Vampire vs Me 262

[FLYBOYJ]

I meant "Great Site."

[kool kitty89]

Originally Posted by Elvis

KK,

First off, take anything you read on Wikipedia with a grain of salt, since the contents can be altered by anyone.
However, supposing for the moment that the date you stated is correct (and I'm not saying its not, just that it should be research past Wikipedia in order to verify it), then the plane my dad took pictures of was not the Grey Ghost.
Dad was sent to Itami in June of '46, so that plane would've already crashed.
From what I can remember, that is what it looked like, though.
Elvis

Well was it Gray like that? But most of the early P-80s had this pearl-gray finish, including all YP-80A's and early production P-80A's some of the XP-80A prototypes were bare metal (ie Silver ghost) as well. (and the XP-80 was dark green, "Green Hornet")

Do you remember if it had the Lockheed insignia on the nose? (I think only the prototypes had this, not YP's)

[Soren]

First off, take anything you read on Wikipedia with a grain of salt, since the contents can be altered by anyone.

It can't be altered by anyone. But still it is a very good idea to take some of it with a grain of salt, esp. if no sources are listed.

[comiso90]

BBC NEWS | Technology | Wikipedia survives research test

The free online resource Wikipedia is about as accurate on science as the Encyclopedia Britannica, a study shows.

The British journal Nature examined a range of scientific entries on both works of reference and found few differences in accuracy.

Wikipedia is produced by volunteers, who add entries and edit any page.

But it has been criticised for the correctness of entries, most recently over the biography of prominent US journalist John Seigenthaler.

Open approach

Wikipedia was founded in 2001 and has since grown to more than 1.8 million articles in 200 languages. Some 800,000 entries are in English.

It is based on wikis, open-source software which lets anyone fiddle with a webpage, anyone reading a subject entry can disagree, edit, add, delete, or replace the entry.


We're very pleased with the results and we're hoping it will focus people's attention on the overall level of our work, which is pretty good
Jimmy Wales, Wikipedia founder
It relies on 13,000 volunteer contributors, many of whom are experts in a particular field, to edit previously submitted articles.

In order to test its reliability, Nature conducted a peer review of scientific entries on Wikipedia and the well-established Encyclopedia Britannica.

The reviewers were asked to check for errors, but were not told about the source of the information.

"Only eight serious errors, such as misinterpretations of important concepts, were detected in the pairs of articles reviewed, four from each encyclopedia," reported Nature.

"But reviewers also found many factual errors, omissions or misleading statements: 162 and 123 in Wikipedia and Britannica, respectively."

Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales welcomed the study.

"We're hoping it will focus people's attention on the overall level of our work, which is pretty good," he said.

Writing style

Nature said its reviewers found that Wikipedia entries were often poorly structured and confused.

The Encyclopedia Britannica declined to comment directly on the findings; but a spokesman highlighted the quality of the entries on the free resource.

"But it is not the case that errors creep in on an occasional basis or that a couple of articles are poorly written," Tom Panelas, director of corporate communications is quoted as saying in Nature.

"There are lots of articles in that condition. They need a good editor."

Wikipedia came under fire earlier this month from prominent US journalist John Seigenthaler.

The founding editorial director of USA Today attacked a Wikipedia entry that incorrectly named him as a suspect in the assassinations of president John F Kennedy and his brother, Robert.

The false information was the work of Tennessean Brian Chase, who said he was trying to trick a co-worker.

Wikipedia has responded to the criticisms by tightening up procedures.

Next month it plans to begin testing a new mechanism for reviewing the accuracy of its articles.

[Elvis]

Originally Posted by kool kitty89

Well was it Gray like that? But most of the early P-80s had this pearl-gray finish, including all YP-80A's and early production P-80A's some of the XP-80A prototypes were bare metal (ie Silver ghost) as well. (and the XP-80 was dark green, "Green Hornet")

Do you remember if it had the Lockheed insignia on the nose? (I think only the prototypes had this, not YP's)

KK,

I'm thinking it was probably an early production model.
Yeah, colour looks the same as I remember...of course, we are talking about B&W photo's here.



Elvis

[Old Wizard]

This is interesting:
http://www.dreamtimeentertainment.co.../Coverup46.PDF

[kool kitty89]

Not completely accurate though, particularly on the dates...

