Fw better then Me-262?

[Hunter368]

I have to agree "somewhat" with you Erich. This is what I mean:

Would you sooner be flying a P-51 and being attacked by a ME-262.

or

Would you sooner be flying a ME-262 and being attacked by a P-51.


I 110% agree that the 262 was NOT the best fighter all a round. In a 1 vs 1 battle (I understand that happened rarely but we are talking only "ifs" and "buts" here now anyways) I would sooner fly the 262 than a P-51.

Like a said I 100% agree that the 262 had many problems, but damn it would be shitting my pants if I was sitting in a P-51 and seen a 262 swooping in or down on me. If I was the 262 and saw a P-51 closing in on me I would just open her up and speed away, I would not bother trying to dogfight it. Too dangerous I might be bounced by other P-51's or flame out etc etc.

I hope I am explaining what I mean clearly b/c I do understand the problems of the 262. But sitting behind those 30mm cannons and flying over 500 MPH is something very comforting about that.

Sitting in that P-51 knowing even 1 of those shells would rip my plane in two or knowing that the 262 has such a huge speed advantage over me would make me very very nervous indeed. But in real life knowing that I have about 100 other P-51's backing me up vs that 1 262 would make me feel much much better also. LOL But that is real life.

[Erich]

it is all situational. either yes or either no. each one could deal out the lethality
. if the 262 could open it up and speed off in a straight line then P-51 eat my dust and the P-51 vets have said that to me, but too many times the 262's would try to turn in an arc for some reason and that was their doom. In the very honest sense the P-51 pilots due to their cockiness and they still are, felt quite comfortable taking anything the Luftwaffe had - on. Personal feelings may have changed had the Luftwaffe had the sheer numbers of 262's in the air equivalent to the numbers of P-51.

[Hunter368]

Originally Posted by Erich

it is all situational. either yes or either no. each one could deal out the lethality
. if the 262 could open it up and speed off in a straight line then P-51 eat my dust and the P-51 vets have said that to me, but too many times the 262's would try to turn in an arc for some reason and that was their doom. In the very honest sense the P-51 pilots due to their cockiness and they still are, felt quite comfortable taking anything the Luftwaffe had - on. Personal feelings may have changed had the Luftwaffe had the sheer numbers of 262's in the air equivalent to the numbers of P-51.

I need what helped to give USA pilots confindence is the poor quality of the average German pilot they ran into in late 44 and 45. Plus add to the fact that the USA pilots outnumbered the Germans by many fold at most times. So again if 15 P-51's ran into 1 or 2 ME 262's each individual pilot had little to fear even if the Germans were able to shoot down 1 or 2 P-51's there was small chance it was them. Then the P-51's would dog and swarm all over the 262's.

Everyone has to keep in mind also is that air combat is not a chess match. You don't get 5 mins to decide what is the best move to make before you make it. Air combats lasts most times only moments before it is over. So what happens is you get good pilots even who get surprised and make a dumb move and they get shot down. In hind sight if that good pilot was on the ground he would preach to newbies to never make a move like this....and yet if that vet gets surprised and has to make a split second decision he at times made that very same move that he preached to the newbies to never make. That at times was how a vet pilot would get shot down flying a 262 (or any other plane), so when you see a 262 trying to turn in a arc vs a P-51 it could of been a newbie making a mistake or a vet who was surprised and in that split second make a newbie mistake.

Air combat is split second decisions, adrenaline pumping, hair rising thing......it is not chess. Mistakes are made even by the best pilots....if they are lucky it will not cost them their lives. There is rarely second chances given in air combat and no mulligans allowed. Thats why so many damn good pilots and men died in air combat.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by Civettone

Now that's an exaggeration! When properly handled and if the engines hadn't reached their revision point, the fighter worked just fine! Like I said in my last post, let's not go treating it as if its engines would explode most of the time it went into combat.

10 to 25 hours is not a long time....

If the engines in my Hawk were only rated that long I would not have flown everyday in her. Now obviously WW2 was a different time than now though.

Originally Posted by Civettone

In any case, can we agree that - if the engines held - it was the best fighter in the world? Or not?

Kris

No I will not agree on that. The Me-262 was a great aircraft but performance does not make you the best aircraft.

