What if the Me 262 had 20mm cannons?

This comment:

Paradoxically, the Me 163, which outperformed the Me 262 in almost all areas except endurance and range,

Click to expand...

Gave me a good laugh. Why is there such a misconception that the Me262 could only fly in straight lines?

And this:

There's a sizable camp that thinks the Me 262 was the most important fighter of the war or even the best fighter of the war.

Click to expand...

Has not been mentioned once in this thread. The hot debate at the moment, is that certain people seem to assume that the Me262 could not engage in a turning fight. Which is far from the truth.

The fact of the matter was and still is, Germany could not stem the tide of Allied men and material. The German jet program languished until it became apparent that something was needed to overcome the Allies. But when that realization came, it was far too late for salvation. So it was never able to fill the role of "heavy fighter" that it was intended for.

The Me262's shortcomings were horribly exposed because the Allied fighters had completely dominated German airspace and the Me262 was left vulnerable in the takeoff and landing modes because there simply wasn't any airspace security. An often overlooked point, is that NO Luftwaffe aircraft could safely takeoff or land by February 1945. Period. Doesn't matter if it had a piston engine, a jet engine or a twisted rubber band...anything with a Black Cross on it's wings was a target of opportunity for the hundreds of Allied aircraft roaming the countryside at the time.

There was a much misunderstood series of simulated combats between a Spitfire (Spitfire XIX PM631) and various EE Lightnings at RAF Binbrook. These were undertaken not as some sort of amusing side show, but because the RAF's fast jets faced the very real possibility of encountering Indonesian P-51s in a rapidly warming conflict following the establishment of the new Malaysian state.
The results of the first series of flights made for uncomfortable reading. The Lightning failed to get into a firing position on the Spitfire with its guns in all the flights, the Spitfire consistently managed to get in a potential shot at the Lightning, though at a large angle off.
The sensors of the British Firestreak missile could not acquire the Spitfire at all, a more serious problem for the FAA's Sea Vixens which had no conventional guns! Firing a volley of 2" rockets at a fast manoeuvreing P-51 was not considered an ideal option for the Navy's pilots, but it was the only one left.
It was in a second series of trials that a viable tactic for engaging the Spitfire was developed. The Lightning would descend well below the level of the Spitfire and make a climbing attack continuing the pass and rocketing away to evade the Spitfire. There never was a tactic developed to attack the Spitfire if it was flying at low level.

A similar problem existed for the Me 262. It could be, and was on several occasions, easily out manoeuvred by a Mosquito, even with 2:1 numerical superiority in favour of the Me 262. The argument that it could manoeuvre with a single engine (piston) fighter is nonsense. No well trained Me 262 pilot would try to do so. Unfortunately many were ex-bomber men lacking the tactical know how to fight their aircraft effectively.

Historically it can be shown that Me 262 claims for allied fighters are seriously exaggerated. Many Me 262s themselves fell victim to the allied fighters and by no means all of them were taking off or landing.

The Me 262 nearly made a great fighter bomber and it did make a superb bomber destroyer. In well trained and experienced hands it could use its huge speed advantage to evade the escorting fighters, not to engage them, whilst reducing its time of exposure to the bombers' defencive fire as it attacked the formation. Reducing the calibre of its armament would reduce its capability in the one role in which it excelled and makes absolutely no sense at all. I'm surprised the Germans didn't try it

One of the perennial 'what ifs' is the hypothetical result of many more Me 262s being available to the Luftwaffe, along with the pilots to fly them. We'll never know, but used sensibly they would have caused serious problems for the combined bomber offensive.

Cheers

Steve

GrauGeist said:

This comment:

Gave me a good laugh. Why is there such a misconception that the Me262 could only fly in straight lines?

And this:

Has not been mentioned once in this thread. The hot debate at the moment, is that certain people seem to assume that the Me262 could not engage in a turning fight. Which is far from the truth.

.

Click to expand...

I have to question here what you refer to as a turning fight?

