Me262 vs. P-80

delcyros · 04-15-2005, 04:11 PM

Well, it´s not that hard to estimate, my friend

The biggest advantage for the allies beside their huge industrial capabilities would be the advance in centrifugal jet engine design, like the Rolls Royce Nene. Or the Derwent V. With US toolings they could have been produced in high numbers. And they are really great engine for their time. Imagine a P-80 driven by a 5000 lbs Nene powerplant in late 1945!
The german jet engines would surely have improved their axial Jumo and BMW designs to a high degree (Jumo-004 H: 1800 kp, late BMW-003 (P3306): 1700 kp thrust), but it still has not the output of a Nene. Jumo-012 or (more probable BMW-01

develop more thrust, but they are heavier designs, too. (..and in case of Jumo-012 far away from beeing deployed, never left the drawing board)

FLYBOYJ · 05-03-2005, 10:55 PM

Hey, been away from this for awhile, let me see....

Considering that the "1945" ME-262 was basically an interceptor, snaked in the air, and had very unreliable engines, I think I would take the "1945" P-80A any day although admittedly I may be prejudiced considering I've flown a T-33 and just loved it. I think in an outright dogfight the P-80 can easily exploit the 262s weaknesses in maneuverability and actual combat performance. Although there were test conducted in the US that alleged that the 262 was better, I think that was used as a case to continue military turbine engine and aircraft development....

delcyros · 05-06-2005, 06:50 AM

Under normal circumstances I would give any single engined plane a considerable advantage over a twin engined one. However, the things are not that easy here. The US report, which is said to imply that the Me-262 is better cannot be confirmed since it is not accessable. I would rather not argue with anything unaccesabble. The reliability of it´s Jumo-004 B engines is based on the materials (normal TfZh-Blech for heat effective surfaces), from which we know that analyses of some much better alloy was concluded in early 1945 (and introduced into industry at mid april (for -004 B/D at Dessau plant and (probably) also -004 E for later development). The reliabilty factor of the engines of a 1945 Me-262 depends on it´s engines date. I believe that none of these engines made it to an Me-262 airframe (maybe for the czech made S-92, but I don´t know in detail).
The next point goes to the maneoverabilty. This depends on the speed. The higher the speed, the better the Me-262 is (compared to the P-80). At speeds of Mach 0.80 the P-80 start to suffer from buffeting, unlike the Me-262 (which starts at Mach 0.84), which is said by many veterans to have an excellent high speed handling. The critical Mach speed is very important for 1st generation jet fighters, in fact the increasement of the critical speed was a reason to justify a new design (XP-86 (with straight) and XP-86 (with swept back wings)for example). You are right, the Me-262 is an interceptor and probably under comparable (in terms of pilot quality) circumstances less probable to be the winner. A late 1945 Me-262 (with jumo-004 E or/and 30 degrees swept back wings, call it Me-262 D) on the other hand is more reasonable to be the winner in a dogfight situation (better acceleration, high altitude performance, Mach speed and probably a comparable top speed, if not better) against a P-80 A. -just my opinion, impossible to proof.

FLYBOYJ · 05-06-2005, 09:23 AM

Quote:

The next point goes to the maneoverabilty. This depends on the speed. The higher the speed, the better the Me-262 is (compared to the P-80).

Understand that when you go into combat you're not going to be at mach .80 unless you're being chased, and even then you're going to bleed off speed as you start to maneuver. This is where I think the P-80A (1945) will have the advantage over the 262 (1944 1/2 - 45').

During the maneuvering process you are continually changing power settings, internal components are heating up and cooling down at rapid rates. I think this would have played havoc on the early Jumos, being an axial flow engine initially made from poor materials. On the other hand, the early J-33s being a centrifugal flow engine were a lot more reliable and the basic design remained the same throughout its use, further proving the engine's robustness.

delcyros · 05-07-2005, 03:52 AM

The higher Mach speed is a general advantage, allowing the pilot to choose wether he wants to disengage or not on his own initiative. Excellent trained pilots would keep this in mind, the Me-262 can maneuver at speeds, at which the P-80 cannot (resp. have poor performance). As well as for the energy keeping. Unlike the P-80, the Me-262 doesnt loose much energy while turning. This would work positively at the pilots energy management. These are two of the rar advantages the Me-262 has over the P-80. Changing the power settings for the Jumo´s isn´t a problem as long as you do it smoothly. Under rapid change of power setting conditions the Jumo´s are prone to flame out, as for extreme slipping. Restarting the powerplants is possible but it wouldn´t be good news while in a hot dogfight, agreed.

I do not question that the P-80´s centrifugal powerplant is better than the Jumo´s axial for the Me-262. But I still believe that the axial design is the only reasonable for the Me-262 airframe. Centrifugal jet engines have a huge size in diameter, this would generate very large engine nacelles and further increasing the weight and drag (and reducing the crit mach) on this airframe.I do also believe that some of the Jumo´s shortcomings would have been solved with proper heat resistant alloys for later Me-262. The Jumo-004 E went in serial production in russia as the RD-10F, also.
However, it is hard to ignore the advantages (speed, agility, air brake, weapon systems) of the P-80 over the Me-262, if you factor them properly you will find a lot of reasons why a P-80A could outmatch a Me-262.

