Me262 vs. P-80

FLYBOYJ · 11-08-2005, 01:56 PM

Early "Iron Ball" paint was applied to corning towers and snorkles of US submarines...

evangilder · 11-08-2005, 02:06 PM

I have seen no evidence of radar absorbing paint in German aircraft in WWII. Material, yes, paint, no. That was my point. I do know the difference. Joe has already addressed your comment on swept wing designs. I suppose next you are going to tell me that the Germans invented the jet engine?

DerAdlerIstGelandet · 11-08-2005, 02:13 PM

They were not the first but they were developing at the same time as the Brits.

Even I have not either.

delcyros · 11-08-2005, 03:09 PM

May I add some things?

The max speed of the Me-262 a1 at sea level wasn´t 540 mp/h. Why could it be as fast at sea level as it would be in most optimal altitude? Equipped with Jumo-004 B3 or B-4 it could reach around 504 mp/h at sea level at best. A good number wasn´t even capable of 500 mp/h because they have been fitted with -004 B1 or -004 B2 powerplants.
The fastest produced subtype of the Me-262 was either the rocket assisted Me-262 C3 or the Me-262 HG-II. There are no certain datas avaiable (the HG-II with 30 degrees sweep back was damaged during taxiing badly and never took off), but most scholars estimate a top speed (powerplant Jumo-004D4) of something between 575 and 590 mp/h. The HG-I (V-9 prototype) delivered a speed of over 895 Km/h.
The stealthy abilities of the Ho-229 are possible but unproven. I read an article by it´s designer, Reimar Horten, who wrote in the mid fifties that it was indeed intended to be stealthy, esspeccially for the nightfighter duties. But it should be noted that no wartime evidence supports this claim, it´s post war.
Turingia wasn´t occupied mainly because of the Horten plane.
If you may take a single action than maybe the accumulation of german nuclear material in central Turingia, but even this is very doubtful.
Why has the Me-163 no sweep back? It indeed has.
Why should the He-162 have a sweep back wing? It indeed hasn´t (it was planned, yes, but not executed).
Thanks for your patience.

FLYBOYJ · 11-08-2005, 03:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by balburdio

Yeap, and you expect those guys to be telling the truth, right!!
Sure!! American did made one great development in aerospace science back then: spin doctoring!

Yea and I hate to say it, WHO WON THE WAR!

And I have no reason to disbelieve them - Kelly Johnson (designer of the P-38, P-80, F-104, U-2, and SR-71 and Robin Olds (11 kill ace of WW2 and a 4 kill ace of Viet Nam, retired Brigadiar General), yea right, they have real motive to lie.

book1182 · 11-08-2005, 08:46 PM

I have to agree with most people I think and go with the P-80. It had the benefit of coming later than the Me-262. I think if the Me-262 could have been developed more it might have been a closer fight. The Me-262 you have to remember was thrown into combat as a last attempt to stop the allies in world war 2. While the P-80 got to sit it out because the piston engine airplanes were winning for the allies. I would say the if the Me-262 would have had time it would have been just a good as the P-80.

syscom3 · 11-08-2005, 09:08 PM

The biggest prob;em with the -262 was its engines were crap. Whether by design or lack of alloys, it doesnt matter.

The Germans had to get their jets in the air ASAP. The allies had the luxury of time to work out the bugs.

Note - once the allies were in Normandy in strength, the defeat of the nazi's was assured. The bombers made things easier, but in the end, the only thing that would have changed was the casualties on the allied side, and whether the Soviets would gotten into Germany sooner.

DerAdlerIstGelandet · 11-09-2005, 03:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by book1182

I have to agree with most people I think and go with the P-80. It had the benefit of coming later than the Me-262. I think if the Me-262 could have been developed more it might have been a closer fight. The Me-262 you have to remember was thrown into combat as a last attempt to stop the allies in world war 2. While the P-80 got to sit it out because the piston engine airplanes were winning for the allies. I would say the if the Me-262 would have had time it would have been just a good as the P-80.

If the 262 had had better engines the P-80 would have had no chance. Besides by that point if the P-80 had seen combat that would have meant the war was dragging on and the Ta-183 and the Me P.1011 would have been in service and the P-80 would have been all but outclassed.

Parmigiano · 11-09-2005, 04:02 AM

.. just some points about German tech achievements...

- Germans were maybe not the first in patenting a jet (I believe F. Whittle did it before Von Ohain) but were the first to actually fly a jet powered experimental plane (He 17

, a fighter jet prototype (He 280) and at least two serviceable jet planes (Me 262 and Arado 234).

- German Jet engine design was the 'right' one (axial flow), British design was a dead end (centrifugal flow). History has proved that.

- Ejection seat was standard on Heinkel 219 night fighter and on Arado 234 Blitz (jet reconnaissance bomber), way before any other nation

- swept wing theory was presented in a meeting in Rome around 1935 by a German guy (don't remember details but I can document it once I get home). Research on swept wing planes was way ahead in Gemany by 1945, production designs were ready to go in production. No other nations was even close to that.

- Also the famous 'area rule' for supersonic flight was an outcome of Dornier (or Heinkel? not sure, i am going by memory)

There is little to argue about the fact that German aeronautical research and technology in 44-45 was far advanced than any other nation.

