Me 262 Mythology
Scott M. Kozel
one of the most enduring myths in airpower history. Hitler’s oft-
quoted order forbidding the employment of this aircraft as a fighter
dates from May 1944, by which time no Me 262s were in service. Because
design and technical faults still plagued the aircraft, its employment
in any role would have to await their resolution—as would the training
of a sufficient number of pilots, many of whom found it difficult to
master the temperamental interceptor. It is unlikely that the jet
could have appeared in combat much earlier than it did, even without
Hitler’s interference. The 262, although a deadly aircraft in the
hands of the right pilot, remained essentially a prototype pressed
into combat service. Throughout its short service life, the aircraft
suffered from an abnormally high accident rate and scored only a
minuscule number of combat victories.
webpa
Nevertheless: It was the first and it was very nearly game-changing.
That is worth something.
Scott M. Kozel
Neither in practice nor potentially, was it "very nearly game-
changing".
vaughn
"Scott M. Kozel" <koz...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:15e3e33c-a76d-446e...@h20g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
webpa <we...@aol.com> wrote:
>Neither in practice nor potentially, was it "very nearly game-
>changing".
You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but in this case I disagree.
Simply put, the Me 262 made every other fighter plane in the world obsolete
within a very short period of time, and put the future of every other
warplane into question. Yes, all that would have eventually happened
anyhow, but the Me 262 accelerated the process by a factor of (probably)
years. If that isn't "game changing", then we need to discuss definitions.
Vaughn
Dan
there was no real effect on the war. In terms of fighter development it
was a "game changer" primarily as a proof of concept.
Gan, U.S. Air Force, retired
Rob Arndt
>
> - Show quoted text -
Oh boy, here comes the shit again.
Almost every definative resource on the Me-262 makes it clear that it
was the most advanced a/c by the end of WW2 and that it could not win
the air war regardless due to Allied NUMERICAL SUPERIORITY. You can
try to play the engines game, or the Hitler order for bomber (which
was disobeyed), or Hitler delaying advanced secret weapons, or
developing new tactics, or lack of fuel, or whatever... but the plane
started as Me P.1065 in 1938, BEFORE WW2 and the historic He-178
flight in August 1939. The engines were not ready for early use in the
war, true, but Messerschmitt had the airframes produced awaiting them
and when they did become available the Germans did the very best under
the worst conditions possible, especially round-the-clock bombing and
lack of strategic metals.
You cannot call the a/c a prototype as 1,433 of them were produced in
various models for various roles: fighter, fighter-bomber, bomber,
recon, bomber destroyer, night fighter, and interceptor. There were
plenty of A and B models, a few Cs, and the sub-variants. The problem
was that only 200 max ever made it into combat and the new jet had
bugs to work out as well as the usual training accidents. However,
that did not prevent the 262 from shooting down and strafing anywhere
from 509-785 a/c depending on the source.
The a/c could have been cancelled many times from 1938-45 but several
key people kept it alive and it had the power to break through the
escorts and down the bombers. It clearly was a potent threat against
the USAAF and RAF and so they adopted the practice of pouncing on the
jets on T/O and landing, strafing every single one on the ground, and
destroying the rail yards that affected transport of the 262. Why do
you think so much less than hundreds of them were available in 1945?
The rail losses were about 50% of production= 700+ lost to bombing.
The Allies had to scavenge them where they found them in forests,
bunkers, the remaining hangars, anywhere they were dispersed of those
that remained, or in units that surrendered.
But still the 262 brought the jet into modern combat and with it the
R4M rockets which were to be replaced by the Mauser MK-213 revolver
cannon and X-4 AAMs within months of Germany's surrender. Same for
more powerful Jumos and the He S 011. The 262 gave the victorious
Allies the swept wing, axial-flow turbojets, the new revolver cannons,
and AAM technology.
In huge numbers equal to the Allies the 262 could have changed the air
war, most definately. They would have been joined by the He-162, Fw Ta
183, Me P.1101 and Go-229 as well. You can call the He-162, Germany's
second jet fighter, an experiment due to mere weeks of fighting and
2-4 kills to show for it... but not the combat-proven Me-262. Think
JV-44 and try to assert that it could not be a "game changer".
Even after WW2, the Me-262 proved superior to the P-80 in a one-vs-one
test and poor old Hap Arnold had to use his influence to keep the
plane out of the public air races against the P-80 when Hughes wanted
to race his.
No matter what you say, the 262 was beaten by numbers, the avg combat
of no more than 37 (55-60 max) Me-262s at any given time vs 1000+
bombers plus 500+ escorts!!! That they scored as high as they did is a
testament to the brave LW fighter pilots that showed the full
potential of the 262. Just a hand-full of Me-262 aces shot down 77
Allied a/c by themselves!
So save the unfounded Me-262 "mythology" bullshit for some
unintelligent flag-waving vet. But wait, why is it that most of those
bomber and fighter vets that actually had combat with the 262 rate it
so highly as well as the Allied Intel teams and those at Wright
Field??? Answer that, fool.
Now go troll somewhere else or at least read a good ref on the history
of the Me-262. You'll find these key words in almost all of them:
ALLIED NUMERICAL SUPERIORITY ultimately was the cause of the Me-262's
loss of advantage as a jet fighter- not the engine history, nor
Hitler's meddling, nor even the small numbers available for combat.
Rob
LIBERATOR
Yeah but I saw a report from Allied bombers commenting on how over 20
B-17s were shot down in one encounter of these ME262s, and one pilot
stated "If they wanted you they had you there was nothing you could do
against them" and they did mention the only time to get a ME262 was on
takeoff or landing.
And I can't find this writeup anywhere.
LIBERATOR
From the released reports, there are reports that have not been
released where encounters and exchanges occured and the ME262
dominated.
LIBERATOR
Robbie !! Robbie !! Robbie !!
Scott M. Kozel
>
> You cannot call the a/c a prototype as 1,433 of them were produced in
> various models for various roles: fighter, fighter-bomber, bomber,
> recon, bomber destroyer, night fighter, and interceptor. There were
> plenty of A and B models, a few Cs, and the sub-variants. The problem
> was that only 200 max ever made it into combat and the new jet had
> bugs to work out as well as the usual training accidents.
Given that a common fighter model had tens of thousands produced
during the war, yes, "only 200 max ever made it into combat" would
definitely put it in the "prototype" category.
Evan Brennan
> In huge numbers equal to the Allies the 262 could have changed
> the air war, most definately ... the Germans did the very best under the
> worst conditions possible
Did they?
The number of Me 262 losses exceeded the number of verified shootdowns
by them, even though the jet pilots had a target-rich environment of
very slow flying bombers. No other fighter pilots in history had such
a luxury.
This alone should be a blow to your German pride, but you keep coming
back for more.
> Almost every definative resource on the Me-262 makes it clear that it
> was the most advanced a/c by the end of WW2 and that it could not win
> the air war regardless due to Allied NUMERICAL SUPERIORITY.
If Hermann Goering and Albert Speer were alive, they would say you are
still making excuses for serious technical faults. Shortage of
building materials was not the only reason for crashes and chronic
engine problems.
Sheer numbers of jets could save the Nazis, you say? Quality over
quantity might have served them better. The Germans had more to learn
from Soviet engineers who were not burdened with Germany's cultural
obsession with technical complexity. The best-selling Russian jet
fighters of the postwar years were beautiful in their simplicity and
much more reliable than Me 262s.
> The 262 gave the victorious Allies the swept wing
That is not correct. An Irishman named John William Dunne gave us the
swept wing long before. Messerschmitt copied the idea, but they could
not contend with stability problems solved by NAA with the F-86
Sabre.
> the USAAF and RAF and so they adopted the practice of pouncing on the
> jets on T/O and landing
Fighter pilots pounced on any type of plane. By then there were fewer
Germans flying due to lack of fuel, so where else could the Allies
find them but airports.
> Think JV-44 and try to assert that it could not be a "game changer".
Wilbur and Orville were bigger players in the game-changing business
than JV44 or their suppliers.
> Even after WW2, the Me-262 proved superior to the P-80 in a one-vs-one
> test and poor old Hap Arnold had to use his influence to keep the
> plane out of the public air races against the P-80 when Hughes wanted
> to race his.
Hughes was unable to buy a prototype F-86A.
Eunometic
> The idea of the Me 262 as the potentially decisive wonder weapon is
> one of the most enduring myths in airpower history. Hitler’s oft-
> quoted order forbidding the employment of this aircraft as a fighter
> dates from May 1944, by which time no Me 262s were in service. Because
> design and technical faults still plagued the aircraft,
1 There were no significant design or technical faults with the
airframe: unless you count nose wheel collapses which can be traced to
a steel quality problems.
2 Certainly it is a myth that Adolf Hitlers demands that the A/C be
developed exclusively as a fighter bomber significantly delayed the
aircraft. In some circumstances this would have delayed the aircraft
however the engines were they real source of the delay so there was
time for airframe work required to adapt it to carry bombs. Hitlers
decision was very correct: the aircraft was supposed to be able to
help destroy the expected allied invasion fleet.
Technically the problem of aiming the bomb accuratly while stopping
the bomb from 'slipstreaming' required the TSA 2D toss bombing sight
3 There was a period, I think 1940 when the program was on a shoe
string budget as part of a general order to stop any weapons that
couldn;t be deployed within 6 months that may have been disruptive.
> its employment
> in any role would have to await their resolution—as would the training
> of a sufficient number of pilots, many of whom found it difficult to
> master the temperamental interceptor.
4 The aircraft, in terms of airframe, had good handling and wasn't
temperamental. Single engine flight was good so long as you stayed
above a certain minimum speed (200 knots I think but might be
higher). I assume a single engine approach would require a line up
followed by a final low power glide with the engine idling.
> It is unlikely that the jet
> could have appeared in combat much earlier than it did, even without
> Hitler’s interference. The 262, although a deadly aircraft in the
> hands of the right pilot, remained essentially a prototype pressed
> into combat service.
I think the airframe was fine, immature engines were the problem and
that problem can be traced to shortages of nickel and chromium.
An alloy like Tinadur was 30% Nickel, 12% Chromium and 6% Titanium
with balance Iron. It's nickel content was later reduced and finally
it was replaced by another Krupp alloy which replaced the nickel with
manganese. In the meantime allied engines could use nimonic which was
80% nickel and 20% chromium. Such levels of alloy were inconceivable
to the Germans who worked to reduce the amount rather than just
focusing on performance.
The one conceptual flaw that could be attributed to the Me 262 was the
lack of speed brakes to slow the aircraft down in order to take aim
nevertheless the tactical solution worked fine: a high speed tail
approach from below followed by a pull-up to wash of speed and line up
the target. Developments in fire control, sighting (EZ42 and EZ45
lead computing gyro sight later to be linked to radar ranging and
weapons such as the R4M folding fin rocket and E 100BS missile were in
any case about the make the idea of slowing down to fire a weapon not
only unnecessary but insane as it seems.
> Throughout its short service life, the aircraft
> suffered from an abnormally high accident rate and scored only a
> minuscule number of combat victories.
By miniscule you mean between 500-700 aircraft in a few months.
That is 30-40 squadrons of B17/B24 with 5000-7000 aircrew though a
significant number of P-51s fell to the Me 262. The Me 262 could not
turn inside a P-51 but it could turn at a faster rate, running around
the outside of the P-51. Even counting 25% over claims, which I doubt
in this case, the victories are substantial. Pick 75% of the lower
number of aircraft to account for any over claiming, which I don't
think is the case the allied losses are still significant.
The main, it can be argued the only, problem preventing significantly
earlier entry into service was the supply of reliable quality engines
with a second factor being skilled labour shortages that led to
problems getting anywhere near the quality levels the pre
preproduction Jumo 004B-0 and prototype Jumo 004A engines could
reach. Anthony Kay in "German Jet Engine Gas Turbine Developement"
notes the significantly better life of the high alloy content
prototype turbines. The turbine blades incidently were not much a
problem: the inlet guide nozzles were more problematical. It was
thoought these would be convered to ceramics sometime in 1946.
The dominant factor in preventing quality engines was the inadequate
supply of nickel and to a lesser extent chromium; design issues were
definitely there such as poor fuel control (leading to overheats and
flameouts) but its hard to blame the engines lack of refinement since
the overheats due to fuel overdosing could have been tollerated with
better alloys. A vast engineering effort went into reducing the
nickel requirements of the engine down to about 6.0kg/unit. On its
own this distracted much talent away from the basics. The pioneer in
jet engines in Germany and effectively the world was Heinkel and one
reason they failed to get orders was that they were not as far down
the path of reducing nickel consumption as the other manufacturers.
A case in point is the combustion chamber cans. There were six of
these arranged as a ring around the shaft, they were initially made of
a heat and corrosion resistant high nickel and chromium content
austenitic alloys (basically a fancy stainless steel). In order to
reduce demand for these metals the cans were made out of ordinary
carbon steel with an aluminium oxide coating (effectively ceramics).
Thus these can needed to be replaced at least every 25 hours. In fact
the cans often burned through. Even eliminating the nickel but
retaining the chromium would have improved this enormously. Another
case in point is the translating exhaust cone which was also of
ordinary steel and distorted under heat and stress to block the
engine.
Circumstance that would have gotten the Me 262 into service earlier
include.
1 Insulating the engine development program from reduction in the 1940
period.
2 Allowing the two excellent engines that Heinkel had to be developed.
3 Allowing one manufacturer, perhaps Heinkel, to pursue a path of
using high alloy content engines as a stop gap.
Erhardt Milch claimed that it would be necessary to get the Me 262 in
service by 1943 or the war would be lost. I think he was right. In
fact getting the aircraft into service in early 1944 might have been
decisive in that it would have stopped dead the attacks on the German
oil industry, the harassment of the German army by allied air power
and it would have allowed a showing of German airpower over Normandy,
witness the impunity with which the Ar 234A prototypes, still with
their pre productione engines, reconoitered the allied bridgehead for
months without loss to allied aircraft or engine loss. (they were
eventually shot down by edgy German FLAK crews)
As it was German metallurgist made significant improvements that were
expected to produce turbine life of 500 hours in the lab and 150 hours
in the field for the Jumo 004 while BMW had developed new blades that
were expected to double service life to 50 hours for the BMW 003. It
was hoped ceramics would take over turbine nozzles in 1946.
The aircraft had the capacity to keep up with allied developments such
as advanced forms of the Meteor, P-80 and Vampire due to expected
engine improvements. The P-80 would turn out to develop into an
excellent aircraft but the decision to make it a single engined
aircraft would limit its performance.
Evan Brennan
> one pilot
> stated "If they wanted you they had you there was nothing you could do
> against them" and they did mention the only time to get a ME262 was on
> takeoff or landing.
>
> And I can't find this writeup anywhere.
German jet pilots have told us a different story. By their own
accounting, more than a few were killed by return fire from bombers or
when they tried to turn with other fighters.
Eunometic
> On Feb 18, 11:02 pm, Rob Arndt <teuton...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > In huge numbers equal to the Allies the 262 could have changed
> > the air war, most definately ... the Germans did the very best under the
> > worst conditions possible
>
> Did they?
>
> The number of Me 262 losses exceeded the number of verified shootdowns
> by them,
Keep it real. Claims by the ME 262 range between 500-700, with the
matter having been researched against allied losses and being
plausible. Claims against Me 262 are around 100-120 or so indicating
that it achieved up to 5:1 kill ratio.
