Me262 vs. P-80

Originally Posted by KraziKanuK

Actually the P-80 and 262 did have a fly off. This was post war out of Wright Field. Al Boyd was the pilot in charge. The results (speed, RoC at different altitudes, turn radius) were so in favour of the 262 that the report was suppressed.

The M3 did not do that well in Korea vs the MiG15.

I'd love to see the report on that "fly off". The P-80 has better thrust to weight ratio, better time to altitude figures, and better speed figures, so how would the 262 come out on top?

Hmmm... the F-86 sported 6 x .50 M3's and scored an 8:1 kill to loss ration vs. the Mig-15 according to Soviet figures, an 11:1 ratio according to USAAF figures. So how did it "not do that well"?

Besides, Jets like the Mig-15 or F-86 are much much tougher to shoot down than prop planes.

=S=

Lunatic

[KraziKanuK]

"8:1 kill to loss ration vs. the Mig-15 according to Soviet figures"

Source required.

The lastest ratio is 2:1. Not that good considering most of the MiG pilots were Chinese and Korean.

Originally Posted by KraziKanuK

"8:1 kill to loss ration vs. the Mig-15 according to Soviet figures"

Source required.

The lastest ratio is 2:1. Not that good considering most of the MiG pilots were Chinese and Korean.

Current figures are 792 Mig-15's killed for 76 Sabres lost, source: http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...craft/f-86.htm .


http://www.aviation-history.com/mikoyan/mig15.html <-- quotes "better than 8:1 in favor of the F-86)

http://www.exn.ca/flight/flightpath/plane.asp?ID=43 <--- quotes 8:1 in favor of F-86

Here's a site that presents the Soviet perspective and claims: http://wind.prohosting.com/flyaces/u...cesinkorea.htm

Notice most of the claimed Soviet kills are not F-86's, and that very often they do not correspond to a UN lost plane.

No matter how you look at it, the F-86 beat the Mig-15 during Korea. Post war testing has shown the Mig-15 was a seriously flawed plane. It could not exceed mach 1 in a dive, it had poor roll control by comparison to the F-86 at all speeds, and was un-rollable at near mach speeds, it had a much inferior gunsight, dive stability was generally poor, the engine tended to flame out under high G loads, and the pilots did not have G-Suits.

It is very hard to get a true perspective on Soviet success, because if a Mig was lost, it was a chineese pilot flying it!

Anyway, the point is that the .50 was sufficient to kill the Mig - though I admit the 20mm was a better choice (as fitted to the late entry F-86H).

=S=

Lunatic

[KraziKanuK]

Since RG like to play 'what ifs', there was plans to fit the 262 with MG151/20s and also MK213C 20mm cannon.

I didn't initiate the "what if" scenario here.

The MK213C was experimental and the bugs had not been worked out by war's end. Work continued but it was not until about the mid-50's that a successful revolver cannon was developed. It was a great idea, but it would have been even futher into the future - by then the F-84 would have been in the war.

The MG151/20 would have improved the ballistics of the 262 only slightly, it was not a gun with particularly good ballistics either, but it would certainly have been better in a jet vs. jet dogfight than the MK108.

=S=

Lunatic

[delcyros]

The weapon layout of the Me-262 was against heavy bombers in general. A few were modified to carry six MK 108 /30mm. Others did carry four and 24 unguided missiles R4M. That high caliber armament is a similarity to the MiG-15. And the MiG did very well against B-29 with it´s armament. The poor ballistics of the MK 108 caused also concerns by OKL regarding it´s ability "vis a vis" in dogfights. They preferred the high velocity MK 103/30mm because of it´s very flat trajectory for late jet fighter projects (like Ho-229). I think this does also undeline the superiority of .50 as mentioned by Lunatic. Blinding the pilot in a Me-262 was also a problem when firing all four MK108/30mm. That is not good while in a hot dogfight with P-80´s... However, if hit by a Me-262, you can say good by.
Has anyone Informations about the "Fly off" between Me-262 and P-80? Is the report still closed for public or hard to get?

Originally Posted by delcyros

The weapon layout of the Me-262 was against heavy bombers in general. A few were modified to carry six MK 108 /30mm. Others did carry four and 24 unguided missiles R4M. That high caliber armament is a similarity to the MiG-15. And the MiG did very well against B-29 with it´s armament. The poor ballistics of the MK 108 caused also concerns by OKL regarding it´s ability "vis a vis" in dogfights. They preferred the high velocity MK 103/30mm because of it´s very flat trajectory for late jet fighter projects (like Ho-229). I think this does also undeline the superiority of .50 as mentioned by Lunatic. Blinding the pilot in a Me-262 was also a problem when firing all four MK108/30mm. That is not good while in a hot dogfight with P-80´s... However, if hit by a Me-262, you can say good by.
Has anyone Informations about the "Fly off" between Me-262 and P-80? Is the report still closed for public or hard to get?

