PDA

View Full Version : Messerschmitt Me 262.



Digger
04-13-2007, 10:21 AM
While the Germans did get the Me-262 in service first, it still does not hide the fact the Jumo 004 engine was not fully developed, poorly manufactured and of dubious quality. These problems prevented the Me-262 from reaching it's potential and contributed to the deaths of many pilots.

The average flying time for each engine was 20 hours if you were lucky, compared to 200 plus hours for piston engines of the period.

Regards Digger.

Panzerknacker
04-13-2007, 05:39 PM
I dont agree, sure they have a changing time of 20-25 hours but that doesnt mean they were poorly constructed, if that was so the engines probably exploded in no time.

I read somewhere that the Luftwaffe was limited in the supply of some steel hardeners alloys like the chromium and nickel, that perhaps explain the low life espectatives in the Jumos.

http://www.eads.net/xml/content/OF00000000400006/9/19/702199.jpg

Flammpanzer
04-14-2007, 05:00 AM
sure there were problems with the the enginges, but despite this the 262 was by far the most modern and most potent fighter to be put in service during WW2. there were not enough examples and also a constant lack of pilots, so the effectiveness was limited indeed. the plane itself was a very good one without any doubt, even if some always hardly try to underrate it.

just my 2 cents ...

jens

alephh
04-14-2007, 06:46 AM
While the Germans did get the Me-262 in service first, it still does not hide the fact the Jumo 004 engine was not fully developed, poorly manufactured and of dubious quality.

On the other hand, somebody might ask was there any product during WWII that wasn't poorly made at first? :-)

Many designs (tanks etc) had to sent back to factories from frontlines to fix the early production errors.

And it's even more normal during the last war years, when Germany was running short of several materials or quality of materials were poor, and slave labourers was sabotaging parts.


These problems prevented the Me-262 from reaching it's potential and contributed to the deaths of many pilots.

But even the limited potential that was reached was impressive - compared to any other aircraft of the era, IMO.


_

Digger
04-14-2007, 06:56 AM
And these are the problems that were faced by the pilots of the Me 262. I have never said it was not a good aircraft. In fact with the introduction of the R4M rockets in the last weeks of the war the Luftwaffe at last had an aircraft that could break up the bomber boxes easily.

The fact development of the Jumo 004 engine was slow, as was most German aero engine development, hindered this aircraft in it's introduction to service and as there was little possibility the German aircraft industry could overcome the problems of poor materials, poor workmanship, slow deliveries the Me 262 would not reach it's full potential.

Because of these problems it would be rash to say the Me 262 was a great fighter, but it had the potential to be a great fighter.

Regards digger.

Flammpanzer
04-14-2007, 10:42 AM
Because of these problems it would be rash to say the Me 262 was a great fighter, but it had the potential to be a great fighter.

... due to the performance-level it reached in fact, I would still say it was a great fighter, but a fighter with some drawbacks at least, there is no doubt.

jens

panzerpete
04-14-2007, 11:38 AM
http://www.xs4all.nl/~fbonne/warbirds/ww2htmls/messme262.html

Good Site

panzerpete
04-14-2007, 11:58 AM
Messerschmitt Me 262
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Me 262
Manufacturer Messerschmitt
Designed by Willy Messerschmitt
Maiden flight 8 April 1941 with piston engines
18 July 1942 with jet engines
Introduction April 1944[1]
Retired 1945, Luftwaffe
1957, Czechoslovakia
Primary users Germany
Czechoslovakia
Number built 1,430
The Messerschmitt Me 262 Schwalbe (German: "Swallow") was the world's first operational jet-powered fighter aircraft. It was produced in World War II and saw action starting in 1944 in bomber/reconnaissance and fighter/interceptor roles. Officially named Schwalbe, because the swallow is one of the fastest birds known when going into a dive to capture and eat an airborne insect, German pilots nicknamed it the Turbo, while the Allies called it the Stormbird. While the Me 262 had a negligible impact on the course of the war (approximately 150 Allied aircraft losses for 100 Me 262 losses), its design was highly influential on postwar aircraft development.

panzerpete
04-14-2007, 11:58 AM
Design and development
Although often viewed as a last ditch super-weapon, the Me 262 was already being developed as project P.1065 before the start of World War II. Plans were first drawn up in April 1939, and the original design was very similar to the plane that would eventually enter service. The progression of the original design into service was delayed by a lack of funds, as many high-ranking officials thought that the war could easily be won with conventional aircraft, and therefore most of the available government funds were used for the production of other aircraft.

Swept wings had been proposed as early as 1935 by Adolf Busemann, and Willy Messerschmitt had researched the topic from 1940. In April 1941, he actually proposed to fit a 35° swept wing (Pfeilflügel II, lit. Arrow wing) to the Me 262. Though this suggestion was not implemented, he continued with the projected HG II and HG III high-speed derivatives of the Me 262 in 1944, which were designed with a 35° and 45° wing sweep respectively. The production Me 262 had a leading edge sweep of 18.5° primarily to properly position the center of lift relative to the center of mass and not for the aerodynamic benefit of increasing the critical Mach number of the wing (the sweep was too slight to achieve any significant advantage).[2] The aircraft was originally designed as a tail-dragger and the first (Me 262 V1) through fourth (-V4) prototypes flew with this configuration, but it was discovered on an early test run that the engines and wings "blanked" the stabilizers, giving almost no control on the ground. Changing to a tricycle landing gear arrangement, initially as a fixed undercarriage on the fifth prototype aircraft, then a fully retractable one on the sixth and succeeding prototypes, immediately corrected all of these problems.

The first test flights began in April 1941, but since the BMW 003 turbojets were not ready for fitting, a conventional Junkers Jumo 210 engine was mounted in the nose, driving a propeller, to test the Me 262 V1 airframe. When the BMW 003 engines were finally installed the Jumo was retained for safety which proved wise as both 003s failed during the first flight and the pilot had to land using the nose mounted engine alone.

The V3 third prototype airframe became a true "jet" when it flew on 18 July 1942 in Leipheim near Günzburg, Germany, piloted by Fritz Wendel. This was almost nine full months ahead of the British Gloster Meteor's first flight on 5 March 1943. The 003 engines, which were proving unreliable, were replaced by the newly available Junkers Jumo 004. Test flights continued over the next year but the engines continued to be unreliable. While the production of the aircraft was slowed mainly by engine trouble, an order from Adolf Hitler that the new Me 262 must also be part bomber contributed to the delays in getting the Me 262 into operation. Airframe modifications were complete by 1942, but hampered by the lack of engines, serial production did not begin until 1944. This delay in engine availability was in part due to the shortage of strategic materials, especially metals and alloys that could handle the extreme temperatures produced by the jet engine. Even when the engines were completed they had an expected operational lifetime of approximately 50 hours, however in the real world situations, most 004s lifetimes were 12 hours. A pilot familiar with the Me 262 and its engines could expect approximately 20 to 25 hours of life from the 004s. The swap out of 004s was listed as a job able to be done in three hours, but changeouts typically took eight to nine hours due to poorly made parts and inadequate training of ground crews.

panzerpete
04-14-2007, 12:00 PM
Turbojet engines have less thrust at low speed than piston engines and as a result, acceleration is relatively poor. It was more noticeable for the Me 262 as early jet engines (before the invention of afterburners) responded slowly to throttle changes. The introduction of a primitive autothrottle late in the war only helped slightly. Conversely, the higher power of jet engines at higher speeds meant the Me 262 enjoyed a much higher climb speed. Used tactically, this gave the jet fighter an even greater speed advantage in climb rate than level flight at top speed.

With one engine out, the Me 262 still flew well, with speeds of 280 to 310 mph (450 km/h to 500 km/h). However it was highly recommended to avoid attempting to land with one engine out as it was considered a hazard.[citation needed]

Operationally, the Me 262 had an endurance of 60 to 90 minutes.


[edit] Operational history

Me 262A-1a camouflaged on a German airfieldIn April 1944, Erprobungskommando 262 was formed at Lechfeld in Bavaria as a test unit to introduce the 262 into service and train a core of pilots to fly it. Major Walter Nowotny was assigned as Commander in July 1944, and the unit redesignated Kommando Nowotny. Kommando Nowotny was essentially a trials and development unit, but it holds the distinction of being the world's first jet fighter squadron. Trials continued slowly with initial operational missions against the Allies in August 1944, allegedly downing 19 Allied aircraft for six Me 262s lost, although these claims have never been verified by cross-checking with USAAF records. The RAF Museum holds no intelligence reports of RAF aircraft engaging in combat with an Me 262 in August 1944,[citation needed]although there is a report of an unarmed encounter between an Me 262 and a DH98 Mosquito.[3] Nowotny himself was shot down and killed on 8 November 1944 by 1st Lt Edward “Buddy” Haydon of the 357th Fighter Group, USAAF and Capt Ernest “Feeb” Fiebelkorn of the 20th Fighter Group, USAAF. The "Kommando" was then withdrawn for further training and a revision of combat tactics to optimise the 262's strengths.

By January 1945, Jagdgeschwader 7 (JG7) had been formed as a pure jet fighter unit, although it would be several weeks before it was operational. In the meantime a bomber unit—I Gruppe, Kampfgeschwader 54 (KG54)—had re-equipped with the Me 262 for use in a ground attack and fighter role. However, the unit lost 12 jets in action in two weeks for minimal returns.

Jagdverband 44 (JV44) was another Me 262 fighter unit formed in February, by Lieutenant General Adolf Galland, who had recently been dismissed as Inspector of Day Fighters. Galland was able to draw into the unit many of the most experienced and decorated Luftwaffe fighter pilots from other units grounded by lack of fuel.

panzerpete
04-14-2007, 12:02 PM
During March, Me 262 fighter units were thus able, for the first time, to deliver large scale attacks on Allied bomber formations. On March 18, 1945, 37 Me 262s of JG7 intercepted a force of 1,221 bombers and 632 escorting fighters. They managed to shoot down 12 bombers and one fighter for the loss of three Me 262s. Although a four-to-one ratio was exactly what the Luftwaffe would have needed to make an impact on the war, the absolute scale of their success was minor as it represented only one per cent of the attacking force. In 1943 and early 1944, the USAAF had been able to keep up offensive operations though enduring loss ratios of 5% and more, and the few available Me 262s could not inflict sufficient magnitude of losses.


Side view of a Me 262 night fighter (converted two-seated trainer)Several two-seater "B" trainer variants of the Me 262 had been adapted as night fighters, complete with on-board radar and "deerhorn" antennae. Serving with 10 Staffel, Nachtjagdgeschwader 11, Night Fighter Unit, near Berlin, these few aircraft (alongside several single seat examples) accounted for most of the 13 Mosquitoes lost over Berlin in the first three months of 1945. However, actual intercepts were generally or entirely made using Wilde Sau methods, rather than AI radar-controlled interception. As the two-seat trainer was largely unavailable many pilots had to do their first flight in a jet in a single seater without an instructor.

Despite its deficiencies, the Me 262 was clearly signalling the beginning of the end of piston-engined aircraft as efficient fighting machines. Once airborne, it accelerated to speeds well over 800 km/h (500 mph), over 150 km/h (93 mph) faster than any Allied fighter operational in the European Theater of Operations.

The Me 262's top ace[4] was probably Hauptmann Franz Schall with 17 kills which included six four-engine bombers and ten P-51 fighters, although night fighter ace Oberleutnant Kurt Welter claimed 25 Mosquitos and two four-engined bombers shot down by night and two further Mosquitos by day flying the Me 262. The vast majority of Welter's claimed night kills were achieved in standard radarless aircraft, even though Welter had tested a prototype Me 262 fitted with Neptun radar. Another candidate for top ace on the aircraft was Heinrich Bär, who claimed 16 enemy aircraft while flying the Me 262.


[edit] Anti-bomber tactics
The standard approach against bomber formations, which were travelling at cruise speed, called for the Me 262 to approach the bombers from the rear at a higher altitude, diving in below the bombers to get additional speed before zooming up again to their level and opening fire with its four 30 mm cannon at 600 m (656 yard) range.

Allied bomber gunners found that their electric gun turrets had problems tracking the jets. However, due to the jets' straight-line approach, traverse rates were actually not as important as target acquisition itself, which was difficult because the jets closed into firing range very quickly and had to remain in firing position only very briefly using their standard attack profile.

Eventually new combat tactics were developed to counter the allied bombers defenses. Me 262s equipped with large numbers of R4M rockets would approach from the side of a bomber formation where their silhouettes were widest and, while still out of range of the .50 caliber guns, fire a salvo of these explosive rockets. The explosive power of only one or two of these rockets was capable of downing even the famously rugged B-17. While this tactic came too late to have a real effect on the war, it was nonetheless effective. This method of combating bombers became the standard until the invention and mass deployment of the guided missile. Some nicknamed this tactic the "Luftwaffe's Wolf Pack" as the fighters would often make runs in groups of two or three, fire their rockets, then return to base.

On 1 September 1944, USAAF General Carl Spaatz expressed the fear that if greater numbers of German jets appeared, they could inflict losses to the USAAF bombers heavy enough to cause cancellation of the Allied daylight bombing offensive.


[edit] Counter-jet tactics
Many accounts from Allied bomber crews cited that they were surprised by the speed of the Me 262. Allied intelligence was aware of German jet development, but not all combat units were fully briefed about the Me 262, and it is probably true to say that Allied intelligence slightly underestimated the speed of the Me 262.[citation needed]

Tactics against the Me 262 developed quickly to find ways of defeating it despite its great speed advantage. Allied bomber escort fighters (specifically P-51s) would fly high above the bombers— diving from this height gave them extra speed thus reducing the speed advantage of the Me 262. The Me 262 was less maneuverable than the P-51 and trained Allied pilots could catch up to a turning Me 262; but the only reliable way of dealing with the jets was to attack them in the takeoff and landing phase of their flight, and on the ground. Accordingly, Luftwaffe air fields that were recognized as jet bases were frequently bombed by medium bombers, and Allied fighters patrolled over the fields to attack jets that were trying to land on their bases. The Luftwaffe countered these moves by installing Flak alleys along the approach lines in order to protect the Me 262s from the ground, and providing top cover with conventional fighters during the takeoff and landing phase.

Another experimental tactic was installing nitrous oxide injection into Mustangs. When chasing an Me 262, the pilot could press a button injecting the nitrous oxide into the engine, producing a quick burst of speed.

Other Allied fighters that encountered the Me 262 included the British Supermarine Spitfire, Hawker Tempest and the Soviet Lavochkin La-7. The first recorded Allied destruction of a Me 262 was on 28 August 1944, claimed as destroyed by 78th FG pilots Major Joseph Myers and 2nd Lt. Manford O. Croy flying P-47s. Oberfeldwebel

panzerpete
04-14-2007, 12:04 PM
Hieronymus "Ronny" Lauer of I KG(J) 51, on a landing pattern crash landed his 262 to get away from the Allied fighters, which then destroyed the Me 262 in strafing attacks[5] The first Me 262 shot down in combat was on 5 October 1944 by Spitfire IXs of 401 RCAF. The 262 pilot was H.C. Butmann in WNr 170093 of 3./KG51. The Lavochkin was the only Soviet fighter to shoot down a German jet, with La-7 ace Ivan Nikitovich Kozhedub fighting and downing one Me 262 jet on February 15, 1945 over eastern Germany. Kozhedub apparently later said that his success was mainly due to the Me 262 pilot attempting to out-turn his more maneuverable plane.


[edit] High speed research

Me 262 interiorWilly Messerschmitt regarded the Me 262 as it went into production only as an interim type. His interest in high-speed flight that had led him to initiate work on swept wings starting in 1940 is evident from the advanced developments he had on his drawing board in 1944. While the Me 262 HG I (Hochgeschwindigkeit, high speed) that was actually flight-tested in 1944 had only small changes compared to combat aircraft, most notably a low-profiled canopy to reduce drag, the HG II and HG III designs were far more radical. The projected HG II variant combined the low-drag canopy with a 35° wing sweep and a butterfly tail. The HG III aircraft had a conventional tail, but a 45° wing sweep and the jet turbines embedded in the wing root.

Messerschmitt also conducted a series of carefully controlled flight tests with the series production Me 262. In these dive tests, it was established that the Me 262 was out of control in a dive at Mach 0.86, and that higher Mach numbers would lead to a nose-down trim that could not be countered by the pilot. The resulting steepening of the dive would lead to even higher speeds and disintegration of the airframe due to excessive negative g loads.

The HG series of Me 262 derivatives was estimated to be capable of reaching transonic Mach numbers in level flight, with the top speed of the HG III being projected as Mach 0.96 at 6 km altitude. Despite the necessity to gain experience in high-speed flight for the HG II and III designs, Messerschmitt undertook no attempts to exceed the Mach 0.86 limit for the Me 262.

After the war, the Royal Aircraft Establishment, at that time one of the leading institutions in high-speed research, re-tested the Me 262 to help with the British attempts at breaking the sound barrier. The RAE achieved speeds of up to Mach 0.84 and confirmed the results from the Messerschmitt dive tests as accurate. Similar tests were run by the Soviets. No attempts were made to exceed the Mach limit established by Messerschmitt.

After Willy Messerschmitt's death, the former Me 262 pilot Hans Guido Mutke claimed to be the first person to break the sound barrier on 9 April 1945 in a Me 262, in a "straight-down" 90° dive. This claim is disputed because it is only based on Mutke's memory of the incident, which recalls effects that other Me 262 pilots have observed below the speed of sound and a high airspeed indicator reading, but no altitude reading, which would be required to determine the actual speed. Furthermore, the pitot tube used to measure airspeed in aircraft can give falsely elevated readings as the pressure builds up inside the tube at high speeds. Finally, the Me 262 wing had only a slight sweep incorporated for trim (center of gravity) reasons and likely would have suffered structural failure due to divergence at high trans-sonic speeds.


[edit] Production
As the Me 262 was widely-regarded as the Luftwaffe's top priority, all expendable materials were put into 262 production. While Germany was bombed repeatedly, production of the Me 262 was dispersed into low-profile production facilities, sometimes little more than clearings in the forests of Germany and other occupied nations. Large, heavily protected underground factories were constructed to take up production of the Me 262, safe from bomb attacks, but the war ended before they could be completed. Per German doctrine at the time, several components of the Me 262 were built in forced labor camps. In the end, slightly over 1400 Me 262s of all versions were produced. Due to fuel shortages, pilot shortages, and the lack of many airfields that could support the Me 262 (concrete runways were recommended as the jet engines would melt tar runways), as few as 200 Me 262s made it to combat units.


[edit] Postwar evaluation, history and design influence

Reproduction of a Messerschmitt Me 262 at the Berlin Air Show 2006.After the end of the war the Me 262 as well as other advanced German technology was quickly swept up by the Americans, British and Soviets. Many Me 262s were found in readily-repairable condition and were confiscated. During testing, the Me 262 was found to have advantages over the early models of Gloster Meteor. It was faster, had better cockpit visibility to the sides and rear (mostly due to the canopy frame and the discoloration caused by the plastics used in the Meteor's construction) and was a superior gun platform; as the early Meteors had a tendency to snake at high speed and exhibited "weak" aileron response.[6] The Me 262 did have a shorter combat range than the Meteor.

The USAAF compared the P-80 and Me-262 concluding: "Despite a difference in gross weight of nearly 2,000 lb (907 kg), the Me 262 was superior to the P-80 in acceleration, speed and approximately the same in climb performance. The Me 262 apparently has a higher critical Mach number, from a drag standpoint, than any current Army Air Force fighter."[7] The Army Air Force also tested an example of the Me 262A-1a/U3 (US flight evaluation serial FE-4012), an unarmed photoreconnaissance version, which was fitted with a fighter nose and given an overall smooth finish. It was used for performance comparisons against the P-80. During testing in May-August 1946, the aircraft completed eight flights spanning four hours and 40 minutes. Testing was discontinued after four engine changes were required during the course of the tests, culminating in two single-engine landings.[8]

These aircraft were extensively studied, aiding development of early US and Soviet jet fighters. The F-86 Sabre was partially influenced by some of the features of the Me 262.[citation needed] The F-86 used a slat design similar to that of the Me 262 and some German parts were used on the prototype[citation needed].

The Czechoslovak aircraft industry continued to produce single-seater and two-seater variants of the Me 262 after World War II. These were kept flying as late as 1957. Both versions are on display at the Prague Aero museum in Kbely.

In January 2003, the American Me 262 Project completed flight testing to allow for delivery of near-exact reproductions of several versions of the Me 262 including at least two B-1c two-seater variants, one A-1c single seater and two "convertibles" that could easily be converted between the A-1c and B-1c configurations. All are powered by General Electric J85 engines and feature additional safety features such as upgraded brakes and strengthened landing gear. The "c" suffix refers to the new J-85 powerplant and has been informally assigned with the approval of the Messerschmitt Foundation in Germany.
[edit] The Me 262 in popular culture
In the PC flight simulator Chuck Yeager's Air Combat, a virtual Chuck Yeager voiced by himself, states that Allied pilots used the term "Blow Job" for Me 262s.
The American hard rock band Blue Öyster Cult portrayed an Me 262 on the cover of their 1974 album Secret Treaties. The album also contains a song, Me 262, inspired by the real-life jet. The lyrics are written from the point of view of a Luftwaffe pilot on a bomber interception mission in April 1945. The song is generally technically accurate, correctly identifying the aircraft's Junkers Jumo 004 engines, and describing how the pilot's Me 262 is armed with R4M air-to-air rockets, which were operational at that late stage in the war.
Clive Cussler's famous fictional character Dirk Pitt owns an Me 262, which he acquired when he helped excavate a hidden airfield that held a number of the aircraft.
The game B-17 Flying Fortress:The Mighty 8th! features ME-262s that the player can fly if he/she chose an interceptor role.

[edit] References
^ Price 2007, p. 36-37. Quote: "In April (1944), a service test unit, Erprobungskommando 262 was formed at Lechfeld in Bavaria...
^ a b Loftin, L.K. Jr. Quest for performance: The evolution of modern aircraft. NASA SP-468. [1] Access date: 22 April 2006.
^ Smith 1971, p. 103. Quote: "On 25 July 1944, a Me 262 from EK262 recorded the world's first interception of an enemy aircraft by a jet fighter. A photo-reconnaissance Mosquito from No. 544 Squadron RAF was flying over the Munich area when the observer, F/O Lobban spotted an enemy aircraft in the distance. The pilot, F/Lt Wall, quickly accelerated the machine, but was surprised to see that the enemy was still closing rapidly. After evading five firing passes from the Me 262 (Editors's note: piloted by Lt. Alfred Schreiber), Wall managed to dive into a cloud bank, eventually crash landing the Mosquito back at Fermo, near Venice."

[edit] Related content
Wikimedia Commons has media related to:
Messerschmitt Me 262Related development
Focke-Wulf Ta 183 - advanced jet fighter designed as the successor to the Messerschmitt Me 262.

panzerpete
04-14-2007, 12:05 PM
[edit] Variants

Me 262 A-1a circa 1944
Me 262 A-1a/U4
Me 262 B-1a/U1 or B-2a night fighter
Me 262 A-1a
Me 262 B-1a/U4A-1a Schwalbe - production version Jäger (fighter) and Jabo (from German: "Jagdbomber", fighter bomber).
A-1a/U1 - single prototype with a total of six nose mounted guns, two 20 mm MG 151 cannon, two 30 mm MK 103, and two 30 mm MK 108 cannon.
A-1a/U2 - single prototype with FuG 220 Lichtenstein SN 2 radar array and Hirschgeweih antenna array in order to test the Me 262 as a night-fighter.
A-1a/U3 - reconnaissance version modified in small numbers, fitted RB20/30 cameras mounted in the nose (sometimes one RB 20/20 and one RB 75/30). Some retained one 30 mm cannon as armament, but most were unarmed.
A-1a/U4 - two prototypes with a 50 mm tank cannon in nose.
A-1b - as A-1a but powered with BMW 003 engines. Few built- two are known to have existed at experimental establishments; maximum speed of 497 mph (800 km/h).
A-2a Sturmvogel - definitive blitzbomber version with only two guns.
A-2a/U1 - single prototype with advanced bombsight.
A-2a/U2 - two prototypes with glazed nose for accommodating a bombardier.
A-3a - proposed ground attack version.
A-4a - reconnaissance version.
A-5a - definitive reconnaissance version used in small numbers at end of the war.
B-1a - two-seat trainer.
B-1a/U1 - B-1a trainers converted into provisional night fighters, FuG 218 Neptun radar
B-2 - proposed night fighter version with stretched fuselage.
C-1a - single prototype of rocket-boosted interceptor with Walter rocket in tail.
C-2b - single prototype of rocket-boosted interceptor with BMW rockets mounted in engine nacelles.
C-3a - single prototype of rocket-boosted interceptor with Walter rockets in belly pack.
D-1 - proposed variant to carry Jagdfaust mortars.
E-1 - proposed cannon-armed variant based on A-1a/U4.
E-2 - proposed rocket-armed variant carrying up to 48 R4M rockets.
Japanese design patterned after the Me 262:

Nakajima Kikka
Postwar variants:

Avia S-92 - Czech built A-1a
Avia CS-92 - Czech built B-1a
A-1c - American privately built, based on A-1a configuration
B-1c - American privately built, based on B-1a configuration
A/B-1c - American privately built, convertible between A-1a and B-1a configuration

[edit] Operators
Czechoslovakia (post-war)
Germany: Luftwaffe
General characteristics
Crew: One
Length: 10.60 m (34 ft 9 in)
Wingspan: 12.51 m (41 ft 0 in)
Height: 3.50 m (11 ft 6 in)
Wing area: 21.7 m² (234 ft²)
Empty weight: 3,800 kg (8,400 lb)
Loaded weight: 7,130 kg (15,720 lb)
Max takeoff weight: 6,400 kg (14,100 lb)
Powerplant: 2× Junkers Jumo 004B-1 turbojets, 8.8 kN (1,980 lbf) each
Aspect ratio: 7.23
Performance
Maximum speed: 870 km/h (541 mph)
Range: 1,050 km (652 mi)
Service ceiling: 11,450 m (37,565 ft)
Rate of climb: 1,200 m/min (3,900 ft/min)
Thrust/weight: 0.28
Armament
4x 30 mm MK 108 cannons (A-2a: two cannons)
2x 250 kg (550 lb) bombs (A-2a only)
24x 55 mm (2.2 in) R4M rockets

panzerpete
04-14-2007, 12:08 PM
remember, all from wikipedia, the article i got this from has citations too but i have not put them in, but i can, just request them.

it is in so many posts because the article was almost 30,000 characters long

Digger
04-14-2007, 03:43 PM
Thanks panzerpete, that pretty much covers the basics and I'll post something later tonight for anyone who requires further reading on the subject.

Still by virtue of it's protracted development, late entry to the war, continued problems and poor quality of engines, difficulties of working the type up to service level and poor loss to kill ratio, the Me 262 was not a great fighter.

If the war had dragged on, then it would have had a legitimate claim to being a great fighter.

Regards digger.

Panzerknacker
04-14-2007, 05:49 PM
continued problems and poor quality of engines,


Well I think you get the point my dear Digger, there is difference between "poorly manufactured" (wich was not) and "poor quality materials" ( wich was sometimes).

Is also worth to note that most of the destroyed Me-262 were attacked in the groud or in the fianl aproach to their airfield, thing that deprived the Schwalbe to his best characteristics.

Also the plane was undermined by several bad tactical desitions and unnecessary delays wich hampered it to display his potential.

Me-262A-1/a, EKdo 262.

http://i10.tinypic.com/4df1tub.jpg

http://i16.tinypic.com/344b5s7.jpg

http://i11.tinypic.com/47s2gci.jpg

http://i11.tinypic.com/3yhy73l.jpg


There was however a lot of Me-262 aces like Galland, Bär, Steinhoff, etc.

One pilot of the JV 44 destroyed 2 P-51 in 3 minutes in his first sortie.

Raven
04-15-2007, 12:21 AM
Wow his first sortie, that's pretty impressive.

I've always thought if Hitler hadn't insisted it be a bomber it may have made a change to the war.


Of course if Germany had invested the time and costs into creating or upgrading their current piston-engine fleet I imgagine the outcome would have been more effective.

Digger
04-15-2007, 05:46 AM
Just to let you guys know, this thread was not started by me, it was shifted from another thread. I doubt I would have chosen the title for this thread.

To clear one thing up, I have never said the Me 262 was a bad aircraft, rather it was an aircraft yet to reach it's potential, when the war ended.

Engine development was it's biggest stumbling block, remembering this was cutting edge technology at the time, and it was this developmental problems with the Jumo engines which caused most of the delays. Hitler's decision to convert Me 262s to fighter bombers was not the cause for delay.

And yes, there was evidence of poor manufacturing in the Me 262, but this was the symptom of the times with most manufacturing suffering air attacks, disruption of supplies, shortages of strategic materials and a largely unskilled workforce. Many of the workforce in German war industry, were poorly treated, starving, were beaten(sometimes to death), had minimal skills training and because of these reasons good manufacturing principles lapsed dramatically throughout 1944.

In some cases there was evidence of sabotage, particuarly in engines, but to what degree this effected overall production is hard to say. In spite of these difficulties Messerschmitt did get the Me 262 into service, a remarkable achievment.

Regards digger.

Panzerknacker
04-15-2007, 11:12 AM
Yeap I splitted the topic, the Me-262 is interesting enough to made a thread of it.



most manufacturing suffering air attacks, disruption of supplies, shortages of strategic materials



I think those (in despite the others you named ) are the most important causes, the german ended assemblig jet fighters in the woods.


Wow his first sortie, that's pretty impressive.

I've always thought if Hitler hadn't insisted it be a bomber it may have made a change to the war


That was Walter Schuck, he scored 206 victories and was awarded the Knight's Cross with Oak Leaves. In April 1942 he was sent to the bitterly cold Eismeer Front with 7./JG 5 at Petsamo, Finland. In March 1944 he shot down seven Boston bombers in a single day. On 1 August 1944 he was promoted to Staffelkapitän of 10./JG 5. He was transferred to the West to fly the Me 262 and was appointed Staffelkapitän of 3./JG 7 on 24 March 1945. He shot down eight aircraft while flying the Me 262, including four B-17s on 10 April. He was forced to bail out on the same mission.


http://www.highironillustrations.com/aviation_pics/schuck.jpg


http://www.civilwarmall.com/bookseller/images/Schuck2.jpg

Raven
04-15-2007, 09:03 PM
Amazing. Thanks for the information Panzerknacker.

Librarian
04-16-2007, 09:58 AM
As usually, honorable ladies and gentlemen, Mr. Digger has the point in this case:


… it was an aircraft yet to reach it's potential, when the war ended… Engine development was it's biggest stumbling block, remembering this was cutting edge technology at the time, and it was this developmental problems with the Jumo engines which caused most of the delays.

Indeed, engine development was Me 262’s biggest faltering obstruct, but it has to be emphasized that this gas turbine jet power plant actually was a compromise between engineering desires and available materials and production facilities.

Outstanding evidence of technological compromises resulting from lack of strategic materials is situated in the fact that more than 7% of the engine intake-air was bled-off for cooling purposes. Despite this, however, most engines were found to have a service life of about only 10 hr., against a "design life" of 25 – 35 hr. Additional compromises are evident in the design, which shows that the production engineers were undoubtedly hampered by lack of both plant facilities and adequate skilled labor, but the main reason for a delay in Me 262 production was the diversion of critical materials into U-boat production and other projects late in the war, ant that verity forced Junkers to produce the 004 B engines with only 1/3 of the high grade steel that had been used in the very first 004A engines. It was a disastrous concession for the Me 262.

It has to be also emphasized that these failures were actually anticipated to some extent and the Me 262 was designed to permit really rapid engine changes.

Contrary to popular belief, the Jumo 004 was a fairly sound performer when first-rate steel alloys of excellent heat-resistant qualities were used just after the German capitulation, and it was proved by US post-war tests that simple application of different materials made possible to get average endurance of the turbines up to 150 hours service in actual flight tests, and up to 500 hours on the test stand.

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a137/Langnasen/JunkersJumo004.jpg

Junkers Jumo 004 B - Cross-Section


The Junkers Jumo 004 B was the first large-scale produced axial-flow aircraft gas turbine engine, developed by Dr. Ing. Anselm Franz from Junkers. Even though Dr. Franz was familiar with centrifugal compressors from his previous work on piston-engine superchargers, he opted for an axial compressor design because he was convinced that the low frontal engine area cross-section was of fundamental importance for a high-speed airplane aerodynamics and that aforesaid low-drag gains could be achieved with an axial design only. This also turned out to be a correct choice as the Gloster Meteor was delayed by problematic airframe integration issues caused by its large, centrifugal compressor equipped Derwent engines.

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a137/Langnasen/rolls-RoyceDerwent1.jpg

Rolls-Royce Derwent - Cross Section

The axial compressor concept was based on the steam-turbine experience achieved by AEG in Berlin and it didn’t use a vortex design that was characteristically used by British engineers in their own constructions.

In 1936, when the first work on turbojets began, a high-temperature Krupp-made steel alloy known as P-193 was available. This material, which contained nickel, chromium, and titanium, could be given good high-temperature strength by means of solution treating and precipitation hardening. Dr. Anselm Franz initially used an improved version of P-193 known as Tinidur – austinitic 'stainless steel' like steel alloy with 6% titanium, 18% nickel 12% chromium with the balance of steel.

The first turbine blades of the Jumo 004 A version were solid ones. Early tests showed that even supposedly identical blades would have a large scatter life. By 1944, Junkers had solved the problem and obtained uniform quality of the blade by close control of manufacturing, especially of the critical forging process. Attempts to produce hollow blades by folding flat sheets of Tinidur and welding down the trailing edge resulted in failure, as Tinidur could not be welded. Eventually, a deep drawing process was used, in which the stock for the blade was a flat circular blank. Hollow blades could be manufactured faster than solid blades by this process.

However, constant lack of Nickel caused a forced and rapid abandonment of the previously used materials. Chromite ore, from which is derived chromium, an element essential for the manufacture of stainless steel was evaluated as one of the few raw materials that were essential for the German war industry and for which there were no fully adequate sources within German territory, was very scarce.

At the beginning of the war Germany had an estimated stockpile of about 250,000 tons of chromite, which had been accumulated by heavy purchases in Africa, Turkey, and the Balkans in the late 1930s. By 1941 the only European source within the German range available for new deliveries of ore was the Balkans, and the only accessible source outside occupied Europe was Turkey, with another one potentially reachable replacement – a mammoth Nikopol manganese ore district - located in Ukrainian part of the USSR. In mid-1944, however, Germany’s loss of all remaining chromite as well as manganese ore supplies was disastrous: the Soviets recaptured Nikopol and succeeded in denying an important source of manganese to the Germans. Subsequently, total German steel production declined from the 35 million tons in 1943 to 2 millions tons per quarter by the end of 1944, and Germany was forced to abandon the production of high alloy-steels. The output of engineering steels declined by two-thirds, and the special steel available for military ordnance declined from nearly 2.5 million tons to less than 900,000 tons. The manufacture of airplanes, tanks, motor vehicles, tank shells, U-boats, and almost the entire gamut of artillery has suffered, but German engineers were still very devoted and skillful, and they successfully developed some even today very intriguing and highly original, even today applicable Ersatz (substitute) solutions.

Previously mentioned forced abandonment of Tinidur alloy, with 30-percent nickel content, strained Krupp toward development of the alloy called Cromadur, which was actually better than their earlier attempt, as Cromadur proved easy to weld. The process of folding the blade flat and welding it turned out to be superior to deep drawing, so the Cromadur blades proved more reliable than the Tinidur blading despite Cromadur's lower creep strength!

However, intensive air cooling was essential, and it was used throughout the engine. A later version of the 004B engine had hollow, air-cooled stator vanes, because these parts were the most critical ones. Compressor discharge-air was used to cool the blades. With hollow blades made out of Cromadur-alloy sheet metal, the complete 004B engine contained less than 2.3 kg of chromium. Due to these improvements the first production model of the 004B weighed 45.5 kg less than the 004A! Additional modifications were made to the first compressor stages too. A series of 100-hour tests were completed on several engines, and time between overhaul of 50 hours was achieved.

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a137/Langnasen/Jumo004-compressedairflow.jpg

Junkers Jumo 004 – Compressed Air Cooling

Cooling airflow was derived from between the fourth and fifth compressor stages, and led to the double skin around the combustion-chamber assembly. Most air passed down one exhaust cone strut to circulate inside the cone and through small holes to cool the downstream face of the turbine disk. Air was also taken in through three tunnels in two of the casting ribs and into the space between the two plate diaphragms in front of the turbine disk. Most of this air passed through the hollow turbine nozzle guide vanes, emerging through slits in the trailing edges.

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a137/Langnasen/Jumo004commandline.jpg

Junkers Jumo 004 – Motor Management Schematics

Forced end of the part I… To be continued.

Librarian
04-16-2007, 10:04 AM
Part II

The turbine, designed in collaboration with AEG, had a degree of reaction of 20 %, which represented a compromise between AEG, which wanted less, and Junkers, which wanted more (from afterburner considerations). The single-stage turbine had 61 blades fixed to the turbine disk by a formed root and kept in position by rivets. The production version had air-cooled hollow blades. A movable 'bullet' was mounted in the tailpipe and controlled by a servomotor to vary the nozzle area.

On the other side of the hill situation was pretty different. In England the early development of age hardening nickel alloys was influenced by works of on the nickel-chromium heat and oxidation resistant alloys which showed the outstanding characteristics of the 80% nickel, and 20 % chromium composition (Tapsel & Bradley, 1925). Thus when in the early 1940s, at the request of Britain's Air Ministry, different private company scientists worked feverishly to solve the problem of appropriate materials for emerging designs in jet and gas turbine engines, that what became one of the most noted contributions during the war by metallurgists (Pfeil, Allan and Convay from the Henry Wiggin & Co. Ltd.) facilities in Birmingham, was the specific re-invention of an low-ferrite alloy for jet-propelled aircraft engines.

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a137/Langnasen/Nimonic80alloyblades.jpg

Nimonic 80 Alloy Turbine Blades, De Havilland Goblin II Engine

This new nickel alloy called "Nimonic 80" allowed the jet engine's turbine parts, particularly the blades, to operate for long periods under tremendous stress, under high heat and corrosive exhaust, without deforming or melting. This new non-ferrite alloy was far superior to all German constructive metal alloys used in the aircraft industry. After the war, Nimonic 80 set the stage for a revolution in jet-propelled aviation.

For much of the past century the key location for this essential metal was the legendary Sudbury Basin, with the South Pacific island of New Caledonia coming a distant second.