The pilots themselves state the aircraft had a better turn rate at high speed than low, but relative to what, if it turns poorly at low speed then any improvement as the speed increases is relative, this is the problem with anecdotes, they don't put the quote in context!

Do any of the pilots claim to have out turned a P51 say or made any reference, as the only way I could envisage a 262 engaging a single engine fighter is with an unseen approach, the overtake speed would be a problem to start?

So think about that for a moment, a heavy aircraft at high speed is going to have a large turning radius from the G alone before we consider roll and elevator effectiveness, so does anyone think a 262 is going to be engaged in a luftberry with a p51 or suchlike at 400mph, or a rolling scissors or a descending spiral, the wing loading and weight alone would suggest this would be folly!

A number of the 262's on gun camera film are turning when shot down (discounting the landing and take off intercepts) so logically a large heavy aircraft like a 262 is gong to be out of it's effective envelope if it tries to dogfight with any single engine fighter.

The 262 set a new benchmark for performance and as a bomber interceptor it must have been a far more effective aircraft than it's brethren, but pretending this aircraft is some kind of dogfighting Mig15 seems plain daft from the physics side alone!

I dimly remembered that Johannes Steinhoff had written something about trying to hit Yak 9s with the Me 262 and a search found "The Me 262 Stormbird: From the Pilots Who Flew, Fought, and Survived It" by Colin D. Heaton, Anne-Marie Lewis, Barrett Tillman The Me 262 Stormbird. There seem to be several possibly relevant anecdotes included in the part available from Google.

tyrodtom said:

It wasn't the quality of the aircraft that needed improving . Though the Fw190 certainly could have used better high altitude performance, and the Me262 could have used better 30mm cannons ( higher velocity, longer range).

Click to expand...

If you want higher velocity cannon you need larger (longer) ammunition which is heavier, you also need larger/heavier guns to take the bigger ammunition. You will wind up with a slower firing gun (the bolt/breech block having to travel a longer distance.) unless you get real tricky (read even heavier).

The MK 108 fired at a rate close the vast majority of 20mm guns used during the war so with four guns on board the rate of fire per second was NOT the problem. Problems were limited ammo capacity (7-10 seconds worth of ammo?) and the low velocity which made deflection shooting difficult. More powerful (higher velocity) ammo just means even shorter firing time for the same weight ammo, let alone the weight of the gun/s.

Switching to 20mm guns may improve the deflection shooting but by how much? and would certainly improve the firing time. However it also requires many more hits to be made to inflict the same damage.
The only viable alternative the Germans had for a 20mm gun (short of fantasies like getting revolver cannon into service or building copy's of the Hispano) was the MG 151. While much better at defection shooting than the MK 108 it still had a MV about 84% that of a Hispano or .50cal using "normal" ammo. Using the M-shells the MV was higher but the light weight shells lost velocity quicker.

The 109s that carried a single cannon though the prop hub were a bit different. If armed with a MK 108 they were firing 1/4 the number of shells per second to begin with (and had fewer shells per gun) so getting on target and staying on target was a bit more difficult.

Changing out the MK 108 guns might have made the 262 more effective against fighters but not by any signification amount (more than few percentage points).

Kryten said:

I have to question here what you refer to as a turning fight?

The pilots themselves state the aircraft had a better turn rate at high speed than low, but relative to what, if it turns poorly at low speed then any improvement as the speed increases is relative, this is the problem with anecdotes, they don't put the quote in context!

Do any of the pilots claim to have out turned a P51 say or made any reference, as the only way I could envisage a 262 engaging a single engine fighter is with an unseen approach, the overtake speed would be a problem to start?

Click to expand...

As with any engagement (with any type of aircraft, really), there will be variables. However, the veteran Me262 pilots themselves spoke of instances where they had no option but to stand and fight. A turning fight would be a situation where the aircraft are attempting to place their weapons on the enemy under conditions that require turning the aircraft.

