Fw better then Me-262?

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by Civettone

Adler, chill man, don't take this so personal.

Then if you dont understand what I am saying then please ask and I will try and explain it differently rather than change the words I use to support your arguement.

Originally Posted by Civettone

For instance, I know this thread is about the versatility of the Fw 190 but I asked the question if we can agree that the "Me 262 was a better fighter than the Fw 190 if all things were working ok." So that's what this discussion is about.

In my opinion for the reasons that I put out in other posts and will not post again for it is like a broken record, no it was not. One on one maybe but in the eventual run of things no it was not the better fighter. Fw-190 was good eneogh. The allies won with superior numbers and the few Me-262s had less of an effect (except for shock value) than the Fw-190.

Originally Posted by Civettone

I still don't see what the sense is in what you said. So I interpreted the way I did. I may have been wrong but I still don't understand what the point is in what you said. Have a 100 Fw 190s for 1 Me 262???
So I said: you're saying that there were 100 operational Fw 190s for every operational Me 262. That's turning it into a joke.

No what I said was I and probably any airforce commander would rather have 100 of a perfectly good capable aircraft that can tangle with anything the enemy has than have a few super aircraft that are too small in numbers to do anything.

Originally Posted by Civettone

The emphasis is on the last bit, I have the feeling you're turning the reliability of the Jumo 004 into a joke, as if it flamed out almost every time it flew. It was rare, like Erich pointed out!

Nope I never said that the 004 would flame out on every flight. The sooner you get into high operating hours (which on the 004 was not very high, 10 to 25 hours) the risk gets higher.

It was not a reliable engine.

Originally Posted by Civettone

But back to topic, I'll try to say it like this. The Luftwaffe built over 20,000 Fw 190 and Bf 109 fighter aircraft in 1944, and they got beaten. I totally agree that the Fw 190 (and Bf 109) could 'handle' most allied opponents. But that wasn't good enough. After May 1944 there was only enough fuel for a part of the missions. So then you have less missions with average fighter aircraft. Wouldn't it be better to fight those missions with the Me 262 even though it required more maintenance and still had some bugs?

No because a few Me 262 are not going to have a chance against the overwelming numerical superiority. We can not change history but the more numerical Fw-190 and Bf-109 had a better chance because they had more numbers.

I would rather have the aircraft that are allready numerous.

Originally Posted by Civettone

I don't want to put words into your mouth but isn't this always the case with new aircraft types? If you use that logic, you'll be using the Fw 190 until 2525.

No because the Germans were in a fight for there survival. You keep developing the Me 262 and when it is ready you mass produce it but you keep the 190s and 109s because they have numbers to keep up the fight.

We all know that it did not matter what kind of aircraft they had anyhow. The Allies had overwelming numerical superiority and had the advantage. The Me 262 few advantages over the 190 were gone because it did not matter when you are jumped by so many numbers of P-51s.

Originally Posted by Civettone

When the British encountered the Fw 190 they immediately recognized that it was the best fighter in the world. Yet, the Fw 190 was still experiencing engine problems and other bugs, wasn't it? What's the difference with the Me 262??

Try several years too late...

Originally Posted by Civettone

Again, that sounds like you're saying there would be 5 Me 262s for a 100 Fw 190s...

No I did not say that there would be. I said I would rather have that.

Originally Posted by Civettone

What would be closer to the truth is that there would be enough fuel for 50 Fw 190s against a 100 P-51s but also 50 Me 262s.

No there would not be. Do you know how much fuel a jet engine guzzles? And it was a lot worse in WW2. You could easily fly more Fw-190s with the same amount of fuel.

Originally Posted by Civettone

I know. It's a big issue! But my point is that I don't believe the Me 262 was as unreliable as it is portrayed by some. Reminds me of those ghost stories of the Me 163 which I was battling in another thread.

Kris

The Me 262 had much more problems than just the engines. Constructed using disimiliar metals and have you ever looked up close at a 262? They were hastely put together, there are gaps between the panels and skin sections.