And finally an additional historiographic remark: After the WW2 Dr. Anselm Franz immigrated to the United States, where he worked for the U.S. Air Force from 1946 until 1950. In 1951, he joined Avco Lycoming and soon moved to Stratford (Connecticut), where he established the gas-turbine department of the aforementioned company, being responsible for several successful engine-development programs, including the T53 (which powers the U.S. military's AH-1S Cobra, Grumman OV-1 Mohawk, and Bell UH-1 Huey helicopters) and T55 series of turbo-shaft engines, as well as the T55 high-bypass turbofan (named the ALF502). In the 1960s Dr. Anselm Franz led a team to design the three-spool, 1,500 shaft-horsepower AGT-1500 V gas turbine, the power plant for the U.S. M1 Abrams main battle tank. He retired as vice president of Avco Lycoming in 1968.

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a137/Langnasen/DrFranzAnselm.jpg

Dr. Ing. Anselm Franz, Chief Engeneer of the Junkers Jumo 004 Development Program

But that is a completely different story…

As always honorable ladies and gentlemen - all the best!;)

Twitch1
04-16-2007, 11:05 AM
Say all you want about the first jet turbines. The fact is that German engineers were aware of the initial shortcomings and had the situation in hand with the 2nd generation of engines that were being developed.

Panzerknacker
04-16-2007, 11:39 AM
Nice drawing and comments Librarian, the titanium was also a metal wich was completely unavailable for those times in Germany.



Say all you want about the first jet turbines. The fact is that German engineers were aware of the initial shortcomings and had the situation in hand with the 2nd generation of engines that were being developed.



They were aware but due the war situation they were unable to cure it completely, still some 1400 Me-262s were completed, not all used in combat.

I believe (firmly) that the Me-262 was a powerful combat machines despite his shorcomings.

More devastating than all the material poorness was the 25th May order of A.H who said every Me-262 should be a bomber.

http://www.mundosgm.com/galeria/me2626tb.jpg

Chevan
04-16-2007, 11:41 AM
Thanks for detailed engeen material mst. Labrarian.
You've wondered us as always by your extremaly wide and deep-specific knowleges at the same time.;)
BTW i have to add that inspite of engeens problems the Me-262 was the much better aircraft then the first British Meteor Mk i.
The Me-262 had a much more speed and a much more firepower 4x30 mm gun !!! This was a uber-wearpon which could really finish the allies strategic aviation if it was done in the 1944 and in enough quantity.
P.S. oh my god it seems i become a one more "german wearponry soccer" in here :D
what to do?

Panzerknacker
04-16-2007, 11:49 AM
P.S. oh my god it seems i become a one more "german wearponry soccer" in here :D
what to do?


What to do?...I guess that you might enjoy the conversation while eating some knackwurst and bier. :cool:

http://www.luft46.com/dsart/ds262-3.jpg

Chevan
04-16-2007, 11:56 AM
What to do?...I guess that you might enjoy the conversation while eating some knackwurst and bier. :cool:

http://www.luft46.com/dsart/ds262-3.jpg
I would enjoy but where you are when you are needed?
BTW is it an Me-262 HG II perspective modification which were never finished?

Panzerknacker
04-16-2007, 11:59 AM
I am always available my dear russian sargeant. ( i did receive your PM)

Indeed that is an Me-262HG "stüfe 1" ( stage 1)... nice isnt ?

Me 262 B-1a (http://www.lexikon-der-wehrmacht.de/Waffen/Me262-R.htm#B1) des KG 54 in Giebelstadt


http://www.lexikon-der-wehrmacht.de/Bilder/Me262/me262B1a-3%20IKG54%20Giebelstadt.jpg

Chevan
04-16-2007, 12:08 PM
I am always available my dear russian sargeant. ( i did receive your PM)
I've never doubt in it comrade general;)


Indeed that is an Me-262HG "stüfe 1" ( stage 1)... nice isnt ?

Very nice.
Could you prove for other our comrades ( mostly from the "misty Albion") that this aircraft could fly enough good.
Becouse some our members , who are the specialist on aerodinamic field ;) recently tryed to prove me that the Me 262 HG i/II/III simply was not able to fly.

Cheers.

pdf27
04-16-2007, 01:37 PM
Contrary to popular belief, the Jumo 004 was a fairly sound performer when first-rate steel alloys of excellent heat-resistant qualities were used just after the German capitulation, and it was proved by US post-war tests that simple application of different materials made possible to get average endurance of the turbines up to 150 hours service in actual flight tests, and up to 500 hours on the test stand.
True, although it should be pointed out that Allied engines at this point in time were happily managing over 1,000 hours in service with what were IIRC higher TITs and with no cooling air.


The Junkers Jumo 004 B was the first large-scale produced axial-flow aircraft gas turbine engine, developed by Dr. Ing. Anselm Franz from Junkers. Even though Dr. Franz was familiar with centrifugal compressors from his previous work on piston-engine superchargers, he opted for an axial compressor design because he was convinced that the low frontal engine area cross-section was of fundamental importance for a high-speed airplane aerodynamics and that aforesaid low-drag gains could be achieved with an axial design only. This also turned out to be a correct choice as the Gloster Meteor was delayed by problematic airframe integration issues caused by its large, centrifugal compressor equipped Derwent engines.
BS. AA Griffith at the RAE in Farnborough made the same fundamental mistake. For a peacetime programme where they had time to get it right, it may have been true. For a wartime emergency programme where they had to get it right first time with limited resources, it was deeply wrong. The point about the Gloster Meteor is savagely flawed too - despite these supposed "issues", it started development work later and yet entered squadron service before the Me-262 did.
The absolute genius of Frank Whittle - and I make no apologies about using the word - was not in the invention of the Turbojet engine. The concept had been around for quite some time, and he was merely refining it a bit. His genius was in realising that it could be made with simple parts that were already well understood, fettled a bit, and it would beat any engine then in service or on the drawing board by a huge margin. His use of centrifugal compressors is a large part of this - axial flow compressors even today are huge, heavy, a major pain to design right and suffer from stall/surge problems. Centrifugal compressors don't, and the only reason that they are nowadays limited to a few applications like helicopter engines is simply due to ducting problems when stacking compressors, rather than issues of frontal area.
It is worth noting that Whittle-type engines powered all the first generation of postwar jet aircraft, despite the supposedly "superior design" of the Jumo-type engines being freely available. Given that the Soviets had full access to the German plans - including those for the second-generation engines - and yet decided to build a copy of the RR Derwent instead is to me further evidence that your thesis that the Jumo-004 wasn't too bad really does not hold water. It wasn't until engines like the Armstrong-Siddely Sapphire and RR Avon became available in the 1950s that axial flow engines gained widespread acceptance.

pdf27
04-16-2007, 03:35 PM
The turbine, designed in collaboration with AEG, had a degree of reaction of 20 %, which represented a compromise between AEG, which wanted less, and Junkers, which wanted more (from afterburner considerations).
I have grave doubts that this was the reason. I really can't see how the degree of reaction would substantially affect the reheat stage. All it does is change the design of the final stator. If you're trying to have a rotor as the final stage, then the degree of reaction is critical for far more important things than reheat flame stability. Incidentally, the Jumo 004C was only ever a paper design which would most likely have had major problems in getting it to work. All of the first generation reheat designs proved to be much more troublesome than anticipated, largely due to flame stability problems. I suspect there will also have been some issues with the particular flow regime they operated in and the need for adjustable nozzles to take full advantage - moveable shock cones just don't cut it.


I should probably declare a bias here. I read Aero & Mechanical Engineering at exactly the same place - Peterhouse, Cambridge - that Frank Whittle read for the Mechanical Sciences Tripos, the forerunner of the current engineering course. Thus my views on him may not be entirely objective, although I have done my best.

pdf27
04-16-2007, 04:06 PM
Could you prove for other our comrades ( mostly from the "misty Albion") that this aircraft could fly enough good.
Becouse some our members , who are the specialist on aerodinamic field ;) recently tryed to prove me that the Me 262 HG i/II/III simply was not able to fly.
That would be me I suspect ;)
To be fair I've never tried to prove that it would be unflyable, but rather that the German performance figures were wildly implausible and it would most likely have been a complete dog.

Panzerknacker
04-16-2007, 06:26 PM
Gallands report on the Me-262:

http://img177.imageshack.us/img177/7953/me262v1iv8.jpg

Berlin, 25 May 1943:



Most esteemed Herr Generalfeldmarschall!

On Saturday, the 22nd of the month, I tested the ME 262 at Augsburg in the presence of Oberst Petersen and other persons from the Technical Office. I would have preferred to report personally to the Generalfeldmarschall and also elaborate on other matters, however I was so occupied after my visit to Sicily that there was simply no time. The Reichmarschall has ordered me to report today.

Concerning the Me 262, I beg to state the following:

1.) The aircraft represents an enormous leap forward, it would give us an unimaginable lead over the enemy if he adheres to the piston engine.

2.) In-flight handling of the airframe is impressive.

3.) The power plants are fully convincing, except during take-off and landing.

4.) The aircraft offers entirely new tactical prospects.

I beg to submit the following proposal: The Fw 190 D is under development, its performance should match the Me 209's in all respects. The performance of the two types, however, will not be superior to the enemy's models, particularly at altitude. The only progress seems to be in armament and higher speeds.

Conclusion:

a) Me 209 be discontinued
b) Total fighter production to switch from the Fw 190 with BMW 801
to the Fw 190 with DB 603 and Jumo 213 respectively.
c) The construction and industrial capacities thus released to be
concentrated on the Me 262, with immediate effect.
I shall report immediately on my return.

Heil Hitler! Herr Generalfeldmarschall your most obedient servant.


http://img20.imageshack.us/img20/5026/dibujoqq1.jpg


Sources:

"German jet aces of WW2" Osprey Military publishing

"Warplanes of the Luftwaffe"

http://home.att.net/~jv44/

Raven
04-16-2007, 09:18 PM
Quite interesting.
Just another, what if scenario.

Chevan
04-17-2007, 02:21 AM
That would be me I suspect ;)

Do yoy know the another aerodinamic specialists in here ?:D


To be fair I've never tried to prove that it would be unflyable, but rather that the German performance figures were wildly implausible and it would most likely have been a complete dog.
The pictures of models which i've showed at you just the prototipes that just explain the tendency of Messersmith to use the sweptback wing ( firstly in world for the jet aviation).

Cheers.

Digger
04-17-2007, 05:38 AM
One of the great myths surrounding the Me-262 was Hitler's demand the Me 262 be produced as a bomber severly delayed or impacted on the Me 262 production programme.

Nothing could be further from the truth. The notorious '-Fuhrer-Befhel was tactly ignored and in April 1944 when Me-262 production was barely at a trickle Hitler discovered at a conference with Goering, Milch and Saur not one Me-262 had been delivered as a bomber. Hitler's famous rage exploded and he declare,"Not a single one of my orders has been obeyed."

It was not until July 1944 the first Sturmvogel(bomber version) appeared and there had not been any delay in production due to the relative simplicity of the bomb pylons and release mechanism.

Although development of the Jumo 004 engine had been frozen in June 1944 to facilitate faster production, engine production could not keep pace with airframe production, with 59 Me 262's delivered in July, 20 in August, 91 in September, 117 in October for a total of 315 aircraft.

In early November 1944 the Fuhrer Befhel was cancelled and the bomber units which had been formed played little role in the combat of early 1945.

Regards digger.

pdf27
04-17-2007, 12:16 PM
Do yoy know the another aerodinamic specialists in here ?:D
Yeah, I do actually. At one point there were five of us on here (at the height of the whack-an-Ironman phase). Just look back through some of the archived threads to see who they were though. The only ones I can remember were Walther and Crab-to-be.

Panzerknacker
04-17-2007, 03:15 PM
One of the great myths surrounding the Me-262 was Hitler's demand the Me 262 be produced as a bomber severly delayed or impacted on the Me 262 production programme.

Nothing could be further from the truth. The notorious '-Fuhrer-Befhel was tactly ignored and in April 1944 when Me-262 production was barely at a trickle Hitler discovered at a conference with Goering, Milch and Saur not one Me-262 had been delivered as a bomber. Hitler's famous rage exploded and he declare,"Not a single one of my orders has been obeyed."

It was not until July 1944 the first Sturmvogel (bomber version) appeared and there had not been any delay in production due to the relative simplicity of the bomb pylons and release mechanism.


Yes, but Hitler also orderer an devoted fast bomber variant, the convertion to this aircraft wasnt so simple, it need more fuel and reinforcement in the fuselage. ( the sturmvogel was merely a Fighter bomber)

Later I will put more on that.

Librarian
04-17-2007, 06:22 PM
The fact is that German engineers were aware of the initial shortcomings and had the situation in hand with the 2nd generation of engines that were being developed.

Absolutely agreed, my dear Mr. Twitch1. BTW: I think that soon we will be able to share our contemplations about one mutually common personal love – about Packard and the WW2 war effort of the previously mentioned True Pride of the American Engineering Herritage. Although I do prefer the 1941 Clipper, I think that we will have an interesting conversation.


Thanks for detailed engeen material…

Oh, not at all, my daer Mr. Chevan. Engineering history always represented an substantial part of my private interests, and I am assuring you that some till now unpresented materials concerning perspectives and results of different Soviet engineering efforts will be posted here as well. And I think that you will be able to see some rare examples of true constructive ingenuity in that case too.


BS

Oh, please my dear Mr. Pdf27: this idiom is absolutely inappropriate for an Officer and a Gentlemen.


True, although it should be pointed out that Allied engines at this point in time were happily managing over 1,000 hours in service …

Would you be so kind to present the resources, my dear Mr. Pdf27? You see, I was able to find the officially distributed information that J33 jet-engine, for example, demonstrated a median life of only 151 hours before general overhaul due to poor stress-rupture properties. Please, just follow this link:

http://209.85.135.104/search?q=cache:knPWdNq9O5MJ:ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19620006009_1962006009.pdf+median+life,+J33&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=hu


and with no cooling air

With some curiously astonishing exceptions, my dear Mr. Pdf 27, peculiarly connected with another axial-flow jet engine. This time the British one.

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a137/Langnasen/MetropolitanVickersF2.jpg

Metropolitan Vickers F-2 – Cross Section


For a wartime emergency programme where they had to get it right first time with limited resources, it was deeply wrong.

Well, in that case, my dear Mr. Pdf27 I think that we can pronounce the whole genuine early American jet-engine design activity as a completely erroneous waste of time and money, and also to enunciate that aforesaid crime was committed by a group of staggering engineering idiots misfortunately positioned in the high places. Of course, I do have a completely opposite opinion. Personally I think that they were very good and completely capable professionals, obsessed with constructive perfectionism. What do I mean under by that? Well, I think that I shall be able to adequately explain this pretty personal, but theoretically well corroborated personal stance.

As you know, early in February of 1940 U.S. National Committee on Aeronautics established a Special Committee on Jet Propulsion, headed by Dr. William F. Durand, eminent aerodynamicist at Stanford University. Durand's interest in turbine machinery directed the NACA study almost entirely towards gas turbine engines. Curiously, from the very start the axial compressor solution was chosen as the best way to go, and that was explained by the smaller frontal area and higher potential pressure ratio of this engine type. However, although the axial compressor was lighter and more compact it was very well known that this solution represents quite a problematic answer, because it demanded knowledge of complex axial-flow aerodynamics. The complex movement of air across the blades of several stages presented a real challenge to the designers. The fabrication of the complicated compressors in those times without CAD/CAM technology was a genuine nightmare. Produced vibrations, caused by instable internal air-flow, created the danger that compressor blades might fly off in all directions. Nevertheless, the simpler solution found by Mr. Whittle and Mr. von Ohain - the centrifugal compressor - miraculously got away from the visage of those turbine experts within the Committee. The question is – why?

Personally, I think that part of the answer was already elucidated by a renowned N.A. Cumpsty, Head of the Whittle Laboratory, who has pointed out that the centrifugal compressor was used by Mr. Whittle because of the known difficulty of making an axial compressor. With a centrifugal compressor the use of the knowledge connected with pumps was obtainable, and - unlike the axial compressor (deeply connected with steam turbines!) - substantial pressure rise was producible, no matter how badly the aerodynamic of a design actually was calculated.

By directing the air flow radially outwards the centrifugal compressor, generally, always complicates the layout of the engine and obligatorily creates a larger frontal area; this becomes a more serious problem as the flight speeds approach the speed of sound. The centrifugal flow compressor employs an impeller to accelerate the air and a diffuser to produce the required pressure rise. Flow exit's a centrifugal compressor radially (at 90° to the flight direction) and it must therefore be redirected back towards the combustion chamber, resulting in a additional drop in thermodynamic efficiency.

An engine design using a centrifugal compressor, at least theoretically, allways will have a larger frontal area than one using a axial compressor. This is partly a consequence of the design of a centrifugal impeller, and partly a result of the need for the diffuser to redirect the flow back towards the combustion chamber. As the axial compressor needs more stages than a centrifugal compressor for the equivalent pressure rise, an engine designed with an axial compressor will be longer and thinner than one designed using a centrifugal compressor. This, plus the ability to increase the overall pressure ratio in an axial compressor by the constant addition of extra stages, has led to the use of axial compressors in most engine designs.

It seems also that Mr. Whittle’s choice of a centrifugal compressor for the WU (Whittle Unit) actually was influenced by his previous association with BTH (British Thompson Houston) of Rugby, who actually built WU, as BTH were in a position to assist with compressor design data.

Mr. Whittle was personally well aware that the axial flow compressor had the potential for a mass flow far in excess of the centrifugal compressor, however as engineers and scientists had not resolved the complex aerodynamic problems connected with the axial flow, he took the decision to use the proven, simple and undemanding centrifugal compressor.

It is of interest to note here that by 1942 centrifugal compressors were reaching the limits of efficiency due to the efforts of an almost unknown, but indeed excellent British engineer, who has specialized in aerodynamics - Dr. Stanley Hooker.

Aerodynamisist Dr. Stanley Hooker, hired by Mr. Ernest Hives of Rolls-Royce, was given the responsibility for the development of centrifugal compressors for aircraft piston-engines, such as the Rolls-Royce Merlin. Those more elderly perhaps will remember the fact that Mr. Stanley Hooker was some time ago brought out of retirement by Rolls-Royce, more precisely back there in 1970, in order to resolve the aerodynamic problems of the RB211 which pushed Rolls-Royce into near bankruptcy.

Dr.David Smith, another brilliant British engineer, a mathematically extraordinarily talented Scot living in Bowden, Cheshire, was subsequently employed by Metropolitan Vickers in Trafford Park, Manchester. Intriguingly, Mr. Smith had also written several mathematical papers on the problems of steam turbine rotor stability. This analytical contribution was crucial for the full-grown development of the axial-flow jet engines.

And so, in the same month when the US Special Committee on Jet Propulsion was formed, engineering representatives have arrived from three highly respected American firms and exclusively those with prior experience not with aircraft engines, but within industrial steam turbine design: Allis-Chalmers, Westinghouse, and the General Electric Steam Turbine Division at Schenectady. Intriguing fact, isn’t it?

The rationale for excluding the engine-producing companies from membership on the committee was not that they were too over-burdened with war-related work, because the steam turbine manufacturers were in the same situation. The selection of steam turbine manufacturers actually confirmed the theoretical choice of the axial-flow compressor with multiple stages, a compressor used in industrial steam turbines, as an completely appropriative solution.

If the engine companies had been included, they would have been more likely favor a design with a centrifugal compressor because of their previous experience with piston-engines superchargers.

Forced brak of the post... To be continued.

Librarian
04-17-2007, 06:34 PM
The case of Allis-Chalmers is highly intriguing in this specific issue. You see, as stated by Mr. George Lewis, the member of the aforesaid Committee, and NACA's director of research as well, in his personal letter addressed to Mr. Durand, "their particular interest was the axial-flow compressor, which has been constructed at Langley Field". Mr. Lewis revealed also that the results of a joint investigation with General Electric would be made available. This was obviously a reference to the eight-stage axial-flow compressor, previously constructed by Mr. Eastman Jacobs and Mr. Eugene Wasielewski, and intended primarily as a supercharger. I know that it sounds completely incredibly, but all three of the companies actually selected axial-flow compressors, although they decided not to attempt as many stages as Mr. Wasilewski and Mr. Jacobs, or German engineers.

At this point, all the signs indicated that an axial compressor would be a significant component of any jet propulsion scheme, a presumption shaped by the influence of Mr.Jacobs and the knowledge of the publications of the British aerodynamicists, Griffith and Constant. Future engineering practice would vindicate this decision, since the axial compressor did eventually prevail over the centrifugal one.

Stunning point is also the fact that the Westinghouse design team actually have decided to use a Brown-Bovery axial compressor as pretext for their construction (BTW: Brown-Bowery is highly renowned producer of steam turbines!) as its model. In any case, the company was completely familiar with the axial configuration through experience with axial compressors in Navy surface vessels.

To make this long story short, my dear Mr. Pdf 27, Westinghouse started the development of a project (X19A) sponsored by the U.S. Navy, actually the first real-made, genuine, distinctively American born and bred jet engine, that was ready in November of 1941. It was designed by a team guided by Mr. R. P. Kroon.

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a137/Langnasen/WestinghouseYankee19B.jpg

Westinghouse-Yankee R 19

Could you believe this – that aforesaid contraption (BTW: outfitted with some pretty nice characteristics!) was equipped with an axial compressor! Sweet Jesus, Joseph and Mary! :shock:

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a137/Langnasen/WestinghouseYankee19B-2.jpg

Six-stage axial compressor of the Westinghouse-Yankee 19 (18000 RPM in 1941!)

This early design lead to the more powerful J30 – series turbojet with 11-stage axial flow compressor and two-stage axial flow turbine. By 1944, Westinghouse was working on three derivatives of its first axial engine, the 19A (19 inch diameter). The 19A's direct descendant, the 19XB, became the J30, and powered the McDonnell FH-1 Phantom. Another variant, Westinghouse J34-WE-34 powered the famous McDonnell F2H Banshee, while Westinghouse J34-WE-36/36 A was used by Douglas for their F3D Skynight. Finally it has to be mentioned that Westinghouse J34-WE-30 was used by Vought company to, this time for their model F6 Pirate.

Well, US Navy probably was some kind of a…quite technologically extravagant society.

On the other hand, several different series J30s were used in US Air Force experimental aircraft program during the 1948-1953 period too. A J34-WE-22, rated at 1360 kg thrust, powered the tiny McDonnell XF-85 "Goblin." The McDonnell XF-88A used two J34-WE-15 engines, each rated at 1430 kg thrust, while the XF-88B used two XJ34-WE-19s, each rated at 1475 kg thrust. Power for the Douglas X-3 "Stiletto" was provided by two XJ34-WE-17s of 1528 kg thrust each. The -15, -17, and -19 engines were fitted with an afterburner for additional thrust when needed.

Yes, my dear Mr. Pdf 27 – I know that the adoption of the Whittle-type engine was a result of a high-ranking transatlantic visit that was performed by genera Arnold, who visited Great Britain in the spring of 1941. He was so impressed with the almost immediate accessibility of the Whittle gas-turbine engine, that due to his exceptionally augmented vexation - caused by American unpreparedness ("I don't want ever again to have the United States caught the way we were this time!") he successfully arranged for General Electric to manufacture this engine in the United States.

And so, on 2. October 1942, the Bell P-59A Airacomet, powered by a General Electric I-A gas turbine engine, became the first American jet-propelled aircraft to fly.

The I-A produced so low thrust, however, that performance was almost disappointing. Despite later installation of a more powerful engine, the P-59A did not reach the production stage. The British successfully developed the Meteor, powered by a Rolls Royce W-2B gas turbine engine and used it in World War2, although its performance was modestly better than that of the P-59A. By 1944, General Electric had developed a much more powerful gas turbine engine, the I-40, which was used to power the Lockheed XP80A fighter, developed by a mastermind of Clarence L. (Kelly) Johnson in just 143 days.

Of course, that is another story too...

Perhaps this is the right place for an additional observation toward generally not so widely recognized achievements of late Mr. David Smith, connected with the development of the first British axial flow jet engine for aircraft propulsion.

Another brake... To be continued soon.

Librarian
04-17-2007, 06:57 PM
Although Mr. David Smith was a steam turbine design engineer (sic!) within Metropolitan Vickers, he and other engeneers at the company were aware of the possibilities of the axial flow turbojet engine.

Originally, the first British axial-flow aircraft gas turbine B10 (known as Betty) was to have been built by the RAE (Royal Aircraft Establishment) the engines compressor was based on test data from experimental compressor "Anne" built to a design by A.A. Griffith of the RAE and manufactured by Fraser and Chalmers. A senior scientist within the RAE, A. A. Griffith had published paper on gas turbine development as early as 1926, and together with Hayne Constant, also of the RAE, considered that the compressors of future gas turbines should be of the axial type; However, the RAE did not have the manufacturing or research capability to make this aerodynamically complex compressor work on a scale sufficient to power an aircraft.

In 1937 discussions took place between the RAE and Metropolitan Vickers chief engineer Dr. Karl Baumann who in turn appointed Dr. David Smith to lead the design, development and manufacturing team. Work started at the company the following year under an Air Ministry Contract.

The experimental non-flight engine B10 had proved successful, with a compression ratio of 2:1. As war broke out and the Trafford Park Factory became committed to war work and space was at a premium, B10 had set fire to the research facility so it was decided to extend a small overspeed test cell which had been built in some secrecy on land off Barton Dock Road at Urmston, Manchester, with a view to relocate all gas turbine research and development. For a brief period the salt mines in Wincham had been used for engine testing, however pollution and fog from the nearby industrial town of Northwich caused contamination of the compressor blading which effected performance tests so all efforts were concentrated at "Barton Test’".

The first flight engine F2 ("Freda") ran in a test cell during December 1942, by June 1943 an F2 engine of 1800 lb static thrust was altitude tested in the tail of a Lancaster bomber. The Lancaster, which operated from the RAE Farnborough became the topic of much local discussion as it flew over the Manchester area. Interestingly, the aircraft allocated by the ministry was the Lancaster prototype which proved to be most unreliable, much to the frustration of Dr. Smith and the Metrovic team.

The first aircraft to be powered by and axial flow turbojet was a Gloster F/9 40 Meteor aircraft, the flight took place at the RAE on the 13th November 1943.

Metrovic continued turbojet development, the last flight engine being the F9 Sapphire, the design of which was handed to Armstong Siddley when Metropolitan Vickers decided to opt out of aircraft gas turbines and concentrate manufacturing and development on Industrial and Marine steam and gas turbines.

The test cells at Barton were turned over to steam turbine reseach and development in the early 1960’s. Dr. Smith returned to steam turbine design, although in great secrecy he was asked to assist Rolls-Royce’s Dr. Stanley Hooker when Rolls-Royce engineers ran into aerodynamic problems when developing the compressor for the famous Rolls-Royce Avon gas turbine engine.


It is worth noting that Whittle-type engines powered all the first generation of postwar jet aircraft…

Oh no, my dear Mr. Pdf 27. The MiG 9 “Fargo ” (first flight: April 24, 1946) was powered by two RD-20 jet engines (Soviet derivative of a BMW 003 A), and both Jak-15 and Jak 17 used a single RD 10 jet engine (Soviet version of a Jumo 004). You know… Just for the record.

RR Derwent instead is to me further evidence that your thesis that the Jumo-004 wasn't too bad really does not hold water. It wasn't until engines like the Armstrong-Siddely Sapphire and RR Avon became available in the 1950s that axial flow engines gained widespread acceptance.

Don’t be so sure, my dear Mr. Pdf 27. Those unknown masterpieces of engeneering produced back there in USSR are still widely unknown. Yes, you are right – they were not applied, more precisely not initially, but highly original constructive bureaus leaded by Stechkin and Mikulin actually have designed some very intriguing designs in early fifties. Yes, I know - this is not directly connected with WW2, but… Perhaps that will be a theme for another thread.:)


…and the only reason that they are nowadays limited to a few applications like helicopter engines is simply due to ducting problems when stacking compressors, rather than issues of frontal area.

Really, my dear Mr. Pdf27? Excellent. Allow me than a tiny proposal: let’s make a tiny mathematical exercise deeply connected with some standard engineering tasks in aeronautic industry. Would you be so kind to make for me the Constant outer engine intake diameter calculation [Dmax] (given as the equivalent flat-plate area), separately for an axial-compressor equipped, as well as for centrifugal compressor equipped engine, outfitted with the following common parameters:
• Inlet Mach number: 0.70
• stagnation pressure: 101.4 kPA
• Inlet stagnation temperature: 300 K
• Pressure ratio: 21
• Isentropic efficiency of the compressor: 0.85
• Isentropic efficiency of the turbine: 0.85
• Mechanical transmission efficiency between the turbine and compressor: 0.97
• Combustion chamber pressure loss factor: 0.06
• Static thrust of the engine: 72 kN
• Engine airflow: 65 kg/s.

After that, please recalculate the parasite drag value of different engines, and compare gained numerical results. I am pretty sure right now that an axial compressor engine would allow higher drag-efficiency at lower frontal areas, so vital for a modern aircraft, of course, with some sacrifice to weight and length.

And don’t worry – some personal friends of mine will land you a hand in this lastly mentioned task. We will do that in complete congruence with the prescription and methodology prescribed in a Educational Manual EM 910 – "Elements of Aeronautics", by Francis Pope and Arthur S. Otis, United States Armed Forces Institute, Washington.


I really can't see how the degree of reaction would substantially affect the reheat stage. All it does is change the design of the final stator.

Indeed wery good and truly matter oriented observation, my dear Mr. Pdf 27. Well, I have to admit that I was able to find no more than one possibility. Accordingly to Dr. Fritz Dietzel ("Gasturbinen", Vogel Verlag, 1974, p. 251), the degree of reaction, as the numerical ratio of the static pressure change in the rotor to the static pressure change through the whole stage, would substantially affect the turbine and compressor blades upstreaming and thus the flow simmetricity within the rotor and stator blades, and as a consequence the constructive possibility for the employment of the identical constructive parts for the rotor and stator blades network. For example, the compressor stage with a degree of reaction of 0.5 would share the pressure rise about equally between the rotor and stator, so the application of standardized components in that case will be possible.

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a137/Langnasen/Dietzel.jpg

"Degree of reaction", Dietzel, p.251

Accordingly to Dietzel, the degree of reaction amounts constructive complexity, possibility for constructive parts standardization, and therefore the employment of strategically critical materials.

However, knowing intrinsic and constant German engineering tendency toward thermodynamic conversion effectivity, my personal conviction is that the German constructors actually have contemplated about one specific, truly brilliant and even today sadly neglected technological solution. Namely this one:

Now, look carefully, my dear Mr. Pdf 27. Do you see that pretty peculiar component marked with No. 10, and located within the rear part of the engine?

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a137/Langnasen/Mistery.jpg

Mysterious Possibility

You do? Excellent. Can you guess the gadget? A little tip – in this case the degree of reaction is extremely important!

In the meantime, as always – all the best!

Panzerknacker
04-17-2007, 07:04 PM
Well, in that case, my dear Mr. Pdf27 I think that we can pronounce the whole genuine early American jet-engine design activity as a completely erroneous waste of time and money, and also to enunciate that aforesaid crime was committed by a group of staggering engineering idiots misfortunately positioned in the high places.


He,he , that was a good one :D

Digger
04-18-2007, 05:04 AM
Goering under the instructions of the Fuhrer asked Messerschmitt on the 3rd November 1943 if the Me 262 could carry bombs.

Messerschmitt replied that the original plans envisaged the Me 262 could carry two 551lb or 1,102lb bombs. When questioned further by Goering about this Messerschmitt was forced to admit the design work for the bomb release mechanism and the bomb pylons had not even been started.

Under further pressure from Goering, M esserschmitt claimed the necessary work could be completed within two weeks, of course not mentioning to the Reichsmarschall there had never been any intention to build the Me 262 as a fighter bomber.

Another problem facing the entire programme at this time, was only one prototype(V4) was available for test flying.

On November 12 1943 Erhard Milch expressed his concerns. "The one thing that we are not yet entirely sure of the problem of whether the Me 262, with it's jet engines, is so foolproof that we can go ahead with production next year. Are we ready-not only from the viewpoint of development, but also from the viewpoint of actual production?"

Major Knemeyer pointed out to Milch the Messerschmitt facilities engaged in work on the new fighter were in chaos and had run into a bottleneck. At this stage development work on two very critical items for the Me 262 had not been completed-the ejector seat and pressurized cockpit.

All this is a clear indication the Me 262 programme was encountering major difficulties outside of the continuing problems with the Jumo engines and at this stage the aircraft was not ready for production priority.

As can be seen all development work on the Me 262 had been with the view of producing it as a fighter, not a fighter bomber or a pure bomber. There was never any intention of Messerschmitt or his designers to produce the Me 262 as a fighter bomber or bomber and the first time this concept interrupted their thinking was during the conversation with Goering and then it was immediately forgotten. Equally at this stage even Erhard Milch operated under the belief the Me 262 was purely intended for fighter production and for good reason. The Arado Ar 234 light reconnaissance bomber was under development and as this aircraft was intended for purely this role any thought of the Me 262 filling the very same role had never been an option and was actually seen as a waste of resources.

This was the state of play in November 1943.

In the next post I will talk about the 'Blitz Bomber.'

Regards digger.

Digger
04-18-2007, 06:23 AM
Two Me 262 prototypes, the V4 and the V6 were presented to Hitler for demonstration at Insterburg on November 26 1943.

An engine of the V4 suffered a flame out and with test pilot Gerd Lindner at the controls the V6 was demonstrated to the Fuhrer. And it was a suitably impressive performance. It was at this demonstration it has been repeatedly claimed if the Me 262 could carry bombs and when informed it could Hitler decreed from this point the Me 262 would be produced as a Blitzbomber.

This version of the Me 262 development is an absolute fabrication. Firstly based on the erroneous information supplied to Goering by Messerschmitt himself, the Fuhrer already knew the Me 262 could carry bombs.

A telegram dictated by Hitler to a Luftwaffe aide was delivered to Goering 5th December 1943. It read: The Fuhrer has called our attention once more to the tremendous importance of the production of jet propelled aircraft for employment as fighter bombers It is imperative that the Luftwaffe has a number of jet fighter bombers[/COLOR] ready for front commitment by the Spring of 1944. Any difficulties occasioned by labour and raw material shortages will be resolved by the exploitation of Luftwaffe resources until auch time as existing shortages can be made up. The Fuhrer feels that a delay of our jet fighter programme would be tantamount to irresponsible negligence. the Fuhrer has directed that bimonthly written reports be made to him concerning the programme of the Me 262 and the Ar 234."

From this telegram it can be seen Hitler envisaged the Me 262 as a fighter bomber.

Although Speer shortly thereafter awarded the Me 262 top production priority, development problems still plagued the aircraft and the main production plant for the Me 262 at Kottern was not even complete and in fact it would never produce a single jet fighter.

Critically 23 Me 262A-0 airframes were available in February 1944, but there were no complete engines! It was to be April 1944 before 16 of these airframes received engines and were delivered to the Luftwaffe for evaluation. So we can see up to April 1944 no fighter bombers had been produced and all deliveries were in fact fighters. The major bottleneck in the programme to this point were the jumo engines.

It was at the notorious April 1944 conference with Milch, Goering and Saur that Hitler exploded and said,"Not a single one of my orders has been obeyed."
Milch attempted to explain the Me 262 had been designed purely as a fighter. This was the beginning of the end for Milch.

The V10 prototype had been used in testing programmes to this stage, hardly an interference to the Me 262 fighter programme.

Into May and the Fuhrer was insistent the fighter bomber Me 262 take priority, but it was to be the June 7 conference between Hitler and Saur which would be claimed Hitler's demands interfered with the introduction of the Me 262 as a fighter. This was the notorious 'Fuhrer-Befhel' which demanded intial production of the Me 262 be limited to bombers. Fighter development would be allowed to continue and not until these tests were concluded would production of the fighter version be permitted and once this point had been reached there would be no reason why production would not be shared between the bomber and fighter versions.

So did the Fuhrer-Befhel delay the inroduction of the Me 262 as a fighter? The answer is no as the detail modifications to adapt the Me 262 as a fighter bomber(bomb fusing equipment, design and testing of pylon designs, etc) had been completed before the announcement of the Fuhrer-Befhel and these modifications were relatively simple and could be carried out on the production line without any delay to deliveries. With these modifications the Me262 began to be delivered for service evaluation.

The problem of deliveries of the Me 262 still lay in engine problems and as we have seen with the freezing of engine development in early June 1944 led to the first deliveries, a mere 28 aircraft in June and 59 in July. the highest monthly production was 117 in October and as there were a surplus of airframes it can be seen delivery of the Me 262 was governed by the availability of the still less than satisfactory Jumo engines.

When the Fuhrer-Befhel was cancelled in early November 1944 a total of 315 Me 262's had been delivered to the Luftwaffe, by December deliveries had reached 513 aircraft out of a planned total of 1,360 aircraft, a shortfall of 847 aircraft due to non delivery of Jumo 004 engines.

Regards digger.

QX AMT
04-19-2007, 12:01 AM
I havent read any of the prior posts yet here on this thread but I found that the Messerschmitt 262 is being copied and replicas are built. Here is the web site if you are interested http://www.stormbirds.com/project/index.html
The Messerschmitt 262 jet fighter plane built late in World War II in Germany is back in production - at Seattle's Paine Field. They use a modern jet engine instead of the flaky original and they've strengthened a few weak points, but other than that it's a copy of the original. Price tag: $2 million a copy.

Cojimar 1945
04-19-2007, 03:31 AM
The Gloster Meteor evidently entered service at around the same time as the Me 262. Regardless, by 1944 the allies had jet fighters themselves.

If the British were so brilliant why didn't they defeat Germany themselves? Doubtless, they had some advanced technology but as far as I can tell the UK did not win the war by itself. Why is this?

The German designs may have been flawed but the Germans had the satisfaction of knowing they were stronger than Britain and that surely counts for something.

Raven
04-19-2007, 06:35 AM
Umm... What's with the 3 posts?... Pointless posts at that.

Panzerknacker
04-19-2007, 09:24 AM
Post merged, Cojimar try to do not repeat that consecutive posting.


Into May and the Fuhrer was insistent the fighter bomber Me 262 take priority, but it was to be the June 7 conference between Hitler and Saur which would be claimed Hitler's demands interfered with the introduction of the Me 262 as a fighter. This was the notorious 'Fuhrer-Befhel' which demanded intial production of the Me 262 be limited to bombers. Fighter development would be allowed to continue and not until these tests were concluded would production of the fighter version be permitted and once this point had been reached there would be no reason why production would not be shared between the bomber and fighter versions.

So did the Fuhrer-Befhel delay the inroduction of the Me 262 as a fighter? The answer is no as the detail modifications to adapt the Me 262 as a fighter bomber(bomb fusing equipment, design and testing of pylon designs, etc) had been completed before the announcement of the Fuhrer-Befhel and these modifications were relatively simple and could be carried out on the production line without any delay to deliveries. With these modifications the Me262 began to be delivered for service evaluation.



The 25th of May Hitler gave the more damaging ( in my opinion) order, this dviated resources for the develpment of variant like the Me 262A-2/U2 , is true that it was not the only cause some delay was caused also by allied bombing in the BMW motorplants.



