Vampire vs Me 262 (1 Viewer)

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

Not completely accurate though, particularly on the dates...

It would be interesting to see actual data on the P-80/262 comparison though. And the often given example (with no source cited) appears to be with the XP-80, very different from the XP-80A and subsequent YP-80A's and production P-80A's. (the XP-80 was a different type, quite a bit smaller, and powered by a ~2,400 lbf British Halford H-1 engine, top speed being just over 500 mph)

As for the dates, it says the 262 is a "1938" a/c opposed to the "1946" P-80 and P-84. This is fairly correct on the P-84 though, but even in this case it's flawed as the XP-84 project started in 1944 and the first prototype completed in late 1945, flying at the beginning of 1946.

The P-80 and Me 262 dates were even further off, with the original development of what was to become the 262 starting in 1939 but changing many times through the first jet only flight of the V2 prototype in 1942. (still in tail dragger configuration)
The XP-80 program was initiated in 1943 after Lockheed had received data for the XP-59B (single engined Airacomet) and the Halford H-1, creating a much superior design to the XP-59B. The XP-80 powered by the Halford H.1B (Goblin) and was completed and began ground trials in late 1943. It flew at the beginning of 1944. But even before the XP-80 L-140 design had been tested the larger L-141 powered by the I-40 (J33) had been proposed and eventually became the XP-80A which flew in mid 1944.

Lockheed XP-80 Shooting Star
Lockheed XP-80A Shooting Star
 
The XP-80 program was initiated in 1943 after Lockheed had received data for the XP-59B (single engined Airacomet)
I thought the P-59 was a twin engined aircraft?

...or is this a mis-statement...

militaryfactory.com said:
Despite the fact that these were, in fact, two turbojet engines, the P-59 still did not contend well in head-to-head match-ups with the propeller-driven, piston-powered North American P-51 Mustangs.

I, too would like to see a comparison of P-80/ME-262 flight/combat performance stats.
Maybe we could limit it to first production models.
Maybe we need to start a new thread?



Elvis
 
The XP-59B (Note: not P-59B, which was a slightly improved P-59A) was a parallel design by Bell for a single engined jet fighter. As Bell had their hands full, the prliminary stusy of the XP-59B design and this eventually led to the P-80 program, im combination with info on the Halford H.1B (goblin) turbojet.
 
lastscandj2.jpg


Bell P-59 Airacomet

Although the Airacomet never saw service in its originally-intended role as a fighter aircraft, it nevertheless provided the USAAF with valuable orientation experience in the use of jet aircraft and furnished a nucleus of trained jet pilots.

The Airacomet was to have one other major impact on aviation history, one that is not generally recognized. Bell engineers undertook some initial work on a single-engined version of the Airacomet, which was designated XP-59B (not to be confused with the P-59B). It had a low-mounted wing and was to be powered by a single General Electric I-16 turbojet engine housed in the rear fuselage with an air inlet at the wing roots and an exhaust in the tail. However, the Buffalo plant was so busy with other projects that in late 1942 the USAAF transferred the preliminary drawings of the single-engined XP-59B to Lockheed, where it became the inspiration of the famed P-80 Shooting Star.
 
Or the Westinghouse J34 engines, developed from the J30 which flew on the FH Phantom prototype shortly before the War's end. (in late January 1945) The J34 was 25" diameter, 119" length, some 3,000 lbs thrust on early models and weighed some 1,100-1,200 lbs. It was in testing in 1945 and first flown in 1946 iirc.
 
I have all ways wondered whey the UK or the USA did not put there jet engine's on the me 262.For they had the MetroVick f2 axial engine.
I think the mentality at the time was seeing what the Germans had developed and then see if we (we=all allied nations studying this "machinery") could use that to our advantage.
That would be different from what you're saying and may not have occurred to anyone, simply because of the direction of thinking at that time.
What I always wondered about was why the swept wing/stabilizers concept wasn't tested on the P/F-80, as a means of improving its performance?
Maybe hindsight is 20/20, but that seems like one of the first things I would've explored, upon deconstruction of the ME-262.




