Fw better then Me-262?

[Morai_Milo]

Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet

And even less fuel to fly the jets.

Was jet fuel really in short supply?

On April 22 1945 Luftwaffenkommando West reported the following fuel stocks on airfields in Bavaria:

B-4 = 350,000 liters
C-3 = 284,000 liters
J-2 = 1,897,000 liters

That is 5.42 times as much as B4 and 6.7 times as much as C3, at least in Bavaria.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by Civettone

I didn't say that. I said the Fw 190 wasn't better than the allied fighters. I AM saying the Me 262 is better (once airborne).

Only if it is not overwellmed by enemy fighters. Erich allready touched up on that.

Originally Posted by Civettone

I know but I don't see many people saying the same stuff about the Ta 152 as they say about the Me 262. Both had technical problems and weren't ready yet. But yet many consider it to be the best piston engined fighter. That doesn't make sense IMHO.

That is because the problems of the Ta-152 were no where near those of the Me-262. Read reports from the people who flew it and they will tell you they did not encounter serious problems.

Originally Posted by Civettone

No, they could have gotten more jet fuel than C3 fuel. They didn't, what makes this is a what-if. But a plausible one. I am making a point that the Germans should have concentrated on Me 262 production sooner than continuing with the Fw 190. So sure this is a what-if. Does that mean one cannot discuss these things?

Yes but people take that kind of What if as "The Germans would have just gotten more fuel". Well they did not...

Originally Posted by Civettone

In some of the previous posts you'll read that one of the advantages of jet fighters is that they can keep up their maximum speed for a longer period.

True, but how long can they actually do it? A jet guzzles fuel. It is going to run out very fast at max speed.

Originally Posted by Civettone

As bigZ pointed out, what's the expected service duration of a German late-war fighter aircraft?

That I do not know... I do know one thing though, that when you build an aircraft you try to build it so that it will last. Building an aircraft with disimiliar metals is not going to last...

Originally Posted by Civettone

And I'll ask you this for the second time, where and how did Me 262s lose fights due to structural problems?

I did not answer you because I do not know.

However if you go back and re-read my post (here you go again manipulating words) I never said that Me 262's were documented coming apart in flight. I do know however (because of experience working on aircraft) that eventually the structures would have failed because of the disimiliar metals and rather rapidly.

Once this kind of corrosion starts it build rapidly and decays the aircraft. That my friend is fact!

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Civettone read some stuff here about the Me 262.

Me 262 PROJECT TECHNICAL DATA

It will tell you a bit about the problems with construction and the engines and a bit about jet fuel consumption.

It also describes how the Me 262 was not good at low airspeed and at high airspeeds it would vibrate and eventually not be controlable.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by Morai_Milo

Was jet fuel really in short supply?

On April 22 1945 Luftwaffenkommando West reported the following fuel stocks on airfields in Bavaria:

B-4 = 350,000 liters
C-3 = 284,000 liters
J-2 = 1,897,000 liters

That is 5.42 times as much as B4 and 6.7 times as much as C3, at least in Bavaria.

And that would also be used up twice as fast as the other fuels because of the high consumption rates of the early jets.

[Morai_Milo]

And the LW had over a 1000 se fighters operational for what maybe 100 Me262s operational. Even a twice jet fuel consumption, the piston fighters would run out of available fuel before the jets.

"Postwar tests in the West confirmed that at very high airspeeds airframe vibration levels and buffeting grow increasingly worse until the jet enters into a shallow dive and becomes all but completely uncontrollable."

It says VERY high speeds not high speeds which means near its Mach limit. A/c shake when near their Mach limit.

I do know one thing though, that when you build an aircraft you try to build it so that it will last. Building an aircraft with disimiliar metals is not going to last...

Maybe in peace time but not in war time. In 1944 Germany built some 20,000 se fighters and only had 14-1500 servicable in early Jan 1945. They were not to worried about the longtivety of a combat a/c with such combat losses. Soviet equipement was crudely made because they knew it would not last to old age.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by Morai_Milo

It says VERY high speeds not high speeds which means near its Mach limit. A/c shake when near their Mach limit.

Never said how high I was talking about. I left that for the reader to read in the link.

Originally Posted by Morai Milo

Maybe in peace time but not in war time. In 1944 Germany built some 20,000 se fighters and only had 14-1500 servicable in early Jan 1945. They were not to worried about the longtivety of a combat a/c with such combat losses. Soviet equipement was crudely made because they knew it would not last to old age.

No you allways build an aircraft to last. You dont know how long that aircraft is going to be needed. You dont want to assume the aircraft is going to be lost soon and then it is not lost but ends of crashing because of bad construction.

[Civettone]

Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet

Only if it is not overwellmed by enemy fighters. Erich allready touched up on that.

That goes for all fighters. But at least the Me 262 could get away from its enemies. The Fw 190 was slower at all speeds and had less climb rate.

That is because the problems of the Ta-152 were no where near those of the Me-262. Read reports from the people who flew it and they will tell you they did not encounter serious problems.

