ME262 Swallow (2 Viewers)

[uksubs]

I must demur a wee bit Gary. Of the lot, the P-80 was the best performing and flying aircraft. You don't need combat to prove that and frankly the best pilot almost always wins win equal odds. I have proven that to myself on more than a few occassions. Views of pilots of the respective aircraft in combat are interesting but not definitive since there is just too little time for reflection and too many variables and yes the problem with a bit of attachment to one's own aircraft. Test pilot views are actually better where they have flown both aircraft.

I think your find your wrong
The US tested the P80 V Me 262 & found the Me 262 miles better
The USAAF compared the P-80 Shooting Star and Me 262 concluding, "Despite a difference in gross weight of nearly 907 kg (2,000 lb), 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."[43] 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

 

[Spitfrnd]

I think your find your wrong
The US tested the P80 V Me 262 & found the Me 262 miles better
The USAAF compared the P-80 Shooting Star and Me 262 concluding, "Despite a difference in gross weight of nearly 907 kg (2,000 lb), 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."[43] 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

Well if I am wrong, kindly direct me to the source of your information. Clearly it must depend on performance numbers for the two different from the one's I have quoted which provide just the opposite conclusion. One thing is for sure, you cannot have superior climb and acceleration for relatively comparable drag profiles, without superior thrust to weight ratio. What engine thrusts were cited for your example? I would note that many of the USAF's post war tests have been shown to have been flawed due to the use of inferior fuels, absence of operating manuals, absence of replacement parts and the condition of the German aircraft they were testing.

 

[uksubs]

Well if I am wrong, kindly direct me to the source of your information. Clearly it must depend on performance numbers for the two different from the one's I have quoted which provide just the opposite conclusion. I would note that many of the USAF's post war tests have been shown to have been flawed due to the use of inferior fuels, absence of operating manuals, absence of replacement parts and the condition of the German aircraft they were testing.

If the US test were flawed then that would mean that the Me 262 would be even better than the P80 with better fuel & parts ,it common knowledge that the Me 262 is better than the P-80 & don't forget the US were using British jet engine technology in there early jet as well
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messerschmitt_Me_262

 

[Spitfrnd]

If the US test were flawed then that would mean that the Me 262 would be even better than the P80 with better fuel & parts ,it common knowledge that the Me 262 is better than the P-80 & don't forget the US were using British jet engine technology in there early jet as well
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messerschmitt_Me_262

I thought you were going to cite that article. Wikipedia is not a completely reliable source. If you are really interested I will drag out the comparative design material we used for the flight modeling efforts. Trust me though, you still cannot have have superior acceleration or climb in a jet without a superior thrust to weight ratio unless the drag profiles are so different that one is a relative brick and the other a dart. Frankly, as far as acceleration and climb speed go, neither of them could stay with a Mark XIV Spitfire; it took the next generation of jets like the Mig 15 and F-86 to do that. I can say again, the P-80 sibbling I flew was quite a nice preforming aircraft and an really nice flyer. HOwever, even if you assume a slight edge for the Me 262 that I have yet to see documented, the differences would not have been sufficient to offset the allied superiority in pilots and replacements at that time.

 

[uksubs]

I thought you were going to cite that article. Wikipedia is not a completely reliable source. If you are really interested I will drag out the comparative design material we used for the flight modeling efforts. Trust me though, you still cannot have have superior acceleration or climb in a jet without a superior thrust to weight ratio unless the drag profiles are so different that one is a relative brick and the other a dart. Frankly, as far as acceleration and climb speed go, neither of them could stay with a Mark XIV Spitfire; it took the next generation of jets like the Mig 15 and F-86 to do that. I can say again, the P-80 sibbling I flew was quite a nice preforming aircraft and an really nice flyer. HOwever, even if you assume a slight edge for the Me 262 that I have yet to see documented, the differences would not have been sufficient to offset the allied superiority in pilots and replacements at that time.