Luckily they did not had the chance to translate all this in industrial output.

plan_D · 11-09-2005, 05:04 AM

The centrifugal jet engine is still used on helicopters ...so it's not the 'wrong' one. And the British were also developing axial flow engines during World War II. Britain also produced the most powerful jet engine of the war, the Rolls Royce Nene - for the times, the British were ahead of the Germans in jet engine technology. Germany was living in fantasy land with it's paper statistics and pipe dream engines ...

And the X-4 was designed to be fired from single seat aircraft, it was tested on the Fw-190. That means the pilot had to control the missile while keeping his plane straight, level and slow ...prime pickings for any fighter escort. And the U.S escort would react in the blink of an eye ...the interceptors wouldn't want to stay in any one place long but the X-4 would make them have to.

evangilder · 11-09-2005, 06:30 AM

I would call the jet engine invention a dual person invention. While Frank Whittle got the patent, the first engine was built by von Ohain and he was also the first to have one fly. The Heinkel S-1 was first run at the end of February, 1937. Whittle's engine, the W-1 was first run in April of 1937. Very close in time for those 2. The big difference was the time to actually fly one.

The He-178 first flew on August 27, 1939, almost 2 years before the Gloster E28/39, which first flew on May 15, 1941. It would be more than a year after the Gloster first flew that the US would fly it's first jet, the Bell XP-59 Aircomet on October 2, 1942.

So the British engineer got the patent, but the German engineer had a faster "time to market" to put it in business terms.

FLYBOYJ · 11-09-2005, 06:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Parmigiano

.. just some points about German tech achievements...

- Germans were maybe not the first in patenting a jet (I believe F. Whittle did it before Von Ohain) but were the first to actually fly a jet powered experimental plane (He 17

, a fighter jet prototype (He 280) and at least two serviceable jet planes (Me 262 and Arado 234).

- German Jet engine design was the 'right' one (axial flow), British design was a dead end (centrifugal flow). History has proved that.

- Ejection seat was standard on Heinkel 219 night fighter and on Arado 234 Blitz (jet reconnaissance bomber), way before any other nation

- swept wing theory was presented in a meeting in Rome around 1935 by a German guy (don't remember details but I can document it once I get home). Research on swept wing planes was way ahead in Gemany by 1945, production designs were ready to go in production. No other nations was even close to that.

- Also the famous 'area rule' for supersonic flight was an outcome of Dornier (or Heinkel? not sure, i am going by memory)

There is little to argue about the fact that German aeronautical research and technology in 44-45 was far advanced than any other nation.

Luckily they did not had the chance to translate all this in industrial output.

There is no denying German technical achievement, they had the lead, however as stated in many posts before the allies had the "producibility" factor that overwhelmed Germany with numbers.

Centrifugal Flow engines turned out to be more suited for helicopters although you cannot argue the use of a Centrifugal Flow engine on the Mig-15.....

plan_D · 11-09-2005, 06:53 AM

I have to admit I used to be one of those, Germany had everything kind of person. But as time wears on I've learnt the Germans weren't that drastically advanced except in rocket technology.

In aerodynamic design the German scientists had the lead with innovations such as the swept wing but there were minor advancements in the Allied field that kept them on par, if not better for the times. The G-suit, the Germans did not have. The computing sight, the Germans did not have. While the Germans have the obvious achievements that can be seen on an aircraft, the Allies weren't left behind because their advance was small but significant - and they didn't have to use much more resources because these advancements made a tried and tested machine that much better. No design time, no extra cost.

Parmigiano · 11-09-2005, 08:43 AM

PD,
about jet engines, I disagree a bit: we're talking about high performance planes, and axial jet is the design that delivers more power.
Centrifugal jets were like rotary engines in 1914 : on par with other technology in a short timeframe but with no development potential.

All the first UK and US jets used centrifugal powerplants, actually all of UK design. But as soon as they could develop something from the captured know how they promptly switched to axial flow designs.

The Nene first ran on Oct 27, 1944 (RR document), over two years after the Jumo004 (first flight in March 1942 on a Me 110 testbed), was a good design and was used for sure on Meteor, F80 and many others including the famous Mig15 affair.
But the units available in wartime were far from the thrust and reliability of the fully developed versions, and in those fast development times you cannot compare engines designed in a two year gap.
EDIT : actually I've found in this site http://www.memagazine.org/backissues...anz/franz.html
that the first run of Jumo 004 was in march 1940, so there are 4 1/2 years between the 004 and the Nene

I know a single Meteor was tested with an UK built axial jet (don't remember the name) but was a failure.

About the industrialization power and general technology we are in full agreement, there is no doubt that US (and even USSR...) had more power than Germany (UK being roughly on par), and about other branch of technology there is no doubt that UK, US and Ussr were on par or ahead of Germany, specially in electronics ( ... i still love of an absolute love the QUAD ESL and tube amplifiers that Peter Walker designed when after the war he stop to play with radars and started to design audio gear)

FLYBOYJ · 11-09-2005, 08:46 AM

Good point's there D - the technology lead wasn't enough to change the face of the war, although you had the leadership issue as well. There were many things on the allied drawing boards, while not that refined, would of kept pace with the German advancements.

It's also hard to do R&D work when major portions of your country is being bombed....