I agree the MK108 was primarily a bomber killing gun. But I think comparing it to the guns of the Mig-15 is inappropriate. The MK108 30mm had a RoF of ~600 rpm and initial velocity of 505 m/s. The N-37 37mm (note: not the NS-37) of the Mig-15 had an RoF of ~450 rpm and an initial velocity 670 m/s, the NS-23 had an RoF of 550 rpm and initial velocity of 670 m/s. Both rounds had significantly better velocity than the MK108, though the RoF was definitely lacking. While it is true the focus of these Soviet weapons was the killing of bombers, they were more suitable for fighter combat than the MK108.

The MK103 was quite a bit heavier than the MK108, necessitating less be carried (2?), and coupled with the low RoF of ~400 rpm, it was not a great choice for fighter combat either. The MK103 was really intended for bomber targets, but expected to be able to score hits from much longer range.

Personally, I think the best German gun for fighter vs. fighter combat in the 262 would have been the MG151 15mm. Its 700 rpm RoF was not too shabby (and this could have been improved had they put more focus on it), its 905 m/s initial velocity is excellent, and its .407 g/sq. mm sectional density and good ballistic shape would have given it excellent energy retention (and thus range).

However, in the end, I think the 6 x M3 BMG was still the superior fighter vs. fighter weapon. The volume of fire difference is just too significant - 120 high velocity rounds per second makes for much easier gunnery than any of the 262 gun options.

I agree the MK108 hit would be devestaing if everything goes right. But, first it has to hit the target. It has to not bounce off. And it has to detonate (remember, approx. 1 in 4 were duds).

I've heard tell of this "Me262 vs. P-80 fly-off", but no one has ever been able to provide any documentation concerning it.

=S=

Lunatic

[delcyros]

Yes, the guns of a MiG were better against jets than the MK 108. The similarity I mentioned belongs to the general weapon layout (against bombers), only.
It´s a shame that we don´t have any documents of that fly-off. The soviets had also a fly off between Me-262 and their own "interpretation" of that plane, the Su-7 Fishbet (same but larger and straight wings). The Me-262 (not suprisingly) was the superior plane. A question regarding the engine: The Jumo 004 A had a total weight of 840 Kg and 830kp static thrust, only (at 9000 rpm). It was fitted in some prototypes (The V2 had no complete swept back wing), only. The Jumo 004 B fitted in all but a very few Me-262 A had a total weight of 740 Kg and a static thrust of 890 kp. The materials used in this engine limited the rpm to 8700 max. So why belongs the higher speed to the Jumo 004 A as you mentioned? (Source: H.J. Nowarra, Die Deutsche Luftrüstung 1933-1945, vol. 4 (Koblenz 1993), page 116f.)

That's a very good question. Something seems wrong to me!

=S=

Lunatic

[KraziKanuK]

Ask Wright-Patterson or Walter Boyne from the NASM for the report.

[delcyros]

As far as I understand, the Jumo 004 A engine was tested on the ground for a max output of up to 1000 Kp. That was a clear overrew (9400 + rpm). The Jumo 004 B could not overrew, rpm was limited to 8700 max. However, it was never intended in an airplane to overrew a jet engine nor was it tested prior to january 22nd. 1945 (in case of a BMW 003 E powerplant with a He-162). The Me-262 V-prototypes with Jumo 004 A engines miss the top speed because they do not have the complete swept back wing. There is no source that any Me-262 with Jumo 004 A was flown with an overrew. it would be very interesting to know what particular plane was flown by top speed mesurements (beside of V-9).

[acesman]

It is an interesting pairing, but the P-80 did not get a chance to participate in much (any?) air-to-air combat in WWII, and in Korea its performance was not good enough, since they were withdrawn from air-to-air combat as soon as possible after encounters with the MiG. Remember, Germany at that point in the war was scrambling for many types of strategic materials that we had readily available, if not in large amounts. And the Me-262 was swept from the skies by propeller aircraft. It was never a fair fight after 1943.

[the lancaster kicks ass]

i wouldn't say the -262 was "swept from the skies"..........

[acesman]

Not to imply that the Me-262 did not hold its own in air combat, but the Luftwaffe after 1943 was so grossly outnumbered that no individual skill, technology or bravery could reverse the outcome. Me-262's were especially targeted on their takeoff or landing, if possible, and the USAAF put a premium on harassing the airfields used for jets.

[evangilder]

They were a premium target because it was the biggest threat.