- Thread starter
-
- #41
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Hi Syscom,
>As for the -262 engines, when was it being produced in quantity and considered reliable enough for operations?
Did you ever read anything about the Me 262 being grounded for lack of engines? This seems to be a popular assumption, but I haven't found any source to confirm it.
In my opinion, many writers confuse short engine life with poor reliability or non-operability. You can fly operations just fine with a short engine life, it's just that the engine won't last long before having to be replaced.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
Hi Syscom,
>As for the -262 engines, when was it being produced in quantity and considered reliable enough for operations?
Did you ever read anything about the Me 262 being grounded for lack of engines? This seems to be a popular assumption, but I haven't found any source to confirm it.
In my opinion, many writers confuse short engine life with poor reliability or non-operability. You can fly operations just fine with a short engine life, it's just that the engine won't last long before having to be replaced.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
Bill,
Just like loss records undoubtedly have gone missing, so have the records of pilot claims. Remember that by late 44 many of the kills scored by the LW were never confirmed by the OKL, which undoubtedly is the reason behind why many Allied a/c are listed as missing, there being no possibility to cross reference the details with LW records of Allied a/c claimed shot down.
But Soren - for the ones Confirmed by OKL as recorded in Woods tables, there is a 70-80% 'over award' to LW pilots when compared to actual 8th AF losses. There isn't a problem with 'missing' or 'unaccounted for' 8th AF losses - just some 'unexplained or unknown' causes.
Missing LW pilot claims would just make the overclaiming worse.
As for my sources, I didn't directly cross reference with USAAF or RAF loss records, however I took into account overstatement of kills. Far more than 600 a/c were claimed shot down by the Me-262.
I have heard so much about the -262 being capable for fighter ops early in 1944, that I am asking these questions, as they are nuances that have to be explained.
Quoting a summary of an old Alfred Price's article of the Me262 in Air International Magazine:
"Several postwar writers have censured Luftwaffe leaders for failing to get the Me262 into production early enough. Yet, if anything, production of the aircraft was initiated too early with the result that Me262 airframes were starting to come off the assembly lines before them were ready to enter mass production. Nor did Adolf Hitler's edict regarding the initial use of the Me262 as a fighter-bomber cause appreciable delay in the type's operational introduction in the fighter role.
The most important factor constraining the employment of the Me262 in operational service was the extremely short running life of the Jumo 004 power unit. Despite the valiant and imaginative efforts of the Junkers engineers, by the spring of 1945 the state of development of the Jumo 004 had not reached the point where it could be regarded as a fully reliable unit. As a result the Me262 was never able to fulfil its original promise."
What exactly made the airframes coming out of factories "not ready for mass-production"?