> even though the jet pilots had a target-rich environment of
> very slow flying bombers. No other fighter pilots in history had such
> a luxury.
Piston fighters with allied pilots with 300 hours training in aircraft
with the best fuel available as opposed to ever younger German boys
with 25 hour is a 'target rich environment'. 25 hours is barely
enough to fly a light plane in vfr in sight of the aerodrome.
>
> > Even after WW2, the Me-262 proved superior to the P-80 in a one-vs-one
> > test and poor old Hap Arnold had to use his influence to keep the
> > plane out of the public air races against the P-80 when Hughes wanted
> > to race his.
>
> Hughes was unable to buy a prototype F-86A.
They would let him race the under developed P-80 against the Me 262.
Dan
Nothing in that rant changed a word of what I said.
Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
Dan
Aren't would persist in her rants even if no Me262 variant made it into
action.
Dan
>
>
>> the USAAF and RAF and so they adopted the practice of pouncing on the
>> jets on T/O and landing
>
Aren't seems to forget the Nazis also did the same earlier in the war.
Rob Arndt
I'm not saying that that isn't a common practice in wartime- No... but
the USAAF and RAF made it a priority with the Me-262 jet. It was
critical that the piston fighters get the jet before it could use its
advantages in flight against the bomber streams. P-51s especially took
more time to ground strafe and pounce the 262 than to fight it in the
air where at any time the 262 pilot, if experienced, could break away
from the piston planes in straight-line accelleration. Many LW pilots
used to dogfighting in Me Bf 109s tried to in the 262 or outdive a T-
bolt, etc... with fatal consequences. They were instructed to not
panic if under attack and to just open the throttles and ditch the
pursuing a/c. But there was a tremendous amount of Allied loitering
around LW airfields in 1945 so the Germans used the Fw-190D-9s to
drive away the nuisance Mustangs, Spits, Typhoons, Tempests, and T-
bolts. German flak batteries also got so overzealous and defensive
that they many times shot down their own Doras on approach back to
base; hence, the Doras had to have their underwings painted with
special color-coding for identification.
The Germans AFAIK did not attack Allied airfields specifically for any
one Allied a/c like the USAAF and RAF did.
Rob
Geoffrey Sinclair
news:17967d3a-693a-457e...@z6g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
On Feb 19, 11:25 pm, Evan Brennan <evankbren...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Feb 18, 11:02 pm, Rob Arndt <teuton...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> > In huge numbers equal to the Allies the 262 could have changed
>> > the air war, most definately ... the Germans did the very best under
>> > the
>> > worst conditions possible
>
>> Did they?
>
>> The number of Me 262 losses exceeded the number of verified shootdowns
>> by them,
> Keep it real. Claims by the ME 262 range between 500-700, with the
> matter having been researched against allied losses and being
> plausible. Claims against Me 262 are around 100-120 or so indicating
> that it achieved up to 5:1 kill ratio.
Keep it real, the USAAF in Europe reported it lost 480 aircraft of all
types to enemy aircraft in 1945. To achieve the 700 mark requires all
of the December 1944 losses to enemy aircraft.
Few RAF aircraft were shot down by Me262s.
So if the 500 to 700 kill claims are correct then the Luftwaffe piston
engined fighter force was a farce from end November 1944 onwards.
Or else the jets spent a lot of time shooting down lots of Red Air
Force aircraft.
Is the idea the 400 or so kills the conventional day fighters claimed in
the west in December 1944 were all wrong?
So who has verified the Me262 kill claims and where are the results?
>> even though the jet pilots had a target-rich environment of
>> very slow flying bombers. No other fighter pilots in history had such
>> a luxury.
> Piston fighters with allied pilots with 300 hours training in aircraft
> with the best fuel available as opposed to ever younger German boys
> with 25 hour is a 'target rich environment'. 25 hours is barely
> enough to fly a light plane in vfr in sight of the aerodrome.
In case people are wondering Eunometic is forgetting the experienced
pilots being transferred to Me262s and the 25 hour figure is simply
wrong as used above, it refers to the amount of hours of operational
training, that is in a modern fighter type. Basic training was around 100
hours late in the war. Total 125 hours.
At the same time the average RAF pilot had slightly under 350 hours
of training, USAAF pilot about 400. Including 3 to 5 times as much
operational training than the Luftwaffe pilots.
That is the correct comparison, the Eunometic is as usual loaded
to support the preferred conclusion.
Think about it for a moment and remember how many hours it takes
for the average pilot to go solo, 25 hours does not leave much to
learn to fly anything else. The Germans were desperate, but not that
desperate.
By the way what does the quality of fuel have to do with quality
of training?
>> > Even after WW2, the Me-262 proved superior to the P-80 in a one-vs-one
>> > test and poor old Hap Arnold had to use his influence to keep the
>> > plane out of the public air races against the P-80 when Hughes wanted
>> > to race his.
As noted before this is simply a myth. As can be seen by the dates
of the post war races, first in August 1946, versus the first Me262
in Hughes hands, August/September 1946 for an overhaul as it
was owned by the USAAF, versus Arnold's retirement, in June 1946.
And superior has to be qualified, each had advantages over the other.
>> Hughes was unable to buy a prototype F-86A.
> They would let him race the under developed P-80 against the Me 262.
Is this they would let him, or they would not. It appears in 1947 when
Hughes floated the idea of entering the races using an Me262 he wanted
to acquire from the USAAF and modify for racing the powers that be
didn't sell him the aircraft. The Me262 ended up in a museum.
Geoffrey Sinclair
Remove the nb for email.
Rob Arndt
Idiot, I can supply an entire list of fighters and bombers produced
during WW2 under 10,000 planes. Take for instance the B-32 Dominator
of which 118 were built and only a few saw combat in the PTO.
Nevertheless, they did bomb and they did take hits from the Japanese
even after VJ-Day!!! Last a/c of the war to see combat August 18,
1945.
Some Allied fighters produced under 10,000:
527 Gloster Gladiator
602 Fairey Fulmar
800 Hawker Tempest
1064 Boulton-Paul Defiant
2089 Supermarine Seafire
3330 Hawker Typhoon
5562 Bristol Beaufighter
700 P-61 Black Widow
3303 P-63 King Cobra
8000 Grumman F4F Wildcat
9558 P-39 Airacobra
BTW your 3 best Allied types don't even match Germany's two:
15683 P-47
15686 P-51
20351 Spitfire
= 51,720 vs 20,001 Fw-190s + 35,000 Me Bf 109s for a total of 55,000
BTW, the Gloster Meteor was operational and has several V-1 kills plus
German a/c ground kills and it made it acroos the Atlantic to the
Netherlands all the way to German territory. How many were produced
compared to the Me-262? IIRC, only 3800 were made during its entire
career counting postwar with 10 AFs!!! And how many P-80s? Zero.
Germany also produced another 800 jet/rocket a/c with the Ar-234 and
Me-163, both fully operational and even at least 50 operational
He-162s with JG-1 (with 900 under construction). Germany built 2000+
jets during WW2.
Rob
Dan
more targets than the Allies did? Do you not care Me-109 and Fw-190 were
in combat long before P-47 or P-51?
> BTW, the Gloster Meteor was operational and has several V-1 kills plus
> German a/c ground kills and it made it acroos the Atlantic to the
> Netherlands all the way to German territory.
You misspelled English Channel. The Atlantic is the big puddle
between the Americas and Europe/Afica.
How many were produced
> compared to the Me-262? IIRC, only 3800 were made during its entire
> career counting postwar with 10 AFs!!! And how many P-80s? Zero.
Comparing peace and war production rates is a non starter.
>
> Germany also produced another 800 jet/rocket a/c with the Ar-234 and
> Me-163, both fully operational and even at least 50 operational
> He-162s with JG-1 (with 900 under construction). Germany built 2000+
> jets during WW2.
>
> Rob
Who cares how many were built or under construction? How many
actually saw service? What percentage of production saw service? Never
mind the excuses.
Archaeopteryx
...
> 1 There were no significant design or technical faults with the
> airframe: unless you count nose wheel collapses which can be traced to
> a steel quality problems.
As usual, the tin foil Picklehaubs come out of the veritable woodwork
when it comes to glorifying the spiffier toys of das Reich.
Rather than being the product of perfection that some claim it to be,
the Me-262 was cobbled together over a number of major design
revisions forced by technical issues dating back to its inception. A
detailed discussion of these myths regarding the development of the
262 design and how it stacked up against the P-80A and Meteor from the
March, 2005 issue of Airpower is available at:
http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-3842317/Me-262-Wunderplane-or-compromise.html
Me-262: Wunderplane or compromise? An inside look at the world's first
operational jet fighter and its rightful place in history.
[selected quotes:]
Swept wing myth:
Interestingly, although the Me 262 is usually portrayed as being the
forebear of many advanced concepts, it was actually very much a
compromise aircraft and its designers were not particularly happy with
several aspects of it. The "advanced" swept-wing was an inelegant
solution to a center-of-gravity problem, while the underslung nacelles
compensated for oversized and overweight powerplants. Its designers
were not supermen changing the world, but competent engineers
responding to events largely out of their control.
Me-262 vs. P-80A performance:
After the war, "Watson's Whizzers," led by Colonel Harold E. Watson
from USAAF Air Technical Intelligence, shipped several intact Me 262s
to the United States for further evaluation. The tests, conducted by
Albert Boyd (the head of flight test for the USAAF) and a soon-to-be-
legendary Chuck Yeager, determined that the performance of the Me 262
was essentially equal to the P-80A. The Me 262 had a slightly higher
critical Mach number-0.83 Mach versus the handbook limit of 0.80 Mach
for the P-80A--but the difference was of little value in the real
world since the Me 262 could only reach that velocity in a dive,
whereas the P-80A could do it in level flight. However, despite the
fact that the Me 262 was almost 2,000 pounds heavier than the P-80A,
the German aircraft accelerated quicker and had approximately the same
climb performance.
During the tests it was found that the slightly swept wing of the Me
262 provided no useful reduction in drag, mainly because the
triangular cross-section of the fuselage created so much base drag
that nothing could really help much. The swept wing did not change the
critical Mach number by a measurable amount, and certainly did not
help performance in the low transonic region where the Me 262 was
particularly unstable. The P-80A had much better handling
characteristics than the Me 262, largely because it was more refined
aerodynamically and had its thrust vector on the centerline of the
aircraft instead of at the quarter-span of each wing.
[end quotes]
And so on and so forth. The problem here isn't technical - the 262 was
an outstanding design for its time that was both innovative and
impressive - but when all the myths of its inherent superiority are
stripped away, its reputation actually suffers at the hands of those
that resort to wild speculations to claim the 262 was something it
actually wasn't.
Bombardier
wrote:
> "Eunometic" <eunome...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
A museum is exactly where the 262 belonged. Did I ever tell you about
the time I came face to face with an ME 262 over the Rhur Valley?. No?
Maybe next time.
Arthur Kramer
344th Bomb Group 494th Bomb Squadron
England France Belgium Holland Italy Germany
www.coastcomp.com/artkramer
Archaeopteryx
...
> Who cares how many were built or under construction? How many
> actually saw service? What percentage of production saw service? Never
> mind the excuses.
>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
Trouble is, if it weren't for all the excuses, Arndt wouldn't have an
argument. It's interesting to note how quickly he abandoned the
original topic of the Me-262's supposed technical superiority and fell
back on the same old numbers shell game.
Myself, I'd like to see one - just one - credible reference to back up
Arndt's oft-repeated claim that "poor old" Hap Arnold exerted any
influence (post retirement, mind you) to prevent a significantly
modified 262 (US Serial number T-2-4012) from being flown off against
the P-80A - something they had already done and data they already had.
There's issues here, but they Ardn't technical. <shrug>
vaughn
"Archaeopteryx" <arch...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ff03c58b-4e4c-4724...@k19g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
On Feb 19, 7:34 am, Eunometic <eunome...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>Rather than being the product of perfection that some claim it to be,
>the Me-262 was cobbled together over a number of major design
>revisions forced by technical issues dating back to its inception.
I don't dispute the above, but can you name a military (particularly of
wartime design) aircraft where the same cannot be said?
>Me-262: Wunderplane or compromise?
I have been told that every aircraft ever designed can be thought of as
thousands of compromises flying in close formation.
Vaughn
Archaeopteryx
wrote:
> "Archaeopteryx" <archae...@gmail.com> wrote in message
...
> >Rather than being the product of perfection that some claim it to be,
> >the Me-262 was cobbled together over a number of major design
> >revisions forced by technical issues dating back to its inception.
>
> I don't dispute the above, but can you name a military (particularly of
> wartime design) aircraft where the same cannot be said?
Oh, there's any number of wartime designs that reached production
status without major revisions - an especially relevant example being
the P-80 itself.
However, the referenced article in the post you quoted discusses
technical issues in the evolution of the Me-262 that put to rest the
notion that the 262 was significantly more advanced design than its
closest contemporaries - the Meteor and P-80, most notably that the
swept wing of the 262 was the result of advanced aerodynamics than
what it really was - a CG adjustment.
Read the article.
> I have been told that every aircraft ever designed can be thought of as
> thousands of compromises flying in close formation.
>
> Vaughn
Which means exactly what?
Point being that every time a thread gets started on the practical
realities of German designs, blemishes and all, here comes the
Wunderwaffen uber alles crowd to hop on a soapbox and start crowing
about the inherent superiority of Aryan tech when easily found and
referenced research substantively proves otherwise.
Of course any aircraft is a flying pile of compromises. But you're
preaching to the choir. Myself, I'd far rather let the documented
historical and technical research decide the issue without the
insertion of agendas.
Ken S. Tucker
> On Feb 19, 12:21 pm, "vaughn" <vaughnsimonHATESS...@att.FAKE.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > "Archaeopteryx" <archae...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:ff03c58b-4e4c-4724...@k19g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
> > On Feb 19, 7:34 am, Eunometic <eunome...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>
> > >Rather than being the product of perfection that some claim it to be,
> > >the Me-262 was cobbled together over a number of major design
> > >revisions forced by technical issues dating back to its inception.
>
> > I don't dispute the above, but can you name a military (particularly of
> > wartime design) aircraft where the same cannot be said?
>
> > >Me-262: Wunderplane or compromise?
>
> > I have been told that every aircraft ever designed can be thought of as
> > thousands of compromises flying in close formation.
>
> > Vaughn
>
> ...
>
> > >Rather than being the product of perfection that some claim it to be,
> > >the Me-262 was cobbled together over a number of major design
> > >revisions forced by technical issues dating back to its inception.
>
> > I don't dispute the above, but can you name a military (particularly of
> > wartime design) aircraft where the same cannot be said?
>
> Oh, there's any number of wartime designs that reached production
> status without major revisions - an especially relevant example being
> the P-80 itself.
Wrong, irrelevant, the P-80 was designed to be safe,
simple and conservative, a good trainer, and a tasty
meal for a good Me-262.
A *properly* (uncompromised) constructed Me-262,
wasn't bested until Korea, by the Mig-15 and F-86,
and just barely.
> However, the referenced article in the post you quoted discusses
> technical issues in the evolution of the Me-262 that put to rest the
> notion that the 262 was significantly more advanced design than its
> closest contemporaries - the Meteor and P-80, most notably that the
> swept wing of the 262 was the result of advanced aerodynamics than
> what it really was - a CG adjustment.
