Me262 vs. P-80

[DaveB.inVa]

Im saying the P-80, it just has more and better dogfighting qualities. Better roll rate, climb, speed, turning radius. More reliable engines with better metalurgy, probably could accelerate a lot better too. The Jumos had to be throttled up fairly slowly or a flameout would occur. Ive never read of this being a problem with the J33!!

Plus 6 .50 Brownings can throw out a lot of lead faster than the MK108's. Sure one 30mm from the MK108 would do a lot of damage, but your less likely to get a hit from one if your rate of fire is lower.

A larger slower firing 30mm is an ok weapon for a bomber thats not doing much maneuvering, but in a quick moving dogfight with a fighter a smaller faster firing .50 is an advantage.

[kiwimac]

OTOH the heinkel He-280 would have been much more manouverable.

Origin: Ernest Heinkel
Type: Single-seat fighter
Engines: two 1,852lb (840kg) thrust Junkers Jumo 004A turbojets
Dimensions: Span 12m; Length 10.20m; Height 3.19m
Weights: Empty 7,386lb (3350kg); loaded 11,465lb (5200kg)
Performance: Maximum speed 508mph (817km/h); Range 382 Miles (615km)

This interesting fighter often goes unnoticed in the annals of flight, eclipsed by its more successful and glamorous brother the Me 262. The He 280 is however, a remarkable aircraft. It was the first jet combat aircraft, the first twin-jet aircraft and the first jet aircraft to go beyond prototype stage.

The He 280 first flew under jet power on April 2, 1941 and eventually eight of these beautiful aircraft were built, but, even after a mock dogfight was arranged between the He 280 and a Fw 190, which the jet won easily, there was little interest in the jet.

If the He 280 had ever reached combat, it was most likely to have been armed with three 20mm MG 151 cannons.

Source: http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/LRG/he280.html

Kiwimac

It's not just the slower RoF of the MK108 that makes it unsuitable for dogfighting, it's also the very low velocity. The MK108 muzzel velocity was only 505 m/s, where then M8 API muzzel velocity was up around 900 m/s and the M23 Incendiary up around 1000 m/s (but it slowed down more quickly than the M8 due to its lower weight of 34.5 grams).

Gunnery estimates are that increasing velocity by 33% will double the chances of scoring hits. Based upon this, it would be reasonable to assume that the .50 BMG firing the M23 would score about 7 times more often for a given shot than the Me262. Factor in the volume of fire of the 262's 4 x Mk108's at 40 rps vs. the P-80 at 80 rps (M2) and you'd expect the P-80 to score at least 14 times before the Me262 scored once, all other factors being equal. With the M3, you'd expect it to score 20 times before the Me262 scored once.

=S=

Lunatic

[GermansRGeniuses]

If you're going to do a what-if, make a probable comparison...


The Me-262 was an interceptor that could double as a fighter...

While I could go on about the possibility of the Go-229, since it actually flew, I won't...


The more suitable match-up would be the He-162, which though unstable, could have proven to be quite a match.

[lesofprimus]

As for the armament, I totally disagree. The 6 x .50's were far superior for dogfighting than the 4 x MK108's. It is unlikely that the Me262 would have been able to hit the P-80 from any range beyond 100 meters (and even that would require an expert marksmen), where the P-80 could have reached out over 400 meters and touched the 262. The MK108 was an anti-bomber weapon, nearly useless in a high speed dogfight.

I totally agree....

Plus 6 .50 Brownings can throw out a lot of lead faster than the MK108's. Sure one 30mm from the MK108 would do a lot of damage, but your less likely to get a hit from one if your rate of fire is lower.

A larger slower firing 30mm is an ok weapon for a bomber thats not doing much maneuvering, but in a quick moving dogfight with a fighter a smaller faster firing .50 is an advantage.

I absolutly, totally agree.....

it would be reasonable to assume that the .50 BMG firing the M23 would score about 7 times more often for a given shot than the Me262. Factor in the volume of fire of the 262's 4 x Mk108's at 40 rps vs. the P-80 at 80 rps (M2) and you'd expect the P-80 to score at least 14 times before the Me262 scored once, all other factors being equal. With the M3, you'd expect it to score 20 times before the Me262 scored once.

Ur not taking into account the accuracy of the certain pilot.. U know as well as I do that some pilots had a much higher accuracy rating than some others....

I have seen, as Im sure u have seen, movie clips of guys placing a 30mm shell right into the sweet spot at 300 meters.....

Those stats u put up are nice for a generic look, but to get into a detailed conversation, those #'s dont help much.... We all know that a .50 cal fired faster and had a higher probability of hitting..... Anything else is pumping sunshine up our asses, cause individual accuracy and combat experience change those #'s dramatically in certain circumstances....