Again I still would rather have a 190 which was good eneogh to fly against anything the allies put in the air and have whole squadron of 190s behind me to back me up.

[Udet]

Civettone: mind you the Fw 190 was never "outdated" in 1944.

By the way, the title of this thread is annoying -and foolish-; the guy who commenced it seems like clueless on planet earth.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

You are correct he was...

[Erich]

let's simplify this shall we ? We could probably agree that the what-if had the Me 262 been perfected to what it was going to look like through enclosed fuel tanks-larger and a more dependable engines, streamlined body and different wings-swept back, it really would of been the Luftwaffe a/c to contend with the P-51's even is large numbers would of really had probs catching this thing in turn, climb, dive and of course forget it when it came to flat out speed.
Granted the 262 was the wave of the future there is absolutely no doubt in that in my little brain but it had teething problems, no airbase field protection and yes many many of the 8th/9th AF kills were when the Schwalbe came in to land. the Luftwaffe forces were just plain stupid when it came to aerial defense of airfields relying to heavily on quad 2cm protection to get the job done. well it failed miserably.
Even with just a staffel hanging around the fields and diving on the P-51's it would of saved numerous JG 7 pilots as an example

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by Erich

let's simplify this shall we ? We could probably agree that the what-if had the Me 262 been perfected to what it was going to look like through enclosed fuel tanks-larger and a more dependable engines, streamlined body and different wings-swept back, it really would of been the Luftwaffe a/c to contend with the P-51's even is large numbers would of really had probs catching this thing in turn, climb, dive and of course forget it when it came to flat out speed.

Agreed and I have never denied that. I have even said that on several occasions. My arguements in this thread are based off of actual history. There is no should have, could have, would have....because it did not.

[Civettone]

Good posts guys!

Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet

In my opinion for the reasons that I put out in other posts and will not post again for it is like a broken record, no it was not. One on one maybe but in the eventual run of things no it was not the better fighter. Fw-190 was good eneogh. The allies won with superior numbers and the few Me-262s had less of an effect (except for shock value) than the Fw-190.

What's good enough? If you have less fighters than the enemy and they aren't better?
What I recall from your arguments why the Me 262 wasn't better was that it lacked performance at take off, that it had unreliable engines and that it had a lousy construction. But again, what if a Me 262 (with functioning engines) would meet a Fw 190 in the sky? Who would theoretically have the best chance, and why? What advantage did the Fw 190 have that would have lead to succes?

It was not a reliable engine.

In my opinion it was unreliable but reliable enough. The Jumo 213E and VK 107 didn't do better...

No because a few Me 262 are not going to have a chance against the overwelming numerical superiority. We can not change history but the more numerical Fw-190 and Bf-109 had a better chance because they had more numbers.
I would rather have the aircraft that are allready numerous.

But there were not that many operational fighters after May 1944. So there wouldn't have to be MORE Fw 190s. There would be less Me 262 but at least they could have been operational. Why need hundreds of Fw 190s if you don't have fuel to fly them??


[quote]No because the Germans were in a fight for there survival. You keep developing the Me 262 and when it is ready you mass produce it but you keep the 190s and 109s because they have numbers to keep up the fight./quote]Yes, you have a point there!

The Me 262 few advantages over the 190 were gone because it did not matter when you are jumped by so many numbers of P-51s.

Only speed. (But of course not during take off and landing.)

No there would not be. Do you know how much fuel a jet engine guzzles? And it was a lot worse in WW2. You could easily fly more Fw-190s with the same amount of fuel.

Sure, but the 190 needs C3 fuel while the 262 could fly on modified diesel oil. If you check out the USSBS reports you'll see that the diesel production more or less stayed the same. Only too bad the German officials failed to divert diesel production to the air force. (Although there was still the problem of getting it to the units!)