Bad (nonsensical) argument, one could say the same about
the XB-70 planform, and would sound stupid.
> > I have been told that every aircraft ever designed can be thought of as
> > thousands of compromises flying in close formation.
>
> > Vaughn
>
> Which means exactly what?
Dumb question, "exactly" fills libraries.
Vaugh's statement is perfect. Design an airplane and fly
it, you'll find out.
> Point being that every time a thread gets started on the practical
> realities of German designs, blemishes and all, here comes the
> Wunderwaffen uber alles crowd to hop on a soapbox and start crowing
> about the inherent superiority of Aryan tech when easily found and
> referenced research substantively proves otherwise.
Bull poop. Using big words look-up, sweptwing + axial flow,
those are facts, and cut your racist crap.
> Of course any aircraft is a flying pile of compromises. But you're
> preaching to the choir. Myself, I'd far rather let the documented
> historical and technical research decide the issue without the
> insertion of agendas.
Done.
Ken
vaughn
>> thousands of compromises flying in close formation.
>Which means exactly what?
Maning that every aircraft ever made is the result of a series of design
compromises, and all you did was establish the obvious; that the Me 262 was
no different.
>here comes the
>Wunderwaffen uber alles crowd to hop on a soapbox and start crowing
>about the inherent superiority of Aryan tech
Believe me, you won't find my face in that crowd.
>Of course any aircraft is a flying pile of compromises. But you're
>preaching to the choir.
OK, we agree.
> Myself, I'd far rather let the documented
>historical and technical research decide the issue without the
>insertion of agendas.
Yes, but there can be folks with agendas on both sides of the divide. In
this particular case, I did not find the original post in this thread (which
I hasten to point out was not from you) to be the slightest bit even handed.
Regards
Vaughn
Archaeopteryx
....
> > However, the referenced article in the post you quoted discusses
> > technical issues in the evolution of the Me-262 that put to rest the
> > notion that the 262 was significantly more advanced design than its
> > closest contemporaries - the Meteor and P-80, most notably that the
> > swept wing of the 262 was the result of advanced aerodynamics than
> > what it really was - a CG adjustment.
>
> Bad (nonsensical) argument, one could say the same about
> the XB-70 planform, and would sound stupid.
Riiiight, Kenny.
Nice of you to blunder into the conversation and promptly shoot
yourself in both feet again for our amusement.
From the article:
"During May 1940, Messerschmitt incorporated two major changes that
would mark the beginning of the Me 262 as it would finally emerge. The
design team was presented with a serious center-of-gravity problem
when BMW announced that the engine would be substantially larger and
heavier than predicted. Since the design of the aircraft was too far
along to affect major changes, the Messerschmitt engineers developed
what they considered a rather inelegant fix. The outer wing panel was
swept 18 degrees rearward, moving both the center-of-gravity and
center-of-pressure aft. This was considered easier than redesigning
the fuselage to move the entire wing rearward. So although the Me 262
is widely heralded as a landmark design because of its swept wing, it
actually reflected no attempt to reduce drag or the effects of
compressibility, but was rather a simple fix to a weight problem."
You can dither and blather your customary pseudo-scientific bafflegab
all you want, but you can't evade the facts.
Archaeopteryx
wrote:
> "Archaeopteryx" <archae...@gmail.com> wrote in message
...
> Yes, but there can be folks with agendas on both sides of the divide. In
> this particular case, I did not find the original post in this thread (which
> I hasten to point out was not from you) to be the slightest bit even handed.
I thought the same, which is why I didn't initially respond to it - it
figured to become yet another re-hash of the same old same old, which
I hasten to point out, it has.
The main point of contention I became interested in was the singularly
arm-waving assertion that the Me-262 was by any significant measure
superior to the P-80 when it certifiably wasn't.
I've got no particular bone to pick with the Me-262; it was a great
design produced under extreme duress. But to claim its attributes were
based on claims long debunked is laughably specious and deserves
comment.
Ken S. Tucker
Good you agree with Obe one KEN Obe, soon you
shall feel the Force.
> From the article:
The article has no authority, your mother could have
written it.
> "During May 1940, Messerschmitt incorporated two major changes that
> would mark the beginning of the Me 262 as it would finally emerge. The
> design team was presented with a serious center-of-gravity problem
> when BMW announced that the engine would be substantially larger and
> heavier than predicted. Since the design of the aircraft was too far
> along to affect major changes, the Messerschmitt engineers developed
> what they considered a rather inelegant fix. The outer wing panel was
> swept 18 degrees rearward, moving both the center-of-gravity and
> center-of-pressure aft. This was considered easier than redesigning
> the fuselage to move the entire wing rearward. So although the Me 262
> is widely heralded as a landmark design because of its swept wing, it
> actually reflected no attempt to reduce drag or the effects of
> compressibility, but was rather a simple fix to a weight problem."
Wrong again Archie, Willy M (Messerschmitt) knew alot
about sweptwings, that's doc'd, he was a genius.
Look carefully, the machine (Me-262) matched the foreseeable
available engines, no point in sweeping more, he matched
airframe to engine.
The US designed some hot planforms in the 50's only to be
disappointed many times by crappy engines, Willy didn't
make that mistake.
Ken
PS: I respect Willy.
Archaeopteryx
...
> Wrong again Archie, Willy M (Messerschmitt) knew alot
> about sweptwings, that's doc'd, he was a genius.
> Look carefully, the machine (Me-262) matched the foreseeable
> available engines, no point in sweeping more, he matched
> airframe to engine.
In other words, you've just proved that reading comprehension isn't
your strong suit and you're perfectly willing to make up what you
don't know to justify your wild assumptions.
> The US designed some hot planforms in the 50's only to be
> disappointed many times by crappy engines, Willy didn't
> make that mistake.
> Ken
> PS: I respect Willy.
That's Willy Messerschmidt - not "Free Willy."
Been playing goalie without a helmet again, eh Kenny?
Keith Willshaw
"Ken S. Tucker" <dyna...@vianet.on.ca> wrote in message
news:75d24c59-0042-45d2...@p23g2000prp.googlegroups.com...
> To Archie and all.
>
> Wrong again Archie, Willy M (Messerschmitt) knew alot
> about sweptwings, that's doc'd, he was a genius.
Then feel free to provide a cite for those documents.
The fact that the wing sweep was intoduced to fix a
C of G problem is in the German records
> Look carefully, the machine (Me-262) matched the foreseeable
> available engines, no point in sweeping more, he matched
> airframe to engine.
>
Hardly , it was initially intended to use BMW 003 engines but
they were never reliable enough so the Jumo 004 was fitted instead.
As for the wing sweep , at 17.5 degrees its not only inadequate for
any aerodynamic advantage but the airframe suffered very badly
from compressibility giving the Me-262 a lower limiting mach
than the Spitfire.
> The US designed some hot planforms in the 50's only to be
> disappointed many times by crappy engines, Willy didn't
> make that mistake.
Now you are just being silly. The German engines were terrible.
Not only were they horribly prone to failure if you used rapid
throttle movements but the run time life between overhauls was
only 25 hours and that proved to be overly optimistic with average
MTBF being around 12 hours
In the same period the British engines had been given a 180
hour life between inspections and that proved to be overly
conservative as the engines on the test bed exceeded 500 hours
Keith
Scott M. Kozel
>
> Scott M. Kozel wrote:
>
> > Given that a common fighter model had tens of thousands produced
> > during the war, yes, "only 200 max ever made it into combat" would
> > definitely put it in the "prototype" category.
>
> They never did get all the "bugs" like weak nose gear worked out.
> Aren't would persist in her rants even if no Me262 variant made it into
> action.
Aren't has never seen a Nazi plane that he didn't love.
Ken S. Tucker
Read what THE EXPERTS in the group wrote!
Given an M-262 with metallically non compromised
engines it was superior to anything up to the Korean
War!
I've proven the Gay KooKoo bird (archie) is nutz,
don't listen to it.
Now read AGAIN what Euno & I wrote about the
engines!
Question: Axial Engine + Swept wing.
When did US, USSR or Limey's get that flying
operatonally. NOTE word OPERATIONALLY?
On Feb 19, 1:41 pm, "Keith Willshaw"
<ke...@nospam.kwillshaw.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> "Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...@vianet.on.ca> wrote in messagenews:75d24c59-0042-45d2...@p23g2000prp.googlegroups.com...
Centrifugal Engines was DOA off the drawing board.
It took years for the Brits to get a working Axial flow
engine operational. Germany was far superior then.
> Keith
Regards
Ken
Ed Rasimus
<vaughnsimo...@att.FAKE.net> wrote:
>
>"Scott M. Kozel" <koz...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>news:15e3e33c-a76d-446e...@h20g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
>webpa <we...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>>Neither in practice nor potentially, was it "very nearly game-
>>changing".
>
> You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but in this case I disagree.
>Simply put, the Me 262 made every other fighter plane in the world obsolete
>within a very short period of time, and put the future of every other
>warplane into question. Yes, all that would have eventually happened
>anyhow, but the Me 262 accelerated the process by a factor of (probably)
>years. If that isn't "game changing", then we need to discuss definitions.
>
>Vaughn
It would be hard to equate the improved speed factor as a "game
changer" in the light of other technology of the period.
While it could climb faster, which was an advantage in the largely
defensive posture of Germany at the time, like all early jets it
didn't have the endurance to match the piston-driven fighters. The
significant airspeed advantage looks good at first, but remember that
comes with increased turn radius and reduced turn rate--significant
factor in a guns-only environment. The high speed at merge,
particularly when attacking bombers, becomes a disadvantage in terms
of reduced tracking time for a gun solution--shorter bursts, reduced
time in range, and greater lead angle requirements.
I've recently put the manuscript on Robin Olds' life to bed and in it
he describes his first sighting of an Me-262. It was late in 1944. He
was impressed with the speed, but also describes the short time of the
encounter--the 262 was "there and gone" with neither threat to the
P-51s nor presenting much of a target either.
He immediately went to work with the guys in his squadron (434th
Fighter Sqdn out of Wattisham, England) to develop tactics to deal
with it. He indicates looking forward to the next encounters with the
jets and particularly was hoping to be able to engineer his attack to
get at them as they returned to landings with minimal fuel remaining.
In the next couple of chapters he goes into details on his immediate
post-war experience with the brand-new first US jets, the P-80s.
Dealing with the short range, short duration, high fuel consumption
and light payload of the jets was a real problem. He questioned the
practicality of the -80s and suggested that other than the whiz-bang
of demoing jet propulsion, no one was really sure of what the mission
for the birds might be.
Hardly indicative of "game-changing" to me.
Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
www.thundertales.blogspot.com
www.thunderchief.org
dump...@hotmail.com
The
> significant airspeed advantage looks good at first, but remember that
> comes with increased turn radius and reduced turn rate--significant
> factor in a guns-only environment.
In the Pacific, the situation was the opposite, with Allied pilots
flying
faster aircraft, like the Corsair, Mustang, P-38, etc. against the
slower,
but tighter-turning Zero.
Did the Germans ever adopt tactics for the Me-262 similar to what
tha Allies developed for fighting the Zero?
Keith Willshaw
> To Keith.
> Read what THE EXPERTS in the group wrote!
I did - you are not one of them
> Given an M-262 with metallically non compromised
> engines it was superior to anything up to the Korean
> War!
Hardly. The Vampire and late model Meteor's were faster
and better gun platforms
> I've proven the Gay KooKoo bird (archie) is nutz,
> don't listen to it.
> Now read AGAIN what Euno & I wrote about the
> engines!
>
> Question: Axial Engine + Swept wing.
>
> When did US, USSR or Limey's get that flying
> operatonally. NOTE word OPERATIONALLY?
>
Well now the Tiger Moth had swept wings - does that count :)
Keith
Orval Fairbairn
<c35c302b-118b-4bd2...@40g2000prx.googlegroups.com>,
"Ken S. Tucker" <dyna...@vianet.on.ca> wrote:
> To Keith.
> Read what THE EXPERTS in the group wrote!
> Given an M-262 with metallically non compromised
> engines it was superior to anything up to the Korean
> War!
Both the F-86 and MiG 15 would have waxed the Me-262 in short order!
Note that the F-86 had an axial-flow engine, while the MiG had a
centrifugal flow engine (Russian copy of the RR Nene)
> I've proven the Gay KooKoo bird (archie) is nutz,
> don't listen to it.
> Now read AGAIN what Euno & I wrote about the
> engines!
>
> Question: Axial Engine + Swept wing.
>
> When did US, USSR or Limey's get that flying
> operatonally. NOTE word OPERATIONALLY?
1949-1950.
--
Remove _'s from email address to talk to me.
Ken S. Tucker
wrote:
> In article
> <c35c302b-118b-4bd2-9c01-28941d889...@40g2000prx.googlegroups.com>,
> "Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...@vianet.on.ca> wrote:
>
> > To Keith.
> > Read what THE EXPERTS in the group wrote!
> > Given an M-262 with metallically non compromised
> > engines it was superior to anything up to the Korean
> > War!
>
> Both the F-86 and MiG 15 would have waxed the Me-262 in short order!
> Note that the F-86 had an axial-flow engine, while the MiG had a
> centrifugal flow engine (Russian copy of the RR Nene)
Noted ;-).
> > Question: Axial Engine + Swept wing.
> > When did US, USSR or Limey's get that flying
> > operatonally. NOTE word OPERATIONALLY?
>
> 1949-1950.
1945+4 = 1949, 4 years was quite a long time in
aviation evolution in them good ole days.
Ken
Paul J. Adam
<6702ff0d-16af-496f...@p2g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
dump...@hotmail.com writes
Sort of, in that by definition they could hardly slow down for a turning
fight without throwing away most of their advantage; so by default they
had to do fast firing runs, getting in and out before the other side
could bring weapons to bear.
However, the short endurance meant a -262 was sharply limited in its
ability to reset and return for subsequent passes, and its primary
target was bomber aircraft; if the -262 is engaging the fighter escort,
then even if it kills a P-51 or two it's failed in its mission.
--
The nation that makes a great distinction between its scholars and its
warriors, will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting done
by fools.
-Thucydides
paul<dot>j<dot>adam[at]googlemail{dot}.com
evankb...@hotmail.com
> Read what THE EXPERTS in the group wrote!
> Given an M-262 with metallically non compromised
> engines it was superior to anything up to the Korean
> War!
> I've proven the Gay KooKoo bird (archie) is nutz,
> don't listen to it.
> Now read AGAIN what Euno & I wrote about the
> engines!
>
> Question: Axial Engine + Swept wing.
>
> When did US, USSR or Limey's get that flying
> operatonally. NOTE word OPERATIONALLY?
You're both pissing into the wind. The Russians believed that British
jet engines were superior, and even a child could look at the
blueprints of the Messerschmitt 262 and tell us that the wing shape
looks closer in appearance to a Douglas DC-3 than it resembles Korean
war jet fighters.
The swept wing was just another buried treasure that was exhumed,
stolen and violated by the Nazis.
evankb...@hotmail.com
> > by them,
>
> Keep it real. Claims by the ME 262 range between 500-700, with the
> matter having been researched against allied losses and being
> plausible. Claims against Me 262 are around 100-120 or so indicating
> that it achieved up to 5:1 kill ratio.