FLYBOYJ · 05-07-2005, 08:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by delcyros

However, it is hard to ignore the advantages (speed, agility, air brake, weapon systems) of the P-80 over the Me-262, if you factor them properly you will find a lot of reasons why a P-80A could outmatch a Me-262.

Agreed!

Keep in mind that when initially engaging, yes you want to go in with speed, but not to the point where the aircraft is already bufferting.

Glider · 05-07-2005, 12:15 PM

The debate between the P80 and the Me262 is an interesting one, but can I ask for peoples opinion of the Meteor III as a comparison to the 262 or the Mk 4 against the P80.
I say this as they seem to be the best comparison timescale wise.

To start off with,
Weapons
I believe that the 20m Mk V is better than either the 0.5 in the P80 or the 30mm in the 262. Its rate of fire was 12.5 rds per second compared with 13 rds per second of the 0.5. in other words no difference at all. MV was 830 m/s compared with 890 which is a little less but not a disaster. The weight of the shell is 130 grammes compared with 43 in the 0.5 which would help with the slightly lower MV and improve the trajectory. The weight of fire is probably 4 to 1 in favour of the 20mm. When you add the difference in explosive content in each shell and its case closed.

Agility
Mk 3 would be a decent match for the 262 but roll could be difficult as the controls were made heavy to reduce the chances of stressing the aircraft.
Mk 4 sorted these problems out and had a noticable increase in its power but would almost certainly lose out to the P80 in the agility stakes but would probably do well in the vertical axix due to its additional power. In Korea the Meteor was outclassed by the F86 and Mig 15 as a fighter but found its mark in GA due to the additional thrust.

Range
For a jet fighter of the period I think the Meteor did quite well

Pilots
For the purposes of this I think we have to assume that the pilots are well matched.

An aside. Eric Brown the Test Pilot considered the He 162 to be the best jet fighter at the end of the war. It should be noted that he was probably the only pilot with combat experience who had flown all the jets then in existance both, British, German and American.

As ever all comments welcome

FLYBOYJ · 05-07-2005, 12:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Glider

The debate between the P80 and the Me262 is an interesting one, but can I ask for peoples opinion of the Meteor III as a comparison to the 262 or the Mk 4 against the P80.
I say this as they seem to be the best comparison timescale wise.

To start off with,
Weapons
I believe that the 20m Mk V is better than either the 0.5 in the P80 or the 30mm in the 262. Its rate of fire was 12.5 rds per second compared with 13 rds per second of the 0.5. in other words no difference at all. MV was 830 m/s compared with 890 which is a little less but not a disaster. The weight of the shell is 130 grammes compared with 43 in the 0.5 which would help with the slightly lower MV and improve the trajectory. The weight of fire is probably 4 to 1 in favour of the 20mm. When you add the difference in explosive content in each shell and its case closed.

Agility
Mk 3 would be a decent match for the 262 but roll could be difficult as the controls were made heavy to reduce the chances of stressing the aircraft.
Mk 4 sorted these problems out and had a noticable increase in its power but would almost certainly lose out to the P80 in the agility stakes but would probably do well in the vertical axix due to its additional power. In Korea the Meteor was outclassed by the F86 and Mig 15 as a fighter but found its mark in GA due to the additional thrust.

Range
For a jet fighter of the period I think the Meteor did quite well

Pilots
For the purposes of this I think we have to assume that the pilots are well matched.

An aside. Eric Brown the Test Pilot considered the He 162 to be the best jet fighter at the end of the war. It should be noted that he was probably the only pilot with combat experience who had flown all the jets then in existance both, British, German and American.

As ever all comments welcome

I worked for two individuals who operated T-33s, a Meteor NF-11, and a Vampire F-3. These guys would take these things and go ripping across the dessert on many weekends during days when home heating oil was cheap and commonly run in these types of jets registered here in the states before rules changes this. I spoke one of the owners today and he said the T-33 was definitely faster, but the vampire was more maneuverable, however the T-33 could "keep up" if you flew it without the tip tanks. He went on to state that the Meteor excelerated very quickly and was very sturdy in the air. I know we're talking earlier models and single seat versions (P-80 vs T-33) but this might give you an idea how these planes stacked up to each other. These guys are still alive but have given up these aircraft to other owners or museums.

Glider · 05-07-2005, 04:51 PM

FJ, Thanks for your comments. Don't yuou just wish you could have toys like this!!

FLYBOYJ · 05-07-2005, 11:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Glider

FJ, Thanks for your comments. Don't yuou just wish you could have toys like this!!

It was great working for these guys when I lived in California, like a kid in a candy store! I go back there at least once a year to work with these guys, they always have some project going where they need my help. For the most part they pay me well, but I'm not into it for the money, I have memories with these guys that will put a wide grin on my face when I'm 10 feet under!

Nonskimmer · 05-07-2005, 11:41 PM

Good info there, FJ.

FLYBOYJ · 05-07-2005, 11:45 PM

Thanks!

delcyros · 05-08-2005, 01:40 PM

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.

FLYBOYJ · 05-08-2005, 03:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by delcyros

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!

Glider · 05-08-2005, 05:13 PM

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?