Revolutionary aircraft of World war 2?

[gjs238]

The British called it Rat Catching and it was highly dangerous to the RAF Tempests that were engaged in the tactic. The RAF discontinued the practise after a while owing to the losses suffered by their squadrons; the Germans cottoned on to what was going on and placed AA guns on the runway approach area and also took the measure of stationing Fw 190s nearby.

So the Me-262 needed escort?

 

[Juha]

It was as close as you were going to get as Gloster and Hawker were part of the same company at the time. Hawker having taken over Gloster in 1934 and then merging with Armstrong-Siddeley and Armstrong Whitworth. Bad mouthing what was basically a Hawker Siddeley product probably was frowned upon by the H-S management.

That's true but to put it more frankly I feel that in beamont's mind the only good planes were those with which beamont had extensive experience. I recall that in his mind the really great planes were Hurricane, Tempest, Canberra, EE P.1/ Lightning, TSR 2 if it had got the chance and somewhat surprisingly Ju 88G

 

[Garyt]

In fact only a clear minority of Me 262s were shot down while landing.

How many were shot down by fighters? And how many by bombers? And if we take out those that were shot down by fighters very near their own airfields? I'd be interested if anyone has any numbers.

It was certainly innovative and bears kudos for that, but it was not the revolution; it was a leading player in it."

Well, I consider the leading player in a revolution to be the revolutionary

As it's been said before, aeronautics research does not take place in a vacuum, making it almost impossible for any aircraft to be revolutionary. The only way it could really happen by these rules is a prototype to be made, it is successful, and then put into full production with little in the way of changes. And no other powers can be researching or close to having success in researching the specifics that make this plane revolutionary.

I find it amusing though that there is more argument against the Me262 being revolutionary than there is an argument against the P-51 being revolutionary.

 

[Juha]

The British called it Rat Catching and it was highly dangerous to the RAF Tempests that were engaged in the tactic. The RAF discontinued the practise after a while owing to the losses suffered by their squadrons; the Germans cottoned on to what was going on and placed AA guns on the runway approach area and also took the measure of stationing Fw 190s nearby.

Yes but it was also very dangerous to those Fw 190D pilots of III./JG 54 even if they were succesful in defending landing and taking off 262s.

 

[Juha]

Hello Garyt
According to drgondog 07-15-2008 10:24 PM

"So far, for the distribution of the combined 339FG, 352FG, 355FG and 357 FG jet awards, there were 44 Me 262 Awards. Of those (~40% of all 8th AF awards) that I have looked at in the last day -

25% (12)were hit at altitude and resulted in destruction or bail out
50% (22)were hit at altitude, chased and destroyed while attempting to reach protection of airfield flak and air cover but not in landing pattern.
25% (12) were destroyed during take off or landing."

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/piston-engine-aircraft-jet-kills-1226.html

 

[nuuumannn]

So the Me-262 needed escort?

Here's a recollection from Grp Capt Wray, the only RAF pilot to shoot down two Me 262s:

"When Roland Beamont was shot down, I returned as Wing Leader of the five Tempest squadrons as Volkel which comprised No.122 Wing. It was here that combats by Tempests against the Me 262 took place - also sitings and often fruitless chases regularly occurred. I decided to put a squadron in the Achmer/Rheine/Hopsten area to try and prevent the Me 262s from getting airborne, and to catch those returning to base when they would be desperately short of fuel. To approach any German airfield exposed one to very accurate and heavy AA fire, so the patrolling squadron had to keep out of range until a target appeared - then it was simply a questionof sticking one's neck out.

On one occasion when I was on patrol, a Me 262 returned. I should say at this stage, they were very difficult to see from above, and so we tended to put a section down at low level so that we could see the target more easily from beneath it, and thus report its position at the top cover formation. This sighting was reported, and we saw him approaching failry low from the west. I went down with my Number Two, but the flak was pretty intense, and before I had any chance to get close to him, he suddenly accelerated away and disappeared. needless to say, my aircraft was hit by AA, though not seriously."

"The term "Rat Catching" was, I believe coined by my successor as wing leader, Peter Brooker. Moreover, the system was changed so far as I know, in as much as a section was maintained in readiness at Volkel and directly it was known the jets were airborne, the section was scrambled to Rheine. Their aim was to catch the "Rat" before he could enter the flak lane. However, losses did occur and I think the practise was eventually stopped."

 

[Clayton Magnet]

OK. Tough panel; but I'll submit the P-51; not so much as an airframe but as fulfilling a role thought to be impossible. In the early 40's the thought of a fighter able to hold its own against interceptors while having the range of bombers was ridiculed. The P-51 wasn't the only plane with the incipient capability in the role –just the first and probably the best. It revolutionized tactics and strategies,

I would think the A6M came on the scene a little sooner than the P-51.