There doesn't seem to be a rule for a turning fight and as such, it could be either a high-speed engagement or a low-speed engagement. For example: if a Spitfire Mark V tried to engage in a low-speed, low-altitude turning fight with a Fw190A, the inexperienced Spitfire pilot would often make the mistake of not turning tight enough for fear of stalling the Spitfire, which had a nasty tendency to violently stall. This costly lesson allowed the Fw190 to acquire the Spitfire by turning inside of it, even though the Spitfire was technically able to turn tighter than the Fw190 at lower speeds.

So the textbook says one thing and what really happened says another.

Kryten said:

So think about that for a moment, a heavy aircraft at high speed is going to have a large turning radius from the G alone before we consider roll and elevator effectiveness, so does anyone think a 262 is going to be engaged in a luftberry with a p51 or suchlike at 400mph, or a rolling scissors or a descending spiral, the wing loading and weight alone would suggest this would be folly!

Click to expand...

And how well did the P-51D turn at high speeds and at high altitudes where many of these engagements occurred?

I can't think of ever reading about the Me262s entering into a Lufberry circle, but I have read where an Me262 had an enemy on it's tail and another Me262 banked in at high-speed and snapped the P-51 off their tail, much to the surprise of the P-51's pilot.

I never said the Me262 was an agile gunslinger, I said (many times) that the Me262 was capable, to a certain extent, of turning and defending itself if the situation dictated.

There were also circumstances where it could not: Landing, Taking off, battled damaged control surfaces or one engine damaged or flamed-out.

Kryten said:

The 262 set a new benchmark for performance and as a bomber interceptor it must have been a far more effective aircraft than it's brethren, but pretending this aircraft is some kind of dogfighting Mig15 seems plain daft from the physics side alone!

Click to expand...

The Me262 as a bomber was a failure. And the attempt to make it a fast bomber not only wasted resources but wasted time getting the A-1/a into service.

And no one here is "pretending" that the Me262 is a "dogfighting MiG-15"...

cherry blossom said:

I dimly remembered that Johannes Steinhoff had written something about trying to hit Yak 9s with the Me 262 and a search found "The Me 262 Stormbird: From the Pilots Who Flew, Fought, and Survived It" by Colin D. Heaton, Anne-Marie Lewis, Barrett Tillman The Me 262 Stormbird. There seem to be several possibly relevant anecdotes included in the part available from Google.

Click to expand...

That is a good book for not only the pilots' point of view but also for technical/data information.

GrauGeist said:

As with any engagement (with any type of aircraft, really), there will be variables. However, the veteran Me262 pilots themselves spoke of instances where they had no option but to stand and fight. A turning fight would be a situation where the aircraft are attempting to place their weapons on the enemy under conditions that require turning the aircraft.

There doesn't seem to be a rule for a turning fight and as such, it could be either a high-speed engagement or a low-speed engagement. For example: if a Spitfire Mark V tried to engage in a low-speed, low-altitude turning fight with a Fw190A, the inexperienced Spitfire pilot would often make the mistake of not turning tight enough for fear of stalling the Spitfire, which had a nasty tendency to violently stall. This costly lesson allowed the Fw190 to acquire the Spitfire by turning inside of it, even though the Spitfire was technically able to turn tighter than the Fw190 at lower speeds.

So the textbook says one thing and what really happened says another.


And how well did the P-51D turn at high speeds and at high altitudes where many of these engagements occurred?

I can't think of ever reading about the Me262s entering into a Lufberry circle, but I have read where an Me262 had an enemy on it's tail and another Me262 banked in at high-speed and snapped the P-51 off their tail, much to the surprise of the P-51's pilot.

I never said the Me262 was an agile gunslinger, I said (many times) that the Me262 was capable, to a certain extent, of turning and defending itself if the situation dictated.

There were also circumstances where it could not: Landing, Taking off, battled damaged control surfaces or one engine damaged or flamed-out.


The Me262 as a bomber was a failure. And the attempt to make it a fast bomber not only wasted resources but wasted time getting the A-1/a into service.

And no one here is "pretending" that the Me262 is a "dogfighting MiG-15"...

That is a good book for not only the pilots' point of view but also for technical/data information.

Click to expand...

