Me262 evaluation
Geoffrey Sinclair
when everything worked it was the highest performance aircraft to see
combat in WWII. The trouble for the Germans was making it work.
The references,
Dan O'Connell Messerschmitt Me262 The Production Log 1941-1945
It has a list of all known Me262s built and individual histories when known.
Manfred Boehme JG7 (In German), I used just the appendix of claims
and losses
John Foreman and S E Harvey The Messerschmitt Me262 Combat Diary
which has lists of Me262 kill claims and losses and allied kill claims for
Me262s
Dr Theo E W Boiten Nachtjagd War Diaries Volume 2. For Me262
nightfighter claim checking
Roger A Freeman Mighty Eighth War Diary For 8th Air Force losses
Roger A Freeman and David Osborne The B-17 Flying Fortress Story
It has a list of all known B-17 built and individual histories.
John Foreman Fighter Command War Diaries Part 5 for RAF claims for
and losses to Me262s
Norman L R Franks Royal Air Force Fighter Command Losses volume 3
W R Chorley Royal Air Force Bomber Command Losses volume 6
Richard Davis Spreadsheets of allied heavy bomber operations for allied
targets, sorties, losses, bomb tonnages
Basically the break down in Luftwaffe record keeping means any conclusions
are tentative, there are clearly a number of Me262 losses in the air from
February/March 1945 onwards that are not recorded accurately enough to
enable reliable loss evaluations in the months when the Me262 was most
active, similar for kill claims made by the Me262 units, though allied loss
reports make up for most of this. Many losses with unknown work numbers
in O'Connell also have no reference to support the listing, at the moment
I have largely excluded these, even when the German pilot or unit is
explicitly mentioned. Also a number of RAF claims mentioned in
O'Connell's "no work number known" Me262 loss list do not appear in
Fighter Command War Diaries, so at the moment the bias is to exclude
listings. Then there are the losses with unknown work numbers on
unknown dates which I have normally excluded.
JG7 as noted by its title covers the main Luftwaffe user of fighter Me262s
only. Foreman and Harvey have tried for all Me262 combat units. Both
books cover losses as well as kill claims. The lists of Me262 losses in
Foreman and Harvey was used as the initial basis then checked and
supplemented from O'Connell who covers all units and includes losses
taken before delivery to a combat unit.
Reading the aircraft histories in O'Connell it is clear build quality was
slipping in 1945, along with either spare parts supply or distribution,
that clearly hurt serviceability. Overall it is clear that when everything
worked the Me262 was the best thing flying in operations in 1945,
but the engine reliability, fuel consumption and airfield requirements
were a big negative, as was the average pilot quality. So for example
the Me262 could easily outpace a P-51, but only for a short time
because of the fuel consumption problem, the P-51 could pursue
and if the Me262 did not manage to evade or land quickly the P-51
could catch up and force a fight. The number of airfields capable of
operating Me262s was also limited, enabling the allies to cover them
with fighter patrols.
The list of destroyed Me262s has some 490 entries, of which 189 are
not identified by their work numbers. This is out of around 1,200
Me262s built. With some 172 aircrew KIA, 27 MIA, 41 WIA and 2
PoW. However some 121 Me262s are listed as being destroyed by
bombing and another 23 by strafing, with no aircrew casualties listed
against these losses. This leaves 346 losses where about 57% of the
time the pilot was killed.
O'Connell indicates there are probably more losses to bombing. Plus
a series of losses where the date is uncertain and work numbers unknown.
These may or may not have been included in the F+H list in entries where
the work number is missing.
After bombing the next 3 highest causes for losses of Me262s are
Fighter 89, Crashed 83 and Shot down 68.
The losses for JG7 in 1945 in F+H versus the JG7 book are,
January 8 versus 6, February 11 versus 6, March 40 versus 31, April
57 versus 34. Which is not good agreement unless JG7 only covers
combat losses.
To start off with allied claims against Me262s. Allied fighter kill claims
against Me262s appear reasonable, with 188 claimed versus 89 losses
listed to fighters and 75 listed as shot down or lost to enemy aircraft, a
total 164. Note a number of these possibles would have been lost to
bomber gunners or AA Fire, on the other hand a number of crashes are
reported as after combat and other allied claims are a case of mistaken
identity, it was not an Me262 that was actually attacked. The discrepancy
between allied fighters claims and recorded Me262 losses is biggest in
April 1945, 14 to fighters, 38 possibles versus 74 claims, a difference of
22, or almost all the total discrepancy of 188 kills versus 164 possibles.
O'Connell also has some Messerschmitt production reports, to end
November 1944, 368 built at Augsburg, 26 at Regensburg plus a
number sent to Blohm and Voss for conversion to 2 seat trainers.
In January 1945 the Luftwaffe quartermaster reported 162 Me262s
produced in January, including 14 repaired airframes, another report
noted that while Messerschmitt claimed to have produced 681 Me262s
in December 1944, with 499 made available to the Luftwaffe, the rest
unassembled and in storage, only some 186 of the 499 had made it to
combat units, the rest destroyed, damaged or diverted.
In February 1945 the Luftwaffe quartermaster noted 224 Me262s had
been built, 212 new, 11 repaired, 1 recycled. Hence the problems in
determining Me262, and German aircraft, production.
The kill claim list in Foreman and Harvey is the basis for an evaluation
of the number of allied aircraft lost to Me262s. It does have a problem
in that kill claims mentioned in the text do not always make it to the list.
So the list has about 345 entries, I have expanded that to 365 based on
other kills mentioned and I could have expanded it more by accepting
every mention of an allied aircraft being shot down. In the F+H List
JG7 are credited with 243 kills in 1945, versus the list from JG7 of
217 kills, plus 42 probables. In detail, ignoring the probables, F+H
149 USAAF heavy bombers (Including 2 that really might be
Lancasters), JG7 141, P-51 35 versus 31, P-47 18 versus 9, P-38
3 versus 6, others 38 versus 30.
F+H have a table that says there were up to 616 kill claims made by
Me262 pilots, but it is clear many of these must be initial claims, and
would have been eliminated with checking.
The simplest way so see the overclaim is to note the USAAF thinks in
1945 the European Theatre of Operations saw the loss to enemy aircraft
of 199 heavy bombers, 20 medium and light bombers and 227 fighters,
total 446, the Mediterranean Theatre of Operations lists 7 heavy bombers,
3 light and medium bombers and 24 fighters lost to enemy aircraft, total 34.
Overall total 480, and most Me262 operations were against the USAAF
and in 1945.
Note of the 365 Me262 kill claims listed in the spreadsheet 161 are for
B-17/24 heavy bombers in 1945, and 66 USAAF fighters or reconnaissance
fighters, so the Luftwaffe piston engined fighter units were still active,
even if all the Me262 claims in my list are correct.
It looks like to the end of October 1944 the Me262 units made 24 kill
claims, of which 16 can be definitely verified by the sources I have. This
was a period where most of the combat was single combat against allied
reconnaissance aircraft plus some attempts to intercept USAAF day
bomber raids.
As expected the accuracy of the kill claims by Me262s seems to have
declined in large combats and towards the end of the war. On 3 March
1945 the Me262s claimed 11 (F+H) or 12 (JG7) B-17 kills and 3 (F+H)
or 1 (JG7) P-51 kills. The text in F+H says some 21 allied fighters shot
down, these claims do not appear in the kill list, the 8th AF lost 6 P-51s
plus another written off. The 8th lost 12 B-17 and 1 B-24 MIA, plus 14
B-17 and 1 B-24 written off, 11 bombers choosing to land in Soviet
territory. Freeman notes the Me262 attacks plus that 8 MIA B-17s
were lost to flak, 1 to collision. Leaving 3 as actual MIA to enemy
fighters, plus maybe the B-24, plus of course some of the 14 written off.
On 31 March the attack on a Bomber Command formation resulted in
kill claims for 16 Lancasters (plus possibly another 2 claimed as B-17)
in F+H or 14 plus a probable in the JG7 listing. Some 11 RAF heavies
were lost that day, 6 definitely to Me262s, no cause of loss is given in
Chorley for the other 5, F+H suggest 2 of these to flak and 2 to collision.
In March 1945 the USAAF reports the 15th Air Force lost 13 heavy
bombers to enemy aircraft, the F+H kill list has some 27 kill claims,
the JG7 kill list has 25 claims for 15th AF heavy bombers.
Comparison between the Me262 kill claims list in F+H and allied losses
would indicate somewhere around half the claims are accurate, so around
180 to 200 out of the 365 listed
In the spreadsheet JG7 lost 132 Me262s of which 3 were bombed, versus
making 262 kill claims. The losses include to 101 to fighter, enemy
aircraft, shot down, failed to return and bomber. So overall JG7 was
losing about 1 Me262 per real kill, and in combat around 1 Me262 per
1.3 to 1.4 real kills.
The results from JG7 were undoubtedly better than the piston engined
fighters (USAAF fighters in the European Theatre of operations claimed
1,362 kills in the air in 1945, mostly fighters, versus the 227 losses to
enemy aircraft or 6 to 1, which is of course an overclaim, but it shows
how many conventional Luftwaffe fighters were being shot down.)
RAF fighter kill claims for 1945 were 732, or about half that of the
USAAF, but with a number at night against bombers or night fighters.
For JG7 better is a 1 to 1 exchange rate overall and 1.3 or 1.4 to 1 in
combat. A real measure of the improvement the Me262 would be to
compare the above figure to the real losses and successes of the
Luftwaffe piston engined fighters in the west in 1945. This is, of
course, probably unattainable.
As a hand waving exercise, 298 Me262 kill claims in 1945, say 150 are
correct. There are 480 USAAF losses plus any RAF ones. RAF fighter
Command Losses indicates 65 fighters definitely lost to enemy fighters,
plus another 95 to unknown reasons, out of 809 losses (359 to flak
and 137 destroyed on the ground on 1 January make up the bulk of the
losses), the RAF day bomber force, number 2 group reported 1 bomber
lost to enemy fighters in 1945, Bomber Command 6 losses to fighters
on day operations. So the assumption is 150 RAF losses to enemy
fighters, since the 150 figure neatly cancels out the Me262 claims.
This leaves 480 allied aircraft, call it 500, to be placed against the only
yardstick available, the number of accurate allied kill claims against
Luftwaffe fighters.
We have 2,100 RAF and USAAF kill claims, ignoring the 192 claims
by USAAF bombers, so at 80% accuracy and 80% against fighters
we end up with 1,344, or around 1,200 after taking away the kills
made against Me262s.
So with every person trained in statistics reading this cringing in shock,
(this is not skating on statistical thin ice but swimming amongst icebergs
watched by hungry Polar Bears) it is possible the Me262 was about
three times as good as the piston engined fighters the Luftwaffe had at
the time. That is a real kill ratio in combat of around 1.3 to 1.4 to 1
for the Me262 versus around 0.4 to 1 for the piston engined types.
Of course if you use 90% of 90% the Me262 is about 4 times as good,
60% of 60% and the Me262 is about twice as good as the piston engined
types. So the real conclusion is the Me262 was better, just how much
requires more and better information.
Another way of looking at effectiveness is to note the casualty rate, which
requires sortie totals, the JG7 book does have sorties for some days. They
do not look complete, but claim from 636 sorties some 71 Me262s were
lost, or 11%. This compares to figures for day fighters in Luftflotte Reich
in 1944, a 10.3% loss rate, or fighters over France in 1944, 6% loss rate.
The trouble with the figures for all of 1944 is the decline of Luftwaffe
fighter pilot experience and training between January and December, you
would expect a higher loss rate later in the year.
It does raise the possibility the Me262 was no more survivable than the
piston engined fighters in terms of losses per sortie, but was better able
to shoot down allied aircraft, given its top speed and firepower. The
636 sorties gave rise to 155 kill claims, in other words 2.2 times as
many kill claims as losses, halving the kill claims would mean an overall
1.1 to 1 loss rate, or a real kill every 8 or so sorties.
In 1944 the Luftwaffe day fighters in the west and over Germany flew
some 80,000 sorties. The USAAF credits enemy aircraft with causing
2,902 losses, out of 7,749 losses on operations. RAF bomber units
report 14 losses to enemy fighters on day operations, with Fighter
Command reporting 244 losses to fighters plus 241 for unknown
reasons, flak caused 809 losses or around half the 1,665 recorded
losses I have. So 300 to 500 RAF losses to Luftwaffe fighters, call it 400.
Plus of course some of the 1,060 USAAF heavy bomber and fighter
losses to enemy aircraft from the Mediterranean based units, when
they attacked Austria, Czechoslovakia, France or Germany. Based on
the Bomber loss figures from Davis about 60% of the 15th Air Force
Heavy Bomber losses in 1944 were from attacking those countries.
That would give say 600 bomber and fighters kills made by the Luftwaffe
fighters based in then defined Greater Germany and France.
So 80,000 sorties for 3,900 real kills, a kill every 20.5 sorties, so
around 40% the effectiveness of the Me262 in 1945. It does fit but
the data needs considerable refinement, since a number of the
Luftwaffe fighter sorties in the west would be ground attack for
example, not interception, whereas JG7 was near exclusively on
interception operations. Also something more than a yearly average
for Luftwaffe fighter losses in 1944 and a more definitive listing of
allied losses is required.
It is quite possible the Me262 loss rate per sortie was in fact around the
same as the piston engined types, and the main improvement it brought
was a better kill rate per sortie, perhaps 3 times as much. Rather than
a more middle ground of an improvement in loss rates per sortie and a
higher number of kills per sortie rate but lower than the 3 times hand
waved above.
While such conclusion seems to indicate it was the greater firepower,
the four 30mm cannon, that were the difference the reality is it is also
performance related, the Me262 had the performance to carry the
armament and stand a good chance of intercepting enemy aircraft,
then evading counter attack, compared with any piston engined
fighter carrying the same armament.
Geoffrey Sinclair
Remove the nb for email.
Dave
wrote:
> While such conclusion seems to indicate it was the greater firepower,
> the four 30mm cannon, that were the difference the reality is it is also
> performance related, the Me262 had the performance to carry the
> armament and stand a good chance of intercepting enemy aircraft,
> then evading counter attack, compared with any piston engined
> fighter carrying the same armament.
That's where you get into a discussion of fighter vs. interceptor. As
a fighter I think the Allied fighters found countermeasures, e.g.,
turning inside the faster jets. But in the 262 against the bombers,
that fast platform coming fast with that firepower seems to be highly
effective. One GI urban legend I heard from vets (over beer on the
patio in the 50s) was that after climbing to altitude, the piston
interceptors were good for about one pass, maybe two. Then they had to
land for fuel.
IIRC another formula quoted by Martin Caidin in Black Thursday was
something like two German interceptors and one pilot to kill one 10-
man bomber.
Rich Rostrom
wrote:
Awesome research, interesting conclusion.
Thanks for the effort.
Geoffrey Sinclair
news:f5638de9-87ac-4e40...@h31g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
> On Jul 23, 8:06 am, "Geoffrey Sinclair" <gsinclai...@froggy.com.au>
> wrote:
>
>> While such conclusion seems to indicate it was the greater firepower,
>> the four 30mm cannon, that were the difference the reality is it is also
>> performance related, the Me262 had the performance to carry the
>> armament and stand a good chance of intercepting enemy aircraft,
>> then evading counter attack, compared with any piston engined
>> fighter carrying the same armament.
>
> That's where you get into a discussion of fighter vs. interceptor. As
> a fighter I think the Allied fighters found countermeasures, e.g.,
> turning inside the faster jets.
Not sure I would exactly agree here. The allied fighters had much
more freedom, they could turn inside conventional Luftwaffe fighters
as well. They could dodge, they could break formation, the bombers
could not.
The Me262 had a big firepower advantage over the standard Luftwaffe
piston engined fighters, and those fighters had, in 1945, comparable
performance to the allied fighters. To match the Me262 firepower the
standard Luftwaffe fighters had to sacrifice performance, making them
easier targets as well as being harder for them to intercept. The Me262
cursing speed was comparable to the piston engine fighters top speed.
> But in the 262 against the bombers,
> that fast platform coming fast with that firepower seems to be highly
> effective.
Definitely, it was fast enough to attack from the rear, and be closing
before allied fighters could react.
> One GI urban legend I heard from vets (over beer on the
> patio in the 50s) was that after climbing to altitude, the piston
> interceptors were good for about one pass, maybe two. Then they had to
> land for fuel.
The same applies to the Me262, in combat conditions sortie times
were usually under an hour according to Foreman and Hardy.
That is why the Germans preferred to use the twin engined fighters in
1943 and 1944, they had a longer range and could carry heavier
firepower.
> IIRC another formula quoted by Martin Caidin in Black Thursday was
> something like two German interceptors and one pilot to kill one 10-
> man bomber.
This appears to be a myth.
Black Thursday is defined as the second Schweinfurt raid by the 8th
Air Force, on 14 October 1943.
Sixty B-17 shot down or interned, 7 written off, 1 P-47 lost and 4
written off. The bombers claimed 186 kills the fighters 13. There
were no RAF fighter kill claims.
The Luftwaffe lost 31 fighters shot down and 12 written off
according to Williamson Murray.
The cause of loss for the B-17s is given as 56 to enemy fighters,
1 to flak, 3 to battle damage and 7 to other causes, which may
include things like landing accidents thanks to battle damage.
So on an all causes basis it was 44 Luftwaffe fighters to 67 B-17, or
72 USAAF B-17 and P-47.
In terms of B-17s said to be shot down by enemy fighters the ratio
comes to 43 to 56 assuming no USAAF fighter kills were correct,
or say 36 to 56 assuming half were.
The 17 August Schweinfurt and Regensburg raid cost the 8th Air
Force some 60 B-17 missing, plus 4 written off, as well as 3 P-47s
missing. The bombers claimed some 288 kills, the fighters 19.
The RAF fighters claimed 14 kills, for 2 Spitfires lost in a collision
and 1 written off. Martin Middlebrook in is book on the raids thinks
13 of the USAAF fighter kill claims are accurate as are 6 of
the RAF claims. Williamson Murray thinks some 48 Luftwaffe
fighters were lost or written off. Take away the allied fighter kills
and you are left with 29 Luftwaffe fighters. to put against some
41 B-17 reported lost to enemy fighters, 11 more were lost to flak,
4 to battle damage and I make it 10 to other causes.
When I ran a series of USAAF versus Luftwaffe losses the results
came out that in the second half of 1943 on average it cost the
Luftwaffe 2 fighters per 3 USAAF heavies shot down by fighters.
In early 1944 it was 1 fighter per 2 heavy bombers, since the
Luftwaffe fighters had undergone a firepower upgrade, seen by
counting what had caused the holes in the returning bombers.
It is possible in early 1943 the true loss ratio, bomber gunners
versus Luftwaffe fighters was around 1 to 1, given the Luftwaffe
fighters had even less firepower than later in 1943 and had to
work out the tactics. In late 1944, with yet another firepower
upgrade, I would expect the loss ratio to move further in favour
of the fighters compared with the early 1944 ratio.
If you want 2 Luftwaffe fighters per 1 USAAF bomber then you need
something like in 1944 Luftflotte 3 and Luftflotte Reich lost some
6,340 fighters, the 8th Air Force lost some 3,497 bombers, of which
1,516 were thought to be lost to enemy aircraft.
Note the USAAF thinks in 1944 its European Theater air units lost
some 2,902 aircraft to enemy aircraft. And a large percentage of
the 1,161 USAAF Mediterranean Theater aircraft losses to enemy
aircraft in 1944 would have been against Luftflotte Reich and 3.
Then there are the RAF losses.
In other words to obtain a 2 to 1 ratio in favour of the bombers
you need about all Luftwaffe fighter losses on operations, to all
causes, versus only the USAAF heavy bomber losses. In any
case the P-51 probably cost about the same as an Fw190 or Bf109.
A B-17 cost 3.5 times a P-51, so even at 2 Luftwaffe fighters per
USAAF bomber the economic loss was 2 to 3.5 and the personnel
loss up to 10 to 1 in the defender's favour.
Don Phillipson
news:f5638de9-87ac-4e40...@h31g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
> One GI urban legend I heard from vets (over beer on the
> patio in the 50s) was that after climbing to altitude, the piston
> interceptors were good for about one pass, maybe two. Then they had to
> land for fuel.
