p-80 V Me 262

I didn't say the 229 would have been an effective fighter aircraft! I only sayed it was allmost in production.

My source is the book from Reimar Horten

The RLM's E-stelle's order to build 40 pre production aircraft is dated 13 october '44, 2 months before the maiden of the V2 (indeed, my mistake, V1 was the glider which made several more flights and was captured by US troops) 20 were to be builded by gotha, 20 by klemm. Later this was changed, and gotha would have builded all the 40 aircraft.
Horten also tested a longer nose variant with a H-II with new center section to test the longer nose.
The cg on a flying wing is critical indeed. A lot of ballast was needed in the nose. But the armament wasn't installed yet, and with the longer nose of the V6, I think the problem could be solved, because the cockpit would be further to the front, and so creating a bigger moment. (V6 was to be a 2 seater/night fighter) Also, the planking of the wing was changed from a 17mm thick laminat to a 8 mm thick one. This would save 574kg.
On 14 july 44, the decision was taken, by gotha, to build the first 20 wings. A furniture workshop was contracted to do this. On 21 september '44 the Jäger sonderprogramm was made public and the furniture workshop could order through Gotha. Horten says it took 2500 hours to build a wing, I ask myself then why not more wings were captured by allied troops? If Gotha contracted a furniture workshop, it seems to me that they hadn't enough skilled woodworkers availeble,no?

Tom

W@CC0 said:

I didn't say the 229 would have been an effective fighter aircraft! I only sayed it was allmost in production.

My source is the book from Reimar Horten

The RLM's E-stelle's order to build 40 pre production aircraft is dated 13 october '44, 2 months before the maiden of the V2 (indeed, my mistake, V1 was the glider which made several more flights and was captured by US troops) 20 were to be builded by gotha, 20 by klemm. Later this was changed, and gotha would have builded all the 40 aircraft.
Horten also tested a longer nose variant with a H-II with new center section to test the longer nose.
The cg on a flying wing is critical indeed. A lot of ballast was needed in the nose. But the armament wasn't installed yet, and with the longer nose of the V6, I think the problem could be solved, because the cockpit would be further to the front, and so creating a bigger moment. (V6 was to be a 2 seater/night fighter) Also, the planking of the wing was changed from a 17mm thick laminat to a 8 mm thick one. This would save 574kg.
On 14 july 44, the decision was taken, by gotha, to build the first 20 wings. A furniture workshop was contracted to do this. On 21 september '44 the Jäger sonderprogramm was made public and the furniture workshop could order through Gotha. Horten says it took 2500 hours to build a wing, I ask myself then why not more wings were captured by allied troops? If Gotha contracted a furniture workshop, it seems to me that they hadn't enough skilled woodworkers availeble,no?

Tom

Click to expand...

After the war, I believe John Northrop tried to get Walter Horten to come to America to work for him. Unfortunately, he could not pull the right governmental strings. I saw John Northrop once, he was very old and in a wheel chair. He had been given a one day clearance to be briefed on the B-2 bomber. After the meeting he said "Now I know why God has kept me alive so long."

Tom, I know you didn't say it would have been an effective fighter. That was a personal statement of mine ... and said so.

I thought the ballast would go to the rear of the plane...

And about the building of the wings. In 1944 there may have been a small shortage of professional woodcraftsmen but I'm sure there were enough people around to build a couple of flying wings. Just look at the He 162 project which started weeks later.

Kris

Monsieur Civettone:

Not sure if i am recalling it right, but was it you that suggested on some other thread it could have been more viable to the Germans to produce more Bachems to have them launched in numbers during the final stages of the war? (or something to that effect).

If so, do you recall what thread was it?

Merci beaucoup

Civettone said:

Tom, I know you didn't say it would have been an effective fighter. That was a personal statement of mine ... and said so.

I thought the ballast would go to the rear of the plane...

And about the building of the wings. In 1944 there may have been a small shortage of professional woodcraftsmen but I'm sure there were enough people around to build a couple of flying wings. Just look at the He 162 project which started weeks later.

Kris

Click to expand...

