Resolved. German jets were a waste of time and effort

The Basket said:

The Fiat design was physically larger than the Gnat making it more capable.
And only 3 countries took it on...hardly NATO.

Click to expand...

It was a Nato sponsored competition and paid for in part with MAP funds I believe. The fact that only three countries took it on doesn't mean that it wasn't a Nato program to start with.

The Basket said:

The Gnat had no role in the RAF as it was too short ranged and could carry no bombs or internal equipment...even as a trainer it was pretty marginal. The test pilots who flew it did say it was the best flying machine they ever flew...but they couldnt make it operational.

Click to expand...

The Indian Air Force might disagree with that and a few Pakistani pilots must be wondering what shot them down if Gnats weren't operational.

Shortround6 said:

It was a Nato sponsored competition and paid for in part with MAP funds I believe. The fact that only three countries took it on doesn't mean that it wasn't a Nato program to start with.




The Indian Air Force might disagree with that and a few Pakistani pilots must be wondering what shot them down if Gnats weren't operational.

Click to expand...

The RAF had no role for the Gnat...I never mentioned the Indians.

Did RAF Gnats shoot down F-86s?

The Basket said:

The Fiat design was physically larger than the Gnat making it more capable.
And only 3 countries took it on...hardly NATO.

To compare the F-16 to the He 162 is a bit rich for me.

The Gnat had no role in the RAF as it was too short ranged and could carry no bombs or internal equipment...even as a trainer it was pretty marginal. The test pilots who flew it did say it was the best flying machine they ever flew...but they couldnt make it operational.

Click to expand...

So just becasue it didn't work for the RAF, that made it a failure???

I never called the Gnat a failure.

The Basket said:

I never called the Gnat a failure.

Click to expand...

No you didn't

The Basket said:

Yes like the Folland Gnat...which was considered almost useless...

Click to expand...

but I think it was shown here it was far from "almost useless."

I'm not so sure of all the ins and out of this thread, but I'll give my viewpoint:

The Me262 can be considered as a failure as a true fighter, but I think it succesfully brought back the failed 'Zerstorer' Concept - which the earlier Me110 failed to convice on.

I think it's probems were mainly:

The weapons:

The 30mm shell was devastating, but the weapons firing it were less than brilliant: The MK103 had a decent range, but too low a fire rate - the MK108 had the opposite, so neither was satisfactory. A weapon combining both features would have been excellent. I think the Mauser Revolver cannon would be a good contender, considering the designs post-war success? If used against enemy fighters, the 20mm MG151/20 would probably be a better option. The Me262 tore the sturdy B-17 to pieces though, so IMO was still succesful.

The Airframe:

It was more of a heavy fighter/fighter bomber IMO - so comparing it to true fighters I feel is unfair.

The engines:

Were unreliable due to a lack of raw materials, also may have been better if Cetrifugal flow - like Allied designs? (sturdier)

The Meteor was more of a fighter - a more agile airframe, 20mm cannons and Centrifugal-flow engines. These would have had downsides however.


As for other jets, well, more nimble, single-engined fighters like the Slamander, and more mature ones like te He1078 were excellent designs. With a lack of materials for the engines though, these were also 'useless' - though having 1/2 the number of engines, they would require 1/2 the amount of rare materials per plane.

Schwarzpanzer, it would also be nice to have an engine that has the thrust of an F414 but the fuel consumption of an Allison 250 but you can't have the best of both worlds usually.

The Mauser revolver cannon seems like the ultimate solution but then, it's simply not ready in time. And don't forget the 30mm version actually has a muzzle velocity close to the MK 108 so what you get is basically a much improved rate of fire.

I also doubt the Meteor was "more of a fighter". Their loaded weights are very similar (though somewhat depending on type), both have similar thrust (again depending on type). Sure, Meteor has lower wing loading. Just like Spitfire has lower wing loading vs. Bf 109. I think it's a matter of German vs. British philosophy, they're still in the same ballpark.

FLYBOYJ said:

No you didn't



but I think it was shown here it was far from "almost useless."

Click to expand...

The RAF had no use for it...so therefore it was useless....

It was a very good flying machine but it was not what the RAF wanted...