This story wrongly associates engine types with (a) tactics and (b)
fuel shortages. Reliable historians (e.g. Bekker and Galland confirm
the Luftwaffe was seriously constrained by lack of fuel from the middle
of 1944 (thus could not train novice pilots adequately, could not give
them enough hours practice in general aircraft handling before sending
them into combat) and may have launched defensive fighter sorties
with less than full fuel tanks.
More importantly, fighter forces on both sides had known since 1940
that the most cost-effective manoeuvre to attack bombers (and get
away unhit by defensive fire) was a single high-speed attack with
cannon-fire or rockets. Equipment reinforced this when German
day fighters were equipped with rockets expended in a single salvo.
(Night fighters could cruise aloft for hours and carried scores or
hundreds of cannon rounds, not rockets.) This tactic has nothing
to do with engine type.
--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)
Bay Man
news:4a686a24$0$9763$5a62...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
> The Messerschmitt Me262 was a pointer to the future of fighter aircraft,
> when everything worked it was the highest performance aircraft to see
> combat in WWII. The trouble for the Germans was making it work.
That is the point - making it work. Performance? Debateable, as top speed
is not everything. It was far from fully developed with the engine way off
compared to British jet engines lasting 10-20 hours before burn up. The
Meteor was the first proper fully developed jet plane introduced. The 262
was slightly faster than the Meteor F3, but far more unreliable. The
Germans were still quite a way behind in development.
"Given the lower-quality steels used in the Juno 004B engine, these engines
typically only had a service life of some 10-25 hours" "was its sluggish
throttle response. Worse, it was fairly easy to inject too much fuel into
the engine by throttling up too quickly, allowing heat to build up before
the cooling air could remove it. This led to softening of the turbine
blades, and was a major cause for engine failures."
Both the 262 and British Meteor jet were introduced in July 1944. The F3
Meteor was a far superior version introduced in Dec 1944. Meteors were used
in training against US bombers so they could develop counter measures for
the 262 and used against V1 flying bombs. It was moved to Belgium and
Holland and its biggest problem was allied flak as they thought it was a
me262.
I can never see the fuss about the 262. It was not a wonder plane at all as
many perceive it to be. Allied airpower was so strong that the Meteor was
not used over Nazi controlled territory for fear it may get into their
hands. If the Meteor was pitted against the 262, its wonder plane
reputation would not exist. A notebale plane the 262 clearly is.
Beausaber
wrote:
>
> Note the USAAF thinks in 1944 its European Theater air units lost
> some 2,902 aircraft to enemy aircraft. And a large percentage of
> the 1,161 USAAF Mediterranean Theater aircraft losses to enemy
> aircraft in 1944 would have been against Luftflotte Reich and 3.
SNIP
But in 1944, more aircraft were lost to Flak than fighters - from the
Spring/Summer, decisively so in most categories
>From the USAAF's statistics compiled post-war
Alan
Me-262 pilot had as compared to the average German piston-fighter
pilot? Total combat hours, not in-type. I assume, perhaps incorrectly,
the Germans would put their most experienced pilots in their best
planes.
If this is the case, pilot experience would also improve the kill
ratios for the Me-262, skewing the ratios higher than if the pilots
were evenly experienced for all types.
Should the data I'm asking about exist, I have no idea how to
determine it's effect on the ratios.
Geoffrey Sinclair
news:4a686a24$0$9763$5a62...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
(snip)
> It is quite possible the Me262 loss rate per sortie was in fact around the
> same as the piston engined types, and the main improvement it brought
> was a better kill rate per sortie, perhaps 3 times as much. Rather than
> a more middle ground of an improvement in loss rates per sortie and a
> higher number of kills per sortie rate but lower than the 3 times hand
> waved above.
>
> While such conclusion seems to indicate it was the greater firepower,
> the four 30mm cannon, that were the difference the reality is it is also
> performance related, the Me262 had the performance to carry the
> armament and stand a good chance of intercepting enemy aircraft,
> then evading counter attack, compared with any piston engined
> fighter carrying the same armament.
An additional point I failed to previously include.
Another pointer is the fact in 1945 the USAAF in Europe says it
lost 277 fighters and 199 heavy bombers to enemy aircraft a 1.4
to 1 ratio. The Me262 kill claims list for 1945 has 161 USAAF
heavy bombers to 66 fighters, or about 0.4 to 1, a rather different
target profile to the rest of the Luftwaffe fighter force. Or perhaps
even a pointer to the problems the piston engined fighters had trying
to engage USAAF heavy bomber formations in 1945.
The bombers were easier to hit but required more damage to bring down.
Geoffrey Sinclair
news:h4epmg$m9t$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> "Geoffrey Sinclair" <gsinc...@froggy.com.au> wrote in message
> news:4a686a24$0$9763$5a62...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>
>> The Messerschmitt Me262 was a pointer to the future of fighter aircraft,
>> when everything worked it was the highest performance aircraft to see
>> combat in WWII. The trouble for the Germans was making it work.
>
> That is the point - making it work. Performance? Debateable, as top
> speed is not everything.
But useful, the 30 mph speed advantage the Fw190 had over the
Spitfire V was quite effective, enabling the Fw190 to break off
combat. The Me262 had approaching a 100 mph top speed
advantage.
> It was far from fully developed with the engine way off compared to
> British jet engines lasting 10-20 hours before burn up.
The overhaul times are usually quoted as 10 hours, lifetime 25 hours.
> The Meteor was the first proper fully developed jet plane introduced.
This applies to the engines, the Me262 airframe was better, it had
a higher limiting mach number. The downside to the high speed was
all wartime jets found themselves subjected to mach snaking, rudder
movements at high speed, a problem overcome post war.
> The 262 was slightly faster than the Meteor F3, but far more unreliable.
The Meteor III was still around 40 to 50 mph slower than the
Me262.
> The Germans were still quite a way behind in development.
Not in airframe at least.
> "Given the lower-quality steels used in the Juno 004B engine, these
> engines typically only had a service life of some 10-25 hours" "was its
> sluggish throttle response. Worse, it was fairly easy to inject too much
> fuel into the engine by throttling up too quickly, allowing heat to build
> up before the cooling air could remove it. This led to softening of the
> turbine blades, and was a major cause for engine failures."
The lack of acceleration was a problem for the Meteor as well. It
is clear if the Germans were winning the Me262 would never have
been produced in such numbers, thanks to the engine problems.
> Both the 262 and British Meteor jet were introduced in July 1944.
Yes, the difference is numbers, the allies did not have to rush a new
design into production, the Germans did. Monthly Me262 production
was soon higher than all Meteor production to the end of 1945. Given
30 Meteors built in 1944 and 169 in 1945.
> The F3 Meteor was a far superior version introduced in Dec 1944. Meteors
> were used in training against US bombers so they could develop counter
> measures for the 262 and used against V1 flying bombs. It was moved to
> Belgium and Holland and its biggest problem was allied flak as they
> thought it was a me262.
Given how late the Meteors were deployed and the restrictions on
their operations this is not surprising.
> I can never see the fuss about the 262.
It was proving a real problem for the USAAF, and if it could be
deployed in numbers it was clearly going to be a big problem.
> It was not a wonder plane at all as many perceive it to be.
Most WWII classic aircraft have their war winning wonder weapon
fan clubs.
> Allied airpower was so strong that the Meteor was not used over Nazi
> controlled territory for fear it may get into their hands.
It was deployed over enemy controlled territory, late in the war.
> If the Meteor was pitted against the 262, its wonder plane reputation
> would not exist. A notebale plane the 262 clearly is.
The Meteor would have closed the gap, who would win an extended
confrontation of Me262 versus Meteor would depend on many factors,
like pilot quality. With 30mm cannon the Me262 needed fewer hits to
bring down a Meteor and the Me262 was faster, but it had a good
chance of underperforming engines.
Geoffrey Sinclair
news:044f1755-4749-4444...@r24g2000vbn.googlegroups.com...
> On Jul 24, 10:51 am, "Geoffrey Sinclair" <gsinclai...@froggy.com.au>
> wrote:
>> Note the USAAF thinks in 1944 its European Theater air units lost
>> some 2,902 aircraft to enemy aircraft. And a large percentage of
>> the 1,161 USAAF Mediterranean Theater aircraft losses to enemy
>> aircraft in 1944 would have been against Luftflotte Reich and 3.
>
> SNIP
>
> But in 1944, more aircraft were lost to Flak than fighters - from the
> Spring/Summer, decisively so in most categories
Yes.
>From the USAAF's statistics compiled post-war
>
> http://www.au.af.mil/au/afhra/aafsd/aafsd_pdf/t159.pdf
Yes. That is the source of the USAAF loss figures I am using.
The point I was making is the 2 Luftwaffe fighters lost per USAAF
heavy bomber requires essentially all Luftwaffe fighters lost in the
theatre versus a subset of the USAAF heavy bomber losses on
operations. The ratio is a myth.
If you look at the missions where the 15th Air Force lost heavy
bombers about 60% of the losses were to targets protected by
Luftflotte Reich and 3. So we have something like 1,900 USAAF
heavy bombers shot down by the defending fighters in 1944.
The defenders lost some 6,340 fighters in 1944, though whether
this is all causes or combat losses or losses on combat operations
is unclear to me. That is around 3.3 to 1, just using the USAAF
heavy bombers classified lost to enemy fighters. All 8th Air Force
and 60% of the 15th Air Force heavy bomber losses on operations
in 1944 come to around 4,700 of which 2,100 are considered lost
to flak.
mtfe...@netmapsonscape.net
> Is there any data available on the number of flying hours the average
> Me-262 pilot had as compared to the average German piston-fighter
> pilot? Total combat hours, not in-type. I assume, perhaps incorrectly,
> the Germans would put their most experienced pilots in their best
> planes.
In _Horrido_ and Galland's book _First and the Last_, Galland mentions
that the 262 was piloted by mostly top-ranking aces (himself included.)
Mike
Bill Shatzer
Galland flew Me 262s with JV44 for about two months beginning in March,
1945. JV44 was an Experten unit with most of its pilots experienced
combat fighter pilots.
That was not the case with most of the other Me 262 units. For instance,
the 262 pilots for KG 51 and I/KG(J) 54 were almost all bomber pilots
with those units converted en masse to 262 drivers - apparently on the
theory that their twin engine experience would ease their transition to
the twin engined Me 262.
Bay Man
> "Bay Man" <xyxbay...@xyxmailinator.xyxcomnospam> wrote in message
> news:h4epmg$m9t$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> "Geoffrey Sinclair" <gsinc...@froggy.com.au> wrote in message
>> news:4a686a24$0$9763$5a62...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>>
>>> The Messerschmitt Me262 was a pointer to the future of fighter aircraft,
>>> when everything worked it was the highest performance aircraft to see
>>> combat in WWII. The trouble for the Germans was making it work.
>>
>> That is the point - making it work. Performance? Debateable, as top
>> speed is not everything.
>
> But useful, the 30 mph speed advantage the Fw190 had over the
> Spitfire V was quite effective, enabling the Fw190 to break off
> combat. The Me262 had approaching a 100 mph top speed
> advantage.
Not to the F3 it never.
>> It was far from fully developed with the engine way off compared to
>> British jet engines lasting 10-20 hours before burn up.
>
> The overhaul times are usually quoted as 10 hours, lifetime 25 hours.
It was unreliable and not fully developed German jet technology was not as
advanced as the British.
>> The Meteor was the first proper fully developed jet plane introduced.
>
> This applies to the engines,
It applies to the plane as a whole. It all worked and was reliable.
> the Me262 airframe was better,
Not to the F3, which was much improved over the F1.
>> The 262 was slightly faster than the Meteor F3, but far more unreliable.
>
> The Meteor III was still around 40 to 50 mph slower than the
> Me262.
>
>> The Germans were still quite a way behind in development.
>
> Not in airframe at least.
The best airframe in the world is not good with a decent engine, and the 262
never had one.
>> "Given the lower-quality steels used in the Juno 004B engine, these
>> engines typically only had a service life of some 10-25 hours" "was its
>> sluggish throttle response. Worse, it was fairly easy to inject too much
>> fuel into the engine by throttling up too quickly, allowing heat to build
>> up before the cooling air could remove it. This led to softening of the
>> turbine blades, and was a major cause for engine failures."
>
> The lack of acceleration was a problem for the Meteor as well. It
> is clear if the Germans were winning the Me262 would never have
> been produced in such numbers, thanks to the engine problems.
>
>> Both the 262 and British Meteor jet were introduced in July 1944.
>
> Yes, the difference is numbers, the allies did not have to rush a new
> design into production, the Germans did. Monthly Me262 production
> was soon higher than all Meteor production to the end of 1945. Given
> 30 Meteors built in 1944 and 169 in 1945.
Yep. The Allies were looking to planes after WW2 and were designing and
R&D'ing to suit. The Cambera bomber for instance.
>> The F3 Meteor was a far superior version introduced in Dec 1944. Meteors
>> were used in training against US bombers so they could develop counter
>> measures for the 262 and used against V1 flying bombs. It was moved to
>> Belgium and Holland and its biggest problem was allied flak as they
>> thought it was a me262.
>
> Given how late the Meteors were deployed and the restrictions on
> their operations this is not surprising.
Meteors were deployed the same time as the 262. Restrictions on their use
was the problem. They were not going to produce them in numbers to be
instantly outdated and they did not need to. They knew they could do better
and waited for the next planes/improvements. If he Meteors were urgently
needed they would have been improved faster and made in numbers.
>> I can never see the fuss about the 262.
>
> It was proving a real problem for the USAAF, and if it could be
> deployed in numbers it was clearly going to be a big problem.
If the 262 was a big problem Metors would have been deployed to escort
>> It was not a wonder plane at all as many perceive it to be.
>
> Most WWII classic aircraft have their war winning wonder weapon
> fan clubs.
>
>> Allied airpower was so strong that the Meteor was not used over Nazi
>> controlled territory for fear it may get into their hands.
>
> It was deployed over enemy controlled territory, late in the war.
At a point the Germans could not make any use of one if they got one intact
(all they needed was the superior engine), as the end was in sight. The
only problem was one getting in the hands of the Soviets, and I believe they
went that they never went far into enemy controlled territory for the
Soviets to get hold of one if one went down.
>> If the Meteor was pitted against the 262, its wonder plane reputation
>> would not exist. A notebale plane the 262 clearly is.
>
> The Meteor would have closed the gap, who would win an extended
> confrontation of Me262 versus Meteor would depend on many factors,
> like pilot quality. With 30mm cannon the Me262 needed fewer hits to
> bring down a Meteor and the Me262 was faster, but it had a good
> chance of underperforming engines.
In early 1945, the chances are that the Meteor F3 would have beaten the 262
as pilots had confidence in the plane, which was not the case with the
constant problems with the 262. Open up the throttles too quickly on a 262
and the engines would stall.
Geoffrey Sinclair
news:h4clce$slu$1...@theodyn.ncf.ca...
> "Dave" <David...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:f5638de9-87ac-4e40...@h31g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
>
>> One GI urban legend I heard from vets (over beer on the
>> patio in the 50s) was that after climbing to altitude, the piston
>> interceptors were good for about one pass, maybe two. Then they had to
>> land for fuel.
>
> This story wrongly associates engine types with (a) tactics and (b)
> fuel shortages. Reliable historians (e.g. Bekker and Galland confirm
> the Luftwaffe was seriously constrained by lack of fuel from the middle
> of 1944 (thus could not train novice pilots adequately, could not give
> them enough hours practice in general aircraft handling before sending
> them into combat) and may have launched defensive fighter sorties
> with less than full fuel tanks.
I think you are mixing the strategic fuel situation with the tactical
one.
To quote Gavin Bailey, on the Spitfire VIII,
"I now have some relevant figures from the original sources quoting
maximum weak-mixture power setting as 320 mph at 20,000 ft, consuming
about 1.1 gallon per minute. This corresponds with an engine setting
of 2,400 rpm, +4 lbs boost (66 gallons per hour). So this seems
similar.
>From the same source, the RAF were allocating 23 gallons for take-off
and climb to 20,000 ft, and 36 gallons for 15 minutes of combat,
leaving 63 gallons for cruise. This gives an endurance of 57 minutes,
or a range of 304 miles, for an escort radius of 154 miles."
The above is assuming the mark VIII carried 122 gallons, the mark
IX carried 87 gallons, so it would, without external fuel, have a cruising
endurance 28 gallons, or under 30 minutes, or 28 times 320 divided
by 66 divided by 2 combat radius, 68 miles. Note this leaves no
fuel reserve.
The Bf109G and K suffered the problem of bigger engines without
an increase in internal fuel capacity, their range went down, by the
looks of it to below 400 miles, less than that of the Spitfire IX and
that rage would be at economic cruising. Even on interception
missions the Germans were carrying drop tanks. Another solution
was stocking more airfields, so the fighters could put down at more
bases, so they did not have to worry about a long return flight.
Note the B-17 was cruising at around 150 to 160 mph IAS at
25,000 feet the B-24 at 170 to 175 IAS at 25,000 feet according
to Roger Freeman, if you want to go escorting them, or 225 to
240 mph TAS for the B-17 and 255 to 265mph for the B-24.
The reality of the costs of obtaining an attacking position versus
the amount of fuel carried, and of course ammunition carried as well
meant the Luftwaffe interceptors could normally only manage one
or two high speed passes. This is especially so when a reserve had
to be held in case allied fighters turned up either near the bombers
or near the airfield.
Say start your high speed run from 5 miles behind the bombers,
after talking about 2 minutes to accelerate to near top speed.
With a closing speed of around 160 mph, you 400 mph, them
240 mph, it takes about 2 minutes to do the run, say another
2 minutes at full power to disengage from the bomber formation,
then you need to reform and try another pass.
> More importantly, fighter forces on both sides had known since 1940
> that the most cost-effective manoeuvre to attack bombers (and get
> away unhit by defensive fire) was a single high-speed attack with
> cannon-fire or rockets.
High speed pass anyway, from the rear to simplify accuracy and
keep the approach speed to something manageable for the average
pilot.
> Equipment reinforced this when German
> day fighters were equipped with rockets expended in a single salvo.
Is this the 1943 version or the R4M of 1945?
> (Night fighters could cruise aloft for hours and carried scores or
> hundreds of cannon rounds, not rockets.) This tactic has nothing
> to do with engine type.
If you look at the night fighters they were also carrying drop tanks,
once the "box" approach of the Kammhuber Line was dropped.
No one in Europe cruised for maximum endurance in a combat
situation, they usually flew at their fastest cruise speed. Hence the
big gap between the range figures you see in the references and the
performance as used. In the Pacific the allied aircraft could and did
cruise for maximum economy, since most of the flights were over
"neutral" territory like the ocean, and interception was highly unlikely
except over the target. This made a big difference.
Taking out the fuel needed to climb to combat height, the fuel for
combat and a reserve leaves surprisingly little fuel for cruise at
times, hence the drop tanks and their apparently large effect on
combat radius.
Geoffrey Sinclair
news:daf85ada-3d9c-41bf...@e18g2000vbe.googlegroups.com...
> Is there any data available on the number of flying hours the average
> Me-262 pilot had as compared to the average German piston-fighter
> pilot? Total combat hours, not in-type. I assume, perhaps incorrectly,
> the Germans would put their most experienced pilots in their best
> planes.
JV44 was an exceptional unit and that needs to be taken into account.
Note there were pilots that flew the Fw190 or Bf109 and did not
want to switch, and if they were successful they were normally
allowed to continue.
The short answer is the Me262, in particular its engines, was different
enough that new pilots fresh out of training would often transition more
easily than veteran pilots. The veteran pilots were used to making large
abrupt throttle movements for example, that was a disaster in the Me262.
So the Me262 pilots were a mixture from novice to veteran, I suspect
in about the same proportions as the piston engined fighter units.
Foreman and Hardy have about 10 pages of known Me262 pilots,
something in the order of 450 to 500 names.
> If this is the case, pilot experience would also improve the kill
> ratios for the Me-262, skewing the ratios higher than if the pilots
> were evenly experienced for all types.
Yes.
> Should the data I'm asking about exist, I have no idea how to
> determine it's effect on the ratios.
You would need similar figures for the piston engined types, and
probably differentiate between the Fw190 and Bf109 and even
between the different models of these fighters.