Goeie morgent Kris

Owkay on the statement, I think I misunderstood you.
No idea if the balast had to go on the back or the front in the Horten. All flying wings I've seen so far, in modelling, needed balast in the nose, also the Horten types. I may have been wrong, thinking it was the same on the real thing. On the production planes, they were lightening the wing planking, to save weight, and most of the planking is behind the cg, I would not change it if I needed weight behind the cg. But as I said, I don't know this.
And true, there were skilled woodcrafting man in germany. The heinkel 162 is a nice example, and the Ta-154 was also a wooden plane. But if workers were availeble, and wood was availeble, and they had some sort of semi decent glue, why did the program progressed then so slow?

Tom

And true, there were skilled woodcrafting man in germany. The heinkel 162 is a nice example, and the Ta-154 was also a wooden plane. But if workers were availeble, and wood was availeble, and they had some sort of semi decent glue, why did the program progressed then so slow?

Click to expand...

I never saw it developing slowly. They had the unpowered V-1 prototype in the air in mid-late 44, after only little over 14 months of work. They concluded flighttests with it in early 45 and even finished "schießanflugtests" with it. What probably delayed the Hortens was that they had no access to DVL windtunnels for detail questions, that´s why they rebuilded the Ho-II glider with Ho-IX fuselage as flying experimentalplane. But even then the program advanced with the jet powered 2nd prototype ready in late 44 (disputed whether or not the maiden flight was in dec. 44 or feb. 45).

The wing loading of the P-80A and the Me-262A-1a are virtually identical at normal loaded weight. Both are 61 pounds per square foot (OK, the Me 262A-1a is 60.5 pounds per square foot while the P-80A is 61 pounds per square foot). Too close to call.

The straight wing of the P80A would make it the more maneuverable of the two, even at speed since neither was a transonic fighter. The Me-262 was placarded at 540 mph. Anything past that and the pilot was flying in "test pilot" mode. Several such "test pilots" dived into the ground while pulling very hard on the stick. Much later, so did Lear 23 pilots.

Talk of the Me 262 as a Mach 1 plane is rubbish. None of the WWII jets were capable of Mach 1, and neither was the MiG-15 of considerably later vintage. There is a website perporting the 262 as having been dived to Mach 1. Let's just say that wrong is wrong, and will be forever.

Since transonic speed was not a real factor, the P-80A would have been the better mount, though not by much and I say pilot skill would have decided the outcome. In a pinch, the best pilot in the P-80A would have beaten the same pilot in the Me 262, but it would not be a walk away and the outcome would be in some doubt.

In most circumstances, all things being equal, I'd say the two planes were a match. The P-80A has a slight edge in altitude, as the MiGs did in Korea, and could have swooped down from higher altitude to pick off Me 262's, but it would have been a close thing since neither had anything like sufficient range.

In actual reality, they would have been pretty even with a slight edge to the P-80A in range and altitude and definite edge to the Me 262 in firepower. I respect the Me 262 as the first, but the Vampire and Meteros were CLOSE, and so was the P-80A. Still first into squadron servce was first, and it belongs to the Me 262.

"First" doesn't mean "best," and most people are not aware that there were over 2,000 jets flyable world wide by the end of the war.

Personally, I think the best jet fighter made before 1950 was the SAAB J-29. It outperformed the Sabre and MiG-15 and has never recieved its due, but it definitely wasn't a WWII jet.

GregP said:

Personally, I think the best jet fighter made before 1950 was the SAAB J-29. It outperformed the Sabre and MiG-15 and has never recieved its due, but it definitely wasn't a WWII jet.

Click to expand...

The J-29 was a great aircraft but it was developed after both the contemporary models of the Mig and Sabre - in other words the Swedes learned from the mistakes of the first two. The first one flew a year later after the first F-86 and it's introduction into service was slow. Later model F-86Hs, Canadair Sabre IVs and Furies were way better performers as were the Mig-17. Credit is due, it served until 1968.

so Greg you spoke with Guido Mütke first hand to deny his reported dive ? do not be so sure. I interviewed the man about 10 years ago primarily for JG 7 research the unit he was part of. In cases like these it is best to remain neutral and hear the stories and then put into perspective. Outright denial of something like this since we were not alive nor present is not a wise thing .......... ~

E ~

Do not take me wrong here, i find the academic debate very interesting. I enjoy reading the several opinions that compare the Me 262 with other jets already in existance by war´s end.

