Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
One criticism of the Ta 152/153 program I've seen levelled and which seems to be fair is -
why bother with the diversion of resources and effort when (assuming their mission was fighter v fighter keeping the jet airfields clear of roaming allied attacking aircraft) when the late 190A 190Ds could perform the same task just as well?
Is this a fair comment?
Even if the late Fw-190s (A-9, D-13) were able to muster 2-5% better performance vs. most of Allied fighters, that was not what Germans needed - not when enemy throws in the air double or triple number of it's own fighters (plus the bombers of all sizes). The average pilot's capabilities would've never used those 2-5% extra anyway.
Germans needed the design that was able to have a healthy performance margin, at small cost, to cancel out allied numerical and manpower-quality supremacy. He-162 was the answer, but came to late, with no time to either work the bugs out, nor to produce it in numbers.
Even if the late Fw-190s (A-9, D-13) were able to muster 2-5% better performance vs. most of Allied fighters, that was not what Germans needed - not when enemy throws in the air double or triple number of it's own fighters (plus the bombers of all sizes). The average pilot's capabilities would've never used those 2-5% extra anyway.
Germans needed the design that was able to have a healthy performance margin, at small cost, to cancel out allied numerical and manpower-quality supremacy. He-162 was the answer, but came to late, with no time to either work the bugs out, nor to produce it in numbers.
Tomo - I tend to agree your point but question whether He 162 offered better mission capability with single engine over Me 262 - as well as more limited range... an interesting question given the reliability fo the engines, but also granting the 262 used more critically short materials than the 162..
Yep, one of reasons I don't blow the Me-262 trumpet is that it was something like German P-38 - great, but expensive sometimes troublesome.
Tomo - I tend to agree your point but question whether He 162 offered better mission capability with single engine over Me 262 - as well as more limited range... an interesting question given the reliability fo the engines, but also granting the 262 used more critically short materials than the 162..
I think the issue was more closely tied to the turbocharger arrangement used by the P-38 than the supercharger arrangement used by the Allison P-51. I don't recall any particularly significant use of the P-40 in the ETO.I have heard of that reason before Colin but why does not one hear about the Allisons in the P-51s/Mustang Is and P-40s having the same problem.
I think the issue was more closely tied to the turbocharger arrangement used by the P-38 than the supercharger arrangement used by the Allison P-51. I don't recall any particularly significant use of the P-40 in the ETO.
The 5th AF didn't feel that way....
I disagree.Germany were well advised to develop the Me262 and ill advised not to throw everything they could do to get them into service earlier. The He162 was a remarkable design but was
a) not what germany needed
b) another diversion of resources as was the Me163, Ta152, Do 335, and other late developments.
The 262 was almost immune to fighters with precious few shot down when in the air (apart from landing and take off) and lethal against bombers offering a one pass one kill capability. The He 162 with 2 x 20mm lacked this and the piston engined types didn't have the performance to stay out of the way of the Allied fighters.
In the first few months of WW2 the British realised that survival was the name of the game and forbade almost all development and concentrated on the production of a handful of aircraft.
Germany did of course concentrate on the production of fighters but didn't stop wasting resources on the development of aircraft that never had a serious chance of reaching combat and would have only had a marginal impact had they made the front line. Those designers, engineers, research facilities and scarce materials could well have impacted the in service date of the Me262, even 6 months would have made a huge difference.
The 5th AF successfully operated the P-38 (starting out with E models) from late 1942 and did not complain about them like the folks in the ETO did. The P-38 was the right aircraft for the pacific regardless of price, and did do its job well.The price of P-38 was not their problem, and the later series have had some stuff added (wing root fillet, dive flaps, powered commands) to alleviate some issues. Since (I repeat) plane was great, my comment was not too away from truth.
Germany were well advised to develop the Me262 and ill advised not to throw everything they could do to get them into service earlier. The He162 was a remarkable design but was
a) not what germany needed
b) another diversion of resources as was the Me163, Ta152, Do 335, and other late developments.
The 262 was almost immune to fighters with precious few shot down when in the air (apart from landing and take off) and lethal against bombers offering a one pass one kill capability. The He 162 with 2 x 20mm lacked this and the piston engined types didn't have the performance to stay out of the way of the Allied fighters.
In the first few months of WW2 the British realised that survival was the name of the game and forbade almost all development and concentrated on the production of a handful of aircraft.
Germany did of course concentrate on the production of fighters but didn't stop wasting resources on the development of aircraft that never had a serious chance of reaching combat and would have only had a marginal impact had they made the front line. Those designers, engineers, research facilities and scarce materials could well have impacted the in service date of the Me262, even 6 months would have made a huge difference.[/QUOTE
Glider - I have looked at all the US claims/credits for Me 262s - of the 116+ from the 8th AF more than 60% were destroyed when the initiation of combat was started at high altitude. The modes of destruction including a.) long range shooting which damaged an engine, and b.) excellent deflection shooting.
In the remaining ~40% the destruction occurred at low altitude with a.) damaged 262 no longer able to outpace the pursuing aircraft(s), b.) in a landing pattern. I do not recall if I saw an Encounter Report claiming a 262 on takeoff and climb out but I would not discount that scenario - I just don't recall.