Me262 vs. P-80 (3 Viewers)

P-80 v Me-262?


  • Total voters
    155

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Here we have several points.
First off, while it is true that desperate morale and shortness suffered Luftwaffe units in 1945 badly, Luftwaffe ground crews have been quite careful to new engines (esspecially on jet engines, check the aircraft picture album here...). There have been accidents also, but that´s not a surprise on pioneering techniques (also in Russia and the US).
To the Jumo engines: Actually I agree that tests under laboratory condition doesn´t reflect much the serial versions. That´s why I stated "lab-conditions". On the other hand, the technology difference between Jumo-004 B and 004 D is minimal (bigger air intake only), even the Jumo-004 E has only higher working temperature (and a slightly increase of the max rpm: 8900 instead of 8700 rpm) and a afterburner equipment. And it introduced a second variable jet needle (which never makes problems on the Jumo-004 B or at tests). The technology is still the tech of Jumo-004 B. I estimate that at least 30 % of the serial produced engines work properly. (comparable to Jumo-004 B)
the main problem have always been heat resistent metal for the hot surfaces. The Matprüf institution had a major break throgh in a heat resistent alloy of unrestricted metals at early 1945 for jet engine purposes. This would not take into effect for industrie prior to mid 1945 but afterwards it could enhence production quality in a bigger scale.
In my mind the biggest mistake in engine developing was the favouring of the complicated He-S011 jet engine, which was really complicated because it was a dual (axial and radial) engine. Had they focussed more on pure axial engines, the Jumo-004 H would have come to testing stage. The BMW 018 axial jet engine was the most powerful jet engine produced in 1944 (only tested on the ground, two prototypes destroyed unfortunately at an air attack in late 1944).
At least I really disagree in unimportance of jet tactics. This view would have cost US pilots badly. (actually they could manage to deal after a short time) German jet tactics not only included jet vs. bomber fights. Do not reduce it to interceptions. Climbing, acceleration and high speed manouvering proved to be keyfactors (I source in the moment reports of US escort fighters, trapped by Me-262 in march 1945). Tactics are even more important for high speed fighters than for prop driven planes (you need more airspace for manouvering). Look at Korea, tactics really made a difference there. The korean MiG´s have been easy prey for good trained UN pilots, even if they fly inferior planes. The soviet units incorporated german Me-262 tactics on the other hand have been a match.
On early P-80 vs. Me-262 encounters, it surely would have made an impact, but only a shortliving one (this has to be underlined).
 
Well we'll agree to disagree :occasion5: ENERGY MANAGEMENT - That's the first thing taught in fighter pilot 101, and it don't matter if you're flying a recip or a jet. As far as more airspace, yes you need more but you only need to worry about what's below you! It actually gets easier when you fly in the "vertical." Remember, WWII and Korean war tactics were reintroduced when Top Gun and USAF Air Combat training became vogue again in the 1980s. Sure tactics were modified for the equipment, but when it came down to it, it was fighter pilot 101 - ENERGY MANAGEMENT

I think the 262 would of put up a good fight but would of eventually been slowly defeated :!:
 
OH - one last thing - the P-80, Meteor and Vampire had centrifigal flow compressors. Although not putting out as much as an axial flow configuation, historically they are more reliable and could take a real beating. Again I question the reliability factor of any German engine of that era, especially under the conditons they were being built and the materials they were made from.
 
:) (to P-80 performance:)That´s probable.
The high command of the Luftwaffe (OKL) shares this view. They expected the Me-262 to be inferior in case of the advent of the first allied jet designs.
There are several reasons for this. The most important was the unfavourable position of the engines in underwing nacelles and the engines itself. Most others have been discussed above. I do estimate that the P-80 is a better dogfighter (in particular comparison to the Me-262 A). Just tried to outline that the very first US jets to encounter Me-262 in mid or late of 1945 would have a bad surprise because of different jet handlings (engine controll, stall behavior, ENERGY MANAGEMENT -as you say!). The Me-262 would have been flown by pilots which knew about the problems and which have considerable combat experience in a jet plane. But I don´t doubt that the generally well trained US pilots could keep up with them in short time and from this point on the benefits of the P-80 would weight twice. On the other hand what would a Me-262 look like in late 1945? In terms of speed it could close the gap to the P-80 with either more powerful engines or more swept back wings. How would design react to the P-80 advent? And what also is very important: How would the US designers modify the P-80, how about their engine development, the P-84 and so on.
I think that radial (or centrifugal flow) engines are excellent in the timeframe from 1940 to 1946. They are more reliable, they do not weight as much as axial engines and they are not that fuel gulping. Their development on the other side is limited (the Nene to name). Good working axial engines have been avaiable much later (and benefitted from german design much), their development would cost the UK and US designers a considerable time (1946 is more probable than 1945, while very early working axial flow engines have been avaiable sooner, but haven´t been succesful), while german jet engines design have been on the right way. Remember that the the SU produced very succesful axial engines based on the BMW-018 design! And that are the mid fifties...
 