You confuse pilot claims with real losses that match the time and
place, and you forgot to include the numerous Me 262s that were lost
due to malfunctions and pilot errors.
Peter Skelton
One could argue, in intelligent company knowledgable in the
field, that neither the fluid mechanics nor the metallurgy of
1942-5 was up to producing a satisfactory jet engine, and that
the abysmal maintenance record of the 292 was the result. It is
very doubtful that the 292, like many other wonder weapons (not
just German ones), repaid the investment in it.
Probably the best engines of the end and immediate post-war
period were British and centrifugical. Cross-over was probably
about 1949.
Peter Skelton
JasiekS
Użytkownik "Rob Arndt" <teut...@aol.com> napisał w wiadomości
news:53d8e8b6-b113-4374...@h16g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
> The Germans AFAIK did not attack Allied airfields specifically for any
> one Allied a/c like the USAAF and RAF did.
Do Polish airfields count?
--
JasiekS
Warsaw, Poland
Dan
Not in aren't world.
Dan, U.S. Air force, retired
JasiekS
Uzytkownik "Evan Brennan" <evankb...@hotmail.com> napisal w
wiadomosci
news:79b7cf54-4b81-458f...@v15g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
> > The 262 gave the victorious Allies the swept wing
> That is not correct. An Irishman named John William Dunne gave us the
> swept wing long before. Messerschmitt copied the idea, but they could
> not contend with stability problems solved by NAA with the F-86
> Sabre.
Me-262 quarter-chord sweepback angle is 18.5 deg. According to cosine
law (which is simplified) it's influence on Mcrit was 5%
[cos(18.5)=0.948...]. F-86 had real swept back wings with 35 deg on
quarter-chord [cos(35)=0.819...].
Me-262 wings were swept not enough to make difference. On the other hand
this sweep back was big enough to introduce manufacturing and in-flight
problems. BTW plenty of aircraft and gliders had swept back (or forward)
wings due to CG problems.
--
JasiekS
Warsaw, Poland
Gordon
> On Feb 19, 6:53 am, Eunometic <eunome...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>
> > > The number of Me 262 losses exceeded the number of verified shootdowns
> > > by them,
>
> > Keep it real. Claims by the ME 262 range between 500-700, with the
> > matter having been researched against allied losses and being
> > plausible. Claims against Me 262 are around 100-120 or so indicating
> > that it achieved up to 5:1 kill ratio.
That statistic is one of the 86% of statistics that are made up.
> You confuse pilot claims with real losses that match the time and
> place, and you forgot to include the numerous Me 262s that were lost
> due to malfunctions and pilot errors.
And by 1945, there was no possible way for the German military to
equate claims with actual Allied losses. The process had completely
broken down at almost the same time JG 7 went operational.
teut...@aol.com
> JasiekS wrote:
> > U�ytkownik "Rob Arndt" <teuton...@aol.com> napisa� w wiadomo�ci
> >news:53d8e8b6-b113-4374...@h16g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> The Germans AFAIK did not attack Allied airfields specifically for any
> >> one Allied a/c like the USAAF and RAF did.
>
> > Do Polish airfields count?
>
> � �Not in aren't world.
>
> Dan, U.S. Air force, retired
Sure, the LW with its best fighter in the world Me Bf 109 was trying
desperately to hunt down and destroy PZL.11s. Goering made that a
priority ;)
Meanwhile, it was OFFICIAL US and British policy to hunt for the
Me-262 and kill it by pouncing on it when it was most vunerable-
during T/O or landing. History proves they executed those orders, with
the Germans responding with Fw-190Ds to protect the fields and also
overzealous flak gunners that shot at anything piston-engined that
approached jet airfields, even LW a/c!!!
Rob
p.s. Jasiek thinks the Polish AF was anything? From Sept 1939-1944
Poland as a nation didn't even exist. He should thank God the Soviets
didn't just extend their borders in 1945 and swallow up Poland instead
of making it a WP satellite.
Jeff Crowell
> I've recently put the manuscript on Robin Olds' life to bed
What's the planned press date? HP just cut our pay by 5% but
that purchase is still on the budget!
Jeff
--
9mm is just a .45 set on 'stun.'
Paul Adam
JasiekS
Użytkownik <teut...@aol.com> napisał w wiadomości
news:ee351f76-7aa0-4be5...@t3g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
> Sure, the LW with its best fighter in the world Me Bf 109 was trying
> desperately to hunt down and destroy PZL.11s. Goering made that a
> priority ;)
I would't go into discussion WHY Germans bombed Polish airfields, but
they did it quickly. I can (and I do!) blame them for starting this war,
but on the other hand a warrior is expected to destroy enemy. Where,
when and by whatever means he can do this NOT COMMITING WAR CRIMES.
> p.s. Jasiek thinks the Polish AF was anything? From Sept 1939-1944
> Poland as a nation didn't even exist.
This 'non existing' poland took some German eagles down.
> He should thank God the Soviets
> didn't just extend their borders in 1945 and swallow up Poland instead
> of making it a WP satellite.
No problem. I can speak Russian. I can speak German, too. Do you speak
German?
--
JasiekS
Warsaw, Poland
teut...@aol.com
wrote:
> U�ytkownik <teuton...@aol.com> napisa� w wiadomo�cinews:ee351f76-7aa0-4be5...@t3g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
If Poland fell off the map tomorrow, the world wouldn't even notice-
your tri-lingual ability notwithstanding ;)
Only the cartographers would be irritated...
Rob
p.s. Germany and Russia are REAL nations BTW, Poland being a form of
European "Canada" to the rest of the world!!!
Duwop
> On Feb 20, 7:51 am, "JasiekS" <jasieks.no.s...@please.poczta.onet.pl>
> > No problem. I can speak Russian. I can speak German, too. Do you speak
> > German?
>
> If Poland fell off the map tomorrow, the world wouldn't even notice-
> your tri-lingual ability notwithstanding ;)
In other words, no, he can't.
Jasiek, want to really irritate Robby? We can start insulting him in
the language of the Fatherland. ;-)
JasiekS
Uzytkownik "Duwop" <tut...@hotmail.com> napisal w wiadomosci
news:ad42eedf-2888-470a...@y38g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> Jasiek, want to really irritate Robby? We can start insulting him in
> the language of the Fatherland. ;-)
This guy, Rhett Butler, what did he tell in the final sequence? Frankly
my dear, I don't give a damn? Or something similar.
--
JasiekS
Warsaw, Poland
Duwop
wrote:
> Uzytkownik "Duwop" <tut...@hotmail.com> napisal w wiadomoscinews:ad42eedf-2888-470a...@y38g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Jasiek, want to really irritate Robby? We can start insulting him in
> > the language of the Fatherland. ;-)
>
> This guy, Rhett Butler, what did he tell in the final sequence? Frankly
> my dear, I don't give a damn? Or something similar.
>
That might not be appropriate as it was said just before he was going
to bed her.
But I understand you, you don't give a shit about the schwule.
Don't blame ya.
Dan
OK, once again I forget how dense Nazis are. I will try again. Most
air bases in the world, including WW2, were single type fields. This
means if you loiter near a Pzl.11 base the odds are all your targets are
going to be Pzl.11, right? Thus the Nazis were actually going after
specific types. Now do you understand?
It was official Nazi "policy" to go after Hurricane and Spitfire
fields in the U.K. was it not? Of course combatants go after the enemy's
weak points. It's rather stupid to attack their strong points.
Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
Dan
especially if that person disagrees with her. She's used to being insulted.
Ed Rasimus
<jeff.c...@hp.spamsux.com> wrote:
>Ed Rasimus wrote:
>> I've recently put the manuscript on Robin Olds' life to bed
>
>What's the planned press date? HP just cut our pay by 5% but
>that purchase is still on the budget!
>
>
>Jeff
It will probably hit the streets a week or two after the revolution.
Schedule says the "Winter 09-10" catalog, so that means anywhere
between December 09 and March 10. Things will firm up as we get the
layout, copy-editing, artwork and catalog copy dealt with. Will
probably have a firm street date by mid-Summer.
Dan
whining about him going.
teut...@aol.com
> But I understand you, you don't give a shit about the schwule.
>
> Don't blame ya.
Hmm... "gay"?... wow... underwhelmed Dummkopf...
Rob
teut...@aol.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
So was your wife- she chose you ;)
Rob
Dan
I suppose you believe that proves you are of good character?
teut...@aol.com
> teuton...@aol.com wrote:
> > On Feb 20, 8:37 am, Dan <B24...@aol.com> wrote:
> >> Duwop wrote:
> >>> On Feb 20, 8:00 am, teuton...@aol.com wrote:
> >>>> On Feb 20, 7:51 am, "JasiekS" <jasieks.no.s...@please.poczta.onet.pl>
> >>>>> No problem. I can speak Russian. I can speak German, too. Do you speak
> >>>>> German?
> >>>> If Poland fell off the map tomorrow, the world wouldn't even notice-
> >>>> your tri-lingual ability notwithstanding ;)
> >>> In other words, no, he can't.
> >>> Jasiek, want to really irritate Robby? We can start insulting him in
> >>> the language of the Fatherland. ;-)
> >> That won't work. Aren't feels insulted anytime anyone speaks to her,
> >> especially if that person disagrees with her. She's used to being insulted.
>
> >> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > So was your wife- she chose you ;)
>
> > Rob
>
> � �I suppose you believe that proves you are of good character?
>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
No, just a character :)
Rob
p.s. Aren't we all? (I guess that would be a pun to you, the way you
spell my last name)!
Archaeopteryx
> teuton...@aol.com wrote:
> > On Feb 20, 8:37 am, Dan <B24...@aol.com> wrote:
> >> Duwop wrote:
> >>> On Feb 20, 8:00 am, teuton...@aol.com wrote:
> >>>> On Feb 20, 7:51 am, "JasiekS" <jasieks.no.s...@please.poczta.onet.pl>
> >>>>> No problem. I can speak Russian. I can speak German, too. Do you speak
> >>>>> German?
> >>>> If Poland fell off the map tomorrow, the world wouldn't even notice-
> >>>> your tri-lingual ability notwithstanding ;)
> >>> In other words, no, he can't.
> >>> Jasiek, want to really irritate Robby? We can start insulting him in
> >>> the language of the Fatherland. ;-)
> >> That won't work. Aren't feels insulted anytime anyone speaks to her,
> >> especially if that person disagrees with her. She's used to being insulted.
>
> >> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > So was your wife- she chose you ;)
>
> > Rob
>
> I suppose you believe that proves you are of good character?
>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
What's interesting to note is how quickly Arndt's interest in the
facts - historical or technological - gets lost in racial/
nationalistic tantrums when he's faced with conclusions that don't
agree with his.
Arndt isn't about the facts of history or technology.
Arndt is about glorifying Arndt.
Dan
Well, none of us know your real name considering how many others you
have claimed.
CJ Adams
>
> p.s. Germany and Russia are REAL nations BTW, Poland being a form of
> European "Canada" to the rest of the world!!!
Can you explain the comparison? Extra marks for mentioning
the master race, flying saucers or Antarctica.
CJ Adams
Archaeopteryx
...
Back to the topic:
> Meanwhile, it was OFFICIAL US and British policy to hunt for the
> Me-262 and kill it by pouncing on it when it was most vunerable-
> during T/O or landing.
Typical Arndt balderdash - make up any fact necessary to prop up a
sagging point.
Hey Rob, care to provide even ONE documented reference that confirms
your latest howler that *specifically* attacking 262 airfields was an
"official policy" level directive from either the RAF or the 8th AF?
This "official policy" vendetta against the 262 you've dreamed up was
merely an extension of Doolittle's modification of Operation
Pointblank he made upon assuming command of the 8th AF in January,
1944 - long before the 262 made its first operational sortie. Shooting
up the Luftwaffe on the ground or catching them in the traffic pattern
was a tactic in common use long before the 262 showed up. There was no
need to create an "official policy" to supersede one that was already
in place.
Hounding the 262s at their bases was a matter existing doctrine - not
some fantasized "official policy" developed in terror of your beloved
Wunderwaffen.
Steve Hix
wrote:
> teut...@aol.com wrote:
>
> >
> > p.s. Germany and Russia are REAL nations BTW, Poland being a form of
> > European "Canada" to the rest of the world!!!
>
> Can you explain the comparison?
It's doubtfult that even he knows what he was talking about there.
> Extra marks for mentioning the master race, flying saucers or Antarctica.
Don't anyone tell him that Poland, as a nation, had been around for at
least a couple of centuries before Germany finally arrived on the scene
as a unified nation.
Lessee... Germany, 1871.
Poland, at the coronation of Boleslaw Chrobry (the Brave) As the first
king of Poland, in 1024. They had their ups and downs since then, but
not because they didn't see themselves as a nation.
Ken S. Tucker
On Feb 20, 1:15 am, evankbren...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Feb 19, 5:00 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...@vianet.on.ca> wrote:
>
> > Read what THE EXPERTS in the group wrote!
> > Given an M-262 with metallically non compromised
> > engines it was superior to anything up to the Korean
> > War!
> > Question: Axial Engine + Swept wing.
> > When did US, USSR or Limey's get that flying
> > operatonally. NOTE word OPERATIONALLY?
>
> You're both pissing into the wind. The Russians believed that British
> jet engines were superior, and even a child could look at the
> blueprints of the Messerschmitt 262 and tell us that the wing shape
> looks closer in appearance to a Douglas DC-3 than it resembles Korean
> war jet fighters.
Have a look at this,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Messerschmitt_Me_262_Schwalbe_3d_drawing.svg
Then this, and read about subsonic efficiency,
and note the similiar sweep,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A-6_Intruder
Subsonic sweep is optimized for the cruise speed,
efficiency. That's a bit complicated aerodynamically,
it's more than a quicky Mach number calculation.
> The swept wing was just another buried treasure that was exhumed,
> stolen and violated by the Nazis.
Ugh, have a little respect for the thread, it ain't politics
friend.
Ken
Dan
Reichsmarks of course.
Ed Rasimus
<jasieks...@please.poczta.onet.pl> wrote:
>
>> p.s. Jasiek thinks the Polish AF was anything? From Sept 1939-1944
>> Poland as a nation didn't even exist.
>
>This 'non existing' poland took some German eagles down.
Just happen to be reading the new book on the Battle of Britain called
"With Wings Like Eagles"--an excellent history of the air war.
It notes that when Hitler was preparing for invasion of England, that
Dowding had about 1500 combat ready pilots for his Spits and
Hurricanes. Among the group were more than 140 Poles and 86 Czechs.
They acquitted themselves very well. In fact the second ranking ace
from the B-of-B was one of the Czechs.
Na Zdrowie!
Bombardier
> On Fri, 20 Feb 2009 16:51:52 +0100, "JasiekS"
>
Am I the only guy here that actually met an ME 262 in the air over
Germany?
Arthur Kramer
344th Bomb Group 494th Bomb Squadron
England France Belgium Holland Italy Germany
www.coastcomp.com/artkramer
euno...@yahoo.com.au
> On Feb 19, 7:34 am, Eunometic <eunome...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>
SNIP
> ...
>
> > 1 There were no significant design or technical faults with the
> > airframe: unless you count nose wheel collapses which can be traced to
> > a steel quality problems.
>
> As usual, the tin foil Picklehaubs come out of the veritable woodwork
> when it comes to glorifying the spiffier toys of das Reich.