It would be interesting to see actual data on the P-80/262 comparison though. And the often given example (with no source cited) appears to be with the XP-80, very different from the XP-80A and subsequent YP-80A's and production P-80A's. (the XP-80 was a different type, quite a bit smaller, and powered by a ~2,400 lbf British Halford H-1 engine, top speed being just over 500 mph)

As for the dates, it says the 262 is a "1938" a/c opposed to the "1946" P-80 and P-84. This is fairly correct on the P-84 though, but even in this case it's flawed as the XP-84 project started in 1944 and the first prototype completed in late 1945, flying at the beginning of 1946.

The P-80 and Me 262 dates were even further off, with the original development of what was to become the 262 starting in 1939 but changing many times through the first jet only flight of the V2 prototype in 1942. (still in tail dragger configuration)
The XP-80 program was initiated in 1943 after Lockheed had received data for the XP-59B (single engined Airacomet) and the Halford H-1, creating a much superior design to the XP-59B. The XP-80 powered by the Halford H.1B (Goblin) and was completed and began ground trials in late 1943. It flew at the beginning of 1944. But even before the XP-80 L-140 design had been tested the larger L-141 powered by the I-40 (J33) had been proposed and eventually became the XP-80A which flew in mid 1944.

Lockheed XP-80 Shooting Star
Lockheed XP-80A Shooting Star

[Elvis]

Originally Posted by kool kitty89

The XP-80 program was initiated in 1943 after Lockheed had received data for the XP-59B (single engined Airacomet)

I thought the P-59 was a twin engined aircraft?

...or is this a mis-statement...

Originally Posted by militaryfactory.com

Despite the fact that these were, in fact, two turbojet engines, the P-59 still did not contend well in head-to-head match-ups with the propeller-driven, piston-powered North American P-51 Mustangs.

I, too would like to see a comparison of P-80/ME-262 flight/combat performance stats.
Maybe we could limit it to first production models.
Maybe we need to start a new thread?



Elvis

[kool kitty89]

The XP-59B (Note: not P-59B, which was a slightly improved P-59A) was a parallel design by Bell for a single engined jet fighter. As Bell had their hands full, the prliminary stusy of the XP-59B design and this eventually led to the P-80 program, im combination with info on the Halford H.1B (goblin) turbojet.

[kool kitty89]

Bell P-59 Airacomet

Although the Airacomet never saw service in its originally-intended role as a fighter aircraft, it nevertheless provided the USAAF with valuable orientation experience in the use of jet aircraft and furnished a nucleus of trained jet pilots.

The Airacomet was to have one other major impact on aviation history, one that is not generally recognized. Bell engineers undertook some initial work on a single-engined version of the Airacomet, which was designated XP-59B (not to be confused with the P-59B). It had a low-mounted wing and was to be powered by a single General Electric I-16 turbojet engine housed in the rear fuselage with an air inlet at the wing roots and an exhaust in the tail. However, the Buffalo plant was so busy with other projects that in late 1942 the USAAF transferred the preliminary drawings of the single-engined XP-59B to Lockheed, where it became the inspiration of the famed P-80 Shooting Star.

[Elvis]

KoolKitty89,

Thanks for link. I see what you're getting at now.



Elvis

[johnbr]

I have all ways wondered whey the UK or the USA did not put there jet engine's on the me 262.For they had the MetroVick f2 axial engine.

[kool kitty89]

Or the Westinghouse J34 engines, developed from the J30 which flew on the FH Phantom prototype shortly before the War's end. (in late January 1945) The J34 was 25" diameter, 119" length, some 3,000 lbs thrust on early models and weighed some 1,100-1,200 lbs. It was in testing in 1945 and first flown in 1946 iirc.

[Elvis]

Originally Posted by johnbr

I have all ways wondered whey the UK or the USA did not put there jet engine's on the me 262.For they had the MetroVick f2 axial engine.

I think the mentality at the time was seeing what the Germans had developed and then see if we (we=all allied nations studying this "machinery") could use that to our advantage.
That would be different from what you're saying and may not have occurred to anyone, simply because of the direction of thinking at that time.
What I always wondered about was why the swept wing/stabilizers concept wasn't tested on the P/F-80, as a means of improving its performance?
Maybe hindsight is 20/20, but that seems like one of the first things I would've explored, upon deconstruction of the ME-262.




Elvis

[kool kitty89]

For the re-engined Me 262, I was thinking for experimental purposes for testing the airframe. Plus for safety reasons for the unreliable 004's and small amount of spares.

And on a swept wing P-80: Lockheed F-80E