The Basket said:

The RAF had no use for it...so therefore it was useless

Click to expand...

Rather flawed logic
That the RAF had no use for it only proves that the RAF had no use for it

Colin1 said:

Rather flawed logic
That the RAF had no use for it only proves that the RAF had no use for it

Click to expand...

er,,,thats what I wrote...

Colin1 said:

Rather flawed logic
That the RAF had no use for it only proves that the RAF had no use for it

Click to expand...

To use/rebuild a plane where you even dont have the needed documents for the machines to produce the parts, specialy if all is metric, while you use inch and pound, is much to expencive, if you already have a flying plane(meteor), noone would use something different.

That the 262 and the other german investigations wasnt useless we can see in the fighter construction of the 50th. Swept wings and other inovations got used 1st time in the 262 and 162.
I took a while until the allieds did realise the advantage, but then they used it.
Mig15, f-86 and Fiat G.91 had many features the 262 already had and the later wartime constuctions of Mr.Tank and Messerschmitt, which was so much similar to the 1950th fighters, also base mainly on the experiences with the 262.

The Basket said:

er...that's what I wrote...

Click to expand...

It isn't though, is it?

schwarzpanzer said:

The weapons:

The 30mm shell was devastating, but the weapons firing it were less than brilliant: The MK103 had a decent range, but too low a fire rate - the MK108 had the opposite, so neither was satisfactory. A weapon combining both features would have been excellent. I think the Mauser Revolver cannon would be a good contender, considering the designs post-war success? If used against enemy fighters, the 20mm MG151/20 would probably be a better option. The Me262 tore the sturdy B-17 to pieces though, so IMO was still succesful.

Click to expand...

There is also a considerable weight difference between the MK 103 and the MK 108. 60Kg to 141KG? a gun combining both features would have been even heavier. A gun combining the higher rate of fire with a MV (range) somewhat in between might have split the difference in weight.
British 1950s 30mm ADEN gun weighs 87Kg and has the rate of fire and better velocity than the MK 108 but also fires a shell of only 66-75% of the weight.

schwarzpanzer said:

The engines:

Were unreliable due to a lack of raw materials, also may have been better if Cetrifugal flow - like Allied designs? (sturdier)

Click to expand...

The Germans main problem was in the turbine section with a lack of high temperature alloys. Changing to a centrifugal compressor would have done nothing for this. A centrifugal compressor would also have been significantly larger in diameter for the same power. A 262 with engines in the wings like a Meteor? A 162 with an engine pod at least a foot bigger in diameter?

Knegel said:

To use/rebuild a plane where you even don't have the needed documents for the machines to produce the parts, especially if all is metric, while you use inch and pound, is much too expensive, if you already have a flying plane (Meteor), no-one would use something different.

That the 262 and the other German investigations weren't useless we can see in the fighter construction of the 50s. Swept wings and other innovations got used 1st time in the 262 and 162.

MiG-15, F-86 and Fiat G.91 had many features the 262 already had and the later wartime constuctions of Mr.Tank and Messerschmitt, which were so similar to the 1950s fighters, also based mainly on the experiences with the 262.

Click to expand...

Needed documents and the metric system? I don't know what you're talking about

The Gnat was not a peer of the Meteor, it was introduced as a bomber interceptor around the time the P1 was just about to become the Lightning. It was borne out of a concern for the way fighter development had gone; size, weight and cost were becoming prohibitive. Teddy Petter actually left the P1 program to join Folland for precisely these reasons.

Petter encountered all sorts of opposition from the Air Ministry and they refused to back anyone but Rolls-Royce for alternative powerplant options. Petter went with the Armstrong-Siddeley Viper which was good enough for him to start airing his lightweight fighter theories. The Air Ministry then moved the goalposts in characteristic fashion and declared that the design would now be required to carry guided missiles.

The Gnat's forerunner, the Midge, was rolled out in July 1954, after both the Hunter and Swift had flown. By mid-August it was at Boscombe Down for trials where it compared favourably with both afore-mentioned aircraft, Boscombe Down agreed that the type showed considerable promise. Indian Air Force observers were impressed enough to recommend the purchase of the Midge's successor, the Gnat.