As usual the ignoramii with not a technical or historical clue come
out to regurgitate some dearly held but shallowly researched
'opinion'.
>
> Rather than being the product of perfection that some claim it to be,
> the Me-262 was cobbled together over a number of major design
> revisions forced by technical issues dating back to its inception.
Most aircraft undergo design revisions. The fact that the BMW 003
grew in weight as did the Jumo 004 and forced changes in the wing plan
form in order to make Centre of Gravity and neutral point adjustments
is well known and no one has seriously claimed that the Me 262 was
designed with the wing sweep on purpose. It seems the only folks
claiming that are ones like yourself who need to make a straw man.
Nevertheless it incorporated a very high level of aerodynamic
knowledge, eg the wing section, and continued to be refined till the
end of the war.
Me 262's were faster than any Meteor and faster than any YP-80A, or
Meteor III or P-80A during the hostile period of 1945 and throughout
1945 and probably into parts of 1946-47.
> A
> detailed discussion of these myths regarding the development of the
> 262 design and how it stacked up against the P-80A and Meteor from the
> March, 2005 issue of Airpower is available at:
>
> http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-3842317/Me-262-Wunderplane-or...
The article, despite its 'sensationalist headline' is not as bad as I
thought it to and be lends little credence to your 'case', whatever
your somewhat incoherent case is.
>
> Me-262: Wunderplane or compromise? An inside look at the world's first
> operational jet fighter and its rightful place in history.
>
> [selected quotes:]
>
> Swept wing myth:
Myth of a Myth. The claim is seldom made bar for people making an
initial assumption upon seeing the significant and obvious sweep and
the knowledge that German researchers invented and developed wing
sweep. Nevertheless the sweep would have raised Mach limit of the
wing by 4%-5% since the equation of delay of critical mach is a simple
one to calculate.
The wing section of the Me 262 was NACA 00011-0.825-35 NACA
00009-1.1-40. It was designed by Ludwig Boelkow, lofting it was his
first job out of Uni (post graduate).
Ludwig Boelkow also took over and managed later Me 109 development, it
was one of his responsibilities. It was a very sophisticated airfoil
with good high speed characteristics
(note the wing designation system: first digit indicates the US
developed 5 digit descriptors for the generating polynomials is used
while the second set of digits is a modification system developed by
german aerodynamically to describe modifications to the leading edge
and camber.)
Now in October 1940 Boelkow and a partner Schomerus published a paper
that stated that "With NACA 0012-64 airfoil it is possible to fly at
Mach 0.9 without noticeable influence of compressibility to
resistance". Reference to that is in the Schick Radininger book
"secret messerschmitt projects".
So the guy that designed the Me 262 wing also knew about swept wings
before the wings well before the wing he had designed for the Me 262
was given 'sweep'.
Most of the design team on the Me 262 didn't consider sweep but those
involved in preliminary discussions at Messerschmitt considered it but
rejected it as a risk they didn't want to take.
If you wanted to know about supersonic flows then people in the German
speaking world were the leaders. Names like Parndl, Busemann,
Walchner, Ackeret. Theodore von Karman eventually brought some of
this knowledge with him to the USA. The "biconvex" wings seen on the
Miles M.52 were Dr Ackeret's suggestion (Austrian) and it is this
sharp structure that more or less ended up on the F-104.
If you wanted to know about swept wings then people in the Germans
speaking world seemed to be the only ones active, they were the only
ones doing research mostly laboratory work up until 1940 but from then
on it was jumped up a notch. They were after all Adolf Busemann's
idea.
>
> Interestingly, although the Me 262 is usually portrayed as being the
> forebear of many advanced concepts, it was actually very much a
> compromise aircraft and its designers were not particularly happy with
> several aspects of it. The "advanced" swept-wing was an inelegant
> solution to a center-of-gravity problem,
Why is it inelegant? Underslung is a common technique these days.
Mass balances the wings.
> while the underslung nacelles
> compensated for oversized and overweight powerplants. Its designers
> were not supermen changing the world, but competent engineers
> responding to events largely out of their control.
The engines of the Me 262 were axial flow so that they could be under
slung as they were in the Arado 234 from the very beginning or
alternatively fitted INTO the wing preferably at the wing root.
The first generation of German jet engines were in fact radial types.
The decision to go for a pair of smaller axial types proably turned
out to be the right one in terms of getting an aircraft into service
though it seems the German radial engines used a first stage fan to
try and reduce engine diameter.
The XP-80A/YP-80A needed to wait for engines in the 3750lb class to
become competitive or let alone plausible, it needed an engine twice
the thrust of the Welland/Derwent of the Meteor and twice the thrust
of the Me 262 Jumo 004 in order to have the speed and climb rates
given the size of the aircraft. The earlier Halford H1(DH Ghost)
based engine used on the XP-80 produced a speed about as good as a
P-51H which is another reason why the single engined YP-80A missed
the war since the aircraft needed to be completely re-engineered or
super sized to handle a new larger engine since the US version of the
H1 derivative was not growing in thrust or coming along quick enough.
The Meteor basically suffered so much shock drag from its tubby
nacelles it required time delaying engineering to to wrap the spars
around the engine and it too was little faster than a piston aircraft
with speed increases requiring repeated reconfiguration of the
nacelles and engine thrust increases.
Each approach has its own problems and advantages.
>
> Me-262 vs. P-80A performance:
>
> After the war, "Watson's Whizzers," led by Colonel Harold E. Watson
> from USAAF Air Technical Intelligence, shipped several intact Me 262s
> to the United States for further evaluation. The tests, conducted by
> Albert Boyd (the head of flight test for the USAAF) and a soon-to-be-
> legendary Chuck Yeager, determined that the performance of the Me 262
> was essentially equal to the P-80A. The Me 262 had a slightly higher
> critical Mach number-0.83 Mach versus the handbook limit of 0.80 Mach
> for the P-80A--but the difference was of little value in the real
> world since the Me 262 could only reach that velocity in a dive,
> whereas the P-80A could do it in level flight. However, despite the
> fact that the Me 262 was almost 2,000 pounds heavier than the P-80A,
> the German aircraft accelerated quicker and had approximately the same
> climb performance.
There were no P-80A's in service during WW2, what there were was 11
YP-80A's on a morale boosting exercise . YP-11A development pace and
immaturity killed both Lockheeds chief test pilot and the United
State's highest scoring fighter pilot, I don't think the Me 262 did
quite as much harm during its test program.. These aircraft were in
fact prototypes that had been built along with the XP-80A. They
required several aerodynamic refinements including for instance
(compression strips) to address very harsh stalls and spins would
would come without any indication or warning.
Febuary/March 1945 Me 262 works number 1019101 is equiped with Jumo
004C and Jumo 004D (both engines are about the same thrust 1025kg and
1050kg). In either case the engines are about 18% more powerfull than
the Jumo 004B which are in the 880-900kg thust level. The aircraft
now records level flight speeds of 568mph. That's Mach 0.85
according to my calcs.
The Jumo 004D was entering production so as to be delivered starting
in April 1945. With the extra thrust the P-80 v Me 262 comparison
would look completely different apart from the Me 262 being a little
faster the climb rate would look a great deal better.
Many people claim that the Me 262 suffered from mach tuck. In fact
the Me 262V12 flew at 625mph (about 1000km/h) and perhaps the Me 262V9
as well. Both these aircraft have reduced canopies (rennkabine).
This would make the Me 262 faster than any post war Meteor or Shooting
Star 'record' plane.
>
> During the tests it was found that the slightly swept wing of the Me
> 262 provided no useful reduction in drag, mainly because the
> triangular cross-section of the fuselage created so much base drag
> that nothing could really help much.
Well no, these guys didn't have the full set of aerodynamic knowledge
yet so they are not correct.
We've seen how recontouring or reducing the bubble canopy could
increase speed to 625mph.
There was certainly an "area rule" effect there. The Me 262 had
been designed without knowledge or the "area rule" yet by 1943 German
aerodynamicists were well aware of it and started designing projects
in consideration of it.
There were other things that could be done to improve the Me 262, the
easiest one was to fillets for a 37 degrees or so of inboard leading
edge sweep. This effectively helps to 'area rule' the aircraft. If
post war meteors can have extended nacelles, reconfigured canopies,
cut of wing tips and Post war P-80A can have compressibility strips
added then Me 262 should also be afforded the same possibilities of
improvement.
There were more radical improvements that it was hopped would take the
Me 262 to Mach 0.95: 45 degree wing sweep and new HeS 011 engines
back where they orignally started: in the wing roots.
The swept wing did not change the
> critical Mach number by a measurable amount, and certainly did not
> help performance in the low transonic region where the Me 262 was
> particularly unstable. The P-80A had much better handling
> characteristics than the Me 262, largely because it was more refined
> aerodynamically and had its thrust vector on the centerline of the
> aircraft instead of at the quarter-span of each wing.
Again that is wrong. The Me 262 was NOT I repeat NOT
aerodynamically unstable. Instability means something completely
different.
All three aircraft: Meteor, Me 262, P80 had a tendency to high speed
snake (yaw). In part its caused by uneven airflow separation due to
shocks forming unevenly due to tailplane build tolerances. If having
a single engine was a prerequist to avoiding snaking means that we
wouldn't have airliners.
Mostly its just a problem all jets have. Jet aircraft need to fly
with electronics to damp out yawing momments: B-47, B-52, A4
Skyhawkes all had them. Skyhawkes used a rate gyro, B-52 used a
pendulum to swing the rudder, the pendulum was attached to with an
electromagnetic damping device tuned to flick the rudder in opposit
direction.
In the case of the Me 262 the snaking problem often started at
480mph. I say 'often' because in some cases it was cured by
repeatedly readjusting rudder trim and test flying the aircraft.
The wings would not have caused a Mach Issue: the wings werre NACA
00011-0.825-35 at the roots and NACA 00009-1.1-40 at the tips.
Basically the roots were 11% thick while the tips were 9% thick.
This is a very thin wing by world war 2 standards. The "35" in the
first digit indicates maximum thickness at 35% of chord while the the
40 indicates maximum thickness at 40% for the tips. The wings also
had very sharp leading edges.
Comparisons to the spitfire which supposedly had the highest mach
limit of ww2 aircraft are interesting. The Spitifres roots are 13%
thick at 20% of chord at the root (Me 262 11% at 35%) while the tips
of the spitifre are 9.3% at 20% of chord at rib 19 where the outer
aileron hinge is and 7.7% at rib 21 where the often removed elliptical
tips was attached. (Me 262 9% at 40% of chord). I suppose you could
guess that rib 20 was just over 8.5% based on averages.
In addition the Spitfire had 2.25 degrees of aerodynamic twist which
ensured that the wing when viewed from the frontal airflow was always
thicker than the noominal values.
Whether you use the 18.5 degree leading edge sweep or the 15 degree
quarter chord sweep the sweep on the Me 262 adds about 4%-5% to mach
limit.
Mach problems on the Me 262 came from something else, I would say
pressule build up on the nose an canopy.
>
> [end quotes]
>
> And so on and so forth. The problem here isn't technical - the 262 was
> an outstanding design for its time that was both innovative and
> impressive - but when all the myths of its inherent superiority are
> stripped away, its reputation actually suffers at the hands of those
> that resort to wild speculations to claim the 262 was something it
> actually wasn't.
Finally you say something half reasonable. There were Me 262 in
service in the second quarter of 1944, they were shooting down
bombers, fighters and recon aircraft in significant numbers.
No allied jet could claim anything like that. No PRU spitfire,
mosquito or Lockheed F5 was safe from them and once cruising at 440mph
they were hard to shoot down. They were withdrawn for a while when
the engines were upgraded (Jumo 004B-1 was replaced with the much more
reliable Jumo 004B-4 which had air cooled blades)
Apart for the engine issues they were entering service at a time it
might have altered the outcome of the war by stopping the allied
daylight bombing campaign. Imagine doubling allied attrition and
halving Luftwaffe attrition while preventing the synthetic oil
refineries and several factories from being bombarded. Apart from
their speed they were a capable platform for several new weapons
bob matthews
> On Feb 18, 4:59 pm, "Scott M. Kozel" <koze...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> The idea of the Me 262 as the potentially decisive wonder weapon is
>> one of the most enduring myths in airpower history. Hitler’s oft-
>> quoted order forbidding the employment of this aircraft as a fighter
>> dates from May 1944, by which time no Me 262s were in service. Because
>> design and technical faults still plagued the aircraft, its employment
>> in any role would have to await their resolution—as would the training
>> of a sufficient number of pilots, many of whom found it difficult to
>> master the temperamental interceptor. It is unlikely that the jet
>> could have appeared in combat much earlier than it did, even without
>> Hitler’s interference. The 262, although a deadly aircraft in the
>> hands of the right pilot, remained essentially a prototype pressed
>> into combat service. Throughout its short service life, the aircraft
>> suffered from an abnormally high accident rate and scored only a
>> minuscule number of combat victories.
>
> Nevertheless: It was the first and it was very nearly game-changing.
> That is worth something.
Nearly, but not quite. It's arguable that the Me262 did not extend the
war by a day and that had resources devoted to the jet might better have
been spent on FW190Xs.
==bob
Duwop
> As usual the ignoramii with not a technical or historical clue come
> out to regurgitate some dearly held but shallowly researched
> 'opinion'.
>
How often must you be shown to be a distorting liar before you finally
hide away under some rock in shame?
Archaeopteryx
> On Feb 18, 8:04 pm, Dan <B24...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > vaughn wrote:
> > > "Scott M. Kozel" <koze...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> > >news:15e3e33c-a76d-446e...@h20g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
> > > webpa <we...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > >> Neither in practice nor potentially, was it "very nearly game-
> > >> changing".
>
> > > You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but in this case I disagree.
> > > Simply put, the Me 262 made every other fighter plane in the world obsolete
> > > within a very short period of time, and put the future of every other
> > > warplane into question. Yes, all that would have eventually happened
> > > anyhow, but the Me 262 accelerated the process by a factor of (probably)
> > > years. If that isn't "game changing", then we need to discuss definitions.
>
> > > Vaughn
>
> > If the "game" was the war it most certainly not a "game changer" as
> > there was no real effect on the war. In terms of fighter development it
> > was a "game changer" primarily as a proof of concept.
>
> > Gan, U.S. Air Force, retired- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
>
> Almost every definative resource on the Me-262 makes it clear that it
> was the most advanced a/c by the end of WW2 and that it could not win
> the air war regardless due to Allied NUMERICAL SUPERIORITY. You can
> try to play the engines game, or the Hitler order for bomber (which
> was disobeyed), or Hitler delaying advanced secret weapons, or
> developing new tactics, or lack of fuel, or whatever... but the plane
> started as Me P.1065 in 1938, BEFORE WW2 and the historic He-178
> flight in August 1939. The engines were not ready for early use in the
> war, true, but Messerschmitt had the airframes produced awaiting them
> and when they did become available the Germans did the very best under
> the worst conditions possible, especially round-the-clock bombing and
> lack of strategic metals.
>
> You cannot call the a/c a prototype as 1,433 of them were produced in
> various models for various roles: fighter, fighter-bomber, bomber,
> recon, bomber destroyer, night fighter, and interceptor. There were
> plenty of A and B models, a few Cs, and the sub-variants. The problem
> was that only 200 max ever made it into combat and the new jet had
> bugs to work out as well as the usual training accidents. However,
> that did not prevent the 262 from shooting down and strafing anywhere
> from 509-785 a/c depending on the source.
