renrich
Chief Master Sergeant
There is the proof about the landing gear!
Which fighter brought the biggest new advantage when introduced?
- Thread starter Oreo
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
drgondog
Major
I'm trying figure out just what issue they defined.
Joe - Virtually all wing mounted gear was/is designed to absorb both shock and bending in the main spar, so the 262 by that definition would not have been any different.
Larger wheels would tend to create more eccentric loads to a yoke (than smaller tires) before being resolved into compression and shear loads on the strut. The torque box design should be designed to transmit the torque created by lateral loads on tire into shear panels while the rest (vertical) Has to be taken by the Spar and translated to the fuselage structure designed to take all the wing loads..
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Agree - it seems someone on the replica team saw something really wrong when analyzing the original design.
I think the biggest problem would be with a drawn seamless tubing for the landing gear of an aircraft that would have to operate off of grass strips, evidently the gear was built for mass production. I read on several occasions that this was a problem with the 262. Adding low grade steel trunnions and link fittings didn't help, but then again the need at the time was to have the aircraft rapidly produced.
FLYBOYJ I concede regarding the landing gear, just reread some of my books and there were indeed even a few Me262's which crashed on hard landings due to a landing gear failure. Doesn't say wether it was the main landing gear or the nose gear which failed though in any of the cases.
drgondog
Major
They sure as hell didn't have the luxury of doing forgings or castings with the 'lead times' available to them..
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Hard to say - I would think that any torsional loads on the mains during a x-wind or single engine landing could cause big problems.
Very true - I've seen lead times as long as a year for certain types of aircraft.
All you needed was one airplane with a better performance advantage over the rest and it needn't be an extreme advantage. The pilots took it from there. Though the 262 was fast, it was too fast. It had hitting power but those weapons were slow muzzle velocity, in-close weapons that put the 262's performance disadvantageous to it's purpose as an interceptor. Yea, it could scoot but it couldn't scoot and be an effective weapon at those speeds. It needed to be flown slower to put the pilots in-close with sufficient time-on-target to bring their cannons in where they were most effective. Engine spool-up was slow so speed recovery was slow. At high speed there was little time to put enough fire power on any given target, not to mention the very real target fixation that got many pilots in trouble by staying too long on a firing run and wrenching the crap out of the plane to avoid hitting the target. At 500 MPH closing speed, there's precious little time from the instant a target is within effective range to the moment of collision and head-on attacks at those closing speeds of 7-800 mph were a pointless waste of ammunition. Tactics for using an extremely high-performance, easily flamed (fragile) airplane against a very slow moving target required reducing performance to stay with that target. In that performance envelop the 262 was outmoded by the P-51, hands down.
renrich
Chief Master Sergeant
Was watching the latest rendition of "Dogfights" the other night and reflecting on fights between F4s and Mig 17s and comparing that to a fight between the ME262 and a P51. The F4 had a huge advantage in speed but could not stay with a Mig 17 in turn so had to adopt energy tactics to compete. Strikes me that the ME262 faced the same problem with the P51. Were the ME262 pilots able to utilise the same energy tactics as the F4s did?
drgondog
Major
They probably could have used them had they developed the high speed scissors and yo yo to take advantage of the energy they had. IIRC the energy manueverability tactics were developed and refined in the late 50's and certainly taught in Top Gun and Red Flag for US fighters.
John Boyd was a pioneer for USAF, and if you believe the stories, the USN which adopted his doctrines from Fighter School.
renrich
Chief Master Sergeant
Thanks, Bill, you answered my question. It came clear to me that an AC with a huge Vmax advantage making a run on an AC much slower making a tight turn could not only not get in position to make hits but could also, in an overshoot, if the slow guy reversed, put itself in a position to be shot down. I did not know if the energy tactics such as the high yoyo had been developed yet or if the Me262 had the performance to execute those tactics. Seems pretty obvious that in fighter combat, as long as the slow AC has the faster AC in sight, the slow one is not always at a disadvantage.
Last edited:
vinnye
Senior Airman
I voted for the Fw190 - because as posted elsewhere - it was superior to the best the RAF had at that time - the Spitfire Mk V. Which was a good fighter by every other standard at that time - the 190 caused a huge problem which needed a swift response. It was the addition of the supercharger to the merlin that became the Mk IX which enabled the Allies to take the 190 on with a even chance.
