p-80 V Me 262 (1 Viewer)

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

The Ludwig Prandtl laboratory at Göttingen had nothing to do with nuclear research Davparlr, it was all about aerodynamics fluid dynamics and was in the lead in this area from the beginning of WW2 to the end.

About centrifugal jet engines, well they were big and draggy, the axial flow jet engines weren't - and the German axial flow engines were developing a lot of power for their size, however the metals used on the engines just couldn't withstand the heat developed. Centrifugal jet engines weren't bad though, they were more reliable and capable of the same power levels.

Btw, you meant the XFD-1 right ?
 
As to the Me-262's swept wings, well no I don't believe they were swept for reasons of load distribution, Messerschmidt knew about the aerodynamic benefits of sweep which would be why he incoperated this into the Me-262 design.
 
Soren said:
As to the Me-262's swept wings, well no I don't believe they were swept for reasons of load distribution, Messerschmidt knew about the aerodynamic benefits of sweep which would be why he incoperated this into the Me-262 design.
Click to expand...

Wikipedia contains the following:

"The production Me 262 had a leading edge sweep of 18.5° primarily to properly position the center of lift relative to the center of mass and not for the aerodynamic benefit of increasing the critical Mach number of the wing (the sweep was too slight to achieve any significant advantage)"

Which traces back to a NASA document.

This in turn references the following:

Boyne, Walterj.: Messerschmitt Me 262, Arrow to the Future (Washington: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1980).

I don't know the expertise of this writer, so I have no opinion of his data. I think there was some translation changes between the references.
 

I believe this this was the "Status Quo" for the incorportation of swept wings during this period and the benifits of increasing critical mach number was dicovered after the fact. Take a look at the XP-55 Acender. It's predessor the CW-24B incorporated at least a 45 degree swept back wing and that was flying in late 1941.
 
Flyboy and/or Soren:

Do you know if there were any documented mock air-combats between the Me 262 and P-51 or P-47?

They captured several intact Me 262s when it all ended; i have papers of some flight tests...but have not found anything regarding mock dogfights.
 

and the Northrop XP-56, oh, and let's not forget the famous transonic C-47!
 

I completely disagree with what you say on the Horton IX/gotha 229. The first prototype did 4 very satisfying test flights, before it crash landed due to an engine failure. The plane was allmost completely build from wood and welded steel tubes, not so advanced huh. The plane flew well, so the concept worked. Fact is, only the V1 flew. When allied troops overran the gotha factories, some 5 or 6 more prototypes were discouvered in various states of readiness. Some even with weapon bays. Sadly for the german warfare machine, gotha didn't had enough skilled woodworkers, unbombed workshop space and influence to make the fighters in a high tempo. Other projects were found to be more urgent. If the Horton plane got the same recourses availible as for messerschmitt or focke wulf projects, a lot more planes would have flown.

On the Ta-183,
The only thing that actually was "wrong" with the huck, was that it didn't had wing fences. In a turn, the air would just follow the leading edge of the wing or run parrallell with the wing's leading edge, and so, no lift would be produced anymore and the plane would fall down. On the pulqui II, this was resolved by putting fences on the wing (small fin like things, in somewhere in the middle of the wing.) The russians did the same on the mig 15.

Tom
 
As far as I know there wasn't but I could be wrong.

I know "Watson Wizards" were the first group of US pilots to fly the Me 262 and I think they were just overwhelmed to fly the aircraft. Seems like they just zoomed around Germany and France after the war and went home. The tests done at Wright Patterson after the war made comparisons with the P-80 but I couldn't find anything else against other aircraft. Don't know if the Brits did anything as well.

I think one of the reasons why they didn't do air-to-air testing because of the reliability factor. When the AAF did the Me 262/ P-80 performance tests they went through 4 engines.
 
Flyboy: thanks for the response. I was aware of the Wizards being the first ones to fly the Me 262.

I too have searched in England, but to no avail; it is my belief they did not carry out any mock aerial combat that got documented.

I ask this because in my guncamera footage collection (of Luftwaffe fighters shooting down USAAF fighters), there is this incident of some Luftwaffe plane that is out pursuing an enemy plane, as the German closes in -real fast- the enemy plane he´s after turned out to be a Mustang; he attempted evasive action by turning as tight is it seemed to have been possible to the poor guy in the cockpit, the German plane managed to remain inside the P-51s turning and practically shoot overhead the USAer, the whole burst smashing directly into the cockpit...he got so close you can almost see inside the bubble canopy of the P-51 D. If you ask me, i tell you is a horrible sight, a pilot receiving cannon fire on top of his head.

I once lent the CD to someone who knows, and it was his believe the killer had been a Me 262. A complete expert since he did not fire until getting real close, assuring the destruction of the enemy plane.

I know what the value of guncamera footage can be, but this film made me beginning to wonder if the allied version that points out to the fact the Me 262 "was dead meat if it turned" is true. Too bad i am a low tech creep and do not know how to convert the episode into .mpeg file to include it here.
 
My feeling on the lack of mock dogfighting between the -262 and Allied prop fighters is simply that those aircraft were in the rear view mirrror now, and everyone was looking forward - the future was jets. So it was probably a case of 'why bother'. A lack of sufficient servicable spares was no doubt also a big driver in the post-war flight evaluations.
 