Still, i am on a collision course with Mr. Greg´s opinions as i can read them on his last posting.

The Me 262s flown by the pilots of Kommando Nowotny, JG 7, JV 44, EJG 2, I./KG(J) 54 shot down all the planes, fighters and bombers, in the menu of the USAAF in combat, and do not forget 10./NJG 11 who also processed Mosquitoes and other RAF bombers.

Not to offend the gentlemen of 616 sqn. known for having filed claims they "flew combat missions". Possibly they were observing migratory birds over Scotland from their Meteor cockpits, even perhaps over the Orkneys.

No USAAF or RAF guy who flew the jet each force had during 1945 gathered the information, knowledge and experience of having been through COMBAT inside the cockpit of a jet, simple.

These German guys learned what a certain enemy type of plane demanded in combat when flying the jet; the P-80 and Meteor guys were 100% clueless on this regard.

I have not read that much on the P-80, but have about the Gloster Meteor, and excuse me Mr. Greg but everything i have read is nowhere near to indicate "they would have been pretty even".

The Meteor would not find itself in a nice position against a Me 262, but it is here that i read from Flyboy some testings revealed the P-80 was surpassed by ther Me 262, even if it was nearly 1 ton heavier than the USA design...

Back to the guys of 616 sqn., a squadron claiming to have become "operational" several months before the end of the war. Sorry but chasing V1 bombs over Great Britain is not a very demanding task, which was by the way already being carried out with a sufficient degree of success by not so very reliable Tempest planes.

Compare any guy from the 616 sqn. with Heinz Bär, Walter Schuck, Fritz Stehle, Rudolf Rademacher, "Quax" Schnörrer and many more and you know what i am talking about. When the war ended these German gentlemen were or should have been the most important flyers on planet earth. Forget all of your RAF and USAAF aces when it all ends on May 1945. Bring me the jet fliers who caused a few thousands of my men were never seen again.

I agree "First" is not necessarly the "better". But putting aside the academic debating which i described as interesting, i am sure neither allied jet plane was "better" or "clearly better" than the Me 262.

Furthemore: It is the first and the only for it is the only one who shed blood.

Erich said:

so Greg you spoke with Guido Mütke first hand to deny his reported dive ? do not be so sure. I interviewed the man about 10 years ago primarily for JG 7 research the unit he was part of. In cases like these it is best to remain neutral and hear the stories and then put into perspective. Outright denial of something like this since we were not alive nor present is not a wise thing .......... ~

E ~

Click to expand...

Erich, remember that the speed instruments in 1944/45 were notoriously inaccurate as the plane entered the high subsonic speed regime.

He might have thought he was going Mach 1, but probably was well short of the mark.

Same as the claims that P47 and P38 pilots had when they were in power dives.

GregP said:

The wing loading of the P-80A and the Me-262A-1a are virtually identical at normal loaded weight. Both are 61 pounds per square foot (OK, the Me 262A-1a is 60.5 pounds per square foot while the P-80A is 61 pounds per square foot). Too close to call.

The straight wing of the P80A would make it the more maneuverable of the two, even at speed since neither was a transonic fighter. The Me-262 was placarded at 540 mph. Anything past that and the pilot was flying in "test pilot" mode. Several such "test pilots" dived into the ground while pulling very hard on the stick. Much later, so did Lear 23 pilots.

Talk of the Me 262 as a Mach 1 plane is rubbish. None of the WWII jets were capable of Mach 1, and neither was the MiG-15 of considerably later vintage. There is a website perporting the 262 as having been dived to Mach 1. Let's just say that wrong is wrong, and will be forever.

Since transonic speed was not a real factor, the P-80A would have been the better mount, though not by much and I say pilot skill would have decided the outcome. In a pinch, the best pilot in the P-80A would have beaten the same pilot in the Me 262, but it would not be a walk away and the outcome would be in some doubt.