BUT....... Ur point is well-recieved... Ud be better off by far with the .50's over the cannons, in a dogfight...

[Lightning Guy]

I've never been a fan of the WWII 30mm weapons in a dogfight for all of the reasons that have been mentioned.

One thing that worked against the P-80 is the realtively low ammo load. At 1200rpm, 200 rounds of ammo will only last 10secs. That being said, the combat endurance of the P-80 would be relatively low and the pilot would need to be an accurate shooter to get the most out of his ammo.

Originally Posted by lesofprimus

Ur not taking into account the accuracy of the certain pilot.. U know as well as I do that some pilots had a much higher accuracy rating than some others....

I have seen, as Im sure u have seen, movie clips of guys placing a 30mm shell right into the sweet spot at 300 meters.....

Those stats u put up are nice for a generic look, but to get into a detailed conversation, those #'s dont help much.... We all know that a .50 cal fired faster and had a higher probability of hitting..... Anything else is pumping sunshine up our asses, cause individual accuracy and combat experience change those #'s dramatically in certain circumstances....

BUT....... Ur point is well-recieved... Ud be better off by far with the .50's over the cannons, in a dogfight...

Actually, I am taking into consideration pilot skill. To be specific, US fighter gunnery school instructors asserted that increasing the velocity (through its entire path of flight) of a weapon by 25% would increase the number of hits scored by 50%. This was in fact verfied by using different ammo propellant loadings in tests using both instructors and gunnery school graduates (i.e. rookies) making attack passes at towed banner targets (which dodge some by virtue of pull cables from the towing plane). The German's and the British both conducted similar tests and came up with the figure of a 1/3rd increase doubling the number of expected hits. Use either figure you like, the differential is huge when we are talking about one gun firing with more than double the velocity (through the flight of the round) than the other. The whole "skill" of the pilot issue is mute, the analysis says that any given pilot will score thus many more hits given greater weapon velocity. If he's a bad shot, he will do a little better but still be bad relative to other pilots. If he's a good shot, he will score even better.

As far as individual pilots landing a 30mm in the sweet spot from 300 meters... first off can you reference this? A single shot, not after a lot of misses please. Secondly, guncam film of this nature is not really meaningful even if it does exist, as you don't see anything but guncam footage showing successes.

I'll also point out that this all considers the unusual case of "mutually aware" combat. It must be remembered that something around 90% of fighter pilots who survived being shot down reported they never saw the plane that shot them down or never saw it until they'd already taken hits. On the otherhand, by 1945 US fighters had warning radars, and I would assume German planes would have had these too. So the sneak attack so favored by Galland and most other top aces of the earlier years of the war were not so easily accomplished in 1945.

Another factor I left out was the difference in gunsights. The US (and British) fighters had the lead computing gunsights, the German's were working on one but had not accomplished a successful design by the end of the war. Assuming they had not, you can double the difference again, in which case the P-80 would enjoy at least another 2:1 better chance of scoring hits.

After thinking about it I need to revise my statement. The difference in volume of fire accounts for about a doubling of the number of expected hits when the pilot's aim is on target. The rest of the factors tend more to influence weather hits will be scored at all. So revising my analysis, all other things being equal (which they're not because the P-80 is more manuverable and a more stable gun platform) you'd expect the P-80 pilots to score at least twice as many hits when they do score (probably more because of the "fly between the shots" factor), and to score hits between 7-10 times more often than the 262 pilot assuming the 262 has a lead computing sight. If the 262 only has a reflector sight then the P-80 is again around 14-20 times more likely to score hits.

Finally, none of this applies for a point-blank shot. If you can get a shot within 100 feet or so of the target, you are extremely likely to hit it regaurdless of gun type. But, in high speed mutually aware combat, espeically at jet speeds, such shots are extremely rare.

=S=

Lunatic

[DaveB.inVa]

Heres an excellent page for this discussion of firepower. Since the P-80 isnt listed on this page refer to the P-51 as both have 6 .50 caliber Brownings.
Note however that this list only incorporates kenetic energy (1/2mv^2) not whether the rounds are explosive, incendiary etc. The 6 .50s can be seen to almost equal the kenetic energy provided by the 4 30mms in the 262. The 6 .50s spread this level of KE over more rounds though! More rounds flying faster means a greater chance of a hit. This is inherently why the .50 Browning is a better choice for a dogfighting gun than the MK108.

http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaver...n/fgun-fi.html

Here is my gun page... well sorta. It was up for a long time and then I moved and my webspace got cleared out. Somewhere in there I lost the source directory and had to recreate the page to re-post it. I only did this for the tables, so much of the text is missing. I'll have to fix it soon, after I'm done reading "Flying Guns of WWII" I think.

http://members.cox.net/rg_lunatic/gunpage/

Note I've since come up with more info, such as that the Hispano HE/I carried 11.5 grams of chemical payload, and that the muzzel velocity figures for the BMG are at 78 feet and the Hispano are at 90 feet (where Germans are calculated at the actual muzzel). But even so, look at the Estimated Ballistics Data table and consider the range at which the round goes below 1.5 mach and where it goes sub-sonic. These are good indicators of the relative effective range of each gun.

