Why was the La-7 so fast ???

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

R_R has some experimental engines using an intercooler on a single speed/single stage engine (R.M.7.S.) and on 2 speed/single stage engine (R.M.4.S.M.) and using methanol (water/methanol?) on the 2 speed/single stage engine instead of the intercooler (R.M.7.S.M.).

The 2 speed/single stage engines managed to pick up about 1000ft of FTH in low gear using the same boost pressure (1250hp at 12500ft at 9lbs) over the early XX engines and a rather respectable 4500ft in high gear (1150hp at 23,000ft with 9lbs of boost).
The R.M.7.S. used the improved supercharger from a Merlin 46/47 and managed 1100hp at 26,000ft at 9lbs boost. about a 4000ft gain in FTH. Being a single speed engine take-off was a rather depressing 940hp at 9lbs.

Two things that don't seem to have been tried (or at least not mentioned in the list of Merlin engines) was combining the Merlin 46/47 supercharger with a 2 speed drive or using an intercooler and water/methanol at the same time.

Merlin 46/47 used a larger diameter impeller, circular arc rotating guide vanes and a modified diffuser.

While not the stars the 2 stage engines were with 100/130 fuel the Merlin would NOT have been relegated to dog status using the same 100 octane fuel used in the BoB ( and issued in trial quantities to several squadrons in 1938.)
It's performance in the the R.M.7.S. at altitude falling about in-between a DB605A and DB605AS. Given a two speed drive take-off or low altitude would have been around 1300hp.

The intercooler may have weighed 70lbs? at least the part on the engine but not including radiator and coolant?

Please note all power ratings are for 9lbs of boost. I have no Idea if the 100 octane fuel would support 12lbs using the bigger superchargers or higher gear ratios but we do know that 12lbs boost was used in a number of Merlin engines using the old 100 octane fuel.

Granted the Griffon might have been needed a bit quicker
 
Last edited:
Merlins 46 and 47 used impeller of 10.85 in diameter, vs. the usual 10.25 in, used on eg. Merlin III, XX and 45, among other single stagers. Compare with V-1710 - 9.50 in in single stage versions. No wonder Merlin was better on higher altitudes.
 
Fw 190 A-8 carried the fuel tank as standard from summer 44 - limited availability prevented earlier widespread use.
There was no problem using MW-50 in the Fw 190A as testing with A-5 and A-6 showed, it was just not as effective as the C-3 injection in comparative tests. Just the same issues also found in the Bf 109 with incresed wear on sparkplugs etc.
I can't remember to have seen boost systems other than GM-1 in Ju 88/188 with 801 engine.
In 1945 with the fuel shortages I would not rule out the use of MW-50 instead of C-3 injection.
 
Again, I'd love to see reports that are better than D. Hermann's article at Deutsche Luftwaffe Cockpitinstrumente Homepage Titelseite Instrumente Gerätebrett Baumuster, that starts with "Schlechte Ergebnisse mit MW 50" ('Bad results with MW 50') and says at the end:

Infolge des erheblichen Aufwandes an Einbauteilen bei der Methanolanlage wurde vorläufig von einer serienmäßigen Einführung bei der Truppe abgesehen, zumal es bei der Flugerprobung beim Herstellerwerk BMW während des Methanolbetriebes zu Kolbenbrennern kam.

Bolded part means that burned pistons were occurence during the flight tests conducted by BMW?
 
Except for the extra tank there were no more parts than C-3 injection unless they used compressed air instead of bleed air to feed the MW-50. DB 605 also had lots of burned pistons but finetuning of boost/injection parameters solved this.
If you run on high boost and MW-supply stutters or stop you'd expect engine trouble.
 

A report that was written on engineering experiments with water injection in 1942 is not likely to be relevant to the situation in 1944 and 1945 because of progress in the engine such metallurgical fabrication, spark plugs etc. If MW 50 worked in the R-2800 and if it worked in the Bramo 323 then it will work with the 801. The reality is the the engine passed its 2200hp test, then passed even 2400hp and finally 2600hp in February 1945 for the BMW 801F, whose production was held up by tooling shortages.

