Thank you that is what every book in my library on the subject says as well. Sources are wrong though because someone else has read something different.
Ofcourse we all know as Morai so kindly put out for us that things dont work out that way.
p-80 V Me 262
- Thread starter MAV_406
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Thank you that is what every book in my library on the subject says as well. Sources are wrong though because someone else has read something different.
Ofcourse we all know as Morai so kindly put out for us that things dont work out that way.
davparlr
Senior Master Sergeant
I have an issue here. My prime source has pictures of a Ju 287V-1 flying, both a Go 229V-3 and a P 1101 in build stages, but I have never seen any part of a Ta-183 that was built. I suspect it never really made it past the preliminary drawing and wind tunnel model stage. It took 6 mos. for Lockheed to design, build and fly the P-80, and that was using conventional aerodynamics, something the Ta-183 was advancing. I think it was a pipe dream to fly in May/June of 45. More probably, late 45, in early 46. And that doesn't mean that an effective warplane would have emerged.
Good move on closing down the Spiteful thread. It was very interesting on the discussion of high speed propeller flight. Then it went berserk!
You are more than right correct. The Ta-183 more than likely would not have flown in May/June 1945. The sources only say that it was scheduled to fly May/June 1945. This is when the Luftwaffe wanted it to fly. Would have, Could have, Should have....did not.
pbfoot
1st Lieutenant
I believe the 2 wing mounted engines would enhance aerobatics with a competent pilot by adjusting power on one engine . qoute from wiki about Janusz Żurakowski
." Acknowledged as one of the best aerobatic pilots in the UK, he gave a spectacular display at the Farnborough Air Show in June 1946, with the Martin-Baker MB 5, a superlative piston-engined fighter, designed too late to enter production.
In 1947, he was employed as an experimental pilot by Gloster Aircraft Company. In the following years, he became one of the world's most famous experimental and aerobatics pilots (he developed a new aerobatics maneuver, the "Zurabatic Cartwheel" which held the audience captivated as he suspended the Gloster Meteor G-7-1 prototype he was flying, in a vertical cartwheel at the 1951 Farnborough Air Show). Announcers shouted out, "Impossible!"
syscom3
Pacific Historian
PB, youre forgetting that those early jet engines on the -262 flamed out due to them being extremely sensitive to quick throttle changes.
Differential thrust wouldnt work on the -262 because of this.
The 262 has the advantage in the top speed and probably dive speed.
P80 would have the roll rate advantage and superior endurance.
As for weapons.... I would say the 6 x .50's or even a pair of 20mm's would have the advantage over the 30mm's simply due to rate of fire and flatter trajectory.
Differential thrust wouldnt work on the -262 because of this.
The 262 has the advantage in the top speed and probably dive speed.
P80 would have the roll rate advantage and superior endurance.
As for weapons.... I would say the 6 x .50's or even a pair of 20mm's would have the advantage over the 30mm's simply due to rate of fire and flatter trajectory.
pbfoot
1st Lieutenant
davparlr
Senior Master Sergeant
I have seen this comment before and I don't know where it comes from. Every source I have seen shows the P-80A with a higher top speed than the Me-262. My main sources shows the P-80A capable of 558 mph and the Me-262A-1a with a top speed of 540 mph. Now, the P-80 speed is at s.l. and the Me-262 speed is at 19k, so there is no one to one comparison. However, the P-80 cannot be said to be slower than the Me-262.
As far as dive speed, I cannot argue as I have no data to support one way or another. I think the Me-262 may have had a better Mach limitation.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Any twin, jet or recip with engines slung under the wing will experience differental thrust and can actually be flown with varying throttle inputs. On a "production" -262 however I'd rather tame cobras than try it.
syscom3
Pacific Historian
With 1944/45 vintage jet engines...... thats pushing the luck of the airplane and pilot to some degree!
The 262 was designed to take out bombers, it is not a dog fighter..
>maneuverable
They were shot down by 'top cover' P-51D's....
What is more revealing is the fact that Allied fighters did, in reality, shoot down Me262s in air-to-air combat. The speed advantage of the Me262 was routinely negated by American escort fighters by the simple method of a height advantage – they knew what height the Me262s would need to be at to attack the bombers, and judged it from that.
Plus they took forever to 'spool' up..
By the end of the war Germany was considering using Hitler youth as jet pilots. Nevermind they did not have the 'gas' to even train them. This is in a period when the standards of Luftwaffe pilots was in decline?
So give the P-80 8,000 feet and think about all those P-51's shoting down the Me-262
Answer..
Who is faster and who can fly higher and then you can call the winner..
alternative view
The Messerschmitt Me-262 Schwalbe / Sturmvogel
The Me-262s were then shipped to the US on the Royal Navy "jeep" carrier HMS REAPER for further evaluation at Wright Field in Ohio. The tests there included a competitive fly-off against a Lockheed P-80 Shooting Star jet fighter that demonstrated the general superiority of the Me-262.