My new page will contain a lot more info.

=S=

Lunatic

[lesofprimus]

All your typing and info and stats are all great, but my grandfather flew in WWII and was a pretty good shot... He knew some guys who couldnt shoot a Betty outta the sky, let alone a Zero.... If one pilot can fire 50 rounds of .50 cal and get 10 hits, and another pilot can blow off 500 rounds of .50 and get 10 hits, i think that difference is HUGE.....

The whole "skill" of the pilot issue is mute.

Thats a load of crap....

As far as individual pilots landing a 30mm in the sweet spot from 300 meters... first off can you reference this? A single shot, not after a lot of misses please.

Reference??? No..... But i do specifically recall seeing a certain video clip where an Fw-190A-8 comes up, u see the bracketing of the smaller MG's, then 3-4 cannon rounds that strike the fuselage, no misses.... The bomber rolls off to the left and starts breaking up....

[GermansRGeniuses]

Originally Posted by Lightning Guy

I've never been a fan of the WWII 30mm weapons in a dogfight for all of the reasons that have been mentioned.

One thing that worked against the P-80 is the realtively low ammo load. At 1200rpm, 200 rounds of ammo will only last 10secs. That being said, the combat endurance of the P-80 would be relatively low and the pilot would need to be an accurate shooter to get the most out of his ammo.

But then again...



Say it gets ten hits on a fighter's wing, those ten hits (ten rounds) will do much more damage than ten round from the Mustang's guns, in the same place, on the same wing, even though they had the same guns...


Why?


Concentration of the six guns is a lot better for stopping power than the spread out layout on the P-51...



That being said, there is a bit of a counterbalance for the low ammo count...

Look, the skill issue is mute because no matter the pilot, he will do better with the higher velocity guns (all other factors being equal). If he's a crappy shot, he's a crappy shot, but he will still do better.

Or are you arguing that Axis pilots were just better shots than allied pilots? If so that is pure crap.

=S=

Lunatic

Originally Posted by Lightning Guy

I've never been a fan of the WWII 30mm weapons in a dogfight for all of the reasons that have been mentioned.

One thing that worked against the P-80 is the realtively low ammo load. At 1200rpm, 200 rounds of ammo will only last 10secs. That being said, the combat endurance of the P-80 would be relatively low and the pilot would need to be an accurate shooter to get the most out of his ammo.

You are right. 200 rpg in the M3 provide a mere ten seconds of fire. On the other hand, 100 rpg in the MK108 provide.... TEN SECONDS OF FIRE! I didn't mention ammo loads because in this respect, the two planes are equal, both have identical fire times (actually the 262 a little less since 2 of its guns only have 8 seconds of fire).

=S=

Lunatic

[GermansRGeniuses]

Originally Posted by RG_Lunatic

Look, the skill issue is mute because no matter the pilot, he will do better with the higher velocity guns (all other factors being equal). If he's a crappy shot, he's a crappy shot, but he will still do better.

Or are you arguing that Axis pilots were just better shots than allied pilots? If so that is pure crap.

=S=

Lunatic

Actually, the thing about the pilots isn't entirely true...


I happen to be quite the pilot in flight sims, but my aim is ATROCIOUS!

Originally Posted by GermansRGeniuses

Actually, the thing about the pilots isn't entirely true...


I happen to be quite the pilot in flight sims, but my aim is ATROCIOUS!

You should come fly with me in FighterAce sometime. There is a free 2 week trial, let me know if you're interested.

In FA we have "padlock view", which basically lockes your eyes onto the target from the cockpit view. In the upper level rooms, cockpit views are the only flyng views you get. It is very interesting to see just how much harder it is to score hits from the cockpit view than from the bogus "front view" most sims provide.

This is one reason why I think the "nose guns are better" argument is bunk for single engin props. In a single engine prop, espeically one with the gun mounted to fire through the spinner, it is impossible to cant the guns upwards very much. In wing gun armed planes, like the P-51, this was easily done. So in a nose gun armed plane, you must pull more effective lead to hit your target, and when you do, espeically when up close, you cannot see the target under the nose (and a good foe knows this and will barrel roll onto your six right at the instant you loose sight of him). With wing guns, you don't have to pull quite so much lead.

=S=

Lunatic