@ udet

I don't know what software you are using and what format the movie is, but divx has a nice conversion program. It converts a lot of movie files to the divx format.
You can download a free 15 day trail here Download DivX for Windows
 
You are right twoeagles.

But many of those Me 262s were intact, and ready to fly. It is most likely that spare parts should not have been an issue at the moment. It would have been yet interesting to see if the P-51s and P-47s were as hot as they affirm in aerial combat against the jet.

I have several shots of Me 262s getting hit and others getting shot down, in all cases i am able to see the ground, and even small buildings and trucks.
 

I could tell you that reading about the Me 262 and then flying an L-29 gives me a feeling that both aircraft were/ are similar in their lack of acceleration power. In the L-29 it takes a good 5 or 6 seconds for things to spool up and the aircraft to start accelerating. This is quite nerve racking when on final and if you get yourself too low and too slow. Even though the L-29 lands at about 95 knots, it will drop like a rock with one wing dipping if you stall it over the runway.

Now I think about this and picture the Me 262 with its 2 engines and having one fail on final and I "pucker" as a continue thinking about it.

As reported I think the Me 262 would be most vulnerable when its airspeed was allowed to diminish enough where a recip fighter could take advantage of its rapid acceleration and this may have happened if a 262 allowed itself to get suckered into reducing airspeed so it could tighten a turn. Once the 262 was brought into the operating speed realm of piston engine fighters they had the upper hand because of their ability to accelerate a hell of a lot quicker than the 262 and the 262s total lack of rapid acceleration.

And of course, we can't forget the me 262s diminished perfomance when landing....
 
fLYBOY, i agree with you on most accounts.

But the questions:

Aren´t all planes vulnerable when approaching the runway from the air with the undercarriage out?

So, let´s suppose a Bf 109 or P-51 that approaches the runway or landing strip gets tailed by an enemy plane, you mean they had bigger chances to get out of problem because they could accelerate faster than the Me 262 could?

Finally, and please forgive my ignorance, i do not know what aircraft the L-29 is...to what type of craft are we here referring to?
 
Dag Tom, I agree that the Ho IX would have been a great aircraft though I feel that it would have taken a long time before the aircraft had been operational. I don't think you can blame that on Gotha not having the resources (I mean, they built wooden gliders, didn't they?) but Gotha was also working on its own version, the P 60. Not only did that slow down the development of the Ho IX, it also shows that there was room for improvement. Although not a dramatic problem, the directional stability and especially the stability in turning and banking tailless aircraft is rather weak. Especially the CoG of the Ho IX was a serious disadvantage and could only be remedied by adding 600kg of ballast. The P 60 solved this by moving the engines backward and outward.
AAF TRANSLATION NO.525 COMPARISONS OF THE 8-229 AND THE GO P-60 ALL-WING AIRPLANES

Personally, I think the directional problems would have kept it from being an effective fighter plane. I think the future for Horten's designs laid in long range aircraft and especially bombers where directional stability and turns are less of an issue.

And one more little thing, the V1 only flew as a glider. It's the V2 that flew few hours before an engine failure caused its crash landing. Or at least, that's what I read at Farnborough_05.
Kris
 
Udet said:
fLYBOY, i agree with you on most accounts.

But the questions:

Aren´t all planes vulnerable when approaching the runway from the air with the undercarriage out?
Click to expand...
Absolutely - they are "dirty," gear down flaps down and creating a lot of drag - it will take several seconds to get cleaned up and accelerate, even in modern aircraft. They are also limited on how fast they could fly with the gear extended before damage is caused to the airframe.
Udet said:
So, let´s suppose a Bf 109 or P-51 that approaches the runway or landing strip gets tailed by an enemy plane, you mean they had bigger chances to get out of problem because they could accelerate faster than the Me 262 could?
Click to expand...
Yes - recip aircraft at lower transonic speeds have an acceleration advantage over most jets, especially if we're talking about first generation jets. You give power to just about any WW2 fighter and she will move immediately, a jet on other hand will lag for several seconds and the spool up is slow
Udet said:
Finally, and please forgive my ignorance, i do not know what aircraft the L-29 is...to what type of craft are we here referring to?
Click to expand...
Ex-Czech AF trainer - its M701 engine is a huge centrifugal similar to the nene or RD-45. Once it gets going it has a top speed of about 400 MPH (On a good day)



I've actually worked on and flown in this one. My friend Bob Stambowski is flying it.
 

Civittone addressed this quite adequately. Pitch stability was very marginable and directional stability was practically non-existant. Solving these problems was going to take a lot of work and may be impractical for a fighter (without the flight control computers we have today).

The plane may have been built of wood but aerodynamically, it was very advanced and required a lot of work.


For some reason, the wing structure was raised from mid-ship to shoulder placement, a major design change. Again, with such a new design, much work would have been needed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)

Similar threads

T
P-47 roll rate - a bit of new (to me) info
Replies
1
Views
709
Shortround6
S
K
Overlord/D-Day and the Me-262
2 3
Replies
52
Views
5K
pigeon
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
2K
Snautzer01