delcyros said:
:) (to P-80 performance:)That´s probable.
The high command of the Luftwaffe (OKL) shares this view. They expected the Me-262 to be inferior in case of the advent of the first allied jet designs.
There are several reasons for this. The most important was the unfavourable position of the engines in underwing nacelles and the engines itself. Most others have been discussed above. I do estimate that the P-80 is a better dogfighter (in particular comparison to the Me-262 A). Just tried to outline that the very first US jets to encounter Me-262 in mid or late of 1945 would have a bad surprise because of different jet handlings (engine controll, stall behavior, ENERGY MANAGEMENT -as you say!). The Me-262 would have been flown by pilots which knew about the problems and which have considerable combat experience in a jet plane. But I don´t doubt that the generally well trained US pilots could keep up with them in short time and from this point on the benefits of the P-80 would weight twice. On the other hand what would a Me-262 look like in late 1945? In terms of speed it could close the gap to the P-80 with either more powerful engines or more swept back wings. How would design react to the P-80 advent? And what also is very important: How would the US designers modify the P-80, how about their engine development, the P-84 and so on.
I think that radial (or centrifugal flow) engines are excellent in the timeframe from 1940 to 1946. They are more reliable, they do not weight as much as axial engines and they are not that fuel gulping. Their development on the other side is limited (the Nene to name). Good working axial engines have been avaiable much later (and benefitted from german design much), their development would cost the UK and US designers a considerable time (1946 is more probable than 1945, while very early working axial flow engines have been avaiable sooner, but haven´t been succesful), while german jet engines design have been on the right way. Remember that the the SU produced very succesful axial engines based on the BMW-018 design! And that are the mid fifties...

NOW YOU'RE TALKING! - and you're on the money about centrifugal engines too. It would have been very interesting to see how a "1946" Me-262 would have compared to the P-80, especially if American designers were also pushing the design effort to keep up or surpass German technology. :rolleyes: Would we have seen such radical designs as the P-79 or P-83? Maybe some "lost" projects like the L-133 fighter and the L-1000 engine would of resurrected themselves. :dontknow:

Another thing to keep in mind - producability. Lockheed at its peak was able to produce between 46-60 P-38s a day, a much more difficult aircraft to build than the P-80 (and we're talking airframe only) Imagine 100 P-80s a day coming off the assembly line! Do you think the ME-262 producers could of kept up with that while still being constantly bombed? #-o I think if you put the best-case technology situation with the 262, and kept the P-80 the same, you might of seen the same scenario like the Sherman and Tiger tanks during D day - it would of taken 4 P-80s to down one 262! ](*,)
 
The F-84 project would have been accelerated. By mid 1946 they would have been in ful production.

Delcros - are you saying the F-86 was inferior to the Mig-15?

=S=

Lunatic
 
Maybe I have been misunderstable, RG, I don´t wanted to say that a F-86 is inferior to the MiG-15. (actually I had F-80´s and Meteors in mind, when I spoke of "inferior" planes) I believe that MiG-15 and F-86 are somehow comparable planes, each has advantages on their own (the F-86 maybe a few more), a really "classic" combination.
The interesting Lockheed projects are paper projects (as many of the german like Triebflügel, Sänger and so on...far away from beeing useful designs). The F-84 isn´t.
The producability is another problem. In general spoken, the US had clearly the largest industrial capabilities and a very advanced basic tooling level (as pointed out above several times by RG). In a production "race" between german jets and US jets, I would like to bid my money on the US. But how about real numbers? 1433 Me-262, around 200 Ar-234, 364 Me-163 and 114 He-162 have been produced during ww2, 5000 Jumo-004 B (30% useful) and 800 BMW-003A and E (70% useful) produced. The Kahla underground facility in Thuringia was about to begin serial production at VE-day (estimated 1250 Me-262 in a month) Languste and Wien underground facilities produced at wars end 200 He-162 a month (accelerating), with some 800 airframes waiting for engines at wars end (estimated output in mid 1945: 1000 planes, each) and there have been a huge dispersal program taken effect. From my point of view the strategic bombing campaign is much overrated (regarding it´s effect on weapon industries) because of Speers dispersal program. The deliveries of planes, tanks and guns have been extremely high in 1944 (even with bombing campaign), and the few months of 1945 produced even more than the comparable months in 1944! Production reduced at the point, where terretory was occupated by allied ground troops, not that much because of the bombing campaign. Another story is the fuel bombing campaign...
I think that the Luftwaffe could keep it´s numerical advantage in jets up to late 1945.
 