BMW had just managed to homologate the 2000/2050 hp rating at 1.65 ATA with C3 einspritzung by May or June 1944 so it would be a few months before the next step in power increase, which would require water injection. Clearly the Fw 190A9 (and it seems also the Fw 180A8 ) had been setup for this next step. Had the Luftwaffe had a 150PN fuel they might have gone to the higher power rating directly.

The water injection experiments included attempts at direct injection into each cylinder and this is probably where the rumours of split cylinder heads came from.

In early 1943 British fuel intelligence picked up that German green dyed fuel was reaching a new greatly improved rich mixture response of around or nearly 125PN (up from 110 then 120) and stated that they therefore expected the deployment of a powerful new engine. That engine was the 801 with C3 injection into the supercharger. Files on Fischer-tropsch.org.
http://www.fischer-tropsch.org/Tom Reels/Linked/A5464/A5464-0560-0635 Item 5.pdf
Microfilm Reel A5464

Construction of production plant, such as alkylation plant, for producing much more C3 fuel was started in 1940 but little of it was commissioned, one alkylation plant was operational in 1943. The allied oil bombing campaign caused huge problems in fuel production, moreover it effected the fruition of German plans for a major expansion of C3 quality and quantity.

In jumping from 1700 to over 2000hp it makes more sense to use this new fuels aromatic nature and its charge cooling nature (rich mixture response) rather than to suffer the complexities of water tanks etc, best to delay that till the next round of increases.

Wikipedia.de in fact list and dates the approval for boost increases for mw50 but most interestingly says that due to C3 shortages it had been officially decided to operate the Fw 190 on B4 + MW50.


Incidently allied intelligence never picked up the boost increases that gave 350 extra hp till after the war according the Hermann.

The expansion of power boost seems to go something like this:

Toward the end off 1943 improvements in C3 fuel and the BMW801D2 engine allowed an increase in manifold boost from 1.42 atmospheres to 1.58 atmospheres. Remember between 1941 the fuel had gone from about 94/110 to 97/125 or 97/130. This increased boost represents an 11% increase in air mass and is probably the source of the 1850 or 1900hp rating often quoted. (the 11% increase is theoretically 1891 hp). This was called Ladedruckerhöhung (Or supercharger boost increase)

Around the same time Fw 190F Schlachtfluzeuge or ground attack aircraft were in a difficult situation as their aircraft slowed down when carrying bombs. These aircraft thus received a different system that worked by injecting fuel into the air inlet. This precooled the mixture, caused it to contract and thereby increased the mass flow into the engine and thereby power. The system also worked at the "Ladedruckerhöhung" increase boost of 1.58 ata but produced even more power. This system was restricted to use below 1000m, not a big issue with ground attack aircraft. I assume the restriction arose out of the crudeness of the control system which would need to cut back the direct injection of fuel to near idle and transfer a slightly higher flow of fuel to the air inlet before the supercharger. Altitude changes may have confounded the air fuel ratio.

The restriction on altitude was removed by mid 1944 (before Jun 44) I suspect due to control system changes that tracked altitude changes and the boost rating increased to 1.65 ata (which was the second supercharger gear rating)

This gave a power of 2100hp, some references quote 2050 buy I think its 2100 at 1.65 ata. This system now found itself installed on both fighter and ground attack variants.

This is broadly correct, the boost rating of 1.65 ata seems to have been available at higher altitudes when using Ladedruckerhöhung without C3 einspritzung from the beginning.

The boost improvements having been accomplished mainly due to improved fuels the use of water injection was the next step.
 
Last edited:
To move a bit on-topic: here is a table with flight test results for La-7. Please note that it took some work to speed up a serial produced example, like hermetization of fuselage and engine covers, along with change of propeller, tweaking of fuel pump (?) RS-2 and some other improvements tweaks.