The Me262 was a problem - but only in the same way the Tiger tank was on the ground. There were not enough of them to change the way the war was going - but they made things more difficult. The fear of the Tiger and the fear of the 262 - were greater than the impact that either had on the war.
Having said that - i would not have wanted to be in a bomber flying missions in Europe or a member of a British or American tank crew either!
The Me262 was a problem - but only in the same way the Tiger tank was on the ground. There were not enough of them to change the way the war was going - but they made things more difficult. The fear of the Tiger and the fear of the 262 - were greater than the impact that either had on the war.
Having said that - i would not have wanted to be in a bomber flying missions in Europe or a member of a British or American tank crew either!
parsifal
Colonel
FW 190 was a great aircraft, thats for sure, but it not have a significant impact on loss rates when introduced. RAF returns for their Day fighter units dont show any significant spike as a result of the introduction of the FW 190. What the FW 190 did allow was for hit and run raids to be made over British territory, with some hope of survival.
Another significant detail to note was the success of the FW 190 over Dieppe. The Luftwaffe did very well in that fight, but as a general tend, there was no significant reversal of the general trends occurring at that time.
With regard to allied bombers, there was a heavy loss rate, but in the case of the RAF night offensive, it was not so much the FW 190s that inflicted that damage, rather the more sedate Ju88s and Me 110s (along with some other odds and ends) that decimated the Bomber streams. The eight air force suffered quite heavily whilst the bombers were inadequately protected, but the tables turned after the introduction of the P-51. From that point on the Luftwaffe was the force taking the pounding. A similar story , but not quite as dramatic occurred with the Night Bombers, after the Bommber streams started to receive increased protection from British Night Fighters, and also ,somewhat earlier, with the use of Window
As I said the FW 190 was a great aircraft, but it did not turn the tables on the allies in any sense of the word
Another significant detail to note was the success of the FW 190 over Dieppe. The Luftwaffe did very well in that fight, but as a general tend, there was no significant reversal of the general trends occurring at that time.
With regard to allied bombers, there was a heavy loss rate, but in the case of the RAF night offensive, it was not so much the FW 190s that inflicted that damage, rather the more sedate Ju88s and Me 110s (along with some other odds and ends) that decimated the Bomber streams. The eight air force suffered quite heavily whilst the bombers were inadequately protected, but the tables turned after the introduction of the P-51. From that point on the Luftwaffe was the force taking the pounding. A similar story , but not quite as dramatic occurred with the Night Bombers, after the Bommber streams started to receive increased protection from British Night Fighters, and also ,somewhat earlier, with the use of Window
As I said the FW 190 was a great aircraft, but it did not turn the tables on the allies in any sense of the word
Sorry but you've got it the wrong way around. The superior performance of the Me262 was an advantage, not a disadvantage. The Me262 needed but to spot the P-51, head in for a shot, and providing the P-51 didn't make too many unpredictable maneuvers then that would be the end of it. Otherwise the Me262 would simply do a hard pullout and gain altitude, reverse and come back down for another shot.
Also note that if a P-51, or any fighter for that matter, makes a straight turn whilst having an enemy on its tail, then it will be making itself EXTREMELY vulnerable to a deflection shot. So if a P-51 pilot was to spot a Me262 on his tail then one of his worst moves would be to make a straight turn, the Me262 pilot then only having to pull lead and let loose a burst with a good chance of hitting the target. The best thing the P-51 pilot could was to conduct a barrel roll, that would throw the aim of the Me262 off.
As for reversing on an overshooting Me262, well it would be very hard as the Me262 would be going by so fast that the P-51 wouldn't able to get guns on target before the 262 was well out of range, esp. not if the Me262 pilot knows what he's doing. Incase of an overshoot the experiened Me262 pilot would pull up sharply, pulling 7+ G's, and gain altitude very fast. And such a maneuver would ensure that the P-51, or any piston engined fighter of the period, would be completely unable to get guns on target before the 262 was well out of range.
The outcome would be the same as when pitting an F4U-4 Corsair against a A6M2 Zero, if both a/c are flown by experienced pilots the A6M is deadmeat most of the time.
renrich
Chief Master Sergeant
If an ME262 is Making a run on the P51 from the 6:00 position at 450 mph and the P51 is doing 350 mph and pulls a max G turn, can the ME262 turn inside the P51 in order to pull lead? A comparable example would be a Corsair at 350 mph and an A6M at 250 mph. Under those conditions the USN told their pilots not to dogfight with the A6M.