I havent read any of the prior posts yet here on this thread


Well, you should ¡¡

Digger
04-19-2007, 10:05 AM
As only one airframe, Werk number 110 484 was modified to serve as the prototype Me 262A-2a/U2, it could hardly be called a major diversion of resources.

The source of production problems suffered by the Me 262 through it's entire service life was the slow delivery of engines. The fact the engines were still imperfect when all development was frozen did not help matters, nor did Allied bombing.

Considering the difficulties faced by the Germans, it is remarkable the manufacturers were able to deliver any completed aircraft. In retrospect the Fuhrer Befhel is used as a convenient way of explaining away the more complex issues which clouded the career of the Me 262.

Hitler's demand for the Me 262 to be used as a fighter bomber was not as crazy as people believe. Quite simply existing Luftwaffe types were incapable of penetrating Allied defences and his belief a superfast bomber type was needed to reverse the situation was not wide of the mark. In the end the German aero industry for a variety of reasons was not able to comply with his demands.

Regards digger.

pdf27
04-19-2007, 12:47 PM
Oh, please my dear Mr. Pdf27: this idiom is absolutely inappropriate for an Officer and a Gentlemen.
I make no claim to being either at this point in time.


Would you be so kind to present the resources, my dear Mr. Pdf27? You see, I was able to find the officially distributed information that J33 jet-engine, for example, demonstrated a median life of only 151 hours before general overhaul due to poor stress-rupture properties.
The RR Welland was rated at 180 hours between overhauls in 1943. That's a RATED value, i.e. one at which engine failure is highly unlikely before. See linky (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolls-Royce_Welland). I can't however find the original source I was basing the 1,000 hours comment on.


Well, in that case, my dear Mr. Pdf27 I think that we can pronounce the whole genuine early American jet-engine design activity as a completely erroneous waste of time and money, and also to enunciate that aforesaid crime was committed by a group of staggering engineering idiots misfortunately positioned in the high places.
Pretty much, and that's what is so odd about it - the US organisation of industry in WW2 was nothing short of brilliant. However, when it came to jets they did very badly indeed. The US jet programme contributed precisely nothing to the allied war effort.



Personally, I think that part of the answer was already elucidated by a renowned N.A. Cumpsty, Head of the Whittle Laboratory, who has pointed out that the centrifugal compressor was used by Mr. Whittle because of the known difficulty of making an axial compressor. With a centrifugal compressor the use of the knowledge connected with pumps was obtainable, and - unlike the axial compressor (deeply connected with steam turbines!) - substantial pressure rise was producible, no matter how badly the aerodynamic of a design actually was calculated.
Precisely. Whittle got his engine to work in time for useful war service. The US concentration on axial flow engines produced nothing of value.
AA Griffith at the RAE was also trying to get British research to concentrate on axial flow designs for the same reason. He was wrong too.
Incidentally, I've spent a great deal of time at the Whittle Lab, and while I was there my supervisor was Professor John Denton, then head of the Lab. Nick Cumpsty was a Fellow at my college, but left to work at Rolls and became an Emeritus Fellow shortly before I matriculated.


Flow exit's a centrifugal compressor radially (at 90° to the flight direction) and it must therefore be redirected back towards the combustion chamber, resulting in a additional drop in thermodynamic efficiency.
So what? They were trying to get a working engine in wartime service. Who gives a stuff about isentropic efficiency so long as it works reliably and performs better than anything else you have? A bad jet engine is light years better than none at all, which is what the US ended up with.


It seems also that Mr. Whittle’s choice of a centrifugal compressor for the WU (Whittle Unit) actually was influenced by his previous association with BTH (British Thompson Houston) of Rugby, who actually built WU, as BTH were in a position to assist with compressor design data.
Again, demonstration that he had something between his ears. There was a huge amount of radial compressor design detail available, from superchargers and the like. There was naff all about axial compressors in comparison. Remember, the overwhelming priority was to get an engine in service as fast as possible.


And so, in the same month when the US Special Committee on Jet Propulsion was formed, engineering representatives have arrived from three highly respected American firms and exclusively those with prior experience not with aircraft engines, but within industrial steam turbine design: Allis-Chalmers, Westinghouse, and the General Electric Steam Turbine Division at Schenectady. Intriguing fact, isn’t it?
If not terribly bright. If they understand steam turbines, that means all they understand are axial turbines. A very different beast from axial compressors. It also means they will not use radial compressors, as they simply don't understand them.


The rationale for excluding the engine-producing companies from membership on the committee was not that they were too over-burdened with war-related work, because the steam turbine manufacturers were in the same situation. The selection of steam turbine manufacturers actually confirmed the theoretical choice of the axial-flow compressor with multiple stages, a compressor used in industrial steam turbines, as an completely appropriative solution.
No, it didn't - you're making a massive logical error here. It confirmed that they were going to use an axial flow compressor, whether it was appropriate or not. An aero engine company would have compared the two - a steam turbine company would not.


If the engine companies had been included, they would have been more likely favor a design with a centrifugal compressor because of their previous experience with piston-engines superchargers.
Indeed. And as Whittle demonstrated, that would have been absolutely the right choice in wartime conditions.

pdf27
04-19-2007, 01:04 PM
Future engineering practice would vindicate this decision, since the axial compressor did eventually prevail over the centrifugal one.
Again, BS. Just because future engineering practice would be one thing, does not mean another was not the appropriate solution at the time. Centimetric wave radar is nowadays used for early warning, but during WW2 longwave radar was used instead despite the availability of centimetric radar. Not because the people during WW2 were stupid or made the wrong decision, but because they couldn't yet build suitable centimetric sets. It was around 1950 before suitable axial flow compressors could be built.


Could you believe this – that aforesaid contraption (BTW: outfitted with some pretty nice characteristics!) was equipped with an axial compressor! Sweet Jesus, Joseph and Mary! :shock:
Yeah, what were they playing at. So, given just how "pretty nice" these characteristics were, exactly how many US combat aircraft flew in WW2 service powered by this miraculous engine?


This early design lead to the more powerful J30 – series turbojet with 11-stage axial flow compressor and two-stage axial flow turbine. By 1944, Westinghouse was working on three derivatives of its first axial engine, the 19A (19 inch diameter). The 19A's direct descendant, the 19XB, became the J30, and powered the McDonnell FH-1 Phantom. Another variant, Westinghouse J34-WE-34 powered the famous McDonnell F2H Banshee, while Westinghouse J34-WE-36/36 A was used by Douglas for their F3D Skynight. Finally it has to be mentioned that Westinghouse J34-WE-30 was used by Vought company to, this time for their model F6 Pirate.
Again, how many aircraft powered by this engine served in combat in WW2? That is the only yardstick that matters here. We were fighting a total war, from which only one side would survive. Any industrial effort diverted from winning that war (before the very end when it was plain we couldn't lose) was industrial effort working for the Axis.


The I-A produced so low thrust, however, that performance was almost disappointing. Despite later installation of a more powerful engine, the P-59A did not reach the production stage. The British successfully developed the Meteor, powered by a Rolls Royce W-2B gas turbine engine and used it in World War2, although its performance was modestly better than that of the P-59A.
Again, BS.

P-59:
Maximum speed: 413 mph (664 km/h)
Range: 240 mi (386 km)
Service ceiling: 46,200 ft (14,080 m)
Rate of climb: 3,200 ft/min (16,26 m/s)

Gloster Meteor F.8
Maximum speed: Mach 0.82, 600 mph at 10,000 ft (965 km/h at 3,050 m)
Range: 600 mi (965 km)
Service ceiling: 43,000 ft (13,100 m)
Rate of climb: 7,000 ft/min (35.6 m/s)

The F.8 is a postwar, cleaned-up version of the wartime Mark III, but finding plausible performance data for the Mark III is proving rather hard. The only valid data I can dig up and be confident in is the comparative evaluation that it was superior to the Tempest V in all departments except the heavy ailerons.

pdf27
04-19-2007, 01:29 PM
Really, my dear Mr. Pdf27? Excellent. Allow me than a tiny proposal: let’s make a tiny mathematical exercise deeply connected with some standard engineering tasks in aeronautic industry. Would you be so kind to make for me the Constant outer engine intake diameter calculation [Dmax] (given as the equivalent flat-plate area), separately for an axial-compressor equipped, as well as for centrifugal compressor equipped engine, outfitted with the following common parameters:
• Inlet Mach number: 0.70
• stagnation pressure: 101.4 kPA
• Inlet stagnation temperature: 300 K
• Pressure ratio: 21
• Isentropic efficiency of the compressor: 0.85
• Isentropic efficiency of the turbine: 0.85
• Mechanical transmission efficiency between the turbine and compressor: 0.97
• Combustion chamber pressure loss factor: 0.06
• Static thrust of the engine: 72 kN
• Engine airflow: 65 kg/s.
Trivially easy, and the two will be the same in any case. Incidentally, the only values you need in there are the inlet Mach number, inlet stagnation pressure & temperature and engine air flow. The rest is irrelevant, and looks suspiciously like you cut and pasted it out of a random textbook - it is not at all relevant to any part of your question, so it makes no sense to include it if you actually understood what you were talking about.
Neglecting edge effects, a diameter of 53.8cm should give you the required mass flux.



After that, please recalculate the parasite drag value of different engines, and compare gained numerical results. I am pretty sure right now that an axial compressor engine would allow higher drag-efficiency at lower frontal areas, so vital for a modern aircraft, of course, with some sacrifice to weight and length.
Can't be done - you need detailed compressor design details to get the frontal area of a centrifugal compressor from that data. With the data there, you don't have a chance. Parasitic drag will in any case be pretty low in either case - in a reasonably well streamlined nacelle, the only difference will be in the slightly increased wetted area. Wave drag is another matter however, and M=0.7 is fast enough you may have to worry about that. It is far more relevant to other parts of aerodynamics, however.


And don’t worry – some personal friends of mine will land you a hand in this lastly mentioned task. We will do that in complete congruence with the prescription and methodology prescribed in a Educational Manual EM 910 – "Elements of Aeronautics", by Francis Pope and Arthur S. Otis, United States Armed Forces Institute, Washington.
Which I suspect you are probably quoting here. Me, I personally prefer to go by what I was taught by lecturers like the aformentioned Prof. Cumpsty rather than the books they wrote. You tend to actually learn something that way.
Besides, why would I need help working out the air inlet area for something that simple? That's a back of a *** packet calculation at worst.


Indeed wery good and truly matter oriented observation, my dear Mr. Pdf 27. Well, I have to admit that I was able to find no more than one possibility. Accordingly to Dr. Fritz Dietzel ("Gasturbinen", Vogel Verlag, 1974, p. 251), the degree of reaction, as the numerical ratio of the static pressure change in the rotor to the static pressure change through the whole stage, would substantially affect the turbine and compressor blades upstreaming and thus the flow simmetricity within the rotor and stator blades, and as a consequence the constructive possibility for the employment of the identical constructive parts for the rotor and stator blades network. For example, the compressor stage with a degree of reaction of 0.5 would share the pressure rise about equally between the rotor and stator, so the application of standardized components in that case will be possible.
All well and good (well, sort of - the fact that you can't use common components anyway because the rotor and stator blades have to face in different directions seems to have passed you by!) but what's that got to do with afterburner/reheat?


Accordingly to Dietzel, the degree of reaction amounts constructive complexity, possibility for constructive parts standardization, and therefore the employment of strategically critical materials.
Last bit doesn't follow - it will use less material if they aren't standardised, as the stator blades can be made weaker and thus lighter, not having to withstand the rotational stresses imposed.


You do? Excellent. Can you guess the gadget? A little tip – in this case the degree of reaction is extremely important!
So far as I can tell from rather a bad drawing without accompanying text, that's a reverse flow heat exchanger such as fitted to the WR-21 marine gas turbine. Certainly you have the gas prior to the combustion chamber going one way through it, and that after the final turbine stage going the other way through it. I will admit however to being stunned if that is what it is, as nobody in their right mind would think to put one on an aero engine - it will be massively too complex, heavy and expensive for any fuel savings you make.

Panzerknacker
04-19-2007, 07:02 PM
As only one airframe, Werk number 110 484 was modified to serve as the prototype Me 262A-2a/U2, it could hardly be called a major diversion of resources.

The source of production problems suffered by the Me 262 through it's entire service life was the slow delivery of engines. The fact the engines were still imperfect when all development was frozen did not help matters, nor did Allied bombing


I did not object that the engines had its troubles but the bombings on Regensburg did not help either.

More on the Hitler s order on May.

http://img118.imageshack.us/img118/7569/dibujook2.jpg

The bomber mania was so much that actually the first operative Me-262 were bombers ¡¡¡ and were used over France in July 1944 by the Kommando Schenk.

http://img246.imageshack.us/img246/9259/schenkaz8.jpg


And yet another crazy experiment, towed glide bomb attached to a Me-262A-2 (v10)

http://img118.imageshack.us/img118/7480/v10ys2.jpg

Cojimar 1945
04-20-2007, 10:38 PM
The British flew some jets during the war but it appears they did little. Some V1's were shot down by Meteors but I have never heard of any instances of them shooting down axis aircraft.

Cojimar 1945
04-20-2007, 10:47 PM
The axis were losing badly from late 1942 onwards. An allied victory would seem likely even earlier but certainly from late 1942 onwards the axis were losing badly. Why should Americans be so concerned about the war with their enemies in retreat by such an early date?

pdf27
04-21-2007, 04:13 AM
The British flew some jets during the war but it appears they did little. Some V1's were shot down by Meteors but I have never heard of any instances of them shooting down axis aircraft.
14 V-1s to be exact. After that they were mainly used to train USAAF crews in combating jet aircraft, since until spring 1945 they were absolutely forbidden from flying over German-held territory. By the time this restriction was relaxed and they went hunting for German jets, it was too late and the Luftwaffe had been pretty much totally destroyed.

Edit: They did destroy of the order of 40 German aircraft on the ground after this point however.

Firefly
04-26-2007, 08:34 PM
The German designs may have been flawed but the Germans had the satisfaction of knowing they were stronger than Britain and that surely counts for something.

Can you tell me in what way Germany was stronger than the UK? And before you answer, consider than Panzer Divisions are not a sole indicator of power.

Cojimar 1945
04-29-2007, 03:07 AM
More powerful in terms of population and industrial capacity. The strange thing is that Germany did not utilize its massive production capacity for the war until late in the conflict.

windrider
05-01-2007, 12:29 PM
REIMAHG Me 262 Production Site near Kahla (Codename "Lachs" - "Salmon")

One of the most remarkable advancements made by the German military in World War II was the production of turbine-jet aircraft. The most famous of these was the Messerschmitt Me 262, developed beginning in 1938 and fielded in 1944. A special production facility was started in 1944, for quicker assembly line manufacture. Due to the setup at the main Messerschmitt factories, fast assembly line production was not possible, and these sites were vulnerable to Allied bombing. Accordingly, a company called Flugzeugwerke Reichsmarschall Hermann Göring (REIMAHG for short) was formed as a subsidiary of the Gustloff Nazi industrial complex. REIMAHG eventually became concerned only with the Me 262, and its main production facility was located in an old porcelain sand mine in the Walpersberg Hill near Kahla (south of Jena) -- Codename "Lachs" ("Salmon").

The existing tunnels in the Walpersberg were enlarged and others were dug, and massive concrete bunkers were built outside these tunnels. Subparts were made and partially assembled in the tunnels, then moved outside to the concrete bunkers, where final assembly took place. The assembled jets were then moved to the top of the hill via a platform that moved along a railed ramp by a power winch. The top of the Walpersberg had been leveled off and concreted in a massive construction effort, to form a runway some 3300 feet long. This was not sufficient for an Me 262 to take off (even with the jet engines, take-off was actually fairly slow), so small rockets assisted take-off. The runway was also too short for the jets to land, so leaving the Walpersberg was an all-or-nothing proposition: there could be no emergency landings. The jets were flown from Kahla to a site some 130 kilometers away to be fitted with weapons and radios, and to undergo final testing.

REIMAHG only managed to produce some twenty-seven Me 262 jet fighters by the end of the war. The work was done mostly by foreign forced laborers, some 991 of whom died during their nine months at "Lachs." The U.S. Army took the site on 12 April 1945, and before turning Thüringen over to the Soviets in July, they removed enough parts to finish five Me 262s that were found on the production line. Surprisingly, the Kahla area had not been bombed. British Intelligence had photographed Me 262s at the site in March 1945, so the Allies were well aware of "Lachs." But Kahla was spared the fate of the V-2 works at Nordhausen, which suffered a devastating bombing attack only eight days before the American Army arrived. (In spite of this historical report, the REIMAHG-Kahla site today shows many depressions that look very much like bomb craters that can be seen at such sites as Normandy and the Obersalzberg, and many areas that appear to have undergone explosive upheaval, all in areas that were flat during the war. This situation is apparently the result of Soviet activity after the war.)

Beginning in 1947, the Soviets blew up the concrete bunkers and assembly buildings, and also the entrances to most of the tunnels, including destruction of the concrete runway on the hilltop. However, the concrete buildings had reinforced walls some 10 feet thick, so in many cases, the explosions only collapsed the roofs. REIMAHG-Kahla remains today one of the most extensive Third Reich ruins sites, with the walls and foundations of most of the concrete assembly and workshop buildings, some still supporting parts of their roofs. The site is not generallyopen to the public.

Picture caption:
Part of an aerial view of the site, taken by British photo-reconnaissance on 19 March 1945. The Walpersberg with its hilltop runway is at the top. A tiny Me 262 can be seen just at the top of the ramp, beside the runway. Various bunkers and assembly buildings can be seen along the cleared area at the bottom of the slope, to the right of the ramp bottom. The dark blotches on the runway, to the right of the ramp, were apparently an attempt at painted camouflage. (Combined Intelligence Objectives Sub-committee (CIOS) - Underground Factories in Central Germany, London, 1945)

Source: http://www.thirdreichruins.com/thuringen.htm

Panzerknacker
05-01-2007, 08:34 PM
Very nice info.

Firefly
05-02-2007, 06:20 PM
More powerful in terms of population and industrial capacity. The strange thing is that Germany did not utilize its massive production capacity for the war until late in the conflict.

Strange then that the UK produced more Tanks, ships and aircraft than germany isnt it.

shoogs
05-03-2007, 08:33 AM
hi there,
dont quote me on this but the engins that the me262 used were made by Heinkel, they both tryed to win the contract Messerschmitt won but usd the others engins, hitler wanted thei to be a bomber not a fighter so he too slowed down the making of this plane, and yes they did have trouble with the metals for the engins.

Librarian
05-03-2007, 10:48 AM
Please forgive me my unaccountably extended absence, honorable ladies and gentlemen, but due to my completely unforeseen professional obligations I was completely unable to participate in this more than inspiring conversation. However - better late then never.


The US jet programme contributed precisely nothing to the allied war effort.

Very intriguing and truly brave observation, my dear Mr. Pdf 27. However, allow me please just one additional question: What is your personal opinion about the significance of the US exploratory contribution to the development of the jet-engine - potentially very usable in a prolonged war effort? For example, a discovery of the problem at high altitudes, generally known as engine surging, that was revealed due to intensive testing activity associated with that ill-fated Bell XP-59-A program. American engineers actually were able to analyze and correct this specific behavior before the British encountered it and before committing to larger, more powerful engines.



The US concentration on axial flow engines produced nothing of value.

Well, I think that the former engineers of the "Westinghouse" company will be delighted with this proclamation.



Who gives a stuff about isentropic efficiency so long as it works reliably and performs better than anything else you have?

A nation-state with scarce oil resources, my dear Mr. Pdf 27, state like Germany.


An aero engine company would have compared the two - a steam turbine company would not.

Excuse me, my dear Mr. Pdf 27 but this allegation cannot be verified.


Centimetric wave radar is nowadays used for early warning, but during WW2 longwave radar was used instead despite the availability of centimetric radar.

Believe it or not, the metric-wave perimeter acquisition radar (actually an early Soviet derivative of the old German "Freya") was used for sky-survey purposes in some European regions even in 1999. And that was the secret of its success.


And as Whittle demonstrated, that would have been absolutely the right choice in wartime conditions.

And as Anselm Franz has demonstrated, without available nickel alloys axial compressor solution was absolutely correct choice as well.


but finding plausible performance data for the Mark III is proving rather hard.

Yes, you are absolutely right about that, my dear Mr. Pdf 27. I have to admit that there is a curious fissure regarding on-line availability of technical characteristics of the early F. Mk I and F. Mk III models. However, I was lucky to find the following data in a book "WW2 - Aircraft", by Christopher Chant, (Orbis Publishing Limited, London, 1975). So here is the comparison of our machines:

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a137/Langnasen/GlosterMeteorFMK4.jpg
Gloster Meteor F. Mk III

Powerplant: 2X Rolls Royce Derwent I, 907 kp of static thrust at sea level
Maximum speed: 793 km/h at 9150 m; 737 km/h at sea level)
Armament: 4X20 mm Hispano Mod. III, 195 shells per cannon
Range: 2157 km, with 563 km/h cruising speed at 9.150 m
Service ceiling: 13,100 m
Velocity of climb: 1213 m/min.

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a137/Langnasen/Me262A1a.jpg
Messerschmitt Me 262 A-1a Schwalbe

Powerplant: 2X Junkers Jumo 004 B1/2/3, 898 kp of static thrust at sea level
Maximum speed: 870 km/h at 6000 m; 827 km/h at sea level)
Armament: 4X30 mm Mauser MK 108, with 100 shells per upper cannon, and 80 shells per lower one
Range: 1050 km at 9.000 m
Service ceiling: 11000 m
Velocity of climb: 1200 m/min.


So far as I can tell from rather a bad drawing...

So sorry for that, my dear Mr. Pdf27. Those are original materials, and they were printed more than sixty years ago, more precisely back there in 1946. I am using those materials only, mostly due to the potential legal complications connected with different copyright issues. In this, as well as in all previous cases, I am completely able to prove that those materials have been borrowed directly from previously publicly presented and unprotected resources.


…that's a reverse flow heat exchanger such as fitted to the WR-21 marine gas turbine…

Touché, my dear Mr. Pdf 27! Yes, you are right - that really is a counter – flow gas- turbine recuperator. My congratulations.

I will admit however to being stunned if that is what it is, as nobody in their right mind would think to put one on an aero engine - it will be massively too complex, heavy and expensive for any fuel savings you make.

Well… in that case I think that you will be sincerely disappointed, my dear Mr. Pdf 27. You see, I really don’t know what the mental state of the British engineers within Bristol Aero Engines and Armstrong Siddeley Motors Co. really was back there in 1946, but the aforementioned contraption actually was constructed, manufactured, tested and applied in Britain – true, in limited quantity only. They were used only on a Handley Page built two H.P.82 Hermes V passenger aircraft, each having four 2,240 hp turboprops of this type.

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a137/Langnasen/BristolTheseus1.jpg

Bristol Theseus I - recuperator-equipped turboprop engine

These engines were previously tested upon an Avro Lincoln testbed and declared as completely suitable for use. Their main mortal sin, however, was their excruciatingly high price.

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a137/Langnasen/AVROLincoln-BristolTheseusTestbed.jpg

Avro Lincoln Testbed equipped with two Bristol Theseus I

Furthermore, the whole concept has been recently rediscovered. Please, just follow these links:

http://www.mtu.de/en/technologies/engineering_news/intercooled_recuperated.pdf

http://www.asme.org/NewsPublicPolicy/PressReleases/Top_Industry_Executives_Speak.cfm


http://www.aiaa.org/content.cfm?pageid=406&gTable=mtgpaper&gID=62958


Well… It seems to me that the engineering insanity was and still is equally distributed on this planet Earth.


Finally, allow me to take advantage of this occasion once more to express my personal gratitude for your indeed well-expressed and truly matter-oriented posts, my dear Mr. Pdf 27. May the future grant you opportunity and the fulfillment of all your hopes.


And please, don’t worry – I shall answer all those problematic questions, but in this very moment I am waiting for certain factographic materials that –alas! - are still undigitalized and contained in some quite specific, pretty restricted American libraries. In this moment I have to wait for someone who owes me something… but I am sure that soon we will have a very interesting further discussion about this issues.


In the meantime, as always – all the best.

Panzerknacker
05-03-2007, 12:02 PM
Is nice to see that you are back Librarian. :)



Armament:4X30 mm Mauser MK 108, with 100 shells per upper cannon, and 80 shells per lower one


The guns were actually made by Reinhmetall Borsig

http://www.stormbirds.net/images_technical/mk108_4.jpg

http://www.stormbirds.net/images_technical/mk108_5.jpg

pdf27
05-03-2007, 12:59 PM
What is your personal opinion about the significance of the US exploratory contribution to the development of the jet-engine - potentially very usable in a prolonged war effort?
Yes, but given the routes they chose not before about 1950!


For example, a discovery of the problem at high altitudes, generally known as engine surging, that was revealed due to intensive testing activity associated with that ill-fated Bell XP-59-A program. American engineers actually were able to analyze and correct this specific behavior before the British encountered it and before committing to larger, more powerful engines.
I'm well aware of the stall/surge problem. What I wasn't aware of until you mentioned it was that there was any problem with stall/surge (closely related) with centrifugal compressors at all. My notes certainly make no mention of it, while devoting several lectures to stall/surge in axial compressors. This probably indicates the difference in severity of the two.


A nation-state with scarce oil resources, my dear Mr. Pdf 27, state like Germany.
Hardly - the difference is a few percentage points. The German engines were chronically inefficient anyway due to a lack of Nickel alloys.


And as Anselm Franz has demonstrated, without available nickel alloys axial compressor solution was absolutely correct choice as well.
How did you work that one out? Alloy availability has everything to do with turbine design and virtually nothing to do with compressor design. The compressors operate cold - a few hundred degrees at most. Standard aerospace aluminium alloys are happy at those temperatures for a few hours, more than long enough given their engine life expectancies.


Touché, my dear Mr. Pdf 27! Yes, you are right - that really is a counter – flow gas- turbine recuperator. My congratulations.

Well… in that case I think that you will be sincerely disappointed, my dear Mr. Pdf 27. You see, I really don’t know what the mental state of the British engineers within Bristol Aero Engines and Armstrong Siddeley Motors Co. really was back there in 1946, but the aforementioned contraption actually was constructed, manufactured, tested and applied in Britain – true, in limited quantity only. They were used only on a Handley Page built two H.P.82 Hermes V passenger aircraft, each having four 2,240 hp turboprops of this type.
Loonies. I can see their motivation in trying it (early GTs were horrendous fuel hogs), but recuperators simply don't gain you very much on an aircraft. The major benefits come at part load, which is why the WR-21 uses it - naval engines spend very little time at full load. Still, you've got to remember that all sorts of crazy ideas were tried at the time - take a look at the RR Crecy and Napier Nomad when you get the time.


http://www.mtu.de/en/technologies/engineering_news/intercooled_recuperated.pdf
That's got both an intercooler and a recuperator on it. Rather a lot of the benefit actually comes from the intercooler.


Well… It seems to me that the engineering insanity was and still is equally distributed on this planet Earth.
Quite. I've had to deal with far more than my fair share of it at work today :(

shoogs
05-04-2007, 08:23 AM
thank you Librarian i stand corrected about thos power plants it was junkers jumo, just love this site i learn more every time i come on here, thank you

Cojimar 1945
05-05-2007, 01:41 AM
Germany produced more tanks. I'm not sure about ships but Japan appears to have produced far greater tonnage of merchant ships than Germany as well yet Japanese steel production was lower than that of Germany according to all the sources I have seen.

The US had great industrial capacity but it yearly output of weapons increased enormously during the war after starting out at modest levels.

Panzerknacker
05-09-2007, 07:54 PM
Germany produced more tanks.


That is correct, i dont know in aircraft but Firefley could be right.

http://img219.imageshack.us/img219/3875/dibujowd8.jpg


http://img216.imageshack.us/img216/4373/dibujo2fn0.jpg

Librarian
05-18-2007, 08:09 PM
I am sorry to have kept you waiting, honorable ladies and gentlemen. Hopefully at this point still is a piece of pie left for me...Thank you for your understanding.


The guns were actually made by Reinhmetall Borsig.

Yes, you are absolutely right, my dear Mr. Panzerknacker. I stand corrected upon that.


Yes, but given the routes they chose not before about 1950!

I am glad that finally we do have the same opinion about something, my dear Mr.Pdf 27. :) The only difference in this issue is my certainty that the demarcation line actually is the Year of Our Lord 1948. But that question surely represents a separate theme for another specialized thread…


Hardly - the difference is a few percentage points.

And if those percentage points are representing a total of circa 20000 tons of fuel savings per year I think that the whole thing has to be considered as a completely rational undertaking.


The German engines were chronically inefficient anyway due to a lack of Nickel alloys.

Excellent and utterly correct observation, my dear Mr. Pdf 27! The lack of nickel and chromium alloys really was the main reason for those German engine construction troubles in WW 2. Nevertheless, it has to be mentioned that the most fuel-efficient airplane engine in the WW2 was the German one: Junkers Jumo 205 D, a six cylinder, two-stroke, vertically opposed piston alignment Diesel-engine, that operated with longitudinal scavenging scheme (system Eckelheuser), and powered with fuel oil, represents the engine with the best overall fuel consumption amongst airplane engines in WW2 – remarkable 155 grams of Diesel-oil per produced HP/hour! Its previous variant, Jumo 4, actually was built under a license in Great Britain, and widely known as Napier Culverin.


I know that it sounds almost incredibly, but the second best result amongst airplane engines of the world in WW2 was achieved by a truly remarkable and yet completely forgotten Soviet construction – by a four-stroke, V 12 turbo-supercharged ACh-30 B airplane Diesel engine, that has been constructed by the prodigious engineering genius of Aleksei Dimitrievich Charomsky. Specific fuel consumption in this case was 173.3 g/HP/hour. However, maximal power of this engine was significantly higher: 1500 HP at take-off and with nominal power output of 1300 HP.

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a137/Langnasen/CharomskyACh-30B.jpg
Charomsky ACh-30B

In 1944. however, Charomsky has prepared another, improved variant - ACh-30 BF with the maximum power output of 1900 HP at take off, and 1600 HP nominal combat power.

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a137/Langnasen/CharomskyM30BF.jpg
Charomsky ACh-30BF


Loonies

Oh no, my dear Mr. Pdf 27 – they were engineering visionaries, whose pioneering work at the forefront of their fields helped establishment of Britain's reputation for scientific excellence and true innovation.


How did you work that one out? Alloy availability has everything to do with turbine design and virtually nothing to do with compressor design.

Oh no, my dear Mr. Pdf 27 – on the contrary: availability of one particular, truly unique class of so called Hiduminium alloys is deeply and essentially connected with the design of the British jet-engine compressors. Without those special compressor alloys produced mainly in United Kingdom and USA the whole concept of centrifugal compressor represented a totally unrealizable solution for German engineers. Yes, I know – I have to substantiate my claim. Therefore please permit me a brief evaluation of this highly intriguing question.

As you know, Rolls-Royce engineers have adopted single-stage dual-entry centrifugal compressor with two-sided, hot-forged aluminum alloy impeller, because of intended maximization of air in-soaking within limited air intake cross-section of the engine, as well as because of mutually assured dynamic balancing of axial trust load of the compressor (in this case the diameter of the impeller is reaching only 60 % of a single-sided impeller).

Having a pretty arduous task to hustle 18 kg (1,35 cubic meters) of air per second through the engine, compressor of the Derwent jet-engine was obliged to operate at 16.600 rotations per minute, thus exposing all 58 impeller winglets, (29 winglets on each side), to the rotary speed of 450 m/sec. (above the speed of sound!) and temperature of 227 degrees of Celsius that was encountered in compressor section, with considerable loads arising from centrifugal forces, pressure and winglet-airfoil vibrations excited by the airflow, as well as from erosion emanated due to high-temperature corrosion and thermal cycling fatigue. Rolls-Royce was therefore forced to develop a special stress-resistant aluminum alloy, known as RR 56, that was produced by Armstrong-Sidelley Co. subsidiary, High Duty Alloys Ltd.

This high-strength, precipitation-hardened martensitic aluminum alloy (Al 93.7 %; Cu 2 %; Ni 1.3 %; Mg 0.8 %; Fe 1.4 %; Ti 0.3; Si 0.7 %) actually possessed specific strength properties equal to or exceeding those of some high tensile steel, and as a result has been particularly favored by Rolls Royce engineers due to their constant preference of high strength-to-weight-ratio materials, permitting lightweight but strong mechanical structures.

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a137/Langnasen/RollsRoyceDerwent-cross-section-1.jpg

Rolls-Royce Derwent V

Perhaps the best example of those constructive problems and unusual importance of the highly-pressurized air temperature for the light-alloy compressor parts, as well as the role of those special aluminum alloys that actually have been used by Rolls-Royce engineers, is that not so well known fact that all members of the Rolls-Royce Derwent family actually have used specially designed air-cooling for the highly loaded central and rearward engine roller bearings (oh, yes – Derwent engines have used air-cooled constructive elements too!). Considering the fact that the centrifugal compressor actually produced 2 tons of pressurized air in every minute, introduction of separate fan (marked with No. 8 on this scheme), intended for separate low-temperature cooling air procurement, seems as a completely needless constructive exclusivity. But mathematical calculations have demonstrated that previously mentioned high temperature of the compressed air was totally unacceptable for the cooling purposes! Consequently, a separate cooling fan that borrowed 18 HP from the main shaft has been introduced, and the temperature of the pressurized air that has been created in this case was only 30 degrees of Celsius.

On the other hand situation with the axial compressor equipped Jumo 004 engine was totally different. Generating 19.4 kg of compressed air in every second at no more than 8.740 RPM, and with the rotary speed of the compressor blades reduced to sparing 216 m/sec., Jumo 004 elevated the temperature of the pressurized air only to 131 C, thus permitting utilization of more ordinary, different nickel-free aluminum alloys (Almasil, Peraluman and Duralumin), developed and produced by Demag A.G. Duisburg and Dürener Metallwerke A.G. Berlin-Borsigwalde.

As a matter of fact German engineers actually have abundantly applied the so called sequential utilization of different light alloys for various constructive parts of the axial compressor.

For example, stator casement was formed out of Almasil alloy (Al 89.43 %; Si 9.25 %; Cu 0.04%; Mg 0.18 %; Mn 0.36 %; Fe 0.66 %; Ti 0.08%).

Stator blades (first 3 rows only!) have been produced by exploitation of Peraluman alloy (Al 97.3 %; Si 0.94 %; Cu 0.09 %; Mg 0.78 %; Mn 0.68 %; Fe 0.39; Ti 0.08%).

Rotor disc has been manufactured out of Duralumin alloy (Al 93.89 %; Si 0.39 %; Cu 3.12 %; Mg 1.18 %; Mn 0.98 %; Fe 0.26 %; Ti 0.18 %).

Rotor blades, however, were produced by employment of a new member of Duralumin alloy family (Al 94.33 %; Si 0.45 %; Cu 3.04 %; Mg 1.29 %; Mn 0.56 %; Fe 0.29 %; Ti 0.04%).

You will notice that Nickel, that highly deficient metal, is completely absent in all previously mentioned German light alloys.


Sorry, honorable ladies and gentlemen - another forced brake of the post:


The text that you have entered is too long (10813 characters). Please shorten it to 10000 characters long.

Well, never mind...

Librarian
05-18-2007, 08:12 PM
recuperators simply don't gain you very much on an aircraft.

Strictly thermodynamically speaking, my dear Mr. Pdf 27, recuperators are always providing greater thermal efficiency and thus better fuel economy of the gas-turbine engine – the rest represents just the question of good or skimpy engineering.


Still, you've got to remember that all sorts of crazy ideas were tried at the time - take a look at the RR Crecy and Napier Nomad when you get the time.

Oh, I am assuring you that I do know those magnificent and even today highly intriguing ideas by hart, my dear Mr. Pdf 27. And please - don’t fail to remember those magnificent projects like Beardmore Tornado, Bristol Phoenix, Rolls-Royce Condor, Guiberson Radial Diesel, Packard Diesel, Daimler-Benz 607… my God, the whole generation of unexploited engineering possibilities! And, yes - I have to admit that I still look upon Sir Harry Ricardo as one of the greatest ever born engineering souls on this planet.

Oh yes, I think that this little piece of information deserves a special attention:

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a137/Langnasen/TeledyneContinental.jpg

And please – don’t worry: fortunately I was able to find some completely forgotten engineering miracles deeply connected with this specific thematic. ;)



Rather a lot of the benefit actually comes from the intercooler.

Yes, that is a completely logical concession that was completed to the benefit of the volumetric efficiency of the engine. Unfortunately, airplane engines are not using Bunker C oil, otherwise very suitable for utilizing that recovered heat for vaporization of otherwise greatest number of heat units per gallon containing heavy fuel. But undeniable fact is that recuperator actually is incorporated into the design.


thank you Librarian i stand corrected about thos power plants it was junkers jumo, just love this site i learn more every time i come on here, thank you

Oh, not at all, my dear Mr. Shoogs. Besides, Daimler Benz actually was involved in the German jet-engine program, but that 109-007 project was simply far and away complex for those times and therefore completely inapplicable in WW2.

In the meantime, as always - all the best.

Chevan
05-19-2007, 03:24 AM
Oh thanks for the excellent posts mst Librarian;)


Excellent and utterly correct observation, my dear Mr. Pdf 27! The lack of nickel and chromium alloys really was the main reason for those German engine construction troubles in WW 2. Nevertheless, it has to be mentioned that the most fuel-efficient airplane engine in the WW2 was the German one: Junkers Jumo 205 D, a six cylinder, two-stroke, vertically opposed piston alignment Diesel-engine, that operated with longitudinal scavenging scheme (system Eckelheuser), and powered with fuel oil, represents the engine with the best overall fuel consumption amongst airplane engines in WW2 – remarkable 155 grams of Diesel-oil per produced HP/hour! Its previous variant, Jumo 4, actually was built under a license in Great Britain, and widely known as Napier Culverin.


I know that it sounds almost incredibly, but the second best result amongst airplane engines of the world in WW2 was achieved by a truly remarkable and yet completely forgotten Soviet construction – by a four-stroke, V 12 turbo-supercharged ACh-30 B airplane Diesel engine, that has been constructed by the prodigious engineering genius of Aleksei Dimitrievich Charomsky. Specific fuel consumption in this case was 173.3 g/HP/hour. However, maximal power of this engine was significantly higher: 1500 HP at take-off and with nominal power output of 1300 HP.


In 1944. however, Charomsky has prepared another, improved variant - ACh-30 BF with the maximum power output of 1900 HP at take off, and 1600 HP nominal combat power.


What airplaine this engine was used for?
Was it for the Pe-8 soviet WW2 heavy bomber?
And do you heared about NK-12MPT the turbo-propeller engine for that was developed for the Ty-95 ( later it was established at the Ty-114 and other)
That amazing engine had a 161 g/HP/hour but the overal power was about 12 - 15 000 HP (!!!) at take of.
http://fly.hausnet.ru/spravochnik/4/tvd/nk-12/main.jpg
Due to its incredible power it was damn loud.

arhob1
05-19-2007, 05:35 AM
Librarian - thank you for your highly researched and informative posts.

