p-80 V Me 262

[Soren]

Originally Posted by Glider

Where on earth did you get the idea that the Meteor couldn't take the stess's involved in high speed maneuvers. It was around for a long time, flown by many countries and I have never heard of a problem with the aircraft's stress levels.

Where on earth ?? Look at the a/c Glider, its got built in engines in its wings, which means a weak-spot. Ofcourse the Mk.3 featured a strenghened airframe and was considered a robust a/c, but the place where the engines were mounted was still a weakspot - not saying it was litterally weak but the Me-262's configuration makes for a stronger wing.

[Soren]

Kitty89,

I agree the He-280 was a very promising a/c featuring excellent performance & maneuverability, and adding the HeS-011 would've put it in the same league as the Me-262, perhaps even better. However the He-280 lacked the bubble canopy, swepped wing and LE slats of the Me-262, putting it at a disadvantage in high speed flight compared to the Me-262. The horizontal & vertical stabilizer of the H-280 also looks as if it could prove troublesome at high speeds - admittedly these are bugs which probably would've been quickly worked out though.

[Glider]

Originally Posted by Soren

Where on earth ?? Look at the a/c Glider, its got built in engines in its wings, which means a weak-spot. Ofcourse the Mk.3 featured a strenghened airframe and was considered a robust a/c, but the place where the engines were mounted was still a weakspot - not saying it was litterally weak but the Me-262's configuration makes for a stronger wing.

Just because a plane has a design that gives it in theory a weak spot, doesn't mean that its weak. That depends on the design of the structure and how it caters for the stresses.
As you said, the Meteor was considered to be by all parties a robust aeroplane, not one that couldn't take the stresses incurred in combat.

There is also a case for saying that hanging the engines under the wing is a weakness. All the forces are on the engine mount, with all the torsional and tearing motions being catered for by the mounts.
The best place for the engine for a number of reasons is where the P80 had it.

[delcyros]

Since the Meteor was used in combat capacity, I find the argument that she lacked structural strength improbable. Her high speed maneuvering suffered (which is been accounted for) but she had good low speed handling and offered a lot of structural redundancy.

[FLYBOYJ]

I've done a little work on a Meteor - she was built like a brick.

http://aeroweb.brooklyn.cuny.edu/dat...ge.htm?id=2680

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Very cool. I would kill to work on an old WW2 plane. I can believe they are bit more difficult to keep up because of the age of the plane but damn it must be a real pleasure.

When did you work on this Meteor?

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet

Very cool. I would kill to work on an old WW2 plane. I can believe they are bit more difficult to keep up because of the age of the plane but damn it must be a real pleasure.

When did you work on this Meteor?

When I first started tinkering around with jets at Mojave. Two of my former "customers" were one of the first civilian jet owners. One guy owned the Meteor, the other guy owned a Vampire. On the weekends they would go off together and chase each other in a canyon area north of Mojave Airport. That Meteor was donated to the museum because of a corrosion problem (If I remember right). The other guy with the vampire sold it years ago.

[pbfoot]

I know there was a manouver in the Meteor called the Zurabatic cartwheel performed by Janus Zurakowski in which he idled one engine and went 100% on the other . It doesn't sound like a weak point to me

In 1947, he was employed as an experimental pilot by Gloster Aircraft Company. In the following years, he became one of the world's most famous experimental and aerobatics pilots (he developed a new aerobatics maneuver, the "Zurabatic Cartwheel" which held the audience captivated as he suspended the Gloster Meteor G-7-1 prototype he was flying, in a vertical cartwheel at the 1951 Farnborough Air Show). Announcers shouted out, "Impossible!"

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by Soren

Where on earth ?? Look at the a/c Glider, its got built in engines in its wings, which means a weak-spot. Ofcourse the Mk.3 featured a strenghened airframe and was considered a robust a/c, but the place where the engines were mounted was still a weakspot - not saying it was litterally weak but the Me-262's configuration makes for a stronger wing.

Soren, are you dabbling in airframe structures again? or do you have the actual airframe design and load calculations at hand and rendering an expert opinion?

Accounting for an imbedded engine bay in a wing would be similar to building a mid wing airframe like a F4F Wildcat. The fuselage(engine) carry through structure has to accomodate the cantilevered wing spar.

In my opinion (w/o actually seeing the wing design) the Meteor wing probably had more weight as a result of the carry through structure to obtain same design and ultimate load factors as a design in which the engines were imbedded in the fuselage (and/or maybe suspended from main spar).. but easily accomodated with carry through bulkhead type structure and the extra weight.

It is not intuitive to deduce (Accurately) actual strength by looking at most WWII designed airframes..

[Matt308]

Originally Posted by Glider

Just because a plane has a design that gives it in theory a weak spot, doesn't mean that its weak. That depends on the design of the structure and how it caters for the stresses.
As you said, the Meteor was considered to be by all parties a robust aeroplane, not one that couldn't take the stresses incurred in combat.

There is also a case for saying that hanging the engines under the wing is a weakness. All the forces are on the engine mount, with all the torsional and tearing motions being catered for by the mounts.
The best place for the engine for a number of reasons is where the P80 had it.

Well said, Glider.

[davparlr]

Originally Posted by drgondog

Soren, are you dabbling in airframe structures again? or do you have the actual airframe design and load calculations at hand and rendering an expert opinion?

