Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
I was not aware of signficant problems with the wings and would appreciate where you got that from.Admittedly if you have put nimonic hot end components in you have improved the Schwalbe considerably (the Americans did that, of necessity).
Then, there are all the other myriad of problems such as
- bad design rigour in terms of the undercarriage - liable to catastrophic failureIf not the undercarriage, then watch our for the wings failing catastrophically
Show me any WW2 jet that operated from grass strips. In fact, show me any jet that operated from grass strips before the Jaguar which is the first I can think of.- poor rough field capability leading to inflexible deployment and susceptibility to allied targeting of concrete airstrips
Again show me any early jet that wasn't suseptable to flame outs. Note, even the Hunter a plane I am very fond of in its first version, flamed out every time the guns were fired.- likelihood of flameouts due to surge
And the Meteor was how much better? Show me any early jet that was much better.- very poor thrust to weight ratio (around half)
On this you might have a point if you can tell me what your comparing things with.- poor thermal efficiency (around 20% difference)
Somethng a lot of german aircraft had a problem with- poor braking
True but it had other features used for many years and the lack of which didn't stop it being a success.- lack of air brakes
Where on earth did you get that from- poor integrity of construction - admittedly, this may be because they were using slave labour, but that was their problem - it fell to bits - they werent even game to do a roll in it!
I don't know how much you know about jet engines but I promise you that it was no more vulnerable than any other jet of its time. All jets are wide open to damage from anything hitting them be it a bullet or a stone. Even modern ones have to be careful and they are far stronger than early engines.- the axial flow engine was more susceptible to damage by gunfire, both because of its relatively large size (much longer) and being more flimsily built
Wrong again, it was exceptional. Immune to interception when up to speed and able to pick its time and place to attack despite vast odd, I would say it was better than OK. Show me another plane in history of any time period that could do that. The F15 would be the only contender I could think of, another not bad aircraft.Apart from that it was not all that bad, really.
Admittedly if you have put nimonic hot end components in you have improved the Schwalbe considerably (the Americans did that, of necessity).
Then, there are all the other myriad of problems such as
- bad design rigour in terms of the undercarriage - liable to catastrophic failureIf not the undercarriage, then watch our for the wings failing catastrophically
- poor rough field capability leading to inflexible deployment and susceptibility to allied targeting of concrete airstrips
- likelihood of flameouts due to surge
- very poor thrust to weight ratio (around half)
- poor thermal efficiency (around 20% difference)
- poor braking
- lack of air brakes
- poor integrity of construction - admittedly, this may be because they were using slave labour, but that was their problem - it fell to bits - they werent even game to do a roll in it!
- the axial flow engine was more susceptible to damage by gunfire, both because of its relatively large size (much longer) and being more flimsily built
Apart from that it was not all that bad, really.
I seen L-29s operate from grass strips. I know the MiG-23 can as well.Show me any WW2 jet that operated from grass strips. In fact, show me any jet that operated from grass strips before the Jaguar which is the first I can think of.
The paper compares the Me262 with the Meteor IV a post war development of the Meteor.
Magnon
You seem to be ignoring the one indisputable fact that the Me262 was a whole generation ahead of the Meteor in aerodynamics.
Also the Meteor was going through a considerable number of developments to resolve issues with lack of power and aerodynamics.
In spite of this far higher stress in the jet engine's most critical component, the endurance of the Derwent in service was over ten times that of the Jumo.
Agree. We had a lengthy discussion about this several months ago, mainly centered around the Welland, but I would say that although the Derwent had higher TBOs than the very first turbines, I doubt they ever made them, either attributed to operator error or teething pains.I'd like to see a wartime Derwent engine manual listing the presrcibed TBOs for the jet, and the actual values achieved in service - which were typically half or third that of the nominal values.
