounded though... So the Meteor III would have been the most likely to meet in combat since they'd actually been trying to score some 262 kills in Germany at the end of the war. And in its best configuration it would have put-up quite a fight. I's say a 9:10 inferiority to the 004D powered 262.

Even crazier, what if some of the Avia S 92/CS 92 Czech Avia had been sold off to North Korea to suplement the Mig 15's and they met in combat with F-80's. There would have been a good chance of meeting some Aussie Mk 4 Meteors as well, so we get to see it aganst both of its allied competitors. Though these were copies with standard 1984 lbf powerplants so they'd be inferior to the Meteor 4 and F-80C... 8)

The Su 9/10 (1946) with RD-10F engines would have been interesting too. Though not a copy, it had the same engines and engine placement and general layout.(canopy was virtually Idntical) There were key differences though: wings were smaller and unswept wings (though aerodynamicaly sound), the armament was different with 2x 23mm and 1x 37mm cannon (same as the Mig-9), it also had an ejection seat, break parachute, variable incedence tailplane, provisions for RATO, and (like the 262) provisions for cockpit preassurization. Performance was generally better than the 262 (with the 1984 RD-10 engines), though range was slightly less and wing loading was much higher due to much lower area. Performance was better than any other Soviet jet design of the time (better than many western jets too) and though about the same speed wise as the Mig-9, handeling was much better. The Yak-15 was a conversion trainer at best, and quite obsolete by the time it entered service.
 
delcyros said:
I think the weaponry proposal suggested by You is reasonable. To hit something in a deflection shot requires two points:

1.) a reasonable flat trajectory to ease aiming
2.) a good volume of fire.

The P-80´s 0.50 cal M2 (no M3 prior to the late 40´s installed in P-80´s) is a uniform, 6 barrel arrengement (= 80 rounds per second).
It has a muzzle velocity of 870 m/s. and an avg. rate of fire of 800 rpm + one of the finest ballistic properties. The 48g. projectile will drop below Mach 1.5 according to RG at an estimated 900m distance (at sealevel, without taken plane speed into consideration). At 300 m average firing distance, it will have a remaining velocity of 736 m/s. We therefore may conclude that the conditions for 1.) and 2.) are fullfilled perfectly.

Regarding the volume of fire, we should note that at any given time at 300m distance, the mean distance between the projectiles is 9.2m. for the .50cal BMG and the time elapsed between two succeeding hits at this condition is 0.0125 sec. For a very bad high angle (near vertical) deflection shot a plane moving at 166 m/s (~600 Km/h) may result in a .50cal hit each 2.08m (averagized). Assuming some perfect aim hold, a 10.6m long fuselage will receive approx. five 0.50 cal. BMG hits.

Now let´s turn to koolkittys proposal:
The 2 MG 151/20 have a muzzle velocity of 785 m/s. and a rate of fire of 750 rpm (= 25 rounds per second, total). According to RG the 20mm mine round will drop below Mach 1.5 at 250m. At 300m distance, the remaining velocity is 530 m/s, equaling to a mean distance between each round of 21.2m for the 20mm mine rounds and timeframe of 0.04sec.
Using the same high angle deflection shot as above a 10.3m long target (approx. P-80 sized) moving at 166 m/s. may encounter a 20mm hit each 6,64m. Therefore 1.5 mine hits may be expected here. (barely sufficiant to ensure You hit something at high angle deflection shots)
The 2 MK 103 have a muzzle velocity of 860 m/s and a rate of fire of 420 rounds per minute (= 14 rounds per second for two guns). The mine round will drop Mach 1.5 at ~600m according to RG. At 300m distance the remaining velocity is 662 m/s. (Ausf. A mine round with poorer ballistic properties) and the mean distance between the projectiles is 47.3m (!) with a timeframe of 0.071 sec. between two succeeding hits, equaling to a mean average distance of 11.8m. We therefore would only expect 0.87 30mm hits, which is not enough to ensure that the P-80 get´s hit at all, altough the probability not to hit the P-80 is very small (five out of six passes will hit).

So You have five .50 cal. hits vs. maybe one and a half 20mm and perhaps one 30mm hit...
-of course, the 20mm 30mm mine rounds are MUCH more severe to the P-80 than is the .50 cal API to the -262.