The Me 262 had much more problems than just the engines. Constructed using disimiliar metals and have you ever looked up close at a 262? They were hastely put together, there are gaps between the panels and skin sections.

I have heard you mention this several times although I have my doubts about its effect on the capabilities of the Me 262. Did many Me 262s desintegrate in flight? Did many lose a fight because of structural weakness? I can recall a couple of stories but I am sceptical about its importance.

Kris

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by Civettone

Good posts guys!

What's good enough? If you have less fighters than the enemy and they aren't better?

The allied aircraft were not really any better. Each aircraft had is advantages and disadvantages. What made the allies overally superior was the numerical superiority.

Originally Posted by Civettone

What I recall from your arguments why the Me 262 wasn't better was that it lacked performance at take off, that it had unreliable engines and that it had a lousy construction. But again, what if a Me 262 (with functioning engines) would meet a Fw 190 in the sky? Who would theoretically have the best chance, and why? What advantage did the Fw 190 have that would have lead to succes?

Obviously the 262 would have an advantage. That has never been argued. I am looking at the overall scheme of things.

Originally Posted by Civettone

In my opinion it was unreliable but reliable enough. The Jumo 213E and VK 107 didn't do better...

We are not talking about a Ta-152 here. We are talking about the Fw-190.

Originally Posted by Civetone

But there were not that many operational fighters after May 1944. So there wouldn't have to be MORE Fw 190s. There would be less Me 262 but at least they could have been operational. Why need hundreds of Fw 190s if you don't have fuel to fly them??

And even less fuel to fly the jets.

Originally Posted by Civettone

Only speed. (But of course not during take off and landing.)

There is more to it than speed. Especially when the enemy is all over you. The 262 was not going to go from 400mph to 500mph in 0.2 sec.

Originally Posted by Civettone

Sure, but the 190 needs C3 fuel while the 262 could fly on modified diesel oil. If you check out the USSBS reports you'll see that the diesel production more or less stayed the same. Only too bad the German officials failed to divert diesel production to the air force. (Although there was still the problem of getting it to the units!)

And since this is not a what if thread and could have, should have, would have dont matter because history is history fuel for the 262 was negligable.

Originally Posted by Civettone

I have heard you mention this several times although I have my doubts about its effect on the capabilities of the Me 262. Did many Me 262s desintegrate in flight? Did many lose a fight because of structural weakness? I can recall a couple of stories but I am sceptical about its importance.

Kris

As an aircraft mechanic I am very aware of aircraft structures. The Me 262 was built using disimiliar metals. Do you know what that does over time? The two metals corrode each other, Which in turn will weaken the structure which in turn will eventually come apart due to the stresses of combat flying. Below I have posted it better than I can explain it to you:

"When two or more different sorts of metal come into contact in the presence of an electrolyte a galvanic couple is set up as different metals have different electrode potentials. The electrolyte provides a means for ion migration whereby metallic ions can move from the anode to the cathode. This leads to the anodic metal corroding more quickly than it otherwise would; the corrosion of the cathodic metal is retarded even to the point of stopping. The presence of electrolyte and a conducting path between the metals may cause corrosion where otherwise neither metal alone would have corroded."

Also gaps in the structure and panels allows dirt and elements to get into areas they should not. In turn making more componants inop which have to be repaired and keep the aircraft on the ground.

Over time if these problems were not corrected on the Me 262 it would have caused structural failures in the Me 262. I think FBJ who has been an aircraft mantainer longer that I have will agree with me on this assessment of the Me-262s long time servicability.

[Hunter368]

Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet

"When two or more different sorts of metal come into contact in the presence of an electrolyte a galvanic couple is set up as different metals have different electrode potentials. The electrolyte provides a means for ion migration whereby metallic ions can move from the anode to the cathode. This leads to the anodic metal corroding more quickly than it otherwise would; the corrosion of the cathodic metal is retarded even to the point of stopping. The presence of electrolyte and a conducting path between the metals may cause corrosion where otherwise neither metal alone would have corroded."