GrauGeist, to give people an idea of how well you think an Me262 would turn:

How well do you think it would turn against a paddle prop P47?

How well do you think it would turn against a P38J?

How well against a Mosquito?

This should define what GrauGeist means by turning. Also, we all know a Mosquito couldn't even turn with a P38 or P47, yet there were Mosquito pilots that fought with FW190's in daylight and won. So, as usual, the answer probably won't be clear.

GrauGeist said:

the inexperienced Spitfire pilot would often make the mistake of not turning tight enough for fear of stalling the Spitfire, which had a nasty tendency to violently stall.

Click to expand...

First part is true, inexperienced pilots generally did not push the envelope of their aircraft's performance.

Second part is nonsense. The wash out of the Spitfire wing (and some other geometric factors) ensured that the wing stalled inboard and that the stall developed outwards. This caused a noticeable buffeting to the pilot, but because the wing was not stalled outboard, aileron control was maintained. An experienced pilot could fly the Spitfire in this state, releasing back pressure allowed the entire wing to fly unstalled.
To quote from contemporary assessments.

"Minimal wash out twist moves tip stalling in-board to root section and gives very safe stall and spin characteristics with advance warning of airflow buffet and separation"

"Safe stall characteristics with ailerons effective deep into stall pattern."

If a pilot ignored the warnings the Spitfire would stall fairly benignly, unlike the Fw 190 which stalled suddenly with little warning often into an inverted spin. I have never seen any contemporary or modern account saying that the Spitfire had or has sudden or malicious stall characteristics.

It is that warning that is important. An experienced pilot will understand the buffeting, appreciate that his wing is starting to stall, but also appreciate that he can continue to safely fly in this state. It is much easier to push an aircraft to the limit when such benign warning is given. Aircraft that stall suddenly with little or no warning, like the Fw 190, are much harder to fly close to the limit, even for an experienced pilot.

Cheers

Steve

P-38 (F-5) of 10th Photo Reconnaissance Group, flown by Captain Robert Holbury.

"I was intercepted by jet aircraft (Me 262) south east of Heibronn. The interception was at 33,000 feet from 6,000 feet below. I estimate the jet was indicating 350 mph in a 45 degree climb, coming into position within 15 seconds after I sighted him. I pulled my plane into a 270 degree turn to the left as the jet closed in and turned inside of him as the jet mushed on by. I then went into a 450 mph dive with the jet following me. I went into the turning manouevre three more times and escaped by continually turning inside of him. After losing him I dove to the deck and came on home."

Mosquito of No.544 Squadron (Flt.Lt. A E Wall and Plt.Off. A S Lobban)

This was the first official engagement between an Me 262 and an aircraft of the RAF. According to the intelligence report generated by the action the Me 262 attacked from the rear five times, each time the Mosquito evaded by turning, but the Me 262 was able to get behind again using its superior speed. It delivered a sixth attack from below and behind, which was again evaded by turning, before the Mosquito escaped into cloud.

This is a very similar story to the P-38.

Cheers

Steve

pinsog said:

GrauGeist, to give people an idea of how well you think an Me262 would turn:

How well do you think it would turn against a paddle prop P47?

How well do you think it would turn against a P38J?

How well against a Mosquito?

This should define what GrauGeist means by turning. Also, we all know a Mosquito couldn't even turn with a P38 or P47, yet there were Mosquito pilots that fought with FW190's in daylight and won. So, as usual, the answer probably won't be clear.

Click to expand...

We also have to determine at what altitudes this was occurring at and what the speeds were at point of contact.

At lower altitudes, it would be suicide to even consider anything but climbing up and away from a Allied fighter(s)

It's fair to say that when the Me 262 initiated an attack the piston engine fighter could almost invariably evade by turning, but this was an entirely defensive manoeuvre. It wasn't like turning into an attack from a piston engine adversary, starting a turning fight in which you might end up on his tail. The Me 262 could invariably use its superior speed to manoeuvre itself into a position to mount another attack. It could do this until the intended victim escaped into cloud, as above, or the attacker ran out of ammunition or fuel. It might also be driven off by supporting enemy aircraft, and the allies large numerical superiority allowed this to happen. In any case a well flown Me 262 could engage or, crucially, disengage on its terms.