Geoffrey Sinclair
> "Geoffrey Sinclair" <gsinc...@froggy.com.au> wrote in message
> news:4a6c7018$0$9754$5a62...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>> "Bay Man" <xyxbay...@xyxmailinator.xyxcomnospam> wrote in message
>> news:h4epmg$m9t$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>> "Geoffrey Sinclair" <gsinc...@froggy.com.au> wrote in message
>>> news:4a686a24$0$9763$5a62...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>>>
>>>> The Messerschmitt Me262 was a pointer to the future of fighter
>>>> aircraft,
>>>> when everything worked it was the highest performance aircraft to see
>>>> combat in WWII. The trouble for the Germans was making it work.
>>>
>>> That is the point - making it work. Performance? Debateable, as top
>>> speed is not everything.
>>
>> But useful, the 30 mph speed advantage the Fw190 had over the
>> Spitfire V was quite effective, enabling the Fw190 to break off
>> combat. The Me262 had approaching a 100 mph top speed
>> advantage.
>
> Not to the F3 it never.
The Me262 had the 100 mph speed advantage over the allied piston
engined fighters.
As noted in my post the Meteor III was about 40 to 50 mph slower
than the Me262.
616 squadron received the Meteor I in July 1944 and replaced it
with the Meteor III in January 1945, a detachment was sent to
the continent in January 1945, with the whole squadron moving in
28 February.
504 squadron converted to Meteor III in April 1945, and maybe
had a detachment to Germany before the end of the war.
74 squadron returned to the UK from Europe on 16 May 1945
and converted from Spitfire XVI to Meteor III
>>> It was far from fully developed with the engine way off compared to
>>> British jet engines lasting 10-20 hours before burn up.
>>
>> The overhaul times are usually quoted as 10 hours, lifetime 25 hours.
>
> It was unreliable and not fully developed German jet technology was not as
> advanced as the British.
This requires a definition of advanced, the allied engines were more
reliable, there were also plenty of engines in development in both
axis and the allied countries.
There is design and there is engineering to consider.
>>> The Meteor was the first proper fully developed jet plane introduced.
>>
>> This applies to the engines,
>
> It applies to the plane as a whole. It all worked and was reliable.
No, it applies to engines.
>> the Me262 airframe was better,
>
> Not to the F3, which was much improved over the F1.
In short the answer is no, check out the allied test pilot reports.
For example Captain Eric Brown.
>>> The 262 was slightly faster than the Meteor F3, but far more unreliable.
>>
>> The Meteor III was still around 40 to 50 mph slower than the
>> Me262.
>>
>>> The Germans were still quite a way behind in development.
>>
>> Not in airframe at least.
>
> The best airframe in the world is not good with a decent engine, and the
> 262 never had one.
Well at least this is an admission the Me262 was a good airframe.
>>> The F3 Meteor was a far superior version introduced in Dec 1944.
>>> Meteors were used in training against US bombers so they could develop
>>> counter measures for the 262 and used against V1 flying bombs. It was
>>> moved to Belgium and Holland and its biggest problem was allied flak as
>>> they thought it was a me262.
>>
>> Given how late the Meteors were deployed and the restrictions on
>> their operations this is not surprising.
>
> Meteors were deployed the same time as the 262.
In nowhere near the numbers.
And like all jets it had problems with acceleration and deceleration
compared with piston engined types. The RAF opted for the
cautious approach to see what it could do.
> Restrictions on their use was the problem.
Try also restrictions due to the inevitable problems of new
designs, compounded by a very new engine technology,
during 1944 anyway. Plus there were so few of them.
> They were not going to produce them in numbers to be instantly outdated
> and they did not need to.
So in other words it is admitted the Meteor I was very much a small
step, slower than the piston engined fighters, but promising more
development.
In reality Britain was not geared up to build lots of jets, only 98
engines were built in 1944, then another 102 in the first 3 months
of 1945.
> They knew they could do better and waited for the next
> planes/improvements.
Actually they were not thinking that strategically, waiting for
improvements has to stop sometime and aircraft built. The arrival
of the Me262 and Ar234 meant the allied programs were pushed
for quick results as well as a long term view.
> If he Meteors were urgently needed they would have been improved faster
> and made in numbers.
The short answer here is improvements cannot be simply granted.
They take time.
>>> I can never see the fuss about the 262.
>>
>> It was proving a real problem for the USAAF, and if it could be
>> deployed in numbers it was clearly going to be a big problem.
>
> If the 262 was a big problem Metors would have been deployed to escort
There were nowhere near enough Meteors to do that and Meteor range
was an issue in any case.
>>> Allied airpower was so strong that the Meteor was not used over Nazi
>>> controlled territory for fear it may get into their hands.
>>
>> It was deployed over enemy controlled territory, late in the war.
>
> At a point the Germans could not make any use of one if they got one
> intact (all they needed was the superior engine), as the end was in sight.
In short this claim is junk. The Meteor was simply not available in
numbers and the idea the Germans could duplicate its engines in
a few months is a joke.
Furthermore the Germans had problems with the metals needed
to duplicate a British engine.
> The only problem was one getting in the hands of the Soviets, and I
> believe they went that they never went far into enemy controlled territory
> for the Soviets to get hold of one if one went down.
Again this is junk, given what powered the MiG15 for example.
>>> If the Meteor was pitted against the 262, its wonder plane reputation
>>> would not exist. A notebale plane the 262 clearly is.
>>
>> The Meteor would have closed the gap, who would win an extended
>> confrontation of Me262 versus Meteor would depend on many factors,
>> like pilot quality. With 30mm cannon the Me262 needed fewer hits to
>> bring down a Meteor and the Me262 was faster, but it had a good
>> chance of underperforming engines.
>
> In early 1945, the chances are that the Meteor F3 would have beaten the
> 262 as pilots had confidence in the plane, which was not the case with the
> constant problems with the 262. Open up the throttles too quickly on a
> 262 and the engines would stall.
In short the above is junk again. And the German pilots were gaining
confidence with the Me262, basically because it could outfly allied
fighters.
Alan Meyer
thoughtful.
The biggest question I had when reading the statistics is, to
what extent is the greater success of the jets over the piston
engine fighters due to superior technology and to what extent is
it due to better pilots?
Inexperienced pilots were the ones most likely to be shot down.
By the time the Me262 arrived, with the serious fuel shortages,
lack of instructors, difficulty of finding safe airfields for
beginners, etc., the Luftwaffe was relying more and more on
pilots with insufficient experience.
I was under the impression that inexperienced pilots were never
assigned to jet units.
To see whether this is a significant factor we can look at the
experience of the USAAF in Korea. When the MiGs first appeared,
the US was mainly flying P-51s, but they had very experienced
pilots, many of whom had fought in WWII. I don't remember the
details of what happened and haven't got a citation. Hopefully
someone can correct me on this. But as I recall, the P-51 pilots
although ineffective against the MiGs, but were mostly able to
survive their combats.
The MiG-15 was a far superior plane to the Me262, but the FW-190
was comparable, or almost comparable, to the P-51.
Alan
Alan Meyer
I missed the postings by Alan Nordin and Don Phillipson,
who already made the points that I made.
Sorry.
Alan
Bay Man
> As noted in my post the Meteor III was about 40 to 50 mph slower
> than the Me262.
Thank you. Not a great advantage.
>> It was unreliable and not fully developed German jet technology was not
>> as advanced as the British.
>
> This requires a definition of advanced, the allied engines were more
> reliable, there were also plenty of engines in development in both
> axis and the allied countries.
In April 1944 the Meteor engine was reliable and made of superior materials.
> There is design and there is engineering to consider.
British design were advanced in many aspects and plenty of variations as
well.
>>>> The Meteor was the first proper fully developed jet plane introduced.
>>>
>>> This applies to the engines,
>>
>> It applies to the plane as a whole. It all worked and was reliable.
>
> No, it applies to engines.
No. It applies to a plane - all of it. The 262 was inferior to the Meteor
overall.
> Well at least this is an admission the Me262 was a good airframe.
It had a good airframe, however the Meteor was superior in some manoeuvres.
>>> Given how late the Meteors were deployed and the restrictions on
>>> their operations this is not surprising.
>>
>> Meteors were deployed the same time as the 262.
>
> In nowhere near the numbers.
You wrote above, "Given how late the Meteors were deployed". They were both
deployed at the same time within days of each other. If the allies thought
they needed mass of Meteors they would have been built quicker.
> And like all jets it had problems with acceleration and deceleration
> compared with piston engined types.
But the Meteor's engine did not burn out or stall.
>> They were not going to produce them in numbers to be instantly outdated
>> and they did not need to.
>
> So in other words it is admitted the Meteor I was very much a small
> step, slower than the piston engined fighters, but promising more
> development.
Read what was written. It was the first, it was not needed as a war wining
plane at the time as allied air superiority was awsome with piston planes.
Many designs were on the table and some in R&D, the Vixen, Canberra etc,
together with more advanced engines. The British were not going to produce
1000s of these planes to be outdated when the new designs came along.
> In reality Britain was not geared up to build lots of jets, only 98
> engines were built in 1944, then another 102 in the first 3 months
> of 1945.
Britain could have built as many of them as it could, but did not need to
build them.
>> They knew they could do better and waited for the next
>> planes/improvements.
>
> Actually they were not thinking that strategically, waiting for
> improvements has to stop sometime and aircraft built. The arrival
> of the Me262 and Ar234 meant the allied programs were pushed
> for quick results as well as a long term view.
The allies knew the Soviets would have got hold of 262s and were preparing
for more advanced versions of jets. Making masses of the Meteor which was
pretty equal to the 262 (if it had a reliable engine) was pointless.
>> If the Meteors were urgently needed they would have been improved faster
>> and made in numbers.
>
> The short answer here is improvements cannot be simply granted.
> They take time.
The manufacturing could have been ramped right up.
>>>> I can never see the fuss about the 262.
>>>
>>> It was proving a real problem for the USAAF, and if it could be
>>> deployed in numbers it was clearly going to be a big problem.
>>
>> If the 262 was a big problem Metors would have been deployed to escort
>
> There were nowhere near enough Meteors to do that and Meteor range
> was an issue in any case.
They were taken to the front. Making them in numbers was not an issue.
Bomber losses acceptable to the allies.
>>>> Allied airpower was so strong that the Meteor was not used over Nazi
>>>> controlled territory for fear it may get into their hands.
>>>
>>> It was deployed over enemy controlled territory, late in the war.
>>
>> At a point the Germans could not make any use of one if they got one
>> intact (all they needed was the superior engine), as the end was in
>> sight.
>
> In short this claim is junk. The Meteor was simply not available in
> numbers and the idea the Germans could duplicate its engines in
> a few months is a joke.
It is far from junk. Making them in numbers was not an issue. As I wrote,
even if the Germans got a Meteor intact they could not do anything at that
stage of the war. They also did not have the metals to make a copy of the
British engine, even if they wanted to.
> Furthermore the Germans had problems with the metals needed
> to duplicate a British engine.
Yep. And the British knew which metals to use, and where to use them, which
the Germans did not.
>> The only problem was one getting in the hands of the Soviets, and I
>> believe they went that they never went far into enemy controlled
>> territory for the Soviets to get hold of one if one went down.
>
> Again this is junk, given what powered the MiG15 for example.
This is WW2 we are on about, not Korea. The Mig15 had a British engine
made under licence The RR Nene. The USSR finally paid RR royalties about
15 years ago.
>> In early 1945, the chances are that the Meteor F3 would have beaten the
>> 262 as pilots had confidence in the plane, which was not the case with
>> the constant problems with the 262. Open up the throttles too quickly on
>> a 262 and the engines would stall.
>
> In short the above is junk again. And the German pilots were gaining
> confidence with the Me262, basically because it could outfly allied
> fighters.
Far from junk at all. The German plane was not complete. It was unreliable,
burnt out, even in flight and stalled a lot. The Meteor did what the pilots
knew it would do. They had full confidence in the plane, unlike the
Germans. In a jet dog fight most 262's would have stalled as the pilot
opened and closed the throttles quickly to attempt to manoeuvre around a
Meteor. Only a fool would have tried to engage a Meteor with such a
temperamental plane and would have turned and ran. The Meteors would have
slaughtered them in an engagement. The 262 was OK against lumbering bombers.
Even Mustangs knocked them out.
In short the 262 was a dog of plane - that is all of the plane. It has a
reputation it does not deserve. It was not even the first jet plane in
service, it shares that with the Meteor.
Alan
than the UK developed the Meteor, because it needed to. With Germany's
position in the war worsening, developement of their jet fighter
designs became more immeadiate. With the UK's position in the war
improving, the Meteor program was not as important as it may have
otherwise been.
mtfe...@netmapsonscape.net
> "Geoffrey Sinclair" <gsinc...@froggy.com.au> wrote in message
> news:4a6dbe72$0$9768$5a62...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
> > As noted in my post the Meteor III was about 40 to 50 mph slower
> > than the Me262.
> Thank you. Not a great advantage.
A 50 mph difference is indeed a great advantage. That was not an atypical
difference between earlier British fighters and German fighter-bombers,
and that is enough to enable the faster aircraft to decide to engage or
not. The slower aircraft has no such option.
> Britain could have built as many of them as it could,
Well, yes, this is true, by definition.
> In short the 262 was a dog of plane -
It had something like a 45-1 kill to loss combat ratio. Most 262s destroyed
were nailed on the ground or taking off/landing.
If it was a dog, you must think the Allied planes were chihuahuas...
Mike
David H Thornley
> "Geoffrey Sinclair" <gsinc...@froggy.com.au> wrote in message
> news:4a6dbe72$0$9768$5a62...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>
> Meteor overall.
>
engage or disengage at will, and had very good firepower.
As a weapon of war, I rather lean to more reliable systems, and I
think the Meteor was definitely more reliable.
How much of this was due to Western vs. German production quality
in the last year of the war is another issue. This is one reason
why the Meteor was more reliable, and really doesn't have much to
do with the design.
> You wrote above, "Given how late the Meteors were deployed". They were
> both deployed at the same time within days of each other. If the allies
> thought they needed mass of Meteors they would have been built quicker.
>
Quicker, but there's limits.
The Meteor was a new sort of aircraft. It would not be built in large
numbers at first, lest it turn out something like the US P-59 (a
valuable experiment, and a failure as a warplane). It probably couldn't
be built in large numbers at first.
> Britain could have built as many of them as it could, but did not need
> to build them.
>
Exactly how many of a novel design they could have built fast is another
question. As it was, they didn't need to find out.
> The manufacturing could have been ramped right up.
>
Manufacturing can normally be ramped up. The question is how fast.
That depends on a lot of things.
The Allies did suffer from production shortages in WWII. The British
didn't deploy the Spitfire outside Britain, as far as I can tell, until
1942. Certainly they would have built more if they could have, since
the Hurricanes and Hawks in North Africa were definitely outclassed by
the 109s. The Spitfire was a relatively conventional plane, compared
to the Meteor.
>>> If the 262 was a big problem Metors would have been deployed to escort
>>
>> There were nowhere near enough Meteors to do that and Meteor range
>> was an issue in any case.
>
> They were taken to the front. Making them in numbers was not an issue.
> Bomber losses acceptable to the allies.
>
You seem to be misunderstanding here.
To escort bombing missions, a fighter has to be able to fly a long way
at bomber cruising speeds, which means plenty of endurance. The
Mustang was great for this, being a good fighter with exceptional
range.
The Meteor, like all early jets, was a short-ranged fighter. This is
acceptable for an interceptor, but simply won't work for a bomber
escort. The best the Allies could have done for an escort fighter was
the P-51H, which was extremely fast for a piston-engined fighter but
considerably slower than the 262.
>> In short this claim is junk. The Meteor was simply not available in
>> numbers and the idea the Germans could duplicate its engines in
>> a few months is a joke.
>
> It is far from junk. Making them in numbers was not an issue.
I don't find this plausible. Do you have any evidence for that?
The Meteor was a novel sort of airplane, and nobody knew what made
a good jet fighter at the time. That means that the British would
not have wanted to commit to big production runs, since they might have
been wasted. They couldn't have produced them all that fast early
on in any case.
> Yep. And the British knew which metals to use, and where to use them,
> which the Germans did not.
>
Germany had a lot of good metallurgists, and I doubt they had any
more problems than the Brits figuring out what metals to use where.
The issue was getting them. Britain could import metals from most
of the world, and Germany was quite limited.
> plane, unlike the Germans. In a jet dog fight most 262's would have
> stalled as the pilot opened and closed the throttles quickly to attempt
> to manoeuvre around a Meteor.
In a jet fight, the 262 pilots would have gained speed as fast as they
could without stalling. They wouldn't have tried to dogfight or
maneuver. Not with the 262; they would have used superior speed
and slashing attacks.
Only a fool would have tried to engage a
> Meteor with such a temperamental plane and would have turned and ran.
Quite successfully, actually. The 262 had a sizable speed advantage.
> The Meteors would have slaughtered them in an engagement.
Again, got any evidence? The Meteors couldn't catch them if the 262s
didn't want to be caught, and the reverse was not true. If the German
pilots only engage when they have the advantage, then the British pilots
are always fighting at a disadvantage, and losing.
This is the precise problem the RAF had in 1941 running missions over
France: the Germans would only engage when they wanted. The solution
to this was to have escorted bomber missions that the Luftwaffe had
to engage.
The 262 was OK
> against lumbering bombers. Even Mustangs knocked them out.
>
It was very good against bombers, having great speed and firepower. If
shot down by P-51s, it was usually when landing or taking off. It
needed a long runway, so the Allies could often cover the 262 airstrips
with fighters to shoot the 262s down when they were vulnerable.
That doesn't mean the 262 was a bad fighter.
--
David H. Thornley | If you want my opinion, ask.
da...@thornley.net | If you don't, flee.
http://www.thornley.net/~thornley/david/ | O-
Geoffrey Sinclair
616 squadron received the Meteor I in July 1944 and replaced it
with the Meteor III in January 1945, a detachment was sent to
the continent in January 1945, with the whole squadron moving in
28 February.
504 squadron converted to Meteor III in April 1945, and maybe
had a detachment to Germany before the end of the war.
74 squadron returned to the UK from Europe on 16 May 1945
and converted from Spitfire XVI to Meteor III
"Bay Man" <xyxbay...@xyxmailinator.xyxcomnospam> wrote in message
news:h4lc53$sa8$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> "Geoffrey Sinclair" <gsinc...@froggy.com.au> wrote in message
> news:4a6dbe72$0$9768$5a62...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>
>> As noted in my post the Meteor III was about 40 to 50 mph slower
>> than the Me262.
>
> Thank you.
For noting I had already mentioned the information?
> Not a great advantage.
Given 30 mph was quite important in Spitfire V versus Fw190
this is incorrect. Given the effective range of WWII fighter
armament, 50 mph means you are out of range in a few seconds.
>>> It was unreliable and not fully developed German jet technology was not
>>> as advanced as the British.
>>
>> This requires a definition of advanced, the allied engines were more
>> reliable, there were also plenty of engines in development in both
>> axis and the allied countries.
>
> In April 1944 the Meteor engine was reliable and made of superior
> materials.
And gave a top speed of over 100 mph slower than the Me262.
>> There is design and there is engineering to consider.
>
> British design were advanced in many aspects and plenty of variations as
> well.
I note the deletion of the claim the British were superior,
"It was unreliable and not fully developed German jet technology was not as
advanced as the British."
To be replaced by the British had a number of designs.
News flash, the jets were very much the new propulsion device, lots
of things needed to be sorted out, different engine designs had their
good and bad points, it would take some time to sort out what was
better design and engineering. No one had an obvious lead in all
aspects.
>>>>> The Meteor was the first proper fully developed jet plane introduced.
>>>>
>>>> This applies to the engines,
>>>
>>> It applies to the plane as a whole. It all worked and was reliable.
>>
>> No, it applies to engines.
>
> No. It applies to a plane - all of it. The 262 was inferior to the Meteor
> overall.
No, it applies to engines. And no the Me262 was not inferior to the
Meteor III overall, and it was obviously superior to the Meteor I.
>> Well at least this is an admission the Me262 was a good airframe.
>
> It had a good airframe, however the Meteor was superior in some
> manoeuvres.
So to rewrite the above the Meteor was inferior in some manoeuvres.
I gather the idea is to simply try and find anything the Meteor was better
at, in which case you might note the paint was generally better.
>>>> Given how late the Meteors were deployed and the restrictions on
>>>> their operations this is not surprising.