Hi spitfrnd Wikipedia is using information from test carried out by the US Air force after the war so are you say there wrong as well,? I've read Watson's Whizzers book on the US testing the Me 262 & he say the same thing but your right when you say the allied superiority in pilots & planes but wrong when you say the Spitfire XIV can out run a Meteor -
This is the first article of a series by former O.C. Flying at the Air Fighter Development Unit in which he will discuss the flying characteristics of modern aircraft.






Speed
The Meteor III is the fastest of those depicted at all heights, followed by the Tempest V, up to 18,000ft when the Mustang III is slightly faster. Next comes the Spitfire, 30 mph slower than the Mustang III at sea level, but 10 mph faster at 30,000ft and nearly 30mph faster than the Tempest V at 25,000ft, which at sea level is 25mph faster than the Spitfire XIV. Finally comes the Thunderbolt II, easily bottom of the list at low altitudes but comfortably holding its own at 30,000ft.

Apart from the acknowledged superiority in this sphere of jet aircraft, therefore, it is not easy as some pretend it is to claim that any one particular fighter is the fastest, it probably isn’t. Providing it has a reasonable top speed; its other qualities are far more likely to make it a better fighter than the rest; speed is emphatically not everything

 

[Mitch]

uksubs...

Nice to see you posting again and, thanks for citing some of the stuff I was commenting on book wise. My grandfather and his colleagues must have been very poor pilots as everything they and others stated about aircraft including 262's, meteors and FW dora's to name just a few and, the test results, technical data derived from substantial russian tests has all been shot down by flight simulators etc and the fact that some have not seen these results.

I have yet to read (though I am willing to accept someone may have said otherwise) comprehensively test pilots from the time state the ME 262 was anything other than a good aircraft. Adolf Galland stated it was ''like being pushed by angels'' after his first flight. The germans knew the limitations of this aircraft and as stated began to address these very quickly
Mitch

 

[Spitfrnd]

Hi spitfrnd Wikipedia is using information from test carried out by the US Air force after the war so are you say there wrong as well,? I've read Watson's Whizzers book on the US testing the Me 262 & he say the same thing but your right when you say the allied superiority in pilots & planes but wrong when you say the Spitfire XIV can out run a Meteor -
This is the first article of a series by former O.C. Flying at the Air Fighter Development Unit in which he will discuss the flying characteristics of modern aircraft.

Speed
The Meteor III is the fastest of those depicted at all heights, followed by the Tempest V, up to 18,000ft when the Mustang III is slightly faster. Next comes the Spitfire, 30 mph slower than the Mustang III at sea level, but 10 mph faster at 30,000ft and nearly 30mph faster than the Tempest V at 25,000ft, which at sea level is 25mph faster than the Spitfire XIV. Finally comes the Thunderbolt II, easily bottom of the list at low altitudes but comfortably holding its own at 30,000ft.

Apart from the acknowledged superiority in this sphere of jet aircraft, therefore, it is not easy as some pretend it is to claim that any one particular fighter is the fastest, it probably isn’t. Providing it has a reasonable top speed; its other qualities are far more likely to make it a better fighter than the rest; speed is emphatically not everything

UKSubs, please read what I said again, which was directly responding to your prior quoted reference that the 262 was "superior to the P-80 in acceleration, speed and approximately the same in climb performance...". I think you will see that I made no reference to anything other than accleration and climb rates. I think you will find the Mark XIV was superior in both. In fact, before the advent of afterburners, jets were relatively poor performers in acceleration when compared to piston aircraft for the same weight/thrust/HP. That is because a jet engine takes comparatively longer to move from low to peak trust. I can tell you from personal experience that without an afterburner, jet engine acceleration from low thrust levels is frankly a bit frightening to the pilot. If you have some personal experience (or other information) that contradicts that, I would be pleased to see it. I do agree that top speed alone is meaningless except in denying engagement with aircraft at the same altitudes but I never said anything to the contrary.

As to whether the cited USAF test results are wrong, yes I am saying that they were not conclusive and in fact were questioned by USAF command staff for the same reason. I would also note that without viewing the actual test report, it is impossible to know exactly what even the quoted conclusion is saying. That is the Wikipedia issue; one should always look to the orginal source. I will just say again, show me the comparative thrust to weight data and the answer on performance alone will be pretty clear.