Pulling lead on your opponent is not the same as going into a furball with him Renrich. If a Zero pulled a straight turn with a F4U on its tail it would present a very nice target for the incoming F4U. The F4U pilot just has to note the direction of the turn, pull lead and squeeze off a 1 second burst. Chances of a hit are good. And the exact same goes for a P-51 with an Me262 on its tail.
The best move for the Zero would be to do a half barrel roll and then reverse direction by pulling out. This will make targeting extremely difficult for the incoming F4U and force it to either try and follow the maneuver, which it cant cause it's going too fast and the Zero is at an advantage in an angles fight, or climb for another attack. And again, the exact same goes for a P-51 with a Me262 on its tail.
In the end though the nimbler but much slower opponent is at a serious disadvantage as the more powerful opponent will be able to completely dictate the whole engagement, going in for pass after pass until a successful hit is made. And neither the F4U or Me262 needed many hits to down their opponents in question.
Clay_Allison
Staff Sergeant
- 1,154
- Dec 24, 2008
all of this applies to a "far fight" which the prevailing conditions in the war didn't allow for. so the Me262 had a great advantage in a fight that it wasn't in. It's like taking a semi-auto pistol into a room full of people carrying six shooters. Advantage? None that matters.
Well I wasn't really talking about the advantage it gave the Luftwaffe as a whole Clay, only the advantage it gave the individual pilot. The Me262 was the a/c which introduced the greatest advantage any plane ever had over the rest. In the big picture it ofcourse wasn't enough however, seeing that it was usually outnumbered 12 to 1 by Allied escorts, but that's not what the thread is about as I see it.
Clay_Allison
Staff Sergeant
- 1,154
- Dec 24, 2008
See, I read it as "Which fighter brought the biggest new advantage to the war effort?" not "Which fighter brought the biggest new advantage to a hypothetical individual air duel?"
renrich
Chief Master Sergeant
Have been reviewing my copy of Shaw's "Fighter Combat Tactics and Maneuvering." A direct quote, "As long as the defender has awareness, speed and altitude for maneuvering, he can make the task of an attacking gunfighter almost impossible." He is saying that if the defender can see the attacker and if the defender's AC has somewhat optimum speed and altitude for it's maneuvering envelope, the defender can almost always make the attacker's task impossible and if the attacker is careless the defender can become offensive. There seems to be in the book an example of a one v one engagement between a P51 and a ME262. Based on the tactics Shaw demonstrates I find it hard to believe, as I stated in an earlier post, that a P51 could not evade an attack on his six, which would be a" pure pursuit" with a 100 mph overtake by the ME262, if he sees the attacker and pulls a hard turn. If the attacker tries to turn inside the defender to pull lead for a tracking shot, IMO he will not be able to do so and risks an overshoot and if the P51 reverses he could become offensive and be presented with a snap shot. I believe that the ME262 although deadly against bombers and with a speed advantage which allowed it to either accept or reject combat did not really pose much risk for a well flown Allied fighter unless the fighter was unaware of the ME262, which would be pretty much the same situation if the German pilot was flying a 109 or 190. The tactical situation was changed somewhat by the ME 262 but in no way was the appearance of the ME262 as profound as was the deployment of the A6M in late 1940 through 41 and 42. There was no single engined fighter in the world, let alone carrier fighter, which had the range of the A6M. It had an immense influence on the strategy employed by the Japanese high command. When a fighter with the fighting qualities of the A6M can be effective at distances which in some cases were twice as great as the opposition's fighters, that is a huge impact.
The Me 262 pilot doesn't want to attack the P-51, he wants to attack the bombers. If he plays his cards right, he can do so almost with impunity.
Regarding fighter-fighter combat. Likewise an aware Bf 109 pilot could avoid combat with a P-51. Reality though shows the latter to be the more successful. There were rarely one-on-one duels. Both fighters will have more than one fighter to watch out for, will never have perfect awareness and will make mistakes sooner or later. And in those cases I'd rather have the fighter that has a high top speed, fast climb and good acceleration.
Regarding fighter-fighter combat. Likewise an aware Bf 109 pilot could avoid combat with a P-51. Reality though shows the latter to be the more successful. There were rarely one-on-one duels. Both fighters will have more than one fighter to watch out for, will never have perfect awareness and will make mistakes sooner or later. And in those cases I'd rather have the fighter that has a high top speed, fast climb and good acceleration.