Petter finally hit it lucky with the powerplant, with Bristol producing the Orpheus. It was physically bigger than the Viper and the Gnat would now have a wider fuselage to go with it's already-agreed larger wings. In 1954 a NATO fighter competition saw the Gnat running against four other entrants. Judges consistently placed the Gnat last against the other designs owing, it was claimed, to the tyres not being of sufficiently low pressure to operate from rough airfields, this despite the Gnat being the only entrant to come in under the competition's weight rules.

Sales were made to the Indian Air Force. Ironically, it was considered too light for the Indian Navy, which required a 10,000lb minimum weight. The same restriction also lost it sales to the Canadian and Australian Navies.



The Me262 did not have a true swept wing.
Aside from the powerplant, what other innovations were used in the Me262 or He162 over their WWII piston-engined peers?
What did the F-86, MiG-15 and G.91 share with the Me262, again, aside from choice of propulsion?

Knegel said:

t.

That the 262 and the other german investigations wasnt useless we can see in the fighter construction of the 50th. Swept wings and other inovations got used 1st time in the 262 and 162.

Click to expand...

Depends on WHY the wings were swept. Were they swept to delay compressibility or were they swept to help with a center of gravity/center of lift problem?

See: Junkers G 38 - passenger

for a swept wing that had nothing to do with high speed.

and :

http://www.aviastar.org/pictures/usa/northrop_xp-79b.gif

for a 1943 American design.

While the German research helped once people started investigating high speed (near supersonic) airflows everything the German research covered would have come out anyway. Wind tunnels are only going to give you one answer. Air doesn't flow differently in Germany than it does in the rest of the world.

While the NACA may not have been investigating swept wings for compressibility they were investigating them for distribution of load, both span wise and cord wise, stalling characteristics, lift distribution. down wash and vortices in 1942.

The German research may have saved the west a couple of years and advanced planes designed in the late 40s and USED in the 50s but probably didn't do much for designs actually done in the 50s.

Colin1 said:

It isn't though, is it?

Click to expand...

You tell me.

schwarzpanzer said:

I'm not so sure of all the ins and out of this thread, but I'll give my viewpoint:

The Me262 can be considered as a failure as a true fighter, but I think it succesfully brought back the failed 'Zerstorer' Concept - which the earlier Me110 failed to convice on.

I think it's probems were mainly:

The weapons:

The 30mm shell was devastating, but the weapons firing it were less than brilliant: The MK103 had a decent range, but too low a fire rate - the MK108 had the opposite, so neither was satisfactory. A weapon combining both features would have been excellent. I think the Mauser Revolver cannon would be a good contender, considering the designs post-war success? If used against enemy fighters, the 20mm MG151/20 would probably be a better option. The Me262 tore the sturdy B-17 to pieces though, so IMO was still succesful.

The Airframe:

It was more of a heavy fighter/fighter bomber IMO - so comparing it to true fighters I feel is unfair.

The engines:

Were unreliable due to a lack of raw materials, also may have been better if Cetrifugal flow - like Allied designs? (sturdier)

The Meteor was more of a fighter - a more agile airframe, 20mm cannons and Centrifugal-flow engines. These would have had downsides however.


As for other jets, well, more nimble, single-engined fighters like the Slamander, and more mature ones like te He1078 were excellent designs. With a lack of materials for the engines though, these were also 'useless' - though having 1/2 the number of engines, they would require 1/2 the amount of rare materials per plane.

Click to expand...

A few things wrong here...

The Me 262 flew and performed as designed. It was maneuverable and heavily armed. It's deployment and tactical use was a failure as it was "too little, too late" and did have some operating flaws that made it vulnerable, but that could be said of almost all first generation jets. It did "kill" allied aircraft in respectiable numbers considering how it was being produced and rushed to the battlefield.

Yes the engines were basically "throw aways" mainly because of material problems but the Germans were working around that. For the amount of thrust that was being extracted from the engines of that time, the centrifugal flow engine was a bit more reliable but it was evident that the axial flow would be the way to go as its potential for producing way more thrust was recognized.

The first Meteors deployed had their share of problems as well. Because of the state of the German manufacturing ability, by 1945 the allies started producing machines that were more reliable than the Germans, and even then aircraft like the Meteor F.5 and the P-80A still had their share or problems.