>
> The a/c could have been cancelled many times from 1938-45 but several
> key people kept it alive and it had the power to break through the
> escorts and down the bombers. It clearly was a potent threat against
> the USAAF and RAF and so they adopted the practice of pouncing on the
> jets on T/O and landing, strafing every single one on the ground, and
> destroying the rail yards that affected transport of the 262. Why do
> you think so much less than hundreds of them were available in 1945?
> The rail losses were about 50% of production= 700+ lost to bombing.
> The Allies had to scavenge them where they found them in forests,
> bunkers, the remaining hangars, anywhere they were dispersed of those
> that remained, or in units that surrendered.
>
> But still the 262 brought the jet into modern combat and with it the
> R4M rockets which were to be replaced by the Mauser MK-213 revolver
> cannon and X-4 AAMs within months of Germany's surrender. Same for
> more powerful Jumos and the He S 011. The 262 gave the victorious
> Allies the swept wing, axial-flow turbojets, the new revolver cannons,
> and AAM technology.
>
> In huge numbers equal to the Allies the 262 could have changed the air
> war, most definately. They would have been joined by the He-162, Fw Ta
> 183, Me P.1101 and Go-229 as well. You can call the He-162, Germany's
> second jet fighter, an experiment due to mere weeks of fighting and
> 2-4 kills to show for it... but not the combat-proven Me-262. Think
> JV-44 and try to assert that it could not be a "game changer".
>
> Even after WW2, the Me-262 proved superior to the P-80 in a one-vs-one
> test and poor old Hap Arnold had to use his influence to keep the
> plane out of the public air races against the P-80 when Hughes wanted
> to race his.
>
> No matter what you say, the 262 was beaten by numbers, the avg combat
> of no more than 37 (55-60 max) Me-262s at any given time vs 1000+
> bombers plus 500+ escorts!!! That they scored as high as they did is a
> testament to the brave LW fighter pilots that showed the full
> potential of the 262. Just a hand-full of Me-262 aces shot down 77
> Allied a/c by themselves!
>
> So save the unfounded Me-262 "mythology" bullshit for some
> unintelligent flag-waving vet. But wait, why is it that most of those
> bomber and fighter vets that actually had combat with the 262 rate it
> so highly as well as the Allied Intel teams and those at Wright
> Field??? Answer that, fool.
>
> Now go troll somewhere else or at least read a good ref on the history
> of the Me-262. You'll find these key words in almost all of them:
> ALLIED NUMERICAL SUPERIORITY ultimately was the cause of the Me-262's
> loss of advantage as a jet fighter- not the engine history, nor
> Hitler's meddling, nor even the small numbers available for combat.
>
> Rob
...
> Even after WW2, the Me-262 proved superior to the P-80 in a one-vs-one
> test and poor old Hap Arnold had to use his influence to keep the
> plane out of the public air races against the P-80 when Hughes wanted
> to race his.
Still waiting for one iota of credible proof that any of that is more
than a figment of Arndt's fertile imagination.
But while we're waiting, there's some interesting references available
to substitute for all the arm waving about the "superiority" of one
design over another available from:
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/
Posted there are scans of the original documents:
Flight Test Division Memorandum
Report Serial No. TSFTE-2009
26 August 1946
Performance Tests on the Lockheed
P-80 A-1 Airplane, AAF No. 44-85044
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-80/P-80.html
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-80/P-80A-85075.pdf
and
Royal Aircraft Establishment, Farnborough
Note on the performance in flight of
the German jet-propelled aircraft
Messerschmidtt 262, Heinkel 162 and Arado 234
R.A.E Tech. Note No 235/5 October, 1945
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/me262/RAE-german-jets.pdf
Excellent site - highly recommended. Loads of original data on a
significant number of WWII designs.
teut...@aol.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
Thanks Bob for old "resources mis-allocation" excuse used with the V-
Waffen, although this is the first time I have read about someone
substituting Me-262 for the Vergeltungswaffen directly!
Also, your lack of basic aviation knowledge is exposed by your silly
Fw-190X designation. What you MEANT to say was Fw-190D and Ta 152 a/c.
But then again, Messerschmitt was the more produced LW fighter, so
that would be Me Bf 109Ks. And what... no Do-335s???
Shame on you, Bob.
Rob
Archaeopteryx
>
> read more »
...
> As usual the ignoramii with not a technical or historical clue come
> out to regurgitate some dearly held but shallowly researched
> 'opinion'.
Riiiight.
Trying to claim that your latest iteration of "War & Peace" is
anything but a quasi-technical hash and an effort to confuse the issue
with more terms and conditions than can be found on an Icelandic bank
loan application doesn't change the historical and technical facts.
The substantive issue was - and remains - whether the Me-262 was
significantly superior in performance to the P-80 and the evidence
stands is that it was not.
As previously noted in an earlier post, scanned originals of
evaluations of production standard variants of the P-80A and Me-262
are available online - go read them for yourself. Given the choice of
believing the charted data from Wright Field and FAE Farnborough or
your increasingly shrill pronouncements, forgive me for choosing the
former as being slightly more credible.
If you want to place a truckload of speculative thumbs on the scale to
in an effort to prove the miraculous performance enhancements that
could be achieved with the 262 airframe, then at least do the P-80 the
justice of comparing a likewise effort - such as the XP-80R.
Oh wait - you did:
> Many people claim that the Me 262 suffered from mach tuck. In fact
> the Me 262V12 flew at 625mph (about 1000km/h) and perhaps the Me 262V9
> as well. Both these aircraft have reduced canopies (rennkabine).
> This would make the Me 262 faster than any post war Meteor or Shooting
> Star 'record' plane.
Riiiight.
And that's your undocumented claim of 625 vs. an FAI recognized speed
record of 623.738 mph. A whole 1.262 mph.
Impressive, Euno.
Sorry you wasted all that effort, but then, one of these days you
might figure out that one documented, verifiable reference is
significantly more effective than throwing 10,000 words at a wall
hoping they'll stick.
<massive snippage>
Archaeopteryx
...
> Also, your lack of basic aviation knowledge is exposed by your silly
> Fw-190X designation. What you MEANT to say was Fw-190D and Ta 152 a/c.
> But then again, Messerschmitt was the more produced LW fighter, so
> that would be Me Bf 109Ks. And what... no Do-335s???
You mean, kind of like how you didn't even know what a Malcom-hooded
Mustang was over in your own thread?
Sounds like somebody's tossing rocks from a glass house again.
euno...@yahoo.com.au
I note you've come out of a rock somewhere. Point out where I lied.
teut...@aol.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
I knew what it was, it just looked WEIRD on a USAAF P-51, early or
not. But my reply is over on the other thread. BTW, anyone can follow
the Fw-190 series to an easy D-model or even a Ta 152 extension.
Messerschmitt is more complex because after K there was also a T and a
X with frequent debates on any construction of the TL and Z. We could
also get into high-altitude versions, but this would drift into the
Me-155/Bv-155 and we don't want to confuse Bob or you!
Rob
p.s. FYI, there also was a single Fw Ta 153 produced :)
Archaeopteryx
...
>We could
> also get into high-altitude versions, but this would drift into the
> Me-155/Bv-155 and we don't want to confuse Bob or you!
Sure - give us the old soft shoe about the BV-155 and come up blank on
the Malcolm hood.
Which really just illustrates that your "knowledge" is based purely in
an agenda to support your political uber alles spiel rather than a
rounded interest in the technology of the era. Which in turn casts a
shadow on any unsupported statement you care to make by way of
comparing German vs. Allied equipment, because your "knowledge"
plainly sucks and you just proved it. (again)
Which, curiously enough, is the point of this thread - you've been
dancing around, passing off insults and doing everything but
supporting your asinine claims about Howard Hughes, the Me-262, Hap
Arnold, the P-80 and that "OFFICIAL US and British policy to hunt for
the Me-262 and kill it by pouncing on it when it was most vunerable->
during T/O or landing."
You can start catching up to the thread any old time, Rob - this'll be
an interesting read.
evankb...@hotmail.com
> On Thu, 19 Feb 2009 02:54:58 GMT, "vaughn"
>
>
>
> <vaughnsimonHATESS...@att.FAKE.net> wrote:
>
> >"Scott M. Kozel" <koze...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> >news:15e3e33c-a76d-446e...@h20g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
> >webpa <we...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >>Neither in practice nor potentially, was it "very nearly game-
> >>changing".
>
> > You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but in this case I disagree.
> >Simply put, the Me 262 made every other fighter plane in the world obsolete
> >within a very short period of time, and put the future of every other
> >warplane into question. Yes, all that would have eventually happened
> >anyhow, but the Me 262 accelerated the process by a factor of (probably)
> >years. If that isn't "game changing", then we need to discuss definitions.
>
> >Vaughn
>
> changer" in the light of other technology of the period.
>
> While it could climb faster, which was an advantage in the largely
> defensive posture of Germany at the time, like all early jets it
> didn't have the endurance to match the piston-driven fighters. The
> significant airspeed advantage looks good at first, but remember that
> comes with increased turn radius and reduced turn rate--significant
> factor in a guns-only environment. The high speed at merge,
> particularly when attacking bombers, becomes a disadvantage in terms
> of reduced tracking time for a gun solution--shorter bursts, reduced
> time in range, and greater lead angle requirements.
>
> I've recently put the manuscript on Robin Olds' life to bed and in it
> he describes his first sighting of an Me-262. It was late in 1944. He
> was impressed with the speed, but also describes the short time of the
> encounter--the 262 was "there and gone" with neither threat to the
> P-51s nor presenting much of a target either.
>
> He immediately went to work with the guys in his squadron (434th
> Fighter Sqdn out of Wattisham, England) to develop tactics to deal
> with it. He indicates looking forward to the next encounters with the
> jets and particularly was hoping to be able to engineer his attack to
> get at them as they returned to landings with minimal fuel remaining.
>
> In the next couple of chapters he goes into details on his immediate
> post-war experience with the brand-new first US jets, the P-80s.
> Dealing with the short range, short duration, high fuel consumption
> and light payload of the jets was a real problem. He questioned the
> practicality of the -80s and suggested that other than the whiz-bang
> of demoing jet propulsion, no one was really sure of what the mission
> for the birds might be.
>
> Hardly indicative of "game-changing" to me.
This is slightly off topic but I recently saw a March 1970 photo of
Robin Olds during a visit to Miramar naval air station. He is pictured
walking across the tarmac with Top Gun instructors and the caption
said he was suited up for an ACM exercise. Did he write anything about
this experience?
teut...@aol.com
No such thing; by posting to just the last paragraph of my reply you
totally evaded on the German a/c designation error of the other poster
and are trying to re-direct to other subjects b/c your strong points
are weak non-German a/c related. Nice try, but answer my entire
paragraph. You can't.
>
> Which really just illustrates that your "knowledge" is based purely in
> an agenda to support your political uber alles spiel rather than a
> rounded interest in the technology of the era. Which in turn casts a
> shadow on any unsupported statement you care to make by way of
> comparing German vs. Allied equipment, because your "knowledge"
> plainly sucks and you just proved it. (again)
I've posted the most on German a/c and all related weapon systems,
their history and development, secret weapons, the LW, the Experten,
the air battles, the jet engines, and have given the greatest
photographic record here. No one beats me in that. I do not have any
agenda as I have posted on all of the world's aircraft from ancient
designs to futuristic and the RAM Archive backs me on this. All you
have is your word which is meaningless to me. Also, I never have
claimed to be an expert on any aviation subject, but I have submitted
the largest amount of photographic record here and that is established
and can be proven by the RAM Archive. Sadly, you cannot prove
otherwise and I am known for that here anyway.
>
> Which, curiously enough, is the point of this thread - you've been
> dancing around, passing off insults and doing everything but
> supporting your asinine claims about Howard Hughes, the Me-262, Hap
> Arnold, the P-80 and that "OFFICIAL US and British policy to hunt for
> the Me-262 and kill it by pouncing on it when it was most vunerable->
> during T/O or landing."
>
> You can start catching up to the thread any old time, Rob - this'll be
> an interesting read.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
I gave you proof of Howard Hughes aquisition of FE-4012 and Hughes'
work on it.
I gave you the furnished 1946 Boyd report on the Me-262 vs the P-80 in
which the historical record states that the 262 was superior
I gave you reasonable history of the troublesome P-80 development and
the killing of 8 pilots, including Maj Richard Bong that got the a/c
grounded and almost cancelled while also providing Hap Arnolds
personal saving of that program by testifying to Congress and yet its
numbers were reduced by the USAAF
And I have stated that the USAAF order to target the Me-262 above
other German types of a/c is legit for obvious reasons of the jet's
advantages in the air. The fact that many were lost in the air does
not negate what I said as many LW pilots disobeyed their training and
tactical rules of engagement by attempting to dogfight or evade vs
opening the throttles and breaking away (that was the official LW
policy in that matter), not to mention the numerical superiority issue
which is totally valid here as no more than 60 Me-262s ever took off
in a single engagement of 1200-1500+ bombers and escorts. The average
number is more like 37 max. No one but the LW Experten could have
managed to shoot down as many a/c as they did under those odds. I defy
you to provide numerical proof otherwise in any other AF.
As for Hap Arnold's influence on keeping the Me-262 out of the public
air races, history proves he was successful. The Me-262 could have
raced, but was never allowed to. Do you think he personally saved the
P-80 program and was confronted with bad news of a standard Me-262
being superior to the P-80 of the time... and then Hughes preparing a
lighter and faster version for the air races? Whether he retired or
not, his influence went the entire way to Congress, so certainly he
got his way with banning the German a/c from racing. It would have
destroyed US morale if a captured old 262 beat the best P-80 of the
time. Common sense, really.
Rob
JasiekS
Uzytkownik "Ken S. Tucker" <dyna...@vianet.on.ca> napisal w
wiadomosci
news:7c07232e-68cd-429d...@h5g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
> Have a look at this,
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Messerschmitt_Me_262_Schwalbe_3d_drawing.svg
> Then this, and read about subsonic efficiency,
> and note the similiar sweep,
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A-6_Intruder
> Subsonic sweep is optimized for the cruise speed,
> efficiency. That's a bit complicated aerodynamically,
> it's more than a quicky Mach number calculation.
You rely on Wiki. OK, it's your decision. Your drawing is linked to
the page
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messerschmitt_Me_262
where you can read
<quote>
Finally, the Me 262 wing had only a slight sweep incorporated for
trim (center of gravity) reasons and likely would have suffered
structural failure due to divergence at high transonic speeds.
<\quote>
--
JasiekS
Warsaw, Poland
Ed Rasimus
wrote:
>This is slightly off topic but I recently saw a March 1970 photo of
>Robin Olds during a visit to Miramar naval air station. He is pictured
>walking across the tarmac with Top Gun instructors and the caption
>said he was suited up for an ACM exercise. Did he write anything about
>this experience?
Robin left us, quite literally, cases of notes, journals, writings,
editorial cartoons (he was quite talented as an artist), and memoirs.
There has not been nearly enough room in the book to use it all.
The period of his life after retiring from the AF is briefly addressed
in the next to last chapter. Of course, in March of '70, he was still
active duty AF. He retired June 1, '73.