>>>
>>> Meteors were deployed the same time as the 262.
>>
>> In nowhere near the numbers.
>
> You wrote above, "Given how late the Meteors were deployed".
And I note what has been deleted was the Bay Man reference to the
Meteor III, which I was replying to.
Try and keep the story straight.
> They were both deployed at the same time within days of each other.
The Meteor III was deployed in January 1945.
The Meteor I and Me262 were deployed within days of each other.
> If the allies thought they needed mass of Meteors they would have been
> built quicker.
So if the Germans thought they needed more reliable engines
they would have been built quicker as well, using this logic.
In reality it takes a lot of time
>> And like all jets it had problems with acceleration and deceleration
>> compared with piston engined types.
>
> But the Meteor's engine did not burn out or stall.
Yes it did, the problem for the Jumo was much worse.
>>> They were not going to produce them in numbers to be instantly outdated
>>> and they did not need to.
>>
>> So in other words it is admitted the Meteor I was very much a small
>> step, slower than the piston engined fighters, but promising more
>> development.
>
> Read what was written.
I did. Not in number, "instantly outdated".
> It was the first, it was not needed as a war wining plane at the time as
> allied air superiority was awsome with piston planes.
It was the first UK deployed jet fighter.
> Many designs were on the table and some in R&D, the Vixen, Canberra etc,
> together with more advanced engines. The British were not going to produce
> 1000s of these planes to be outdated when the new designs came along.
The Meteor I was out of production in the second half of 1944.
The Meteor VIII, the last day fighter version, went out of production
in 1954.
The Canberra specification was sent out in May 1945, the Vixen
specification in 1948.
>> In reality Britain was not geared up to build lots of jets, only 98
>> engines were built in 1944, then another 102 in the first 3 months
>> of 1945.
>
> Britain could have built as many of them as it could, but did not need to
> build them.
So if the Germans thought they needed more reliable engines
they would have been built quicker as well, using this logic.
>>> They knew they could do better and waited for the next
>>> planes/improvements.
>>
>> Actually they were not thinking that strategically, waiting for
>> improvements has to stop sometime and aircraft built. The arrival
>> of the Me262 and Ar234 meant the allied programs were pushed
>> for quick results as well as a long term view.
>
> The allies knew the Soviets would have got hold of 262s and
> were preparing for more advanced versions of jets. Making masses
> of the Meteor which was pretty equal to the 262 (if it had a reliable
> engine) was pointless.
So no doubt that explains why around 90% of Meteor production
was from January 1946 onwards.
And as noted the Bay Man ideas on Me262 performance is junk.
>>> If the Meteors were urgently needed they would have been improved faster
>>> and made in numbers.
>>
>> The short answer here is improvements cannot be simply granted.
>> They take time.
>
> The manufacturing could have been ramped right up.
So grant the same conditions to the Germans.
And in 1944 the reality is the British economy was not in a position
to radically ramp up new aircraft and new types of engine production
as easily as Bay Man requires.
The reality of years of neglect of basic infrastructure and the costs of
the war.
>>>>> I can never see the fuss about the 262.
>>>>
>>>> It was proving a real problem for the USAAF, and if it could be
>>>> deployed in numbers it was clearly going to be a big problem.
>>>
>>> If the 262 was a big problem Metors would have been deployed to escort
>>
>> There were nowhere near enough Meteors to do that and Meteor range
>> was an issue in any case.
>
> They were taken to the front.
In other words Meteor range was an issue.
> Making them in numbers was not an issue.
Yes it was, if the Meteor can be made in wished for numbers so can
Me262s.
> Bomber losses acceptable to the allies.
Which has nothing to do with wishing into reality large numbers
of Meteors with the range to accompany day heavy bombers,
particularly given the major difference in cruising speeds.
>>>>> Allied airpower was so strong that the Meteor was not used over Nazi
>>>>> controlled territory for fear it may get into their hands.
>>>>
>>>> It was deployed over enemy controlled territory, late in the war.
>>>
>>> At a point the Germans could not make any use of one if they got one
>>> intact (all they needed was the superior engine), as the end was in
>>> sight.
>>
>> In short this claim is junk. The Meteor was simply not available in
>> numbers and the idea the Germans could duplicate its engines in
>> a few months is a joke.
>
> It is far from junk.
No it is junk
> Making them in numbers was not an issue.
This is junk.
> As I wrote, even if the Germans got a Meteor intact they could not do
> anything at that stage of the war.
Yet Bay Man also wrote,
"the Meteor was not used over Nazi controlled territory for fear it may
get into their hands."
So what were the Germans going to do with a crashed Meteor that
was so fearful?
> They also did not have the metals to make a copy of the British engine,
> even if they wanted to.
Thanks for repeating the point I made.
So what were the Germans going to do with a crashed Meteor that
was so fearful?
>> Furthermore the Germans had problems with the metals needed
>> to duplicate a British engine.
>
> Yep. And the British knew which metals to use, and where to use
> them, which the Germans did not.
Actually the Germans did, which is was a brake on their engine
development, given any engine needed to be deployed in numbers.
>>> The only problem was one getting in the hands of the Soviets, and I
>>> believe they went that they never went far into enemy controlled
>>> territory for the Soviets to get hold of one if one went down.
>>
>> Again this is junk, given what powered the MiG15 for example.
>
> This is WW2 we are on about, not Korea.
So tell us all why then worry about the Soviets, they could not have
duplicated the Meteor anymore than the Germans could and the
Soviets were on Britain's side.
> The Mig15 had a British engine made under licence The RR Nene. The USSR
> finally paid RR royalties about 15 years ago.
Yet somehow much inferior technology has to be hidden from the
Soviets.
>>> In early 1945, the chances are that the Meteor F3 would have beaten the
>>> 262 as pilots had confidence in the plane, which was not the case with
>>> the constant problems with the 262. Open up the throttles too quickly
>>> on a 262 and the engines would stall.
>>
>> In short the above is junk again. And the German pilots were gaining
>> confidence with the Me262, basically because it could outfly allied
>> fighters.
>
> Far from junk at all.
Oh good, that confirms it is junk.
> The German plane was not complete.
It was complete, otherwise it could not have flown.
> It was unreliable, burnt out, even in flight and stalled a lot.
Now we are down to the engines.
> The Meteor did what the pilots knew it would do.
So why did so many Meteors crash?
>They had full confidence in the plane, unlike the Germans.
This is another junk claim.
> In a jet dog fight most 262's would have stalled as the pilot opened and
> closed the throttles quickly to attempt to manoeuvre around a Meteor.
Since when were the Germans staying to dogfight RAF aircraft, as
opposed to high speed generally in the vertical plane attacks?
> Only a fool would have tried to engage a Meteor with such a temperamental
> plane and would have turned and ran.
No, the bounce out of the sun with high speed escape was quite viable.
> The Meteors would have slaughtered them in an engagement.
No.
> The 262 was OK against lumbering bombers.
Actually it was quite deadly against bombers given the firepower and
its speed enabled approach from the rear quickly enough to make it
hard for bomber gunners to reply. Given their orders were to go for
the bombers it makes it hard to gain an idea what sort of exchange rate
would have occurred over a series of fighter versus fighter encounters.
> Even Mustangs knocked them out.
And is the idea the Meteor was immune to German piston engined
fighters?
> In short the 262 was a dog of plane - that is all of the plane.
Oh good confirmation the Me262 was quite good.
> It has a reputation it does not deserve.
In fictional land only, that is the ones that over rate is as well as
the ones that under rate it.
> It was not even the first jet plane in service, it shares that with the
> Meteor.
Actually it was the first plane in service, by only days.
The Me262 started claiming kills on 26 July 1944, the Meteor
claimed its first V1 kill on 4 August 1944, tipping the V1 over
after it armament had jammed.
Geoffrey Sinclair
news:h4lrd5$481$2...@news.stanford.edu...
> Bay Man <xyxbay...@xyxmailinator.xyxcomnospam> wrote:
>> "Geoffrey Sinclair" <gsinc...@froggy.com.au> wrote in message
>> In short the 262 was a dog of plane -
>
> It had something like a 45-1 kill to loss combat ratio. Most 262s
> destroyed were nailed on the ground or taking off/landing.
Where does the 45 to 1 kill ratio come from?
Using only JG7 losses for the moment.
The spreadsheet I have notes 7 Me262s lost to enemy bombers, 1 due
to the bomber exploding, one due to a collision, of the seven 5 have been
identified by work number.
So on the bomber return fire alone JG7 must have made 225 real kills.
Some 11 Me262 losses are listed as due to enemy aircraft, that is it could
be a bomber or a fighter, of these 2 were by Red Air Force units. Four
of the losses are identified by work number.
So that is another 495 real kills by JG7 Me262s.
Another 38 are listed as being lost to enemy fighters, 26 of which are
identified by work numbers. The USAAF combat reports make it
clear they were shooting down Me262s in air combat, not just waiting
for the jet to land or take off. The Me262s might have been cruising
at about the top speed of a P-51 but that did not stop them being
bounced if the P-51s saw the Me262 first.
At 45 to 1 there can only be 11 Me262 combat losses to account for
every USAAF aircraft listed as being shot down by enemy aircraft in
1945. At 4.5 to 1 it only requires 110 Me262 combat losses.
The conclusion I came to was JG7 managed a 1 to 1 loss ratio counting
all their known Me262 losses, and around a 1.3 to 1.4 combat loss ratio
when you removed the non combat losses.
Bay Man
news:jJqdnSme8dOb6_PX...@posted.visi...
> The Meteor was a new sort of aircraft.
"New sort"? The British stopped development of prop bombers in WW2 and went
to jets, hence why development on the phenominal power to weight ratio
2-stroke RR Grecy engine was
halted.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolls-Royce_Crecy The British were
ahead in Jets and piston engines too. The RR Grecy 2-stroke sliding sleeve
engine to replace the Merlin, was phenomenal and was test run in a plane.
The highest power/weight ratio of any piston aero engine ever. It was
scrapped because R&D focus was on jets - a quantum leap. Look at the UK
planes immediate post WW2, they were way ahead of all others. Germany had
nothing to compare with the Canberra bomber. They had nothing in development
to compare. Dedicated British carrier based jets were being developed during
WW2.
Bay Man
news:jJqdnSme8dOb6_PX...@posted.visi...
> As a fighter, in the air, the 262 would
> have been superior. It could engage or
> disengage at will, and had very good
> firepower.
The 262 could engage at will. To dog-fight you need to wind the engines up
and down and full throttle. The would stall doping that. The best it could
do is run when seeing a Meteor.
> As a weapon of war, I rather lean to more reliable systems, and I
> think the Meteor was definitely more reliable.
The Meteor was the world's first complete and fully developed and reliable
jet fighter.
> How much of this was due to Western vs. German production quality
> in the last year of the war is another issue. This is one reason
> why the Meteor was more reliable, and really doesn't have much to
> do with the design.
It was an engineering issue. The British had and used various metals in the
engine to make it work and reliable. Some of these metal were not available
to the Germans, some were and they used them. The British metallurgists
were better than the Germans.
> The Meteor was a new sort of aircraft.
It was a ground breaker. A qantum leap.
> It would not be built in large
> numbers at first,
Once it was proven and it was on entering service, they could have made them
in the 1000s. British industry was not being continually bombed. For a
first phase plane it was remarkable, being in service around the world until
the 1980s, The WW2 designed Canberra was in service until the late 1990s.
>> Britain could have built as many of them as it could, but did not need
>> to build them.
>>
> Exactly how many of a novel design they could have built fast is another
> question.
The Germans with a fractured industry managed to built their undeveloped jet
in decent numbers.
> The Allies did suffer from production shortages in WWII. The British
> didn't deploy the Spitfire outside Britain, as far as I can tell, until
> 1942.
That was not because of production problems. That was because the Spitfire
was a short range fast interceptor and was geared to face any German air
threat, which receded after Moscow in Dec 1941.
The Hurricanes was to be phased out but problems with the Typhoon kept in
service for longer.
>> They were taken to the front. Making them in numbers was not an issue.
>> Bomber losses acceptable to the allies.
>>
> You seem to be misunderstanding here.
>
> To escort bombing missions, a fighter has to be able to fly a long way
> at bomber cruising speeds, which means plenty of endurance. The
> Mustang was great for this, being a good fighter with exceptional
> range.
Meteors were taken to the front line based in Holland. They could escort the
bombers when over Holland/Germany.
> The Meteor, like all early jets, was a short-ranged
> fighter. This is acceptable for an interceptor, but
> simply won't work for a bomber
> escort.
What made the Mustang was the drop tanks, drop tanks could just as easy be
used on the Meteor if need be.
> The Meteor was a novel sort of airplane, and nobody knew what made
> a good jet fighter at the time. That means that the British would
> not have wanted to commit to big production runs, since they might have
> been wasted.
Exactly. What I have been saying. If a desperate need was there, as with
Germany, they would have been made in large numbers. This is simple to
understand.
>> Yep. And the British knew which metals
>> to use, and where to use them,
>> which the Germans did not.
>>
> Germany had a lot of good metallurgists,
> and I doubt they had any more problems
> than the Brits figuring out what
> metals to use where.
That would have take about a year minimum in R&D and testing, that is if
they got it right. German compressor design was behind the British designs.
It was not a case of the German design being equal and just lacking metals
and testing. The British had produced a fully developed workable operational
jet plane the Germans never.
>> Only a fool would have tried to engage a
>> Meteor with such a temperamental plane
>> and would have turned and ran.
>
> Quite successfully, actually. The 262 had
> a sizable speed advantage.
40mph. They best they could do is turn and run. Only a fool would engage a
Meteor in such a poor performing plane prone to burn outs and stalling.
Engaging would have meant the pilot had a good chance of dying and losing a
plane.
Beausaber
which was in production by mid-1945. while production of P-38's was
being phased out. (Hey, model builders! Lend-Lease Shooting Stars in
RAF Camo anyone?)
Top speed, service ceiling & range (depending on reference, I got
different numbers, so I went with what I thought most likely. In any
case, the numbers should not be far off)
Me262 585 mph / 37,500 ft / 525 miles - in service July 1944
Meteor I 420 mph / 40,000 ft / 1,335 miles - in service July 1944
(prior to Me262)
Meteor III 490 mph / 40,000 ft (long engine cowlings) - in service
December 1944
Meteor IV 585 mph (long cowlings with more powerful engines) - in
service Summer 1945
P-80 - 556 mph / 45,000 feet / 1,000 miles - in service Spring 1945
Also, while the Me262 was very good at top speed, it was not a
pleasant aircraft to fly at cruise being "sluggish and awkward". It
apparently was not a good gun platform as it tended to "snake" at high
speed (as did the Meteor)and 'if an engine failed at low altitude (a
common occurance) the results were usually catastrophic'.
Bay Man
>
> Given 30 mph was quite important in Spitfire V versus Fw190
> this is incorrect. Given the effective range of WWII fighter
> armament, 50 mph means you are out of range in a few seconds.
In a jet to jet dog flight the 262 would have had to have pulled off and on
throttles hard, which would have stalled the plane.
The first complete, workable, reliable jet fighter was the Meteor. The 262
was far from a complete plane. Heavily flawed prototypes do not count.
mtfe...@netmapsonscape.net
> "David H Thornley" <da...@thornley.net> wrote in message
> news:jJqdnSme8dOb6_PX...@posted.visi...
> The 262 could engage at will. To dog-fight you need to wind the engines up
How much dog-fighting do you think went on?
Mike
David H Thornley
> "David H Thornley" <da...@thornley.net> wrote in message
> news:jJqdnSme8dOb6_PX...@posted.visi...
> Once it was proven and it was on entering service, they could have made
> them
> in the 1000s.
Eventually. Again, the Meteor was a new aircraft, and there would
be some ramping-up time.
>> The Allies did suffer from production shortages in WWII. The British
>> didn't deploy the Spitfire outside Britain, as far as I can tell, until
>> 1942.
>
> That was not because of production problems. That was because the Spitfire
> was a short range fast interceptor and was geared to face any German air
> threat, which receded after Moscow in Dec 1941.
>
You're actually agreeing with me here.
You're saying that they were kept in Britain because they were
short-range interceptors, and were less needed in Britain because
of the reduced air threat.
This means that, if the Brits had had enough Spitfires, they would
have been able to send some out. They didn't keep all their fighters
in Britain, after all, so if they'd had enough Spits to keep the
fighter squadrons in Britain full enough they could have shipped
some overseas.
They definitely did want them overseas, and when the supply was
deemed more than adequate for home defense the RAF sent them out.
> The Hurricanes was to be phased out but problems with the Typhoon kept in
> service for longer.
>
So they could have been replaced with Typhoons, if they'd worked out
better, or Spitfires.
>> To escort bombing missions, a fighter has to be able to fly a long way
>> at bomber cruising speeds, which means plenty of endurance. The
>
> Meteors were taken to the front line based in Holland. They could escort
> the
> bombers when over Holland/Germany.
>
You still aren't getting it.
It doesn't matter where the escort fighter starts. What matters is that
the escort fighters stay with the bombers.
The bombers take a long time in the enemy air-defense area, and the
fighters have to stay with the bombers all that time. The Meteor simply
wasn't able to do that.
>> The Meteor, like all early jets, was a short-ranged
>> fighter. This is acceptable for an interceptor, but
>> simply won't work for a bomber
>> escort.
>
> What made the Mustang was the drop tanks, drop tanks could just as easy be
> used on the Meteor if need be.
>
No, it had very good range on internal fuel.
Drop tanks are great, but you do not want to have to engage enemy
fighters while carrying them. This means that drop tanks that get
you to the dogfight are a really good idea, and drop tanks that are
intended to last you through the dogfight are a bad idea.
The Mustang could generally drop tanks, fight enemy aircraft, and then
get back on internal fuel. The Meteor couldn't do that, except at
close range.
Large drop tanks were typically for ferry missions, where absolute
range was very important and enemy fighters were not expected.
>> Quite successfully, actually. The 262 had
>> a sizable speed advantage.
>
> 40mph. They best they could do is turn and run. Only a fool would
> engage a Meteor in such a poor performing plane prone to burn outs and
> stalling. Engaging would have meant the pilot had a good chance of dying
> and losing a plane.
>
Which means that a 262 is immune to a Meteor if it sees it soon enough.
If it doesn't see an attacker soon enough, it's vulnerable to any
fighter.
This means that the Meteor didn't have all that great an advantage over
the P-51 or P-47 or Tempest, in that any of those could bounce an
unsuspecting 262, while none of them had a prayer of shooting down
an alerted one. The Meteor had a better chance if in the area, while
the piston-engined fighters had a better chance of being in the area,
with their longer range and endurance. It's not that difficult to
understand.
The 262's job was not to engage and destroy Allied fighters, but to
engage and destroy Allied bombers. If it could elude Allied fighters
with superior speed, and get to the bombers at some time, it succeeded
in its mission. A bomber destroyer needs speed and armament, which
the 262 had in abundance. It only needs maneuverability to escape
enemy fighters, and the 262 could do that with speed.
Duwop
<xyxbayman...@xyxmailinator.xyxcomnospam> wrote:
> "Geoffrey Sinclair" <gsinclai...@froggy.com.au> wrote in message
>
> news:4a6ef367$0$9726$5a62...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
> In a jet to jet dog flight the 262 would have had to have pulled off and on
> throttles hard, which would have stalled the plane.
Do you know what the common definition of the old fashioned dogfight
is? In basic terms, it's a turning fight. It's the style made famous
during WWI and subsequent Hollywood movies. Early (read slower) WWII
fighters were still optimized for this style for the most part. But
already there were some interceptors, fast, but not quite as
maneuverable.
Well, guess what, as WWII went along, speed was recognized for the
advantage it was, and kinetic energy fighting became the killing
style. Americans were somewhat forced into this in the Pacific as that
was about their only advantage, speed, and dive speed. But Chennault
is really the one credited with the move from old fashioned dog-
fighting. At least in US circles.
At any rate, this was recognized in the European air as well, and a
ME262 pilot would be completely out of their mind to even consider
what you imagine them doing.
As would a sane Meteor pilot. Speed was the jet's one and only
strength over other aircraft, not accelleration, not turning, but
straight speed.
In short: If you'd bothered to keep up you'd know that the WWI
dogfight was already obsolete by the end of WWII. And certainly for
jets.