Elvis
 
Nice design, a bit overbuilt (with very thick skin and heavy duty aluminum forgings) though making it too heavy. The engines could have been a bit more powerful too. It had J34's with ~4,200 lbf AB, while there were varients of the J34 which could put out 4,800+ lbf AB (or 4,900 lbf like the X-3's), which the competing XF-88 did use. (which was lighter to boot) The XF-90 did have longer range than the others though, and was incredibly tough due to the overly heavy construction. One of the prototypes was used with testing of Nuclear explosions and survived. (with some warping, it's being restored to static display in damaged condition iirc)

But it doesn't really matter anyway since the whole penetration fighter project was cancelled, thus the winning XF-88 never entered service, though it was developed into the F-101.
 
KK,

Thanks for the info on the F-80E. Mr.Baugher comes through again, eh?

--------------------------------

FBJ,

Man, is that ever a sexy beast!
Reminds me of an F-101, back in the days when it was runway model and being shot for Sports Illustrated covers.
Yeowch!


Elvis
 
That's he thought too:
The Lockheed XF-90 experimental long-range penetration fighter of the early 1950s always reminded me of the planes flown by the Blackhawks, who were comic book heroes when I was a wee lad. Hawkaaaaaa......!


And here's the Nuclear tests:
Work on the XF-90 was formally terminated in September of 1950. In 1952, the second XF-90A (46-688) was deliberately destroyed on the ground during a nuclear test at Frenchman's Flat in Nevada. The first XF-90A (46-687) was shipped to the NACA laboratory in Cleveland, Ohio in 1953. By this time it was no longer flyable, and was used for structural testing, exploring the limits of the extremely robust structure of the design. Presumably it was tested to destruction. In 2003, the hulk of the second XF-90 (46-688) was recovered by the USAF Museum from the Nevada nuclear test site. I assume that it will eventually be restored and put on display.
 
What I always wondered about was why the swept wing/stabilizers concept wasn't tested on the P/F-80, as a means of improving its performance?
Maybe hindsight is 20/20, but that seems like one of the first things I would've explored, upon deconstruction of the ME-262.

Elvis

Probably because they recognized that the wing sweep on the Me-262 was to move the center of lift aft and not to improve performance at speed (which it must have done to a small extent).
 

Attachments

  • C-47 profile.jpg
    C-47 profile.jpg
    1.7 KB · Views: 255
The sweep must have some performance enhancement qualities.
Both the F-86 and the F-84 picked up approx. 100mph over their straight wing counterparts, when they went swept wing, and both aircraft were subsonic (level flight).
However, you bring up a good point. That could very well be why they didn't go after the swept wing, to begin with.



Elvis
 
The wing sweep of the Me 262 (as well as the DC-3, late Il-2, Me 163, XP-55, XP-56, Saab 21R etc) were not for trans-sonic and critical mach reasons, but the slight sweep (~17.8*) would have had some effect, albeit unintentional. (and only slight)

However German engeneers obviously did know the advantages of swept wings, and the Me 262 HG aircraft took advantage of this intentionally.
-The HG-I had a swept tailplane, low profile canopy and a standard wing except for a 35* LE sweep inlay section inboard of the nacelles. It was flight tested.
-The HG-II had constant 35* sweep with the same swept tail as the HG-I. (it was originally to use a V tail) It was completed but never flew. (damaged by bombing or ground accedent and never fully repaired iirc)
-The HG-III had a 45* sweep with the engines moved to the wing roots and the same swept tail. (HeS 011 engines were planned iirc) It did,'t leave the drawing board.

It was the HG design data that was utilized in the XP-86 project iirc.
 
No way to big... ;) They thought of alternate engines but all required a considerable redesign to work.


The J34 was a very compact engine (25" diameter ~1,200 lbs) the most promising adaptation would be to the related Westinghouse J46 (29" diameter ~1,800 lbs with 4,000 lbf 6,100 lbf AB) but even that would have required a major redesign.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back