Engine life expectancy was 25 hours.
And most late-war Luftwaffe aircraft suffered from technical construction problems.

Yes but people take that kind of What if as "The Germans would have just gotten more fuel". Well they did not...
(...)
True, but how long can they actually do it? A jet guzzles fuel. It is going to run out very fast at max speed.

Yes, that's spot on. It's also my main criticism on the Me 262, and why I think they shouldn't have built a twin engined jet fighter in the first place.
Yet, the advantage in being able to fly with diesel fuel is immense. I don't really understand what you're trying to say about the "gotten more fuel" comment but I'll tell you that the Germans could have gotten more jet fuel if they wanted to. That maybe hard to believe but it's like that. The chemical industry provided 97% of the aviation fuel. Most diesel oil came from refineries of crude oil of inferior quality. The diesel oil went to the army for their trucks and to the navy for their subs. But the jet fuel mainly kept coming from the chemical industry because that's what they were ordered to deliver. I guess that for every submarine mission the Germans could have provided fuel for about two hundred Me 262 missions.
Sure, it's a what if but it was possible. It wouldn't have changed the logistical problem of getting the fuel there or let alone the outcome of the war but it's a rational consequence of what would have happened if the Luftwaffe went for jets sooner.

However if you go back and re-read my post (here you go again manipulating words)

C'mon, I was asking a question, how can I be manipulating your words that way?

It will tell you a bit about the problems with construction and the engines and a bit about jet fuel consumption.
It also describes how the Me 262 was not good at low airspeed and at high airspeeds it would vibrate and eventually not be controlable.

It doesn't say much about construction. It's mainly about the metals used in the engines...
The low airspeed is also old news, that's why it took so long for the Me 262 to take off and build up speed. The Me 262 was a sitting duck during take-off and landing (but then again, all aircraft are vulnerable in that stage, though still more capable).

Kris

[Civettone]

No you allways build an aircraft to last. You dont know how long that aircraft is going to be needed. You dont want to assume the aircraft is going to be lost soon and then it is not lost but ends of crashing because of bad construction.

That's simply not true! German officials saw the Bf 109 (or Me 262) as an expendable weapon. Read Speer's memoirs in which he writes that he preferred to have built new Bf 109s instead of repairing them. Milch wrote that he complained about the German aircraft industry putting too much effort in quality instead of quantity, and compared it with what the British did. It was bad quality for German standards but good enough for war necessities. He urged a similar philosophy for all German war products (aircraft, tanks, guns, ...) but failed to because of the power of the German
industrials. That was until Speer came along.

From all the things you've said that is really the one is least agree with. I suspect you're writing what you would have done, instead of what you think the Germans did...

But just look at how many aircraft were lost in 1944/1945 and you'll understand that these were not built to last. I suspect the average was three months...

Kris

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by Civettone

C'mon, I was asking a question, how can I be manipulating your words that way?

Because I said over time due to the construction with disimiliar metals the Me-262 would lose its structural integrity. You asked me how many came apart basically saying that I said they did do so. Here are your words:

"And I'll ask you this for the second time, where and how did Me 262s lose fights due to structural problems?"

Again I never said that the aircraft did that. I said over time it would and that is fact because of the construction.

So please again if you do not understand what I am saying then ask me and I will try and explain it better, but dont twist my posts.

I am more than likely going to leave this discussion now because this is going no where. It is me and you stating the same things over and over again and it is pointless.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by Civettone

That's simply not true! German officials saw the Bf 109 (or Me 262) as an expendable weapon. Read Speer's memoirs in which he writes that he preferred to have built new Bf 109s instead of repairing them. Milch wrote that he complained about the German aircraft industry putting too much effort in quality instead of quantity, and compared it with what the British did. It was bad quality for German standards but good enough for war necessities. He urged a similar philosophy for all German war products (aircraft, tanks, guns, ...) but failed to because of the power of the German
industrials. That was until Speer came along.

And where is proof that they were not built to last. Show me facts of construction. I can only think of one and that is the Me-262 and it was constructed very poorly. Actually I take that back all aircraft from 1944 on were constructed poorly.

Originally Posted by Civettone

From all the things you've said that is really the one is least agree with. I suspect you're writing what you would have done, instead of what you think the Germans did...

I would not have mass produced the Me-262 until it was ready...

Originally Posted by Civettone

But just look at how many aircraft were lost in 1944/1945 and you'll understand that these were not built to last. I suspect the average was three months...

Kris

Being shot down is not a fact pertaining to construction of the aircraft.

[Civettone]

My impression is that we're getting closer to an agreement. From the start of this discussion I've noticed that our opinions are not all that different. I think we just put emphasis on different aspects of the discussion. I agree with most of the points you make, just not with the conclusion that come from them.

"And I'll ask you this for the second time, where and how did Me 262s lose fights due to structural problems?"
Again I never said that the aircraft did that. I said over time it would and that is fact because of the construction.

