Me262 vs. P-80 (2 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

:lol:
Indeed, Flyboy, I would think the same. I had once the opportunity to visit (again and again and...)the restauration of the Horten flying wing gliders in Berlin. These have been handled over from NASM for restauration. Just the same, like a child in a candy shop!
But back to Glider:
I think the Meteor MK III is not a real contender in an dogfight against either, a Me-262 or a P-80. It lacks so much in speed (473 mp/h against 540mph (Me-262) resp. 577 mp/h (P-80)...), acceleration and crit mach. Without proper initiative it would soon go running for it´s life. And the Meteor makes a comparably big target to hit...
The MK IV, however, is more reasonable to do so. With almost twice the power output of either a Me-262 or a P-80 it could accelerate and climb much better. It top speed is great, no doubt. And the combination of a high powerload with a low wingload makes it highly agile for medium speeds, as long as not turned flat. And it still suffers from a low crit Mach with all it´s disadvantages. At the time the MK-IV is probable to arrive on the continent it would face a better generation of Me-262 (discussed above) and probably a numerically larger german jet air fleet.I agree that the He-162 is -with all it´s shortcomings-probably the best single jet dogfighter. Nimble, fast, agile and very tiny, a plane often underrated. The P-80 on the other hand is a great allrounder, I just ask myself how the Vampire would have done. It also is a potent jet fighter.
 
delcyros said:
I just ask myself how the Vampire would have done. It also is a potent jet fighter.

You know some componenets were made out of wood?!? I was really surprised to see that, even in an early jet fighter! :shock:
 
Delcryos, thanks for your comments which I would find it hard to disagree with. I hadn't thought of the Vampire, don't know why, but it had a reputation for being an agile thing and FJ's comments would back that up.
Vampires and Venoms were used across the world in a number of countries for a long time after the war. There must have been something in it.
So what do you think, He162 for Germany, Vampire for the UK and P80 for the USA?
 
8) If we compare single engined fighter (which would have an agility advantage under dogfight circumstances) this would be a comparable jet competition. Both, the Vampire as well as the He-162 have a metal fuselage and wooden wings, especially the wooden wings are often questioned because of concernings about their stiffnes during high subsonic speeds. Well, if you use proper methods and the right glue agent, you will reduce these concernings to a high degree. On the other side the heat factor is counting more and more as you enclose to the speed of sound.
The P-80 is free of these shortcomings, it bears an all metal structure, making the airframe more reliable than either He-162 or Vampire.The Vampire has the advantage of the better accelleration, the He-162 is by far the most maneuverable, the P-80 has the best high altitude performance. Crit Mach goes to the He-162 with it´s sleek wings, it also is the smallest plane, a hard target to hit, but it has a comparably low punch with two Mg151/20, only. As well as the shortest range. The P-80 without wingtip tanks is an excellent plane in many aspects.
However, I would not rate the He-162 A as the best german jet plane, while it was serial equipped with an early ejection seat, fast (905+ Km/h) and nimble it also was a bit shortlegged. The Me-262 is more versatile and by far the best bomber interceptor (making it the more important plane of both) but not a great dogfighter as the He-162 was. Maybe if we add the He-162 C with its swept back wings, but this is (like the Me-262 HG) not a historic development in the timeframe till wars end.
 
I watched a special about Luftwaffe experimental aircraft and one of the problems with the He-162 was the glue that held the wings on. There was footage of the wings popping off because the glues they used were not very good.
 
The special series of pictures (originally from a b/w small-movie) are connected to the fatal accident of the He-162 V-1 on 10th of december 1944. This was the date of the official introduction of the new Heinkel peoples fighter (the official maiden flight was on december the 6th). This accident originated in the wrong glue agent, you mentioned. This was figured out and the problem was solved. It belongs to the V-1, V-2, V-3 and V-4, only (they have been ordered to fly them at speeds of 500 Km/h, only because of this). It is not a general problem to be connected with the He-162. However, its lifetime wasn´t that long, resulting in another accident of a He-162 with a british pilot in post war times. The biggest advantage of the He-162 was the much more reliable powerplant. The BMW-003 E-0, E-1 and E-2 are very reliable and not that sensitive to throttle settings (esspecially compared to the Me-262´s Jumo-004 B)and they have a slightly higher lifetime. This powerplant also weights less than a Jumo and it produces for 30 seconds a higher thrust (920-930 Kp instead of 800 under normal 100% power setting, call it overrew). Unlinke the Me-262, this allows the pilot to maneuvre the plane up to the pilots confidence. I think there are four claims of aerial victories of the He-162 from which one has been confirmed officially by the Luftwaffe:
No.--------date----------area--------pilot------------------eyewitnesses-----
1---------?2./3.45------Lechfeld--Ot Ihlefeldt----------- Fw. Sell
2----------19.4.45------Ngerm----Fw G. Kirchner-------captured british pilot
3a--------26.4.45------Ngerm----Uff Rechenberger----Olt Demuth, Stabint Siegfried
3b--------2.5.45-------Ngerm----Uff Rechenberger----*probably identical with 3a, in my mind the date of this claim is false (e.g. 26.4., since Rechenberger died on that date)
4---------4.5.45--------Ngerm---Lt R. Schmitt----------Htm H. Künncke

