Me262 vs. P-80

Originally Posted by delcyros

25mm would be interesting. But are you sure with a ~40 g/round? Even the MG 151/15 had 72g/round (MG 151/20 ~112 g/round). The blast effects of a 40 g mine round would be minimal. 25 mm and usual cartridge length implies between 150 and 200 g/round or aren´t they?
In this way, the development of MG 213 B/20 mm could provide the best weaponry for the plane (and for all purposes). But it wasn´t avaiable in the timeframe of early-late 1945 in numbers. Even with them, the blinding of nose mounted guns (in the Me-262 way) would still make prolonged aiming difficult. However, the nose design looks really good

I meant 40 grams of HE, not 40 grams projectile weight. I'd expect the projectile to be in the 160-180 gram range.

[delcyros]

HE makes more sense, yes.
Steel is not that a bad metal for durable purposes (look at the MiG-15). The main problem was -of course- the reliability of the jet engine. Otherwise the Me-262 was quite easy to operate. The numbers deployed works in general favour for the Me-262 up to late 1945. The experience of jet tactics, which have been developed in 1945 would make the first encounters jet vs. jet probably a bad surprise for the P-80 pilots. But as I told above, surely more and more jet vs. jet combats would result in US victories. In general a single engined jet has an advantage over a twin engined, esspecially if they field the same rate of thrust. Later jet engines, like Jumo-004 D (940 kp thrust, serial production in march 1945) or Jumo-004 E (1000 kp thrust, ability to field afterburner (1200 kp thrust with ab)- tested in february 45, runs 50 and 100 hours several times under laboratory conditions, serial production aprroved in late april 1945)and more swept back wings (35 degrees like HG-II) could improve the performance of this jet greatly in comparison to P-80 or P-84. But it remains a first class bomber interceptor and not a dogfighter...

[FLYBOYJ]

Yep - Like the Mig-15. Although maneuverable, it was designed to bring down bombers!

I think the jet-to-jet tactics would not have made a big impact. Its a little different when you're trying to shoot down a 250 mph bomber with a 500 mph jet than going head to head with another 500 mph jet, in fact it's actually easier. When shooting at a bomber, you're firing on the horizontal plane, lots of math and calculations. During the basic fighter to fighter encounter, energy management and using that energy management to exploit your adversaries is key, getting as close as possible and then basing away! In Korea, when in a twisting and turning dogfight Mig/ Saber speeds were not much faster than dogfights in WWII. In fact, these jets accelerated a lot slower than WWII fighters in certain situations.

Originally Posted by delcyros

HE makes more sense, yes.
Steel is not that a bad metal for durable purposes (look at the MiG-15). The main problem was -of course- the reliability of the jet engine. Otherwise the Me-262 was quite easy to operate. The numbers deployed works in general favour for the Me-262 up to late 1945. The experience of jet tactics, which have been developed in 1945 would make the first encounters jet vs. jet probably a bad surprise for the P-80 pilots. But as I told above, surely more and more jet vs. jet combats would result in US victories. In general a single engined jet has an advantage over a twin engined, esspecially if they field the same rate of thrust. Later jet engines, like Jumo-004 D (940 kp thrust, serial production in march 1945) or Jumo-004 E (1000 kp thrust, ability to field afterburner (1200 kp thrust with ab)- tested in february 45, runs 50 and 100 hours several times under laboratory conditions, serial production aprroved in late april 1945)and more swept back wings (35 degrees like HG-II) could improve the performance of this jet greatly in comparison to P-80 or P-84. But it remains a first class bomber interceptor and not a dogfighter...

Jet engine tests in the lab were nortoriously non-reflective of production engines. Those engines are built by hand by the most experianced engineers and craftsmen, with increadible attention to every detail. Also, stresses on the Bench do not reflect real life. Look at the R2800, three of them on the bench ran for 11 strait days at about 3500 HP power output without a single part failing - but that is hardly reflective of what real-world experiance would be if trying to sustain such power output.

=S=

Lunatic

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by RG_Lunatic

Jet engine tests in the lab were nortoriously non-reflective of production engines. Those engines are built by hand by the most experianced engineers and craftsmen, with increadible attention to every detail. Also, stresses on the Bench do not reflect real life. Look at the R2800, three of them on the bench ran for 11 strait days at about 3500 HP power output without a single part failing - but that is hardly reflective of what real-world experiance would be if trying to sustain such power output.

=S=

Lunatic

Very True - in later years there has been lawsuits between engine and airframe manufacturers over test cell data and what was actually achieved when the engine was mounted on the airframe

One big killer of turbine engines is Foreign Object Damage (FOD) ingested into the engine. Compressor and turbine erosion because of dirt kills any engine and I could of only imagined what it did to a Jumo made out of very poor quality steels. If you go to any airbase, maintenance personnel perform continual FOD walk-downs picking up the smallest pebble from the tarmac. I don't think Luftwaffe personnel were thinking about this in the spring of 1945

[delcyros]

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).

[FLYBOYJ]

Well we'll agree to disagree 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

[FLYBOYJ]

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.

[delcyros]

(to P-80 performanceThat´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...

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by delcyros

(to P-80 performanceThat´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. 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.

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? 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

[delcyros]

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.

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by delcyros

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!

[delcyros]

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).

[FLYBOYJ]

HMMM - I don't know, RG, help me out while I give this one some thought