>maneuverable
They were shot down by 'top cover' P-51D's....
What is more revealing is the fact that Allied fighters did, in reality, shoot down Me262s in air-to-air combat. The speed advantage of the Me262 was routinely negated by American escort fighters by the simple method of a height advantage – they knew what height the Me262s would need to be at to attack the bombers, and judged it from that.
Plus they took forever to 'spool' up..
By the end of the war Germany was considering using Hitler youth as jet pilots. Nevermind they did not have the 'gas' to even train them. This is in a period when the standards of Luftwaffe pilots was in decline?
So give the P-80 8,000 feet and think about all those P-51's shoting down the Me-262
Answer..
Who is faster and who can fly higher and then you can call the winner..
alternative view
The Messerschmitt Me-262 Schwalbe / Sturmvogel
The Me-262s were then shipped to the US on the Royal Navy "jeep" carrier HMS REAPER for further evaluation at Wright Field in Ohio. The tests there included a competitive fly-off against a Lockheed P-80 Shooting Star jet fighter that demonstrated the general superiority of the Me-262.
lesofprimus
Brigadier General
3 singular posts in a row is a no no Jack.... Im combining them... Next time, edit ur previous post...
ME 262 flight, rebuilt with modern engines
Me262 at the ILA2006 in Berlin (original sound) - Google Video
where is the delete button boss
Me262 at the ILA2006 in Berlin (original sound) - Google Video
where is the delete button boss
pbfoot
1st Lieutenant
Yeah I remember the P38 thread on that but just thought I'd hilight it with the Meteor tale. Also I think I'd prefer to be in the P80 with a flame out
davparlr
Senior Master Sergeant
Jackson said:
A test report no one seems to have seen.
Civettone
Tech Sergeant
Jackson, the Me 262 was not designed to take out bombers. When it was designed (day) bombers were of little threat to the Germans. Now if you would have said the Me 262 was developed into a fighter to take out bombers...
And there is still a question as to how many Me 262 were actually shot down by Mustangs in air combat. The Russian I-16 also shot down the much faster but less manoeuvrable Bf 109...
Kris
And there is still a question as to how many Me 262 were actually shot down by Mustangs in air combat. The Russian I-16 also shot down the much faster but less manoeuvrable Bf 109...
Kris
disputes are to be expected..
The link I gave discusses German fears of the B-29 and it's rush into production.
// Me-262 s where shot down by the Russians also.
I read the book by the first guy to successfully fly the ME-163..
Which came out earlier than the Me-262..
He was later in Galland's Me-262 squadron.
The Me163 was really made to get up fast and attack bombers in a 'point' defense. Not many Allied fighters would have been over Germany for any reason but to escort heavies. (recon?)
I submit the Me-163 sole purpose was against to protect against bombers.
So, the concern was there..IMHO
The link I gave discusses German fears of the B-29 and it's rush into production.
// Me-262 s where shot down by the Russians also.
I read the book by the first guy to successfully fly the ME-163..
Which came out earlier than the Me-262..
He was later in Galland's Me-262 squadron.
The Me163 was really made to get up fast and attack bombers in a 'point' defense. Not many Allied fighters would have been over Germany for any reason but to escort heavies. (recon?)
I submit the Me-163 sole purpose was against to protect against bombers.
So, the concern was there..IMHO
Erich has some good info on that, but I think it will be a bit different than that link. Erichs info comes directly from the German archives.
We have some archives here in Nurnberg. I am going to see if I can check them out.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Not Really...
The test at Wright Paterson were run by legendary test pilot Al Boyd. The USAAF compared the P-80 and Me-262 concluding: "Despite a difference in gross weight of nearly 2,000 lb (907 kg), the Me 262 was superior to the P-80 in acceleration, speed and approximately the same in climb performance. The Me 262 apparently has a higher critical Mach number, from a drag standpoint, than any current Army Air Force fighter." The P-80 handled better and had better visibility.
The Army Air Force also tested an example of the Me 262A-1a/U3 (US flight evaluation serial FE-4012), an unarmed photo reconnaissance version, which was fitted with a fighter nose and given an overall smooth finish. It was used for performance comparisons against the P-80. During testing in May-August 1946, the aircraft completed eight flights spanning four hours and 40 minutes. Testing was discontinued after four engine changes were required during the course of the tests, culminating in two single-engine landings." There were NO combat maneuvers done aircraft vs. aircraft.
This is referenced in Walter J. Boyne's book Arrow to the Future. and from Winkipedia.
For what ever reason this information was suppressed for a number of years, perhaps not to embarrass US aircraft manufacturers. While the test showed some superiority aspect of the Me 262 I think the reliability factor comes in to play as well....