Here is the power chart for some late war engines; the dashed red line is the 'forsage' (overboost) regime of the ASh-82FN.

 
It took me a while to wade through that chart you posted, thankyou.

The sea level speed of the Fw 190A8 and A9 with C3 einspritzung (about 2050hp) was 580kmh/360mph at sea level. At 800m the speed was about 595kmh. This means the LaGG was only 12kmh faster with an introduction into service maybe 6 months latter than the Fw 190s boost increase with C3 einspritzung. Speed is clearly not an advantage of the La 7.

The Fw 190A5 with Ladderdruckerhoing, ie with the same boost level but no injection into the eye of supercharger, thus with 1850-1900hp or so managed the same speed as the LaGG: 590kmh. In other words the Fw 190A5 and La 7 had about equal aerodynamics.

Had the C3 einspritzung been run (another 6.5% power) one might have expected another 2% speed so maybe around 600kmh/372mph.

In other words the Fw 190A5 with 1850hp was as fast as the La 7, also apparently with 1850hp. Given the rather late deployment of the La 7 (testing in September 44, small numbers entering service in 1945) its advantages were not decisive.

The contemporary with La 7 was the Fw 190A8/A9 and it lost lost only a little speed due to its heavy armour and armament.

It is worth noting however that the La 7 had about the same speed, inferior fire power, it did have a lower wing loading and those wings also had automatic slats.

It is likely to have been a very manoeuvrable aircraft. The La 7's reputation would rest on this, not speed.

By the time the La 7 was deploying the Luftwaffe was deploying aircraft such as the Ta 152H, Ta 152C, Fw 190D9, Fw 190D13 and Me 262. It had wanted to develop a Fw 190A10 with increased wing area and a 2600hp engine.

Below links to Fw 190A5 test with increased boost (1.58/1.65 ata)
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/vb-126-level-speeds.jpg
Fw 190 flight testing
 
Last edited:
It is worth noting that ASh-82FN was allowed for overboost only in 1st S/C gear, while the BMW-801 was allowed for that in both S/C gears. That means that benefits in speed and RoC for the Fw-190s that use it are to be observed also at altitudes between, roughly, 3 and 6 km, not just under 2 km, like at La-7 (and LA-5FN, once overboost is allowed). Looking at the charts posted at Williams' site, max power was for the BMW-801 using the overboost was 1900 PS in 1st gear (with full speed/ram, ~1870 with low speed/ram), and ~1650 in 2nd gear; both values are after allowance for the fan.

The C3 einspritzung was limited for 1st S/C gear, though.

Once again, performance charts from the 'TsAGI book' need to be observed very carefully, with a grain of salt as it's said.
 
How many Ta152Hs, Ta152Cs and Fw190D-13s were deployed?

The La-7 went into Soviet service at the same time as the Bf109G-10, K-4 and Fw190D-9 did in the Luftwaffe.

At the end of Dec 1944, there was 158 Bf109K-4s on hand and had suffered 214 losses (operational and non-operational).
 
By the time the La 7 was deploying the Luftwaffe was deploying aircraft such as the Ta 152H, Ta 152C, Fw 190D9, Fw 190D13 and Me 262. It had wanted to develop a Fw 190A10 with increased wing area and a 2600hp engine.
Click to expand...

The 63rd Guard Fighter Aviation Corps entered combat with the La-7 in mid-September 1944 in support of the 1st Baltic Front. Thirty aircraft were provided for the trials, which lasted one month. During this time the new fighters made 462 individual sorties and claimed 55 aerial victories while losing four aircraft in combat. Four other La-7s were lost to non-combat causes, mostly related to engine problems. A total of three pilots were killed during the trials to all causes.