A combination of performance, firepower, reliability and flight characteristics is what makes an aircraft the best or not. For 1945 I would still say that there were piston engine aircraft that had the best of those characteristics combined. Maybe not the best performance or firepower but definatly the best of all combined. Remember there is more to performance than speed as well and speed does not make the best aircraft.

Now I will go as far as saying it was the best intercepter because of its speed and firepower, but not pure fighter per say.

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet

Now I will go as far as saying it was the best intercepter because of its speed and firepower, but not pure fighter per say.

I'll backpedal and agree with that!

[davparlr]

Originally Posted by Hunter368

But in real life knowing that I have about 100 other P-51's backing me up vs that 1 262 would make me feel much much better also. LOL But that is real life.

I have never read anywhere where the P-51 pilots were afraid to take on an Me-262 if they spotted it, whether they had backup or not. And, in one on one combat, backup doesn't really help since if you are shot down, you are dead whether you have a 100 backups or none. Now, I am sure they were concerned about the ones they didn't see, just like other aircraft, as the Me-262 could come in very fast and hit very hard and go. That is what it was good at.

Originally Posted by Alder

Now I will go as far as saying it was the best intercepter because of its speed and firepower, but not pure fighter per say.

I agree with this 100%.

I don't think anyone is saying the Me-262 was a bad aircraft. It is for certain a milestone aircraft and showed the way to the future. They are just saying that it had some issues in WWII.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by davparlr

I agree with this 100%.

I don't think anyone is saying the Me-262 was a bad aircraft. It is for certain a milestone aircraft and showed the way to the future. They are just saying that it had some issues in WWII.

I agree as well. That is what I have been saying all along. Some people think those issues were minor but issues with engines and construction are quite serious with a combat aircraft.

[Civettone]

I completely agree that there is more than speed or firepower to make a fighter the best fighter. But I strongly disagree with Erich's statement that the Me 262 wasn't the best because the P-51 could outturn the Me 262.

Every fighter in the world could be outturned by a Zero, even today's fighters. But can anyone say it was better than the Corsair? I don't think so. What did the Corsair have on the Zero? Speed! It would attack the enemy with superior speed and would get away with superior speed. The Zero didn't stand a chance. Likewise, the Bf 109 was more manoeuvrable than the P-51 though the Mustang outperformed the Bf 109. Sure, the Bf 109 could hold its own but its inferior speed was the major contributor to the losses (except for pilot quality of course). So, turning is important but becomes ineffective when confronted by power fighters. That's also why the Russians lost so many fighters against the German fighters. That's why the Italian CR.42 was one of the worst fighters of WW2.

The Me 262 was nice to fly, comfortable, manoeuvrable (sensitive controls) and had superior climb rate (at altitude) and dive speed. What does the Mustang have to counter this? Turn rate and roll rate? These were never qualities of the Mustang as in that field it was inferior to the Fw 190 and Bf 109, as well to the Spitfire and every Russian fighter.

If you're saying the Me 262 wasn't better than the P-51, you're saying that the P-80 wasn't better than the P-51...

(again, I'm talking about a Me 262 in a one-on-one situation with engines not due for revision.)
Kris

[Erich]

you guy's are misinterpreting my post which indeed pisses me off !

my point in my opinion was the Me 262 was not the best fighter due to mentions previously posted by others not just by myself. Was not this thread about FW vs the 262 and which one was better or has my Opa eyes tired out.

obviously several have not heeded my exclamation about turning problems, JG 7 vets that i have spoken with said at times the thing was just too fast the Mustang would get in their circle and give them a broadside. Speed does not always bring you victory ........ this has nothing to do with the Mustang being better than the 262 though I have my thoughts on that

[lesofprimus]

Civett, if u have no idea who Erich is, u need to familiarize urself... Read some older threads or something, cause he is not one to be scrutinized....

It's the other way around...

[Soren]

Had the Germans just produced some greater heat resistant metals and had Hitler not issued the Me-262 an anti-ground role then yes, the Me-262 would've then been the very best fighter of WW2 - that is not how things went however..

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by Civettone

Every fighter in the world could be outturned by a Zero, even today's fighters. But can anyone say it was better than the Corsair? I don't think so. What did the Corsair have on the Zero? Speed! It would attack the enemy with superior speed and would get away with superior speed. The Zero didn't stand a chance.