Oh no, this is you not understanding me, not the other way around. My point was: "ok, it had structural problems but did this lead to Me 262 losing fights?" So that's why I asked "where and how did ..." Because if it didn't lead to this, then I think it's irrelevant in the discussion of the Me 262 being the best fighter of 1944/45.

Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet

And where is proof that they were not built to last. Show me facts of construction. I can only think of one and that is the Me-262 and it was constructed very poorly. Actually I take that back all aircraft from 1944 on were constructed poorly.

Exactly!!

I would not have mass produced the Me-262 until it was ready...

I think you've got a good point there. But when I think about it, there are rarely complex aircraft that are ready when put into mass production. Just look at the Fw 190, He 177, B-26, B-29, P-80, Typhoon, Tempest, La-7, ...
I don't know ... but perhaps it's because these were considered to be 'ready enough' to warrant mass production.
Given the situation the Luftwaffe was in: too few pilots and fuel to use large amounts of aircraft, wouldn't it be better to use those few resources in a fighter which - although it is difficult to maintain and needs new parts for its engines after 10 hours - is a better fighter than the ones which are flying now, in the Luftwaffe or in the allied AFs?
Remember, that with less operational fighters, there are more resources for ground crews. If there was something that was still working in 1945 it was the Luftwaffe ground personnel because they had less work pressure due to less flights/missions.

Being shot down is not a fact pertaining to construction of the aircraft.

Well, it leads to a construction policy. If you expect your fighters to last for 5 years as in peacetime, you'll build them different than when you lose them after 5 months. It was no longer cost effective to build aircraft according to pre-war standards, but it took until Speer took over before industrials were forced to adapt their construction techniques.
(Shortly thereafter quality dropped even further and way below the lowest standards but this was not intended but forced upon the German industry by a shortage of materials and qualified and motivated personnel.)

Kris

[mad_max]

Don't know if you've seen this, but it's a rather interesting read.

http://www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com/Im...LOTDEBRIEF.pdf

[Soren]

Have it already but still a great read

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by Civettone

My impression is that we're getting closer to an agreement. From the start of this discussion I've noticed that our opinions are not all that different. I think we just put emphasis on different aspects of the discussion. I agree with most of the points you make, just not with the conclusion that come from them.

Quite possibly. I dont think we will ever agree with the conclusion. It has been an interesting read either way. We will have to drink some belgian beer and discuss this more over a few drinks.

Originally Posted by Civettone

Oh no, this is you not understanding me, not the other way around. My point was: "ok, it had structural problems but did this lead to Me 262 losing fights?" So that's why I asked "where and how did ..." Because if it didn't lead to this, then I think it's irrelevant in the discussion of the Me 262 being the best fighter of 1944/45.

And I told you initially no it would not, however given some time it would have had structural failures. This is a factor in what can be considered best or not.

Originally Posted by Civettone

I think you've got a good point there. But when I think about it, there are rarely complex aircraft that are ready when put into mass production. Just look at the Fw 190, He 177, B-26, B-29, P-80, Typhoon, Tempest, La-7, ...
I don't know ... but perhaps it's because these were considered to be 'ready enough' to warrant mass production.
Given the situation the Luftwaffe was in: too few pilots and fuel to use large amounts of aircraft, wouldn't it be better to use those few resources in a fighter which - although it is difficult to maintain and needs new parts for its engines after 10 hours - is a better fighter than the ones which are flying now, in the Luftwaffe or in the allied AFs?
Remember, that with less operational fighters, there are more resources for ground crews. If there was something that was still working in 1945 it was the Luftwaffe ground personnel because they had less work pressure due to less flights/missions.

You see that is where I disagree with you. I think it is better to put up lots of good fighters that are on the same page for the most part as the allied aircraft. Use the Me-262s but send them up after the bombers and use the mass amounts of Fw-190s and Bf-109s that you have to fight the P-51s and Spitfires.

Originally Posted by Civettone

Well, it leads to a construction policy. If you expect your fighters to last for 5 years as in peacetime, you'll build them different than when you lose them after 5 months. It was no longer cost effective to build aircraft according to pre-war standards, but it took until Speer took over before industrials were forced to adapt their construction techniques.
(Shortly thereafter quality dropped even further and way below the lowest standards but this was not intended but forced upon the German industry by a shortage of materials and qualified and motivated personnel.)

Kris

And I dont agree with that. That is a big mistake in my opinion. Poor construction leads to an aircraft that can take less damage and can not perform as well.

I understand they had shortage of materials and so forth but it is a very bad idea.

[bigZ]

Alder the IL 2 was very poorly constructed(plus mixed construction) but look how much damage it could withstand. An IL2 under restoration shown numerous examples of poor work practies such as angle iron riveted on top of domed riverts.

Speer trying to increase aircraft production was incensed by the German aero industries insistance of building parts to exacting tolerances which did not require it. They were still polishing the welds off the FW190 tailwheel legs towards the end of 43, they also produced the finest built bomber seats of any nation even towards the end of the war.