One regimental commander, Colonel Ye. Gorbatyuk, a Hero of the Soviet Union, commented: "The La-7 exhibited unquestionable advantages over German aircraft in multiple air combats. In addition to fighter tasks, photo reconnaissance and bombing were undertaken with success. The aircraft surpasses the most german types in speed, manoeuvrability, and, is a big improvement over the LA5FN in the landing characteristics. It requires changes in its armament, and urgent fixing of its engine."

The 156th Fighter Air Corps of the 4th Air Army was the next unit to receive the La-7 in October 1944. At one point during the month, they had fourteen aircraft simultaneously unserviceable with engine failures. By 1 January 1945 there were 398 La-7s in front-line service of which 107 were unserviceable. By 9 May 1945 this had increased to 967 aircraft, of which only 169 were unserviceable. For the invasion of Japanese Manchuria, 313 La-7s were assigned and only 28 of these were unserviceable on 9 August 1945.

If you want a contemporary of the TA152 you need to compare with the LA9. Didn't enter service untilafter the war, but development occurred at the end of the war, contemporary to the late war german types Characterisitcs wwere as follows

Performance
Maximum speed: 690 km/h (428 mph) at altitude
Range: 1,735 km (1,077 mi)
Service ceiling: 10,800 m (35,433 ft)
Rate of climb: 17.7 m/s (3,484 ft/min)
Wing loading: 195 kg/m² (40 lb/ft²)
Power/mass: 0.40 kW/kg (0.25 hp/lb)

Armament

4 × 23 mm Nudelman-Suranov NS-23 cannons, 75 rpg
 

After studying the aircraft I realise the La 7 was a formidable aircraft.

However I would argue that comparing it against only the Fw 190A9 is inappropriate as the Luftwaffe was deploying more advanced types at approximately the same rate the VVS was deploying the La 7. There were also clearly substantial power improvements still on the way for the Fw 190A. There are indications that the Luftwaffe was about the abandon the Fw 190A series in favour of jets and the Fw 190D and Ta 152. The lower robustness of the engine being compensated by the use of standoff weapons such as rockets and cluster bombs for ground attack.

In comparison to the Fw 190A8 the La 7 had:
5% less wing area
10% less power
25% less weight and the wings had slats.
As a result the aircraft was 1.8% faster but must have had much greater climb and manoeuvrability due to the lower wing loading, lift loading and higher power to weight ratio. A 10% power increase for the Fw 190 would have eliminated the speed advantage but still left the wing loading to the La 7 advantage.

A dogfight would be in the La 7 favour by a good margin.

If we count the 13.2mm MG131 on the Fw 190A9 cowlings as equal to one 20mm canon the early La 7 has only 40% of the fire power and the late La7 60%. The La 7 also seems to have had less armour, less range(at least in early models). A Fw 190 may survive a La 7 attack but the reverse is less likely due to both armour and armament and this will effect exchange ratios. There were other issues "On the production machines it was not possible to take into account only one recommendation reflected in the conclusion about passage by a fighter - on an airplane there was no automatic control unit of operation control of an engine-screw combination. That on FW-190 was operated by moving of one lever, on La-7 demanded manipulations of eight controls. To simplify operation control of an engine-screw combination it was possible only on La-7 from factory number 38101356 which tests passed from March, 20 till April, 8, 1945."

In its specialist role of interception and air superiority over Soviet Army operations it was well adapted.

1 October 1944 the Me 109K4 enters service, taking it first losses. I'll accept your figures, but note that (Prien and Rodike) state that of the 12700 planed for production 534 had been delivered to the Luftwaffe by November 30 and maybe 1200 machines built by the time war ended.

2 November 1944 the Me 109G10 enters service, it is essentially a Me 109K4 without the retractable tail yoke, some are new production, some are reworks. Some 6000 were produced by wars end.(Prien and Rodike) It was perhaps 10km/h slower due to the tail yoke not being retractable.