In most circumstances, all things being equal, I'd say the two planes were a match. The P-80A has a slight edge in altitude, as the MiGs did in Korea, and could have swooped down from higher altitude to pick off Me 262's, but it would have been a close thing since neither had anything like sufficient range.

In actual reality, they would have been pretty even with a slight edge to the P-80A in range and altitude and definite edge to the Me 262 in firepower. I respect the Me 262 as the first, but the Vampire and Meteros were CLOSE, and so was the P-80A. Still first into squadron servce was first, and it belongs to the Me 262.

"First" doesn't mean "best," and most people are not aware that there were over 2,000 jets flyable world wide by the end of the war.

Personally, I think the best jet fighter made before 1950 was the SAAB J-29. It outperformed the Sabre and MiG-15 and has never recieved its due, but it definitely wasn't a WWII jet.

Click to expand...

Well, I agree with all of the above, except for

The P-80A has a slight edge in altitude

Click to expand...

. I think that the 7500' altitude advantage of the P-80A over the Me-262A-1a is significant. Also, as for the J-29 comment, I don't know enough about the J-29 early models to agree or disagree. Although I respect Flyboyj comment. The F-86F was definately faster and had a much better climb rate than the J-29F. Again, I know nothing of the earlier J-29 models.

sys there was a very lengthy conversation between ground control and Mütke during his escapade and it was an almost epic - death, the jet nearly blew the bolts out of the fuselage and wings. Again we can tamper with the story all we want and Mütke has passed onward but I point out we were not there when this happened, and again big deal if he broke it or Yeager did

Erich said:

sys there was a very lengthy conversation between ground control and Mütke during his escapade and it was an almost epic - death, the jet nearly blew the bolts out of the fuselage and wings. Again we can tamper with the story all we want and Mütke has passed onward but I point out we were not there when this happened, and again big deal if he broke it or Yeager did

Click to expand...

Sounds exactly like what the P38 pilots were reporting......shock waves impacting on the tail and fuselage.

Actually Yeager's gauge did the "Mach flutter" on the X-1. At the same time, there was a F-86 test pilot who experienced the same phenomenon in a power dive a few days prior. He was squelched due to politics, but the claim was voiced even in the Happy Bottom Riding Club bar, since Jackie Cochran was bigger buddies with Chuck Yeager... Got the interview with the F-86 pilot article at home.

Bullockracing said:

Actually Yeager's gauge did the "Mach flutter" on the X-1. At the same time, there was a F-86 test pilot who experienced the same phenomenon in a power dive a few days prior. He was squelched due to politics, but the claim was voiced even in the Happy Bottom Riding Club bar, since Jackie Cochran was bigger buddies with Chuck Yeager... Got the interview with the F-86 pilot article at home.

Click to expand...

Yeager's X-1 did mach flutter and then it exceeded Mach 1. This was also verified by telemetry stations on the ground. George Welch exceeded mach 1 in a dive unofficially - It wasn't squelched at all, he did it to piss off Yeager who he didn't like. Jackie Cochran? You mean Pancho Barnes.

Hi Udet,

I don't have to interview a WWII jet pilot to know taht the Me 262 cannot break the sound barrier. I was trained as a aeronautical engineer at a time MUCH later than WWII. The Me 262 is subsonic. Period.

No shame in that, all OTHER jets were subsonic, too.

Also, I never said the Meteor was better than the Me 262, I said that in my opinion, the P-80A was better, though not by much.

If I had to have a squadron of either type in peacetime, I would choose the P-80A for better reliability and ease of maintenance.

In wartime, if I had to attack bombers, I would choose the Me 262. Great performance and great armament ... but you can't base them too far away, so you'd have to choose the bases VERY craefully.

I have absolute respect for the Luftwaffe and their equipment. They shot down the most enemies of all air forces in WWII ... but they lost the war. The loss was not the direct fault of the Luftwaffe (that's a whole subject in itself), but they DID lose. So ... I argue that 1,000 B-17s escorted by 800 Mustangs was a MUCH MORE EFFECTIVE attack force than 20 Me 262's were a defensive force.