Your intellect is at a different l;evel to mine altogether so I would be grateful if you would answer my three simple questions:

1 - Why was the speed of the Me262 so much higher than the Meteor? It appears from the comparison that you posted that the Meteor had much greater range which I presume means the Meteor had a greater fuel laod and weight etc. But is this the case and why did the British go for range and not all out top speed?

2 - In the jet engine cutaway diagram you posted why does the combustion products not blow back in to teh compressor? What is the pressure of the air coming from the compressor versus the pressure of the combustion?

3 - Did an Me262 ever take on a Meteor on a like for like basis and if so which came out on top?

TIA

pdf27
05-19-2007, 10:21 AM
Oh, I am assuring you that I do know those magnificent and even today highly intriguing ideas by hart, my dear Mr. Pdf 27. And please - don’t fail to remember those magnificent projects like Beardmore Tornado, Bristol Phoenix, Rolls-Royce Condor, Guiberson Radial Diesel, Packard Diesel, Daimler-Benz 607… my God, the whole generation of unexploited engineering possibilities! And, yes - I have to admit that I still look upon Sir Harry Ricardo as one of the greatest ever born engineering souls on this planet.
I'm rather a fan of the Napier Deltic myself. That's one of the few engines with a mad cylinder arrangement that actually made good sense (radical increase in power:weight, which is critical for things like minesweepers).

arhob1
05-23-2007, 12:49 PM
I'm rather a fan of the Napier Deltic myself. That's one of the few engines with a mad cylinder arrangement that actually made good sense (radical increase in power:weight, which is critical for things like minesweepers).

Hmm you learn something new every day. I never realised until this that those old deltic British Rail locomotives used such a strange cyllinder orientation. I always assumed they were just an in line design.

I remember once nearly getting splattered on the front of a Deltic loco as a boy. That gave me nightmares for weeks afterwards.

pdf27
05-23-2007, 01:12 PM
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/60/Napier_deltic_animation.gif

More data - Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napier_Deltic

Walther
05-23-2007, 03:11 PM
For example, a discovery of the problem at high altitudes, generally known as engine surging, that was revealed due to intensive testing activity associated with that ill-fated Bell XP-59-A program. American engineers actually were able to analyze and correct this specific behavior before the British encountered it and before committing to larger, more powerful engines.


Surges in gas turbine compressors are not just an altitude problem. I have fabricated a few myself at ground level, one that comes to my memory was one which announced itself with an earshattering and aircraft shaking bang during a confirmation run after an engine change (GE CF6-80) on a Boeing 767. the reson there was that for noise abatement regulations on insistence of the airport company, which had problems with the nimby's we had to carry out the test run inside an enclosed runup hangar, which was not designed for the intake airflow these massive engines require. As a result a partial vacuum developed in the intake when we pushed the throttles forward, which caused the compressor to surge and eventually stall. We were lucky that we didn't have to pick compressor blades from the floor behind the engine exhaust. Another one I have seen was a Prat and Whitney PW2040 on a Boeing 757, which surged when the pilot pulled the throttles back from take off power to climb power. At first the pilot thought he had a collision with some light aircraft. When we did a boroscope inspection of the high pressure compressor afterwards, it looked as if somebody had fired a shotgun inside it.

Since centrifugal compressors are normally less surge prone than axial ones, I think the Germans should have encountered this problem first.

Jan

Librarian
05-26-2007, 01:22 PM
Thank you for your patience, honorable ladies and gentlemen. I hope that I will be able to compensate your kind tolerance.


What airplaine this engine was used for? Was it for the Pe-8 soviet WW2 heavy bomber? And do you heared about NK-12MPT the turbo-propeller engine for that was developed for the Ty-95 (later it was established at the Ty-114 and other) That amazing engine had a 161 g/HP/hour but the overal power was about 12 - 15 000 HP (!!!) at take of.

Yes, my dear Mr. Chevan: Pe-8 (also equipped with another unduly forgotten Soviet Diesel-machine, Yakovlev M-40 F!), Yer-4, Il4, Tu-2 D, all these machines were equipped with those highly intriguing Diesel designs.

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a137/Langnasen/YakovlevM-40F.jpg

Yakovlev M-40 F

And yes, I am assuring you that I know by hart that superbly powerful, breathtaking Kuznyetsov NK-12, one of the best ever designed turboprop engines on this planet as well as all those undeniable qualities connected with this engine, but…

I think that I have another surprise for you. You see, Soviet engineers actually have developed something that was capable to beat that fabulous previously mentioned fuel economy characteristic of NK 12. And the name of that miracle is OM-127 RN – superb, 8 cylinder, two-stroke, duble-acting conrod-free, liquid cooled turbo-compound airplane Diesel engine, capable to produce 3200 HP of continuous power, with an outstanding power-to-weight (PTW) ratio of 0.635kg/HP, specific power of 145 HP/liter, with the specific fuel consumption of 165 g/HP/hour, and operational ceiling of 12000 meters!

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a137/Langnasen/BalandinOM127RNDiesel.jpg

S. S. Balandin – OM-127 RN two-stroke airplane Diesel engine

Perhaps the best illustration of unprecedented complexity of this magnificent engine designed by a team of Soviet engineers that has been led by S. S. Balandin is that previously mentioned double-acting diesel principle. The 2-stroke cycle double-acting engine has a distinct advantage in power output compared with the single-acting type. With twice as many power strokes as a comparable single acting two-stroke engine and, with other conditions being equal, it develops practically twice as much power per cylinder! In addition, the operation is smoother due to the fact that the expansion stroke in one combustion chamber of the cylinder is balanced or cushioned by the compression stroke in the opposite combustion chamber in which the piston is closed at both ends and has a rigid piston rod extending from the lower end. Both ends of the cylinder are closed to form a combustion chamber at each end of the piston! The piston rod extends through the cylinder head of the lower combustion chamber and passes through a stuffing box to prevent leakage of pressure.

In 1951 Balandin and Charomsky have constructed completely new, 24 cylinder X-scheme arranged, two-stroke double-acting, impulse-turbo-supercharger equipped airplane Diesel-engine M 227 that was capable to produce unparalleled 10000 HP at 15000 meters, with a specific fuel consumption of 148 g/HP/hour!

And if you are asking me for the airplane/airplanes that have been intended for utilization of these engines, luckily I was able to find that answer too. This one:

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a137/Langnasen/TupolevTU487.jpg

Tupolev Tu-487

Yes my dear Mr. Chevan – completely forgotten Soviet project from 1947. and no, that is not a mistake – it realy has 6 engines.



Librarian - thank you for your highly researched and informative posts.

Oh, not at all, my dear Mr. Arhob1. I am pleased if those informations were useful.


1 - Why was the speed of the Me262 so much higher than the Meteor?

Because of the considerably better aerodynamics, my dear Mr.Arhob1.
Although pretty contained, these informations are completely available for US military personnel, or officially registered and accredited researchers, because USAF actually had compared those airplanes in real tests. Alas, those results are still inaccessible for me, but fortunately I was able to find something in a book "Fluid – Dynamic Drag" by Dr. Ing. Sighard F. Hoerner, that was published back there in 1958. Of course, I have to find another, similar report about Gloster Meteor, but I think that these evaluations (undertaken by official US authorities) are the factual key for this conundrum we share here.

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a137/Langnasen/Me262-draginformation-Hoerner.jpg

Hoerner, Me 262 drag, op.cit.

Of course, I am shoveling hereinafter…


Another Forced Break of the post, honorable ladies and gentlemen. To be continued…

Librarian
05-26-2007, 01:30 PM
It appears from the comparison that you posted that the Meteor had much greater range which I presume means the Meteor had a greater fuel laod and weight etc.

No, my dear Mr. Arhob 1 - actually Me 262 was the heavier plane. Here you have the factual comparison (Cristopher Chant : "WW2 – aircraft", Orbis Publishing Limited London, 1975)

Me 262

Empty weight: 4.420 kg
Loaded weight: 6.400 kg
Max takeoff weight: 7.130

Gloster Meteor F Mk 3

Empty weight: 3.996 kg
Loaded weight: 6.033 kg
Max takeoff weight: unknown :confused:



why did the British go for range and not all out top speed?

Unfortunately, I don’t know, my dear Mr Arhob1. Perhaps they were overwhelmed with a British-made new generation escort-fighter inevitability, or perhaps multi-role airplane necessity. Of course, this is only my personal, completely extraneous speculation.



2 - In the jet engine cutaway diagram you posted why does the combustion products not blow back in to teh compressor?

Because of the of Graham's law, my Dear Mr. Arhob1 – hot gases are always moving from the area of high pressure toward low pressure areas.

The diffusion or spontaneous intermixture of two gases in contact is effected by an interchange in position of indefinitely minute volumes of the gases, which volumes are not necessarily of equal magnitude, being, in the case of each gas, inversely proportional to the square root of the density of that gas.

And this is the best graphical illustration of the problem that I was capable to find.

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a137/Langnasen/ComparativeTPVdiagram-M53-2.jpg

SNECMA - TPV diagram

Just follow that pressure-flow (MPa) curve - everything will be completely comprehensible.


What is the pressure of the air coming from the compressor versus the pressure of the combustion?

I think that this is the most complete answer:

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a137/Langnasen/Rolls-RoyceDerwent-pressuregradient.jpg

Rolls-Royce Derwent – Engine Pressure Gradient



3 - Did an Me262 ever take on a Meteor on a like for like basis and if so which came out on top?

Unfortunately, my dear Mr. Arhob1 I don’t have suitable materials with reference to this subject and consequently I am utterly incapable to present any relevant information to you.


That's one of the few engines with a mad cylinder arrangement that actually made good sense

Definitely, my dear Mr. Pdf 27. Although it has to be emphasized that even more sophisticated schema actually has been employed by German engeneers in their Jumo 223 scheme.

And if truth is to be said, another highly intriguing British engine that deserves mentioning is almost completely forgotten Opposed Piston Barrel Engine, based on the so called "Barrel Engine" concept. Such designs date from the 1910's and consist of a series of parallel cylinders wrapped around a drive-shaft, with the pistons coupled to it through a coupled to it through a swash-plate, cam or a or a wobble-plate.

A variant of this engine specifically designed for aircraft flew in a Simmonds Spartan aeroplane in 1929, and after the WW2 highly talented British engineer Charles Benjamin Redrup, who worked on top-secret armaments projects for the Lancaster and other aircraft, including the hydraulic drive for the spinning "Dam Busters" bombs, have designed more motor-cycle engines and large 1.000 and 2.000 horse-power axial aero engines called "Redrup Radial."

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a137/Langnasen/RedrupFury.jpg

Redrup Fury, Barrel-Piston Engine

More information about this highly intriguing design you will be able to find here:

http://www.fairdiesel.co.uk/Home.html

In the very same time I have to admit that I have my own equally intriguing favorites.

Another forced brake of the post. Well, never mind…

pdf27
05-26-2007, 01:37 PM
Yeah, if you want very high fuel efficiency two stroke diesel turbo-compound engines are the way to go (the Napier Nomad is another example - postwar British engine, effectively a turboprop with a diesel engine as the combustor section). Problem is that compared to jets they're very heavy, not terribly well suited for high speed and a maintenence nightmare.
Incidentally, I suspect the reason the early Meteors were slow was simply that they were a rush job to get engines into combat as fast as possible. Performance of the postwar Meteors with engines that weren't a great deal more powerful tends to bear this out. IIRC the main fixes were lengthened engine nacelles and a different tail

Librarian
05-26-2007, 01:37 PM
The first one represents one of the most daring engine designs that were constructed in late sixties, by designing team of the most prominent American company - Curtiss-Wright – leaded by an outstanding engineering personality, Dr. Ing. Max Bentele, who was put in charge of the new department for rotary engine development.

Their concept of directly injected stratified charge omnivorous rotary engine (read: Omnivorous Wankel Diesel!), intended for the next generation of US/German joint Main Battle Tank Program (MBT 70 – indeed, one of the most intriguing ever designed combat machines!), as well as for the power supply of the new USN torpedo-vessels, was completely capable to run on JP4, JP5, Diesel-oil or gasoline! This 4-rotor Wankel-engine (Curtiss-Wright RC 4 - 232) that was capable to produce 1100 kW with a weight-total of 843 kg (power-to weight ratio 0.754 kg/kW!), was satisfied with average fuel consumption of 233 g/kW/hour.

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a137/Langnasen/Curtiss-WrightWankelDiesel.jpg

Curtiss-Wright RC 4 -232

Curtiss-Wright was hopeful that these engines will be placed into military use due to their multi fuel abilities, but that huge and promising governmental contract never materialized, which was blamed on conservative marketing of the rotary’s inherent advantages. Nevertheless, this marvelous, highly sophisticated product of human ingenuity that represented a great US firm’s sunset will bear witness to pure, unadulterated engineering genius.


Another engine that outlines the shape of things to come has been designed by a man that in 1937 joined the Junkers Flugzeugwerke, and in next to no time was promoted into the rank of department manager with responsibility for combustion engines development, and especially for the new generation of two-stroke, Shnürle-scheme scavenged Diesel engines.

After the war, in 1957 he presented this tiny, only 9 HP at 3000 RPM producing 2-stroke Diesel engine, outfitted with almost infinitesimal, 350 cm3 combustion chamber displacement, as the very first predecessor capable to effectively shape the outlines of the marvelous engineering things to come – to successfully exemplify the so called adiabatic Diesel engine. And what to hell that means, honorable ladies and gentlemen? Well, perhaps a minuscule disclosure in plain English will be more suitable in this occasion: that small engine designed by the Dr. ing. Ludwig Elsbett actually represented the very first non-cooled Diesel engine on this planet.

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a137/Langnasen/ElsbettadiabaticDiesel.jpg

Elsbett Adiabatic Diesel

You see, while in a conventional Diesel-engine, equipped with a pre-combustion chamber, approximately 31% of the energy contained in the fuel is removed from the engine through the cooling system and dispelled into the radiator or in the air, (only 26% in direct injection Diesel-engines!), in the case of the Elsbett-Diesel engine only about 14% to 16% of the produced heat has to be removed, without radiators or cooling fans - simply by the use of previously working exhausts gases. By my personal opinion this tiny engine represents a truthful example of a well-known "Vorsprung durch technik" maxim, that intrinsically German engineering philosophy.

If you are interested for this highly original engineering approach, just follow this link:

http://www.elsbett.com/us/elsbett-diesel-technology/duothermic-combustion-system.html

In the meantime, as always – all the best.:)

Panzerknacker
05-26-2007, 02:30 PM
Librarian and PDF, your debate about engines is clearly one of the most fine posting I ever seen here.

However being this a topic about the Messer 262 we should keep the topic in this aircraft and in this case his engines.

We can open a topic exclusively devoted to engines if someone is interested.

Chevan
05-26-2007, 03:05 PM
Thank you for the amazing infor dear Librarian.
You continie to wonder me of your high detailed engeens posts;)
I've never even heared about Tu-487, i've read aboutthe manies soviet experimentals aircrafts that were not passed in serial profuction, but about the Tu-487 i was not able to find any inro in the russian net.
Was it a really flight aircraft or it was only the project?
And thanks for the last post engines diagrams.

pdf27
05-26-2007, 04:21 PM
I have strong suspicions that the efficiencies quoted for the Elsbett engine are somewhat... dodgy. The claims on their website don't quite hang together and I suspect that they'll probably fall afoul of the Second Law in practice.
OK, so they built a working prototype. Was it ever independently tested to confirm their claims? Did it go into series production? Why, if it was such a massive advance on other engines did nobody else license the technology, and why does the company now not have anything to do with it but instead sell conversion kits for engines to run on vegetable oil?
Apologies for the skepticism, but there are an awful lot of charlatans about making claims like that.

Panzerknacker, if you don't like the way the thread is going either rename it or split the threads in two. Personally I've never thought that moderators trying to keep a thread on-topic is a sensible thing to do - this is a discussion board, not a question and answer centre.

arhob1
05-28-2007, 11:41 AM
Unfortunately, my dear Mr. Arhob1 I don’t have suitable materials with reference to this subject and consequently I am utterly incapable to present any relevant information to you.

I think if I did a poll then Librarian would be voted the most polite member of this forum!

Panzerknacker
07-09-2007, 06:04 PM
The last place where the Me-262s were manufactured...in the woods. The reason was the increasingly heavy bombing offensive in the german factories.

http://img512.imageshack.us/img512/5017/bosque262cn8.jpg

Nickdfresh
08-02-2007, 10:22 AM
I'm actually shocked that the Luftwaffe was able to shoot down P-51s by 1945.:)

Panzerknacker
08-02-2007, 08:21 PM
I'm actually shocked that the Luftwaffe was able to shoot down P-51s by 1945


And why not, despite the overwhelming numeric inferiority it could be done if you was in the right time/location.

The Me-262 was a proficient Mustang killer.

http://i13.tinypic.com/6cobrqv.jpg

http://i19.tinypic.com/4l4lbg4.jpg

Chevan
08-03-2007, 03:46 AM
And why not, despite the overwhelming numeric inferiority it could be done if you was in the right time/location.

The Me-262 was a proficient Mustang killer.




Well i think the Me-262 with his 4x30mm gun!!! was an excellent hunter of strategical bomber.I was covicted in when fought in computer fly simulator Il-2. However the Me-262 was not so good in fighter Vs fighter combat.
Simply coz it had no enough manevreability and the jet engeenes Jumo004 were wery vulnerable. Even SINGLE 12-mm BULLET of mashingun could light up it.
In the Net combatans of the P-51 with Me-262 the Mustangs had more great overal scope.
BTW one time i was puzzled why the Mustangs were so dangerously explosive.
While i've know it had a great fuel tank - for the road back to the Airfields.
So even the single shell of german fighter's gun could cause the explosion of P-51.
So much allied pilots died for this reason.

Nickdfresh
08-03-2007, 07:59 AM
And why not, despite the overwhelming numeric inferiority it could be done if you was in the right time/location.

The Me-262 was a proficient Mustang killer.

http://i13.tinypic.com/6cobrqv.jpg

http://i19.tinypic.com/4l4lbg4.jpg

I could be wrong, but I recall that Mustangs actually shot down more Me-262s...

I'll check.:)

Nickdfresh
08-03-2007, 08:10 AM
Well, a P-51 pilot by the name of Urban Drew (http://www.acepilots.com/usaaf_eto_aces2.html#Drew) shot down two Me-262s on a single mission as well...


October 7th. Drew was flying with wingman McCandless when he spotted the German airbase at Achmer and went down for a look. Two Schwalbe's were just taking off when Drew dived on them, McCandless keeping right with him. The first Me 262 exploded when hit by the .50s of "Detroit Miss". Drew says he was surprised when the second Me 262 tried to climb away, allowing him to turn inside and shoot away the jet's control surfaces. When Drew returned to base, he found that not only had his wingman failed to return after being hit by flak following Drew's victories, but the gun camera also failed. Only after the war did Drew learn his wingman had survived.

More than 40 years later, an Air Force clerk noticed Drew's claim for two Me-262 victories on the same mission. She contacted a custodian of German war records, who knew former Luftwaffe pilots who might be able to shed light on the claim. Georg-Peter Eder had been set to lead the Me-262s of JG 7 that day, but when his aircraft had problems taking off the two-ill-fated pilots took off to lead JG 7. Eder says he saw a yellow-nosed P-51 dive on the Me 262s and shoot them down. Eder couldn't read "Detroit Miss" on the nose of the Mustang, but his account was sufficient to confirm Drew's two Me-262 victories.

And BTW, US pilots would fly over Luftwaffe aerodromes in hopes of catching a Me-262 landing or taking off, when it was vulnerable and essentially useless in air-to-air combat...

Panzerknacker
08-03-2007, 08:21 AM
Well i think the Me-262 with his 4x30mm gun!!! was an excellent hunter of strategical bomber.I was covicted in when fought in computer fly simulator Il-2. However the Me-262 was not so good in fighter Vs fighter combat.
Simply coz it had no enough manevreability and the jet engines Jumo004 were wery vulnerable. Even SINGLE 12-mm BULLET of mashingun could light up it

Well, still is matter of discussion, somepeople in the Luftwaffe like General Steinhoff tough that the best job for the Me-262 was to clean up the sky of fighter to allow the special Fw-190 armored formation to engage the bomber undisturbed.

And yes a single 12,7 mm round from the fighters or the bomber defensive MGs could cause trouble for the Me-262.


Well, a P-51 pilot by the name of Urban Drew (http://www.acepilots.com/usaaf_eto_aces2.html#Drew) shot down two Me-262s on a single mission as well...


Yeap and I think is not the only case, the Me-262 pilots claimed about 350 aircraft and loose 150 Messers in turn.

Nickdfresh
08-03-2007, 09:33 AM
Those "claims" again.:)

Many of those 350 aircraft were presumably bombers, not fighters.

Chevan
08-03-2007, 10:50 AM
Yea PZ those 350 aircrafts could be particulary the bombers.
Navartheless 350x150 is not the bad kill ratio for the Me-262.
However could we 100% believe for the Germans "claims"?:D

Chevan
08-03-2007, 10:55 AM
And BTW, US pilots would fly over Luftwaffe aerodromes in hopes of catching a Me-262 landing or taking off, when it was vulnerable and essentially useless in air-to-air combat...

Yes the situation was so serious for the Germans that they have to use the special cover - the few FW-190 or even uber-fighter TA-152 simply for covering the landing and taking off Me-262 over airfields.
This was additional problem that do not let us consider the Me-262 strongly positively.
Nevertheless i agree with point the Me-262 was the BEST jet fighter of its time.

Panzerknacker
08-03-2007, 05:54 PM
Those "claims" again.:)

Many of those 350 aircraft were presumably bombers, not fighters.


The proportion must be 60 % bombers and the rest fighter and recce airplanes.

And the claims are this, judge by yourself:

http://img178.imageshack.us/img178/8500/dibujowj3.jpg

Digger
08-03-2007, 06:31 PM
Again we have a problem where the majority of those claims which ocurred in the last several months of the war would not have been verified. As far as I am aware Chevan it was predominantly the Fw-190D-9 which performed most of the airfield defense duties of at least JV 44.

Again my apologies all my reference material is stored at the present time, so details are sketchy.

Regards digger

Panzerknacker
08-09-2007, 09:27 PM
The Jv 44 FWs were used but did not shoot down any intruder.

Bomber variants: Me-262A-2a/U1.

Following the Fürherbefel of May 25th 1944 to manufacture most of the Me-262s as bombers the Ausburgs technicians sought to improve the accuracy of his Sturmvogel ( Attack bird)

This subversion had the nose mounted armament reduced to 2 × MK 108 cannon. The spare room in the nose was used to install a Tief- und Sturzfluganlage (low- and dive-bombing flight device) to improve bombing accuracy. Only 3 of this version were built, because Hitler revoked his order that all Me 262 be fitted with bombing devices. All subsequent aircraft were intended for the interceptor role once again.

http://img530.imageshack.us/img530/6821/dibujofn6.jpg

Nickdfresh
08-09-2007, 10:58 PM
Yes the situation was so serious for the Germans that they have to use the special cover - the few FW-190 or even uber-fighter TA-152 simply for covering the landing and taking off Me-262 over airfields.
This was additional problem that do not let us consider the Me-262 strongly positively.
Nevertheless i agree with point the Me-262 was the BEST jet fighter of its time.

Since they never met, we'll never know for sure. But it's been said that the Lockheed P-80 Shooting Star may have had a slight edge over the Me-262...

Panzerknacker
08-09-2007, 11:05 PM
The Lockheed P-80 was deployed in North Italy in 1945 to counter two very anoyying german jet recce aircrafts, the Arado 234 and the Messers Me-262A-1a/U3.

Me-262A-1a/U3

http://www.stormbirds.net/images_variants/me262A-1aU3_photo3.jpg


http://www.stormbirds.net/variants262a1aU3.htm

pdf27
08-10-2007, 01:24 AM
Since they never met, we'll never know for sure. But it's been said that the Lockheed P-80 Shooting Star may have had a slight edge over the Me-262...
I'd say it had a massive advantage over the Me-262. Personally I reckon even the early mark Meteors had an advantage over the Me-262 as fighters, and the late marks would have spanked it (the Me-262 wasn't well suited to development, the wings were much too thick).

Chevan
08-10-2007, 04:54 AM
I/m not sure the early meteors had even the little adventage over Me-262.
If it had advantage - why the Britains hided it far from German territory?
They feared to lose the adventage if met the Me-262:D
What advantage had the early Meteor in you mind?

pdf27
08-10-2007, 05:53 AM
I/m not sure the early meteors had even the little adventage over Me-262.
If it had advantage - why the Britains hided it far from German territory?
They feared to lose the adventage if met the Me-262:D
They didn't. During 1944 they had very few Meteors and they were all based in the UK hunting V-1s. In early 1945 (January IIRC) at least one squadron moved to the continent, being based in the Netherlands. They never met any German jets however, and seem in fact to have spent most of their time dodging Allied anti-aircraft gunners. I'm not sure if they even scored any air-to-air victories or if they were still on anti V-1 duty.
It is also worth noting that IIRC they were forbidden from flying over German-held territory. British jet engines were the most advanced in the world at this point in time, and the government was paranoid about the Germans and IIRC the Russians (crazy considering they later sold their most advanced jets to the Russians immediately postwar) getting hold of British jet technology.


What advantage had the early Meteor in you mind?
Rather a lot of them really.
For a start, it was extremely manouverable - the official report from RAE Farnborough stated that except for heavy ailerons it was superior to the Spitfire at all levels.
Secondly, it had a massively superior armament for fighter work. The Meteor had 4 fast-firing, high muzzle velocity Hispano Mk.III 20mm cannon. The Me-262 had 4 30mm cannon, but they had a slower cyclic rate of fire and their muzzle velocity was little more than half that of the Hispano cannon. Muzzle velocity is absolutely critical when dogfighting as it makes deflection shooting massively easier. The MK 108 cannon used in the Me-262 were specifically designed to destroy heavy bombers which couldn't dodge and so deflection shooting was not an issue.
Thirdly, engine reliability. The Me-262 engines had expected average lives of 10 hours or so. If you abuse them (which you WILL during a proper dogfight) that goes way down. The Meteor engines were on the other hand practically bombproof. There are numerous reports of Me-262s limping home on a single engine.
Finally, wing design. The Me-262 had a thick, swept wing. This is the worst of both worlds, forced on them by a late screwup with the engines which made the turbine heavier than expected. To deal with this they had to move the centre of lift backwards, and the only way to do this that late was to add wing sweep outboard of the engines. Because the wings are so thick they don't reach the sort of speeds where they would benefit from wing sweep (indeed, the Spitfire had a higher critical Mach number than the Me-262). However, there are other aerodynamic problems caused by wing sweep (mainly to do with low speed handling, although some affect you at high speed) that they will suffer from once you start sweeping wings.

Panzerknacker
08-10-2007, 08:20 AM
I'm not sure if they even scored any air-to-air victories or if they were still on anti V-1 duty.
It is also worth noting that IIRC they were forbidden from flying over German-held territory

The Argentine pilots flew the MK III in UK in 1946 and they had a small surprize....the mark III have a self destroying button in case of being shot down over enemy territory. :shock:

I have no idea how maniobrable was the Me-262A-1a ( gallands said a lot but who kwos) but they have a 170 km/h advantage over the Meteor F Mk 1.

And the Hispano Guns are good but carry less than a half of the explosive paylod of the RB 108 and it jammed a lot, the Hispano used in the Argentine Meteors (Mk III and Mk IV purchased new 1946-47) jammed twice in 1000 rounds.

http://home.att.net/~jv44/images/30mm_cannon_photo.jpg

pdf27
08-10-2007, 08:44 AM
I have no idea how maniobrable was the Me-262A-1a ( gallands said a lot but who kwos) but they have a 170 km/h advantage over the Meteor F Mk 1.
Not particularly relevant - the F Mk III was the first Meteor to be sent to the continent. Remember also that the F Mk I was in squadron service before the Me-262.


And the Hispano Guns are good but carry less than a half of the explosive paylod of the RB 108 and it jammed a lot, the Hispano used in the Argentine Meteors (Mk III and Mk IV purchased new 1946-47) jammed twice in 1000 rounds.
Further details on the Jamming? Sounds a bit dodgy, I know the US built Hispanos had major reliability problems, but the UK built ones (which have a slightly different chamber design) are universally described as "very reliable". Explosive capacity of the shell is a bit of a red herring too - the 20mm Hispanos only needed a handful of shells to destroy a fighter size target, while a single hit from the Mk 108 was overkill for a fighter. The muzzle velocity penalty however means that you are much more likely to get a fighter kill with the Hispanos than with the Mk 108s. The reverse is true for bombers, of course.

Panzerknacker
08-10-2007, 09:05 AM
I think the F III have the same max speed of the Mk 1, about 700 km/h.


Remember also that the F Mk I was in squadron service before the Me-262.

True and they achieved the firts kill over aerial vehicle, a V1.


Further details on the Jamming? Sounds a bit dodgy,

The 2 jams after 1000 ( and sometimes worst than that) shots fired is a figure gave by the argentine technical staff wich examinated the armament of the Meteors after several complains of the pilots in 1950.



the 20mm Hispanos only needed a handful of shells to destroy a fighter size target, while a single hit from the Mk 108 was overkill for a fighter. The muzzle velocity penalty however means that you are much more likely to get a fighter kill with the Hispanos than with the Mk 108s. The reverse is true for bombers, of course.


And that is why a Me-262A-1 rarely made a kurvenkampf, they used the "pass" tactic, a pass with the 4 Mk-108 blazing and you are history.

http://img407.imageshack.us/img407/7816/me262hc8.jpg

pdf27
08-10-2007, 09:20 AM
I think the F III have the same max speed of the Mk 1, about 700 km/h.
Seems unlikely unless there was a major aerodynamic problem. Total thrust for the Mk I was 3,400lbs and that for the Mk II 4,000 lbs. That's quite a substantial difference.


The 2 jams after 1000 ( and sometimes worst than that) shots fired is a figure gave by the argentine technical staff wich examinated the armament of the Meteors after several complains of the pilots in 1950.
Hmmm... strange. The Hispano 20mm was used on just about every late war RAF fighter aircraft (Spitfire, Typhoon, Tempest, Meteor) and I've never been aware of reliability problems after 1941 or so. The only reason I can think of besides different standards of what is reliable would be if the Argentines were using US produced Hispano cannon rather than UK produced ones.


And that is why a Me-262A-1 rarely made a kurvenkampf, they used the "pass" tactic, a pass with the 4 Mk-108 blazing and you are history.
Doesn't work against fighters though - they're far more vulnerable, even one pass with 8 x .303 Brownings would be enough to shoot one down. Fighters routinely check right behind them, so you would be unlikely to be able to bounce them without being spotted. Once you are spotted, they'll break out from under you and all of a sudden you're in a dogfight.

Panzerknacker
08-10-2007, 09:39 AM
Seems unlikely unless there was a major aerodynamic problem. Total thrust for the Mk I was 3,400lbs and that for the Mk II 4,000 lbs. That's quite a substantial difference


Oh. I dont had that tip, you have the performance of that type ?

The Hispanos wre Made in UK, as the rest of the plane.



and I've never been aware of reliability problems after 1941 or so.


Are you sure about that ? ( late mark Spifire Aces, Osprey publishing)

http://i16.tinypic.com/5z3xksx.jpg


A fighter was a far more elusive target for the MK 108 in the Me-262 but there was however several fighter kills by the Me-262, I had posted many examples, in the earlier page you got for example the killmarks in Heinz Arnold bird in wich are included two fighters, a P-51 and a P-47.

Drake
08-10-2007, 10:34 AM
Hmm, germany clearly needed an interceptor against bombers and they developed and armed the Me262 that way.
Wouldn't the Meteor and P-80 have rather faced the Ta-183 as the primary air superiority fighter if it had dragged on half a year or so longer?

Nickdfresh
08-10-2007, 10:52 AM
Hmm, germany clearly needed an interceptor against bombers and they developed and armed the Me262 that way.
Wouldn't the Meteor and P-80 have rather faced the Ta-183 as the primary air superiority fighter if it had dragged on half a year or so longer?


Perhaps, but remember the Allies were also thinking about the next generation. Development of the F-86 Sabre began in 1944, and also the F-84 was becoming available and the war would have only accelerated development...

pdf27
08-10-2007, 01:13 PM
Oh. I dont had that tip, you have the performance of that type ?
Unfortunately not. Trying to find performance figures for early mark Meteors online is downright frustrating. Unfortunately I'm kinda busy right now so can't start digging around in a decent library which is frankly the only way to get reliable data. I do know that there were aerodynamic problems with the type (front of the canopy and the rear of the engine nacelles IIRC). However, that big a difference in thrust will always produce a performance difference. Figuring out what it is will be non-trivial.
The other point is that because the testing was done by two countries there is no guarantee that the speed figures are directly comparable. I'm not saying that they aren't, only that the typical online performance figures are a single number for speed, and don't state what altitude this is measured at, what the air temperature is and if this is on the level or in a dive.


Are you sure about that ? ( late mark Spifire Aces, Osprey publishing)
Not totally (where's Tony Williams when you need him!). However, all references to RAF plots being unhappy with the reliability of their cannon do tend to disappear by 1941 or so. Good article on the Hispanos here (http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/US404.htm).


A fighter was a far more elusive target for the MK 108 in the Me-262 but there was however several fighter kills by the Me-262, I had posted many examples, in the earlier page you got for example the killmarks in Heinz Arnold bird in wich are included two fighters, a P-51 and a P-47.
Possibly not the best of examples - Arnold got rather a lot of fighter victories over the Eastern Front flying propeller engined fighters, implying he was one of the few Experten in the Luftwaffe. Transferred to flying the Me-262 he got two fighters and and five B-17s before being shot down by an escort fighter. To me this implies that the Me-262 was inferior as a fighter to what he had previously been flying.

pdf27
08-10-2007, 01:25 PM
Wouldn't the Meteor and P-80 have rather faced the Ta-183 as the primary air superiority fighter if it had dragged on half a year or so longer?
Unlikely - the Ta-183 was a badly flawed design and nobody ever managed to get the engine slated to power it to work (even the Russians when they had access to all the strategic minerals the Germans didn't postwar - that's why they had to approach Rolls-Royce about buying British engines).

There are major, major aerodynamic problems involved in going to swept wings that just don't become apparent until you start flying prototypes. It took the US and Soviets 4 years after the end of the war to get flawed swept-wing aircraft into service, and these were covered in aerodynamic fixes. On the MiG-15 for instance there were panels on the wing designed to be bent to equalise shock effects - to get around this requires an aircraft wing to be built to massively higher levels of precision than had ever been done before. The Ta-183 drawings etc. show no evidence of the aerodynamic fixes required to get around these problems (wing fences, Kuchemann tips, etc.). This is IMHO good evidence that the Germans simply didn't know the problems existed (as is the fact that the FMA Pulqui didn't have any of them in the flying prototypes - clearly Kurt Tank would have included them if he had known they were needed). They would in turn have had to either put a pilot-killer of an aircraft into squadron service at a time when their pilots were getting worse and worse on average, or waited a couple of years while they tried to get their head around the problem. Swept wings are far, far harder than they look to get right.

Carl Schwamberger
08-10-2007, 06:37 PM
This board has been a most enjoyable read. I've little to offer but a childhood memory. My father once visted a old accquaintance who had been a P51 pilot. We were regaled with the story of how this gentleman had bested a Me262 in air combat. The details are dim memorys now, but it was exciting stuff for my preteen brother & I.

Panzerknacker
08-10-2007, 09:01 PM
Possibly not the best of examples - Arnold got rather a lot of fighter victories over the Eastern Front flying propeller engined fighters, implying he was one of the few Experten in the Luftwaffe. Transferred to flying the Me-262 he got two fighters and and five B-17s before being shot down by an escort fighter. To me this implies that the Me-262 was inferior as a fighter to what he had previously been flying.


Sorry but I dont understand what you mean there.

"implying he was one of the few Experten in the Luftwaffe"

I dont deny that a piston engine fighter could outmatch the Me-262 at medium speeds but If Arnold shooted down more bombers than fighters is in my opinion because he was more devoted to attack the earlier types. I am not entirely convinced that the Messerschmitt designers planned his aircraft for anti bomber role, I think the RLM did.

http://i18.tinypic.com/6ft1442.jpg


Not totally (where's Tony Williams when you need him!). However, all references to RAF plots being unhappy with the reliability of their cannon do tend to disappear by 1941 or so. Good article on the Hispanos here (http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/US404.htm).


Thanks for the link, Tony is missing lately, I posted the pictures he asked me in "antitank rifles and MGs" but no response. :twisted:

pdf27
08-11-2007, 01:45 AM
Sorry but I dont understand what you mean there.
"implying he was one of the few Experten in the Luftwaffe"
Sorry, should have been clearer. Like everyone else, the Luftwaffe started out the war with a group of pilots whose skills varied, but not by all that much. However, during the war the Luftwaffe and the Western Allies diverged - Luftwaffe policy was to leave their best pilots at the front, while Allied policy was to withdraw them after a certain length of time to have them train new fighter pilots. By 1945, the results of this policy (combined with German fuel shortages) were very obvious. The Allies were still sending up a fairly constant (good) standard of pilot. The Germans were sending up a few very good pilots (known among themselves as "Experten", and almost universally better than all but a very few Allied pilots) and a lot of very poor pilots who usually got shot down very rapidly indeed. For Arnold to get that many kills he would probably have to be one of the Experten, and so better than any of the Allied pilots he would most likely meet.



I dont deny that a piston engine fighter could outmatch the Me-262 at medium speeds but If Arnold shooted down more bombers than fighters is in my opinion because he was more devoted to attack the earlier types. I am not entirely convinced that the Messerschmitt designers planned his aircraft for anti bomber role, I think the RLM did.
True, although given the number of escort fighters available at the time I rather suspect he would have little choice but to engage the fighters after rather a short time among the bombers!

Drake
08-11-2007, 04:46 AM
Sorry, should have been clearer. Like everyone else, the Luftwaffe started out the war with a group of pilots whose skills varied, but not by all that much. However, during the war the Luftwaffe and the Western Allies diverged - Luftwaffe policy was to leave their best pilots at the front, while Allied policy was to withdraw them after a certain length of time to have them train new fighter pilots. By 1945, the results of this policy (combined with German fuel shortages) were very obvious. The Allies were still sending up a fairly constant (good) standard of pilot. The Germans were sending up a few very good pilots (known among themselves as "Experten", and almost universally better than all but a very few Allied pilots) and a lot of very poor pilots who usually got shot down very rapidly indeed. For Arnold to get that many kills he would probably have to be one of the Experten, and so better than any of the Allied pilots he would most likely meet.