As to the suggestion that someone's grandfather knows more or less about comparative aircraft performance, the statement is too vague to permit any meaningful response. Also, I would be pleased to know where I said the 262 was a bad aircraft; I think I said merely it was not an air superiority aircraft. In common terms, this refers to a fighter than can dominate an air to air combat. While the 262 could avoid an engagement, it could not be materially more certain of winning one than Germany's top piston fighters of the time. Ironically, that is harder task than it seems for guns only encounters between early jets and prop aircraft. The RAF proved that to themselves in mock combats between an English Electric Lightning F 3 (much more advanced than a Me 262) and a Mark PR 19 (a photo recon version of the Mark XIV.

 

[uksubs]

UKSubs, please read what I said again, which was directly responding to your prior quoted reference that the 262 was "superior to the P-80 in acceleration, speed and approximately the same in climb performance...". I think you will see that I made no reference to anything other than accleration and climb rates. I think you will find the Mark XIV was superior in both. In fact, before the advent of afterburners, jets were relatively poor performers in on when compared to piston aircraft for the same weight/thrust/HP. That is because a jet engine takes comparatively longer to move from low to peak trust. I can tell you from personal experience that without an afterburner, jet engine acceleration from low thrust levels is frankly a bit frightening to the pilot. If you have some personal experience (or other information) that contradicts that, I would be pleased to see it. I do agree that top speed alone is meaningless except in denying engagement with aircraft at the same altitudes but I never said anything to the contrary.

As to whether the cited USAF test results are wrong, yes I am saying that they were not conclusive and in fact were questioned by USAF command staff for the same reason. I would also note that without viewing the actual test report, it is impossible to know exactly what even the quoted conclusion is saying. That is the Wikipedia issue; one should always look to the orginal source. I will just say again, show me the comparative thrust to weight data and the answer on performance alone will be pretty clear.

As to the suggestion that someone's grandfather knows more or less about comparative aircraft performance, the statement is too vague to permit any meaningful response. Also, I would be pleased to know where I said the 262 was a bad aircraft; I think I said merely it was not an air superiority aircraft. In common terms, this refers to a fighter than can dominate an air to air combat. While the 262 could avoid an engagement, it could not be materially more certain of winning one than Germany's top piston fighters of the time. Ironically, that is harder task than it seems for guns only encounters between early jets and prop aircraft. The RAF proved that to themselves in mock combats between an English Electric Lightning F 3 (much more advanced than a Me 262) and a Mark PR 19 (a photo recon version of the Mark XIV.

Spitfrnd the truth of the matter is the Me 262 was the best jet fighter of it day & made piston fighters dinosaurs , your right when you say jet engines are slow on acceleration but you fly all planes to there advantage & change tactic to match that why the allies attacked the German jet fighters when they were taking of or landing

 

[Mitch]

The documents and flying notes of Fritz Wendal, the debriefing of Hans Fey who surrendered his 262 to the US and the documents of 1st Lt hart jan 10th 1946 are interesting reads.

Spitfrnd...

My point about my grandfather and his colleagues post war is valid and may be meaningless to you but, these pilots tested many german aircraft especially jets ( also test flying and combat flying post war english jets) and what you seem to do whether intentional or not is exert your reading research and flight knowledge as superior when retrospectively looking back at aircraft I believe that you have never flown. You cite flight simulations etc but, seem to dismiss any accounts which, either do not fit with what you ''know'' or have not ''read''. I have substantial primary evidence from many aircraft evaluations during and after the war which does not follow your opinions and that was the point I was making that the planes you may have flown were derived from the efforts of these pilots and, are valid and should not be dismissed with your retrospective analysis.

It was a similar story about the ME109 recently when you dismissed the comments from Battle of Britain veterans because it did not fit with your reading even though they flew day in day out in real combat situations and commented on them. If we were talking about aircraft you may personally flew in then I would demur to your opinion but, we are not.
Its still an interesting thread even though its slightly moved from the initial train of thought
Mitch

 

[Spitfrnd]

The documents and flying notes of Fritz Wendal, the debriefing of Hans Fey who surrendered his 262 to the US and the documents of 1st Lt hart jan 10th 1946 are interesting reads.