3 November 1944 the Fw 190D9 enters service though it has been with combat squadrons since August. This date coincides with the release
of increased boost the previous month in large numbers which increases power from 1750hp to 1900. In that same month addition of
MW-50 increased power to 2100hp. Somewhere between 650 and 700 "Doras" were built before the occupation of Focke-Wulf factories by Allied forces brought production to an premature end. By the end of December 1944 there were 183 Fw 190's in operation with the increased performance modification, and 60 more had been delivered with the MW 50 system and were at the point of entering service. MW-50 could be field retrofitted by Luftwaffe personnel.

The Fw 190D9 had only a single stage two speed supercharger and the above versions operated at 1.75-1.80 ata. The aircraft could be run at 2.0 ata and its likely release was imminent. About 15 Fw 190D13 were produced and of these 2 flown in combat. This aircraft had the Jumo 213F engine which had a two stage 3 speed supercharger. It was in general indistinguishable. A version with a new engine called the Jumo 213EB which had an intercooler, much more power and required only B4 fuel was testing at the end of the war. The engine was to be used in the Ta 152H as well.


Non of the above aircraft are quite as new, as the La 7 was, in fact neither are their engines new, since the G10 and K4 initially enter service with the slightly less powerful DB605DM or AS engines before progressing to the slightly more powerful DB605DB/DC series about 2 weeks latter. They don't face quite as many teething problems and they used mainly existing factories and tooling.

4 The Me 262 started testing with the Luftwaffe in April 1944, flew an attack against a PRU Mosquito in August 1944. Effectively it started operations on 7 November 1944 apparently Nowotny did so against orders. That same month had seen the delivery of Jumo 004B4 engine with hollow air-cooled blades, which increase reliability. February saw a further improvement. April, the last days of the war, would have seen the delivery of engines with the "accelerator control valve" a device which did make it on to the He 162. This device controlled fuel not only via a centrifugal governor but measured the air flow so as to adjust fuel flow such that the danger of engine damage and reduced engine life from excessive heat or flameout from throttle handling was reduced.

Luftwaffe pilots eventually learned how to handle the Me 262's higher speed, and the Me 262 soon proved a formidable air superiority fighter, with pilots such as Franz Schall managing to shoot down 12 enemy fighters in the Me 262, 10 of them American P-51 Mustangs. Other notable Me 262 aces included Georg-Peter Eder, also with 12 enemy fighters to his credit (including nine P-51s), Walther Dahl with 11 (including three Lavochkin La-7s and six P-51s) and Heinz-Helmut Baudach with six (including one Spitfire and two P-51s) amongst many others.

About 1,400 Me 262s were produced, but a maximum of 200 were operational at the same time.

5 the He 162 was also deploying.

6 The Ta 152H was delivered to operation geschwadder at the beginning of 1945 with the pilots attempting to fly combat in January. There were several notable combats in the next 3 months. Perhaps 7 victories and 4 losses. I believe about 50 produced with perhaps a dozen in service at any one time.

The Ta 152C should have been delivered a few months earlier. It was delayed for two reasons. The DB603EM, which required C3+MW50, was abandoned due to impending C3 fuel shortages in favour of the DB603LA which could do the same job with only B4+MW50. The other reason was that the factory producing the wings had been damaged creating a shortage of wings.

In general it would seem to take 6-9 months to debug a new type once it enters initial combat.
 
Last edited:

The La 9 did not enter production till 1946. The Ta 152H was definitely having combat in 1945. Imagine what improvements the Germans might have achieved in 15 months. They started flying within 6 months of starting design of the He 162 and were starting combat trials about 2 months after that again, the Ta 183 swept wing fighter surely would have been in the air with the La 9.

Had the Luftwaffe survived a little longer it would have been a nearly all jet force with perhaps a few Ta 152C and Ta 152H and some Fw 190D13/D13/D15. Aircraft would be making attacks using standoff weapons: cluster bombs tossed accurately with the TSA 2D toss bombing sight, or rockets that disperse clusters as well. Speeds of up to 488mph were expected for the Fw 190D12 with the Jumo 213EB, about the same speed for the for the Ta 152H of 474mph but with no need for GM-1. (which would add even greater speed if activated)

Even a Ta 152C, which like the Ta 152H had a much lower wing loading than the Fw 190D was likely to do 400mph at ground level and 466 at altitude. This chart does not include two advanced DB engine the DB603L, the DB603N and the Jumo 213J which were only benching at the time.