To say it was a failure as a fighter is a far stretch. When it did work, it worked well and did what it was supposed to do.

Shortround6 said:

Depends on WHY the wings were swept. Were they swept to delay compressibility or were they swept to help with a center of gravity/center of lift problem?

See: Junkers G 38 - passenger

for a swept wing that had nothing to do with high speed.

and :

http://www.aviastar.org/pictures/usa/northrop_xp-79b.gif

for a 1943 American design.

While the German research helped once people started investigating high speed (near supersonic) airflows everything the German research covered would have come out anyway. Wind tunnels are only going to give you one answer. Air doesn't flow differently in Germany than it does in the rest of the world.

While the NACA may not have been investigating swept wings for compressibility they were investigating them for distribution of load, both span wise and cord wise, stalling characteristics, lift distribution. down wash and vortices in 1942.



The German research may have saved the west a couple of years and advanced planes designed in the late 40s and USED in the 50s but probably didn't do much for designs actually done in the 50s.

Click to expand...

The Me 262s wings were swept back by design for c/g reasons, this is well documented in the book "Arrow to the Future" by Walter Boyne on page 24, this was based on an interview with Woldermar Voight, he was one of the design engineers responsible for the me 262's airframe. Voight also stated that there was actually little wind tunnel testing with the design because Germany's transonic wind tunnel was small and the wind tunnel model used was only a 7/8 inch model.

It seems to me that the question of 'why the swept wing' of the Me 262 is not truly important as the result was a delayed Mcrit and the follow on designs had even more sweep - clearly indicating more than a 'center of ligt to cg' consideration.

Colin - why do you contend the 262 was not a swept wing? The leading edge design clearly achieves the purpose of delaying critical mach effects as in a delta wing...

As to similarities to say an F-86 the two designs both had leading edge sweep and slats, both had centerline firepower, both had tricycle gear, both had superb vision in the cockpit, both had stores racks on the wings, both had slab horizontal stab (for later designs of F-86). It seems there were more things in common than the obvious differences like twin vs single engine

Hi riacrato,

Yes, I know you couldnt just stretch the barrel of the MK108.

Thanks for the info on the Mauser. An improved RoF is not the objective I would've pursued.

I was thinking that it is like the comparison of the Hurricane Spitfire - the Spitfire was more of a fighter, the Hurri a bomber destroyer - though both could perform both roles (though less well).

I was thinking that the Meteors airframe favours agility over speed, and the guns are better for attacking fighters than bombers.


Hi Shortround,

True about the weight, but I think weight is a worthwhile sacrifice in a Zerstorer, for increased performance. A compromise like you suggested would have been good though. Thanks for the ADEN info, though it slightly contradicts what riacrato posted. I think the ammo is not the problem, so that should stay. If I understand right, the MK108 barrel couldn't be stretched - but the Mausers could?...

I was thnking that the Centrifugal would have been better for a fighter - also the tech is easier to understand. Its true though that no advantage would be given - for a Zerstorer, IMO.

A 262 with engines in the wings like a Meteor?

Click to expand...

That might have been a good idea, but would make engine swaps much harder - vital with the unreliable Jumo 004.

A 162 with an engine pod at least a foot bigger in diameter?

Click to expand...

Now that might have been bad! - but didn't the 162 have an ejector seat?...


Hi Flyboy,

Thats right on the reason for the swept wings - but aerodynamic stability was also a factor IIRC, also it would have aided performance(?)

I don't thik the Me262 was maneuverable enough - not that it had to be IMO. When it got into fights with prop planes it was toast, unless it used boom-and-zoom tactics.

The armament had a very looping trajectory and short range, which I beleive were major flaws.

When used to attack bombers, it performed well - but I think the guns let it down a little.

Axial flows have better performance, but centrifugals have advantages - toughness, for example.

I think the main is, what was it? A heavy interceptor, in the vein of the Me110 (bomber destroyer), or a fighter? (like the Me109)

From what you say, perhaps problems with early jets were inescapable and this threads hypothesis is correct?

I meant as a dogfighter - then, 20mm cannons might have been preferable (longer range, higher RoF and enough performance - the extra power of the 30mm being unecessary).