The Me 262 also seems to have been susceptible to damage, particularly to its engines. I have read many accounts in which rather speculative long range shots from attacking allied fighters have scored a hit on one of the Jumos, slowing the jet down enough for range to be closed and the coup de grace administered. Once robbed of its speed advantage an Me 262 really was a sitting duck, it stood no chance of out manoeuvring an attacking P-51, P-47, Spitfire or Tempest and this is supported by any number of combat/encounter reports.

Cheers

Steve

I've just toted up the known claims for different types by Me 262 pilots. These numbers largely exceed known allied losses, but may give a guide to the targets available and what the Me 262s were going after.

Different sources will give different numbers, but they are all in general agreement.

Claims against the USAAF bombers total 197 B-17s and 34 B-24s. For the fighters (and reconnaissance aircraft) the claims were 68 P-51s, 28 P-47s and 16 P-38s.

9 Spitfires and 1 Tempest were claimed against the RAF. Various bombers and Mosquitoes were also claimed, but such is the ludicrous over claiming of the Me 262 equipped night fighter unit that the figures are hardly relevant here.

Cheers

Steve

I've read the Me262 could turn reasonably well (I'm not saying it was described as the ultimate aerobatic machine or anything) but I have to wonder, why, if everything is working properly, would a 262 pilot ever want to engage in a turning fight?
I thought the whole idea was the jump in speed it offered made it a case of engage/disengage at will (& presumably on your own terms)?
A turning fight doesn't really fit that bill, I'd say, no?

I thought the reason why the 262 had the heavier cannon was based on the number of hits required to take down a heavy bomber les 30mm are required than 20mm. Similar idea to the guns on a spitfire/hurricane being increased to eight to almost guarantee taking a bomber down with a 2 second burst.

You are pretty much right. Original question was about "if" 20mm guns would have made the 262 better against fighters.

four MK 108 cannon have about the same rate of fire as two 30mm Aden guns from the 1950-60s. (2400-2600rpm) so the rate of fire was NOT a problem for any type of air to air combat. That leaves trajectory and time of flight as the only areas that gave problems. German 20mm guns were better than the MK 108 in this regard but NOT as good as the HIspano so actual improvement to the 262 would have been somewhat marginal.

I have been trying to find a series of calcs I made some time ago in a debate w/Soren. For purposes of calcs I assumed combat load for both - with P-51 that was 180 usable gallons plus fuse of 25 gallons (assuming 60 gallon burn off). For Me 262 I assumed 13,000 pounds after burning ~160 internal gallons of fuel.

What I don't recall is how I arrived at a CL= 1.4 for the 262. For the P-51 I used a level stalling speed of 96mph with racks at 9800 pounds.

Taking a leap of faith on 1.4 for the Me 262 CL, at 3g the turning radius was 27% more than the Mustang and the velocity was ~308mph for the 262 vs 273mph for the P-51...

In a steady state level turning fight the Mustang will continuously gain on the Me 262 but note that the thrust of the Jet engine will always be greater than the corresponding thrust Hp of the 1650-7 at 270-310 mph and the P-51D will not be able to sustain this speed and rate of turn at Max CL.

Both aircraft are in peak form drag Delta's and therefore nearing T=D. That said, the Me 262 begins to gain an advantage (if it survives) as it still has an excess of Thrust over Drag. At 6g the initial ability of the P-51 to cut the circle is significant, but the sustained turning rate advantage of the P-51D is only 12% and the Me 262 advantage in Thrust over the Thrust Horsepower of the Mustang gains significantly in ability to sustain a 6g turning circle, when the P-51D soon loses speed and ability to maintain altitude due to the high AoA related drag component.