You seem to know know what came next during the jet age, though you
should be able to infer from that as well. Certainly not project some
"Red Baron Vs. Sopwith Pup" scenario on a jet at any rate.
> The first complete, workable, reliable jet fighter was the Meteor. The 262
> was far from a complete plane. Heavily flawed prototypes do not count.
I see, this isn't about some strawman anymore. It's about English
supremacy.
Here if it makes you happy: The Meteor was a sooper doooper awesome
weapon and the bestest aircraft in the whole wide world.
Now let's go back to rational, honest discussion please.
Geoffrey Sinclair
> In the debate of Meteor vs Me262, what's being ignored is the P-80,
> which was in production by mid-1945. while production of P-38's was
> being phased out.
P-80 production 5 in 1944, none in January 1945, then
Feb 1
Mar 3
Apr 6
May 13
Jun 20
Jul 36
Aug 31
This includes 13 YP-80A, which would not have been committed
to combat. So the P-80 was available in comparable numbers to
the Meteor.
P-38 production peaked in August 1944 at 402, down to 300 in
December 1944, for 1945
Jan 301
Feb 253
Mar 289
Apr 252
May 225
Jun 175
Jul 118
Aug 53
The P-38 went out of production in August 1945, the P-47 and
P-51 were both out of production by the end of 1945.
> (Hey, model builders! Lend-Lease Shooting Stars in
> RAF Camo anyone?)
>
> Top speed, service ceiling & range (depending on reference, I got
> different numbers, so I went with what I thought most likely. In any
> case, the numbers should not be far off)
>
> Me262 585 mph / 37,500 ft / 525 miles - in service July 1944
The usual top speed of the Me262 is given as 535 mph.
Note top speed was dependent on air temperature, so it changed
according to the seasons.
> Meteor I 420 mph / 40,000 ft / 1,335 miles - in service July 1944
> (prior to Me262)
The 1,335 miles figure is very wrong, the Meteor I had 300 UK
gallons of internal fuel storage. The range was closer to 500 miles
and I do not think it was configured for external fuel tanks.
And I think you will find the Me262 just won the first into service
race. Though of course people have to define what service means,
issued to a combat unit? First operational sortie? First combat?
> Meteor III 490 mph / 40,000 ft (long engine cowlings) - in service
> December 1944
There were 20 Meteor I and 210 Meteor III, of which 199 were
built before the end of 1945, leaving 31 mark III to be built in 1946.
The last 15 Meteor III had the long nacelles, the rest had comparable
performance to the mark I, though they did have 10% more fuel,
which seems to have translated to a 20% increase in range.
> Meteor IV 585 mph (long cowlings with more powerful engines) - in
> service Summer 1945
No, in test in 1945, in production from 1947.
> P-80 - 556 mph / 45,000 feet / 1,000 miles - in service Spring 1945
P-80A, 780 miles on internal fuel, 1,440 with drop tanks.
> Also, while the Me262 was very good at top speed, it was not a
> pleasant aircraft to fly at cruise being "sluggish and awkward".
> It
> apparently was not a good gun platform as it tended to "snake" at high
> speed (as did the Meteor)
The report of Captain Eric Brown indicates the Me262 was pleasant
to fly, a pilot's aeroplane, responsive and docile. The big problem
was being underpowered (Like the Meteor I), coupled with unreliable
engines, result "exciting".
Mach snaking was a common problem for the early jets. The Meteor
had a bad case of snaking at high speed but also in rough air, which
made ground attack missions a problem.
> and 'if an engine failed at low altitude (a
> common occurance) the results were usually catastrophic'.
Can you name a twin engined aircraft, or even a 4 engined aircraft
where engine failure at low altitude is not usually catastrophic?
The allied jet engines performed better at altitude than the Jumos
fitted to the Me262.
The allies had enough problems arranging fighter cover for heavy
bombers thanks to the difference in cruising speeds, the jets were
even faster.
Geoffrey Sinclair
> "Geoffrey Sinclair" <gsinc...@froggy.com.au> wrote in message
> news:4a6ef367$0$9726$5a62...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>>
>> Given 30 mph was quite important in Spitfire V versus Fw190
>> this is incorrect. Given the effective range of WWII fighter
>> armament, 50 mph means you are out of range in a few seconds.
>
> In a jet to jet dog flight the 262 would have had to have pulled off and
> on throttles hard, which would have stalled the plane.
The Me262 was not a dogfighter, any pilot who tried it did not last long.
Just like the Fw190 and Bf109 did not stay to dogfight with a Spitfire,
the Me262 attacked in a fast pass and then left or reformed away from
the fight to try again.
> The first complete, workable, reliable jet fighter was the Meteor. The 262
> was far from a complete plane.
Yes it is known this pronouncement will be continued regardless of
any evidence.
> Heavily flawed prototypes do not count.
The Me262 production to April 1945 was about 10 to 20 times that of
the Meteor.
LC
(snip)
> So what were the Germans going to do with a crashed Meteor that
> was so fearful?
You really don't want to know.
LC
ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk
xyxbay...@xyxmailinator.xyxcomnospam (Bay Man) wrote:
> Germany had
> nothing to compare with the Canberra bomber. They had nothing in
> development to compare.
Germany produced the worlds first jet bomber the Arado 234.
Reconnaissance and bomber versions were in service in 1944. The improved
four engined 234C first flew in 1944. I have not seen any operational
reports but presumably it had the same engine problems as the Me262.
However saying that the Germans had nothing to compare to the Canberra
is just wrong.
Ken Young
Bill Shatzer
> "Geoffrey Sinclair" <gsinc...@froggy.com.au> wrote in message
> news:4a6ef367$0$9726$5a62...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>> Given 30 mph was quite important in Spitfire V versus Fw190
>> this is incorrect. Given the effective range of WWII fighter
>> armament, 50 mph means you are out of range in a few seconds.
> In a jet to jet dog flight the 262 would have had to have pulled off and
> on throttles hard, which would have stalled the plane.
Who the heck dogfights with a jet?
Boom and zoom is the way to go.
The F6F Hellcat couldn't dogfight a lick with the Zero yet its overall
kill ratio was pretty favorable. Six to one, IIRC.
Alan
be why it wasn't deployed to Germany unitl late in the war.
Bay Man
news:loKdnX0a6Yw-gO3X...@giganews.com...
> However saying that the Germans had nothing to compare to the Canberra
> is just wrong.
The Arado 234 cannot be compared to the Canberra, it was primitive in
comparison.
Duwop
> IIRC, the Meteor mainly used to intercept V-1 flying bombs. This may
> be why it wasn't deployed to Germany unitl late in the war.
It was a weapon without a mission, bomber interceptors not being in
much demand by the Allies.
Too short legged to be an escort, too valuable to use as a Fighter-
bomber. What could it have done that would be useful to the Allies?
Bay Man
news:9d0e99ca-b176-49f2...@f20g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
> On Jul 28, 4:18 pm, "Bay Man"
> <xyxbayman...@xyxmailinator.xyxcomnospam> wrote:
>> "Geoffrey Sinclair" <gsinclai...@froggy.com.au> wrote in message
>>
>> news:4a6ef367$0$9726$5a62...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>
>> In a jet to jet dog flight the 262 would have had
>> to have pulled off and on throttles hard, which
>> would have stalled the plane.
>
> Do you know what the common definition
> of the old fashioned dogfight
> is? In basic terms, it's a turning fight. It's
> the style made famous during WWI
A Jet to jet confrontation would entail manoeuvring to engage the enemy.
That would mean the 262 would stall.
>> The first complete, workable, reliable jet fighter was the Meteor. The
>> 262
>> was far from a complete plane. Heavily flawed prototypes do not count.
>
> I see, this isn't about some strawman anymore. It's about English
> supremacy.
No it's about the the first complete, workable, reliable jet fighter, which
history tells us was the Meteor.
Bay Man
>> The first complete, workable, reliable jet fighter was the Meteor. The
>> 262 was far from a complete plane.
>
> Yes it is known this pronouncement will be continued regardless of
> any evidence.
Can you give me evidence that counters this. Please read the thread.
>> Heavily flawed prototypes do not count.
>
> The Me262 production to April 1945 was about 10 to 20 times that of
> the Meteor.
Again, please read the thread.
Geoffrey Sinclair
> "Geoffrey Sinclair" <gsinc...@froggy.com.au> wrote in message
> news:4a6fc654$0$9753$5a62...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>>> The first complete, workable, reliable jet fighter was the Meteor. The
>>> 262 was far from a complete plane.
>>
>> Yes it is known this pronouncement will be continued regardless of
>> any evidence.
>
> Can you give me evidence that counters this. Please read the thread.
The evidence has been provided, please read the thread instead
of simply wasting bandwidth with non replies.
>>> Heavily flawed prototypes do not count.
>>
>> The Me262 production to April 1945 was about 10 to 20 times that of
>> the Meteor.
>
> Again, please read the thread.
Again, please read the thread.
The idea the Me262s were all prototypes is junk, if anything it applied
to most of the Meteor I.
Try and understand the evidence.
Geoffrey Sinclair
news:aa74c39c-8dff-40fd...@r36g2000vbn.googlegroups.com...
> IIRC, the Meteor mainly used to intercept V-1 flying bombs. This may
> be why it wasn't deployed to Germany unitl late in the war.
The V1s stopped coming in daylight in August 1944, the rest were
fired from He111s over the North Sea at night.
The Meteor production rate was rather low, and the teething troubles
were being worked on. Also duties like testing USAAF tactics
against jet fighters came into play.
It appears almost as soon as 616 squadron was officially equipped with
Meteor III they moved a detachment to Melsbroek, near Brussels,
arriving in late January or early February 1945.
Though Antwerp was under V1 and V2 bombardment, the front line was
so close it was not possible to put up defensive fighter patrols.
One of their first duties was show flights to try and convince other
allied fighters and the AA guns the Meteors were friendly, something
that did not totally succeed.
It looks like offensive sorties were not done until the entire squadron
was moved to Gilze-Rijen in Holland on 31 March 1945.
http://www.redtwo.plus.com/616/Welcomehist.htm
On another point, the long nacelles that improved the Meteor III
performance could be retrofitted.
Geoffrey Sinclair
news:845653af-c760-4852...@d4g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
Oh no.
Surely not that.
Another appearance of the Giant Rat of Sumatra? A story Doctor John
Watson decided could not be told in public since it was something "for
which the world is not yet prepared" after he and Sherlock Holmes
tangled with it around 50 years earlier.
The Horror.
Conan Doyle has a story where Holmes just before WWI, captures a
German master spy. Which is the closest thing to WWII content I
could find.
Geoffrey Sinclair
Correction time,
> There were 20 Meteor I and 210 Meteor III, of which 199 were
> built before the end of 1945, leaving 31 mark III to be built in 1946.
> The last 15 Meteor III had the long nacelles, the rest had comparable
> performance to the mark I, though they did have 10% more fuel,
> which seems to have translated to a 20% increase in range.
It should have read the Meteor III with short nacelles had comparable
performance to the Spitfire XIV or XXI in terms of top speed, the
Spitfires were rated at about 448 to 454 mph at altitude, around
26,000 feet, compared with around 365 to 370 mph at sea level.
The Meteor III with short nacelles had a top speed of 455 mph at
sea level and 465 mph between 10,000 and 22,000 feet, by 26,000
feet top speed was back to 455 mph.
The Meteor III with long nacelles could do 475 mph at 10,000 feet
and 485 mph between 20,000 and 32,000 feet, top speed was back
to 475 mph at about 38,000 feet. So the longer nacelles improved
top speed as well as high altitude performance.
The Meteor I was rated at 385 mph at sea level, 415 mph at 10,000
feet.
Bay Man
> "Bay Man" <xyxbay...@xyxmailinator.xyxcomnospam> wrote in message
> news:h4qm5j$7qd$2...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> "Geoffrey Sinclair" <gsinc...@froggy.com.au> wrote in message
>> news:4a6fc654$0$9753$5a62...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>>>> The first complete, workable, reliable jet fighter was the Meteor. The
>>>> 262 was far from a complete plane.
>>>
>>> Yes it is known this pronouncement will be continued regardless of
>>> any evidence.
>>
>> Can you give me evidence that counters this. Please read the thread.
>
> The evidence has been provided,
You provided none whatsoever. None to counter, "The first complete,
workable, reliable jet fighter was the Meteor. The 262 was far from a
complete plane."
You think that because the Germans rushed out in numbers a poorly built and
designed plane it was superior and a first. It was little more than a
manned guided rocket. A rocket is an expendable item. The 262 with 10 hours
running time and constant burn outs and stalls was little more. The Meteor
was a complete workable and reliable jet fighter.
> Try and understand the evidence.
If you provide some I will. Production numbers is not evidence.
ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk
xyxbay...@xyxmailinator.xyxcomnospam (Bay Man) wrote:
> The Arado 234 cannot be compared to the Canberra, it was primitive in
> comparison.
You just compared the Arado to the Canberra. Germany invented the jet
powered bomber, The Canberra had the advantage of peace time development
and better developed engines. I am curius about what is primative about
a jet powered bomber. You might as well compare a V1 with an exocet both
were state of the art cruise missiles.
Ken Young
Rich
<xyxbayman...@xyxmailinator.xyxcomnospam> wrote:
> You provided none whatsoever. None to counter, "The first complete,
> workable, reliable jet fighter was the Meteor. The 262 was far from a
> complete plane."
Let's deconstruct your sentence then, shall we?
"complete"
Complete = having all parts or elements; lacking nothing; whole;
entire; full
The Me262 had fuselage, engines, undercarriage, wings, control
surfaces, and weapons. Where is the lack of completness? It was
complete as an aircraft prior to the Meteor.
"workable"
Workable = practicable or feasible
The Me262 flew and was operational. Where is the lack of feasibility
or workability? It was workable as an aircraft before the Meteor.
"reliable"
Reliable = that may be relied on; dependable in achievement, accuracy,
honesty, etc
In this sense the Me262 was less reliable than the Meteor so was not
"first" before the Meteor in that respect. OTOH it was reliable enough
to become an operational aircraft that caused the allies considerable
angst. And of course the Meteor, like all early jet aircraft, was
significantly less reliable than its piston-engined contemporaries.
So of the three elements you have described the Me262 was "first" in
two and was only relatively more reliable. Thus, at best only
something less than one-third of your criteria is in fact accurate and
so can be safely rejected as a hypothesis.
> You think that because the Germans rushed out in numbers a poorly built and
> designed plane it was superior and a first.
Your habit of attributing words and thoughts to other posters that
they have not expressed is at best rude and at worst obnoxiously
mendacious. It is well past time that a moderator steps in to censure
such conduct that adds nothing to the thread except length.
Geoffrey made no such statements and in fact presented his usual
reasonable and fact-filled account of the pluses and minuses of the
operational career of the Me262.
Bay Man
news:a6fcdf9b-6c14-4efb...@k1g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
> On Jul 30, 9:20 am, "Bay Man"
> <xyxbayman...@xyxmailinator.xyxcomnospam> wrote:
>> You provided none whatsoever. None to counter, "The first complete,
>> workable, reliable jet fighter was the Meteor. The 262 was far from a
>> complete plane."
>
> Let's deconstruct your sentence then, shall we?
No. Just read it as it is. The 262 was little more than a manned expendable
rocket.
> Your habit of attributing words and thoughts to other posters
He kept on about the numbers the 262 was produced to the Meteor as if that
meant the 262 was somehow a complete and fully developed plane. He was
thought because the airframe was fine the complete and utter crap engine was
somehow negated. One was on about that the UK could not produce such jets
in numbers, having produced 25,000 plane in one year, as well as assembling
and part manufacturing many 1000s of US planes destined for US forces as
well. German industry was being decimated and the 262 was being produced in
dispersed mainly rural locations. But The UK with an intact aircraft
industry was unable to do what they were doing somehow. Yep, sure, sure.
I have enough written to rubbish that plane - or was it a manned guided
rocket?
Bay Man
news:5eadnawK1Z6D_uzX...@giganews.com...
> In article <h4qm5k$7qd$3...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> xyxbay...@xyxmailinator.xyxcomnospam (Bay Man) wrote:
>
>> The Arado 234 cannot be compared to the Canberra, it was primitive in
>> comparison.
>
> You just compared the Arado to the Canberra. Germany invented the jet
> powered bomber,
They were first to get one in the air that had the same appalling attributes
of design and build quality as the 262, which does not count. A sort of
throw away bomber, as they never did many mission before burning out or
stalling.
The Canberra's development was started in WW2, as was the Vixen carrier jet.
> You might as well compare a V1 with an exocet both
> were state of the art cruise missiles.
Both are one mission craft - expendable.
Rich
<xyxbayman...@xyxmailinator.xyxcomnospam> wrote:
> He kept on about the numbers the 262 was produced to the Meteor as if that
> meant the 262 was somehow a complete and fully developed plane.
He did absolutely nothing of the sort, which an even cursory glance at
the thread would demonstrate to even the most ignorant of readers.
Rather, he gave an excellent, factual, nuanced, and dispassionate
analysis of the strengths and virtues of each aircraft. The fact that
you are incapable of doing the same rather says it all.
> I have enough written to rubbish that plane - or was it a manned guided
> rocket?
Yes, I agree, you have written enough rubbish and wasted too many
people's time.
Rich
<xyxbayman...@xyxmailinator.xyxcomnospam> wrote:
In Baymanspeak "development" apparently means when a requirement is
issued. The Canberra contract for development wasn't even signed until
May 1945 and the first prototype did not fly until four years later.
Unsurprisingly, the end aircraft, benefiting from nine years of jet
development, was better than an aircraft designed and protoyped in one
year, which then had to wait almost two years for the engines to be
completed.
It is also interesting that Bayman apparently believes that since the
Vixen was derived from the Vampire-Venom-Sea Venom lineage that it was
"started" during World War II. Again, it is hardly surprising that a
third-generation engine design was better than the wartime-expedient
Jumo.
Geoffrey Sinclair
> "Geoffrey Sinclair" <gsinc...@froggy.com.au> wrote in message
> news:4a70fb27$0$9717$5a62...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>> "Bay Man" <xyxbay...@xyxmailinator.xyxcomnospam> wrote in message
>> news:h4qm5j$7qd$2...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>> "Geoffrey Sinclair" <gsinc...@froggy.com.au> wrote in message
>>> news:4a6fc654$0$9753$5a62...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>
>>>>> The first complete, workable, reliable jet fighter was the Meteor. The
>>>>> 262 was far from a complete plane.
>>>>
>>>> Yes it is known this pronouncement will be continued regardless of
>>>> any evidence.
>>>
>>> Can you give me evidence that counters this. Please read the thread.
>>
>> The evidence has been provided,
>
> You provided none whatsoever.
Oh good, that means there has been extensive evidence provided.
Please read the thread.
> None to counter, "The first complete, workable, reliable jet fighter was
> the Meteor. The 262 was far from a complete plane."
Oh good, my words on the Me262, from a few posts ago.
"It was complete, otherwise it could not have flown."
Incomplete aircraft do not shoot down 200 or so enemy aircraft.
Do not worry folks, complete will probably disappear from the Bay
Man description, and/or "In service with the RAF" or something similar
will be added.
> You think that because the Germans rushed out in numbers a poorly built
> and designed plane it was superior and a first.
The design of the Me262 airframe is widely considered to be superior
to the Meteor. That can be seen in the limiting mach number values.
The Meteor won in the reliable engines department.
> It was little more than a manned guided rocket.
Fascinating, WWII rockets had only minutes worth of fuel.
> A rocket is an expendable item.
Like Bay Man's fiction.
> The 262 with 10 hours running time and constant burn outs and stalls was
> little more.
All I can say is understand the difference between the Me262
airframe and the Jumo 004 engine.
When you do get back to the group.
The engine was 10 hours between overhauls, lifetime of 25 hours.
> The Meteor was a complete workable and reliable jet fighter.
And inferior to the Me262 in some respects and superior in others.
The Me262 was also complete.
>> Try and understand the evidence.
>
> If you provide some I will.
On the Bay Man record evidence is never considered, hence the
way evidence presented is ignored.
> Production numbers is not evidence.
Of course production numbers do shoot down one of Bay Man's claims,
so that has to be dismissed.
ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk
xyxbay...@xyxmailinator.xyxcomnospam (Bay Man) wrote:
> No. Just read it as it is. The 262 was little more than a manned
> expendable rocket.