Spitfrnd...

My point about my grandfather and his colleagues post war is valid and may be meaningless to you but, these pilots tested many german aircraft especially jets ( also test flying and combat flying post war english jets) and what you seem to do whether intentional or not is exert your reading research and flight knowledge as superior when retrospectively looking back at aircraft I believe that you have never flown. You cite flight simulations etc but, seem to dismiss any accounts which, either do not fit with what you ''know'' or have not ''read''. I have substantial primary evidence from many aircraft evaluations during and after the war which does not follow your opinions and that was the point I was making that the planes you may have flown were derived from the efforts of these pilots and, are valid and should not be dismissed with your retrospective analysis.

It was a similar story about the ME109 recently when you dismissed the comments from Battle of Britain veterans because it did not fit with your reading even though they flew day in day out in real combat situations and commented on them.
Its still an interesting thread even though its slightly moved from the initial train of thought
Mitch

Actually I am not dismissing them but simply noting the contrary evidence and my own informed opinion and yes I think I have the experience to speak with some authority on these points. Ironically, you seem to be doing to me exactly what you are claiming I am doing to those un-named sources. You may not appreciate how extensive my training and experience has been and you may not appreciate what is transferable from that and how for purposes of comparative analysis of the competing data sources in this area. So be it, that is not my loss.

What would be interesting is something other than opinion references because even the most knowledgable opinions are just that. That is the value of creating complex aerodynamic simulations, it substitutes comparable and controlled data for human observations that are very constrained by the limitations pertaining to how they developed and conveyed. Pilot observations are naturally quite important but where they are conflicting, and I have seen nothing on either of these topics to suggest otherwise, they offer no resolutions. That is one reason why I bothered to get involved in such efforts with some aeronautical engineering professors and other ex fighter pilots, including some Germans, Canadians and Brits. But then my analysis is only retrospective so how good can it be anyway.

 

[Mitch]

No loss to me whatsoever. I accept your flying experience as I only have 12 hours to date in a cessna but, my brother is a pilot in the RAF flying Tornadoes and had plenty of modern combat experience so, maybe I know a little bit more than you credit me with. I do know that he and his colleagues seem to respect these opinions and data a little more than is offered on the forum.

I commented on the manner in which your posts come over when veteran pilot experiences differ from your views and would not dismiss them as easily as you seem to do. I certainly do not think I have done similar through these discussions I have merely picked up on your comments and, as stated offered you the lifeline of not knowing whether they were intentional or otherwise.
Mitch

 

[Spitfrnd]

No loss to me whatsoever. I accept your flying experience as I only have 12 hours to date in a cessna but, my brother is a pilot in the RAF flying Tornadoes and had plenty of modern combat experience so, maybe I know a little bit more than you credit me with. I do know that he and his colleagues seem to respect these opinions and data a little more than is offered on the forum.

I commented on the manner in which your posts come over when veteran pilot experiences differ from your views and would not dismiss them as easily as you seem to do. I certainly do not think I have done similar through these discussions I have merely picked up on your comments and, as stated offered you the lifeline of not knowing whether they were intentional or otherwise.
Mitch

Well I don't have a brother that flies Toronadoes but I have flown 5 different types of jet fighter, including the F-80F derivative, 3 different warbirds, including a P-51 and many types in between from Cessnas to Boeing 707s. I have also flown charters and mail and I have spent more than a wee bit of time with pilots from 8 or 9 different countries, including the RAF and RCAF. I have studied and trained in air combat with air combat veterans and even had my a** shot at by a few Sams. I know more than a little bit about pilots and how different things fly and what makes them fly differently. Interestingly, a relatively few pilots are actually interested in that. So my comments on these topics are based on a fair amount of real experience, data and comparative analysis, not just reading or listening someone's opinions. Now if every ex Allied or German pilot agreed with the relative superiority statements you have advanced, that would be a data point to reckon with. The simple fact is that there are conflicting opinions on each of the topics, hence the importance of pursuing the subject a bit further. Respecting an opinion is different that accepting it over a contrary opinion without some significant factual corroboration. Nice to know I have a lifeline though.