This may be restating the known fact that it wasn't a good idea for a 262 to engage in a maneuvering fight with a Spit, P-51, P-38 or P-47 because of instantaneous and short sustained turn rates of the piston engine fighters. That said, the P-38 has a higher Lift Loading at combat weight than the 262 and should not even consider anything but a quick turn for a deflection shot and then depart as best it can. Same for the others but maybe a little longer time to get the shot.

The biggest reasons that the 262 should not engage in a turning fight is a.) it will lose energy, and b.) there usually was another fighter (or three) ready for a very good firing angle as the 262 stayed in range and slowed down.

in the back of a book on the Arado by J.Richard Smith. there a German report on the Arado and me262 with says that the 262 had poor roll and very poor in turn.

Steve alluded to this, but I just wanted to put it in my own words and use an analogy that might be useful.

What was at stake over Germany in 1944-5 was air superiority and the allies achieved that goal by putting large numbers of bombers over the target area, a high risk gamble, but the stakes were high. Un-challenged bomber streams over german territory were a dangerous development, the LW had to respond to try and challenge the loss of air superiority over their own territory. They would rise up, shoot down as many allied bombers as they could, making it prohibitive for the allies to continue. This worked against the US daylight raids of 1943, but not against the raids of 1944-5. The addition of escorts to these deep penetration raids was the difference. Once the bombers were escorted, the game was basically up. Sure numbers helped, but it's a fallacy tried time and again that the LW over its own territory was so badly outnumbered by these escorts. They weren't. What was happening was that the US had introduced high performance escorts that were using the bombers as bait but acting as air superiority weapons themselves. It was they that mostly used altitude, speed firepower dive and climb to break up the LW fighter forces, who obliged by continuing to go for the bombers rather than engage the fighters. Air superiority was what was at stake, and to win air superiority the allies needed a fighter that could fly all the way to berlin and engage the enemy using air superiority tactics (speed, height, firepower) and thereby wrest control of the skies out of the LWs hands.

What the 262 offered was the promise that it could circumvent that vice hold the Americans had achieved. By being able to fly faster, and deliver deadly amounts of firepower it had the potential to wrest back air superiority to the LW. It never did, I know, but it had the potential to do so, which is what scared the bejeezus out of the allies. Air Superiority is by definition the ability to fly in, and dominate skies within a certain area. If the Me 262 could have flown over Germany with relative impunity and inflict unsustainable losses on the allied bomber streams, it would have achieved, or won back air superiority over Germany for the LW. It never did this because it arrived too late, in too small numbers, and had serviceability issues that kept ready rates at the bottom end for its entire career

These are the reasons why jets eclipsed and made obsolete prop fighters from almost the beginning. Prop fighters were undoubtedly survivable against an me 262 attack, and it was foolhardy for a 262 to shed speed to try and get into a dogfight with a prop fighter. The same rules applied to aircraft like the CR42. You just don't get into a turning fight with a Falco, even if you were flying a P-51 or a spitfire. But equally, the falco cant, under any circumstances be expected to win air superiority against modern, faster, more heavily armed fighters, except if those opponents behave utterly stupidly.

Excellent insight Parsifal.
However I cannot the see the bombers as 'bait' in the full context of the word.
As the escorts were fighting the LW in the air and wiping its remnants on the ground, the bombers were destroying some of the most important industrial assets Germany possesed to keep fighting the wider conflict.
After the victory achieved by the bombers in the transportation and oil plans Germany was effectively finished.

airminded88 said:

Excellent insight Parsifal.
However I cannot the see the bombers as 'bait' in the full context of the word.
As the escorts were fighting the LW in the air and wiping its remnants on the ground, the bombers were destroying some of the most important industrial assets Germany possesed to keep fighting the wider conflict.
After the victory achieved by the bombers in the transportation and oil plans Germany was effectively finished.

Click to expand...

The anaology of the bombers as "bait" is actually pretty close.

The Luftwaffe wasn't going to send up precious assets to engage the Allied fighters over Germany and the Allies weren't going to send fighters deep into Germany on their own.

So the bombers were the catalyst that placed the Allied fighters deep into Germany while drawing the Luftwaffe out to engage.