 

[nuuumannn]

Well, I consider the leading player in a revolution to be the revolutionary

Its jet engine was revolutionary, not the jet itself. The He 178, He 280 and Gloster E.28/39 preceded it.

I find it amusing though that there is more argument against the Me262 being revolutionary than there is an argument against the P-51 being revolutionary.

I'd hazard a guess at the fact that the Me 262 was at the cusp of a change in technology and so everyone thinks that it was a revolution in itself. Its position as the first jet fighter to see combat gives it kudos.

And no other powers can be researching or close to having success in researching the specifics that make this plane revolutionary.

Now, you're getting the idea. Also its subsequent impact and the sweeping changes it - and it alone, brought about.

 

[GrauGeist]

I find it amusing though that there is more argument against the Me262 being revolutionary than there is an argument against the P-51 being revolutionary.

Beyond that, in a twist of cruel irony, the P-51D proved to be the nemesis of the Me262...

 

[Njaco]

...and this is where most of the aircraft mentioned here fall. Sorry, Balljoint, I don't consider the Mustang in itself revolutionary; the concepts it was advocating existed before and were already being practised; it was the epitome of its specific role and Luftwaffe tactics to counter it as a long range escort were no different to any other aircraft the USAAF employed in the role.

Chris, the Me 262 in itself was not a revolution; it was a part of one taking place and it had its Allied contemporaries; it also wasn't the first jet fighter, although as it has been stated here earlier it was the first jet fighter to go into combat, but also, like I said earlier, it took conventional means to counter the threat. The tactics used against it were conventional and yes, its appearance startled the Allies, but its impact at the time was not as great as we like to place credence on here. Jets were already in production in Britain and the USA at the same time as the '262; like I said, the revolution in aircraft powerplant technology was already taking place, with the '262 as one of its leading proponents. The Germans also rushed it into service prematurely, which, with its deficiencies, meant it was never going to live up to its promise. It was certainly innovative and bears kudos for that, but it was not the revolution; it was a leading player in it.

The 262 did not really bring about a change in tactics used by the Allies; it was defeated by conventional and soundly practised means; bombing of factories, (if this be a criteria for "revolutionary" then I would believe that this fact would disallow ALL aircraft. I don't understand how bombing of its factories would prevent it from being "revolutionary".) shooting down the aircraft as they approached to land etc. High speed air combat tactics in jets were evolved post WW2 when jet vs jet combat took place. Fighting the 262 during WW2 could and was done with piston engined aircraft using existing tactics; it's only real advantage was its speed. In this case, the Allies had more to fear from the Me 163, which was faster and more difficult to shoot down, but was saddled with its own set of deficiencies.

The RAF reconsidered its position on the Me 262 threat, which early intel in late 1943 had led the Brits to think that by late 1944 the Germans would have some 1000 jet powered aircraft in service, both 262s and 163s, but this was an over estimation and the British realised this by mid/late 1944, so its threat was played down, because the numbers were nowhere near what was presumed. The USAAF of course had a different view because it was its bombers being shot down by the 262, but its response was not jet fighters, but the bombing of factories and airfields. Fighter tactics did not change all that much to what had gone before; it was business as usual and, like the V1 threat, as much as resources were diverted to counter it, the Allies did so conventionally. The fact that the 262 was studied extensively post war adds to its impact and influence, but note that its technological design was not employed extensively post war; the F-86 might have had wing slats and swept wings, but the 262 offered little else and the Americans and British relied on a combination of captured material and their own research to produce their next jet fighters.

Disagree.

Just by its appearance - on mass strength - was enough to give the Allies fits. I have to say, you make it sound like its impact was barely a whimper. The 262 started the ball rolling on jet tactics - whether they were shot down by piston engine or not. It forced a new way to dogfight which for the most part is still practiced today. You were not going to be very innovative by continuing with piston vs piston; most dogfighting for that type of fight were already being implemented and did not work against the jets and rockets - the 262 changed that by forcing the Allies to re-think tactics.

Fighter tactics did not change all that much to what had gone before; it was business as usual and, like the V1 threat, as much as resources were diverted to counter it, the Allies did so conventionally.

Again, I disagree for what I stated earlier. They did change because of the 262 and/or the 163. You really can't believe that anyone thought that piston vs piston dogfighting would work against jets? It HAD to change.

I still believe that the 262 brought more to the table in terms of revolutionary instead of alot of what has been offered. I'm really amazed at the laissez faire attitude about what aircraft were revolutionary while at the same time wildly promoting ground-breaking weapons like the V-1,V-2, etc. The thread is about "aircraft" and every aircraft that someone suggests is pushed aside as typical.

Like Parsifal tried to do, maybe we need a clarification on what exactly revolutionary means within the context of this thread.

 

[stona]

Avoiding air combat with fighters but hanging around there airbases to try to get them with out fuel and while they are landing are not "standard combat procedures".