Corsairs, Hellcats, and in some rare occasions a P-38 could turn with or even out turn a Zero, this is a subject of pilot skill.

[Civettone]

Well, I hope Erich is not pissed off at me. I've known him for a while. Since I joined at LEMB, and that's a couple of years ago, I think.

I think everybody has the impression that people are misinterpreting their posts and don't see the point, I know I have that feeling a lot. That's the way it goes, I think...
So I just repeat myself a lot ...

FlyboyJ, of course you're right about the outturning of the Zero, but at which speed would they be able to do this? In any case, the pilot is always the central element, but in comparing two aircraft, we must assume that there are evenly qualified pilots in them. As such, the Zero pilot would be more often the better turner.
But the preferred tactic of the Corsair pilots was BnZ, and in fact it was the preferred tactic of all American fighter pilots since the Flying Tigers over China. Corsairs, Mustangs, (early) Lightnings, Thunderbolts, ... these were power aircraft, not turning and rolling dogfighters. And that won them the war (as one of the main contributing factors).
And it's exactly for that reason, that I believe the Mustang was better than the Bf 109G-6, and why I believe the Me 262 was better than the Mustang. They were in the same league.

Kris

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by Civettone

FlyboyJ, of course you're right about the outturning of the Zero, but at which speed would they be able to do this? In any case, the pilot is always the central element, but in comparing two aircraft, we must assume that there are evenly qualified pilots in them. As such, the Zero pilot would be more often the better turner.

There have been P-38 pilots who turned with the Zero below 300 mph - more the exception than the rule, but it was done...

Originally Posted by Civettone

But the preferred tactic of the Corsair pilots was BnZ, and in fact it was the preferred tactic of all American fighter pilots since the Flying Tigers over China. Corsairs, Mustangs, (early) Lightnings, Thunderbolts, ... these were power aircraft, not turning and rolling dogfighters. And that won them the war (as one of the main contributing factors).

And you are correct

Originally Posted by Civettone

And it's exactly for that reason, that I believe the Mustang was better than the Bf 109G-6, and why I believe the Me 262 was better than the Mustang. They were in the same league.

Kris

I could compare the G-6 and the P-51 all day - the 262 was a bomber destroyer with a 90 minute endurance - and even with it's superior speed, all the Mustang had to do is keep turning and make the 262 fight at its optimum speed and aparently many Mustang and other recip fighter pilots did the same...

[Hunter368]

Originally Posted by davparlr

I have never read anywhere where the P-51 pilots were afraid to take on an Me-262 if they spotted it, whether they had backup or not. And, in one on one combat, backup doesn't really help since if you are shot down, you are dead whether you have a 100 backups or none. Now, I am sure they were concerned about the ones they didn't see, just like other aircraft, as the Me-262 could come in very fast and hit very hard and go. That is what it was good at.

You don't have to read about P-51 pilots being afraid going into combat.....they were. Anyone going into combat is afraid (German or American or anyone else) and anyone who says different is BSing you or has never been in combat.

But I was not talking about real American pilots (sorry if I was unclear).......I was talking about me flying the plane. I would of been very afraid if I was flying a P-51 and I saw a ME-262 was coming after me......if I was not I would of been a fool. Having a 100 other P-51's backing me up and covering my tail would certainly of made me feel better but I would still would of been afraid.

But to get back to ME-262 trying to turn away from a P-51...yes that would of been a foolish thing to do....but pilots sometimes tried. Why? Because air combat is much like fighting. You don'y have time to think only react. If you have to "think" what to do....then its to late or you make a mistake.

What you get taught in mixed martial arts is to train train train and when you think you know what you are doing train more train more train more. Like I said flying in combat has to be based of training yes, but in combat you can't think you have to just react (you only get to this point after many many many hours flying and training and combat). Many good talented pilots died from all nations b/c, they could fly with the best of them, but they had to think in combat. The true great pilots just reacted, that gave them the best chance to survive. Just like in fighting a pilot is only as good as he trains. One of the major problems for the Germans was in 44 and 45 there was too little fuel and safe airspace to train new pilots to become great pilots. Many rookies died in their first combat who "could" of become great pilots but they could never fully live up to their potentional b/c they could not be trained the way they should of been (b/c lack of fuel and safe airspace).