Hmm, from what I've heard there is no such thing as an average fighter pilot, you're either prey or predator up there and even today they are not able to tell the difference before they put x million in the training. The problem with the german training as you said was the fuel shortage. The new allied pilots had more than twice the time in cockpit and received combat training excercises, while the luftwaffe in their desperation somewhat cynically left that a learning by doing thing (in praxis). While it is definatly a good idea to let their experience influence the training (which the germans did as well) imho it was stupid by the US to withdraw all the best pilots after X sorties or kills (don't know the exact regiment). You don't necessarily need a top fighter ace to tell freshmen what they should do or train it with them, a good teacher who's been told what to teach can do that just as well. Though a boost would likely be in morale if the students knew : "Woa, we've been trained by Master Obi Wan :D" . A good idea would probably be to use some of the aces to teach the actual teacher to be sure they definatly understood it. Cause my experience with teachers is that some of them definatly didn't know what they were talking about :mrgreen:

pdf27
08-11-2007, 05:17 AM
Hmm, from what I've heard there is no such thing as an average fighter pilot, you're either prey or predator up there and even today they are not able to tell the difference before they put x million in the training.
True, but only to an extent. The big difference caused by having experienced combat pilots doing the training is not in the quality of flying but in the tactics the new pilots pick up. There is a world of difference for instance between being taught how to break into an attack properly or keep a lookout by someone who has relied on this to save their life and reading it in a textbook. The lesson may be the same, but the amount of learning taken in is wildly different.


While it is definatly a good idea to let their experience influence the training (which the germans did as well) imho it was stupid by the US to withdraw all the best pilots after X sorties or kills (don't know the exact regiment).
In the UK, it was one tour of duty followed by either leave or a training assignment for a tour, when you went back to the front again. IIRC it was the same with USN/USAAF fighter pilots. The only exception was USAAF bomber crews, early on at least the odds were so badly against them that do one tour and their war was over. Even in Bomber Command (where the odds were arguably even worse) people kept on doing tours one after the other - IIRC some got up to four by the end of the war (one tour = 30 missions, IIRC, probability of survival under 20%).


You don't necessarily need a top fighter ace to tell freshmen what they should do or train it with them, a good teacher who's been told what to teach can do that just as well. Though a boost would likely be in morale if the students knew : "Woa, we've been trained by Master Obi Wan " . A good idea would probably be to use some of the aces to teach the actual teacher to be sure they definatly understood it. Cause my experience with teachers is that some of them definatly didn't know what they were talking about .
Ummm... for what it's worth in my experience (UK Territorial Army) the difference between teachers who have done an operational tour and those who haven't is like night and day. There is no way that those teachers who haven't been on ops are anywhere near as good as those who have.

Drake
08-11-2007, 05:53 AM
True, but only to an extent. The big difference caused by having experienced combat pilots doing the training is not in the quality of flying but in the tactics the new pilots pick up. There is a world of difference for instance between being taught how to break into an attack properly or keep a lookout by someone who has relied on this to save their life and reading it in a textbook. The lesson may be the same, but the amount of learning taken in is wildly different.


In the UK, it was one tour of duty followed by either leave or a training assignment for a tour, when you went back to the front again. IIRC it was the same with USN/USAAF fighter pilots. The only exception was USAAF bomber crews, early on at least the odds were so badly against them that do one tour and their war was over. Even in Bomber Command (where the odds were arguably even worse) people kept on doing tours one after the other - IIRC some got up to four by the end of the war (one tour = 30 missions, IIRC, probability of survival under 20%).


Ummm... for what it's worth in my experience (UK Territorial Army) the difference between teachers who have done an operational tour and those who haven't is like night and day. There is no way that those teachers who haven't been on ops are anywhere near as good as those who have.

Sure, I didn't mean to use inexperienced pilots as trainers, they should have combat experience. But if you find a diamond in a pile of coal you should try to use it where it's best used. The really good pilots are rare and I think it was a good idea to build fighter ace groups, imho the US and UK could've easily done the same and still have truckloads of combat experienced pilots.

Nickdfresh
08-11-2007, 10:11 AM
Hmm, from what I've heard there is no such thing as an average fighter pilot, you're either prey or predator up there and even today they are not able to tell the difference before they put x million in the training. The problem with the german training as you said was the fuel shortage. The new allied pilots had more than twice the time in cockpit and received combat training excercises, while the luftwaffe in their desperation somewhat cynically left that a learning by doing thing (in praxis). While it is definatly a good idea to let their experience influence the training (which the germans did as well) imho it was stupid by the US to withdraw all the best pilots after X sorties or kills (don't know the exact regiment). You don't necessarily need a top fighter ace to tell freshmen what they should do or train it with them, a good teacher who's been told what to teach can do that just as well. Though a boost would likely be in morale if the students knew : "Woa, we've been trained by Master Obi Wan :D" .

I've also heard something along the line of the "hunter" and "hunted" pilot in an interview held with an elderly WWII RAF ground crewman who was around to see "The Battle of Britain." He recalled how the ground crews would determine who was going to be the successful combat pilot simply by their body language on the ground prior to missions. I.E. - the "hunted" pilots would often insure their service revolver was loaded, they had a proper life-vest, parachute, survival gear, etc. Whereas the "hunter" pilots would check to insure they had full ammo load for their plane's guns and would generally act like a Formula 1 racer checking out his car as they went over every aspect of their planes --to insure they were in on top shape. That being said, I think there are studies that indicate that if a pilot survives his first few sorties, than they become much more effective and their survival rate shoots up exponentially.

Training can have a big impact on that and give a rookie pilot a chance to learn something, but the same holds true for infantrymen or anything else as well I suppose. In any case, a while ago I was watching a History Channel program on the "Secret Aircraft of the Luftwaffe," I think that was the title. I believe it the aircraft was a Heinkel HE-162, but Hitler, or maybe Himmler, had the brilliant idea of using Hitler Youth junge to fly the jet with minimal training. I dunno why they would want to throw away such jets. But I think I've either read or seen something that indicated that the flaws in Luftwaffe pilot training extended beyond simple fuel shortages. I think they simply had too few pilots in training when things were going well in 1941-42, and this came back to haunt them in the aerial battle of attrition over Europe. And thus, the cadre of "experten" pilots was too few, and getting fewer by 1943-44, as a result..


A good idea would probably be to use some of the aces to teach the actual teacher to be sure they definatly understood it. Cause my experience with teachers is that some of them definatly didn't know what they were talking about :mrgreen:

:mad:


:lol:

Drake
08-11-2007, 10:32 AM
But I think I've either read or seen something that indicated that the flaws in Luftwaffe pilot training extended beyond simple fuel shortages. I think they simply had too few pilots in training when things were going well in 1941-42, and this came back to haunt them in the aerial battle of attrition over Europe. And thus, the cadre of "experten" pilots was too few, and getting fewer by 1943-44, as a result..


True, it was definatly a numbers and organisation thing with german pilots as well, especially when they thought they would win. They didn't even manage to train and bring up sufficient numbers during BoB.
But what I meant is if the British and Americans had kept their 10% top scorers going and used the others who survived their tour to bring up the next generation could've been usefull. The 90% can probably handle the basics as teachers just as well as a top ace could, but imho the aces skill is somehow underused as a trainer.

Nickdfresh
08-11-2007, 10:47 AM
True, it was definatly a numbers and organisation thing with german pilots as well, especially when they thought they would win. They didn't even manage to train and bring up sufficient numbers during BoB.
But what I meant is if the British and Americans had kept their 10% top scorers going and used the others who survived their tour to bring up the next generation could've been usefull. The 90% can probably handle the basics as teachers just as well as a top ace could, but imho the aces skill is somehow underused as a trainer.

I agree wholeheartedly. The thing you said about teachers BTW is correct IMO.:D

But I think one should keep in mind (and I detested teaching high school after a while, which is why I essentially quit the "business") is that teaching is a "doing" skill unto its own. I think I've read in the sports pages (specifically about ice hockey in this case) that the best coaches were marginal players of the sport, whereas an "ace" superstar player like Wayne Gretzky can't really help you become a great player, since he doesn't really know what made him a great player. So his playing ability may not translate into knowing human nature, or in administration of a training program. He just went out and was, for many reasons, better than everybody else on the ice, mainly because he could think faster (among other things) than any other player. That's not something one can teach. I suppose this applies to fighter pilots as well but it wasn't foreseen at the time...

Drake
08-11-2007, 12:15 PM
I agree wholeheartedly. The thing you said about teachers BTW is correct IMO.:D

But I think one should keep in mind (and I detested teaching high school after a while, which is why I essentially quit the "business") is that teaching is a "doing" skill unto its own. I think I've read in the sports pages (specifically about ice hockey in this case) that the best coaches were marginal players of the sport, whereas an "ace" superstar player like Wayne Gretzky can't really help you become a great player, since he doesn't really know what made him a great player. So his playing ability may not translate into knowing human nature, or in administration of a training program. He just went out and was, for many reasons, better than everybody else on the ice, mainly because he could think faster (among other things) than any other player. That's not something one can teach. I suppose this applies to fighter pilots as well but it wasn't foreseen at the time...

Yeah, that's what I wanted to say with "a good teacher" in the original post, I know you need a different skillset for this kind of work.
And what imho also comes to fruition when you team up the goodies is that if they work as a team they might even be more than just the sum of individual skills. Just imagine a group of killer aces hits the average joe fighter wing with only 1 or 2 "normal" aces at best, omg bloodbath. Sure they are an elite and as such not numerous but if used correctly like all the spec ops today they can be pretty useful I'm sure.

pdf27
08-11-2007, 01:13 PM
But what I meant is if the British and Americans had kept their 10% top scorers going and used the others who survived their tour to bring up the next generation could've been usefull. The 90% can probably handle the basics as teachers just as well as a top ace could, but imho the aces skill is somehow underused as a trainer.
Again, you're missing a trick. Who's going to lead the squadrons and wings in the air? In US/UK practice, this was the very top 10% of pilots (returned from a trainign tour) that you're farming off into specialist squadrons. Again, that produces one very good squadron indeed, but the rest of the air force suffers. Take a look for instance at this list of WW2 British aces here (http://jpgleize.club.fr/aces/ww2gbr.htm), then take a look at their ranks. There are an awful lot of Wing Commanders and Group Captains in there. Again, it's all about getting the most total benefit from the accumulated experience you have on hand.

Drake
08-11-2007, 03:38 PM
Again, you're missing a trick. Who's going to lead the squadrons and wings in the air? In US/UK practice, this was the very top 10% of pilots (returned from a trainign tour) that you're farming off into specialist squadrons. Again, that produces one very good squadron indeed, but the rest of the air force suffers. Take a look for instance at this list of WW2 British aces here (http://jpgleize.club.fr/aces/ww2gbr.htm), then take a look at their ranks. There are an awful lot of Wing Commanders and Group Captains in there. Again, it's all about getting the most total benefit from the accumulated experience you have on hand.

And what were their squads doing, while they were on training tour?
Does it need an actual fighter ace to be a good wing commander or is an experienced pilot enough to help the new pilots survive their first mission for them to make the very important own experiences? After all a single ace pilot can't usually help more than his wingman during an actual engagement.
And I wouldn't want to build complete Airwings, but more some small hunter/killer groups, maybe 8-12 machines. In my imaginary doctrine I wouldn't even station them in a specific area but relocate them often and make it obvious who they are to gain a morale effect on the enemy like with the flying circus (though not the colours, uargh)
This is pretty much a diversion of force vs. concentration of force thing, I find it hard to tell which would be better. Think it also depends on the overall circumstances (equal sized opposing forces or one side bigger for example)
But we started with the training of new pilots where in my opinion the aces could've stayed on active duty without damage to the training cycle.
Of course I could be wrong, but I think Nickdfresh had a good point with his example from sports.

awack
08-11-2007, 05:03 PM
Top speed of 262 at 20.000 ft was 540 mph,,the meteor mk III was 493 at 30.000 ft,
Top speed of 262 at sea level was 514..the meteor mk III was 458 mph.

The meteor had very poor roll performance,this was done on purpose to lesson the stress to the wings. The 262 could roll 360 degrees in 3.8 seconds at 5.000 ft flying 400 mph this is higher than the p 51 and fw 190 but was slower at low speeds.

The meteor had worse snaking than the 262 due to the design of its engine housing this also limited the tactical mach number of the meteor in a dive infact at low altitudes the 262 could fly faster than the meteor was permited to dive.

The 262 had the best tatical mach number of any ww 2 fighter that i know of, it was even better than the post war p 84.

Another strong point of the 262 was its zoom climb, ive read acounts of a p51 and a p 47 pilot saying the 262 could actualy eccelorate while flying straight up, this is obviously due to the fact they were slowing down much quicker than the 262 was.

pdf27
08-11-2007, 05:26 PM
And what were their squads doing, while they were on training tour?
The system ran on individual replacements - a flight commander would come to the end of his tour, and either a new one would be appointed from outside or one of his flight would be promoted if experienced enough. He'd go off and be "rested" in perhaps a training appointment or doing staff work. After that he would come back as a Squadron Leader, or perhaps a Flight Commander again depending on how good he was.


Does it need an actual fighter ace to be a good wing commander or is an experienced pilot enough to help the new pilots survive their first mission for them to make the very important own experiences? After all a single ace pilot can't usually help more than his wingman during an actual engagement.
Shooting ability doesn't have all that much to do with becoming an ace. Situational awareness and an understanding of fighter tactics are much more important - and both of those are absolutely critical in a Squadron or Wing commander. It's also about far, far more than having new pilots survive their first mission (that's largely down to their prior training and the other pilots in their flight). The Squadron Leader and Wing Commander's job is to bring the maximum number of guns to bear on the enemy with the maximum of surprise and tactical advantage, while not running their unit out of fuel. If they do their job right (and as mentioned above many of the features of an ace are required to do so) one man will multiply the effectiveness of the whole unit.


And I wouldn't want to build complete Airwings, but more some small hunter/killer groups, maybe 8-12 machines. In my imaginary doctrine I wouldn't even station them in a specific area but relocate them often and make it obvious who they are to gain a morale effect on the enemy like with the flying circus (though not the colours, uargh)
Thing is, doing that throws away most of the advantages the best fighter pilots could bring to the party - about the only advantage most of them would have over average pilots would be superior shooting skills. That's a waste of talent.


This is pretty much a diversion of force vs. concentration of force thing, I find it hard to tell which would be better. Think it also depends on the overall circumstances (equal sized opposing forces or one side bigger for example)
But we started with the training of new pilots where in my opinion the aces could've stayed on active duty without damage to the training cycle.
Of course I could be wrong, but I think Nickdfresh had a good point with his example from sports.
It is, but you are making the mistake of assuming a squadron full of superb pilots will be massively better than one led by a handful of superb pilots with the rest just average. It won't be, for reasons I've gone into in the paragraph above. On the other hand, the squadron of average pilots with average pilots in the leadership positions will be slaughtered by either of the above.

George Eller
08-11-2007, 06:00 PM
Top speed of 262 at 20.000 ft was 540 mph,,the meteor mk III was 493 at 30.000 ft,
Top speed of 262 at sea level was 514..the meteor mk III was 458 mph.

The meteor had very poor roll performance,this was done on purpose to lesson the stress to the wings. The 262 could roll 360 degrees in 3.8 seconds at 5.000 ft flying 400 mph this is higher than the p 51 and fw 190 but was slower at low speeds.

The meteor had worse snaking than the 262 due to the design of its engine housing this also limited the tactical mach number of the meteor in a dive infact at low altitudes the 262 could fly faster than the meteor was permited to dive.

The 262 had the best tatical mach number of any ww 2 fighter that i know of, it was even better than the post war p 84.

Another strong point of the 262 was its zoom climb, ive read acounts of a p51 and a p 47 pilot saying the 262 could actualy eccelorate while flying straight up, this is obviously due to the fact they were slowing down much quicker than the 262 was.
-

I've posted this before a couple of times, but it seems appropriate for this thread.

-

Lockheed P-80A vs Messerschmitt Me 262A
http://ourworlds.topcities.com/blackhawk/fanfiction/ex-p80vsme262.html

The P-80 and the Me 262 never met in combat, but many students of aerial combat have debated what the outcome of such a battle might have been.

The Me 262 was an amazing aircraft, well ahead of its time in many ways, but it was also an aircraft that was rushed into production before all its bugs had been worked out. In the Earth-X timeline, I suppose that some, but not all, of those problems have been fixed, making it a more reliable aircraft than it was in reality. But it still has handling problems and a slow throttle response.

The P-80 had some development problems, also. Most notorious was the primary fuel pump that was powered by the main engine. This could cause engine failure if the auxilary pump was not engaged for take-off, as happened to several pilots, including America's top ace, MAJ Richard Bong. But the P-80 was a more advanced design that took advantage of the work done on earlier jet aircraft. It had power-boosted ailerons and a speed brake, both of which contributed to superior maneuverability. It was faster than the Me 262, though not by a lot, and it had greater range, much greater with its wingtip tanks that actually decreased its aerodynamic drag and improved its control response.

Although the two aircraft never met in combat, they were flown in a comparison test at Wright Field after the war. According to reports from that test, the Me 262 had a speed advantage in a dive, but the P-80 was superior in all other respects. In the Earth-X timeline, I've improved the Me 262 to make it a more even contest, but in the hands of the Blackhawks, the best pilots in the world, smart money will still go on the P-80.

See the table below for a direct comparison of the specifications and performance of the actual aircraft.

http://img145.imageshack.us/img145/1904/p80vsme2625mv.jpg

Lockheed P-80 Shooting Star
http://www.aviation-history.com/lockheed/p80.html
Performance:
Max. Top Speed: 558 mph (898 km/h) @ Sea Level
Max. Speed: 492 mph (792 km/h) @ 40,000 ft (12,192 km)
Climb Rate: 4,580 ft/min (1,396 m/min)
Climb: 5.5 minutes to 20,000 ft (6,096 km)
Service Ceiling: 45,000 ft (13,716 m)

Me 262A-1a Schwallbe (Swallow)
http://www.ww2guide.com/jetrock.shtml#262
Performance:
Max. Top Speed: 540 mph 469 knot (870 km/h) at 19,685 ft (6000 m)
Max. Speed: 514 mph 446 kt (827 km/h) at Sea Level
Climb Rate: 3,937 ft/min (1200 m/min)
Climb: 6 minutes and 48 seconds to 19,685 ft (6000 m)
Ceiling: 37,730 ft (11500m)

-

P-80 vs. Me-262 - Which was the superior jet-fighter of WWII
http://p214.ezboard.com/ffighterplanesfighters.showMessage?topicID=9123.to pic
An interesting thread and read.

-

F-80 vs ME262
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/post-war/f-80-vs-me262-1688.html
Another thread on the topic.

-

http://img143.imageshack.us/img143/2431/p80vsme262011zl.jpg

-

Drake
08-11-2007, 06:36 PM
The Squadron Leader and Wing Commander's job is to bring the maximum number of guns to bear on the enemy with the maximum of surprise and tactical advantage, while not running their unit out of fuel. If they do their job right (and as mentioned above many of the features of an ace are required to do so) one man will multiply the effectiveness of the whole unit.


good point. But I think situational awareness'n'stuff can also be found in experienced pilots without XX kills. They needed that to survive that long. And like I said I don't want all of the good pilots. The 90% rest should have still some very good group/wing commanders in their ranks.
What makes an ace an ace is not only his very keen senses, the fact that he chooses his prey carefully and his superior tactics in dogfight but precisely the fact that he kills the target (and usually fast). That seems to be something that cannot be learned or figured out if it is in a pilot before it actually happens.



Thing is, doing that throws away most of the advantages the best fighter pilots could bring to the party - about the only advantage most of them would have over average pilots would be superior shooting skills. That's a waste of talent.


True, the above average advantages in all the aforementioned fields are not available to other units.




It is, but you are making the mistake of assuming a squadron full of superb pilots will be massively better than one led by a handful of superb pilots with the rest just average. It won't be, for reasons I've gone into in the paragraph above. On the other hand, the squadron of average pilots with average pilots in the leadership positions will be slaughtered by either of the above.

Ok this is again something highly dependent on the circumstances. Normal air engagements are usually highly unfair as the attacker usually seeks the utmost possible advantages.
I indeed make the assumption that a squad of aces will be a lot better than an average joe squad led by a few or even only one aces. They will in an actual "fair" engagement and maybe even those that initially have them at a disadvantage rip the "average" pilots apart (and imho quickly) and then outnumber their matches which will ultimately doom them as well.
The engagement which has the initial advantages with the aces cannot even be called a fight anymore, but slaughter.
I fail to see the mistake.

In the ace/average vs average/average "fair" (I know, unlikely) engagement the ace will score once or twice and the rest should be 50:50 more or less.

It then boils down how often the situation is unfair to whom, where your aforementioned arguments come to fruition. I'm still undecided :D

Panzerknacker
08-13-2007, 10:49 PM
To me is pretty clear that in a doghfight the P-80 would have advantage over the Me-262.

Bomber variants (II): Me-262A-2a/U2.

This subtype was a pure bomber variant. It discard completely the MK-108s and had the cannon-carrying metal nose replaced by a plywood nose carrying a prone bombardier position with a bomb-aiming tachimetric Lofte 7h bombsight to improve the accuracy in level bombing.

http://i11.tinypic.com/4qfxik0.jpg

Only one prototype of this variant was ever produced, the V555.

http://i16.tinypic.com/4unk55l.jpg


http://i18.tinypic.com/63js0h2.jpg

Chevan
08-14-2007, 06:27 AM
Wow excellen pict of Me-262/bomber.
Is there a second men-operator who was responsible for the precision droping the bombs?

awack
08-14-2007, 07:46 AM
[QUOTE][Is there a second men-operator who was responsible for the precision droping the bombs?/QUOTE]

Yes, he lay in a prone position on his belly while looking thru the bomb sight.

About the me 262 vs p 80a... these two aircraft were compared side by side in test conducted in the us and the results were that the me 262 was faster had better acceleration and had a higher tatical mach number(better in the dive), they were equal in the climb...they did not compare handling or turning performance since the me 262s servo tabs were disconnected, the result was that the 262 handled very poorly at high speeds but pilots did comment on the better hanlding of the p 80 even if the tabs were connected the p 80 would have out turn the 262 easily since it had lower wing loading.

When you look at this closer you have to realize that the factory specs of the p 80 were not realistic for combat since a special paint was used to get higher speeds from the aircraft and it was to difficult to maintain so it was not used on production aircraft, when you look at the me 262 that was used in the test i read that it was in very poor condition.. worse condition than when it first fell into allied hands.

The test above was to see how an average production p 80a compared to the me 262 (a 262 that was produced in war time gemany, captured then shipped to the usa, stored for some time before being tested against the p 80)

Chevan
08-14-2007, 08:47 AM
Well i'm agree the me-262 that was tested in USA was not in the best conditions.
I know not a lot about P-80 however my personal experiece of piloted the p-80 and me-262 in the realistic flight simulator Il-2 tells me that the p-80 was not as good in combats as the me-262.
Moreover the maneuverability of the p-80 was even worts in comparition with the Me-262.
Plus the early modifications of P-80 had very unreliable engines- worse than the Jumo004.

Panzerknacker
08-14-2007, 06:07 PM
Wow excellen pict of Me-262/bomber.
Is there a second men-operator who was responsible for the precision droping the bombs?


He does.

However the operative bomber variants of the Me-262 were the Me-262A-2a, and the Me-262A-2a/U1, both were used operecionally by the special detachment "Kommando Schenk" in July 1944 and the KG 51 "edelweiss" in august 1944.

http://img124.imageshack.us/img124/3395/b2wo7.jpg


Me-262A-2/u1 showing the reduced node armament.

http://img257.imageshack.us/img257/7630/u1pf0.jpg

The normal bomb load were 2x 250 kg SC or 2 x 500 kg sc 500 or a single Ab 500 bomblets container.

George Eller
08-14-2007, 08:42 PM
About the me 262 vs p 80a... these two aircraft were compared side by side in test conducted in the us and the results were that the me 262 was faster had better acceleration and had a higher tatical mach number (better in the dive), they were equal in the climb...they did not compare handling or turning performance since the me 262s servo tabs were disconnected, the result was that the 262 handled very poorly at high speeds but pilots did comment on the better hanlding of the p 80 even if the tabs were connected the p 80 would have out turn the 262 easily since it had lower wing loading.

When you look at this closer you have to realize that the factory specs of the p 80 were not realistic for combat since a special paint was used to get higher speeds from the aircraft and it was to difficult to maintain so it was not used on production aircraft, when you look at the me 262 that was used in the test i read that it was in very poor condition.. worse condition than when it first fell into allied hands.

The test above was to see how an average production p 80a compared to the me 262 (a 262 that was produced in war time gemany, captured then shipped to the usa, stored for some time before being tested against the p 80)
-
awack,

I would like to see your sources on the actual comparison tests at Wright Field. That the Me 262 was faster in a dive (as you put it - higher tactical mach number) seems to agree with the information that I provided. However, according to my information the P-80 was superior in all other respects.

This also seems to be born out when comparing the specifications of each aircraft. The P-80 had higher top speed - 558 mph vs 540 mph, higher ceiling - 45,000 ft vs 37,730 ft, faster climb rate - 4,580 ft/min vs 3,937 ft/min, greater range - 780 miles vs 650 miles, and better maneuverability. It had power-boosted ailerons and a speed brake, both of which contributed to superior maneuverability.

On June 19, 1947, the XP-80R set a new world air speed record of 629 MPH.
http://www.ccminc.com/vintage/history.html

Lockheed P-80 Shooting Star
http://www.aviation-history.com/lockheed/p80.html
Max. Top Speed: 558 mph @ Sea Level
Max. Speed: 492 mph @ 40,000 ft
Climb Rate: 4,580 ft/min
Climb: 5.5 minutes to 20,000 ft
Service Ceiling: 45,000 ft

Me 262A-1a Schwallbe (Swallow)
http://www.ww2guide.com/jetrock.shtml#262
Max. Top Speed: 540 mph @ 19,685 ft
Max. Speed: 514 mph @ Sea Level
Climb Rate: 3,937 ft/min
Climb: 6 minutes and 48 seconds to 19,685 ft
Ceiling: 37,730 ft

-


Well i'm agree the me-262 that was tested in USA was not in the best conditions.
I know not a lot about P-80 however my personal experiece of piloted the p-80 and me-262 in the realistic flight simulator Il-2 tells me that the p-80 was not as good in combats as the me-262.
Moreover the maneuverability of the p-80 was even worts in comparition with the Me-262.
Plus the early modifications of P-80 had very unreliable engines- worse than the Jumo004.
-
Chevan,

I still haven't bought a copy of Il-2 yet, but definitely want to try my hand at it. Have used the P-80 and Me-262 in CFS 2 & 3 though. I'm looking forward to Il-2.

http://www.ccminc.com/vintage/history.html

Despite delays waiting on the arrival of the engine from General Electric, the aircraft was completed in 137 days. On January 8, 1944, the single seat XP-80 made its first flight from Muroc Dry Lake, now Edwards Air Force Base, in the hands of long-time Lockheed test pilot, Milo Burcham. It lasted six minutes and during the flight the landing gear would not retract. Nevertheless, one of the P-80's and later the T-33's best inbred characteristics had already been determined. The aircraft had extremely sensitive ailerons and would roll 300 degrees within one second. Lockheed knew early that it had produced a champion. On the second flight of the day, Burcham reached speeds of 500 MPH and made several low passes with spectacular rolling pull-ups over the 140 men who had worked on her. The aircraft was fast, extremely stable, with excellent visibility from the cockpit, but there were problems. Most seriously, at low speeds, with flaps down, stall warning was poor, and when the XP-80 did stall, it broke sharply to the right, usually with deadly consequences when close to the ground. Also, the XP-80 had a dangerous tendency to flip onto its back in a whipping action in an inverted stall, and this would later bring tragedy to the program. Engine metallurgy had not caught up with the airframe design and the original GE I-40 engine would be plagued with reliability problems. Further flight tests and gun firing tests proceeded with the GE engine.

On June 10, 1944 the XP-80A with the new J33 engine was test flown on its maiden flight by Lockheed test pilot TonyLeVier. However, early in the flight LeVier knew he was in trouble when the aircraft rolled inverted at 10,000 feet as he was starting flap tests. With only one set of flaps deployed, LeVier was able to make a fast flat approach and land on the dry lake bed. The addition of boundary layer splitter plates in the ducts to insure a smooth airflow eliminated snaking. Unfortunately, flaws in the casting of the engine's turbine wheel caused the turbine disc in the "hot section" to disintegrate cutting off the XP-80A's tail. Test pilot, Tony LeVier was forced to bail out during the March 20, 1945 test flight and survived, but suffered severe back injuries. Six months earlier, Milo Burcham died when a faulty overspeed governor failed, causing drive shaft overspeed and fuel pump failure, which ultimately resulted in fuel starvation. Burcham had just taken off from Burbank Airport when the engine flamed out. He tried to bring the XP-80A back, but crashed into a nearby gravel pit and was killed. A similar fuel starvation incident was to claim the life of Major Richard Bong, the highest scoring US fighter pilot in World War II and with 40 victories the highest scoring US fighter ace of all time. To prevent another reoccurrence of the type that killed Burcham, an electrical backup fuel pump had been installed to support the fuel flow should the primary fail. However, when Bong took off from the Van Nuys Airport, some five miles from Burbank where Milo Burcham had crashed, he failed to switch on his electrical backup pump prior to takeoff, and his P-80A crashed, killing him. Six more engine related fatal accidents were to plague the program. However, the program continued to be refined and on June 19, 1947, the XP-80R set a new world air speed record of 629 MPH.

The world's first jet trainer evolved from America's first successful jet fighter, the F/P-80 Shooting Star. The F-80 was developed by the Lockheed Skunk Works in 137 days which was less than the 150 days as specified by the contract from design to test flight in 1943. After the unsuccessful Bell P-59 Aircomet project, the F-80's airframe was found to be far more sophisticated and advanced than its primitive engine. It was also much more reliable. By the time the metallurgical bugs were worked out its original General Electric I-40 engine, which was based on the British de Havilland H-1 engine used in Britain's first fighter the DH- 115 Vampire, the engine project had been turned over to the Allison Engine Division of General Motors. At Allison, a group of engineers, led by Robert Atkinson, turned the GE I- 40 into the Allison J33 and its many variants with far greater reliability and 50% more thrust. However, jet fighters from North American (F-86 Sabre) and Republic Aircraft (F-84 Thunderjet) would soon eclipse the underpowered F-80, but the clean airframe still had many miles of utilization remaining in its sleek lines. In fact, this elegant product of the aviation designer's art looks modern today. As well it should, since it was the creation of the industry's best aviation minds, laboring under a formidable, stringent deadline, but without the usual impediemnts of red tape. Compared to the primitive GE powerplant with which it had originally been fitted, it represented the state of the aerodynamicist's art. It was fast, it was smooth and very maneuverable, with finger light controls. It was also dependable and, most important, versatile.

With the relatively high performance of the P-80, the high altitude environment where it could routinely operate, and the new and different demands put on pilots flying jet aircraft, which were so gravely underlined by early accidents which destroyed fifteen YP-80A aircraft and P-80's, required that a jet trainer be developed to aid this transition to a new mode of flight. Accordingly, a twenty nine inch plug was inserted ahead of the wing, with a second twelve inch plug behind it, giving the trainer a length of 37 feet 9 inches and providing the extra space for a second cockpit with dual controls. Ejection seats and 235 gallon jettisonable centerline tip tanks were added and on March 22, 1948, Tony LeVier made the aircraft's first flight. The T-33 flew even better than its single seat ancestor. Cleaned up and refined, the airframe climbed faster, cruised more effortlessly and was slightly faster than its older and smaller cousins. Even the US Navy had a special version of the T-33 built, the TV2-1A Sea Star, for carrier pilot training.

Powered by its Allison J33A35 single-shaft dual compressor centrifugal flow turbojet engine with a rating of 4,600 lbs.of thrust (9200 horsepower), the T-33 had a top speed of 600 mph, a ceiling of 49,000 ft., and a range just under 1,400 miles. It was fitted with a pair of .50 caliber machine guns in the nose and could carry external stores and armament under its wings.

-

Chevan
08-15-2007, 07:47 AM
Oh thanks George you posts a great detailed staff as always;)

I still haven't bought a copy of Il-2 yet, but definitely want to try my hand at it. Have used the P-80 and Me-262 in CFS 2 & 3 though. I'm looking forward to Il-2.

Well in last mod of Il-2 there are avialible the XP-80 od early modification (1944) and Me-262-1a/b
Plus BONUS ;) Me-262-ZII prototipe that should be take off in the 1946. This is a uber-figher.
But damn - they still didn't include my favorite Mig-15 and Sabre;)

All the best.

George Eller
08-15-2007, 01:38 PM
Oh thanks George you posts a great detailed staff as always;)

Well in last mod of Il-2 there are avialible the XP-80 od early modification (1944) and Me-262-1a/b
Plus BONUS ;) Me-262-ZII prototipe that should be take off in the 1946. This is a uber-figher.
But damn - they still didn't include my favorite Mig-15 and Sabre

All the best.
-

You're welcome Chevan :)

BTW, I just bought IL 2 1946 The Signature Collection on my lunch break today for $20 US. It contains all 4 expansions so far plus the original IL 2. All on one DVD disc and it includes a bonus DVD with special features.

IL-2 STURMOVIK™: 1946
IL 2 1946 The Signature Collection

http://www.pacific-fighters.com/en/home.php

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/26310365/m/8531020575

http://forums.simradar.com/IL-2_1946_Questions_P421504.html

http://www.combatsim.com/story.php?id=4537

http://pc.ign.com/articles/775/775516p1.html

http://pc.ign.com/articles/751/751000p1.html

http://www.3dgamers.com/games/il2sturmovik1946/


Now all I need to do is buy and install a DVD drive for my computer.

Cheers ;)

-

awack
08-15-2007, 01:39 PM
The USAAF compared the P-80 and Me 262 concluding: "Despite a difference in gross weight of nearly 2,000 lb (907 kg), the Me 262 was superior to the P-80 in acceleration, speed and approximately the same in climb performance. The Me 262 apparently has a higher critical Mach number, from a drag standpoint, than any current Army Air Force fighterE]

I found this on WIKIPEDIA witch usualy has errors but this is a direct quote from the test document witch i have read in several books that i longer have.

The only way you can truly compare aircraft is by a side by side testing.

George Eller
08-15-2007, 01:56 PM
The USAAF compared the P-80 and Me 262 concluding: "Despite a difference in gross weight of nearly 2,000 lb (907 kg), the Me 262 was superior to the P-80 in acceleration, speed and approximately the same in climb performance. The Me 262 apparently has a higher critical Mach number, from a drag standpoint, than any current Army Air Force fighterE]

I found this on WIKIPEDIA witch usualy has errors but this is a direct quote from the test document witch i have read in several books that i longer have.

The only way you can truly compare aircraft is by a side by side testing.
-

Thanks awack, but I would prefer to see the original detailed report. So far I haven't had much luck finding it on the net.

Your quote is in the Me 262 article at wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Me_262

P-80 Shooting Star
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-80_Shooting_Star#Specifications_.28P-80C.2FF-80C.29

-

Panzerknacker
08-15-2007, 10:12 PM
First victory of the JG 7.

A history about the Me-262A-1 schwalbe used in his best role, the high altitude interceptation.

http://i10.tinypic.com/678rl09.jpg

http://i10.tinypic.com/62xc9dw.jpg

http://i11.tinypic.com/4z3554k.jpg

A image of the pilot, Herman Buchner veteran ground attacker of the eastern front in the Fw-190.

http://i15.tinypic.com/4uxkxz8.jpg

Chevan
08-16-2007, 01:00 AM
-

You're welcome Chevan :)

BTW, I just bought IL 2 1946 The Signature Collection on my lunch break today for $20 US. It contains all 4 expansions so far plus the original IL 2. All on one DVD disc and it includes a bonus DVD with special features.

IL-2 STURMOVIK™: 1946
IL 2 1946 The Signature Collection

Yea George the 1946 the Signature Collection is the best collection that i/m aslo use.
This last mod includs the some of the post-war jet aircrafts Including the some interesting prototypes like Me-262-HGII - the next development of the Me-262.


Now all I need to do is buy and install a DVD drive for my computer.

Cheers ;)

-
How?
Really you still have not the DVD-rom?That's a great lack;)
And do not forget about good Joistick ( i/m uses the Logitech);)

George Eller
08-16-2007, 12:21 PM
You're welcome Chevan :)

BTW, I just bought IL 2 1946 The Signature Collection on my lunch break today for $20 US. It contains all 4 expansions so far plus the original IL 2. All on one DVD disc and it includes a bonus DVD with special features.

IL-2 STURMOVIK™: 1946
IL 2 1946 The Signature Collection


Yea George the 1946 the Signature Collection is the best collection that i/m aslo use.
This last mod includs the some of the post-war jet aircrafts Including the some interesting prototypes like Me-262-HGII - the next development of the Me-262.



Now all I need to do is buy and install a DVD drive for my computer.

Cheers

How?
Really you still have not the DVD-rom?That's a great lack;)
And do not forget about good Joistick ( i/m uses the Logitech);)
-

Well Chevan, I'm glad that I finally bought the game. Looks like the Signature Collection was a good choice, as you recommend it.

IL-2 STURMOVIK™: 1946 The Signature Collection has received very high praise from the gaming community, so I'm really looking forward to it.
http://www.pacific-fighters.com/en/home.php

There are 32 new flyable fighters and bombers, including the Me-262-HGII prototype, the MiG-9 Jet fighter and the Arado Ar-234 Blitz jet bomber. The graphics look fantastic.

My computer is a little old (early 2000's) Dell T-600 pentium III with 756 megs ram and 80 gb hardrive. I have a CD/ROM drive and a writeable CD drive which was fine for most gaming. But some of the newer programs are so massive that it is more conveniant to put them on one DVD rather than multiple CD's (I think AutoCAD 2005 came on 5 CD's. The latest AutoCAD 2008 is on one DVD).

Since my old CD/ROM drive was wearing out anyway, I will replace it with a new DVD Drive. I will probably pick one up at Best Buy or CompUSA.

I have been using a Logitech Extreme 3D Pro joystick which has a twist handle for rudder control. It works great in CFS 2 & 3, and I think it will be fine for IL-2 1946.

Logitech Extreme 3D Pro
http://www.logitech.com/index.cfm/gaming/pc_gaming/joysticks/devices/291&cl=us,en

I think that eventually, I will have to upgrade to a new computer as well. Some of the newer game system requirements are beyond the capabilities of my machine. :)

-

Panzerknacker
08-16-2007, 06:10 PM
There is a gaming section, no more here please.

George Eller
08-16-2007, 10:52 PM
-

More interesting information on the Me 262 vs P-80 comparison tests at Wright Field after the war.