To put this in prospect, the normal, four 30mm MK 108 equipped Me- 262 A1a will result in between 2.65 and 3.5 hits, depending which version of the MK 108 is used, -low muzzle velocity is not always a disadvantage when it comes to compare the volume of fire! But then again, the low ballistic property of the MK 108 will make deflection shots impractical as an event.

My favourite armement would be three MK 103 put into the nose. That gives uniform cal. armement (easier to aim with), good ballistics and enough volume of fire to ensure hitting a target even at the worst possible deflection shot (1.3 hits). A 30mm mine contains about 7.7 times as much explosive as a 20mm MK V HE-round and still nearly twice as much explosive as a 37mm MK4 HE-round. Such a hit will assure destruction (safing a dud or perhaps a wingtip hit) of a P-80.

RG considered an armement of four 15mm MG 151/15 as optimal. This, too has merits. The weapon installment can be done quite easily (no major modification is necessary and the replacement of the guns can be made on the staffel workshop level), requiring only minor differences. The ammo is both, smaller lighter (166 gramm vs. 480 gramm), too, so more ammunition can used per gun (250 rpg for the lower and 200 rpg for the upper pair). The guns would also free up some 160 lbs of weight in the nose.
The muzzle velocity is very high (850 m/s for the AP 960 m/s for the HEI) as is the sectional density of the projectile (the AP), resulting in an extraordinary flat trajectory, as good or better than the excellent .50 cal., easening deflection shooting. You would expect three hits in our deflection shooting model. The AP rounds would go right through the structure (and are particularely good for strafing against lightly armoured ground forces as well) but the HEI rounds does only contain 2.8 gramms high explosive, nearly three times as much as the .50 cal API but not enough to cause significant blast effects. Therefore, I would not prefer this kind of armement as long as not a useful mine round is developed for this gun (this hypothetical mine round would be around 48 gramms and has comparable blast effects to a 20mm Type 99-2 HE round, fired with a muzzle velocity of >1000 m/s).
The armement would be limited to deal with fighters + ground attack, only. It is a very good armemnt if You consider the R4M for bomber hunting, as suggested by RG or the hypothetical mine rounds as sugested by me!
Click to expand...

Nice presentation - thx
 
Delcyros, you might have missed it before so I'll ask again. I'm still not sure which model you meant KG-51 used since it certainly wasn't the BMW 003 powered Me-262 A1b. They were ground-attack so would have used the fighter-bomber A-2a right? And what do you mean by ETC?

Also it might have been the alteration in the armament from 4 down to 2 cannons might have caused problems if there was a flaw in the new placement.
 
Good post Delcyros. I didn't really get the reasoning behind the calculations but I'm sure they are correct.

I would just like to point out one more thing in the discussion and that's weight of the guns. One can compare the MK 103 with MK 108 but be aware that you can carry two MK 108s with ammo for the weight of one MK 103. And in case of the MK 108, it's also much cheaper to produce, something of great importance in late-war Germany.

But weight and size shouldn't be forgotten. That's why I love those old MG-FF/M guns as they weight as much as some HMGs but had much greater destructive power.

Kris
 
But also the weight of 1 MG 151/20 plus 1 MK 103 are only a little heavier (~50%) than 2 MK 108 guns. Though 6 MG 151/20 would have been an interesting armament too, or for a pure dogfighting armament, 6 MG 151/15 guns would be totally superior to the P-80's M2 BMG's. 6x MG 151 guns (both 20 or 15mm weigh 42kg each) weigh about the same as 4x MK 108 cannons (60kg each) so weight wouldn't be a problem, though I'm not sure if there's enough room to be practical. (they would certainly fit as larger armaments like 6x MK 108 were made too, but these had problems, and I don't know if other problems would occur)

As for the MG-FF/M, it was inferior in performance every way to the MG 151/20, except for weight, and this did not make up for the poor performance elsewhere as the 151/20 still had a higher specific firepower (energy/time/gun's mass). Though the Mk II Hispano cannon was better in some respects (though heavier and a lower ROF), and the Mk V in all.(same gun weight and ROF but much higher velocity and shell mass) Though the USSR's B-20 was probably the best overall 20mm cannon of the war, with slightly higher performance than the 151/20 and weighing only 25kg, that's 3kg less than the MG-FF/M and 4kg less than the Browning M2!

Here's a good resource for gun and ballistics data: The WWII Fighter Gun Debate: Gun Tables
The site is geocities based and up and down a lot, so I posted the cached version from google.
 
