Prop to Jet Transition (1 Viewer)

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

SpicyJuan11

Senior Airman
328
31
May 29, 2015
Luxemburg
Hello, could somebody quickly tell me what sort of training did prop fighter pilots need to the Me 262? Was it very difficult? Did they need any flight training at all?
 
Read "Me 262 Arrow to the Future" by Walter Boyne. Its very detailed about the transition. For the most part the flying portion is easy, just have to learn to avoid rapid throttle movements and understand that early jets take a while to build up speed and also take a while to slow down. I think early 262 pilots quickly learned that when landing you wanted to keep the nose up during the roll out for aerodynamic breaking. Aside from that I'm sure they were well versed on emergency procedures considering reliability was an understatement!
 
Read "Me 262 Arrow to the Future" by Walter Boyne. Its very detailed about the transition. For the most part the flying portion is easy, just have to learn to avoid rapid throttle movements and understand that early jets take a while to build up speed and also take a while to slow down. I think early 262 pilots quickly learned that when landing you wanted to keep the nose up during the roll out for aerodynamic breaking. Aside from that I'm sure they were well versed on emergency procedures considering reliability was an understatement!

From what a pilot wrote about going to meteors the actual flying was in many ways easier tricycle undercarriage better visibility on the ground and no torque reaction.
 
That's debatable. Depending where you are (in the cockpit or outside) and depending on the jet and recip aircraft, noise could be just as loud.

300px-Slim-pickens_riding-the-bomb_enh-lores.jpg
 
Also the comparative lack of noise made thinking a bit easier, sort of makes sense.

Yes, the lack of noise when flying the Me 262 compared with contemporary piston engine fighters was something that several pilots commented on. Gunther Rall, the subject of another thread being one of them.
It must have been significant and noticeable to warrant such comments.

Cheers

Steve
 
Anyone who has flown in both knows the quiet. Galland said it flew "as if the Angels were pushing."

Almost no engine noise and VERY smooth operation. He never mentioned the wind noise, but it might have been just another quieter noise or maybe less noticeable when in a leather helment and earphones.

Never having flown an Me 262, I can't say, but I HAVE flown in a T-33 once ... same general vinatge ... and it is quiet when you are wearing a helmet ... which I did. Might NOT have had the same quality of helmet in WWII ... again, can't say.

Never wore an original and flew in an early jet at the same time.

Early jets are VERY "whiney" on the ground but seem to get quiet in flight ... especially when compared with a piston aircraft.
 
Last edited:
The pilots allowed to put their hands on the stick and throttle of a Me-262 were probably handpicked, the best of the best...
 
On 15th December 1943 Hauptmann Werner Thierfelder was appointed to command Erprobungskpmmando 262, a unit with the task of working up the Me 262 into a fully operational role and training an initial intake of both air and ground crew in conjunction with Messerschmitt and Junkers specialists.
The unit didn't form for months and received it's first aircraft in February, then April 1944.

The initial intake of pilots came from Stab and III./ ZG26. They were not hand picked but chosen for their experience in flying multi engine fighters and, crucially, their instrument qualifications. Many younger pilots who had passed through later, shortened, courses completely lacked these. For these men from ZG26 the transition proved fairly straight forward, but this was not the case for later intakes of less experienced and undertrained pilots from single seat units, many of whom were killed in accidents before they ever became operational.

Whether EKdo 262 was or wasn't an operational unit is a moot point. Pilots flying in the unit made 20 claims for allied aircraft between 26th July and 4th October 1944. Nearly half were claimed by Georg Peter Eder, a veteran of single seat aircraft who was able to make the transition. Men of his experience could usually do so, the list of the pilots flying with JV 44 illustrates this quite well, but this was late in the war and JV 44 was an unusual unit.

Cheers

Steve
 
Last edited:
OMG - Biff - is that a Russian avatar you have got there?!

GJS,

Why yes it is! It's the only Russian plane that I would want to fly given the chance. Long legs, lots of gas, tons of missiles, good flight controls (watch the airshow videos), lots of power (again the videos). What I can't speak to is the avionics. There stuff is not pilot friendly. It's easy to use, and therefor much more limited in capability (have about an hour in a Mig-29 military simulator).

Cheers,
Biff
 
Last edited:
Hey Biff,

I'm sure you're aware that their artificial horizon is backwards from ours, right?

In ours the horizon stays on the actual horizon and the little airplane stays aligned with the wings. Theirs are backwards, the little airplane stays aligned with the horizon and the horizon stays aligned with the wings.

From people who have flown both, they say it is just fine if you fly looking outside or only at the instruments, but is confusinig you look at both using peripheral vision. When you are pointing down and are in, say, a 45° bank, you can recover on instruments alone OK, but you might get confused if you look both outside and inside at the same time.

I haven't flown a Russian-instrumented aircraft, but can imagine it would be disconcerting to have the horizon act differently from what you expect.
 
Last edited:
Hey Biff,

I'm sure you'er aware that their artificial horizon is backwards from ours, right?

In ours the horizon stays on the actual horizon and the little airplane sdtays aligned with the wings. Theirs are backwards, the little airplane stays aligned with the horizon and the horizon stays aligned with the wings.

From people who have flown both, they say it is just fine if you fly looking outside or only at the instruments, but is confusinig you look at both using peripheral vision. When you are pointing down and are in, say, a 45° bank, you can recover on instruments alone OK, but you might get confused if you look both outside and inside at the same time.

I haven't flown a Russian-instrumented aircraft, but can imagine it would be disconcerting to have the horizon act differently from what you expect.
But after a glass (several) of vodka, there is nothing to worry about, everything is just fine!!
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back