Christina, his daughter, and I have discussed follow-on books
expanding on certain periods as well as a large-format collection of
his sketches. All of that is well down-stream at this point.
Archaeopteryx
...
Well, there you go again:
> I gave you proof of Howard Hughes aquisition of FE-4012 and Hughes'
> work on it.
Where? Show the link you posted to that "proof."
> I gave you the furnished 1946 Boyd report on the Me-262 vs the P-80 in
> which the historical record states that the 262 was superior
Where? Show the link you posted to this "report."
> I gave you reasonable history of the troublesome P-80 development and
> the killing of 8 pilots, including Maj Richard Bong that got the a/c
> grounded and almost cancelled while also providing Hap Arnolds
> personal saving of that program by testifying to Congress and yet its
> numbers were reduced by the USAAF
Where? Show where, in this entire thread, you posted any such thing.
> And I have stated that the USAAF order to target the Me-262 above
> other German types of a/c is legit for obvious reasons of the jet's
> advantages in the air.
Who cares what you've "stated?"
You said that it was:
>>"OFFICIAL US and British policy to hunt for
> > the Me-262 and kill it by pouncing on it when it was most vunerable->
> > during T/O or landing."
I asked you for proof that there was ever any such "OFFICIAL US and
British Policy" directive other than the one that was already in
effect.
You can blather all you want - but you can't document that whopper.
> As for Hap Arnold's influence on keeping the Me-262 out of the public
> air races, history proves he was successful. The Me-262 could have
> raced, but was never allowed to.
Prove it.
Offer one shred of proof Arnold ever had anything to do with
preventing anything or anybody from doing anything. One stinking
document.
Hell, you've never even mentioned the YEAR this fantasy race of yours
was supposed to have occurred. Hope you weren't counting on the 1946
Bendix, because Arnold RETIRED in June of that year and Hughes was in
the hospital - you know - after taking off the roof of a house with
the XF-11 on July 7th. The only thing he was going to "race" that year
was his custom-designed hospital bed.
So, as usual, instead of documenting even one of your wild-assed
claims, we're treated to you performing another tap dance routine
wearing that tin foil costume of yours.
Duwop
I don't have that much time, am no longer a teenager.
But I'll give you this one free: verbosity <> veracity
HTH
Walt
wrote:
>Febuary/March 1945 Me 262 works number 1019101 is equiped with Jumo
>004C and Jumo 004D (both engines are about the same thrust 1025kg and
>1050kg).
No such w/n.
Ken S. Tucker
Your writing implies you earn a living in the aviation
business, is the that correct to assume?
On Feb 21, 5:22 am, "JasiekS" <jasieks.no.s...@please.poczta.onet.pl>
wrote:
> Uzytkownik "Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...@vianet.on.ca> napisal w
> wiadomoscinews:7c07232e-68cd-429d...@h5g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Have a look at this,
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Messerschmitt_Me_262_Schwalbe_3d_dr...
> > Then this, and read about subsonic efficiency,
> > and note the similiar sweep,
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A-6_Intruder
> > Subsonic sweep is optimized for the cruise speed,
> > efficiency. That's a bit complicated aerodynamically,
> > it's more than a quicky Mach number calculation.
>
> You rely on Wiki. OK, it's your decision.
Not quite, I always check the portion of the ref I give.
> Your drawing is linked to
> the pagehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messerschmitt_Me_262
> where you can read
> <quote>
> Finally, the Me 262 wing had only a slight sweep incorporated for
> trim (center of gravity) reasons and likely would have suffered
> structural failure due to divergence at high transonic speeds.
> <\quote>
The Intruder - designed for range and endurance - has a
cruise speed ~ +100 of the Me-262 and a bit more sweep.
My understanding is the wing thickest part (usually where
the main spar is), needs a sweep to reduce something
called *Simultaneous Shock Moment* and that relates to
"area ruling" too, starting at ~ .5 Mach.
I find the SSM is usually underestimated.
> JasiekS
> Warsaw, Poland
Ken
JasiekS
> The Intruder - designed for range and endurance - has a
> cruise speed ~ +100 of the Me-262 and a bit more sweep.
> My understanding is the wing thickest part (usually where
> the main spar is), needs a sweep to reduce something
> called *Simultaneous Shock Moment* and that relates to
> "area ruling" too, starting at ~ .5 Mach.
I never heared about SSM, but English isn't my native language. Some
links to source material/explanation?
Sweep is useful both in delaying compressibility effect and CG
location. It causes some side effects (boundary layer drift, change
in spanwise load distribution) and usually is nighmare in
construction (introduces additional load at wing-fuselage junction)
and production.
Compressibility effect cannot be neglected from M~0.3-0.4 (Prandtl
correction factor = 1.048-1.091 respectively).
--
JasiekS
Warsaw, Poland
euno...@yahoo.com.au
> On Fri, 20 Feb 2009 17:42:44 -0800 (PST), eunome...@yahoo.com.au
> wrote:
>
> >Febuary/March 1945 Me 262 works number 1019101 is equiped with Jumo
> >004C and Jumo 004D (both engines are about the same thrust 1025kg and
> >1050kg).
>
> No such w/n.
My mistake, faulty cut and paste: I don't have access to the
stormbirds database.
Me 262 (VI+AG) werk nos 130 007, probably the V12, speed attained
930km/h 578mph with Jumo 004C or Jumo 004D. Reference from page 87
of Anthony Kay's book "German Jet engine and Gas Turbine development
1933-1945"
This seems to be its highest level speed attained by the Me 262 apart
from the somewhat controversial runs with the reduced size rennkabine
(racing cabin) fitted on the V9 and or V12 in which specified
conditions (eg altitude) don't seem to be known.
The speed increase from 540mph to 578mph is consistent with a thrust
increase of 880-920KP of the Jumo 004B to 1000-1050KP quoted for the
Jumo 004C and Jumo 004D.
euno...@yahoo.com.au
> On Thu, 19 Feb 2009 02:54:58 GMT, "vaughn"
>
>
>
> <vaughnsimonHATESS...@att.FAKE.net> wrote:
>
> >"Scott M. Kozel" <koze...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> >news:15e3e33c-a76d-446e...@h20g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
> >webpa <we...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >>Neither in practice nor potentially, was it "very nearly game-
> >>changing".
>
> > You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but in this case I disagree.
> >Simply put, the Me 262 made every other fighter plane in the world obsolete
> >within a very short period of time, and put the future of every other
> >warplane into question. Yes, all that would have eventually happened
> >anyhow, but the Me 262 accelerated the process by a factor of (probably)
> >years. If that isn't "game changing", then we need to discuss definitions.
>
> >Vaughn
>
> It would be hard to equate the improved speed factor as a "game
> changer" in the light of other technology of the period.
>
> While it could climb faster, which was an advantage in the largely
> defensive posture of Germany at the time, like all early jets it
> didn't have the endurance to match the piston-driven fighters. The
> significant airspeed advantage looks good at first, but remember that
> comes with increased turn radius and reduced turn rate--significant
> factor in a guns-only environment.
The turns radius of the Me 262 was certainly greater than the P-51D
but I've come across an article once in which it was stated and showed
an illustration that the Me 262 was fast enough to fly around the
outside of a P-51D; hence its turn rate at high speed was higher. It
was quite an old historical Magazine series from the 1970s called "War
Monthly".
A did a rough analysis on equivalent horsepower to weight ratio of the
Me 262 versus P-51D. This suggests that the power to weight ratio of
the Me 262 at 10,000m/33,000ft at about 540mph is greater than the
P-51D at 440mph by 18%.
AFAIKT the tighter or faster the turn the more lift required which
produces induced drag which requires power to overcome unless one is
prepared to loose height advantage. The L/D ratios of the Me 262
wing were probably quite good at high speed; it had a very thin highly
racked air foil so long as the slats didn't come out.
The equation for power is P = F x v (power in Watts = thrust force
in Newton x velocity in m/s). I allowed 300lbs jet thrust for the
Packard V-1650-7 and assumed 85% propeller efficiency (80% would have
been more realistic.) I assumed 1000hp power for the Merlin at
33000ft and for the Jumo 004B 320kp thrust (3200N) from specs that I
have. Some later merlins (eg for P-51L V-1650-11) had 3 speed
superchargers and better fuel delivery systems and could maintain
1280hp to 30700ft but not the P-51D engine.
http://www.unlimitedexcitement.com/Pride%20of%20Pay%20n%20Pak/Rolls-Royce%20Merlin%20V-1650%20Engine.htm
Me 262
Speed 540mph = 245 meters/sec
Prop Shaft Horsepower at 85% efficiency=NA
Thrust @ 10,000m 320kP x 2 engines (latter jumo 004C had 380kp)
Equivalent kW/HP at 245m/s = 245ms x 3200N x 2 =1568kW/2100hp (note 1
kp = 1kg = 10Newton)
Total HP 2100hp
Empty Weight 9709lbs
Loaded Weight 15384lbs
Average Weight 12546lbs assuming half empty tanks.
Power/Weight loading Ratio at 540mph 0.1685
P-51D
Speed 440mph
Speed 200 meters/sec
Prop Shaft Horsepower about 745kW/1000hp at 33000ft
Jet Thrust @ 10,000m about 300lbs/130kP
Equivalent kW/HP 200m/s x 1300kN = 260KW/350HP
Total HP 1000 x 0.85 +350 = 1200hp (assuming 0.85 prop eff)
Empty Weight 7635lbs
Loaded weight 9200lbs
Average Weight 8417lbs assuming half empty tanks.
Power/Weight loading ratio at 440mph 0.1425 hp/lb
> The high speed at merge,
> particularly when attacking bombers, becomes a disadvantage in terms
> of reduced tracking time for a gun solution--shorter bursts, reduced
> time in range, and greater lead angle requirements.
>
> I've recently put the manuscript on Robin Olds' life to bed and in it
> he describes his first sighting of an Me-262. It was late in 1944. He
> was impressed with the speed, but also describes the short time of the
> encounter--the 262 was "there and gone" with neither threat to the
> P-51s nor presenting much of a target either.
The Luftwaffe was still trying to work out their tactics and strategy
as well. Steinhoff wanted to attack the escorts so that the piston
engined aircraft could attack the bombers. The bombers seemed to
become the main target.
Certainly getting enough firepower onto an target without slowing down
was a difficult problem. Hence the emphasis on innovations such as
folding fin rockets R4M, installation of gyro sights (Askania EZ42)
and the intention to develop "Elfe" a simple computer which linked a
3cm wavelength radar (FuG 248) ranging device to the lead computing
sight.
The 'revolver canon' known as the Mauser Mk 213 that formed the basis
of almost all post war aircraft guns outside of the Vulcan (eg
ADEN,DEFA) came out to the recognition that a mechanism not dependant
on reciprocation was needed to obtain the velocities, ranges and rates
of fire needed for jet fighters.
>
> He immediately went to work with the guys in his squadron (434th
> Fighter Sqdn out of Wattisham, England) to develop tactics to deal
> with it. He indicates looking forward to the next encounters with the
> jets and particularly was hoping to be able to engineer his attack to
> get at them as they returned to landings with minimal fuel remaining.
>
> In the next couple of chapters he goes into details on his immediate
> post-war experience with the brand-new first US jets, the P-80s.
> Dealing with the short range, short duration, high fuel consumption
> and light payload of the jets was a real problem. He questioned the
> practicality of the -80s and suggested that other than the whiz-bang
> of demoing jet propulsion, no one was really sure of what the mission
> for the birds might be.
>
> Hardly indicative of "game-changing" to me.
P-80 range on internal fuel was 780miles only a little less than a
P-51. Me 262 was 650 miles.
Once they were in the air and comfortably cruising at over 440mph they
were safe from any piston engined technology around devaluing the
asset completely in terms of it ability to stop jet bombers or stop
jet recon or to stop the fighters getting into the vicinity of the
bombers. By changing direction slightly the speed and good turn rate
meant that the Me 262 could avoid not only interception but the piston
engined fighters attempts to get its guns to bare.
The piston engine escorts had to resort to a tactic of using their
massive numbers (at least a 30:1 advantage) and strategic advantage
to orbit the jet fighter bases.
Technically the Germans were undone by their shortage of Nickel which
forced material changes which reduced reliability of the engine and
delayed its entry into service. Each early Jumo 004A engine needed
88kg, they reduced this to 20kg in the Jumo 004B-1 and then to 6 kg in
the Jumo 004B-4 by using ordinary steel in everything but the turbine
blades and turbine nozzles. The turbine blades from the original
engines lasted about 3 times as long as the new blades in the same lab
tests. Due the conversion to the new low nickel material the blades
natural resonant frequency changed such that they resonated with the
exhaust pattern created by the 6 combustion chamber cans. This
necessitated further time consuming re engineering cycle of the blades
to change their frequency to a higher one and reduction of shaft rpm
from 9000rpm to 8700rpm.
The Junkers engineers did very well to get a jet engine in the air in
4-5 years when a piston engine took 6.
If the Me 262 and or rather its engines had of gotten into production
in June 1943 as it was scheduled to or for that matter late 1943
before the allies had airbases on the continent the 'game changing'
P-51D would have had little effect on the war. All that needed was a
nickel deposit somewhere around central Europe.
euno...@yahoo.com.au
> On Feb 19, 6:53 am, Eunometic <eunome...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>
> > > by them,
>
> > Keep it real. Claims by the ME 262 range between 500-700, with the
> > matter having been researched against allied losses and being
> > plausible. Claims against Me 262 are around 100-120 or so indicating
> > that it achieved up to 5:1 kill ratio.
>
> You confuse pilot claims with real losses that match the time and
> place,
There were probably only ever 200 Me 262 ever brought to opperational
service. Allies mad claims, Luftwaffe made claims. Both sides over
claimed, usually equaly unless you count bomber gunners. Here is a
case in point.On 26 July 1944 Leutnant Schreiber, a former ZG 26
pilot, intercepted and attacked a No. 540 Squadron RAF Mosquito PR
XVI, a reconnaissance aircraft, while flying Messerschmitt Me 262 A-1a
W.Nr. 130 017. It is often referred to as the first aerial victory by
a jet fighter in aviation history. Although damaged, the Mosquito,
did in fact, manage to return to an Allied held airfield in Italy and
was lost in the crash landing.
In other words he probably saw hits and smoke and had camera footage
and probably saw the A/C dive away so he claimed it. At the speed
involved confirming a kill is hard and going around dangerous.
Factor in the German overclaiming as well as the allied over claiming
things even up a bit, though we know the German system of reporting by
marrying up claims with wrecks broke down in 1945 which meant that
confirming a kill was harder and far less reliable. Heinrich Bar
however has 16 confirmed jet kills.
Given that the Me 262 managed to operate in groups of around 40 jets
against 1200 bombers and 600 fighters and still come out alive and
with victories while behing harrased at takeoff and landing suggests
they were very effective bar the overwhelming odds staked against
them.
> and you forgot to include the numerous Me 262s that were lost
> due to malfunctions and pilot errors.
The Luftwaffe typically had 50% non combat related losses so the Me
262 was not unusual in this regard. Fully 34% of losses relate to
nose wheel support collapses. These came from opel and were made of
poor quality material but there was nothing to be done. Another 10%
from tailplane resonance which was effected by the exhaust, would have
been fixed eventually or managed by maintenance procedures. About 33%
of losses related to engine failure. But when one looks at losses one
notes the conditions bad runways, allied harrasment forcing crash
landings or bad approaches: Lt Alfred Schreiber was killed in a crash
landing at Lechfeld flying the same Me 262 A-1a WNr. 130 017. His
wheels had caught the lip of a slit trench causing his Me 262 to
cartwheel.