delcyros said:
Maybe I have been misunderstable, RG, I don´t wanted to say that a F-86 is inferior to the MiG-15. (actually I had F-80´s and Meteors in mind, when I spoke of "inferior" planes) I believe that MiG-15 and F-86 are somehow comparable planes, each has advantages on their own (the F-86 maybe a few more), a really "classic" combination.
The interesting Lockheed projects are paper projects (as many of the german like Triebflügel, Sänger and so on...far away from beeing useful designs). The F-84 isn´t.
The producability is another problem. In general spoken, the US had clearly the largest industrial capabilities and a very advanced basic tooling level (as pointed out above several times by RG). In a production "race" between german jets and US jets, I would like to bid my money on the US. But how about real numbers? 1433 Me-262, around 200 Ar-234, 364 Me-163 and 114 He-162 have been produced during ww2, 5000 Jumo-004 B (30% useful) and 800 BMW-003A and E (70% useful) produced. The Kahla underground facility in Thuringia was about to begin serial production at VE-day (estimated 1250 Me-262 in a month) Languste and Wien underground facilities produced at wars end 200 He-162 a month (accelerating), with some 800 airframes waiting for engines at wars end (estimated output in mid 1945: 1000 planes, each) and there have been a huge dispersal program taken effect. From my point of view the strategic bombing campaign is much overrated (regarding it´s effect on weapon industries) because of Speers dispersal program. The deliveries of planes, tanks and guns have been extremely high in 1944 (even with bombing campaign), and the few months of 1945 produced even more than the comparable months in 1944! Production reduced at the point, where terretory was occupated by allied ground troops, not that much because of the bombing campaign. Another story is the fuel bombing campaign...
I think that the Luftwaffe could keep it´s numerical advantage in jets up to late 1945.

Interesting stuff my friend, but I don't know - even at 1250 ME-262s a month, you'll still looking at 3,000 P-80s! And as RG commented, if the P-84 was excellerated, well the numbers are staggering!
 
I agree. At full scale production, the US industry beats everything, hands down. But the numerical advantage would still work for the Luftwaffe until very late 1945. (just check how many jets have been produced by UK and US until august 1945, a time of which we can estimate high pressure for industries to deploy as many jets as possible, it is still far away from the Luftwaffe numbers in april 1945) To conclude: If we only look on jet industries, developing and research (difficult, because the advance of allied ground troops clearly renders this thinking hypothetical) Germany has a considerable time advantage. By late 1945 I estimate about 7.000 jets (all types) produced by german industry (and some 2000 of them delivered to Luftwaffe units). How about the Meteors and P-80´s? Even at full scale deploying it cannot be excluded that prototype trials and training are just finished for the first combat units (I don´t estimate them to be rushed into combat without very good reasons). By this time, prototypes of next generation (swept back wings) single engined Luftwaffe fighters would have been finished, known designs like Me-262 and He-162 greatly improved by means of more poweful powerplants and swept back wings. I think this could offset the high numbers of P-80´s and Meteor MK IV to come into effect in early 1946. The P-84 is truly a great plane, but improvements compared to the P-80 are not that convincing. Better engines, avaiability of fuel and well trained pilots on the other hand would greatly work for US-planes, I estimate them to fly much more sorties over Germany, giving the Me-262 a hard time. By the time the P-84 reaches full production, let´s say late 1946, nothing could stop the allies to get air superiority over Germany (except maybe the radar/infrared guided SAM with air proximity fuse).
 
Well, it´s not that hard to estimate, my friend ;)
The biggest advantage for the allies beside their huge industrial capabilities would be the advance in centrifugal jet engine design, like the Rolls Royce Nene. Or the Derwent V. With US toolings they could have been produced in high numbers. And they are really great engine for their time. Imagine a P-80 driven by a 5000 lbs Nene powerplant in late 1945!
The german jet engines would surely have improved their axial Jumo and BMW designs to a high degree (Jumo-004 H: 1800 kp, late BMW-003 (P3306): 1700 kp thrust), but it still has not the output of a Nene. Jumo-012 or (more probable BMW-018) develop more thrust, but they are heavier designs, too. (..and in case of Jumo-012 far away from beeing deployed, never left the drawing board)
 
Hey, been away from this for awhile, let me see....