I don't know which is the honest reply. However neither do you. I do know that the Me262 had a 50 mph advantage over the Meteor III which was operational so does it matter. A different question is why did the Meteor snake so much at high speed making it a poor gun platform at operational speeds. Again I don't know the reply but I do know the 262 is a hell of a lot faster and a better gun platform.i) Some increase in critical Mach number, however, probably resulted from the 18.5 leading-edge sweepback.
OK. Some. But if so, why was its critical Mach number less than that of the Meteor?..."
The Meteor III had a take off distance to 50 ft of 1,000 yards, not so different to the 262. As for the dirt road non concrete operating jets. I am still waiting for your examples. The Meteor also hadan approach speed of 150mph and a touchdown speed of 115mph which seems similar to the 262.ii) In addition to improving takeoff and landing performance, the slats improved the high-g turning capability in maneuvering flight.
If it improved take-off and landing performance, I dread to think what it would have been without them. The take-off and landing performance was abysmal, as is confirmed by the statement in Me262PilotDebrief that they were developing assisted take-off systems. They needed between 2700 to 3300 feet on a concrete runway for take-off and landing with an experienced pilot. Fey recommended adding another 1050 feet for an inexperienced pilot. The landing speed of 155 mph made it not much better than Concorde's 170 mph. You can't land in a dirt field at that speed.
Correct but the difference is OVER TIME. A peace time development built to the standards of the year 2000, are very different to those built in late 1944 when the life expectancy of a warplane was measured in months, we have all heard about war weary aircraft. If you have examples of any failing during the war in any numbers please support your statement, if not it doesn't stand.As I mentioned with regard to maneuvering, the structural integrity of the aircraft was appalling, as is indicated by the ME 262 Projects feedback:
"...a detailed analysis of landing gear stresses was directed. This process revealed that a shock loading was generated by the spin-up forces of the large, heavy main wheels, which had to be reacted into by the wing landing gear attachment structure. This placed a severe demand upon wing spar area and the airframe simply had to absorb these forces. Over time, this would have had a devastating effect upon the aircraft..." That means it's going to fail, Glider.[/B]
See previous statement.iii) The Me 262 seems to have been a carefully designed aircraft in which great attention was given to the details of aerodynamic design. Such attention frequently spells the difference between a great aircraft and a mediocre one.
Well, now with the Me 262 Project implemented and the necessary rigorous design review being carried out, the chickens are coming home to roost on the Schwalbe's design.
A few points here.iv) As compared with the German fighter, the Meteor was characterized by both higher wing area and drag area.
The small wing area and high wing loading is usually regarded as a liability in terms of dogfighting. Aerodynamically it has some plusses, but also a lot of minuses. This is borne out by the fact that the Meteor was more stable at high speed, more stable in a dive, could out-turn the Schwalbe. The low wing loading of the Lockheed P80 is usually pointed to as a point of superiority versus the Me 262. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
Although the Meteors did not engage with Schwalbes and vice versa, the later Meteor F IIIs did encounter and engage with Fw 190s over the low countries.
"...The biggest frustration for the pilots of 616 Squadron was that they never clashed with the Me 262, or indeed with any German fighter aircraft. They came close towards the end of the war when a flight of Meteors encountered a force of Fw 190s, but they were forced to abandon their attack when other RAF fighters mistook them for Me 262s..."
It would be an absolutely futile exercise for them to engage with Fw 190s if they then had poor aileron response. The British pilots were forbidden to fly behind enemy lines because if they were to come down, the secret of Nimonic would be out. If it was too late for the Germans by that time, it certainly was not for the Soviets. (By the way, the Meteors on the continent had to be painted white to stop "friendly" fire from people who mistook them for Me 262s. They were still fired on...)
I don't know why people have a problem with MTBOs of around 150 hours for the Derwent. The hot end materials used were Nimonic 75 and Nimonic 80. These were substantially the same as those used in the Conway, which was the first jet engine to achieve a MTBO of 10,000 hrs.
I don't know why people have a problem with MTBOs of around 150 hours for the Derwent.