Accounting for an imbedded engine bay in a wing would be similar to building a mid wing airframe like a F4F Wildcat. The fuselage(engine) carry through structure has to accomodate the cantilevered wing spar.

In my opinion (w/o actually seeing the wing design) the Meteor wing probably had more weight as a result of the carry through structure to obtain same design and ultimate load factors as a design in which the engines were imbedded in the fuselage (and/or maybe suspended from main spar).. but easily accomodated with carry through bulkhead type structure and the extra weight.

It is not intuitive to deduce (Accurately) actual strength by looking at most WWII designed airframes..

I agree with this. However, both design concepts quickly became obsolete as the jet fighter evolved.

[kool kitty89]

Yes here was a test between the 262 and P-80, but they don't specify which model the 262 was and the engine drag would have affected roll and turning more than level flight or dives, though it was still fairly manuverable.

It also doesn't mention the altitudes they were tested at. As the P-80A's top level speed of 562 mph was reached near sea level using W/A injection compared to the 262's top speed of 560 mph at 20,000 ft(6000 m) at which altitude the P-80 was slightly slower but above this point the 262's speed drops more rapidly than the P-80 and above 33,000 ft the P-80 is again ahead.

Either way there was no manuverabillity compasison stated between the two so it's hard to tell wich would be better, though the P-80 was lighter and had more thrust output.(I also think the He-280 would have been more maneuverable than either of these, though its short range woulg have been a problem this could have been remedied with external tanks.)

The P-80 also had more range and the capibility of drop tanks but this was more important for the US fighters than Germany's. The P-80A also had a significant altitude advantage as its flight ceiling was more than 7000 ft higher than the 262's.

Also on the meteor due to the realitive shortness of its centrifugal engines a good part of the wing can fit ahead of the engine and if you look into its nacelle the wing splits the air intake on the front side.

And the 262's original engine mountigs were also mid-wing (using BMW's 003 engines) but the added weight and size of the 004s forced Meschersmit to redesign the wing, I think this is also when the <20 degree "swept" wing was added (more for weight centering reasons than speed) The mistake is often made that the "swept" wing of the production 262 gave it a major aerodynamic advantage, but at such a slight sweep the thickness and slotting of the wing as well as the overall design contributed mostly to its good aerodynamics, and the large engines probably muted any small gain the "sweep" made.

On the other hand Meshersmit did design some true swept wing variations with the HG II and III (high speed) while the HG I's were mostly the same its other improvements (lower profile and V-tail) gave it a Mach limit of .96!

Cool, flyboy, chasing eachother around the Mojave in a Meteor and a Vampire, sounds like crazy-fun; just who are these people?

And also, though it didn't have a bubble canopy, the He 280 still had a good vision range and probably offered 300 degree view, or at least a 280 view . Take a look at this site's pics: Heinkel He 280 archive file

PS: Doesnt the FW-187 on the cover page look like it has jet engines. =)

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by kool kitty89

Yes here was a test between the 262 and P-80, but they don't specify which model the 262 was and the engine drag would have affected roll and turning more than level flight or dives, though it was still fairly manuverable.

It also doesn't mention the altitudes they were tested at. As the P-80A's top level speed of 562 mph was reached near sea level using W/A injection compared to the 262's top speed of 560 mph at 20,000 ft(6000 m) at which altitude the P-80 was slightly slower but above this point the 262's speed drops more rapidly than the P-80 and above 33,000 ft the P-80 is again ahead.

Either way there was no manuverabillity compasison stated between the two so it's hard to tell wich would be better, though the P-80 was lighter and had more thrust output.(I also think the He-280 would have been more maneuverable than either of these, though its short range woulg have been a problem this could have been remedied with external tanks.)

The P-80 also had more range and the capibility of drop tanks but this was more important for the US fighters than Germany's. The P-80A also had a significant altitude advantage as its flight ceiling was more than 7000 ft higher than the 262's.

Also on the meteor due to the realitive shortness of its centrifugal engines a good part of the wing can fit ahead of the engine and if you look into its nacelle the wing splits the air intake on the front side.

With respect - range is ALWAYs important unles you have no other mission in life but point defense (like a SAM 2 or Me 163).. With range you can disperse making it harder to find you, but still concentrate dispersed forces far away from your field.

If the Luftwaffe had decided to centralize their Fighters in Central Germany they would have had more options regarding where to concentrate mass against USAAF bombers, and many more opportunities to attain local superiority..

[davparlr]

Off subject comment. I was just coming in from a walk and I saw what looked like an F6F (to far to be sure, but most likely) flying formation on a B-25. They were probably out of Torrance. It is always a thrill to see and hear those birds flying.

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by davparlr

Off subject comment. I was just coming in from a walk and I saw what looked like an F6F (to far to be sure, but most likely) flying formation on a B-25. They were probably out of Torrance. It is always a thrill to see and hear those birds flying.

Growing up around airbases for my first 15 years had inculated me with extreme nostalgia for the drone of the B-36/C-124 and their 4360's or the roar of the Merlins in the 51s and P-82s and R-2800s in the A-26s.

I first lived away from the base when I was 10 when my father was attending Air War College at Maxwell and it took me six months to learn to sleep in quiet environment.