Considering that the "1945" ME-262 was basically an interceptor, snaked in the air, and had very unreliable engines, I think I would take the "1945" P-80A any day although admittedly I may be prejudiced considering I've flown a T-33 and just loved it. I think in an outright dogfight the P-80 can easily exploit the 262s weaknesses in maneuverability and actual combat performance. Although there were test conducted in the US that alleged that the 262 was better, I think that was used as a case to continue military turbine engine and aircraft development....
 
Under normal circumstances I would give any single engined plane a considerable advantage over a twin engined one. However, the things are not that easy here. The US report, which is said to imply that the Me-262 is better cannot be confirmed since it is not accessable. I would rather not argue with anything unaccesabble. The reliability of it´s Jumo-004 B engines is based on the materials (normal TfZh-Blech for heat effective surfaces), from which we know that analyses of some much better alloy was concluded in early 1945 (and introduced into industry at mid april (for -004 B/D at Dessau plant and (probably) also -004 E for later development). The reliabilty factor of the engines of a 1945 Me-262 depends on it´s engines date. I believe that none of these engines made it to an Me-262 airframe (maybe for the czech made S-92, but I don´t know in detail).
The next point goes to the maneoverabilty. This depends on the speed. The higher the speed, the better the Me-262 is (compared to the P-80). At speeds of Mach 0.80 the P-80 start to suffer from buffeting, unlike the Me-262 (which starts at Mach 0.84), which is said by many veterans to have an excellent high speed handling. The critical Mach speed is very important for 1st generation jet fighters, in fact the increasement of the critical speed was a reason to justify a new design (XP-86 (with straight) and XP-86 (with swept back wings)for example). You are right, the Me-262 is an interceptor and probably under comparable (in terms of pilot quality) circumstances less probable to be the winner. A late 1945 Me-262 (with jumo-004 E or/and 30 degrees swept back wings, call it Me-262 D) on the other hand is more reasonable to be the winner in a dogfight situation (better acceleration, high altitude performance, Mach speed and probably a comparable top speed, if not better) against a P-80 A. -just my opinion, impossible to proof.
 
The next point goes to the maneoverabilty. This depends on the speed. The higher the speed, the better the Me-262 is (compared to the P-80).

Understand that when you go into combat you're not going to be at mach .80 unless you're being chased, and even then you're going to bleed off speed as you start to maneuver. This is where I think the P-80A (1945) will have the advantage over the 262 (1944 1/2 - 45').

During the maneuvering process you are continually changing power settings, internal components are heating up and cooling down at rapid rates. I think this would have played havoc on the early Jumos, being an axial flow engine initially made from poor materials. On the other hand, the early J-33s being a centrifugal flow engine were a lot more reliable and the basic design remained the same throughout its use, further proving the engine's robustness.
 
The higher Mach speed is a general advantage, allowing the pilot to choose wether he wants to disengage or not on his own initiative. Excellent trained pilots would keep this in mind, the Me-262 can maneuver at speeds, at which the P-80 cannot (resp. have poor performance). As well as for the energy keeping. Unlike the P-80, the Me-262 doesnt loose much energy while turning. This would work positively at the pilots energy management. These are two of the rar advantages the Me-262 has over the P-80. Changing the power settings for the Jumo´s isn´t a problem as long as you do it smoothly. Under rapid change of power setting conditions the Jumo´s are prone to flame out, as for extreme slipping. Restarting the powerplants is possible but it wouldn´t be good news while in a hot dogfight, agreed. :shock:
I do not question that the P-80´s centrifugal powerplant is better than the Jumo´s axial for the Me-262. But I still believe that the axial design is the only reasonable for the Me-262 airframe. Centrifugal jet engines have a huge size in diameter, this would generate very large engine nacelles and further increasing the weight and drag (and reducing the crit mach) on this airframe.I do also believe that some of the Jumo´s shortcomings would have been solved with proper heat resistant alloys for later Me-262. The Jumo-004 E went in serial production in russia as the RD-10F, also.
However, it is hard to ignore the advantages (speed, agility, air brake, weapon systems) of the P-80 over the Me-262, if you factor them properly you will find a lot of reasons why a P-80A could outmatch a Me-262.
 
delcyros said:
However, it is hard to ignore the advantages (speed, agility, air brake, weapon systems) of the P-80 over the Me-262, if you factor them properly you will find a lot of reasons why a P-80A could outmatch a Me-262.