I don't think there was any danger of the Luftwaffe being outclassed in piston fighters either by the Soviets at low altitude or the Western allies at high altitude. In fact they wanted to be an all jet force.

 
Last edited:

Claims and kills are different things, at most appr 10 USAAF P-51s were lost to Me 262s according to Drgondog. P-51s shot down many times more 262s than they lost to them, IIRC even ground attack Typhoons had positive exchange rate vs 262s. 262 wasn't a great air superiority fighter but it was an effective bomber killer.

Juha
 
Last edited:
The La 9 did no enter production till 1946. The Ta 152H was definitely having combat in 1945.
Click to expand...
Thats mostly because the soviets didnt need to rush the La9 into service with as much indecent haste as the Luftwaffe. The Luftwaffe in 1945 was a force losing aircraft at an exchange rate of roughly 6:1 against it. most of its aircraft were grounded for lack of fuel, most of its experienced pilots dead. it was forced to try and redress that imbalance with aircraft of superior performance, but most of these new types did not live up to the hype surrounding them, and certainly made little or no difference to the imbalance in the fighting that was occurring on all fronts. it wasnt just numbers, though numbers was a major cause of the demise. the Luftwaffe 1942-4 had squandered much of its strength and ability as it was used fire brigade style especially on the eastern front, and by 1945 that overuse, and mis-use was coming home to roost


I can imagine what a continued slaughter of what was left of the LW continuing. i can imagine even more miserable readiness rates as vast numbers of inferior manufactured jet technologies were churned out and then left on the ground because they were unable to fly, due to fuel shortages, lack of aircrew, and engine QA issues. The engines for the 262 had an average run time of less than 10 hours between overhauls, and that meant, that despite having produced more than 1300 of these nasty little aircraft, serviceability rates remained well below 100 for the entire duration. There is no reason to suggest this would ever improve in a post may 1945 situation.


Ah, no. These are the theoretical things they might have been able to achieve. the reality is that with all that new hardware coming into play, the LWs serviceability rates would have sunk to even lower standards, perhaps 5% if they were lucky. The allies would have countered this threat very easily.....standing patrols over the known airfields, preemptive strikes wherever the luftwaffe tried to concentrate. For the russians, they would have continued as they had done since at least 1943....not worry too much about air superiority, the air battle was an extension of the ground battle, use the air assets to assist in punching holes in the German front lines, press through with deep penetration attacks, overrun the Luftwaffe airfields and destroy these wunderbar weapons by capturing them. this was the tactics they had used with great success since kursk. the germans had held technical superiority since that time as well, and it had delivered them nothing basically. nothing was going to change that. reliance on technology to get germany out of the pickle it was in was a proven failure as a strategy, and there is nothing in the 1945 wet dream scenano that is going to change that basic reality
 

"262 wasn't a great air superiority fighter but it was an effective bomber killer."

This is a sort of given folklore based around preconceptions of what manoeuvrability is and the Me 109/Spitfire comparisons but doesn't stand up. It had always been intended to use Me 262 against the escorts so as to leave the Luftwaffe's conventional piston fighters free to attack the bombers, something the Fw 190A they did very well. One one occasions dozen Fw 190's almost wiped out a squadron of B-26 Marauders for instance a few minutes. By the time the Me 262 was fully operational the Luftwaffe's piston fighters themselves would have needed escorts. They usually survived by darting between clouds, a clear day was dreadful for them.