Delcyros, you might have missed it before so I'll ask again. I'm still not sure which model you meant KG-51 used since it certainly wasn't the BMW 003 powered Me-262 A1b. They were ground-attack so would have used the fighter-bomber A-2a right? And what do you mean by ETC?
Click to expand...

I have been out for some time. I will adress this first. The corretc terming for the bomber variant is Me-262 A-2. Not A-1 as I stated previously (mea culpa). The difference in A1a and A1b are not the engines (such prototypes existed but they didn´t got a serial designation) but whether or not the fighter variant had R4m rails.
An ETC is the pylon for droppable ordenance.

If that is the case and the gun mounts were messed up, then it should show up on all the other 262s that had racks fitted. As far as I can tell, all the noses with MK108s were the same. Me262s of JG7 had racks fitted.
Click to expand...
Not all had racks fitted for bombs! The JG-7 only had two Me-262 A-2 operational by any time. The fighter nose, as I stated above differed substantially in structural framework and materials used. The JG-7 later had R4m racks refitted but ETC 504 were not as far as I know. Can always be that it missed my radar....

Regarding the armement, the soviet B-20 probably is the best 20mm weapon but it lacked a proper mine round, making it a mediocre performer in blast effects. A 6 x 20 mm MG 151 armement could improve dogfighting and interceptor capabilities greatly. The reason why I had not considered this kind of armement was that the 20mm MG 151 AP round is a poor performer, You cannot really use this armement in ground attack against even lightly armoured opposition. Even the 0.50cal AP is better, the Hispano MK II is really good but the 30mm MK 103 is truly great!
 
delcyros said:
Not all had racks fitted for bombs! The JG-7 only had two Me-262 A-2 operational by any time. The fighter nose, as I stated above differed substantially in structural framework and materials used. The JG-7 later had R4m racks refitted but ETC 504 were not as far as I know. Can always be that it missed my radar....
Click to expand...
Do you have drawings showing these structural differences?
 
New to this site and love it! Haven't read everything on this particular subject but, since they never went up against each other and we are assuming things, like the Germans made it into fall of 45 and the beginning of 46 maybe, we'd have to assume that the Germans were possibly successful in the defense of the Reich, maybe chewing up the bomber streams with those late war aircraft, AND were assuming that many of the bugs were ironed out in the 262, including the troubling Jumo engines. Given time and more resources, I believe the 262 would have had many follow on sub-variations- say what you want, but they were good at improving everything they had. Im sure by the time these two went up against each other a much better 262 would have been available, plus the He162 and the Ho-229. Delicious thought yes, but again, just 'assuming' these things. Im sure someone has posted something like what I've just said but here is a thought-- what German Jet do you think would have made the most impact if it had been delivered in mass. Not any of that flash gordon stuff on Luft 46, but something that was very near production, say, within a year, into '46?
 
Under Project NAD-29 there was an American evaluation of the Me-262, the report was published in 1947. Here is the conclusion of the pilot, Roy W. Adams. " Despite a difference in gross weight of nearly 2000 lb, the Me-262 No, T-2-711 was superior to the average P-80A in acceleration and speed, and approximately the same in climb performance. The handling characteristics of the Me-262 airplanes tested were very poor. However, it is believed that, with the exception of the directional hunting or yawing, they would have been considerably improved if the aileron and elevator servo tab had been connected. The Me-262 apparently has a higher critical Mach number from a drag standpoint than any current AAF fighters."
During the test the Americans found it difficult to service the engines, of the two involved in the test one was lost.
 
Does anyone know if one of the 262 pilots like Steinhoff that served in the post war Bundeswehr Air Force left accounts comparing the 262 to first gen NATO jets?
 
There was a story (going from faulty memory), I think was Barkhorn, who went to Britain to check out in the then new Harrier. While hovering, the wind changed blanking out one intake and the plane settled down hard with some damage. As those watching ran up he allegedly said, "That's 202 British aircraft destroyed."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

T
P-47 roll rate - a bit of new (to me) info
Replies
1
Views
607
Shortround6
S
K
Overlord/D-Day and the Me-262
2 3
Replies
52
Views
4K
pigeon
pigeon
Domobran42
Spitfire vs Me-109
Replies
3
Views
1K
PAT303
P
A
Me 262 A2a (?) 9K+BK (?)
Replies
11
Views
1K
aurelien wolff
A
M
P-61 Performance
Replies
15
Views
913
Snautzer01
Snautzer01
Back