 

[uksubs]

Well I don't have a brother that flies Toronadoes but I have flown 5 different types of jet fighter, including the F-80F derivative, 3 different warbirds, including a P-51 and many types in between from Cessnas to Boeing 707s. I have also flown charters and mail and I have spent more than a wee bit of time with pilots from 8 or 9 different countries, including the RAF and RCAF. I have studied and trained in air combat with air combat veterans and even had my a** shot at by a few Sams. I know more than a little bit about pilots and how different things fly and what makes them fly differently. Interestingly, a relatively few pilots are actually interested in that. So my comments on these topics are based on a fair amount of real experience, data and comparative analysis, not just reading or listening someone's opinions. Now if every ex Allied or German pilot agreed with the relative superiority statements you have advanced, that would be a data point to reckon with. The simple fact is that there are conflicting opinions on each of the topics, hence the importance of pursuing the subject a bit further. Respecting an opinion is different that accepting it over a contrary opinion without some significant factual corroboration. Nice to know I have a lifeline though.

Problem is you said the P-80 " was the best performing and flying aircraft " than the me 262 but you not come up with any pilots of the day who will back you up or any data to prove this , it just your opinion , A big + point for the Me 262 on jet v jet combat was it 20mm cannons over the p80 0.50 mg witch lack hitting power & the US Air force found that out in Korea against the Mig 15 with it cannons

 

[JAGCDR]

Spitfrnd: I for one am impressed with your flight experience. I find your opnions on the comparative merits of the ME262 and the P80A to be quite compelling. I 'm not sure anyone noticed that you have flown in the 2 seat version of the P80A. Your thread citing comparative performance data is hard to rebut. The efforts to do so on this thread are not convincing.

As far as relatives/friends with flight experience giving someone's arguments validity: my father-in-law was a carrier pilot in WWII, and I was the senior lawyer for the US Navy's Chief of Naval Air Training in the early 90's. I talked to a lot of pilots and was responsible for the final review of numerous jet aircraft accident investigations. The result of all this "experience?" I don't know jack.

What war(s) was your combat experience in? And thanks for defending freedom for us.

I simply don't understand the post just below mine that says you (i.e., Spitfrnd) have produced no data to show that the P80A was superior. Your post 37 has the data and notes that you have experience with one of the two aircraft in question.

And no one is denying that the ME262 is a good aircraft; the issue is not whether the ME262 is good, the issue is whether the ME262 is better than the P80A.

Well I don't have a brother that flies Toronadoes but I have flown 5 different types of jet fighter, including the F-80F derivative, 3 different warbirds, including a P-51 and many types in between from Cessnas to Boeing 707s. I have also flown charters and mail and I have spent more than a wee bit of time with pilots from 8 or 9 different countries, including the RAF and RCAF. I have studied and trained in air combat with air combat veterans and even had my a** shot at by a few Sams. I know more than a little bit about pilots and how different things fly and what makes them fly differently. Interestingly, a relatively few pilots are actually interested in that. So my comments on these topics are based on a fair amount of real experience, data and comparative analysis, not just reading or listening someone's opinions. Now if every ex Allied or German pilot agreed with the relative superiority statements you have advanced, that would be a data point to reckon with. The simple fact is that there are conflicting opinions on each of the topics, hence the importance of pursuing the subject a bit further. Respecting an opinion is different that accepting it over a contrary opinion without some significant factual corroboration. Nice to know I have a lifeline though.

 

[uksubs]

Spitfrnd:

I simply don't understand the post just below mine that says you (i.e., Spitfrnd) have produced no data to show that the P80A was superior. Your post 37 has the data and notes that you have experience with one of the two aircraft in question.
Thank for pointing that out but what interesting is Spitfrnd has put the wrong spec down for the P-80A & the me 262

And no one is denying that the ME262 is a good aircraft; the issue is not whether the ME262 is good, the issue is whether the ME262 is better than the P80A.