Plane types: #1: ? ;#2: P-47; #3a/b: Typhon/Tempest; #4: Typhon/Tempest
No. 2 (Fw. G. Kirchner) was officially (posthumus) confirmed by the Luftwaffe, since the british pilot shot down was captured and interrogated. He stated that a He-162 like plane got him down. Kirchner died while shot down by another P-47 during landing procedure.

While the He-162 is a good dogfighter (if flown by a good pilot, since additional training for this plane is needed, just like the ww1 Sopwith Camel)it still suffered from a fuel gulping engine (compared to the D.H. Ghost or J-33), many of the losses of 1./JG1 can be connected with planes simply running out of fuel.
 
Re the 162 I have an article written by Eric Brown on what it was like to fly the 162.
Harmony of control is described as excellent with the rudder a little light. The aircraft had excellent directional snaking characteristics and it was a good gun platform. Handling at 30,000 ft still displayed very good handling and control. Rate of roll at 400mph was the highest he ever experienced outside hydraulically ailerons and the stick forces were still light. Minimum looping speed was around 350mph and stall characteristics gentle.
Landing was an area where care had to be taken as you couldn't go around again once the engine was set to idle, the landing approach speed was 125mph and touchdown at around 105. The elevator was powerful and it could be used to keep the nose up reducing the landing run to a considerable degree.
Its Achilles heel was the rudder and fin assembly which was weak and if used excessivley would break off. Interestingly he doesn't mention the glue problem in the entire article.
I would suggest that the 2 x 20mm MG151's were as good as the P80's 6 x 0.5. The 151 was as good as the UK 20mm. A little light for taking on a B17 or B24 but nore than enough for a fighter.
Theres a what if for you, The Me262 to go for the bombers escorted by He 162 to take care of the escort. A scary thought as the Germans were very close to such a combination.
 
Although we hear the accolades of the Mosquito, I could tell you maintaining and repairing any wood aircraft could be a nightmare, especially if you have ill trained maintenance personnel. Just to plug a hole in a wood structure could be a real nightmare, heaven forbid you get a round through a spar!

The glue issue was probably fact as this is common on many wood or wood/ composite aircraft.
 
Agreed, the glue issue is a general manufacturing problem. The Ta-154 was faded out because of this. On the other side, the Ho-IX wasn´t. they did not got the fuel resistent glue from Dynamit Nobel (Troisdorf) AG but they got the same (AeDx-310), which also was used for the He-162. Carefule methods are needed to handle that glue properly. In case of the He-162 V-1 they made several mistakes at the Heinkel plant at Rostock-Marienehe:

1) dry areas on the nose spars (not careful enough glued)
2) the wooden nose rips did not had the proper thickness (reduced stiffness)
3) wrong metals used in the airleron-wing connections
These are the reasons for the accident on 10th of december. Had they not found out what´s wrong, the complete project would have been canceled in days.
The wooden structure remained a bit suspect, since the plans for He-162 B and C with swept forward/ resp. -back wings would take dural or steel wings.The claim of the good He-162 weapon platform is a bit suspect to me, since the He-162 A-1 with it´s two 30 mm MK108, because it wasn´t stable enough, was replaced by the He-162 A-2 with it´s two 20 mm MG 151. I disagree that two MG 151/20 are comparable to the 6 0.50 M3 (more probable M2) of the P-80A. They don´t have the volume of fire or the striking velocity. You may argue that a 20 mm HE grenade cause more damage and is more probable to ignite the early US jet fuel than a 0.50 to ignite the german jet fuel. However the two 20 mm of the He-162 A-2 are more reasonable to destroy a fighter than the low velocity 30 mm MK 108.
 
When using glues on aircraft wood structures also consider cleanliness requirements. This could be a major problem in a combat environment. You should have clean surroundings, methods to thoroughly clean the structure to be glued, methods to keep the structure clean during the curing process etc. Metal structures are so much easier to repair and environmental cleanliness is generally not a problem. When completing a sheet metal repair, the only environmental worries to be considered is cleaning the interior of the aircraft structure from metal shavings and any other debris left behind during the repair process.
 