Just check early P-47M operations and pilot losses or for that matter
typhoons with the early sabre engine and the pilot losses or some 61
serious P-80A stateside 'peacetime' accidents between june 45 to july
46 many of them fatal and some even involving mid air break-ups.
(this ignores the death of two test pilots on YP-80A)
Ken S. Tucker
On Feb 21, 2:24 pm, "JasiekS" <jasieks.no.s...@please.poczta.onet.pl>> wiadomoscinews:e50099d7-630e-4b8e...@40g2000prx.googlegroups.com...
>
> > The Intruder - designed for range and endurance - has a
> > cruise speed ~ +100 of the Me-262 and a bit more sweep.
> > My understanding is the wing thickest part (usually where
> > the main spar is), needs a sweep to reduce something
> > called *Simultaneous Shock Moment* and that relates to
> > "area ruling" too, starting at ~ .5 Mach.
>
> I never heared about SSM, but English isn't my native language. Some
> links to source material/explanation?
>
> Sweep is useful both in delaying compressibility effect and CG
> location. It causes some side effects (boundary layer drift, change
> in spanwise load distribution) and usually is nighmare in
> construction (introduces additional load at wing-fuselage junction)
> and production.
You know that wing dihedral gives Roll stability,
in that similiar way, wing sweep gives Yaw stability.
Suppose the a/c Yaws a few degrees to the right,
then the left wing presents more leading edge to
the inbound air flow, causing the left to drag more and
introduces a Yaw correction. That effect enables a
reduction of the vertical fin.
> Compressibility effect cannot be neglected from M~0.3-0.4 (Prandtl
> correction factor = 1.048-1.091 respectively).
Yes, I think that's the reason for a laminar flow airfoil,
such as used on the P-51 Mustang.
> --
> JasiekS
> Warsaw, Poland
Cheers
Ken
evankb...@hotmail.com
> On Feb 20, 8:33 pm, evankbren...@hotmail.com wrote:
> Just check early P-47M operations and pilot losses or for that matter
What for, it was not powered by a jet engine and there was no
technical flaw in the R-2800-57. The motors on the first shipment were
not properly sealed to keep out moisture during the ocean transit, and
they arrived in various states of corrosion.
The P-47N had the same powerplant and the 318th Fighter Group was
first to take delivery. They flew these planes to Saipan, refueling
when necessary and covering a distance of 4,132 miles, without
incident.
The Double Wasp was a masterpiece of reliability compared to German
aircraft engines. It was possible to get hundreds of hours from the
R-2800 before an engine change was required. One pilot from the 58th
Fighter Group flew his P-47D for over 600 hours before the motor was
removed.
The 325th Fighter Group flew the Thunderbolt for 3,626 sorties,
covering 15,280 combat hours. Just one loss was attributed to
mechanical failure.
Geoffrey Sinclair
news:2f9101d8-3108-4f5e...@x9g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
On Feb 22, 5:17 am, Walt <vzl...@q.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Feb 2009 17:42:44 -0800 (PST), eunome...@yahoo.com.au
> wrote:
>
>> >Febuary/March 1945 Me 262 works number 1019101 is equiped with Jumo
>> >004C and Jumo 004D (both engines are about the same thrust 1025kg and
>> >1050kg).
>>
>> No such w/n.
>My mistake, faulty cut and paste: I don't have access to the
>stormbirds database.
> Me 262 (VI+AG) werk nos 130 007, probably the V12, speed attained
> 930km/h 578mph with Jumo 004C or Jumo 004D. Reference from page 87
> of Anthony Kay's book "German Jet engine and Gas Turbine development
> 1933-1945"
It would be an impressive effort given 130007 is listed as destroyed at
Lechfeld on 19 July 1944 by allied bombing. See the Me262 production
log by O'Connell.
Geoffrey Sinclair
Remove the nb for email.
Geoffrey Sinclair
news:12b1a67b-21f1-42e4...@m40g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
On Feb 20, 8:33 pm, evankbren...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Feb 19, 6:53 am, Eunometic <eunome...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>
>> >> The number of Me 262 losses exceeded the number of verified shootdowns
>> >> by them,
>>
>> > Keep it real. Claims by the ME 262 range between 500-700, with the
>> > matter having been researched against allied losses and being
>> > plausible. Claims against Me 262 are around 100-120 or so indicating
>> > that it achieved up to 5:1 kill ratio.
>>
>> You confuse pilot claims with real losses that match the time and
>> place,
> There were probably only ever 200 Me 262 ever brought to opperational
> service.
The one thing most histories miss is the effect of Hitler's fighter
bomber order, not that it delayed introduction of the Me262 but
rather the way it meant bomber units were received more, at least
in 1944, than fighter units.
So in the survey of 10 January 1945, KG51 has 52 Me262, NJG11
has some, while Kommando Braunegg has 5. And that is it. JG 7
was working up to becoming operational at the time.
The 10 April 1945 survey has 143 Me262 in day fighter units, 21
in bomber units, 9 in night fighter units, with 89, 13 and 7 serviceable
respectively.
So I would say more than 200 saw service, if that is defined as
issued to a combat unit.
> Allies mad claims, Luftwaffe made claims. Both sides over
> claimed, usually equaly unless you count bomber gunners.
The claim was there were 500 to 700 Me262 kill claims that were
plausible but the facts to back that up are not presented, instead we
have the above waffle and details of one kill claim.
It seems the big kill claim numbers come from Warplanes of the Third
Reich repeating wartime German ideas. In particular III/JG7 claiming
427 kills including over 300 heavy bombers.
Now III/JG 7 was formed out of the Nowotny formation in November
1944 but was not operational until the second half of January 1945.
The USAAF in Europe reports the loss, to enemy aircraft, of 480
aircraft in 1945, 206 heavy bombers, 23 medium and light bombers
and 251 fighters.
You need to subtract some or all of the 123 USAAF aircraft lost to
enemy aircraft in January 1945, including 49 heavy bombers given
when JG 7 went operational.
So unless III/JG7 spent considerable time fighting in the east the
kill claims are very inflated. But given the claims are supposed to
have been researched they must largely be made against western
allied air forces.
Maybe one day those pushing the wonder Me262 will realise the
more wonder it is the more useless the later Fw190, Bf109 etc.
fighters need to become.
On another point maybe a third of the kills made by Me262 night
fighters can be verified from allied records.
> Here is a
> case in point.On 26 July 1944 Leutnant Schreiber, a former ZG 26
> pilot, intercepted and attacked a No. 540 Squadron RAF Mosquito PR
> XVI, a reconnaissance aircraft, while flying Messerschmitt Me 262 A-1a
> W.Nr. 130 017. It is often referred to as the first aerial victory by
> a jet fighter in aviation history. Although damaged, the Mosquito,
> did in fact, manage to return to an Allied held airfield in Italy and
> was lost in the crash landing.
Here is a case in point, on 25 July (not 26) a 544 (not 540) squadron
Mosquito PR XVI, one of eight sorties the squadron flew that day,
MM273 was attacked by an Me262 which made some six firing
passes. The Mosquito lost its attacker in 16,000 foot cloud over
the Tyrol. It landed at Fermo in Italy. MM273 was lost when it
crashed onto the sea off Malta in October 1950.
> Factor in the German overclaiming as well as the allied over claiming
> things even up a bit, though we know the German system of reporting by
> marrying up claims with wrecks broke down in 1945 which meant that
> confirming a kill was harder and far less reliable.
The verification comes with allied records and secondly why exactly is
allied over claiming an issue when trying to determine the number of
aircraft shot down by Me262's, how does a Mustang pilot over claiming
have an effect on Me262 kill claims?
> Heinrich Bar however has 16 confirmed jet kills.
This rather ignores the reality it is a minority of pilots that score the
majority of kills. And who has checked the actual claims against
allied losses?
> Given that the Me 262 managed to operate in groups of around 40 jets
> against 1200 bombers and 600 fighters and still come out alive and
> with victories while behing harrased at takeoff and landing suggests
> they were very effective bar the overwhelming odds staked against
> them.
I like this, note the lone Mosquito above? The Me262s did more than
simply wait for major USAAF raids.
Secondly they did not always run in groups of 40, indeed they often
acted as lone wolves.
Thirdly go look at the conventional Luftwaffe fighters and note they
also came out alive and scored kills and were harassed at take off
and landing. It is the nature of the WWII air war, it moves fast
enough most of your formation can usually escape if that is what it
wants or needs to do.
>> and you forgot to include the numerous Me 262s that were lost
>> due to malfunctions and pilot errors.
> The Luftwaffe typically had 50% non combat related losses so the Me
> 262 was not unusual in this regard. Fully 34% of losses relate to
> nose wheel support collapses. These came from opel and were made of
> poor quality material but there was nothing to be done.
Fascinating, a crash rate like that and noting could be done.
> Another 10%
> from tailplane resonance which was effected by the exhaust, would have
> been fixed eventually or managed by maintenance procedures.
Ah yes, the Germans would have fixed it someday turns up as usual.
>About 33%
>of losses related to engine failure. But when one looks at losses one
>notes the conditions bad runways, allied harrasment forcing crash
>landings or bad approaches:
Except it is clear the problem was with the undercarriage and engines,
not imagined saturation coverage of German airfields.
> Lt Alfred Schreiber was killed in a crash
> landing at Lechfeld flying the same Me 262 A-1a WNr. 130 017. His
> wheels had caught the lip of a slit trench causing his Me 262 to
> cartwheel.
So he misjudged his approach and hit a slit trench. They were standard
features of wartime airfields.
> Just check early P-47M operations and pilot losses.
Which Eunometic exaggerates.
> or for that matter
> typhoons with the early sabre engine
It was not the Sabre but tail problems, like the first Bf109F, that
was the early killer, since that caused a sudden failure.
The engine not working well meant the early aircraft were largely things
to push around the airfield, painful but not fatal. The RAF could afford
to keep the Typhoon at home while trying to make the thing work.
> and the pilot losses or some 61
> serious P-80A stateside 'peacetime' accidents between june 45 to july
> 46 many of them fatal and some even involving mid air break-ups.
> (this ignores the death of two test pilots on YP-80A)
I note serious is not defined. The USAAF had some 115 P-80
delivered by the end of August 1945. It had lost 8 destroyed and
7 written off by 7 August 1945, with 6 pilots killed. All up 563
P-80A built by the end of 1946.
Me262 production reached around 115 in something like the end
of August 1944 and over 500 by the end of December 1944.
262 000 0002 fatal crash 18 April 1943, engine part detached
Crashed is a term most of the 262 000 0001 to 5 aircraft have in their
histories, including multiple crashes. 0001 destroyed by bombing, 0003
destroyed by bombing, 0004 destroyed in crash in July 1943, by the
looks of it 0005 crashed badly enough in February 1945 to make
repairs uneconomic.
Next come 130 001 to 027
130 001 fatal crash 9 March 1944.
130 002 fatal crash 19 May 1944
130 006 crashed in June 1944, written off
130 008 crashed in June 1944, written off
130 011 first Me262 lost in combat, 18 July 1944, pilot killed.
130 026 lost to flak, September 1944.
Note something like 10 more were destroyed by bombing, mainly
during July 1944, which means they had little chance to fly. Others
lost to unknown causes. About 6 of the 27 pre production types
seem to have made it to 1945.
That takes in the 5 prototypes and first 27 pre production types.
Numerically the next group is 130 163 to 190, of these 28 aircraft
another 2 fatal crashes and 1 write off from those where the fate is
given.
And so on.
By the way another point is the low hours these Me262s were being
flown, when 0002 was destroyed it had flown 48 times for a total of
18 hours and 17 minutes. 0001 managed 33 hours 11 minutes,
0003 149 flights totalling 54 hours, 0004 51 flights totalling 17 hours
and 18 minutes.
Ed Rasimus
wrote:
>On Feb 20, 10:21 am, Ed Rasimus <rasimusSPAML...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> On Thu, 19 Feb 2009 02:54:58 GMT, "vaughn"
>>
>> It would be hard to equate the improved speed factor as a "game
>> changer" in the light of other technology of the period.
>>
>> While it could climb faster, which was an advantage in the largely
>> defensive posture of Germany at the time, like all early jets it
>> didn't have the endurance to match the piston-driven fighters. The
>> significant airspeed advantage looks good at first, but remember that
>> comes with increased turn radius and reduced turn rate--significant
>> factor in a guns-only environment.
>
>The turns radius of the Me 262 was certainly greater than the P-51D
>but I've come across an article once in which it was stated and showed
>an illustration that the Me 262 was fast enough to fly around the
>outside of a P-51D; hence its turn rate at high speed was higher. It
>was quite an old historical Magazine series from the 1970s called "War
>Monthly".
If you fly "around the outside" that means you cannot put your nose
inside of your opponent's turn and pull the necessary lead to bring
guns to bear.
Understand that turn rate is measured in degrees of heading change per
second. Going fast means a larger turn radius. Same rate, but larger
radius means no lead solution for guns.
Ideally any fighter trys to fly at the minimum speed necessary to
generate the maximum turn rate--a speed referred to as "corner
velocity". That is also the lowest speed you need to obtain the
maximum allowable G load.
An aircraft that can pull 6 G at 300 knots will beat one that needs
400 knots for 6 G--but only if the faster airplane must slow to
engage. The problem is if you keep going fast, you are in a series of
high-speed, high-angle firing passes.
euno...@yahoo.com.au
> On Sun, 22 Feb 2009 01:38:45 -0800 (PST), eunome...@yahoo.com.au
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Feb 20, 10:21 am, Ed Rasimus <rasimusSPAML...@verizon.net> wrote:
> >> On Thu, 19 Feb 2009 02:54:58 GMT, "vaughn"
>
> >> It would be hard to equate the improved speed factor as a "game
> >> changer" in the light of other technology of the period.
>
> >> While it could climb faster, which was an advantage in the largely
> >> defensive posture of Germany at the time, like all early jets it
> >> didn't have the endurance to match the piston-driven fighters. The
> >> significant airspeed advantage looks good at first, but remember that
> >> comes with increased turn radius and reduced turn rate--significant
> >> factor in a guns-only environment.
>
> >The turns radius of the Me 262 was certainly greater than the P-51D
> >but I've come across an article once in which it was stated and showed
> >an illustration that the Me 262 was fast enough to fly around the
> >outside of a P-51D; hence its turn rate at high speed was higher. It
> >was quite an old historical Magazine series from the 1970s called "War
> >Monthly".
>
> If you fly "around the outside" that means you cannot put your nose
> inside of your opponent's turn and pull the necessary lead to bring
> guns to bear.
>
> Ideally any fighter trys to fly at the minimum speed necessary to
> generate the maximum turn rate--a speed referred to as "corner
> velocity". That is also the lowest speed you need to obtain the
> maximum allowable G load.
I agree fully. I just got promoted to check the plausibility of that
"Me 262 flying around the outside" illustration in the silly childrens
history magazine.
"Corner velocity" One day I will find and read Col John Boyds thesis.
http://www.sci.fi/~fta/JohnBoyd.htm
Did you even meet him?