Me 262 performance =
* Maximum speed: 900 km/h (559 mph)
* Range: 1,050 km (652 mi)
* Service ceiling: 11,450 m (37,565 ft)
* Rate of climb: 1,200 m/min (At max weight of 7,130 kg) (3,900 ft/min)
* Thrust/weight: 0.28
P-80-A Performance =
Maximum Speed: 558 mph (898 km/h) @ Sea Level
Maximum Speed: 492 mph (792 km/h) @ 40,000 ft (12,192 km)
Cruise Speed: 410 mph (660 km/h)
Climb: 5.5 minutes to 20,000 ft (6,096 km)
Climb: 4,580 ft (1,396 m) in 1 minute.
Service Ceiling: 45,000 ft (1
Range:
Normal: 780 mile
The USAAF compared the P-80 Shooting Star and Me 262 concluding, "Despite a difference in gross weight of nearly 907 kg (2,000 lb), 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 testing program proved very dangerous. Burcham was killed on 20 October 1944 while flying the third YP-80A produced, 44-83025. The "Gray Ghost" was lost on a test flight on 20 March 1945, although pilot Tony LeVier escaped. Newly promoted to chief engineering test pilot to replace Burcham, LeVier bailed out when one of the engine's turbine blades broke, causing structural failure in the airplane's tail. LeVier landed hard and broke his back, but returned to the test program after six months of recovery. Noted ace Major Richard Bong was also killed on an acceptance flight of a production P-80 in the United States on 6 August 1945. Both Burcham and Bong crashed as a result of main fuel pump failure. Burcham's death was the result of a failure to brief him on a newly installed emergency fuel pump backup system, but the investigation of Bong's crash found he had apparently forgotten to switch on the emergency fuel pump that could have prevented the accident. He bailed out when the aircraft rolled inverted but was too close to the ground for his parachute to deploy.
He bailed out when the aircraft rolled inverted but was too close to the ground for his parachute to deploy.
Operational history

The Shooting Star began to enter service in late 1944 with 12 pre-production YP-80A's one of which was destroyed in the accident that killed Burcham. A thirteenth YP-80A was modified to the only F-14 photo reconnaissance model and lost in a December crash), Four were sent to Europe for operational testing (two to England and two to the 1st Fighter Group at Lesina, Italy) but when test pilot Major Frederic Borsodi was killed in a crash caused by an engine fire on 28 January 1945, demonstrating YP-80A 44-83026 at RAF Burtonwood, the YP-80A was temporarily grounded. Because of the delay the Shooting Star saw no combat in World War II.
Shooting Stars first saw combat service in the Korean War, employing both the F-80C variant and RF-80 photo-recon variants. The first jet-versus-jet aircraft battle took place on 8 November 1950 in which an F-80 piloted by Lieutenant Russell J. Brown shot down a MiG-15.[7] Despite the initial success, the straight-wing F-80s were inferior in performance to the MiGs and were soon replaced in the air superiority role by the swept-wing F-86 Sabre

 

[uksubs]

Spitfrnd: I for one am impressed with your flight experience. I find your opnions on the comparative merits of the ME262 and the P80A to be quite compelling. I 'm not sure anyone noticed that you have flown in the 2 seat version of the P80A. Your thread citing comparative performance data is hard to rebut. The efforts to do so on this thread are not convincing.


I simply don't understand the post just below mine that says you (i.e., Spitfrnd) have produced no data to show that the P80A was superior. Your post 37 has the data and notes that you have experience with one of the two aircraft in question.

Where does it show the P80A to be better than the Me 262 & find it odd when the US air force of the day said that the Me 262 is better that you think there wrong as well

 

[Mitch]

I don't think this thread was ever about the ME262 being better than the P80 though since it was raised there is substantial data that shows what a good aircraft it was contrary to the myths about bad handling etc which can also be disputed and, that it was indeed better than the P80. It is not surprising how quickly the US adopted different styles after getting their hands on german jets and pilots and designers.