The Great Planes
A Source About World War 2 Aviation



BuzzLightyear
Posted - February 04 2004 : 02:46:29 AM
http://www.tgplanes.com/Public/snitz/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=56&SearchTerms=Extraversion

BTW, I agree the P-80A was the best jet fighter to emerge from WWII. It simply gave up nothing to the Me-262 in terms of performance, being superior in just about every imaginable performance category. It was faster at all altitudes. Had a ceiling of some 8,000 feet higher. It had a better drag coefficient. It had a higher critical mach. It had better power-to-weight ratio. Better wing loading. Better range.

The P-80A roll rate was simply amazing for that era:

The only area where the P-80 could have used improvement was the stick force required in longitudnal manuevers with a signficantly forward center-of-gravity. It could be very high. As center-of-gravity shifted back, control stick forces were exceptionally light.

I've seen (In the book Me-262, Smith and Creek, Volume 4) a summary of a direct comparison test done after the war that suggested the overall superiority of the Me-262. But it's important to note that that comparsion was between a stripped recon verson of the Me-262 and the XP-80 (which was dimensionally smaller and had 1,000 lbs less thrust than the P-80A). This was the only test that I know of where both planes were present at the same place and time.

However, I know of at least 4 other comparison studies that were done by the USAAF between the P-80A and the Me-262. Results of two of those tests are unknown to me. The others concluded the general superiority of the P-80A. One pilot in one of the latter tests stated "The Me-262 may be the best jet fighter in service, but the P-80 is the best jet fighter in the world." I guess he meant combat service.

Regards,
Buzz

awack
08-17-2007, 11:45 AM
The XP-80 weighted 6287 pounds empty and 8196 pounds loaded. Dimensions were wingspan 37 feet 0 inches, length 32 feet 10 inches, height 10 feet 3 inches, and wing area 240 square feet. During tests, the XP-80 reached a top speed of 502 mph at 20,480 feet, becoming the first USAAF aircraft to exceed 500 mph in level flight. Service ceiling was 41,000 feet, and initial climb rate was 3000 feet per minute. The aircraft was armed with six 0.50-inch Browning M2 machine guns with 200 rounds per gun


he Me-262s were then shipped to the US on the Royal Navy "jeep" carrier HMS REAPER for further evaluation at Wright Field in Ohio. The tests there included a competitive fly-off against a Lockheed P-80 Shooting Star jet fighter that concluded the Me-262 was generally superior.


he USAAF compared the P-80 and Me 262 concluding: "Despite a difference in gross weight of nearly 2,000 lb (907 kg), the Me 262 was superior to the P-80 in acceleration, speed and approximately the same in climb performance. The Me 262 apparently has a higher critical Mach number, from a drag standpoint, than any current Army Air Force fighter. The Army Air Force also tested an example of the Me 262A-1a/U3 (US flight evaluation serial FE-4012), an unarmed photoreconnaissance version, which was fitted with a fighter nose and given an overall smooth finish. It was used for performance comparisons against the P-80. During testing in May-August 1946, the aircraft completed eight flights spanning four hours and 40 minutes. Testing was discontinued after four engine changes were required during the course of the tests, culminating in two single-engine landings.


Hey george,
As you see the post made by buzzlightyear seems to have mistakes in it,
for starters there was only one XP-80 made and its weight was 6287 pounds empty and 8196 pounds loaded and the report states it was a p-80 weighed nearly 2000 pounds less than the me 262, the typical loaded weight of the early production P-80a 11.700 to 12.100 pounds and the loaded weight of the me 262 was 14.100 pounds.

The two XP-80a's had an upgraded engine with a thrust of 4000 pounds
it should be noted that the production versions of this engine had a thrust of 3850 pounds

He also states that the p-80 had a higher critical mach number but the flight testing of the FE-4012 (recon version fitted with the nose of a fighter) took place during mid 1946 and the report states that the me 262 had a higher critical number than any current army airforce fighter.

George Eller
08-17-2007, 08:15 PM
Hey george,
As you see the post made by buzzlightyear seems to have mistakes in it,
for starters there was only one XP-80 made and its weight was 6287 pounds empty and 8196 pounds loaded and the report states it was a p-80 weighed nearly 2000 pounds less than the me 262, the typical loaded weight of the early production P-80a 11.700 to 12.100 pounds and the loaded weight of the me 262 was 14.100 pounds.

The two XP-80a's had an upgraded engine with a thrust of 4000 pounds
it should be noted that the production versions of this engine had a thrust of 3850 pounds

He also states that the p-80 had a higher critical mach number but the flight testing of the FE-4012 (recon version fitted with the nose of a fighter) took place during mid 1946 and the report states that the me 262 had a higher critical number than any current army airforce fighter.

-

Hi awack,

I am getting these figures.

XP-80A weights: 7,920 lb empty, 11,700 lb gross, 14,000 / 14,500 lb maximum take off weight
http://www.aviation-history.com/lockheed/p80.html
http://www.daveswarbirds.com/usplanes/aircraft/shootstr.htm

Me 262A-1a weights: 8,378 lb empty, 9,742 lb typical, 10,154 lb gross basic, 14,110 lbs. maximum take off weight
http://www.warbirdalley.com/me262.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messerschmitt_Me_262
http://www.xs4all.nl/~fbonne/warbirds/ww2htmls/messme262.html
http://www.pilotfriend.com/photo_albums/timeline/ww2/Messerschmitt%20Me%20262.htm
http://www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com/Images/Me262/262PilotHandbook.pdf

XP-80 weights: 6,287 lb empty, 8196 pounds loaded.
http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p80_1.html
http://tanks45.tripod.com/Jets45/Histories/Lockheed-L140/XP80.htm

Note that the maximum take off weight of the XP-80A and Me 262 are almost the same.

The empty weight of the XP-80A and Me 262 are very close - the Me 262 was 458 lb heavier.

**However, the empty weight of the XP-80 and Me 262 differ - the Me 262 was 2,091 lb heavier.
Also the loaded weight of XP-80 and Me 262 basic gross weight differ - the Me 262 was 1,958 lb heavier** - This seems to back up the statement by BuzzLightyear quoted at bottom that the side by side comparison was between a stripped recon verson of the Me-262 and the XP-80 (which was dimensionally smaller and had 1,000 lbs less thrust than the P-80A).
(In light of your quote: "Despite a difference in gross weight of nearly 2,000 lb (907 kg), the Me 262 was superior to the P-80 in acceleration, speed and approximately the same in climb performance.")

In 1946 after exhaustive flight testing the XP-80 was transferred to the Smithsonian Institution where it is on display today.
http://tanks45.tripod.com/Jets45/Histories/Lockheed-L140/XP80.htm

-

From:
LWAG The Luftwaffe Archives & Records Reference Group
http://www.lwag.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=705000&sid=dbc6c625cb0fa2b5468b2a8a6c929fb5

posted by Richard T. Eger, Sun July 30, 2000 7:37 pm

The following are key records taken from the Seymour, IN, newspaper relating to Freeman Field activities with captured aircraft at the end of WW II:

INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE SEYMOUR DAILY TRIBUNE,
SEYMOUR, INDIANA, REGARDING CAPTURED LUFTWAFFE AIRCRAFT
BROUGHT TO FREEMAN FIELD AFTER WW II
(Data obtained by Richard T. Eger, ~9/72, 11/30/74, 3/1/75, and 3/8/75)

5/22/46

"Slick-up" Me-262 left Freeman field late afternoon bound for Wright Field, AMC HQ, where it will be subjected to a series of tests to determine its utmost capabilities. Plane, which came from Germany via a British aircraft carrier, was completely rebuilt and brought up to safety standards demanded by AAF. A new coat of special aircraft paint was applied to plane to bring out fullest speed capabilities. Several other aircraft of the same type (assume Me 262) are still assigned to the base (Freeman Field). (I presume the above was a quote, but I failed to use quotation marks).

-

Regarding critical mach number, the information I've seen rated the Me 262 faster in a dive.

There seems to be conflicting information on the Me 262 vs P-80 comparison tests at Wright Field after the war. I am just trying to get a more complete picture of what actually occured. It would be nice to see the records of all the studies that were conducted. BuzzLightyear stated that at least four additional comparison studies were done.

As I find more information, I will pass it on.

Best Regards,
George

-

More interesting information on the Me 262 vs P-80 comparison tests at Wright Field after the war.

The Great Planes
A Source About World War 2 Aviation



BuzzLightyear
Posted - February 04 2004 : 02:46:29 AM
http://www.tgplanes.com/Public/snitz/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=56&SearchTerms=Extraversion

BTW, I agree the P-80A was the best jet fighter to emerge from WWII. It simply gave up nothing to the Me-262 in terms of performance, being superior in just about every imaginable performance category. It was faster at all altitudes. Had a ceiling of some 8,000 feet higher. It had a better drag coefficient. It had a higher critical mach. It had better power-to-weight ratio. Better wing loading. Better range.

The P-80A roll rate was simply amazing for that era:

The only area where the P-80 could have used improvement was the stick force required in longitudnal manuevers with a signficantly forward center-of-gravity. It could be very high. As center-of-gravity shifted back, control stick forces were exceptionally light.

I've seen (In the book Me-262, Smith and Creek, Volume 4) a summary of a direct comparison test done after the war that suggested the overall superiority of the Me-262. But it's important to note that that comparsion was between a stripped recon verson of the Me-262 and the XP-80 (which was dimensionally smaller and had 1,000 lbs less thrust than the P-80A). This was the only test that I know of where both planes were present at the same place and time.

However, I know of at least 4 other comparison studies that were done by the USAAF between the P-80A and the Me-262. Results of two of those tests are unknown to me. The others concluded the general superiority of the P-80A. One pilot in one of the latter tests stated "The Me-262 may be the best jet fighter in service, but the P-80 is the best jet fighter in the world." I guess he meant combat service.

Regards,
Buzz

awack
08-18-2007, 09:42 PM
Me262-1A Specifications -
Engines: 2 x Jumo-004B engines with 1,980 lb S.T. (900 kg) each.
Weights - empty: 8,380 lb (3,800 kg) Operational: 14,110 lb (6,400 kg) Maximum: 15,720 lbs (7,130 kg)
unted

P-80A specifications -
Engine: One General Electric J33-GE-11 or Allison J33-A-9 with 3,850 lb S.T. (1,746 kg)
Weights - empty: 7920 lbs. Operational: 11,700 pounds Maximum: 14,000 lbs


Engine: One General Electric J33-GE-11 or Allison J33-A-9 turbojet, rated at 3850 lb.s.t. Later production blocks powered by 4000 lb.s.t. Allison J33-A-17. Dimensions: wingspan 38 feet 10 1/2 inches (without wingtip tanks), length 34 feet 6 inches, height 11 feet 4 inches, and wing area 237.6 square feet Weights were 7920 pounds empty, 11,700 pounds gross, and 14,000 pounds maximum takeoff. Fuel load: 425 US gallons normal, 885 US gallons maximum. Performance: Maximum speed was 558 mph at sea level and 492 mph at 40,000 feet. Initial climb rate was 4580 feet/minute, and an altitude of 20,000 feet could be attained in 5.5 minutes. Service ceiling was 45,000 feet. Normal range was 780 miles, and maximum range was 1440 miles. Armament: Six 0.50-inch machine gun



Me 262: Empty Weight, w/o armament or ammunition, 8,378 lbs; weight
equipped, 9,742 lbs; weight loaded, 14,101 lb. w/ 396 Imp.
gal. (475 US gal.) fuel; 15,720 lb. w/ 565 Imp. gal. (678
US gal.) fuel.


Wingspan: 41 ft.; Wing Area: 234 sq. ft.


P-80A Empty weight, w/ armament, no ammunition, 7225 lb.: weight
loaded, 11,700 lb. w/ 470 US gal. fuel, 14,000 lb. w/ 800
US gal. fuel.


Wingspan: 39 ft.; Wing Area: 238 sq. ft.

The normal cambat weight of the p 80a was 11.700 pounds, the combat weight of the me 262 was 14.100 pounds.
The maximum weight of the p 80a was 14.000 pounds, the me 262 was 15.720
The loaded weight of the xp 80 was 8.196 pounds, the empty weight of the me 262 was 8.379 pounds+ the fuel load alone was around 4.000 or so pounds(475 us gal) the test states the it was the gross weight that was nearly 2.000 pounds different, so i am almost 100 % sure it was not the xp-80 used in the test.

The recon version of the me 262 (me 262 A1a/U3) was the same as the fighter version, only difference was the recon me 262 had a different nose section witch housed photo equipment instead of guns and ammo, test me 262 number 4012 was given a fighter nose section.

George Eller
08-19-2007, 03:48 AM
The normal cambat weight of the p 80a was 11.700 pounds, the combat weight of the me 262 was 14.100 pounds.
The maximum weight of the p 80a was 14.000 pounds, the me 262 was 15.720
The loaded weight of the xp 80 was 8.196 pounds, the empty weight of the me 262 was 8.379 pounds+ the fuel load alone was around 4.000 or so pounds(475 us gal) the test states the it was the gross weight that was nearly 2.000 pounds different, so i am almost 100 % sure it was not the xp-80 used in the test.

The recon version of the me 262 (me 262 A1a/U3) was the same as the fighter version, only difference was the recon me 262 had a different nose section witch housed photo equipment instead of guns and ammo, test me 262 number 4012 was given a fighter nose section.
-

Maximum take off weight for P-80A: 14,000 / 14,500 lb
Maximum gross weight for Me 262: 14,272 lb.

The Lockheed P-80: Shooting Star helped United States catch up with Europeans
http://www.generalaviationnews.com/editorial/articledetail.lasso?-token.key=691&-token.src=column&-nothing


Before the XP-80 flew, the Army ordered two –80As. They had two more feet of wingspan than the XP-80 and were slightly longer. Power was now supplied by a 4,000-pound-thrust I-16, and the gross weight went from 8,915 pounds to 13,780, necessitating an overall stronger structure. The notorious short range of jet aircraft was alleviated somewhat by the development of 165-gallon underwing tip tanks. The second XP-80A was completed as a two-seater to carry an observer for the test equipment.

-

Me-262 A-1 Pilots Handbook
By F. D. Van Wart, 1st Lt., Air Corps
Date Prepared 10 Jan 1946 Release Date 10 July 1946
Headquartes Air Material Command
Wright Field Dayton, Ohio
http://www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com/Images/Me262/262PilotHandbook.pdf


Section 1. C. The aircraft gross weight runs between 10,154 lb. (empty) and 14,272 lb. (with maximum fuel).

Section 2. Take off gross weight and balance

Section 2. d. 1.)The normal take off gross weight is 14,272 lb. 10,154 lb basic plus 4118 lb for fuel, pilot, and ballast.

-

awack
08-19-2007, 12:42 PM
Hi, i now realize that what buzzlightyear is talking about and the test report are two diferent things.
The following is from the book ARROW TO THE FUTURE by Walter J Boynes.


The test at Wright Paterson were run by legendary test pilot Al Boyd. The USAAF compared the P-80 and Me-262 concluding: "Despite a difference in gross weight of nearly 2,000 lb (907 kg), the Me 262 was superior to the P-80 in acceleration, speed and approximately the same in climb performance. The Me 262 apparently has a higher critical Mach number, from a drag standpoint, than any current Army Air Force fighter." The P-80 handled better and had better visibility.

The Army Air Force also tested an example of the Me 262A-1a/U3 (US flight evaluation serial FE-4012), an unarmed photo reconnaissance version, which was fitted with a fighter nose and given an overall smooth finish. It was used for performance comparisons against the P-80. During testing in May-August 1946, the aircraft completed eight flights spanning four hours and 40 minutes. Testing was discontinued after four engine changes were required during the course of the tests, culminating in two single-engine landings." There were NO combat maneuvers done aircraft vs. aircraft

George Eller
08-19-2007, 10:43 PM
Hi, i now realize that what buzzlightyear is talking about and the test report are two diferent things.
The following is from the book ARROW TO THE FUTURE by Walter J Boynes.


The test at Wright Paterson were run by legendary test pilot Al Boyd. The USAAF compared the P-80 and Me-262 concluding: "Despite a difference in gross weight of nearly 2,000 lb (907 kg), the Me 262 was superior to the P-80 in acceleration, speed and approximately the same in climb performance. The Me 262 apparently has a higher critical Mach number, from a drag standpoint, than any current Army Air Force fighter." The P-80 handled better and had better visibility.

The Army Air Force also tested an example of the Me 262A-1a/U3 (US flight evaluation serial FE-4012), an unarmed photo reconnaissance version, which was fitted with a fighter nose and given an overall smooth finish. It was used for performance comparisons against the P-80. During testing in May-August 1946, the aircraft completed eight flights spanning four hours and 40 minutes. Testing was discontinued after four engine changes were required during the course of the tests, culminating in two single-engine landings." There were NO combat maneuvers done aircraft vs. aircraft

-

Thanks for the info awack,

Interesting - there were NO combat maneuvers done aircraft vs. aircraft.

I am very curious to learn more about these (five +) studies. If I am unable to find the complete reports online, I will try to obtain copies through the government archives if they are available to the public.

I will post what I am able to find.

All the Best,
George

-

orionRider
09-13-2007, 07:51 AM
Hi everybody,

I just registered on this forum hoping somebody can help me.
I am currently building a flying scale model of the Me262 V4 (the last prototype with tail wheel). Unfortunately, there is very little data available about this bird.
I read on a russian site (via online translation) that the V4 with code PC+UD was destroyed in an accident on june 26, 1943. It would have been only a few month after its maiden flight.
However, other sources say this plane was presented to Hitler at Insterburg air base in november of the same year.
Digger wrote something about that in this post.

My question is: what happened to this plane after Galland flew it on may 22?

Any help (data, pics, refs, links,...) would be greatly appreciated :)

Digger
09-14-2007, 07:09 AM
The Me 262 V4 first flew on May 15th 1943 and flew a total of 51 test flights before being damaged beyond repair at Schkeuditz on the 25th July 1943, due to overheating engines.

Source Me 262 Volume one by J. Richard Smith and Eddie J. Creek. Published by Classic Publications. ISBN 0 9526867 2 4

Hope this helps mate.

Regards Digger.

orionRider
09-14-2007, 02:44 PM
That is just what I was looking for since about six month :shock:

I cannot thank you enough :D

Now, from what I have read elsewhere, the damaged V4 was probably not dismantled, but instead it was put on static display at the November 1943 air show at Insterburg. That would explain the reports of two planes being presented to Hitler.

The 51 flights are consistent with the life expectation of these early jet engines. I am even surprised that 1943 jet engines built with low grade materials lasted that long :eek:
Anyway, not many German fighters of this period survived more than ten missions, so 50+ flights was in fact more than they needed!

Obviously, the Germans would not have wasted brand new Jumo's to repair an old prototype while so many new airframes required them. This explains why the V4 was eventually discarded.

I am delighted to learn that my 'subject' was not a failure. I hate building and flying a plane that was not successful.

Digger, is there by any chance a picture of V4 in this book?
I have found many photos of the whole stable, from V1 to V6, except for V4... :confused:

Digger
09-15-2007, 02:31 AM
There does not appear to be a complete photo of the V4. As for the fate of the wreck, again no info, but i'm sure I have the info somewhere. The V3 and V5 prototypes have a lot more focus than the V4, but I will see what I can unearth.

Digger

Panzerknacker
10-02-2007, 06:49 PM
This is beautiful :)

Official Me-262 training film, 1944.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8989132302692103060&q=video+google+me-262&total=33&start=20&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=1

orionRider
10-03-2007, 02:03 AM
Excellent, thanks Panzer!

Panzerknacker
11-17-2007, 03:59 PM
No problem.

Shark vs Cobra:

This Messerschmitt Me262A-1a was flown by Oblt. Fritz Stehle, Staffelkapitän of 2./JG 7, (which was attached to Gefechtsverband Hogeback). On 8th May 1945, Stehle flew this aircraft from Zatec (Czechoslovakia) and surrendered to British forces at Fassberg. While en route to Fassberg, Stehle is reported to have claimed the last air victory of the war with this aircraft, shooting down a Soviet P-39 flown by Lt. S.G. Stepanov, 129 GIAP (22 GIAD) at about 4pm.

http://img222.imageshack.us/img222/1760/262rj8.jpg

Image by Jerry Boucher.

PA.Dutchman
01-17-2008, 10:50 PM
An ME 262 Completely restored can be seen at Willow Grove Naval Air Station in Pennsylvania at the small Delaware Valley Air Force Museum. It was completely taken apart piece by piece to restore and make blue prints for 5 replicas.

Here are photos I took of it. It is the last German ME 262 Trainer. It has been flown and was returned to the Museum and 5 replicas are being build for 1 Million a piece.

Here are some of the sites and the instruction German film used to train pilots.

The second reproduction was flown over Berlin in 2005 for their air show. Messerschmidt purchased it.

Training Video (long)
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8989132302692103060&q=me262&total=320&start=10&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=4


http://www.vectorsite.net/avme262.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messerschmitt_Me_262 (This has lots of links to other good sites)


Videos
http://www.youtube.com/v/SSwsZMiDKFw&rel=1
http://www.youtube.com/v/a5a69PQ88KQ&rel=1
http://www.youtube.com/v/RACSnJDrfgA&rel=1
http://www.youtube.com/v/ifTqqxrxuGU&rel=1
http://www.youtube.com/v/1THzcb-PBtM&rel=1
http://www.youtube.com/v/F508BnlCqMc&rel=1
http://www.youtube.com/v/IhQ2OytBq5Y&rel=1


German
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-9204328304330343657]
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4288339179198850450

PA.Dutchman
01-17-2008, 11:01 PM
This site will tell you the complete story of the restoration and the replicas.

http://www.stormbirds.com/project/index.html

The photos below are the very same ME 262 in 1945 as it was prepared to be brought back to the USA.

It can be seen very lightly the Number 35 painted on the side of it. The restored plane has all the original markings on it along with the number 35.

Major Walter Schmidt
01-17-2008, 11:04 PM
I hope few of the replias will be of the Me262 b-2 Nachtjagers.<modified me262b-1 to be nightfighters>.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/53/ME_262_2.jpg
And does the jumo004 work? Does it fly?

PA.Dutchman
01-17-2008, 11:21 PM
I understand the five will be Fighters, not the Trainer version. Go to that site and you can get all the information that is available.

Isn't it one beautiful plane? When you watch the video of it flying it is a site to behold.

PA.Dutchman
01-17-2008, 11:42 PM
This should take you to the very video of the Berlin 2005 Air Show and the Replica taxing down the run way and flying over the city.


http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7620890100890480&q=me%2B262&pr=goog-sl

PA.Dutchman
01-18-2008, 08:40 AM
Dear Major Walter Schmidt,

The ME 262 that I posted under German Military had its gun ports covered with some kind of plugs all these years.

When they were taking it apart to restore and make blue prints for the replicas they found the original Machine Guns were still installed.

George Eller
01-18-2008, 09:49 AM
-

Great pics, video clips, and info PA. Dutchman. :)

Thanks for sharing.

-

PA.Dutchman
01-18-2008, 07:26 PM
The Germans did some amazing things with amazingly little resources through out the war.

All through the war they had issues with limited supplies, and that helped us to win. God help us if they had unlimited supplies and production as we did.

But here was a new form of powered aircraft, developed at a time when things were hard to come by all over Germany and look what the Germans did in spite of all these limitations. Sure it wasn't perfect and thank God it wasn't or we would have been in real trouble.

So the USA and Russia take the all ME 262s they can home with them and what do we do with them? We learn how to make our own jet planes from their ME 262. But we had all the necessary materials they didn't, and we still screwed up.

At the Delaware Air Museum a Colonel went over the ME 262 piece by piece with me for an hour to show me all the things we used from these outstanding planes to this day.

The swept back wings. We tried to fly one in Korea (Shooting Star)without swept back wings and the ME 262 out flew it in secrets tests conducted by the US Air Force. The little piece on the edge of the wing that moves back and forth on its own is used on every jet fighter to this day. It was first used on the ME 262. The design was superior to our flying jet boxes by GE.

How many American TEST Pilots did not die because of the things we learned and used on our jets from the ME 262? Many many such advancements from the ME 262 spared many Allied Pilots in the years after the war.

Take their battle helmet they first used it in World War I. It was superior to anything anyone else had for the rest of the century. We used the old English Pot helmet in World War I and into World War II. Mean while the German helmet first designed in World War I keeps protecting their heads and ears better than anything we have.

OK now we go int Korea with the same old helmet, then Vietnam and early wars in the Middle East all the time using the old style World War II Helmet. How many men died and were permanently injured because of those old helmets. Finally after nearly 90 years the United States finally adopted the German Style helmet. The one German has been using successfully for nearly 90 years is finally adopted by the US and the United Nations.

So maybe Germany had some flaws in their early jets, but I would hate to think what we would be flying if we hadn't captured their ME 262 and used them for our own designs.

And again the helmet after 90 years how many Americans died using a helmet that was only good for shaving out of. Too many!!

One more thing. I read a lot about the ME 262, their engine wasn't necessary a bad design, they lacked the best metals and materials to make the best engine.

If you made the same engine today with the best of materials the engine would work great for a first attempt at a jet powered aircraft. It was in its state better than anything the English or the USA had. We never did get anything into the War to fly against it but more propeller driven planes.

If it was such an inferior plane how come every country in the world was trying to get as many as they could to take home for testing and design after the war. Check it out the US and Russia took all the good jet planes they could get home with them.

They took the U-21 Subs, both the Nautilus and the first Russian subs came from the U-21.

The Space programs were both the result of the work of the German during the war. It was God Almighty Himself that gave us the edge and the win in the end.

Much of our Best tanks and other hardware have their design traced by to a German Tank of the 1940's.

PA.Dutchman
01-19-2008, 09:30 AM
But again it was late in the war the Germans had limited supplies of quality and necessary materials to build the engine the ME 262 needed.

It has been found that had they had the quality materials and supplies and their engine build under ideal conditions it would have done an outstanding job.

But this wasn't the case so to get the ME 262 up and flying under the worse of war time conditions was quite a feat.

The Replicas and the Restored ME 262 are using GE jet engines close to the very same size and power ratings of the original engines.

However there is a group who is in the process of building a ME 262 with the originally designed engine, but with the best of materials. It is believed by this group the engine would have been successful had they had the time and necessary alloys to build a quality engine.

Britian and the USA had the materials and alloys and they could not come up with a working plane design to come close to the operation ME 262.

Uyraell
03-07-2009, 04:19 PM
Wow his first sortie, that's pretty impressive.

I've always thought if Hitler hadn't insisted it be a bomber it may have made a change to the war.


Of course if Germany had invested the time and costs into creating or upgrading their current piston-engine fleet I imgagine the outcome would have been more effective.

Germany had three viable jet designs as fighters. Compared to two for the British, and only one for the Americans, and none for the Russians.
Germany : He.280. Me.262, He.162 C or D.
Britain: Gloster Meteor, De Havilland Vampire.
America: Lockheed P80.

It is of significant note that the Me.262 outperformed and outmaneouvered the British and American designs. (And as has been mentioned, was doing so years after WW2.)

Therefore, Germany would actually have been wiser to curtail production of the aged Me.109 in favour of the He.280 or the He.162.
The He.280 and He.162 could very easily have served alongside the Me.262, which despite its various problems was nonetheless a superlative aircraft.
The Germans also had three very viable engines on their hands :
He. Os11, BMW 003, and Junkers 004.
Yes each of these engines did have developmental issues, but none were insurmountable.

There was basically only one "Allied" jet engine type, either the RR Derwent or DH Ghost, both of those being Whittle pattern. (The American Whittle pattern copies are essentially irrelevant, being little different from the British forebears.)

Thus, it would have made sense for Germany to have transitioned to a largely jet-powered fighter force, against which the Allies would have basically been defenceless. Therefore, upgrading the piston engine fleet would have been redundant, apart from the cases of perhaps 3 fighter aircraft families, namely:
Ta 152H, FW 190 D9, He.219.

Regards, Uyraell.

Nickdfresh
03-07-2009, 06:06 PM
The P/F-80 Shooting Star would have been more than a match for the Me262...

Ivaylo
03-07-2009, 06:08 PM
The P/F-80 Shooting Star would have been more than a match for the Me262...

Ehm can you please provide more info on P/F-80 Shooting star , maybe a little bit off topic but for first time i meet that name ( i admit i am amateur with the fighter planes ) :)

Nickdfresh
03-07-2009, 09:07 PM
Here's a thread on it:

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/polls/me262-vs-p-80-a-562.html

The P-80 was designed in late 1944 and was almost ready for operational service by the end of the war. It was generally thought to be better than the Me262 as a dogfighter, but missed operational status by a few months at the end of the war. It would serve in Korea, but was somewhat obsolete by that time and the second generation of fighters such as the MIG-15 and Sabre had left the F-80 behind...

Unfortunately, the early prototypes were riddled with problems and ended up killing America's best ace, Richard Bong, who died as a fuel pump failed on a test flight...

http://www.aviation-history.com/lockheed/p80.html

Uyraell
03-07-2009, 11:41 PM
The P/F-80 Shooting Star would have been more than a match for the Me262...

Sorry to disagree, but that simply is NOT so.

When a production P80/F80 was flown in tests against an Me.262 the resulting report so scared the Americans that it was not published until the late 1990's.

The Me.262 outperformed the P80 in all flight regimes, and only marginally lacked in acceleration.

The P80 had been designed to fight the Me. 262 but in fact would not have succeeded in that task : which the report makes very clear.

The P80 did have one virtue: it's construction technology allowed it to be produced quickly, while replacement designs were being schemed. Yes, it would have shredded almost any propeller-driven opponent it might have met in a dogfight, but it would have been a rare event indeed had a P80 triumphed over an Me.262.

It was, among other things, this same report that began a chain of events culminating in the F86 Sabre, which is aerodynamically a clone of the Me.262, employing the same wing, and an HG series rudder. Granted, the Sabre ends up with a single, and better engine over the two of the Me.262: however: the Sabre came about to redress the deficiencies of the P80.

Respectful Regards, Uyraell.

Nickdfresh
03-08-2009, 03:06 PM
Do you have any links to the report? Because I've never seen anything more favorable to the Me262 than it was pretty evenly matched and may have had a firepower advantage. The Shooting Star would almost have certainly have had a significant throttle and engine advantage as piston engine fighters such as the P-51 were capable of shooting down the 262 when "cherry-picking" over Luftwaffe aerodromes due to the engines spooling problems...

The P-80 was also clearly more maneuverable...

Uyraell
03-08-2009, 04:50 PM
Do you have any links to the report? Because I've never seen anything more favorable to the Me262 than it was pretty evenly matched and may have had a firepower advantage. The Shooting Star would almost have certainly have had a significant throttle and engine advantage as piston engine fighters such as the P-51 were capable of shooting down the 262 when "cherry-picking" over Luftwaffe aerodromes due to the engines spooling problems...

The P-80 was also clearly more maneuverable...
To be honest, I'll have to go digging again, but the report was mentioned in two sources I can think of, off hand.

One source was a link from the site where the process of the "new build" Me.262s was detailed.

The other source comes from a book in which Colonel Watson of the USAF (the USAAF, in 1945, of course) and his jet recovery missions are mentioned. The report is mentioned shortly after the Watson section.

Memory is a little vague at this point (over a decade since I last checked all this) But I seem to recall the comparative fly-off as having taken place in two stages, between 1946 and 1947, after which the Me.262 was placed in storage. Bell Aircraft had been given the contract to refurbish the Me.262 before the flight comparison tests.

For years, in the time of my youth, there circulated a tale that 2 Me.262's had been refurbished and flown, rather than one, this on the advice of Watson himself. I have yet to find adequate confirmation of that aspect though.

Incidentally, the same report is mentioned in Edward Maloney's monograph on the Me.262, of which I have a copy, published approx 1967, from memory.

Regards, Uyraell.

Nickdfresh
03-09-2009, 11:28 AM
Not buyin' it until I see the report! :D

Everything I've heard is the Me262 was vastly overrated and provided the P-80 had worked out all of its early kinks (like a nasty habit of killing America's best pilots during testing), it would have been a better dogfighter...

windrider
03-09-2009, 03:30 PM
the report is posted right here in this thread, page 12 by George Eller.

pdf27
03-09-2009, 03:47 PM
Errr... this is page 12, at least for me! Post number?

Nickdfresh
03-09-2009, 04:12 PM
the report is posted right here in this thread, page 12 by George Eller.

You mean page ten. After reviewing, the problem with the test was that it featured a lightened Me262 Reconnaissance version which was one or two thousand pounds lighter --not the fighter version-- against the XP-80 Which also was the less powerful test version of what would evolve into the P-80A...

The P-80A was almost 3000lbs lighter and more agile...

See this post, as there were several studies done at Wright-Patterson AFB in Ohio...

http://ww2incolor.com/forum/showpost.php?p=107252&postcount=142

jimb1940
05-29-2009, 10:19 AM
Gentlemen, I was stunned to read on Spiegel's WW2 page that Germany had managed to manufacture under very hasty conditions and in the last months of the war 1200 of these jets. But they were unable to get many flying effectively.

This caused me to entertain another "what if" scenario. What if, say a couple of years before the end of the war, Germany had the same 1200 or so of these planes manufactured and effectively flying. I just arbitrarily pick that time frame trying to avoid the scenario that involved a frantic effort and last ditch stand.

How would the Allies have handled such a situation if a better planned and earlier effort had been successful? Could it have possibly ended the war in Germany's favor? I guess I am wondering if these jets were that important a fighting machine and capable of overwhelming Allied forces if introduced at an earlier date.

Just wondered what you experts thought.

Thanks

Deaf Smith
05-29-2009, 08:47 PM
The jets would not be the problem. Nor even jet fuel. It would be the pilots.

The closing of the pilot schools in 42-43 is what caused the shortage they had more than anything else. And I have no doubt training compenent jet fighter pilots was much harder than those using prop planes.

Deaf

Ivaylo
05-30-2009, 04:22 AM
Never the less with these planes even with 10 pilots Germany would have a greater chance no doubt about it - it's like me in F-18 and you in P-41 , even with some months experience i still have a chance and you not because you will fly so slowly . One thing was missing at the end - the fuel that caused the germans to stop the fighters , otherwise even 100 allied fighters wouldn't be a problem for formation of ME-262 even with pilots with some months training , simply the Fuhrer didn't believe the war would turn so badly against the russians that's why such projects were delayed .If introduced earlier the allies wouldn't stand a chance with their old planes .

flamethrowerguy
05-30-2009, 04:55 AM
Even with that utopian number of Me-262's built the Allied would still have total air superiority. They'd still have bombed the airfields and their fighter planes would still have lurked around the German airfields, destroying the jets while starting or landing.

jimb1940
05-30-2009, 10:48 AM
Even with that utopian number of Me-262's built the Allied would still have total air superiority. They'd still have bombed the airfields and their fighter planes would still have lurked around the German airfields, destroying the jets while starting or landing.

Well, if we assume the Me-262s were effectively deployed as the "what if" supposes, how on earth would allied bombers and fighters have been able to approach German airfields, or lurk around destroying German jets on the ground?

Am I wrong to think that 1200 such planes would be able to defend themselves against bombing and fighter plane attacks? Are you suggesting the Allies had sufficient number of planes to counter the 1200 jets?

At first glance I tend to side with Ivaylo in post 3, ie, the Allies would not have stood a chance. But I am unsure.

It seems to me that of all the "what ifs" I have seen discussed this one involving the actual manufacture of 1200 jets by the Germans coming though at the end of the war is a "what if" that might very likely have realized the greatest consequences had the Germans planned a little better and a little earlier. I always thought they had only a few of the aircraft built and those more experimental models.

Deaf Smith
05-30-2009, 11:20 AM
Even with that utopian number of Me-262's built the Allied would still have total air superiority. They'd still have bombed the airfields and their fighter planes would still have lurked around the German airfields, destroying the jets while starting or landing.

Quite correct.

And the 262 had a short range. So they could not have flew far to meet the huge onslot of fighters and bombers. And even then, THE ATOMIC BOMB WOULD HAVE BEEN USED.

Just takes one B-29 to get past those jets. Just one, day or night. Even a British Lancaster could have dropped it.

I think even Adolf Gallad said the jets would have just delayed the inevitable.

Deaf

flamethrowerguy
05-30-2009, 12:33 PM
Well, if we assume the Me-262s were effectively deployed as the "what if" supposes, how on earth would allied bombers and fighters have been able to approach German airfields, or lurk around destroying German jets on the ground?

Just by their overwhelming numbers. Furthermore with jets being busy dog-fighting allied fighters the major part of bombers would have approached their goals.
Allied planes would carry on firing back and in reality more than just one Me-262 was shot down by one of the numerous B-17 gunners. The Me-262 was not invulnerable, you know.
Also don't forget that the British kept bombing mostly at night time. The need to convert Me-262's to night fighters would also split the assumed armada.


Am I wrong to think that 1200 such planes would be able to defend themselves against bombing and fighter plane attacks? Are you suggesting the Allies had sufficient number of planes to counter the 1200 jets?

All Allies combined, sure as hell. Besides, it's purely fictional to suggest that this high number of German jet fighters could more or less be in the air at the same time at the same place.

Nickdfresh
05-30-2009, 06:01 PM
Well, if we assume the Me-262s were effectively deployed as the "what if" supposes, how on earth would allied bombers and fighters have been able to approach German airfields, or lurk around destroying German jets on the ground?

Am I wrong to think that 1200 such planes would be able to defend themselves against bombing and fighter plane attacks? Are you suggesting the Allies had sufficient number of planes to counter the 1200 jets?

At first glance I tend to side with Ivaylo in post 3, ie, the Allies would not have stood a chance. But I am unsure.

It seems to me that of all the "what ifs" I have seen discussed this one involving the actual manufacture of 1200 jets by the Germans coming though at the end of the war is a "what if" that might very likely have realized the greatest consequences had the Germans planned a little better and a little earlier. I always thought they had only a few of the aircraft built and those more experimental models.

As far as "what if" scenarios, they're largely useless to debate. But since we are, we can go on and on (which is why they're sort of amorphous and pointless). But the idea that the German super weapons would have made much of an impact completely ignores that the Allies, especially the US, were only months from fully deploying numbers of their own jets such as the P-80 Shooting Star and Gloster Meteor; both planes were believed to be superior to the Me262 without its Achilles Heal of very slow take off and landing speeds. Not that 1800 Me262s wouldn't quickly have been smothered even by piston engined P-51s and Spitfires 'cherry-picking the goal' over what remained of Luftwaffe aerodromes. And not to mention Flammenwerfer's point regarding the complete lack of even minimally trained and proficient German pilots by the end of 1944...