The night fighter intruders of both the RAF and Luftwaffe, flying over bases to catch bombers as they took off, or following the stream home to attack them as they landed might disagree. Targeting the Me 262 'in the circuit' is simply an adaptation of a commonly used tactic to a different operational requirement.

Cheers

Steve

 

[nuuumannn]

I thought that was obvious and if you look back a few posts, you'll see the definitions, Chris.

The 262 started the ball rolling on jet tactics - whether they were shot down by piston engine or not. It forced a new way to dogfight which for the most part is still practiced today. You were not going to be very innovative by continuing with piston vs piston; most dogfighting for that type of fight were already being implemented and did not work against the jets and rockets - the 262 changed that by forcing the Allies to re-think tactics.

Yep, the Allies had to re-think tactics to combat it, but using the aircraft they had. And, why wouldn't they? That alone doesn't make it a revolution. When the Fw 190 appeared the British also had to re think their tactics and also re think their whole future of fighter requirement. By the time the British became aware of the 262, the Gloster Meteor was already underway, although evidence of a twin engined German jet from PR images taken in 1943 resulted in an acceleration of the F.9/40 programme. Yes, the Me 262 threat was great - it gave the Brits a heck of a fright even before they had taken a photo of one, but to the RAF at any rate, by 1944 they had a vast amount of knowledge on the 262 and its capabilities, which were confirmed once wreckage of one that had crashed in France in August 1944 had been acquired and studied. On examining the wreckage, the scientists stated that they thought that although advanced, its manufacture was of poor quality and the engines unreliable. Also, the following report stated that "British jet-propelled fighters now in service have a lower wing loading than the Me 262 and thus better turning qualities. They should be able to out manoeuvre the 262."

This was only after examining wreckage of one. Once the first instance of a 262 being met in combat was reported back, even more of an idea was gained of what it was capable of, confirming what the British predicted its capabilities might have been. All this resulted in the RAF changing is stance on the 262 in late 1944. Here's a quote made on 5 September 1944 "The appearance of the Me 262 in considerable numbers by 1 October is not anticipated. There is no reason at present to suppose that the development of jet and rocket propelled aircraft is proceeding quickly enough to produce any radical alteration in the effectiveness of the German Air Force in 1944."

Here's Grp Capt Wray, whom I mentioned earlier: "When my Tempest wing was at Manston, near Ramsgate, we also had the first Meteor squadron there, No 616, commanded by Willy Nelson [! ]. They appeared to be having teething troubles with this new form of propulsion, so we assumed that the Germans were having similar difficulties with their, what we thought at the time, few jet aircraft. On arrival in the Netherlands this was more or less confirmed, because we saw very few of them."

You really can't believe that anyone thought that piston vs piston dogfighting would work against jets? It HAD to change.

Naturlich. But they did, though. Here is more text from the report mentioned above. "The Me 262 will have the usual poor performance of a jet aircraft at low speed. Thus it can be attacked most easily by fighters now in service when it is cruising or climbing. In manoeuvres, the Me 262 should be forced into tight turns or into a zoom, unless the altitude at which it is encountered is near the ceiling of the attacking aircraft."

Grp Capt Wray again: "It was all a bit of a hit and miss affair. So, no tactical instructions were issued. It was simply a known fact that to have any hope of engaging them in combat you had to have plenty of height above them, then try to get close enough to open fire before they saw you. Otherwise his acceleration was too great."

"Because of their limited endurance, these jets were airborne for a very short time, which again, made their interception very difficult. We were also back to the V1 situation where acceleration and opportunity over a short space of time was the name of the game."

I'm pretty certain that 616 Sqn and its Meteors in the Spring of 1944 would not have been too happy if you told them that what they were learning was as a result of experience with the 262, particularly by the time the squadron was operational the RAF had never encountered one in combat. And what about post war jet fighter tactics in the USAF and RAF? How much influence on post war jet tactics did it actually have, Chris?

The revolution was in the engines. The 262 was innovative, novel and one of the most important and influential aircraft of WW2, but that doesn't necessarily make the 262 a revolution. It wasn't the first jet fighter, it wasn't the fastest fighter either, nor the fastest climber, nor could it reach the highest altitude. Like I said, the revolution was already taking place. I doubt it's because of me with my laissez faire attitude, I think it might be that too many of us here hold the 262 up as being some kind of sacred cow.

 

[bada]

Don't want to make a 262 post of it so excuse my little off topic here.

nuuumann, please stop comparing the 262 to the meteor, as the last one wouldn't have any chance in combat against a 262 in 44or45 (see RAE report from1946 on mike william's site, it's really worth of being fully read).

Mode OT off.

 

[Jabberwocky]

If you label the Me-262 revolutionary, then you'd have to label the Meteor revolutionary as well.