You seem to be confusing it with the Me163. I am curious as to why you
seem unable to accept that Germany was ahead of both Britain and the US
in some cases. First operational jet bomber, first operational jet
fighter, first general purpose machine gun, first assault rifle, first
successful helicopters to give a few examples.
On the other hand the UK was ahead in radar and with the proximity
fuse. The UK had the best air defence system in the world in 1939.
Ken Young
mtfe...@netmapsonscape.net
> On the other hand the UK was ahead in radar and with the proximity
> fuse.
And code-breaking.
Mike
T. Fink
Thanks to the Poles.
Cheers
Torsten
wjho...@aol.com
The U.S. was far ahead of the UK in breaking the Japanese
codes (the MAGIC program) whereas the UK was ahead in
breaking the German Enigma codes, the information
coming therefrom being labelled by them as "Ultra.".
Almost a year before Pearl Harbor an informal agreement
was reached whereby the U.S. and UK would exchange
intelligence information, although for security reasons the
UK was reluctant until after the US entered the war to reveal
whether or not the information coming from their end was
recovered from crytanalysis or by other means.
In the winter of 1941, the U.S. furnished the UK with one of
the machines which had been develped in 1940 by the
Army's SIS to break the Japanese Purple code. Interesting
background on this secret US/UK intelligence exchange
can be found in David Kahn's classic, "The Codebreakers,"
and also in "The Ultra-Magic Deals --The Most Secret Special
Relationship 1940-1946" by Bradley F Smith.
WJH
William Black
> On Aug 1, 10:59 am, mtfes...@netMAPSONscape.net wrote:
>> ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk wrote:
>>> On the other hand the UK was ahead in radar
>>> and with the proximity fuse.
>> And code-breaking.
>
> The U.S. was far ahead of the UK in breaking the Japanese
> codes (the MAGIC program) whereas the UK was ahead in
> breaking the German Enigma codes, the information
> coming therefrom being labelled by them as "Ultra.".
>
> Almost a year before Pearl Harbor an informal agreement
> was reached whereby the U.S. and UK would exchange
> intelligence information, although for security reasons the
> UK was reluctant until after the US entered the war to reveal
> whether or not the information coming from their end was
> recovered from crytanalysis or by other means.
The Sinkov Mission visited Bletchley in early 1941 and exchanged
information about ULTRA and Magic.
There is the usual conspiracy theory that the British double-crossed the
Americans, but there's no proof of it at all...
The US team was allowed access to the bombe area so they don't seem to
have been keeping any secrets from each other...
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3926/is_200004/ai_n8892099/
--
William Black
So I looked at the script
It was six weeks filming in the desert.
No girls, no dialogue, just guys with guns.
They said "Do you want wages or a percentage?"
It looked like a certain turkey.
When they came the second time I was ready.
I haven't had to work since...
Eli Wallach on his roles in
"The Magnificent Seven"
and "The Good the Bad and The Ugly
wjho...@aol.com
> The Sinkov Mission visited Bletchley in early 1941 and exchanged
> information about ULTRA and Magic. There is the usual conspiracy
> theory that the British double-crossed the Americans, but there's no
> proof of it at all...
Hardly a conspiracy theory, It is documented in the cites I gave that
the UK was reluctant to divulge the source of intelligence
information
conveyed to the US because of the UK's concern about lax U.S. security
prior to Pearl Harbor. For that reason it was not until well into 1942
that in providing information to the U.S. that the UK would identify
"Ultra" as a source.
> The US team was allowed access to the bombe area so they don't
> seem to have been keeping any secrets from each other...
That's quite debateable. Of the Sinkov Mission to Bletchley, Smith
writes in "The Ultra-Magic Deals,":
"Sinkov and his group were told only 'in a general way' about
British decryption processes- they were NOT ALLOWED to see a
bombe, OR EVEN TOLD OF ITS EXISTENCE. The American team
therefore had no hard evidence to prove he importance of analytic
machine methods in the British cryptanalytic effort..".(footnote
citing
Sinkov interviews and letters). Emphasis mine.
WJH
Bay Man
news:h53p2n$p44$00$1...@news.t-online.com...
The work that mattered was done by the British, even to producing the first
electronic computer to quickly decode.
Robert Sveinson
news:44966f5d-cfdc-40df...@18g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
Help!
I have 2 books dealing with the Enigma codes and machines,
Ultra Goes To War, by Ronald Lewin
Enigma The Battle For The Codes by Hugh Sebag-Montefiore,
neither of which refer to the Sinkov Mission, Lt. Leo Rosen,
Lt. Robert Weeks, Ens. Prescott Currier,
or the American clone of the Japanese diplomatic services
cypher machine, Mrs. Agnes Driscoll, or Frank Raven.
Ultra Goes to War was published in 1978, and
Enigma the Battle For The Codes was published
in 2000.
Does any one have a theory as to why these
2 authors haven't written about the people
in the above statements??
>
Beausaber
first general purpose machine gun,
SNIP
Speaking as an old soldier who had hump enough of them in my time, the
GPMG concept proved a seductive snare for the world's armies - they're
too damn heavy to be light machine guns (notice how they've all been
replaced in that role) and been relegated to the medium machine gun
role - where they may be no better, and possibly worse, than the old
Brownings and Vickers.
first assault rifle
SNIP
Sorry, but no. The Russian M1916 "Avtomat" in caliber 6.5 mm Arisaka
by Federov takes pride of place, alhough there are those who argue
that the Italian Cei-Righetti of circa 1900 takes primacy. In contrast
to the C-R, the Federov was adopted by the Russians and placed into
production with a limited number manufactured and issued before
manufacturing was halted by the turmoil of the revolution. They were
subseqently placed in store circa 1926 when the Supeme Defence Council
decreed that all weapons not firing the 7.62 Moisin-Nagant round
should be withdrawn, only to be reissued to elite troops such as
paratroopers during the 1930's and were used in the Winter War against
Finland. As to whether it was an assault rifle, it was
1) A shoulder weapon
2) Fired an intermediate-power round
3) Capable of both semi-automatic and fully automatic fire
and I've never been able to come up a better working definition for an
assault rifle
http://world.guns.ru/assault/as86-e.htm
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=39&t=140848
, first
> successful helicopters to give a few examples.
>
> On the other hand the UK was ahead in radar and with the proximity
> fuse.
SNIP
While there is no doubt that the successful development of the cavity
magnetron was British (they did not invent it), the VT fuze was a
combined Anglo-American effort, with most credit (such as battery and
miniature tubes/valves) going to the US (the name itself came about
because it was Project V of Section T of the National Defence Reseach
Council of the US. "Variable Time" was a cover story and could have
meant nothing more than a conventional time fuse)
William Black
You deleted my reference to Cryptologia
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3926/is_200004/ai_n8892099/
Which goes into some detail about why it is obviously not the case that
the British withheld anything and examines the series of queries that
came from the US later when they started trying to decrypt Enigma traffic.
The only thing they didn't give them was an example of the Enigma
machine that produced the SHARK traffic, and that was almost certainly
because they only had one of them...
Bay Man
news:749e02d4-57e2-49a4...@t13g2000yqt.googlegroups.com...
>> On the other hand the UK was ahead in radar and with the proximity
>> fuse.
>
> SNIP
>
> While there is no doubt that the successful development of the cavity
> magnetron was British (they did not invent it), the VT fuze was a
> combined Anglo-American effort, with most credit (such as battery and
> miniature tubes/valves) going to the US (the name itself came about
> because it was Project V of Section T of the National Defence Reseach
> Council of the US. "Variable Time" was a cover story and could have
> meant nothing more than a conventional time fuse)
RADAR
"When the members of the Tizard Mission brought one to America in 1940, they
carried the most valuable cargo ever brought to our shores."
--James Phinney Baxter III, Official Historian of the Office of US
Scientific Research and Development
Staff at Birmingham University had been tasked by the Government to develop
a high powered microwave transmitting device and they were aware fully of
the magnetron invented in the USA in valve form in the nineteen twenties and
that it could only develop a few tens of watts of power. They strove to make
improvements and in 1940 Randall & Boot created the Cavity Magnetron.
The magnetron was a radar transmitter, one that bolstered British military
capabilities across the board and give the country the upper hand in what
already seemed like a technological war.
Magnetrons represented a crucial step - a leap. Fitted into nightfighters
it made it immensely easier for pilots to home in on their quarry even on
the darkest nights.
The magnetron had been invented by two physicists at the University of
Birmingham, it put Britain on the offensive. Aircraft equipped with
centimetre radar would pick out U-boat periscopes rising under cover of
darkness. Lancasters and other bombers could see through the thick cloud
cover obscuring Hitler's forces and factories on the European continent,
keeping planes flying on days normally planes would be grounded.
US radar research was based on what the British had given them. Then US subs
became a lethal tool in the Pacific war, as were US bombers.
VT FUZE
"The radio frequency proximity fuze concept was proposed to the British Air
Defence Establishment in a May, 1940, memo from William A. S. Butement,
Edward S. Shire, and Amherst F.H. Thompson. A breadboard circuit was
constructed by the inventors and the concept was tested in the laboratory by
moving a sheet of tin at various distances. Early field testing connected
the circuit to a thyratron trigger operating a tower-mounted camera which
photographed passing aircraft to determine distance of fuze function.
Prototype fuzes were then constructed in June, 1940, and installed in
unrotated projectiles fired at targets supported by balloons. The details of
these experiments were passed to the United States Naval Research Laboratory
and National Defense Research Committee (NDRC) in September, 1940, in
accordance with an informal agreement between Winston Churchill and Franklin
D. Roosevelt to exchange scientific information of potential military
value."
I think I would give that to the British.
wjho...@aol.com
> You deleted my reference to Cryptologia
>
> http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3926/is_200004/ai_n8892099/
>
> Which goes into some detail about why it is obviously
I suggest you examine your own cite more carefully. It
clearly pointed out that there had been a controversy
over just what the UK provided and what it did not. In
fact in page 1 it stated the following:
"The PRINCIPAL WORK ON ANGLO-AMERICAN
CRYPTANALYTICAL COOPERATION more soberly
concluded that the Sinkov Mission 'arrived back in the
United States with little to show for their strenuous efforts
except general impressions of Bletchley and British
intelligence practice.' (footnote 4) Emphasis Mine.
Then your cite goes on to note that said "principal
work" on the subject was one that I cited, namely "The
Ultra-Magic Deals..." by Bradley F. Smith from which
the qoute above was taken. Smith further went on to
cite Sinkov himself for stating that, let alone being given
access to bombe by the UK, he was not given access
to bombe, indeed that even bombe's existence was not
mentioned during the mission's visit to Bletchley.
> The only thing they didn't give them was an example of the
> Enigma machine that produced the SHARK traffic...
Again, I refer you back to your own cite. All that Bletchley
gave to OP20 were some wiring diagrams on the Enigma and
did not even provide the diagram for the Enigma version
which would have allowed OP20 to attack the "Shark"
cipher because, as your cite points out, this would have
entailed the UK providing enough information by which OP20
could have built their own bombe which the UK definitely
did not want the U.S. to do.
So much for the degree of cooperation on the part of the UK
which existed long after the Sinkov mission the Bletchley in
early 1941 until the Holden Agreement with the UK was
reached in October of 1942 after which the US was
able to obtain enough info from the UK to build its own
verson of bombe, which, as your cite points out, worked
better than the British version.
WJH
wjho...@aol.com
In my last post (Aug 3, 5:33 pm #66 in the "Sort by Date" list)
the sentence in my second paragraph which reads ",
"Smith further went on to cite Sinkov himself for stating
that, let alone being given access to bombe by the UK,
he was not given access to bombe, indeed that even
bombe's existence was not mentioned during the mission's
visit to Bletchley." should read:
Smith further went on to cite Sinkov himself for stating
that, let alone NOT being given access to bombe by the
UK, indeed bombe's existence was not even mentioned
Geoffrey Sinclair
> RADAR
>
> "When the members of the Tizard Mission brought one to America in 1940,
> they carried the most valuable cargo ever brought to our shores."
> --James Phinney Baxter III, Official Historian of the Office of US
> Scientific Research and Development
Above from
http://www.privateline.com/TelephoneHistory3/radarhistorybuderi.html
> Staff at Birmingham University had been tasked by the Government to
> develop a high powered microwave transmitting device and they were aware
> fully of the magnetron invented in the USA in valve form in the nineteen
> twenties and that it could only develop a few tens of watts of power. They
> strove to make improvements and in 1940 Randall & Boot created the Cavity
> Magnetron.
Above from http://www.ventnorradar.co.uk/Mag.htm
> The magnetron was a radar transmitter, one that bolstered British military
> capabilities across the board and give the country the upper hand in what
> already seemed like a technological war.
Above from
http://www.privateline.com/TelephoneHistory3/radarhistorybuderi.html
> Magnetrons represented a crucial step - a leap. Fitted into
> nightfighters it made it immensely easier for pilots to home in on their
> quarry even on the darkest nights.
Above from
http://www.privateline.com/TelephoneHistory3/radarhistorybuderi.html
> The magnetron had been invented by two physicists at the University of
> Birmingham, it put Britain on the offensive. Aircraft equipped with
> centimetre radar would pick out U-boat periscopes rising under cover of
> darkness. Lancasters and other bombers could see through the thick cloud
> cover obscuring Hitler's forces and factories on the European continent,
> keeping planes flying on days normally planes would be grounded.
Above from
http://www.privateline.com/TelephoneHistory3/radarhistorybuderi.html
> US radar research was based on what the British had given them. Then
> US subs became a lethal tool in the Pacific war, as were US bombers.
Now we hit Bay Man.
The USN had been experimenting with radar since at least 1937, and
in 1940 was installing the CXAM system.
US radar research was based on their own work and that of the UK,
and as information flowed back the UK took advantage of US
research results.
> VT FUZE
(snip) for space considerations.
The VT fuse paragraph from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proximity_fuze
> I think I would give that to the British.
If it is only the concept then there are others, like the Germans who came
up with the idea
The UK ran the first tests, the US had to make a considerable effort and
design changes to make it reliable enough for mass production.
William Black
Well in 1978 the Sinkov Mission was almost certainly still secret.
No idea about the 2000 book, but is the information relevant to the
subject. The US was making no inroads into Enigma until late 1941.
David H Thornley
The US broke the Japanese Purple cipher, and the British tackled
Enigma.
--
David H. Thornley | If you want my opinion, ask.
da...@thornley.net | If you don't, flee.
http://www.thornley.net/~thornley/david/ | O-
careysub
...
> first assault rifle
>
> SNIP
>
> Sorry, but no. The Russian M1916 "Avtomat" in caliber 6.5 mm Arisaka
> by Federov takes pride of place, alhough there are those who argue
> that the Italian Cei-Righetti of circa 1900 takes primacy. In contrast
> to the C-R, the Federov was adopted by the Russians and placed into
> production with a limited number manufactured and issued before
> manufacturing was halted by the turmoil of the revolution. They were
> subseqently placed in store circa 1926 when the Supeme Defence Council
> decreed that all weapons not firing the 7.62 Moisin-Nagant round
> should be withdrawn, only to be reissued to elite troops such as
> paratroopers during the 1930's and were used in the Winter War against
> Finland. As to whether it was an assault rifle, it was
>
> 1) A shoulder weapon
> 2) Fired an intermediate-power round
> 3) Capable of both semi-automatic and fully automatic fire
> and I've never been able to come up a better working definition for an
> assault rifle
Thanks for pointing out this weapon.
It does indeed appear to be a good candidate for the claim of "first
assault rifle" given its actual service use, and general
characteristics.
I will point out that even with the lower power 6.5x50SR Arisaka round
(which replaced the original more powerful round for reasons of
expediency) the Avtomat round is still more powerful than any of the
rounds used in the Stg 45 or Ak-47 and is closer in energy (KJ) and
recoil (Nt-sec) to the 7.62 NATO round than to either of these other
two weapons. So the trend of reducing the round energy with the
adoption of the assault is only partly seen in the Avtomat.
Round Comparisons
Gram M/sec KJ Nt-s KJ Ratio Nt-s Ratio
Stg 45 8.1 685 1900 5.55 0.567 0.695
AK-47 8.0 710 2016 5.68 0.602 0.712
Avtomat (Jap) 9.0 770 2668 6.93 0.796 0.868
NATO 9.5 840 3352 7.98 1.000 1.000
WaltBJ
and how bad it was, etc. Used as it should have been, to maximize its
advantages, it was a good weapon.
Probl;em one: Unfortunately the engines were short-lived, primarily
due to Germany's lack of access to the metals it needed to make alloys
for long-lived turbine blades. Every other nation had the same
problem. R&D took time. Even in the 50s the engines weren';t all that
long-lived.
Problem two: The 262 had 4 x 30mm autocannon; that sounds great but
they were the short-barreled low velocity Mk 108s. They'd have been
better off with the long barreled high velocity M103 even if they
could then only carry 2 of them. The Mk103 required getting close to
the target - with a closing velocity of some 300 mph that didn't give
much firing time and put the fighter in range of a lot of tail gunners
Problem three: Fuel endurance - that remark about having to find a
place to land while the P51s still had say 3 hours of fuel and were
eagerly hunting one makes things dicey. Gunter Raul remarked on that:
"-w had ninety minutes on takeoff; the Mustangs had eight hours . . ."
Actually a P51 had over 5 hours internal fuel at a cruise setting -
1275 miles. The 262 , with a normal fuel load of 475 US gallons, had a
range of 652 miles. Problem, indeed.
Problem Four: Ignorance as to how best to use the 262's best feature -
speed. 'Boom and zoom' is an inelegant way to put it. Never engage in
a turning dogfight; never turn with so much G that you lose speed.
Turn only to kill; once you can't rack him without losing speeed, go
away.
Bomber pilots in day fighter without serious training are just
targets.
Walt BJ
Gun sights - the P51 introduced the gyro gunsight into squadron
service; it made a sizeable difference in the ability tlo hit with a
deflection shot. The Germans were working ona gyro sight but only got
as far as service tests.
Tero P. Mustalahti
> In Baymanspeak "development" apparently means when a requirement is
> issued. The Canberra contract for development wasn't even signed until
> May 1945 and the first prototype did not fly until four years later.
Yep. If the Canberra was the first practical jet bomber, then the Il-28
was one as well. They were almost exact contemporaries. Yes, the Il-28
had engines derived from the RR Nene.
Tero P. Mustalahti
Bay Man
news:h5p50j$1drs$1...@bowmore.utu.fi...
The Canberra was superior in many ways to the Il-28. It has a higher
ceiling and went faster. It could fly over the USSR at will as the Soviets
could not get it. Many of them were flown by US crews to overfly the USSR,
with British markings I believe. Martin made it under licence. It was to
replace the Mosquito's role - a fast bomber, so fast it never needed defence
guns. A relative was squadron leader of a squadron of Canberras. Yes it was
conceived in around 1943/44, with the major specs and original concept
drawings done during WW2. BTW, a few Argentinean Canberras attacked British
troops in the Falklands.
The British were so confident in WW2 of their jet technology they just went
ahead and the first prototype was near perfect, although development was
delayed because of budget cuts post-WW2. It took a while for the Cold War
to emerge, otherwise it would have flown sooner.
Bay Man
The concept of the Canberra was around 1944.
Rich
<xyxbayman...@xyxmailinator.xyxcomnospam> wrote:
> The concept of the Canberra was around 1944.
And the concept of the AR 234 dated from autumn 1940, four years
earlier. For that matter, the "concept" of powered aircraft dates from
the Renaissance, even though the reality didn't take hold until a bit
later.
mtfe...@netmapsonscape.net
> > Yep. If the Canberra was the first practical jet bomber, then the Il-28
> The concept of the Canberra was around 1944.
Let's see; the Schwable doesn't count because it flew combat and was
thus just a prototype, but the Canberra counts because... well, for some
reason.
And you wonder why you aren't taken seriously.
Mike
Bay Man
news:cfaf91b8-bc0d-486f...@d9g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
> On Aug 11, 12:08 am, "Bay Man"
> <xyxbayman...@xyxmailinator.xyxcomnospam> wrote:
>> The concept of the Canberra was around 1944.