Actually the question was Me 262 vs. P-80A and my opinion is the P-80A was marginally better. Please recall I satted taht the outcome would probably be due to pilot skill. I think we can ALL figure out who would have won if a P-80A piloted by an average American had engaged one-on-one with an Me 262 piloted by Adolph Galland.

The point, at least in MY book, is that by late 1944, there were VERY FEW German "Experten" comapred with the planes attacking them. Since this entire thread is an exercise in "what if," I choose to believe that if the U.S.A. had fielded the P-80A, it would have done so in numbers far greater than the Me 262's.

The reasoning is simple, the P-80A factories were not being bombed on a daily basis.

In point of fact, the war was being won anyway and the U.S.A. elected to NOT mass-produce or deploy the P-80A during WWII. Yes, I KNOW that two P-80A's made it to Italy, but they didn't see combat and they weren't "operational." It was an experiment to check out the new technology.

The only combat jet to see widespread service over Europe was the Me 262, and it did a credible job, but not a great job. There weren't enough of them to justify the incredible amount of resources that went into development. In thruth, the Me 262 only helped seal Germany's fate by wasting resources that COULD have been better used elsewhere.

Historically, the Me 262 was important. Tactically, it was so-so ... nothing to write home about. Strategically, it was a dismal failure, and World War is won by strategic superiority.

I say neither plane was a real factor in WWII, but the Me 262 helped shape at least two or three generations of subsequent jet fighters and so deserves its place in history.

Lockheed built 917 P-80A's and B's, and 798 P-80C's. They also built almost 7,000 T-33's as well as 854 F-94's (derived from the T-33) and 150 (T2V 1 Sea Stars for the Navy.

Messerschmitt built 1,433 Me 262's of all variants.

Historically, I'd say the Lockheeds blew away the Messerschmitt easily as a much more produced design (about 6,500 more Lockheeds than Messerschmitts). The Lockheed had a longer service life than the Messerschmitt by over 50 years and is still flown regularly today.

The only flyable Me 262 is a new-build machine, made here in the U.S.A. as a labor of love. It has modern engines and main landing gear from a Grumman S2F, and is a good machine, but there are only 5 that will be flyable.

LOTS of T-33's around. I volunteer every Saturday at a Museum that regularly flies one and uses it to start the U.S.A. Reno Air Races every year. It is reliable and going strong.

No Messerschmitts do the same.

The Lockheed has proven itself over time and continues to do so. No Me 262 can make that claim.

Need I elaborate any further? Lockheed all the way!

I forgot one of the interesting points of getting good air data when I was discussing the difficulty of ascertaining TAS (and Mach). The air flow is perturbed ahead of the aircraft (except, of course, at supersonic speed). The perturbation is a factor times chord length, I believe. This is why flight test aircraft typically have a long pitop probe. On the B-2, this would have required a flight test probe length of 60', if I remember correctly. This was not acceptable so the B-2 flight test aircraft used a drogue for air data. On pictures of the flight test aircraft, the drogue support structure can be seen at aft top center of the aircraft.

Anyway, this just show the unreliability of raw air data on an aircraft and why pilot reports on what these instrument say can be misleading.

GregP said:

LOTS of T-33's around. I volunteer every Saturday at a Museum that regularly flies one and uses it to start the U.S.A. Reno Air Races every year. It is reliable and going strong.

Click to expand...

Very cool - I used to work on one in Mojave - Got to fly it a few times...

GregP said:

Need I elaborate any further? Lockheed all the way!

Click to expand...

As a former CALAC employee, I'm almost in tears!

FLYBOYJ said:

Yeager's X-1 did mach flutter and then it exceeded Mach 1. This was also verified by telemetry stations on the ground. George Welch exceeded mach 1 in a dive unofficially - It wasn't squelched at all, he did it to piss off Yeager who he didn't like. Jackie Cochran? You mean Pancho Barnes.

Click to expand...

You are correct - mixed up my aviatrix (es). I got the info from an Aviation History article, which didn't seem to convey any animosity between them whatsoever. Hmmm...

Once again, I am in awe of the knowledge on this forum...