Ivaylo
05-30-2009, 07:40 PM
ok i have to agree with some views here - expecially with that of Nickdfresh stating that the allies were going on their own projects , so it was inevitable sooner or later the allies were about to make their own jet planes . Also from my point of view the war is not only a air battles , it's a compact battle involving the land too , and there the germans in 1944 were already defeated on all fronts , so even if you have 1200 planes , how long you can protect the land and the airfields ? I doubt for much long with a Wehrmacht beaten on all sides and all major offensives falled .

ubc
05-31-2009, 02:40 AM
The European allies in 1944 had 6-7 times as many bombers available for operations as they did in 1942. Further by 1942 the British were only starting to rectify their appaulling bombing accuracy, so I doubt they would be able to do much of anything. Also the allied airsuperiority over Germany only occured due to the massive bombing campaign focusing on the Luftwaffe starting in mid 1943and then the aircraft industry and finally the aviaition fuel industry in spring of 1944. None of that would be possible in 1942 with appaulling bombing accuracy and just a 600-800 bomber force available on any given day.

leccy
05-31-2009, 05:47 AM
Just because you are flying a jet aircraft it does not mean you have an advantage over piston engined aircraft.

Sea Furys in Korea succesfullly shot down Mig15 (The Sea Furys were mainly employed in a ground attack role)
i have read reports but can not back them up right now where Mig15 pilots were reluctant to chase aircraft over the water for fear of the Sea Furys on the British and Australian Carriers.

Early jets were not as manouverable as piston engined aircraft and in the days of Gun v Gun not missiles, beng able to get into a good shooting position was very important. The throttle response on early jets was not as quick as piston aircraft either. When a jet gets moving it moves quick but in response to needing a power boost instantly they were not as good.

The engines for the ME 262 used some materials that were hard for germany to get (I believe they made do with easier to obtain materials and had to rebuild the engines every 10 hours 'ok checking on some sites average was 12 hours with a really good pilot managing 20 to 25 hours and a design life of 50 hours)

The figure I saw of 1400+ airframes I believe was just that Airframes not completed aircraft, this also covered Fighter, Fighter Bomber, training, Bomber and Nightfighter variants)

A small bit on info from http://www.warbirdalley.com/me262.htm
n its brightest moments, when it was used as intended, the Me 262 was the equivalent of sending the "Three Musketeers" against Sitting Bull at Little Big Horn. In one battle, for instance, 37 of the 262s were scrambled against an Allied raid that consisted of 1,221 bombers and 632 fighter escorts! In their most effective performance, they cost the Allies a one percent loss. does not say how many ME262 were lost though.
Nearest I could find was 150 allied aircraft to 100 ME262 total during the war.

Panzerknacker
05-31-2009, 09:44 AM
There is already a long topic about the Messer 262:

http://www.ww2incolor.com/forum/showthread.php?t=4648&highlight=messerschmitt

Nickdfresh
05-31-2009, 10:21 AM
Threads merged...

ubc
05-31-2009, 01:06 PM
Just because you are flying a jet aircraft it does not mean you have an advantage over piston engined aircraft.

Sea Furys in Korea succesfullly shot down Mig15 (The Sea Furys were mainly employed in a ground attack role)
i have read reports but can not back them up right now where Mig15 pilots were reluctant to chase aircraft over the water for fear of the Sea Furys on the British and Australian Carriers.

Early jets were not as manouverable as piston engined aircraft and in the days of Gun v Gun not missiles, beng able to get into a good shooting position was very important. The throttle response on early jets was not as quick as piston aircraft either. When a jet gets moving it moves quick but in response to needing a power boost instantly they were not as good.

The engines for the ME 262 used some materials that were hard for germany to get (I believe they made do with easier to obtain materials and had to rebuild the engines every 10 hours 'ok checking on some sites average was 12 hours with a really good pilot managing 20 to 25 hours and a design life of 50 hours)

The figure I saw of 1400+ airframes I believe was just that Airframes not completed aircraft, this also covered Fighter, Fighter Bomber, training, Bomber and Nightfighter variants)

A small bit on info from http://www.warbirdalley.com/me262.htm
n its brightest moments, when it was used as intended, the Me 262 was the equivalent of sending the "Three Musketeers" against Sitting Bull at Little Big Horn. In one battle, for instance, 37 of the 262s were scrambled against an Allied raid that consisted of 1,221 bombers and 632 fighter escorts! In their most effective performance, they cost the Allies a one percent loss. does not say how many ME262 were lost though.
Nearest I could find was 150 allied aircraft to 100 ME262 total during the war.


Lessons from late war in a collapsing war economy and situation are not really transferable to a more stable mid war period. It was a different situation. For one thing the dilution of the LW pilot flying hours and therefore skills relative to the allies, had not yet begun. Nor had the allies gutted the German fuel industry leading to no fuel to fly. By the end of the war their are reports of squadrons with up to 9 flyable Me-262 , but only fuel to fly two per day.

Me-262 was designed as a interceptor not as a fighter so it would be used to halt USAAF dail light bombing forcing them to the much less effective night bombing.

The Strategic metals situation is a bit of a either or situation, since the bulk of these metals went to competing programmes, mostly the UBoats. This was at a time when the UBoat programme had been derailed by allied ASW efforts and Ultra success aided by Admiral Donitz insistance on combating air patrols with enhanced Flak. That ran counter to the Uboat philosophy and produced disasterous results in 1943, which resulted in the Uboats being withdrawn from the Atlantic and the morale being lost from the UBoat fleet. Hitlers insistance in scrapping the surface fleet didn't help matters either, infact it only contributed to the collapse of the Uboat morale.

Ivaylo
06-01-2009, 09:27 AM
Just because you are flying a jet aircraft it does not mean you have an advantage over piston engined aircraft.

Sea Furys in Korea succesfullly shot down Mig15 (The Sea Furys were mainly employed in a ground attack role)
i have read reports but can not back them up right now where Mig15 pilots were reluctant to chase aircraft over the water for fear of the Sea Furys on the British and Australian Carriers.

Early jets were not as manouverable as piston engined aircraft and in the days of Gun v Gun not missiles, beng able to get into a good shooting position was very important. The throttle response on early jets was not as quick as piston aircraft either. When a jet gets moving it moves quick but in response to needing a power boost instantly they were not as good.

The engines for the ME 262 used some materials that were hard for germany to get (I believe they made do with easier to obtain materials and had to rebuild the engines every 10 hours 'ok checking on some sites average was 12 hours with a really good pilot managing 20 to 25 hours and a design life of 50 hours)

The figure I saw of 1400+ airframes I believe was just that Airframes not completed aircraft, this also covered Fighter, Fighter Bomber, training, Bomber and Nightfighter variants)

A small bit on info from http://www.warbirdalley.com/me262.htm
n its brightest moments, when it was used as intended, the Me 262 was the equivalent of sending the "Three Musketeers" against Sitting Bull at Little Big Horn. In one battle, for instance, 37 of the 262s were scrambled against an Allied raid that consisted of 1,221 bombers and 632 fighter escorts! In their most effective performance, they cost the Allies a one percent loss. does not say how many ME262 were lost though.
Nearest I could find was 150 allied aircraft to 100 ME262 total during the war.

If you want we can try it i will train just one month on Mig-21 and you will train on P-41 we will see who will win . If the jets don't give you advantage why then the most countries use them today ? Why US give bilions to upgraide it's jet's ?

leccy
06-01-2009, 05:09 PM
If you want we can try it i will train just one month on Mig-21 and you will train on P-41 we will see who will win . If the jets don't give you advantage why then the most countries use them today ? Why US give bilions to upgraide it's jet's ?

I said EARLY JETS those with no afterburners, at the time they entered service they were not totally superior to Piston engined fighters. They had good points (high top speed) and bad points (slow throttle reaction) to name one of each, but when you start getting into a shooting match even with modern jet aircraft (without the aid of missiles) speed rapidly bleeds off and its the manouverability that counts. Speed counts in a long distance match more than when close up.

I dont know what a P41 is as I have seen everything from a percival proctor to a P51 Mustang called that.

So I will assume you are comparing a 1940 design improved through the war with a mid to late 1950's 2nd possibly 3rd generation jet fighter.

Modern jets are whole classes away in capability to what was available during WW2 to any side.

Deaf Smith
06-01-2009, 07:37 PM
Any 262 .vs. any Allied fighter would hing on a number of things.

Now presuming both sides see each other at the same time, and thus no 'bounce':

1. Were? The 262 has a short range. With plenty of fuel, low on fuel?
2. When? At takeoff, landing, 10,000 ft.? 20,000?
3. How many .vs. how many.

Now the 262 is in a somewhat same position as a P-38 .vs. a A6M. But....

As the speeds progress then the reaction time the pilots have is less. It's real hard to make deflection shots at 500 IAS, harder than at 300 IAS (as a P-38 might go when doing a few turns with a A6M before getting a deflection shot.)

Yes the 262 has some great advantages in speed but it's operational ceiling was about the same as any other fighter and it's range and turning ability quite poor.

If I was a 262 pilot the BZ would be the only real tactic as your speed and climb rate would be higher. That and have a very well hidden airfield handy.

If a Allied fighter, I'd use my range to keep the 262 bases under observation (as they did) and if attacked I'd use an evasive manuver (barrel rolls, split S, Immelmann, Chandelle, skids, negitive G manuvers, etc... just anything to throw off their aim so the have to pass you by, knowing that if the 262 slows down then it's dead.)

The advantage still lies with a smart 262 pilot, but it's not a guaranteed kill.

Deaf

ubc
06-01-2009, 08:01 PM
The YP-80 was not a very reliable jet until after the war , when most of the problems were ironed out, some with captured data from German jets. Meteor was only able to do 415 mph initially [1944] so it would take another year [mid to late 1945], before they could field enough of the improved version with speeds comparable to Me-262. Allied pilots who flew both German and American jets after the war, concluded they were about equal.

By 1944 the allies had 3000-5000 flyable bombers at any given time allowing them to mount 1000 plane raids at will. But the original poster asked about Me-262 jets in 1942 and back then the USAAF didn't even have any bombers in Europe until the winter of 1942/43.

The British had 600-800 bombers flyable at this time but these where night bombers only and they had bad problems with accuracy that they were only starting to correct at that time. So what the Germans would need would be night fighters to counter the RAF bombers and that requires long endurance and radar to work. A slimmed down Ju-88 makes more sence as a night fighter interceptor for 1942/44 time period to counter the RAF bomber missions.

In 1943 with the arrival of the USAAF the daily flyable bombers increased to 1200-1800 with 2/3 being night time RAF bombers, so more Ju-88 night fighters are needed plus better radar. But the growing power of USAAF daylight bombers could be shut down by 200-300 daily Me-262 inteceptor sortie.These interceptors would be tasked with ignoring the enemy fighter cover and using their speed to close with the enemy bomber stream and break it up, allowing follow on FW/Me fighters to pick off the stragglers.

So having the Me-262 ready in 1942, could have forced all the allies into much less effective night time bombing sortie by 1943. Which in turn means the shutting down of the German war economy, is going to take a lot longer. Does that mean DDay is put off? Are the allies going to risk letting the Russians over run central Europe and get all the Nazi industry and technology.

Deaf Smith
06-01-2009, 09:16 PM
No. It would mean the Atom Bomb would have been used on Germany. Simple as that.

Deaf

ubc
06-02-2009, 12:24 AM
No. It would mean the Atom Bomb would have been used on Germany. Simple as that.

Deaf


And what if that doesn't work? Germany had hundreds of thousands of nerve gas shells and bombs they could rain down on their enemy, that the enemy had no protection against. I gather that both V 1 and V 2 had warheads designed to carry these agents including the newly developed highly toxic sarin nerve gas.


Nothings ever simple in real wars.

Deaf Smith
06-02-2009, 07:48 PM
And what if that doesn't work? Germany had hundreds of thousands of nerve gas shells and bombs they could rain down on their enemy, that the enemy had no protection against. I gather that both V 1 and V 2 had warheads designed to carry these agents including the newly developed highly toxic sarin nerve gas.


Nothings ever simple in real wars.

The treaties we signed, including Germany, forbid gas but not A bombs.

And we had the same gas to. Only we could produce more A bombs and far more gas than Germany. And our bombers could carry an awful lot more than all the V1s and V2s put together.

Consider what a 1000 bomber raid with mustard gas would do. Mustard does not dissipate. It sticks to the ground. Immediately make the whole city uninhabitable for many days, with the inhabitants undergound unable to get out.

Germany isn't that big and one city after another (with Berlin first) vaporizing would do the trick. We could vaporize one city one night while gassing another the same night. Would not take all that long till there were no more cities.

That's total war.

Now aren’t we all glad Germany didn't hang on?

Deaf

Nickdfresh
06-02-2009, 08:54 PM
The YP-80 was not a very reliable jet until after the war , when most of the problems were ironed out, some with captured data from German jets. Meteor was only able to do 415 mph initially [1944] so it would take another year [mid to late 1945], before they could field enough of the improved version with speeds comparable to Me-262. Allied pilots who flew both German and American jets after the war, concluded they were about equal.

No jets were "reliable" in their development period. It was serious engine problems that plagued the Me262 and delayed its deployment as much as anything else did. The Allies learned little from German jet technology as they were already eclipsing it. There certainly was interest and study, but little that yielded improvements to the P-80. The problem there was the fuel delivery system which was being ironed out towards the end. And most actually conclude that the P-80 would have had a significant advantage in dogfighting...


By 1944 the allies had 3000-5000 flyable bombers at any given time allowing them to mount 1000 plane raids at will. But the original poster asked about Me-262 jets in 1942 and back then the USAAF didn't even have any bombers in Europe until the winter of 1942/43.

The British had 600-800 bombers flyable at this time but these where night bombers only and they had bad problems with accuracy that they were only starting to correct at that time. So what the Germans would need would be night fighters to counter the RAF bombers and that requires long endurance and radar to work. A slimmed down Ju-88 makes more sence as a night fighter interceptor for 1942/44 time period to counter the RAF bomber missions.

In 1943 with the arrival of the USAAF the daily flyable bombers increased to 1200-1800 with 2/3 being night time RAF bombers, so more Ju-88 night fighters are needed plus better radar. But the growing power of USAAF daylight bombers could be shut down by 200-300 daily Me-262 inteceptor sortie.These interceptors would be tasked with ignoring the enemy fighter cover and using their speed to close with the enemy bomber stream and break it up, allowing follow on FW/Me fighters to pick off the stragglers.

So having the Me-262 ready in 1942, could have forced all the allies into much less effective night time bombing sortie by 1943. Which in turn means the shutting down of the German war economy, is going to take a lot longer. Does that mean DDay is put off? Are the allies going to risk letting the Russians over run central Europe and get all the Nazi industry and technology.

Um, firstly, there was no German "war economy" in 1942. They didn't go to a full war economy until at least the end of 1943 when Speer brilliantly re-orchestrated the German defense industry away from the cities actually INCREASING production in 1944. Significantly so. We can argue that several ways. But daylight "precision bombing" wasn't much more effective than night time area bombing as perimeter bombing was found to be more effective at killing the workers and burning their housing than actually attacking factories. And the US efforts at trying to bomb an Achilles' Heal production facility such as a ball bearings plant were also both done in vain and out of naivete...

And jets in 1942? What about just having more piston engined fighters? a better pilot training program? and a four engined bomber to attack Soviet factories relocated to Siberia? To produce such jets, which could not have been ready much faster than they were anyway in the fractured, anarchic German research and aviation industry --using complex and temperamental early jets engines with a short lifespan-- they would have had to sacrifice something else as there is always a trade-off. Would it be less piston engined aircraft? Less tanks? All are also "what-ifs" and far more plausible than the German aeronautical industry that had already been pushed to its limits to the extent that its first air general in charge of R&D realized the futility very early and killed himself because he realized that nothing he could do would ever be enough. As far as "what-ifs," we can ask a few others ones, such as: What if the British gov't had more adequately funded and appreciated the early efforts of Whittle in 1929?

Chevan
06-03-2009, 12:04 AM
No jets were "reliable" in their development period. It was serious engine problems that plagued the Me262 and delayed its deployment as much as anything else did. The Allies learned little from German jet technology as they were already eclipsing it. There certainly was interest and study, but little that yielded improvements to the P-80. The problem there was the fuel delivery system which was being ironed out towards the end. And most actually conclude that the P-80 would have had a significant advantage in dogfighting...

The Germans were actualy pioneeres in Axial Jet engineereng, nick.
The Brits got their more or less realible Centrifugal Jet (Nune )first, but the Centrifugal engines were a deadline of aviation.It was more realible but less effective.
That's why the Me-262 already in 1944 fly more then 100 Km/h FASTER then Meteor.
The 95% of contemporary Jet engines - are the Axial.
And the "serious engine problem" of GErmans was due to simple fact- they havent' enough Nickel for turbo blades.It' has happend accurate in mid 1944 when Red Army forced Finland went out of Axis coalition( the Petsamo Nickel was ONLY the source for Reich) The average resource of Jumo 007 was just about ...10 hours.
When Soviets hav built its first Jet engine RD-10 using the Nickel ( it was full copy of Jumo) - the resource reach ..150 hours

Chevan
06-03-2009, 01:24 AM
In 1943 with the arrival of the USAAF the daily flyable bombers increased to 1200-1800 with 2/3 being night time RAF bombers, so more Ju-88 night fighters are needed plus better radar. But the growing power of USAAF daylight bombers could be shut down by 200-300 daily Me-262 inteceptor sortie.These interceptors would be tasked with ignoring the enemy fighter cover and using their speed to close with the enemy bomber stream and break it up, allowing follow on FW/Me fighters to pick off the stragglers.

You don't need the FW/ME at all if you have the superior jet fighter.
As it was in Korea , the ONLY 20-30 jet fighter might to spoil the bomber raid of entire armade 100-150 B-29 with escort.
Don't need to hit each bomber- enough to imitate attack , after that all the bombers drop the bomb a miss .
the figter escort is proven to be ineffective against speedy superior Jet fighters.
Having four 30 mm guns , and Rockets RM-4,the Me-262 might be deadly effective against bombers.

nkkie123
06-03-2009, 03:56 AM
http://www.xs4all.nl/~fbonne/warbirds/ww2htmls/messme262.html

Good Site

I have read the link and it was very educational. I was just wondering if Messerschmitt Me still exist today?





_____________________________
http://storeyourpicture.com/images/signature_imageHost.jpg
There are only two reasons to sit in the back row of an airplane; either you have diarrhea, or you're anxious to meet people who do.

flamethrowerguy
06-03-2009, 05:14 AM
I have read the link and it was very educational. I was just wondering if Messerschmitt Me still exist today?

Congrats, you're improving.

The Messerschmitt company -after several fusions- is today part of the EADS (European Aeronautic Defence and Space Company).

Nickdfresh
06-03-2009, 09:23 AM
You don't need the FW/ME at all if you have the superior jet fighter.
As it was in Korea , the ONLY 20-30 jet fighter might to spoil the bomber raid of entire armade 100-150 B-29 with escort.
Don't need to hit each bomber- enough to imitate attack , after that all the bombers drop the bomb a miss .
the figter escort is proven to be ineffective against speedy superior Jet fighters.
Having four 30 mm guns , and Rockets RM-4,the Me-262 might be deadly effective against bombers.

The Me262s weren't terribly effective when deployed even in numbers. There were simply too many bombers. Even piston engined fighters such as the P-51 not only could be used effectively with countermeasure tactics, but also engine mods, to counter the Me262s. They took down some bombers, but it was pin*****s...

As for Korea, a huge complaint of the USAF crews were that they were flying second rate B-29s and B-26s left over from WWII against second-generation jets (MIG-15s).

And what could they possibly have missed in North Korea? :D Deploying strategic air-power against strategic targets in an agrarian country was pretty silly to begin with. They'd have been better dumping their ordinance on troop concentrations and hitting tangible tactical targets...

ubc
06-03-2009, 01:09 PM
No jets were "reliable" in their development period. It was serious engine problems that plagued the Me262 and delayed its deployment as much as anything else did. The Allies learned little from German jet technology as they were already eclipsing it. There certainly was interest and study, but little that yielded improvements to the P-80. The problem there was the fuel delivery system which was being ironed out towards the end. And most actually conclude that the P-80 would have had a significant advantage in dogfighting...?

most actually conlcuded they were the same. they both had bad engines with only 50 hours life in each jet. Congress nearly cancelled YP-80 since it was killing so many test pilotes. When Major Bong was killed the word went out that these jets were too risky to develope. The Airforce had to do a hugh song and dance to keep them in production with publicity stunts like flying them to Italy at the end of the war etc. The Fuel dump problem was finally ironed out at the end of the war , but it was the adoption of Austentic steel in the german engines that allowed the operational hours to increase from 35-150 hours while bench tests went from 100 hours to 500 hours. The Americans discovered this at the end of the war when they were testing the Me-262 and ran out of engines. They had to go back to occupied territory and found plans for the latest engine designs [Jumo-004D/E].

In actual fact the original Jumo 004A engine had 250 hours operational life , but used to much strategic metals that were needed for the Uboat programe so it was cancelled. Otherwise the engine would have been ready for mass production in 1942 , which happens to be when the rest of the jet was ruled ready to mass produce. It was the move to the Jumo-004B two years later that finally allowed the Me-262 to enter mass production....that and the fact that Hitler finally accepted that Germany was loosing the war and all the special weapons programmes that were canceled or put on the back burner in 1940, were pulled out dusted off and reinvigorated as wunderweapons for the war effort.


BTW P-80 was designed as a dogfighter , while Me-262 was designed as an bomber interceptor , total different missions. P-80 would have been no good as a bomber interceptor in 1944 since it would have only had machinegun armament.



Um, firstly, there was no German "war economy" in 1942. They didn't go to a full war economy until at least the end of 1943 when Speer brilliantly re-orchestrated the German defense industry away from the cities actually INCREASING production in 1944. Significantly so. We can argue that several ways. But daylight "precision bombing" wasn't much more effective than night time area bombing as perimeter bombing was found to be more effective at killing the workers and burning their housing than actually attacking factories. And the US efforts at trying to bomb an Achilles' Heal production facility such as a ball bearings plant were also both done in vain and out of naivete...

And jets in 1942? What about just having more piston engined fighters? a better pilot training program? and a four engined bomber to attack Soviet factories relocated to Siberia? To produce such jets, which could not have been ready much faster than they were anyway in the fractured, anarchic German research and aviation industry --using complex and temperamental early jets engines with a short lifespan-- they would have had to sacrifice something else as there is always a trade-off. Would it be less piston engined aircraft? Less tanks? All are also "what-ifs" and far more plausible than the German aeronautical industry that had already been pushed to its limits to the extent that its first air general in charge of R&D realized the futility very early and killed himself because he realized that nothing he could do would ever be enough. As far as "what-ifs," we can ask a few others ones, such as: What if the British gov't had more adequately funded and appreciated the early efforts of Whittle in 1929?


German fighter training in 1942 was fine, just insufficent pilots trained per year....about 15-20,000. Allied empire training programme was only able to train 150,000 over the war period or about 25,000 per year...not much better.

However no argument that building a thousand more trainers and better use of experten to take turns training , should have boosted pilot numbers by 50%.

That way when push comes to shove in the mid war they need not cut back flying hours from 250 to 180, just to get enough pilots for increased plane production.

Germany could have switched over to mass production in 1940-41 had Hitler allowed the initiatives in the mid 1930s to go forward as was being done in Britain and Russia at that time. Hitler wanted to rush everything and refused to allow in depth preperations to be made since he didn't believe in mass production of armaments anyway. As it was Junkers was restructuring its industry to include subcontracting out back in 1935, while the switching from inefficent costly 'cost plus contracting' to incentive based fixed price multy year contracts were adopted by the Luftwaffe back in 1937/38.

Hitler only finally allowed such a change for the Wehrmacht at large in the middle of 1941 and it still took two more years to cooerse the companines into compliance. The only reason Speer gets the credit is because he was able to stand up to Hitler and demand all these changes come in line to allow huge production leaps to occure. Hitler was the obstical, and had he not stood in the way all these changes could have been made prewar.

The German navy was gearing prewar to mass produce a huge fleet of warships which finally became known as the Zplan. Even with the premature begining of the war, they still were on track to produce 24 destroyers , 48 Torpedoboot and 132 minesweepers per year plus 100 Uboats when the war began. But Hitler allowed admrial donuts to screw the entire naval building programe to boost Uboat production from about 10 per month up to 25 per month. In the process the steel efficency dropped from 25-30% utilzation for war products down to 15-20% for most of the war. When the Electric boat finally appeared at the end of the war, this efficency reached 60% steel utlization, when finally the 'subcontracted out' 'modular Uboat construction' based on 'multi year fixed price' 'incentive based' methods were adopted.

I could go on and on.

leccy
06-03-2009, 02:56 PM
Germany could have switched over to mass production in 1940-41 had Hitler allowed the initiatives in the mid 1930s to go forward as was being done in Britain and Russia at that time. Hitler wanted to rush everything and refused to allow in depth preperations to be made since he didn't believe in mass production of armaments anyway. As it was Junkers was restructuring its industry to include subcontracting out back in 1935, while the switching from inefficent costly 'cost plus contracting' to incentive based fixed price multy year contracts were adopted by the Luftwaffe back in 1937/38.

Hitler only finally allowed such a change for the Wehrmacht at large in the middle of 1941 and it still took two more years to cooerse the companines into compliance. The only reason Speer gets the credit is because he was able to stand up to Hitler and demand all these changes come in line to allow huge production leaps to occure. Hitler was the obstical, and had he not stood in the way all these changes could have been made prewar.

The German navy was gearing prewar to mass produce a huge fleet of warships which finally became known as the Zplan. Even with the premature begining of the war, they still were on track to produce 24 destroyers , 48 Torpedoboot and 132 minesweepers per year plus 100 Uboats when the war began. But Hitler allowed admrial donuts to screw the entire naval building programe to boost Uboat production from about 10 per month up to 25 per month. In the process the steel efficency dropped from 25-30% utilzation for war products down to 15-20% for most of the war. When the Electric boat finally appeared at the end of the war, this efficency reached 60% steel utlization, when finally the 'subcontracted out' 'modular Uboat construction' based on 'multi year fixed price' 'incentive based' methods were adopted.

I could go on and on.

Germany had virtually no armaments production until Hitler came to power in 1933, the industry had to be built up in secret and very rapidly with new equipment being designed and tested then crews trained on it for all the services.

No really overt building up and preparation could be done until the Versailles Treaty was renounced in 1937, so Hitler could hardly have been blamed for failing to implement new efficiancys in the mid 30's when there was no industry to improve. (Yes he started to ignore it in 1933)

As for Hitler being an obstacle hmmmm he was the one who actually started the re-arming of German forces, he encouraged the various design teams to persue strange and weird weapons and ideas in competition with each other. Without all that and with the state of the economy pre war would the jet aircraft designs have got as far as they did when they did.

Hitler for all his faults could whip up a crowd and he did with the German nation, there is a strong arguement that without him WW2 may not even have taken place (always likely that someone else could have done the same though).

So you are saying he was the reason the industry was not capable of getting the ME 262 into combat in huge numbers in 1942 because he did not allow a virtually non existant industry to modernise in the mid 30's. He of course did not have to renounce a treaty banning Germany from having a force bigger than 100000 troops, no tanks, no planes, no subs, a severely reduced surface fleet and no heavy artilliary. With an economy that was pretty much bankrupt because of war reparations and loan repayments.

Nickdfresh
06-03-2009, 09:35 PM
most actually conlcuded they were the same. they both had bad engines with only 50 hours life in each jet. Congress nearly cancelled YP-80 since it was killing so many test pilotes. When Major Bong was killed the word went out that these jets were too risky to develope.

Um, there was never any threat of cancellation since there was nothing else to put up against the Luftwaffe jets other than nitrous modded P-51s. Although this was enough in hindsight, there was no way the US wasn't deploying a jet in numbers if the War stretched into 1946.

It was a terrible pity and waste of one of America's finest pilots when Bong died. But could have saved himself by turning a switch, IIRC, instead of bailing out. The incident also illustrated why fighter aces do not necessarily make the best test pilots. The German jets also killed their fair share of pilots as it was a new technology, and of course the US was behind. But they were never considered "too risky to develop." Quite the contrary, they were too risky NOT to develop! And no one who was sane would have questioned that in 1944-46...


The Airforce had to do a hugh song and dance to keep them in production with publicity stunts like flying them to Italy at the end of the war etc.

"Stunt?" It was a combat deployment - much like the Army did with the Pershing tank during the "Task Force Zebra" deployment.


The Fuel dump problem was finally ironed out at the end of the war , but it was the adoption of Austentic steel in the german engines that allowed the operational hours to increase from 35-150 hours while bench tests went from 100 hours to 500 hours. The Americans discovered this at the end of the war when they were testing the Me-262 and ran out of engines. They had to go back to occupied territory and found plans for the latest engine designs [Jumo-004D/E].

So, the US learned how to make jet engines with greater endurance from the Germans whose jet engines also lacked endurance? The US jet engines were actually British Rolls Royces IIRC. And they were the least of the problem of the P-80, which suffered from technical problems relating to its rushed development as the USAAF knew they were behind the curve...


In actual fact the original Jumo 004A engine had 250 hours operational life , but used to much strategic metals that were needed for the Uboat programe so it was cancelled. Otherwise the engine would have been ready for mass production in 1942 , which happens to be when the rest of the jet was ruled ready to mass produce. It was the move to the Jumo-004B two years later that finally allowed the Me-262 to enter mass production....that and the fact that Hitler finally accepted that Germany was loosing the war and all the special weapons programmes that were canceled or put on the back burner in 1940, were pulled out dusted off and reinvigorated as wunderweapons for the war effort.

I don't know where you are getting your "facts" from, but I'm beginning to think you're just making up shit and throwing it on the internet. The Jumo engines only achieved 50 hours of service under ideal conditions and production materials (according to Wiki) and furthermore, the first test flights only took place in 1942, and furthermore Wiki (hardly the most reliable resource, I know. But they do generally get their WWII stuff in the ball park) states that the engines suffered problems with "severe vibration" in 1943. So, how possibly could the Luftwaffe have deployed the Me262 in "1942?"

In any case, so you sacrifice U-boats to make jets? Especially since the German piston engined fighters such as the FW190 and upgraded Me109s were still taking down large numbers of the boundless Red Air Force's aircraft?



BTW P-80 was designed as a dogfighter , while Me-262 was designed as an bomber interceptor , total different missions. P-80 would have been no good as a bomber interceptor in 1944 since it would have only had machinegun armament.

Sorry, but during the age of the piston fighter, there was no difference between interceptors and dogfighters. That distinction (mostly a false choice to begin with) was started in the jet age, and more importantly - the dawn of effective guided air-to-air missiles, of the mid-1950s...

The F-86 Sabre was tasked to potentially intercept Soviet bombers during the Cold War, and they also mounted .50 cal. machine-guns initially...


German fighter training in 1942 was fine, just insufficent pilots trained per year....about 15-20,000. Allied empire training programme was only able to train 150,000 over the war period or about 25,000 per year...not much better.

So, was the program "fine" or "insufficient?" Because everything I've ever read states the latter being the more likely. I think the fact that most competent German pilots were dead by the beginning of 1945 also validates this...


However no argument that building a thousand more trainers and better use of experten to take turns training , should have boosted pilot numbers by 50%.

That way when push comes to shove in the mid war they need not cut back flying hours from 250 to 180, just to get enough pilots for increased plane production.

How were they going to build adequate trainers when they didn't bother producing more fighters to begin with? they didn't have the ability too...


Germany could have switched over to mass production in 1940-41 had Hitler allowed the initiatives in the mid 1930s to go forward as was being done in Britain and Russia at that time. Hitler wanted to rush everything and refused to allow in depth preperations to be made since he didn't believe in mass production of armaments anyway. As it was Junkers was restructuring its industry to include subcontracting out back in 1935, while the switching from inefficent costly 'cost plus contracting' to incentive based fixed price multy year contracts were adopted by the Luftwaffe back in 1937/38.

They couldn't have just "switched" over to a War economy, because they were in a severe strategic disposition as the Axis had limited access to raw materials - especially after they invaded the Soviet Union. In fact, both France and Britain were very confident of victory in a long War of attrition, but more dubious of outcomes in a hasty battle...


Hitler only finally allowed such a change for the Wehrmacht at large in the middle of 1941 and it still took two more years to cooerse the companines into compliance. The only reason Speer gets the credit is because he was able to stand up to Hitler and demand all these changes come in line to allow huge production leaps to occure. Hitler was the obstical, and had he not stood in the way all these changes could have been made prewar.

The German navy was gearing prewar to mass produce a huge fleet of warships which finally became known as the Zplan. Even with the premature begining of the war, they still were on track to produce 24 destroyers , 48 Torpedoboot and 132 minesweepers per year plus 100 Uboats when the war began. But Hitler allowed admrial donuts to screw the entire naval building programe to boost Uboat production from about 10 per month up to 25 per month. In the process the steel efficency dropped from 25-30% utilzation for war products down to 15-20% for most of the war. When the Electric boat finally appeared at the end of the war, this efficency reached 60% steel utlization, when finally the 'subcontracted out' 'modular Uboat construction' based on 'multi year fixed price' 'incentive based' methods were adopted.

I could go on and on.

Some key points have been addressed by the previous post of leccy's. But in any case, much of this is hindsight. Could Hitler have pushed a wartime economy sooner? Yes. But this had little to do with production of aircraft and Hitler was far from the only one that was culpable as the entire Wehrmacht believed they were going to win with what they already had, or maybe just a little more of it...

ubc
06-03-2009, 10:53 PM
The treaties we signed, including Germany, forbid gas but not A bombs.

And we had the same gas to. Only we could produce more A bombs and far more gas than Germany. And our bombers could carry an awful lot more than all the V1s and V2s put together.

Consider what a 1000 bomber raid with mustard gas would do. Mustard does not dissipate. It sticks to the ground. Immediately make the whole city uninhabitable for many days, with the inhabitants undergound unable to get out.

Germany isn't that big and one city after another (with Berlin first) vaporizing would do the trick. We could vaporize one city one night while gassing another the same night. Would not take all that long till there were no more cities.

That's total war.

Now aren’t we all glad Germany didn't hang on?

Deaf


Allies had no nerve gas until well after the war and Hitler had no problems using them . Their were something like a dozen times the issue came up in planning, just their never seemed enough around at the moment or enough of an advantage for Hitler to considered using gas warfare.

Prewar all combatants expected any future war to begin with massive air bombarment with posion gas and bombs. Each side anticipated massive losses [in the millions] even though the massive useage of gas warfare in WW-I didn't produce such disasters even orders of magnitued lower. Statistically they produced about one death and one casultie per ton of mustard type posion used.

Even in the early war period the gas programme was continued because if worse came they had something to relaliate with, and even back in 1940 it was considered that Rockets would be the best way to deliver nerve gas to London as a last resort.

With regards to Nukes, these were quite small and they only had a handful at that time. Further the average german town was old stone construction , so the destruction due to ground burst small nukes, would not resemble the scale of the Japanese cities. You'd have to fire many nukes to 'vaporise' Berlin.

BTW mustard type gasses are extremely suseptable to weather and wind conditions and dissipate quickly under these conditions, so they would not drown whole cities. Maybe small towns at a time. The allies were over confident in gas warfare, that none of the British troops brought gas masks to Normandy.

ubc
06-03-2009, 11:32 PM
Germany had virtually no armaments production until Hitler came to power in 1933, the industry had to be built up in secret and very rapidly with new equipment being designed and tested then crews trained on it for all the services.

No really overt building up and preparation could be done until the Versailles Treaty was renounced in 1937, so Hitler could hardly have been blamed for failing to implement new efficiancys in the mid 30's when there was no industry to improve. (Yes he started to ignore it in 1933)

As for Hitler being an obstacle hmmmm he was the one who actually started the re-arming of German forces, he encouraged the various design teams to persue strange and weird weapons and ideas in competition with each other. Without all that and with the state of the economy pre war would the jet aircraft designs have got as far as they did when they did.

Hitler for all his faults could whip up a crowd and he did with the German nation, there is a strong arguement that without him WW2 may not even have taken place (always likely that someone else could have done the same though).

So you are saying he was the reason the industry was not capable of getting the ME 262 into combat in huge numbers in 1942 because he did not allow a virtually non existant industry to modernise in the mid 30's. He of course did not have to renounce a treaty banning Germany from having a force bigger than 100000 troops, no tanks, no planes, no subs, a severely reduced surface fleet and no heavy artilliary. With an economy that was pretty much bankrupt because of war reparations and loan repayments.


Maybe thats the western history POV , but wrong on all counts from the German POV, I'm afraid. The war reparations problem had already been dealt before Hitler came into power and the loan repayment was dealt with under the credit system & Wealfare state, that previous administrations had already set up before Hitler even came to power. Thats what allowed Germany to rebound so quickly from the Great Depression, not anything Hitler did.

German illegal reamament had begun in the 1920s and continued well into the 1930s. They had about 1 million mustard gas shells built and stockpiled by mid 1920s. The strategic plan to violate the Treaty of Versailles by what ever means begun in 1928 under the Stressman administration. The then defense minister [Groener] showed the chiefs of the General staff how they could not even protect Germany from a possible Polish attack, let alone a combined French Polish attack. All their senarios envisaged the west saving Germany through the League of Nations.

More importantly Groener stressed that ....

[A] any rebuilding of the military had to assume that any war would lead to a wider European war, so capability had to address this with reasonable chance of success, and

[B] Germany must be prepared to launch a preemptive war if the situation demanded it.

By the early 1930s he had expanded the military to 150,000 personnel and built up the army to 21 active/reserve divisions created a plan for 400 bomber force with multi engined bombers plus a naval airforce and a tank force and directed the Reichmarine to expand the navy well beyond the ToV levels including develope and build a Uboat fleet.

A three phase strategic programme was adopted that would eventually over 15 years lead to a mechanised German armed forces with a large navy and supported by an aviaition branch to launch a preemptive war that would eliminate Poland and France as threats and 'still have a reasonable chance of winning the wider European war'.


Faced with the continuation of this programme under the Hitler regime, defense minister Von Blomberg demanded the powers to erect an mass production war economy in 1934 to be established with 5-6 years. Blomberg envisaged a CinC position from where he would orchestrate such a massive build up. Von Blomberg envisaged all manner of weapons ,he refered to as 'technical possiblities'. These included jets, helicopters, rockets and guided missiles etc etc, all the elements of the wunderweapon wet dreams. While Hitler publical agreeed to this , he refused to allow any one person to have too much power. So instead he had each service branch secretly come to him independantly of each other, leaving the inexperienced Hitler to make ill informed decisions with catastrophic consquenses.

The strategic plan envisage an progressive instep programme to rebuild the armed forces, the armaments industry and the secured resource base to manifest this mechanized juggernaut.It was Hitlers regime that hyjacked the strategy in 1936 after his economics minister told him that the completion of the build up would likely take until 1945.

Hitler rejected the notion of a sustained total war as being unnessessary. He viewed the bulk of the European powers as weak and unable to work together. Between his political manuevering and treaties plus an enlarged german infantry army, would be all he needed to impliment his racial war against the Jews and the commies. Hitler would cut deals with Stalin and Britian to allow his war to begin, and fumble from that point on.WW-II would have happened with or without Hitler , it just would not have resembled the fiasco that Hitler dragged Germany into. All the Wunder weapons were scrubbed in early 1940 when the reality of the economic situation finally hit home to Hitler. After Stalin Grad , they would all be reborn to save Hitler from the hurricane he had unleashed.