Also gaps in the structure and panels allows dirt and elements to get into areas they should not. In turn making more componants inop which have to be repaired and keep the aircraft on the ground.

Hmmmm I thank you very much for your expert insight on the subject Chris, sometimes "facts" are hard to come by on forums. Thank you for those "facts", I have learnt something new today.

Would two different metals corrode each other faster in certain enviroments than others? Like if they were located near the ocean where it is more salty? compared to the dessart? Please explain if you can.

[FLYBOYJ]

Chris is very correct on this....

In our technical section, there is a technical paper on the Me 262's airframe and engine

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/oth...tion-5815.html (Me 262 technical description)

Through out the paper it is repeated over and over again how large amounts of steel and aluminum are brought into contact with each other, either by bolting or riveting. Again, no mention is made of corrosion control practices and it is a known fact that corrosion control was at a limited basis on all sides during WW2 - there is also mention of poor workmanship in several areas. despite that, even if built under the best of conditions, the me 262 was a rust bucket - combine that with the limitations stated earlier concerning the engines and you do have a "last ditch" weapon that was hurried into combat - but once again, when all worked accordingly, her performance (speed) was unmatched...

[bigZ]

Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet

Over time if these problems were not corrected on the Me 262 it would have caused structural failures in the Me 262. I think FBJ who has been an aircraft mantainer longer that I have will agree with me on this assessment of the Me-262s long time servicability.

The Smithsonian restorations of both the Arado 234 and 262 exhbited corrosion through disimilar materials especially in the wings.

Although I agree it would have been a problem in the long term. But I wonder what was the average length of service for a frontline fighter.

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by bigZ

I wonder what was the average length of service for a frontline fighter.

Years ago I attended a seminar where one of the P-51 design engineers was in attendance - he stated the P-51 was looked at as a 100 hour combat tool.

[Hunter368]

Originally Posted by FLYBOYJ

Years ago I attended a seminar where one of the P-51 design engineers was in attendance - he stated the P-51 was looked at as a 100 hour combat tool.

Damn that sucks. Not saying it was better or worse than any other fight but damn.

Joe what would that include on the plane? Just the engine or what?



Joe can you read my post higher up on the page and answer that one also about the ME-262.

[bigZ]

Originally Posted by FLYBOYJ

Years ago I attended a seminar where one of the P-51 design engineers was in attendance - he stated the P-51 was looked at as a 100 hour combat tool.

Cheers. I thought it wouldn't be much. Given the Gorings emphase on production figures which effected the availabilty of spare parts. Am certain the 262 will probably clock less hours compared to the allies fighters.

So if we take 100 hours as an average do think the dissimilar material construction would still present a problem?

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by Hunter368

Damn that sucks. Not saying it was better or worse than any other fight but damn.

Joe what would that include on the plane? Just the engine or what?

Just about everything - they considered between normal attricion the life of a fighter aircraft was limited and that's part of the reason why you saw later in the war aircraft being delivered without paint. not only as a weight saving action, why go through the truoble painting something it may not last 100 hours anyway - BTW this situation was actually included in some of the contracts issued to manufacturers where at a certain lot they(the manufacturer) was directed to deliver the aircraft unpainted.

Originally Posted by Hunter368

Joe can you read my post higher up on the page and answer that one also about the ME-262.

Salt humid air is the worse; any atmosphere with a high humidity would also cause corrosion. The salt would enhance the galvanic process to make corrosion happen. Also in wet areas, as moisture settles on an aircraft structure, it picks up impurities (dirt, pollutants from the air) which also causes corrosion.

Dry deserts with little wind are the best.

[Hunter368]

Keeping that in mind I wonder what the "real" service life of a Japanese fighter would of been in the Pacific. We all know they really had a hard time keeping their front lines units stocked up with spare parts. Could you imagine trying to keep a fighter flying in the salty pacific area, flying off muddy fields, etc etc and how short a service life span they had. Damn