>
> And the concept of the AR 234 dated from autumn 1940,
I am talking about a real imminent serious plane to be produced, not wild
desperate ideas which the German jet programme was. You know exactly what I
mean. In fact it was about 42/43 according to the relative, I spoke to him
last night. Once the precursor of Meteor was proven the aim was a serious
in-production fighter and bomber, the fighter Meteor came fist. The
Canberra used the basics of the Meteor and upscaled. The result was a near
perfect prototype plane that rolled out into production, that evnetually
coul fly at over 72,000 feet. The British were way ahead of everyone else
in jet technology during WW2 and after. This not a secret, it is quite well
known.
The Canberra was last used by the RAF operationally only few years ago. They
are used today, even the Martian version, for other roles all over the
world. There are no AR234's still operationally flying today.
Rich
<xyxbayman...@xyxmailinator.xyxcomnospam> wrote:
> I am talking about a real imminent serious plane to be produced, not wild
> desperate ideas which the German jet programme was. You know exactly what I
> mean. In fact it was about 42/43 according to the relative, I spoke to him
> last night. Once the precursor of Meteor was proven the aim was a serious
Well, at least you didn't resort to 'Toose' again. I suppose that is a
step up?
The "real imminent serious plane"? "Real"? In what sense was the Arado
234 less "real" than the BAC Canberra? "Imminent"? I don't think that
word means what you think it means (why is "Princess Bride" running
through my head?) "Imminent" means "ready to take place". So how was
the Canberra more ready than the Arado 234, which flew some six years
ahead of it? "Serious"? In this context I think "serious" went out the
window as soon as you began posting. Or, perhaps, "serious" in the
sense that one flew actual missions during World War II, which happens
to be the theme of this newsgroup?
As for your relative, I am afraid I may require more than anonomyous
proof from you. The Canberra could be said to have been "conceived" in
1944, as in "I say old chap, I think it might be nice to conceive of a
bomber powered by jet engines". But the simple fact of the matter is
that it was designed by W.E.W. "Teddy" Petter to Air Ministry
specification B.3/45 (as in 19"45") as a jet-powered Mosquito that was
to be fitted with a sophisticated blind-bombing system to inable it to
attack in all weather, day and night, at altitude, with great
precision. Prototype A.1 flew 13 May 1949, but the blind-bombing radar
system intended for the aircraft fell so far behind that the
specification was re-written as B.4/47 (as in 19"47") for a simpler
visual bomber. Given that information is from Bill Gunston's "Combat
Aircraft" and that he has spent about 54 years becoming the best known
and respected historians of aircraft development in the world (OBE,
FRAeS), I think I may have to take his word this time.
Geoffrey Sinclair
> "Rich" <Rich...@msn.com> wrote in message
> news:cfaf91b8-bc0d-486f...@d9g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
>> On Aug 11, 12:08 am, "Bay Man"
>> <xyxbayman...@xyxmailinator.xyxcomnospam> wrote:
>
>>> The concept of the Canberra was around 1944.
>>
>> And the concept of the AR 234 dated from autumn 1940,
>
> I am talking about a real imminent serious plane to be produced, not wild
> desperate ideas which the German jet programme was.
Ah, in other words the real hardware that existed before the end
of WWII is rated as lower than the hardware which did not exist
until years later.
So real is vapourware in 1945, imminent is 4 years to prototype
first flight.
There were something like 220 Ar234 built before the end of WWII,
so they were yesterday's news by the end of 1945. Indeed there is
no doubt the Ar234 was examined by the RAF, and the results
available to the British aircraft industry.
The "Canberra" specification was released in 1945 just before the
end of the war in Europe.
The Canberra prototype first flew in May 1949, first production
was in October 1950, 101 squadron started equipping in
January 1951.
Of course the first production types were actually to a specification
written in 1947
> You know exactly what I mean.
The meaning is clear, fixed outcome, evidence arranged to suit.
> In fact it was about 42/43 according to the relative, I spoke to him last
> night.
The concept of the Saturn V was around in the 1920's, space
flight even earlier.
Check out even earlier ideas from various British designers.
> Once the precursor of Meteor was proven the aim was a serious
> in-production fighter and bomber, the fighter Meteor came fist.
The fundamental problem was engine power, the Meteor required
2 engines because of their low power, 1,700 pounds thrust each
in the mark I, 2,000 pounds in the mark III, for around 8,140
pounds empty weight in the mark I and 10,520 pounds in the
mark III. With maximum weights being under 14,000 pounds.
The Canberra mark 2 used a pair 6,500 pound thrust engines,
it came in at 21,650 pounds empty and up to 46,000 pounds
loaded.
The high altitude Martin RB-57F had 4 engines, totalling 42,600
pounds of thrust. In its high altitude weather reconnaissance
form it weighed in at 38,880 pounds empty, 63,000 pounds full
load.
The Ar234B was something like 11,464 pounds empty with a
maximum take off weight of 21,605 pounds. A much smaller
aircraft.
The simple reality is the RAF waited until engines became
powerful enough to enable the sort of range and bomb
load figures comparable to the Mosquito and then the Lincoln
using 2 or 4 engines before asking for jet bombers.
> The Canberra used the basics of the Meteor and upscaled.
This is a joke, you could say the same thing about the Mosquito.
Gloster came up with a 4 engined bomber idea in 1941, its tail
is very similar to the Meteor's, mock ups of which had been done
in early 1941.
De Havilland also had a jet bomber project with a very Mosquito
looking fuselage, and almost the Mosquito wing reversed.
English Electric went their own way.
> The result was a near perfect prototype plane that rolled out into
> production, that evnetually coul fly at over 72,000 feet.
Good to fly, cheap to run and reliable, converted to auxiliary tasks
like high altitude reconnaissance, which ensured a long lifetime.
Overtaken by the V bombers and the B-47 (which first flew in
December 1947, concept from 1943) and the B-52 (first flew
in 1952, concept from 1945) as front line bombers.
> The British were way ahead of everyone else in jet technology during WW2
> and after.
The short answer here is of course no, as can be seen by the
various designs, engines and airframes, in Germany, Japan, the
USSR, the USA and the UK. Especially when "concepts"
are allowed.
> This not a secret, it is quite well known.
No it is an invented fact.
> The Canberra was last used by the RAF operationally only few years ago.
> They are used today, even the Martian version,
If the Martians could bring a version to Earth, it would be very
obsolete by their standards, given the inter planetary travel
technology needed to move that much weight.
The Canberra of 1949 is very different to the Martin Canberra based
versions which went out of USAF service in 1982.
> for other roles all over the world.
Sort of like the Skyhawk really, a useful but cheap aircraft.
You know sort of like the fact the RAF had Gloster Gladiators still on
strength as of 31 May 1945, as weather reconnaissance aircraft
> There are no AR234's still operationally flying today.
Spare parts became a problem around April 1945. Allied tests
of German types kept running into this barrier. Then add it was
designed for low powered engines and more powerful ones became
available.
ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk
xyxbay...@xyxmailinator.xyxcomnospam (Bay Man) wrote:
> Once the precursor of Meteor was proven
Let me see, that was the Gloster E28/39 first flight 15th May 1941. It
was not a precursor of anything it was a test bed to prove the concept
of jet powered flight. This was by the way the same year that the
Heinkel 280 was undergoing evaluation. IIRC the first German jet was
flown in 1939 before the war started another proof of concept platform.
In 1941 nobody in the UK was even considering series production of jet
engines. I suggest you read a biography of Whittle for the struggle to
produce a jet engine that was superior to piston engines. By the way I
do not consider an unnamed relative as a reliable source.
Ken Young
Bay Man
> On Aug 11, 11:18 am, "Bay Man"
> <xyxbayman...@xyxmailinator.xyxcomnospam> wrote:
>> I am talking about a real imminent serious plane to be produced, not wild
>> desperate ideas which the German jet programme was. You know exactly
>> what I
>> mean. In fact it was about 42/43 according to the relative, I spoke to
>> him
>> last night. Once the precursor of Meteor was proven the aim was a serious
>
> Well, at least you didn't resort to 'Toose' again. I suppose that is a
> step up?
You don't like Tooze do you? I do.
> The "real imminent serious plane"? "Real"? In what sense was the Arado
> 234 less "real" than the BAC Canberra? "Imminent"?
The difference was in the end result.
> So how was the Canberra more ready than the
> Arado 234, which flew some six years
> ahead of it?
The difference was in the end result. As I wrote, Canberras (Martins) still
fly today, while no AR234s do, and in reality few ever did fly.
> As for your relative, I am afraid I may require more than anonomyous
> proof from you.
Oh he flew Canberras all right. He has a big painting of one in his home
office. I would go to his base in East Anglia and watch them take off. The
RAF relegated them to photo reconnaissance in the end.
> The Canberra could be said to have been "conceived" in
> 1944,
As soon as the precursor of the Metor was proven the Canberra design specs
were started for a serious bomber. That was around 41/42, not 44.
> it was designed by W.E.W. "Teddy" Petter to Air Ministry
> specification B.3/45 (as in 19"45")
The concept and tight specs were draw up much earlier. That is the first
stage. It was a larger Meteor.
<snip history stuff that is on wiki>
The relative does know its history.
Bay Man
news:4a824b82$0$22783$5a62...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
> "Bay Man" <xyxbay...@xyxmailinator.xyxcomnospam> wrote in message
> news:h5rug9$e6i$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> "Rich" <Rich...@msn.com> wrote in message
>> news:cfaf91b8-bc0d-486f...@d9g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
>>> On Aug 11, 12:08 am, "Bay Man"
>>> <xyxbayman...@xyxmailinator.xyxcomnospam> wrote:
>>
>>>> The concept of the Canberra was around 1944.
>>>
>>> And the concept of the AR 234 dated from autumn 1940,
>>
>> I am talking about a real imminent serious plane to be produced, not wild
>> desperate ideas which the German jet programme was.
>
> Ah, in other words the real hardware that existed before the end
> of WWII is rated as lower than the hardware which did not exist
> until years later.
No. Hardware that worked properly. Please do not whine on that the Germans
were the most advanced in jet technology in WW2. They were clearly not.
Their planes were poor and broke down so much they had the expendable
characteristics of a manned guided rocket.
The Canberra came out of British WW2 jet technology and its basic design was
done during WW2. Sorry to rain on your parade but that is so.
Geoffrey Sinclair
> "Geoffrey Sinclair" <gsinc...@froggy.com.au> wrote in message
> news:4a824b82$0$22783$5a62...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>> "Bay Man" <xyxbay...@xyxmailinator.xyxcomnospam> wrote in message
>> news:h5rug9$e6i$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>> "Rich" <Rich...@msn.com> wrote in message
>>> news:cfaf91b8-bc0d-486f...@d9g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
>>>> On Aug 11, 12:08 am, "Bay Man"
>>>> <xyxbayman...@xyxmailinator.xyxcomnospam> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> The concept of the Canberra was around 1944.
>>>>
>>>> And the concept of the AR 234 dated from autumn 1940,
>>>
>>> I am talking about a real imminent serious plane to be produced, not
>>> wild desperate ideas which the German jet programme was.
>>
>> Ah, in other words the real hardware that existed before the end
>> of WWII is rated as lower than the hardware which did not exist
>> until years later.
>
> No. Hardware that worked properly.
There was no Canberra in 1945, so it could hardly have worked at all.
Some of the deleted text,
"So real is vapourware in 1945, imminent is 4 years to prototype
first flight.
There were something like 220 Ar234 built before the end of WWII,
so they were yesterday's news by the end of 1945. Indeed there is
no doubt the Ar234 was examined by the RAF, and the results
available to the British aircraft industry."
> Please do not whine on that the Germans were the most advanced in jet
> technology in WW2.
Ah yes, when Bay Man is stuck invent what other people are saying.
Stop whining about the fact the Bay Man fiction is so bad no one
believes it.
> They were clearly not.
There were the engines and the airframes. The German engines were
compromised by a lack of key materials.
To talk about technology requires looking at the various designs,
prototypes and production ones.
> Their planes were poor and broke down so much they had the expendable
> characteristics of a manned guided rocket.
The Bay Man decree, expendable fiction writing again.
Why not go read the histories of the Me262, check out Tooze,
the Bay Man answer to everything,
> The Canberra came out of British WW2 jet technology and its basic
> design was done during WW2. Sorry to rain on your parade but that is so.
The Bay Man invent a fact parade continues.
Try and understand, the Canberra specification was written in early
1945, the aircraft finally flew in 1949. It is impressive Bay Man
thinks the British are so incompetent that it takes them 4 years to
build an aircraft to a finished design.
The "Canberra" specification was released in 1945 just before the
end of the war in Europe.
The Canberra prototype first flew in May 1949, first production
was in October 1950, 101 squadron started equipping in
January 1951.
Of course the first production types were actually to a specification
written in 1947
That is the trouble with fiction, to give the RAF the Canberra design
in 1945 has the problem of why it took 4 years to build one.
I note of around 70 lines of text in my original post Bay Man was
unable to reply to more than 3 of them. Says it all really. The fiction
can only exist by eliminating the facts.
The rest of the post is part of what Bay Man cannot cope with.
The fundamental problem was engine power, the Meteor required
2 engines because of their low power, 1,700 pounds thrust each
in the mark I, 2,000 pounds in the mark III, for around 8,140
pounds empty weight in the mark I and 10,520 pounds in the
mark III. With maximum weights being under 14,000 pounds.
The Canberra mark 2 used a pair 6,500 pound thrust engines,
it came in at 21,650 pounds empty and up to 46,000 pounds
loaded.
The high altitude Martin RB-57F had 4 engines, totalling 42,600
pounds of thrust. In its high altitude weather reconnaissance
form it weighed in at 38,880 pounds empty, 63,000 pounds full
load.
The Ar234B was something like 11,464 pounds empty with a
maximum take off weight of 21,605 pounds. A much smaller
aircraft.
Spare parts became a problem around April 1945. Allied tests
of German types kept running into this barrier. Then add it was
designed for low powered engines and more powerful ones became
available.
The simple reality is the RAF waited until engines became
powerful enough to enable the sort of range and bomb
load figures comparable to the Mosquito and then the Lincoln
using 2 or 4 engines before asking for jet bombers.
Gloster came up with a 4 engined bomber idea in 1941, its tail
is very similar to the Meteor's, mock ups of which had been done
in early 1941.
De Havilland also had a jet bomber project with a very Mosquito
looking fuselage, and almost the Mosquito wing reversed.
English Electric went their own way.
Overtaken by the V bombers and the B-47 (which first flew in
December 1947, concept from 1943) and the B-52 (first flew
in 1952, concept from 1945) as front line bombers.
Geoffrey Sinclair
Bay Man
news:4a824b82$0$22783$5a62...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>> The British were way ahead of everyone else in jet technology during WW2
>> and after.
>
> The short answer here is of course no, as can be seen by the
> various designs, engines and airframes, in Germany, Japan, the
> USSR, the USA and the UK. Especially when "concepts"
> are allowed.
You need to read more.....
A number of sources designate Sir Frank Whittle as the 'co-inventor' of the
jet engine (with Hans von Ohain) rather than the sole inventor. This is not
correct. Facts provided by Sir Frank Whittle's son, Ian, clarify the true
course of events :
The turbo jet was patented in 1930.
The patent details entered the public domain 1931.
The German Embassy in London despatched copies of the patent to Germany
1932.
Copies of the patent to Goettingen, Heinkel, Junkers, Brunswick and
elsewhere.
Von Ohain a student at Goettingen (Aerodynamic Research Division) 1934/5.
Von Ohain begins to study the possible application of the internal
combustion jet to aeronautics in 1934.
Herbert Wagner at Junkers and Ohain at Heinkel begins turbo jet development
April 1936.
The 'popular' belief that von Ohain invented the turbo jet has been
generated in America and is unsound history.
Von Ohain invented a unique form of internal combustion turbine. Heinkel
employed him to develop this for jet propulsion. After five years, the
project was abandonned and Ohain was put to work on turbo jets designed by
other engineers.
Von Ohain only claimed to have 'invented' the turbo jet about 25 years after
the end of World War II when Wagner et al were safely out of the way. He may
have been encouraged in this by his fellow German-Americans and also by
Americans who are uncomfortable with the impact of the British invention.
-------
The most promising of the [German] axials, the Junkers Jumo 004
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junkers_Jumo_004. and BMW 003, ran into
serious compressor and vibration problems and, although the Junkers Jumo 004
had reached production by the end of 1943 and was being produced at the
impressive rate of 1000/month by mid-'44, it continued to prove troublesome
in service (in the Me 262 www.vectorsite.net/avme262.html ) and had a
service life of 10-25 hours. This was partly due to the inferior materials
which had to be used but compressor stall remained a major problem.
http://www.frankwhittle.co.uk/content.php?act=viewDoc&docId=7&docFatherId=1&level=sub
--------
The superiority of the Whittle design is the efficiency of the air flow. He
determined early that the engine didn't need most of the air coming through
the intake. The W1 ducted as much as 80% of the air around the compressor.
That air is added back into the stream after the combustion chamber raising
the air pressure. The result is less compressor stall and higher exhaust
pressure. That give a net increase in thrust without adding weight.
Of all the competing designs of the era, the Whittle W1 is still the basis
for modern jet engines. From Stealth fighters to Boeing 787s, the high
bypass turbo jet is still the engine of choice.
---------------
British compressor design was superior in WW2, hence the superior engine.
It is safe to say Whittle invented the jet engine as we know it today. The
first jet as we know it, was run by Whittle in 1937, before Ohain in
Germany. They put one in a plane first which flew for a few minutes with
disappointing performance.
Rich
<xyxbayman...@xyxmailinator.xyxcomnospam> wrote:
> You don't like Tooze do you? I do.
Not at all. What I don't like is the mindless hash you make of his
argument. I also don't like your *ass*umption of what I do or don't
like.
> The difference was in the end result.
Quite true. And the end result was that the Canberra cannot be
construed in any way as a "World War II" aircraft, nor can any
meaningful comparison be made between it and the only operational jet
bomber of World War II.
> The difference was in the end result. As I wrote, Canberras (Martins) still
> fly today, while no AR234s do, and in reality few ever did fly.
Two Martin WB-57 still fly with NASA as operational aircraft. A type
whose first flight was 1953, making them even less of a World War II
aircraft than their progenitor the Canberra.
Somehow though I suspect that if it had been the Luftwaffe rather than
the RAF and the USAAF on the winning side your argument would be the
opposite.
> Oh he flew Canberras all right. He has a big painting of one in his home
> office. I would go to his base in East Anglia and watch them take off. The
> RAF relegated them to photo reconnaissance in the end.
So, you saw them take off in 1942-1943? Well, that settles it then!
> As soon as the precursor of the Metor was proven the Canberra design specs
> were started for a serious bomber. That was around 41/42, not 44.
You are as clueless about the process as you are of the history.
Design specifications were issued by the Air Ministry. The design
specifications and dates of issue are quite well known and easy to
look up. That for the Canberra dates from March 1945.
So glad to have it confirmed that the Ar 234 was not a "serious"
bomber. Is that because it was never successfully engaged in either a
bomber or reconnaissance role?
> The concept and tight specs were draw up much earlier. That is the first
> stage. It was a larger Meteor.
No, they were not. Repetition does not equate to reality. A "relative"
who "told you" something doesn't make it true either. I have a
relative who told me that my greatuncle was taken straight to hell by
Beelzebub himself because of his wickedness. Does the fact that she
told me that and that she was a relative make it true? Should I expect
you to believe me just because I repeat it a number of time?
Here we go:
I have a relative who told me that my greatuncle was taken straight to
hell by Beelzebub himself because of his wickedness.
I have a relative who told me that my greatuncle was taken straight to
hell by Beelzebub himself because of his wickedness.
I have a relative who told me that my greatuncle was taken straight to
hell by Beelzebub himself because of his wickedness.
I have a relative who told me that my greatuncle was taken straight to
hell by Beelzebub himself because of his wickedness.
I have a relative who told me that my greatuncle was taken straight to
hell by Beelzebub himself because of his wickedness.
There. I have now told you that a total of six times. So now it must
be true.
> <snip history stuff that is on wiki>
Sorry, but "Combat Aircraft" is this thing made of paper with pages
and all, genrally referred to by the moniker "book". And Bill Gunston,
the author, is not "on wiki", he is an aviation historian. Do I have
to repeat that six times to make it true too?
> The relative does know its history.
"It" does?
ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk
xyxbay...@xyxmailinator.xyxcomnospam (Bay Man) wrote:
> The work that mattered was done by the British, even to producing the
> first electronic computer to quickly decode.
The Poles were the first to break Enigma and the information they
provided was vital. The Electronic computer was use on Shark which was
the Lorrentz teletype based machines.
Ken Young
ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk
xyxbay...@xyxmailinator.xyxcomnospam (Bay Man) wrote:
> The turbo jet was patented in 1930.
The concept of the turbo jet was patented though I was under the
impression it was earlier. Whittle's master patent lapsed because he
could not find backing to pay for a renewal. Practical engines had
little resemblance to that described in the Patent.
> The first jet as we know it, was run by Whittle in 1937
Your source for that is what? It is not what I remember from a
biography of Whittle. The first jet powered flight was in Germany. UK, US
and Soviet jet engine development was started by Whittle's work German
design was independent, however by 1944 or possibly 1945 Rolls Royce
were developing their own designs from first principles and Whittle's
firm had gone bankrupt, possibly due to government policy.
Whittle deserves credit for inventing the jet engine but it is not fair
to traduce German jet aircraft. It is much the same as saying Goddard
designed the V2.
> The W1 ducted as much as 80% of the air around the compressor.
The W1 never flew. The ducting was down to uncertainties about the
combustion chamber. There are good biographies of Whittle.
> Of all the competing designs of the era, the Whittle W1 is still the
> basis for modern jet engines. From Stealth fighters to Boeing 787s,
> the high bypass turbo jet is still the engine of choice.
Maybe but they bear no resemblance to the W1. They are designed with a
much greater compressor to turbine ratio and with frequently triple
bypass.
Ken Young
Bay Man
> There were the engines and the airframes. The German engines were
> compromised by a lack of key materials.
The compressors were lacking as well.
> Why not go read the histories of the Me262, check out Tooze,
> the Bay Man answer to everything,
I checked out Tooze, he never mentioned them. :)
> Try and understand, the Canberra specification was written in early
> 1945, the aircraft finally flew in 1949.
Try and understand that what you wrote is wrong. Try around 1941 when the
first serious specs were being put together . The relative always said he
flew a WW2 plane - the Canberra.
> The fundamental problem was engine power, the Meteor required
> 2 engines because of their low power, 1,700 pounds thrust each
> in the mark I, 2,000 pounds in the mark III, for around 8,140
> pounds empty weight in the mark I and 10,520 pounds in the
> mark III. With maximum weights being under 14,000 pounds.
British WW2 jet engines would run for 150 hours between "overhauls",
compared to German engines which lasted only 10-20 hours before "burning
out", and written off.
British jets where much more advanced they had twice the power-to-weight
ratio and half the specific fuel consumption.
> Gloster came up with a 4 engined bomber idea in 1941, its tail is very
> similar to the Meteor's, mock ups of which had been done
> in early 1941.
You are getting warm. :)
Geoffrey Sinclair
> "Geoffrey Sinclair" <gsinc...@froggy.com.au> wrote in message
> news:4a824b82$0$22783$5a62...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>
>>> The British were way ahead of everyone else in jet technology during WW2
>>> and after.
>>
>> The short answer here is of course no, as can be seen by the
>> various designs, engines and airframes, in Germany, Japan, the
>> USSR, the USA and the UK. Especially when "concepts"
>> are allowed.
>
> You need to read more.....
Bay Man needs to read more, note how instead of commenting
on the various designs available in 1945, airframe and engine, we
have someone telling us Whittle invented the jet engine.
Or rather filed a patent for a gas turbine.
Bay Man has taken the text from
http://www.cwn.org.uk/heritage/people/whittle/biography.html
> A number of sources designate Sir Frank Whittle as the 'co-inventor' of
> the jet engine (with Hans von Ohain) rather than the sole inventor. This
> is not correct. Facts provided by Sir Frank Whittle's son, Ian, clarify
> the true course of events :
> The turbo jet was patented in 1930.
And that hardly makes it a working device.
> The patent details entered the public domain 1931.
>
> The German Embassy in London despatched copies of the patent
> to Germany 1932. Copies of the patent to Goettingen, Heinkel,
> Junkers, Brunswick and elsewhere.
> Von Ohain a student at Goettingen (Aerodynamic Research Division) 1934/5.
> Von Ohain begins to study the possible application of the internal
> combustion jet to aeronautics in 1934.
So in other words the Germans are supposed to copy the Whittle
ideas except Von Ohain uses a very different design. Otherwise
how could Bay Man claim the Whittle ideas were better?
> Herbert Wagner at Junkers and Ohain at Heinkel begins turbo jet
> development April 1936.
So now there are two German design teams.
> The 'popular' belief that von Ohain invented the turbo jet has been
> generated in America and is unsound history.
This seems to be yet another straw man to knock down.
The reality is various people were working on the idea. And workable
engines were built independently.
> Von Ohain invented a unique form of internal combustion turbine. Heinkel
> employed him to develop this for jet propulsion. After five years, the
> project was abandonned and Ohain was put to work on turbo jets designed by
> other engineers.
By the way if Ohain was unique it hardly seems he was copying
Whittle.
Welcome to a misrepresentation, when Von Ohain's initial engine was
looked at the result was an improved version that was designated the
HeS 1, after he joined Heinkel in early 1936. Work continued on it,
with zero intention of making it flight worthy, running initially on
hydrogen
fuel in March 1937. The HeS 3, and it powered the He178, then came
the HeS 8. The Germans concentrated on the Jumo types from 1942
onwards.
Oh yes, it was in 1937 Whittle had his test engine fired up.
> Von Ohain only claimed to have 'invented' the turbo jet about 25 years
> after the end of World War II when Wagner et al were safely out of the
> way. He may have been encouraged in this by his fellow German-Americans
> and also by Americans who are uncomfortable with the impact of the British
> invention.
Yes folks, it is all a conspiracy against Whittle.
End of text from
http://www.cwn.org.uk/heritage/people/whittle/biography.html
What I like is the need to shoot down Von Ohain means lots
of other Germans have to be busy inventing jet engines.
Somehow they count against Ohain but not against Whittle.
At least the next paragraph is referenced.
> The most promising of the [German] axials, the Junkers Jumo 004
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junkers_Jumo_004. and BMW 003, ran into
> serious compressor and vibration problems and, although the Junkers Jumo
> 004 had reached production by the end of 1943 and was being produced at
> the impressive rate of 1000/month by mid-'44, it continued to prove
> troublesome in service (in the Me 262 www.vectorsite.net/avme262.html )
> and had a service life of 10-25 hours. This was partly due to the inferior
> materials which had to be used but compressor stall remained a major
> problem.
>
> http://www.frankwhittle.co.uk/content.php?act=viewDoc&docId=7&docFatherId=1&level=sub
This is actually quite funny given the opening paragraph is all about
a paper published in 1926 on gas turbine theory. After all steam
turbines were well understood, the ideas on gas turbines predate
Whittle, the problems were being able to make one, given the
pressure and temperature requirements.
Then the article notes the axial, instead of Whittle centrifugal flow
types were the way of the future, as part of the last paragraph. To
obtain the high thrusts.
The next paragraph is from
http://www.helium.com/items/1041836-frank-whittle-and-the-jet-engine-that-changed-the-world
The site mentions the Italian contribution for example.
> The superiority of the Whittle design is the efficiency of the air flow.
> He determined early that the engine didn't need most of the air coming
> through the intake. The W1 ducted as much as 80% of the air around the
> compressor.
> That air is added back into the stream after the combustion chamber
> raising the air pressure. The result is less compressor stall and higher
> exhaust pressure. That give a net increase in thrust without adding
> weight.
>
> Of all the competing designs of the era, the Whittle W1 is still the basis
> for modern jet engines. From Stealth fighters to Boeing 787s, the high
> bypass turbo jet is still the engine of choice.
In case people are interested the comparison is between the W 1
the HeS 1 and the Secondo Campini design. It is saying more of
the W 1 survived than of the other two. This apparently is supposed
to tell us British engine designs were superior in 1945.
Says nothing about the various designs available in 1945.
It is great to know the British jet engines in 1945 are rated according to
engines developed 50 years later or 8 years earlier.
Back to Bay Man.
> British compressor design was superior in WW2, hence the superior engine.
Try at those thrust levels axial versus centrifugal is not a big
difference. Try the fact superior is being defined as engine
lifetime, not thrust, and note the German production engines
were compromised through lack of materials.
> It is safe to say Whittle invented the jet engine as we know it today.
No. As can be seen by the many axial designs out there.
Simply the above is like the Wright brothers claiming the
design of the Spitfire as theirs, based on the similarities
in design.
> The first jet as we know it, was run by Whittle in 1937, before Ohain in
> Germany. They put one in a plane first which flew for a few minutes with
> disappointing performance.
Translation the term "jet engine" is defined as Whittle jet engine for the
purposes of determining first. Both men bench tested designs in 1937.
Few minutes is of course the reality the He178 was a test bed, with
limited fuel capacity in order to keep the weight down. And like
the Whittle engine test bed they did a series of flights.
Oh yes, disappointing performance was a top speed of 375 mph
in 1939, faster than the front line fighters of Germany and the UK,
on around.1,000 pounds thrust.
Think of it this way the Gloster E 28/39 came in as slower than the
He178, with about 90% the engine thrust, but with a better range
and with a retractable undercarriage, and 700 pounds lighter. The
Gloster design had provision for armament.
Now compare the E 28/39 to the Me262 and run around claiming
how bad RAF jet fighter and jet engine design was in 1945, the Bay
Man approach.
Geoffrey Sinclair
> "Geoffrey Sinclair" <gsinc...@froggy.com.au> wrote in message
> news:4a82e944$0$22827$5a62...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>
>> There were the engines and the airframes. The German engines were
>> compromised by a lack of key materials.
>
> The compressors were lacking as well.
The Germans had compressors you know.
>> Why not go read the histories of the Me262, check out Tooze,
>> the Bay Man answer to everything,
>
> I checked out Tooze, he never mentioned them. :)
Ah that explains the belief they did not exist in a meaningful way.
>> Try and understand, the Canberra specification was written in early
>> 1945, the aircraft finally flew in 1949.
>
> Try and understand that what you wrote is wrong.
Try and understand that what you wrote is wrong.
> Try around 1941 when the first serious specs were being put together .
No. I await the Bay Man official specifications then, given the real
ones were issued in 1945.
> The relative always said he flew a WW2 plane - the Canberra.
Ah that explains a lot, the relative makes a point the aerodynamics
and basic concept come from WWII era research, you know,
ignoring post war swept wing research, and Bay Man announces
the aircraft is WWII.
Please tell us how many flew in WWII.
I guess the F-86 was a WWII plane as well, along with the B-47
and so on.
>> The fundamental problem was engine power, the Meteor required
>> 2 engines because of their low power, 1,700 pounds thrust each
>> in the mark I, 2,000 pounds in the mark III, for around 8,140
>> pounds empty weight in the mark I and 10,520 pounds in the
>> mark III. With maximum weights being under 14,000 pounds.
>
> British WW2 jet engines would run for 150 hours between "overhauls",
> compared to German engines which lasted only 10-20 hours before "burning
> out", and written off.
Note by the way the refusal to even bother with the reality that
the jet bombers were bigger than the jet fighters and therefore
required more power. Therefore the RAF delayed asking for
jet bombers until 1945.
> British jets where much more advanced they had twice the power-to-weight
> ratio and half the specific fuel consumption.
Apparently this comment comes from
http://www.century-of-flight.net/Aviation%20history/jet%20age/whittle.htm
Jumo 004B weight 1,782 pounds, thrust, 1,985 pounds,
specific fuel consumption 1.38 per hour.
RR Derwent, weight 975b pounds, thrust 2,000 pounds,
specific fuel consumption 1.18 per hour.
Basically right about the power to weight, the Derwent was around
84% better, wrong about the fuel consumption.
Of course given the number of British and German engines the
ratios vary according to engine. The above are the Meteor III
versus the Me262 engines.
>> Gloster came up with a 4 engined bomber idea in 1941, its tail is very
>> similar to the Meteor's, mock ups of which had been done
>> in early 1941.
>
> You are getting warm. :)
No, I am simply laughing too much. Perhaps it can be explained
how references that mention the paper designs at Gloster and
de Havilland do not have anything on the English Electric design.
As usual all the stuff Bay Man cannot answer.
There was no Canberra in 1945, so it could hardly have worked at all.
So real is vapourware in 1945, imminent is 4 years to prototype
first flight.
There were something like 220 Ar234 built before the end of WWII,
so they were yesterday's news by the end of 1945. Indeed there is
no doubt the Ar234 was examined by the RAF, and the results
available to the British aircraft industry.
The Bay Man invent a fact parade continues.
Try and understand, the Canberra specification was written in early
1945, the aircraft finally flew in 1949. It is impressive Bay Man
thinks the British are so incompetent that it takes them 4 years to
build an aircraft to a finished design.
The "Canberra" specification was released in 1945 just before the
end of the war in Europe.
The Canberra prototype first flew in May 1949, first production
was in October 1950, 101 squadron started equipping in
January 1951.
Of course the first production types were actually to a specification
written in 1947
That is the trouble with fiction, to give the RAF the Canberra design
in 1945 has the problem of why it took 4 years to build one.
I note of around 70 lines of text in my original post Bay Man was
unable to reply to more than 3 of them. Says it all really. The fiction
can only exist by eliminating the facts.
The rest of the post is part of what Bay Man cannot cope with.
The fundamental problem was engine power, the Meteor required
2 engines because of their low power, 1,700 pounds thrust each
in the mark I, 2,000 pounds in the mark III, for around 8,140
pounds empty weight in the mark I and 10,520 pounds in the
mark III. With maximum weights being under 14,000 pounds.
The Canberra mark 2 used a pair 6,500 pound thrust engines,
it came in at 21,650 pounds empty and up to 46,000 pounds
loaded.
The high altitude Martin RB-57F had 4 engines, totalling 42,600
pounds of thrust. In its high altitude weather reconnaissance
form it weighed in at 38,880 pounds empty, 63,000 pounds full
load.
The Ar234B was something like 11,464 pounds empty with a
maximum take off weight of 21,605 pounds. A much smaller
aircraft.
Spare parts became a problem around April 1945. Allied tests
of German types kept running into this barrier. Then add it was
designed for low powered engines and more powerful ones became
available.
The simple reality is the RAF waited until engines became
powerful enough to enable the sort of range and bomb
load figures comparable to the Mosquito and then the Lincoln
using 2 or 4 engines before asking for jet bombers.
Gloster came up with a 4 engined bomber idea in 1941, its tail
is very similar to the Meteor's, mock ups of which had been done
in early 1941.
De Havilland also had a jet bomber project with a very Mosquito
mtfe...@netmapsonscape.net
> > Try and understand, the Canberra specification was written in early
> > 1945, the aircraft finally flew in 1949.
> Try and understand that what you wrote is wrong. Try around 1941 when the
"Try and understand that what you wrote is wrong"
The plane was spec'ed in 1945.
> first serious specs were being put together . The relative always said he
> flew a WW2 plane - the Canberra.
Then the relative is either lying to you, or is wrong.
Mike
David H Thornley
> Bay Man <xyxbay...@xyxmailinator.xyxcomnospam> wrote:
>> Try and understand that what you wrote is wrong. Try around 1941 when the
>
> "Try and understand that what you wrote is wrong"
>
wants to show that Canberra design was started in 1941, and was right,
he could scare up documents to that effect.
Of course, blatant assertions are easier, and don't depend on the facts.
> The plane was spec'ed in 1945.
>
And, as has been repeated, first flown in 1949. This looks to me very
reasonable for an innovative design. 1941 to 1949 seems a bit, well,
dilatory.
I also don't understand the desire to aggrandize one country. Britain
accomplished a lot in the war, and I don't see any need to make stuff up.
>> first serious specs were being put together . The relative always said he
>> flew a WW2 plane - the Canberra.
>
> Then the relative is either lying to you, or is wrong.
>
I don't think that's a fair assumption. Consider Bay Man's continual
claims about what Tooze says. If he's as accurate about his relative,
we have no reason to harshly judge the relative.
David H Thornley
>
> http://www.frankwhittle.co.uk/content.php?act=viewDoc&docId=7&docFatherId=1&level=sub
>
Please remember that biographical sites like this generally overstate
the individual's influence and accomplishments. It's not always true,
but "Frank Whittle: Father of the Jet Age" is something of a giveaway.
Bay Man
news:vP2dnYXsy8Ftax_X...@giganews.com...
>> The first jet as we know it, was run by Whittle in 1937
>
> The first jet powered flight was in Germany.
I am on about the engine. That's obvious.
> UK, US and Soviet jet engine development
> was started by Whittle's work German
> design was independent,
No. The Germans used Whittle's patents.
> Whittle deserves credit for inventing the
> jet engine but it is not fair to traduce German
> jet aircraft. It is much the same as saying Goddard
> designed the V2.
Nonsense the British were way ahead of the Germans.They based there work on
Whittle's patents.
>> The W1 ducted as much as 80% of the air around the compressor.
>
> The W1 never flew.
We are on about engine development.
Bay Man
news:X66dneUxZMyR8R7X...@posted.visi...
> mtfe...@netMAPSONscape.net wrote:
> There are official records of this sort of thing.
> If Bay Man really wants to show that Canberra
> design was started in 1941, and was right,
> he could scare up documents to that effect.
The seeds of the Camberra were approx 1941.
> I also don't understand the desire to aggrandize
> one country. Britain accomplished a lot in the war,
> and I don't see any need to make stuff up.
The aggrandizing is to Germany as far as I can see, making out they had some
wonder plane, the Me262, which was a crude dog of a plane, prone to killing
its pilots. Their jet programme was way behind the British and rushed
producing poor planes. Planes the British or US would never take into front
line service during WW2.
The Germans based their jet engine research on Whittle's patents - he
invented the jet engine as we know it today. He laid down the concepts in
patents and got the first running in 1937. Whittle didn't base anything of
what he did on anything German. He didn't know what they were doing.
Whittles engines were superior with a far superior power/ratio which is
important in engine design, even internal combustion engines - cc
displacement is no guide to an engines efficiency or power.
>>> first serious specs were being put together . The relative always said
>>> he
>>> flew a WW2 plane - the Canberra.
>>
>> Then the relative is either lying to you, or is wrong.
He flew them for a long time. The last time about 10 years ago.
Rich
<xyxbayman...@xyxmailinator.xyxcomnospam> wrote:
> The seeds of the Camberra were approx 1941.
And the "seeds" of the Wright Flyer may be found in Da Vinci.
> The aggrandizing is to Germany as far as I can see, making out they had some
Aside from repeating meaningless and unsupported tripe, you are also
erecting a strawman since no one here aside from you has engaged in
any overinflating of the attributes of either aircraft.
> The Germans based their jet engine research on Whittle's patents - he
No, they did not, at least not the Jumo 004, which is the engine in
question here. It was an ***axial-flow*** design quite different from
Wittle's patented ***centrifugal-flow*** design.
> He flew them for a long time. The last time about 10 years ago.
So then he flew them from 1941 to about 1999? Pretty good career.
Bay Man
>"Frank Whittle: Father of the Jet Age"
'Today, Ian Whittle's primary concern is to protect his father's memory from
continued erosion. "It is now an accepted fact in America that my father did
not invent the jet, but that he and von Ohain - who became an American
citizen - co-invented it at the same time," he says. "Pretty soon, history
will be rewritten to say that it was a German or American invention."
Certainly, many engineering institutions now routinely describe von Ohain as
one of the "inventors" of the jet. So would the Germans have flown that
first jet [1939] if they hadn't pinched young Whittle's plans?
"Certainly not. It was Frank's invention and they just copied him," says one
of the greatest test pilots in aviation history, Captain Eric Brown, late of
the Fleet Air Arm. He should know. Not only has he flown more planes than
anyone - 487 different types - but he was sent to Germany straight after the
war to get hold of all the Nazis' aviation technology. "I interrogated von
Ohain, who was very ambivalent about where he had got his ideas," says Capt
Brown from his Sussex home.
'But his sidekick was utterly straight-forward about it. He said that
Whittle's patent had been in every technical library in Germany even before
the war.
"I have absolutely no hesitation in saying that Frank Whittle was the real
inventor of the jet engine and that he could have produced a jet fighter by
1937 if the Establishment had been on his side."'