Chevan
06-04-2009, 01:03 AM
The Me262s weren't terribly effective when deployed even in numbers. There were simply too many bombers. Even piston engined fighters such as the P-51 not only could be used effectively with countermeasure tactics, but also engine mods, to counter the Me262s. They took down some bombers, but it was pin*****s...

The P-51 may be effectively used against Me-262 ONLY during landing or taking off.That's why germans had to use the FW cover near the airfields.
On the air it was almost useless.
Yes the bombers were too many, but even in jen-feb of 1945 Allies losed 10-15% during bombers raids.


As for Korea, a huge complaint of the USAF crews were that they were flying second rate B-29s and B-26s left over from WWII against second-generation jets (MIG-15s).

Second generation Mig OWNed even less firepower than Me-262. Two 20-mm and slow single 37-mm gun.
Plus germans to the end of war have develpoed their non-controlled missles for the attack of bombers.


And what could they possibly have missed in North Korea? :D Deploying strategic air-power against strategic targets in an agrarian country was pretty silly to begin with. They'd have been better dumping their ordinance on troop concentrations and hitting tangible tactical targets...

There were a lot of Strategic targets on Korea.Bridges, airfields and ets.

Nickdfresh
06-04-2009, 09:21 AM
Allies had no nerve gas until well after the war and Hitler had no problems using them . Their were something like a dozen times the issue came up in planning, just their never seemed enough around at the moment or enough of an advantage for Hitler to considered using gas warfare.

Prewar all combatants expected any future war to begin with massive air bombarment with posion gas and bombs. Each side anticipated massive losses [in the millions] even though the massive useage of gas warfare in WW-I didn't produce such disasters even orders of magnitued lower. Statistically they produced about one death and one casultie per ton of mustard type posion used.

Even in the early war period the gas programme was continued because if worse came they had something to relaliate with, and even back in 1940 it was considered that Rockets would be the best way to deliver nerve gas to London as a last resort.

With regards to Nukes, these were quite small and they only had a handful at that time. Further the average german town was old stone construction , so the destruction due to ground burst small nukes, would not resemble the scale of the Japanese cities. You'd have to fire many nukes to 'vaporise' Berlin.

BTW mustard type gasses are extremely suseptable to weather and wind conditions and dissipate quickly under these conditions, so they would not drown whole cities. Maybe small towns at a time. The allies were over confident in gas warfare, that none of the British troops brought gas masks to Normandy.


Um, the nukes weren't "ground burst." And you seriously think that a near total collapse of command and control of the Wehrmacht/SS wouldn't have resulted?

Who would have been around to order the use of chemical weapons. And who cares if its nerve gas or chlorine gas?

Nickdfresh
06-04-2009, 09:29 AM
The P-51 may be effectively used against Me-262 ONLY during landing or taking off.That's why germans had to use the FW cover near the airfields.
On the air it was almost useless.
Yes the bombers were too many, but even in jen-feb of 1945 Allies losed 10-15% during bombers raids.

That's not true. Many Me262s were shot down in air-to-air combat and the tactics were formulated to deal with the jets superior speed such as gaining air speed by diving, using nitrous oxide to achieve speed bursts, and using their superior maneuvering to avoid the Swallows...

I think you'll find a better than 1:1 kill ratio in favor of the P-51s actually...


Second generation Mig OWNed even less firepower than Me-262. Two 20-mm and slow single 37-mm gun.
Plus germans to the end of war have develpoed their non-controlled missles for the attack of bombers.

The air-to-air missiles weren't even close to ready nor were their SAMs. Fighters only need so much fire power to bring down aircraft...


There were a lot of Strategic targets on Korea.Bridges, airfields and ets.

There were a few, but the key airbases were in China and were not hit.

Nickdfresh
06-04-2009, 09:33 AM
Maybe thats the western history POV , but wrong on all counts from the German POV, I'm afraid. The war reparations problem had already been dealt before Hitler came into power and the loan repayment was dealt with under the credit system & Wealfare state, that previous administrations had already set up before Hitler even came to power. Thats what allowed Germany to rebound so quickly from the Great Depression, not anything Hitler did.

German illegal reamament had begun in the 1920s and continued well into the 1930s.....

Of course the Reichswehr had already pondered rearmament as early as 1919. But the scale greatly increased under the Nazis as they openly flouted the Versaille Treaty and eventually disregarded even the most basic subterfuge...

Especially in the case of the Luftwaffe, which is the focus of discussion here...

ubc
06-04-2009, 12:23 PM
Um, the nukes weren't "ground burst." And you seriously think that a near total collapse of command and control of the Wehrmacht/SS wouldn't have resulted?

Who would have been around to order the use of chemical weapons. And who cares if its nerve gas or chlorine gas?

You are grossly overestimating the effectiveness of a handful of small nukes.


There was no protection against nerve gas, but basic gas masks and decontamination protected against Mustard gas attacks. Anyway we are speaking about retaliation attacks and they would have done them. Hitler was willing to fight to the last German.

guided missile technology was mature enough to use ASM in battle in 1943/44 period. A Basic SAM and AAM were partnered with the Hs-293/Fritz X and would have been ready by 1944, had Hitler not had the lot of them scrapped and the effort wasted in 1940. The missiles were to be wireguided or radio guided, much like the Hs-293A and Hs-293B. But that required two seater planes/jets and they were conceived as missiles to protect bombers from enemy fighters.

ubc
06-04-2009, 12:31 PM
Of course the Reichswehr had already pondered rearmament as early as 1919. But the scale greatly increased under the Nazis as they openly flouted the Versaille Treaty and eventually disregarded even the most basic subterfuge...

Especially in the case of the Luftwaffe, which is the focus of discussion here...

All of which was initiated in regimes previous to Hitler and would have gone on with or with out Hitler as would the economic recovery and the expansion of the Wehrmacht, especially if the French/Brits/Russians and /or Poles reamed faster. The pre Hitler strategy enviaged an army of ~ 80 divisions with some additional reserves , just like WW-I. But they also planned a strategy around 12 months of continous interlaced campaigns with sufficent stock pile of enough armaments and raw resources to reach total war production within a year of the start of any such war.

Nickdfresh
06-04-2009, 02:13 PM
You are grossly overestimating the effectiveness of a handful of small nukes.

I think you're grossly underestimating their effectiveness and being intentionally glib. Just as you are overestimating the German wonder tech that is so often exaggerated on these forums by "what-if" fanbois that tend to ignore other what-ifs. Such as what if the United States had actually funded some of the excellent jet designs it had around in the late 1930s and early 40s? Et cetera....

But, okay. What would that small number have been with the War dragging on into 1947? And how possibly could you know what the reaction of Germans would have been? The Japanese were far more willing to throw themselves onto their collective samurai sword and they still surrendered after two strikes, this without actually attacking their gov't or command structure. There's little doubt the Allies would have incinerated Hitler and much of the Nazi high command if they were able too and by 1945 that might well have led to a collapse or a more successful coup by the Wehrmacht at the very least if not a complete collapse at the front.


There was no protection against nerve gas, but basic gas masks and decontamination protected against Mustard gas attacks. Anyway we are speaking about retaliation attacks and they would have done them. Hitler was willing to fight to the last German.

There was limited protection offered as Allied intelligence pretty much knew everything the Germans were up too by the end. There's also the little factor that the Germans would have had a hard time delivering significant quantities to do real damage. Assuming of course they could get much of the stuff to the front to begin with. Also, even the Allies using phosegene would have killed the fantastic German transport system of horses, oxes, and carts. So, while we're discussing the wonder weapons of the German military, they were still using medieval-era logistics!


guided missile technology was mature enough to use ASM in battle in 1943/44 period. A Basic SAM and AAM were partnered with the Hs-293/Fritz X and would have been ready by 1944, had Hitler not had the lot of them scrapped and the effort wasted in 1940. The missiles were to be wireguided or radio guided, much like the Hs-293A and Hs-293B. But that required two seater planes/jets and they were conceived as missiles to protect bombers from enemy fighters.

Firing at ships and aircraft are two completely different technical feats and even there, the USN largely marginalized their ASMs during the Italian campaign by jamming them. And how exactly would any of this stopped the Soviet Red Army's march Westward or the invasion of Normandy? And why do you seem to desperate to tell us how the Germans could of won WWII?

Nickdfresh
06-04-2009, 02:29 PM
All of which was initiated in regimes previous to Hitler and would have gone on with or with out Hitler as would the economic recovery and the expansion of the Wehrmacht, especially if the French/Brits/Russians and /or Poles reamed faster. The pre Hitler strategy enviaged an army of ~ 80 divisions with some additional reserves , just like WW-I. But they also planned a strategy around 12 months of continous interlaced campaigns with sufficent stock pile of enough armaments and raw resources to reach total war production within a year of the start of any such war.

The previous regimes of the Weimar Republic did initiate the Luftwaffe. Hitler did! They might have trained pilots and all that, and I do believe at least a limited German rearmament was inevitable as I think even the Western Allies didn't want a defenseless Germany on their East with the rise of Soviet military power.

But their military spending would have been nowhere near the level it attained under the National Socialists, if say, the Christian Democrats were running things...

ubc
06-06-2009, 12:13 AM
......


Don't know what to do about this guy, but he seems rude? He seems to speak of the end war, mid war and prewar situations as if they were interchangeable, they were not.

OK here goes....


The YP-80 was only brought up to correct the misconception that it was better than the Me-262 , it was not , it was the same. Yes the USA would have rushed it into battle [unless they are fools] , but its history would have echoed the problems with the poor performance of the historical Me-262 and many what ifs they had corrected the YP-80 problems etc etc J .

Americans may have not made the distinction between interceptors and fighters, but the Germans did. The Me-109 was designed from the start as a bomber interceptor as was the Me-262. In fact their was even a rocket/jet hybrid programme that was referred to as "Interceptor I II & III".

The Jumo 004A began development prewar with the original jet contracts. When it was developed it was able to operate for well over 250 hours. However since it used valuable strategic metals [chrome and Nickel and others vanadium and Molybdenum etc]. These were vital to the U-Boat programme pressure hulls , so their was never any question of using this engine, since the Uboat programme was deemed more valuable. Instead they planned for the jet to be build with the Jumo 004B which was developed with a simplified metal that used 1/3 as much strategic metal like Chrome.

When the Jumo-004B exhibited 100 hours bench test it was judged to be ready for the test programme. However the tests revealed that the metal turbine blades were not up to withstand sudden temp swings inside the engine. The blades suffered from vibration and metal fatigue leading to catastrophic failures. But even at that point it was still thought to be able to last 35 hours, which was the design target. The turbine blades were made hollow with airflow directed through them to allow cooling and mild steel to be used in the engines construction.

But in the context of the poor pilot situation of 1944/45, the average engine actually lasted only 10-25 hours.


The original poster asked what would happen if these jet forces were ready in 1942 , but instead of answering , some asked how this could happen. So to complete the jet engine by 1942, you need to alter the start war situation. When the war began , the German navies strategic plan envisaged expansion of steel quota to 1.4 million tons per year to build 24 destroyers 48 torpedo boots and 132 minesweepers , plus 105 Uboats per year production, after the boats already on the slips were finished.

Donitz petitioned Hitler to change this and allow his Uboat lobby to push for huge U-boat fleet by boosting production to 25-30 Uboats per month production , based on his calculation of 10% per month operational losses. But to do so would require at least additional ½ million tons of steel per year [for 2-3 years] over and above the 1.4-1.5 million tons planned. This was needed just to retool the ship yards/companies to produce Uboats instead of the above mentioned warships plus the associated Uboat engines and armaments , to be built in the sufficient quantities.

Donitz had badly overestimated the number of U-Boat needed and in forcing through these changes not only over taxed the Wehrmacht industry for steel resources, but at the same time crippled the Surface fleet. Most of the surface warship projects had to be canceled no matter how much they were needed or how near to completion they were. Demands for increased tank production and plane production also had to be curtailed to allow the navy to 'switch horses mid stride'.

The prewar naval strategy envisaged a Baltic battle fleet with up to 1/2 dozen Panzerschiff/battleships plus an aircraft carrier and a dozen cruisers plus 44 destroyers and 20-30 Uboats. When Hitler took power he wanted this plan scrapped and only a coastal defense fleet built, since he believe such a fleet was not needed since he wanted to convince/bully the British into neutrality, so he could get on with the killing in Europe. Admiral Raeder in an effort to save what he could of the surface fleet, argued that a German surface fleet should at least be built to counter the French fleet. So the surface fleet continued but its development was perverted by attempts to 'one up' French capital ship, destroyer and escort designs.

Admiral Heyes argued that any surface fleet should be a commerce raiding fleet working in conjunction with Uboat fleet to disrupt the shipping lanes [French]. He envisaged a dozen surface raiders but admitted that this plan could fall apart within 6 months to a year of war. Admiral Donitz argued that only a fleet of up to 300 Uboats would help Germany conduct a serious commerce raiding strategy. Finally Admiral Carls proposed the most radical solution of all, sea control groups with carriers ; battle cruisers , cruisers and flotillas of destroyers to work in conjunction with flotillas of Uboats to control the European waters.

The existing naval industrial capacity was not able to build just one of these fleets prewar, let alone convert the shipping industry and also build the original fleet. . When war began the whole coastal defense mission became the most crucial to the KM , but with little or no capacity left over ,they had to rely on hugh fleet of civilian/captured vessels to patrol and sweep the European waters for mines pretty much throughout the war.

There were far to few resources and time chasing too programmes, to complete them all , but they all were embraced because Hitler assured the navy they would not go to war with the RN/USN until the mid 1940s so they still had time to build them all. Again Hitler could not decide and couldn't make up his mind. It seemed that after each meeting a new plan would be adopted at the expense of the previous. So when war came choosing any one over the other was bound to wreck the whole effort.

This in turn did nothing to address training armament production or fuel production and basing etc etc, which would have to be different for each different variant of the fleet being planned. It seemed that just when the Z plan was finally adopted, the war began and all that effort was thrown out the window.

To build Donitz plan of 300 boats they would need another 100 boats for training and down for repairs ,while the 10% loss per month would take until 1943 to reach 300 operational boats. Most strategist believed if the war was not won by 1942/43 they would loose. The Donitz plan would cost to much to achieve a fleet that would not be ready until the war was over.

Yet just a couple of months after the war began the navy presented a compromise solution where all there surface ships would be built plus over 200 U-Boats per year, but Hitler vetoed this. At that time Donitz asked to be put in charge of Uboat development and work with Walters to develop the Peroxide boats [Electric boats] , but Donitz was instead put in charge of prosecuting his 300 Uboat war. Initially Donitz fleet did well racking up 18:1 kill ratios average , but the longer the war continued the more the allies recovered their ASW effort mainly through rapid and vast increase in air patrols to cover the Convoy routes.

By the time Donitz got his 300 U-Boats in mid war, the allies had reduced the kill ratios to ~ 4:1. Donitz didn’t help matters by forcing his Uboats stand their ground to fight the allied airpower, which only worsened the situation so the kill ratios dropped to about 1:2 against. Finally Admiral Donitz withdrew his fleet from the Atlantic and conceded the ocean to the allies. This in turn allowed the allies the time and cargo capacity to deploy forces and munitions to prosecute the strategic air war and follow up with the second front invasion and subsequent drive across Europe in n1943-45 time period.

Had Donitz vacated his post to focus on developing U-Boats with Walters when the war began, they could have solved the allied airpower advantage just by applying the lessons Walters learnt from his prewar fish boats designs, directly to the existing inventory of Type VII & IX U-boat fleet. The underwater speed of these boats was limited to about 7 knots because the conning tower bristled with armaments , hand rails and deck guns and produced ¾ of the boats underwater resistance.

By converting this conning tower to the smooth streamline bridge plus an integral Schnorkel with no armaments or railings, the overall boats resistance would be reduced to ½ and thus the power doubled. That would allow these modified Type VII & IX Uboats to get underwater speeds up to about 10 knots. By upgrading the generators at the expense of the surface diesels, this underwater speed could top out at over 11knots. The Type XXIII was the first electric boat to be fielded and did very well with a top underwater speed of 12.5knots.

With the Schnorkel to move via diesel and recharge batteries, this would have allowed these boats to operate mostly under water. Increasing silent operating endurance could have been achieved by replacing ½ the fuel bunkers and the reserve torpedos with more battery rooms. The Uboats would have been forced to operate in European waters , but would have done so with near impunity from the air , while the effectiveness against Escort ASDIC attacks would been reduced by to between ½ & ¼ . Overall the kill ratios against allied Merchant vessels would have plateau at about 8:1 until the Type XXI Electric boats arrive, boosting the kill ratio back up to about 18:1 in the U-Boat favor.

Basing on the Navies 211 Uboat production per year would have freed up enough naval steel/copper to complete the planed capital ship , plus build the escort fleet ship and also free up enough strategic metals to allow ~ 3800 aero engines to be produced as Jumo-004A engines through the 1942-1944 time period.

Nickdfresh
06-06-2009, 06:35 AM
Don't know what to do about this guy, but he seems rude? He seems to speak of the end war, mid war and prewar situations as if they were interchangeable, they were not.

Because:

a.) you're turning a threat about a specific subject into a speculative "what if" thread

b.) you are posting alternate "facts" without citing any sources (something called plagiarism) and making absolutely no attempt to verify or prove what you say is in anyway true. You also seem to intentionally post wrong information to support your arguments (i.e. exaggerating the effectiveness of German jet engines and their endurance)

c.) I've found many of your assertions easily disproved, half truths posted out of context, or selective in order to "win an argument on the internet" rather than reach some sort of historical truth - with is sort of the antithesis of this site...

And I would say that you are the inconsiderate one throwing out speculations as facts and alternately only selectively addressing arguments to the contrary while ignoring what you cannot answer....


OK here goes....


The YP-80 was only brought up to correct the misconception that it was better than the Me-262 , it was not , it was the same. Yes the USA would have rushed it into battle [unless they are fools] , but its history would have echoed the problems with the poor performance of the historical Me-262 and many what ifs they had corrected the YP-80 problems etc etc J .

You're point? I never said anything else than what you just posted other than the P-80 was believed to have been superior as a close range dogfighter as it was more maneuverable. I've also clearly stated that it wasn't quite ready by the end of the War. But since we were talking about hypothetical alternate realities, the P-80 WOULD have been ready had the War continued into late 1945 and 1946 as many of its problems were soon overcome. You haven't cleared up any misconception since you again posted nothing in support of your argument other than your own beliefs masked as facts...


Americans may have not made the distinction between interceptors and fighters, but the Germans did. The Me-109 was designed from the start as a bomber interceptor as was the Me-262. In fact their was even a rocket/jet hybrid programme that was referred to as "Interceptor I II & III".

LOL The Me109 was designed as what? It was an air superiority fighter. The Me262 was designed as a fighter and then Hitler wanted to employ it as a bomber foolishly. It was finally deployed as a bomber interceptor as a desperate attempt to stem Allied bombing - at which it generally failed...


The Jumo 004A began development prewar with the original jet contracts. When it was developed it was able to operate for well over 250 hours. However since it used valuable strategic metals [chrome and Nickel and others vanadium and Molybdenum etc]. These were vital to the U-Boat programme pressure hulls , so their was never any question of using this engine, since the Uboat programme was deemed more valuable. Instead they planned for the jet to be build with the Jumo 004B which was developed with a simplified metal that used 1/3 as much strategic metal like Chrome.

What are your sources for this? I looked on Wiki, which isn't a great source I admit, but I think it stated the longest effective endurance was like 50 hours, and was much less in actual practice...


When the Jumo-004B exhibited 100 hours bench test it was judged to be ready for the test programme. However the tests revealed that the metal turbine blades were not up to withstand sudden temp swings inside the engine. The blades suffered from vibration and metal fatigue leading to catastrophic failures. But even at that point it was still thought to be able to last 35 hours, which was the design target. The turbine blades were made hollow with airflow directed through them to allow cooling and mild steel to be used in the engines construction.

But in the context of the poor pilot situation of 1944/45, the average engine actually lasted only 10-25 hours.

Okay, so I am correct. :)


The original poster asked what would happen if these jet forces were ready in 1942 , but instead of answering , some asked how this could happen. So to complete the jet engine by 1942, you need to alter the start war situation. When the war began , the German navies strategic plan envisaged expansion of steel quota to 1.4 million tons per year to build 24 destroyers 48 torpedo boots and 132 minesweepers , plus 105 Uboats per year production, after the boats already on the slips were finished.

How could an aircraft be ready when it was barely test flown? The question is a foolish one that ignores thousands of other potential alternative historical outcomes. Such as the ones I already posted. Germany was not the only nation interested in jets pre-war. They just tended to fund the programs more, but obviously not enough to be effective...


Donitz petitioned Hitler to change this and allow his Uboat lobby to push for huge U-boat fleet by boosting production to 25-30 Uboats per month production , based on his calculation of 10% per month operational losses. But to do so would require at least additional ½ million tons of steel per year [for 2-3 years] over and above the 1.4-1.5 million tons planned. This was needed just to retool the ship yards/companies to produce Uboats instead of the above mentioned warships plus the associated Uboat engines and armaments , to be built in the sufficient quantities.

Donitz had badly overestimated the number of U-Boat needed...

There were far to few resources and time chasing too programmes....

Of course! This is why thinking the Germans could somehow put together almost 2000 jet fighters in early 1942 is a bit silly...

What else would Donitz want? How was Germany going at all to win a war without any effective naval arm?


This in turn did nothing to address training armament production or fuel production and basing etc etc, which would have to be different for each different variant of the fleet being planned. It seemed that just when the Z plan was finally adopted, the war began and all that effort was thrown out the window.

To build Donitz plan of 300 boats they would need another 100 boats for training and down for repairs ,while the 10% loss per month would take until 1943 to reach 300 operational boats. Most strategist believed if the war was not won by 1942/43 they would loose. The Donitz plan would cost to much to achieve a fleet that would not be ready until the war was over.

...

Basing on the Navies 211 Uboat production per year would have freed up enough naval steel/copper to complete the planed capital ship , plus build the escort fleet ship and also free up enough strategic metals to allow ~ 3800 aero engines to be produced as Jumo-004A engines through the 1942-1944 time period.

So, it's all Donitz's fault they lost WWII? :confused:

Again, you're just presenting your hypothesis as fact...

ubc
06-06-2009, 04:24 PM
Because:

a.) you're turning a threat about a specific subject into a speculative "what if" thread

b.) you are posting alternate "facts" without citing any sources (something called plagiarism) and making absolutely no attempt to verify or prove what you say is in anyway true. You also seem to intentionally post wrong information to support your arguments (i.e. exaggerating the effectiveness of German jet engines and their endurance)

c.) I've found many of your assertions easily disproved, half truths posted out of context, or selective in order to "win an argument on the internet" rather than reach some sort of historical truth - with is sort of the antithesis of this site...

And I would say that you are the inconsiderate one throwing out speculations as facts and alternately only selectively addressing arguments to the contrary while ignoring what you cannot answer....



[D] You're point? I never said anything else than what you just posted other than the P-80 was believed to have been superior as a close range dogfighter as it was more maneuverable. I've also clearly stated that it wasn't quite ready by the end of the War. But since we were talking about hypothetical alternate realities, the P-80 WOULD have been ready had the War continued into late 1945 and 1946 as many of its problems were soon overcome. You haven't cleared up any misconception since you again posted nothing in support of your argument other than your own beliefs masked as facts...



[E] LOL The Me109 was designed as what? It was an air superiority fighter. The Me262 was designed as a fighter and then Hitler wanted to employ it as a bomber foolishly. It was finally deployed as a bomber interceptor as a desperate attempt to stem Allied bombing - at which it generally failed...


[F] Of course! This is why thinking the Germans could somehow put together almost 2000 jet fighters in early 1942 is a bit silly...

What else would Donitz want? How was Germany going at all to win a war without any effective naval arm?

[G] What are your sources for this? I looked on Wiki, which isn't a great source I admit, but I think it stated the longest effective endurance was like 50 hours, and was much less in actual practice...


[H]How could an aircraft be ready when it was barely test flown? The question is a foolish one that ignores thousands of other potential alternative historical outcomes. Such as the ones I already posted. Germany was not the only nation interested in jets pre-war. They just tended to fund the programs more, but obviously not enough to be effective...


[I] So, it's all Donitz's fault they lost WWII? :confused:

Again, you're just presenting your hypothesis as fact...



[A] The thread WAS a speculative What if....if you recall the poster asked what would have happened if the Germans had Me-262 in 1942. I provide a context to explain how such a thing could occure. I already explained all this!

No one has yet been able to answer this question yet, from the vantage point of 1942/43 WW-II. Applying the 1944/45 context to the 1942/43 situation is obviously flawed, which is why I ignore those posts.


[B] Plagiarism means using some one else’s 'exact words' with out citation. I have used others sources of information and ideas which is fine and they are from translated German sources. Since you have not presented any sources for your so-called facts, there is no need for me to the same , it is the MO of this forum, perhaps? You are a westerner and see things through that POV & sources. I am independent so I see things though the eyes of the sources I read, which for the German war situation mostly appear to be translated German works.


[C] This makes no sense since I'm not arguing with you or anyone else, just posting what I understand the German position to be.

[D] Since this 'what if' stems from a 1942 ATL, what the YP-80 may or may not be able to do in 1945/46 is not that relevant, but as I already said it should be in use in late 1945 ,just with a poor record, which should intern cloud its ATL history.

[E] Me-109 was conceived as a bomber interceptor after 1934 war gammes showed the LW all bomber force would not be sufficient to deter any enemy attack. Pior to this they had no programme for a fighter sized plane. Read translated German histories to understand this.

[F] Donitz was not in charge of the KM but Raeder was, Admiral Raeder wanted a balanced navy not a uboat only fleet. However Donitz had Hitler’s ear since he was good nazi, not a good naval leader, so he got his own way, and Raeders job in 1942.

[G]

Your Wilki sources....
http://fixedreference.org/en/20040424/wikipedia/Junkers_Jumo_004

http://translate.google.ca/translate?hl=en&sl=cs&u=http://www.mzak.cz/motory/jumo004/&ei=K9gqSvn1B6WCtgPDqLmjCw&sa=X&oi=translate&resnum=10&ct=result&prev=/search%3Fq%3DJumo%2B004A%2B,%2BDr.%2BAnselm%2BFran z%2B250%2Bhours%2Boperation%26hl%3Den%26rlz%3D1T4S UNA_enCA311CA311%26sa%3DN%26start%3D20

"Since the unit Jumo 004A-0 (all marked Jumo 109-004A-015) was still only an experimental form of the use of sophisticated technology and exotic materials (alloys of cobalt, nickel, molybdenum in the hot part) and for mass production of the nehodila, designers came to maximum simplification that RĽM account of the life of 10-25 hours of flight (the other hand, the original prototype Jumo 004A had life very solid - 200 to 250 hours of operation)."


Hummm it also says they produced over 14,000 Jumo 004B. I will have to revise and update my figures ;)


[H] The jet was pronounced ready by 1942 , it was just awaiting the jet engine to complete its development. This development was based on the Jumo-004B since it had already been decided that the A model was base on strategic metals diverted for Donitz Uboat fleet arm. ALter that redirection and the strategic metals become available for other armaments like the Jet engine programme. You should not trust Wikli unless you can second source the information.

[I]there is enough blame to go around. Admiral Raeder gets some of the blame for being so 'a political' , but Hitler is mostly to blame, but I already noted this before :rolleyes:


Here are some translated sources for you to read....

"The German Military in the Age of Total War" Deist.

" The U-Boat" ,Rossler.

"Germany and the Second Work war" Vol 1 & 2

" The Wehrmacht and German rearmament", Diest.

"The Historical Encyclopedia of World War II" [french]

BTW "American Raiders", Samuel. shows different view of German technology and comparison test fly by American pilots etc. Most thought the YP-80 was at best compariable to the Me-262.


I set out to correct some of the many miss information and present an possible alternative history time line from which the Germans could have had Me-262 early in the war. I have done this. Others can debate all they like since their opinion is just merely a reflection of their history and cultural bias. Good bye, my work here is done :-).

leccy
06-06-2009, 05:15 PM
Whatever your view on whether the ME262 could have been gotten into service 2 years earlier still does not change the fact that to produce it meant diverting resources.
The Germans divert resources from U-Boats then the allies dont need to spend as many resources countering them. The allies can then also divert resources to other projects.

Then it starts getting into the 'well the Germans could have done this' and ignore what all of the allies may have done at the same time

No matter what Germany also had a limited manpower and relied very heavily on slave/POW/Guest workers to supply their forces with all the equipment required to fight a war.

The main reasons Germany lost the war and would no matter what they did was the usual.

They fought the wrong war at the wrong time with the wrong leaders.

It was almost inevitable that another European war would come about it just depended on who where and when.

Nickdfresh
06-07-2009, 08:42 AM
[A] The thread WAS a speculative What if....if you recall the poster asked what would have happened if the Germans had Me-262 in 1942. I provide a context to explain how such a thing could occure. I already explained all this!

No one has yet been able to answer this question yet, from the vantage point of 1942/43 WW-II. Applying the 1944/45 context to the 1942/43 situation is obviously flawed, which is why I ignore those posts.

I was commenting that the Me262 had only flown in March of 1942. And your non-"Western Biased" (of which, Germany is considered part of the West I might add) seems to encompass a bizarre mixture of hindsight and the typical, German WWII fanboism that seems to worship German "wonder weapons" whose effectiveness is largely exaggerated around the web.


[B] Plagiarism means using some one else’s 'exact words' with out citation.

No, actually that's not the definition. The definition is actually using someone else's thoughts and ideas without proper accreditation and, in some cases, without their permission.

In any case, you seem to post "facts" without using any sort of citations whatsoever. I still have yet to see German Jumo jet engines being capable of anything even close to reaching 250 hours. Even if they had the alloys needed. Incidentally, I also more often than not list specific sources when I make specific claims. An example of this would be when I admitted that I used Wiki to determine that the first jet powered flight of the Me262 took place sometime in the spring or summer of 1942, the very year you seem to believe the Luftwaffe "could have" fielded large numbers of the jet for a bomber threat they did not foresee two years prior - as they were winning the War and expected to make quick-work of the USSR by the end of 1941 or early 1942...


I have used others sources of information and ideas which is fine and they are from translated German sources. Since you have not presented any sources for your so-called facts, there is no need for me to the same , it is the MO of this forum, perhaps? You are a westerner and see things through that POV & sources. I am independent so I see things though the eyes of the sources I read, which for the German war situation mostly appear to be translated German works.

I think you're selectively reading what you want to read then in accordance with a pre-existing bias...


[C] This makes no sense since I'm not arguing with you or anyone else, just posting what I understand the German position to be.

I don't know who would be qualified to "speak" for the "German position" as I doubt there is a single one, which is one of the reasons I am arguing with you, just like you are with me. It is because you present concrete notions of what would have been when you have no idea what the real situation was and project a mixture of a good deal of "hindsight" as well as selective conjecture into your "what-if" scenarios...


[D] Since this 'what if' stems from a 1942 ATL, what the YP-80 may or may not be able to do in 1945/46 is not that relevant, but as I already said it should be in use in late 1945 ,just with a poor record, which should intern cloud its ATL history.

It didn't have a "poor record." It was successfully deployed and its record was no more "poor" than that of the German jet program which also killed its fair share of German test pilots. The F-80 worked ultimately. It had problems early on because the USAAF realized that they were behind the Luftwaffe in jet development so they had to rush the program through development faster than was safely possible. It took the Germans something on the order of three or four years to develop the Me262 whereas the P-80 was deployed less than 18 months after its initial flight...


[E] Me-109 was conceived as a bomber interceptor after 1934 war gammes...

Right! And an air superiority fighter too! The Luftwaffe barely existed in 1934 and didn't have any bombers to deter anyone with as they were previously forbidden to have any aircraft. you might recall this in all of your extensive readings of German sources. But I think you are failing miserably with semantics here. Of course the Me109 was to intercept bombers. It was also designed to sweep enemy fighters from the sky. I would argue that Germany faced only a limited bomber threat in 1934 as the French Armée de l'Air never placed an emphasis on strategic air power and RAF bomber command was but a shadow of what it would become.

The Me109 was designed as a fighter because everyone else had one, and it was designed as a multirole platform. Otherwise why have made it so maneuverable?


[F] Donitz was not in charge of the KM but Raeder was, Admiral Raeder wanted a balanced navy not a uboat only fleet...

Please indicate where Adm. Raider and Donitz clashed over the U-boat program. And how would the German surface Kriegsmarine have been any less a drain on War resources than the U-boats were? The U-boats were designed for the very purpose of being a cheaper, effective alternative to larger surface fleets of which the Germans could never hope to match...


[G]

Your Wilki sources....
http://fixedreference.org/en/20040424/wikipedia/Junkers_Jumo_004

http://translate.google.ca/translate?hl=en&sl=cs&u=http://www.mzak.cz/motory/jumo004/&ei=K9gqSvn1B6WCtgPDqLmjCw&sa=X&oi=translate&resnum=10&ct=result&prev=/search%3Fq%3DJumo%2B004A%2B,%2BDr.%2BAnselm%2BFran z%2B250%2Bhours%2Boperation%26hl%3Den%26rlz%3D1T4S UNA_enCA311CA311%26sa%3DN%26start%3D20

"Since the unit Jumo 004A-0 (all marked Jumo 109-004A-015) was still only an experimental form of the use of sophisticated technology and exotic materials (alloys of cobalt, nickel, molybdenum in the hot part) and for mass production of the nehodila, designers came to maximum simplification that RĽM account of the life of 10-25 hours of flight (the other hand, the original prototype Jumo 004A had life very solid - 200 to 250 hours of operation)."


Hummm it also says they produced over 14,000 Jumo 004B. I will have to revise and update my figures ;)

The 250-hour prototype could never have been mass produced with its alloys and was simplified so they could reach the production run and there is a huge difference between an experimental prototype and a deployable weapon. Especially since the Swallows would have to be thought of as expendable, which is why they produced simplified engines that might need to be produced by unskilled, even reluctant, slave labor in some cases...



[H] The jet was pronounced ready by 1942 , it was just awaiting the jet engine to complete its development. This development was based on the Jumo-004B since it had already been decided that the A model was base on strategic metals diverted for Donitz Uboat fleet arm. ALter that redirection and the strategic metals become available for other armaments like the Jet engine programme. You should not trust Wikli unless you can second source the information.

Ready for what? Testing? It was only flown in March or July of that year (depending on the source).

And why shouldn't I trust Wiki when you apparently do? And I don't. You presented a Wiki link which said nothing regarding the strategic metals other than they would make jet engine manufacturing too complex (my inference as the translation from Czech was a bit awkward).

Secondly, what was Germany to defend the sea lanes and cut off Allied shipping with if they didn't have U-boats? Their battleships or massive aircraft carriers? :) Subs are actually one of the most effective weapons in terms of cost and benefits...


[I]there is enough blame to go around. Admiral Raeder gets some of the blame for being so 'a political' , but Hitler is mostly to blame, but I already noted this before :rolleyes:

Heavy speculative hindsight...

So, let me get this straight: your contention is that if Germany had completely ignored its navy in WWII, they would have been able to deploy a sophisticated, new technology in a jet aircraft that had only first flown in the year you say they could have deployed them...


Here are some translated sources for you to read....

"The German Military in the Age of Total War" Deist.

" The U-Boat" ,Rossler.

"Germany and the Second Work war" Vol 1 & 2

" The Wehrmacht and German rearmament", Diest.

"The Historical Encyclopedia of World War II" [french]

Which ones concur with your beliefs and where to they state that it was any more plausible for the Germans to have deployed large numbers of jet fighters in 1942?

Because I'm pretty sure that I've read (long ago) a scenario where the Royal Air Force begins substantive funding of Whittle's engine and the RAF has a working jet fighter by 1939...

Or that the US begins cooperation sooner with the British using variants of their engines prior to American involvement in WWII to produce some interesting designs that were far above anything the Germans might have had.

But of course, this is all speculation...


BTW "American Raiders" Samuel shows...the YP-80 was at best compariable to the Me-262.

Well, if it were comparable, than that would have obviously been enough since the Luftwaffe pilots were ill-trained by 1944 and the best ones were mostly dead...

Here's a related thread:

http://ww2incolor.com/forum/showthread.php?t=3652&highlight=jets


I set out to correct some of the many miss information and present an possible...

But this isn't an "alternative time line" thread nor forum...

There is no practical way the Luftwaffe deployed jets any faster than they did. Just as there was no real chance of British and US air arms, beset by underfunding and an economic depression, where going to have jets in the late 1930s. There was a reason events unfolded as they did.

Rising Sun*
06-07-2009, 09:32 AM
Please indicate where Adm. Raider and Donitz clashed over the U-boat program. And how would the German surface Kriegsmarine have been any less a drain on War resources than the U-boats were? The U-boats were designed for the very purpose of being a cheaper, effective alternative to larger surface fleets of which the Germans could never hope to match...

........

Secondly, what was Germany to defend the sea lanes and cut off Allied shipping with if they didn't have U-boats? Their battleships or massive aircraft carriers? :) Subs are actually one of the most effective weapons in terms of cost and benefits...

Exactly.

Before America came into the war the German subs had the potential to go a long way to isolating Britain from its sources of supply. After America came in a bigger German sub fleet could still have hampered trans-Atlantic supply and, perhaps more critically in the early years of American involvement in the war, severely reduced supply to the USSR. Churchill said that the thing that worried him most in WWII was the U boat threat in the North Atlantic, and he was in the best position to judge.


So, let me get this straight: your contention is that if Germany had completely ignored its navy in WWII, they would have been able to deploy a sophisticated, new technology in a jet aircraft that had only first flown in the year you say they could have deployed them...

Even if that happened, how would it have affected the critical issue of transporting supplies across the North Atlantic to Britain and to the USSR?

Germany could have had several fleets of jet powered fighters and even jet powered bombers, but they still wouldn't have reduced the trans-Atlantic LOC which were fundamental to creating and or maintaining the Allied offensive against Germany which, before and for that matter on D Day, relied primarily on sea power and transport.

Any aircraft Germany developed after 1940 were, realistically, capable only of delaying its defeat rather than altering the course of the war. That wasn't necessarily the case with investing in submarines.

jimb1940
06-07-2009, 06:10 PM
What happened to my post?

Nickdfresh
06-07-2009, 06:29 PM
What happened to my post?


I moved it (as well as my response) here (http://ww2incolor.com/forum/showthread.php?p=157702#post157702), since it has nothing to do with the topic...

pampa14
12-07-2013, 07:29 AM
The world's first operational jet-powered fighter aircraft. A collection of photos this aircraft can be found here:

http://aviacaoemfloripa.blogspot.com.br/2011/03/messerschmitt-me-262.html


Some photos:

6851

6852

6853

6854

Nickdfresh
12-07-2013, 09:03 AM
Thread merged into existing discussion...

incxc
01-21-2014, 08:41 PM
wow, you guys have so many amazing news!