The whole crux was about whether the introduction into the war some three years earlier would have turned the tide. An interesting discussion went on and was enjoyable.

My main point is the way that its is all too easy to dismiss data from pilots because it does not sit with what some know. Therefore a contrary position has to be found as it is not right. Willy Messerschmitt himself stated the 262 was a weapon which was intended for air superiority and, as fast as the germans found faults they were rectifying them and, what my point about taking more from the information from that time was that the pilots were flying something monumental in flight and were doing so in combat. The luxury of testing aircraft in peace time conditions and finding all the flaws in a safe environment seems to be more relevant than doing so in wartime conditions.

I have also seen the documentation and as everybody else will have the programmes from the RAF trials when their pilots tried to recreate the conditions for attacks on the Ruhr Dams. Each one of these experienced pilots acknowledged that its completely different what they were doing today than what the 'real' pilots had had to go through and, could never be accurately recreated.

Therefore, I know only know one pilot who can dismiss what they did under those circumstances and use retrospective analysis and personal opinion to critique not add to the debate.

Their analysis of these aircraft at that time is primary data and, as they flew these aircraft cannot or should not be understated.
Mitch

 

[binder001]

Problem is you said the P-80 " was the best performing and flying aircraft " than the me 262 but you not come up with any pilots of the day who will back you up or any data to prove this , it just your opinion , A big + point for the Me 262 on jet v jet combat was it 20mm cannons over the p80 0.50 mg witch lack hitting power & the US Air force found that out in Korea against the Mig 15 with it cannons

Don't just look at the caliber. The German 30mm autocannon as installed in the ME262 had a realively low muzzle velocity and lower rate of fire. Fine against a B17 but harder to hit a maneuvering fighter (but with that 30mm one or two hits does give you a kill). The .50 caliber Brownings in the P80 were good weapons for air-to-air combat at the time. A higher muzzle velocity gives a straighter trajectory, making aiming easier. As was shown by the P51 and P47, the .50 BMG was quite capable of taking out the ME262. The German "experten" in the jet program were excellent marksmen and could get the hits but each time one was lost he was almost irreplaceable. The decline in German pilots would still hinder their jet operations. A strike against the P80 is that it was only given 200 rounds per gun.

Gary B.

 

[uksubs]

Don't just look at the caliber. The German 30mm autocannon as installed in the ME262 had a realively low muzzle velocity and lower rate of fire. Fine against a B17 but harder to hit a maneuvering fighter (but with that 30mm one or two hits does give you a kill). The .50 caliber Brownings in the P80 were good weapons for air-to-air combat at the time. A higher muzzle velocity gives a straighter trajectory, making aiming easier. As was shown by the P51 and P47, the .50 BMG was quite capable of taking out the ME262. The German "experten" in the jet program were excellent marksmen and could get the hits but each time one was lost he was almost irreplaceable. The decline in German pilots would still hinder their jet operations. A strike against the P80 is that it was only given 200 rounds per gun.

Gary B.

Hi Gary
Your right about the Me 262 30mm Cannon being to slow for fighter v fighter combat

 

[Mitch]

uksubs/Binder....

Good points linked with these cannons which were only effective at about 550metres was the speed the planes were flying at 300 metres a second and caused difficulties for accurate shooting. The german fighter pilots knew all of these deficiencies or teething problems and acted accordingly using the colloquely termed ''roller-coaster'' attack formation against the bombers before opting for rockets.

What is interesting is the success this aircraft had even at the late stage of the war as I mentioned earlier Schall, Welter and Bar along with Galland and others used this fighter successfully in air-to-air combat against what some have called superior allied fighters.

There is no doubt that we had the edge on numbers etc at that late stage in the war which, is why I posed the question about when they had thought the fighter could have entered service and having substantially more time to iron out these issues (which, the germans were remarkable for doing) and have more pilots experienced in this aircraft rather than their ''experten'' the air war could have been totally different.
Enjoyed your participation
Mitch