Both were twin-engine jet-powered aircraft with conventional armament and tricycle landing gear. Both were introduced in mid 1944. Both were faster than contemporary piston-powered fighter aircraft.

That the Me-262 was a better aircraft than the early Meteors is actually besides the point. Its like arguing that the F-84 was revolutionary compared to the FJ-1, simply because it had better performance.

 

[nuuumannn]

nuuumann, please stop comparing the 262 to the meteor, as the last one wouldn't have any chance in combat against a 262 in 44 or 45

Why should I, Bada? They are both contemporaries and therefore invite comparison. The quote I provided was made by British Scientists during WW2 after the examination of wreckage, not a flying example. Why do you think that a Meteor would stand no chance against a '262, but a P-51, Tempest or Spitfire could and did? Clearly the tactics described in my post proved that contemporary piston engined fighters could exploit the '262's weaknesses, so there's no reason why a competently flown Meteor couldn't.

 

[Milosh]

If you label the Me-262 revolutionary, then you'd have to label the Meteor revolutionary as well.

Both were twin-engine jet-powered aircraft with conventional armament and tricycle landing gear. Both were introduced in mid 1944. Both were faster than contemporary piston-powered fighter aircraft.

That the Me-262 was a better aircraft than the early Meteors is actually besides the point. Its like arguing that the F-84 was revolutionary compared to the FJ-1, simply because it had better performance.

F.I Meteors were slow with many piston fighters being faster. It was not till the long nacelles were added (F.3s) that speed exceeded that of piston fighter.

 

[bada]

Nuuumann, really, you should read the RAE report on the meteor. The greatest problems on the meteor were : Very heavy ailerons, what means a slow maneuvrability in combat, most of the combat maneuvres begin on the ailerons and the "Snaking" at high speed making the aiming very hard. The report is about the MK3 with newer type engines, but if we talk about 44/45 then the MK1 comes in mind....
Do not forget the 262 was drawn in 1940 and kept it's general shape untill the mass-production in44, so it was already an old plane when it entered combat, it wasn't revolutionary, but it's capabilities were (compared to other planes), speed is life. And it's not because some were shot down by slower planes than the plane was bad, but maybe because the pilots were not so used to high speeds (speaking about the KG pilots here) and used the plane wrongly.
Otherwise we could say the 109 was a bad plane because some old Pzl-11 and Pzl-7 shot them down in39. Like i wrote before, speed is life, drop speed and you're dead meat in a 44/45 situation above Germany.

 

[Juha]

Hello Bada
in fact the wing of 262 got its more or less final plan in July 1943 but the placement of the main wheels was moved even later.

 

[nuuumannn]

F.I Meteors were slow with many piston fighters being faster. It was not till the long nacelles were added (F.3s) that speed exceeded that of piston fighter.

True, but I'd argue that the Meteor could accelerate to speed much faster than a piston fighter, which would give it a big head start. The F.III entered service with 616 Sqn in early December 1944, although the first few were equipped with the less powerful Welland. The Derwent powered F.IIIs were faster than these and the F.Is and the first arrived with the squadron on 18 December. Jabberwocky makes a valid point, here. P-51s were nearly 100 mph slower, yet still managed to defeat '262s, as did P-47s, Spitfires, Tempests etc.

On the subject of jet fighter tactics, for three days between the 10th and 13th October 1944, 616 Sqn sent four Meteors to Debden to practise affiliation tactics with the P-51Ds of the 4th Fighter Group. In that time the Meteors carried out dogfights and simulated attacks on the P-51s, from which the American pilots were expected to learn about jet fighter tactics for use against the 262s and Me 163s. These were described in an article on 616 Sqn I have as being hotly contested, but that the Meteors beat the P-51s in every engagement, which the Americans, it was said did concede without argument, largely owing to the jets being able to show the P-51s a clean pair of heels at their discretion.

it seems that despite the speed advantage the German jets had, the best way to defeat them was by using the same tactics that both the RAF and USAAF fighter pilots had been fighting with against the Luftwaffe since the beginning of the war. Height was all important and gave the attacker a distinct advantage. On a number of combats I've read about between piston engined fighters and the German jets, despite the jets zooming away in a dive, on a number of occasions the Allied pilots were able to re-engage with the jets owing to their lack of power and manoeuvrability at low speeds and altitudes. This is exactly what happened on 25 March 1945, when George Bostwick and Edwin Crosthwait, both flying P-47Ms of the 63rd FS were sent vainly pursuing Me 262s, which had attacked the bombers they were escorting, when one of them was spotted at low altitude near Parchim. Bostwick sent Crosthwait after it and it was brought down.

 

[Njaco]

Understand your points nuuuumann but I still hold by my opinion.

"The Me 262 will have the usual poor performance of a jet aircraft at low speed.

How many jet fighters were in operation prior to the 262 for anyone to have this opinion?