Thanks to the work of the USAF's John Boyd and the so called "Fighter Mafia" we have a more sophisticated understanding of manoeuvrability than just turning radius and wing loading. One involving concepts of specific excess energy and power. We also understand through his work how the decision loop interacts with aircraft performance. Because of the way jets work the Me 262 had at high speed, in effect, a very high power to weight ratio compared to a piston engine aircraft and thus the ability to conduct manoeuvres, climbs and position itself favourably. At certain altitudes the Me 262 turning rate (in time) was better than that of the P-51.

P-51 could still turn inside but even that doesn't protect one if the firing cycle has already begun.

Bottom line, the Me 262 when flown to its strengths was a dangerous and capable adversary to supposedly more manoeuvrable piston fighters.

Air combat manoeuvring is more like a 3D chess game than the fantasy of quick violent physical reactions of fiction.

A pilot of a conventional piston fighter would need to understand the merits of his aircraft v the Me 262 very well.

Attacking an Me 262, low on fuel, on final approach to its landing field doesn't tell us about the dog fighting ability of the aircraft.

The would be supersonic gynaecologist Heinz Mutke showed no hesitation in seeking to dive to attack allied piston fighters who were attacking a squadron buddy of his.

I have no doubt that over claiming or rather misclaiming occurred, the 2:1 ratio of real to false claims is pretty constant amongst all fliers of WW2.
 
Last edited:

Me 262 s Claims are just Claims . P 51s Claims are certain kills. Correct?
And since drgondog says at most(!!!) 10 p51 s were lost to me 262s lets believe him and lets consider the german pilots that claimed dozens, frauds. He also says that no American p51s were lost to german fighters from august 44 to april 45
262 not a great Air superiority fighter? I suppose in a 1 vs 1 fight you would prefer to be at the controls of the p51 than the controls of the 262
By the way , American tests pilots , post war judged the 262 slighty superior to the early p80s but... i am sure they were wrong . After all it had just 100 mph speed advantage and excellent High speed agility. Clear indications of inferior Air superiority figter ...
 
Hmmm, use plane with four MK 108 cannon against fighters while using fighters with two 13mm MG and two/four 20mm guns (FWs) against bombers? or use planes with 2 13mm MGs and one 30mm or one/3 20mm cannon against the bombers while the four MK 108 armed planes play with the fighter escort?
Firing time for the lower cannon was about 8 seconds and for the upper cannon 10 seconds. Fooling around with the escorts for too long means little or no ammo left for the bombers. P-51s had about 19-20 seconds of firing time for the 6 gun armament (with two guns lasting longer.)

Germans figured average pilot could hit with about 2% of round fired on a BOMBER. With the 30mm guns in the 262 an average pilot might get two bombers per flight? With the 20mm guns they needed 15-20 hits and NO German (or British) fighter plane (not including night fighters) carried enough 20mm ammo to average one kill per flight. The aces or experts could certainly do it but there were nowhere near enough of them left to base strategy/tactics or equipment use/doctrine on.
 

No voihan
According to Drgondog aka Bill Marshall in 45 Of the 36 "known air" 8th AF P-51 losses, 5 were to Me 262s, 16 were to Me 109s and 15 were to Fw 190s, there were also 6 unknown cases. So those numbers were for 8th AF in 1945. Altogether 8th and 9th AFs' known P-51 losses to Me 262s were 9 plus a couple possible. Plus what 15th AF lost.

US claims are of course also only claims if they cannot be confirmed from German data. Or good gun camera film showing disintegration or destructive crash because scarcity of the German late war docus.

IIRC US test pilots oppinions on P-80 vs 262 varied.

Juha
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

Why was it?
Replies
5
Views
221
bauple58
Why did the U.S. navy reject the F6U Pirate?
Replies
11
Views
865
Jabberwocky
J
S
Why no Fw 190H but the Ta 152H?
3 4 5
Replies
81
Views
8K
Denniss
D
S
Why did the Me 109 roll and turn so bad at speed?
5 6 7
Replies
134
Views
10K
GregP
Lavochkin La-132?
Replies
6
Views
771
Wurger
Menu
Log in
Register