Agreed! :thumbright:

Keep in mind that when initially engaging, yes you want to go in with speed, but not to the point where the aircraft is already bufferting.
 
The debate between the P80 and the Me262 is an interesting one, but can I ask for peoples opinion of the Meteor III as a comparison to the 262 or the Mk 4 against the P80.
I say this as they seem to be the best comparison timescale wise.

To start off with,
Weapons
I believe that the 20m Mk V is better than either the 0.5 in the P80 or the 30mm in the 262. Its rate of fire was 12.5 rds per second compared with 13 rds per second of the 0.5. in other words no difference at all. MV was 830 m/s compared with 890 which is a little less but not a disaster. The weight of the shell is 130 grammes compared with 43 in the 0.5 which would help with the slightly lower MV and improve the trajectory. The weight of fire is probably 4 to 1 in favour of the 20mm. When you add the difference in explosive content in each shell and its case closed.

Agility
Mk 3 would be a decent match for the 262 but roll could be difficult as the controls were made heavy to reduce the chances of stressing the aircraft.
Mk 4 sorted these problems out and had a noticable increase in its power but would almost certainly lose out to the P80 in the agility stakes but would probably do well in the vertical axix due to its additional power. In Korea the Meteor was outclassed by the F86 and Mig 15 as a fighter but found its mark in GA due to the additional thrust.

Range
For a jet fighter of the period I think the Meteor did quite well

Pilots
For the purposes of this I think we have to assume that the pilots are well matched.

An aside. Eric Brown the Test Pilot considered the He 162 to be the best jet fighter at the end of the war. It should be noted that he was probably the only pilot with combat experience who had flown all the jets then in existance both, British, German and American.

As ever all comments welcome
 
Glider said:
The debate between the P80 and the Me262 is an interesting one, but can I ask for peoples opinion of the Meteor III as a comparison to the 262 or the Mk 4 against the P80.
I say this as they seem to be the best comparison timescale wise.

To start off with,
Weapons
I believe that the 20m Mk V is better than either the 0.5 in the P80 or the 30mm in the 262. Its rate of fire was 12.5 rds per second compared with 13 rds per second of the 0.5. in other words no difference at all. MV was 830 m/s compared with 890 which is a little less but not a disaster. The weight of the shell is 130 grammes compared with 43 in the 0.5 which would help with the slightly lower MV and improve the trajectory. The weight of fire is probably 4 to 1 in favour of the 20mm. When you add the difference in explosive content in each shell and its case closed.

Agility
Mk 3 would be a decent match for the 262 but roll could be difficult as the controls were made heavy to reduce the chances of stressing the aircraft.
Mk 4 sorted these problems out and had a noticable increase in its power but would almost certainly lose out to the P80 in the agility stakes but would probably do well in the vertical axix due to its additional power. In Korea the Meteor was outclassed by the F86 and Mig 15 as a fighter but found its mark in GA due to the additional thrust.

Range
For a jet fighter of the period I think the Meteor did quite well

Pilots
For the purposes of this I think we have to assume that the pilots are well matched.

An aside. Eric Brown the Test Pilot considered the He 162 to be the best jet fighter at the end of the war. It should be noted that he was probably the only pilot with combat experience who had flown all the jets then in existance both, British, German and American.

As ever all comments welcome

I worked for two individuals who operated T-33s, a Meteor NF-11, and a Vampire F-3. These guys would take these things and go ripping across the dessert on many weekends during days when home heating oil was cheap and commonly run in these types of jets registered here in the states before rules changes this. I spoke one of the owners today and he said the T-33 was definitely faster, but the vampire was more maneuverable, however the T-33 could "keep up" if you flew it without the tip tanks. He went on to state that the Meteor excelerated very quickly and was very sturdy in the air. I know we're talking earlier models and single seat versions (P-80 vs T-33) but this might give you an idea how these planes stacked up to each other. These guys are still alive but have given up these aircraft to other owners or museums.
 

Attachments

  • al_s_119.jpg
    al_s_119.jpg
    30.1 KB · Views: 1,324
Glider said:
FJ, Thanks for your comments. Don't yuou just wish you could have toys like this!!

It was great working for these guys when I lived in California, like a kid in a candy store! I go back there at least once a year to work with these guys, they always have some project going where they need my help. For the most part they pay me well, but I'm not into it for the money, I have memories with these guys that will put a wide grin on my face when I'm 10 feet under! :D
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back