Using wood has both, advantages and disadvanteges over metal surfaces.
One point important for the He-162 is the weight: Using wooden wings will decrease the weight (important if you have such a low thrust powerplant). Another problem is the avaiability of metals. Dural was comparably rare in late war Germany, so they depend on even heavier steel.
The next point is the productivity: Unlike the Me-262 or P-80 the He-162 wasn´t constructed to be used over years. It was designed as a comparably short living plane. Therefore it was important to reduce the construction time of this particular plane (in order to field enourmeous numbers in short time).
For Dural an average german production plant needs 2200 Kw/h energy for working out a single Kg (1000 Kw/h per single lbs), while you need only 2-3 Kw/h per Kg for wooden structures. The time is also staggering: Dural: 5000 hours per ton for working it out on a plane, while wood needs only 200 hours. You also don´t depend on very skilled labours, if using wood instead of Dural.
The costs for this are both, the reduced cleanliness you mentioned and a higher weather dependence factor.
Even for the damage profile a wooden wing is ambivalent: Some damages would be more devasterous on metal wings (HE based grenade hits for example) some would be less (the probability of a low velocity hit to glance off is higher on a metal one).
There have been good reasons to favour the wooden wing in the He-162 at all. Resulting in an uncomparable production program. In only 5 months the plane got from construction board to operational status. Some 114 planes delivered to the Luftwaffe and around 800 airframes produced by wars end. Quantity has it´s own quality.
However, the He-162 (except for its ejection seat) is not as advanced as either, the P-80 or Me-262, but it´s probably the better dogfighter.
 
Weight and producibility are a definite plus in this area considering that you are are building a "throwaway" as mentioned. I could tell you however that repairing wood aircraft structures, if accomplished wrong, is very unforgiving as opposed to an aluminum aircraft. As a maintainer myself, I shy away from working on wood structures for that reason. I have aircraft owners take their aircraft to guys who specialize in wood and fabric. I personnaly like sheet metal. ;)
 
Well I know that this is late in the game here but I just noticed something about this topic. The stats that are being used in the comparison are very unreliable anyhow.

He is using a max speed that was not obtained until 1946. Now I agree that had the war continued then yes the two would have met. But at the time the two aircraft were in the airtother this was not known.

Dont take me wrong though. The P-80 could have proven better than the Me-262 but one also has to take into account why the P-80 did not see combat. And that would be because it was just as unreliable as the 262. She sufferered many crashes due to engine problems and fires. One of the 2 sent to England in 1945 before the war ended crashed because of an engine fire and hence the fleet was grounded.

Secondly since this is sort of a "What if comparison" had the war carried into 1946 surely the P-80 would have fought against the Ta-183 and the P.1101. Both of these aircraft would have out performed turned and flew better than the P-80.
 
A problem why the speed figure wasn´t acieved prior to 1946 lays in the avaiability of the engine: The J-33 radial engine, which was responsible for it´s 577 mp/h speed was first bench tested to 4.000 lbs in early september 1944 ! If you count the additional time to check and produce a number of them, it´s clear that the J-33 simply wasn´t avaiable in numbers. A number of planes, esspecially the XP-80´s have been fitted with J-36, which barely made 2.700 lbs of thrust. Such a powerplant could only secure a speed of around 505-515 mp/h and reducing the thrust to weight ratio to only 0.20 (compared to 0.27-0.28 of the Me-262). But in the end there is no way to deny that the J-33 would have fitted most of the P-80´s in the timeframe, Lunatic wanted, so it´s okey.
 
DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
Dont take me wrong though. The P-80 could have proven better than the Me-262 but one also has to take into account why the P-80 did not see combat. And that would be because it was just as unreliable as the 262. She sufferered many crashes due to engine problems and fires. One of the 2 sent to England in 1945 before the war ended crashed because of an engine fire and hence the fleet was grounded.

While you do have a point there Adler, keep in mind that the same problems that grounded the P-80 fleet (BY AAF direction) would have been noted, investigated and repaired "On the fly" by the Luftwaffe. I think the USAAF was very conservative by 1945 standards in deploying and grounding the P-80 fleet - remember, many western leaders thought that their jet technology was more advanced than Germany's! :rolleyes:
 
You are correct. It is also understandable why the USAAF was conservative. They had to oppurtunity to be so unlike the Luftwaffe which had to push them out as quickly as possible.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back