PDA

View Full Version : YP-80s



Warrington_Wolf
10-04-2006, 02:27 PM
I had no idea that any YP-80s made it to Britain during WW2.
Below is a link I found whilst looking for some information on Burtonwood.

http://web.ukonline.co.uk/lait/site/YP-80A%20%2044-83026.htm

berg417448
10-04-2006, 02:33 PM
Some info on the P-80s in Italy:

http://www.1stfighter.org/photos/P80inItaly.html

Sergio_101
10-04-2006, 03:42 PM
P-80s were more or less ready, but were not needed.
Even if Japan was invaded the P-80 may
not have been used.
P-80 was a very good performer, superior to
all other Jet fighters of the time. (yup, even the 262).
But with tens of thousands of piston fighters there
was no need to push it service before it was
thoroughly de-bugged.

But there were a couple of P-80s in Europe and if it
was needed it could have been used.
As I remember from an artical many years ago the P-80s
flew escorted by P-51s and the pilots were ordered
to run if confronted by German fighters.

my guess is the reason for their appearance in ETO and MTO
was for the German spys. As I remember a single
B-29 did pay a visit for the same reason.
Makes em nervous....

Sergio

AKA_TAGERT
10-04-2006, 06:02 PM
Originally posted by Sergio_101:
P-80s were more or less ready, but were not needed.
Even if Japan was invaded the P-80 may
not have been used.
P-80 was a very good performer, superior to
all other Jet fighters of the time. (yup, even the 262).
But with tens of thousands of piston fighters there
was no need to push it service before it was
thoroughly de-bugged.

But there were a couple of P-80s in Europe and if it
was needed it could have been used.
As I remember from an artical many years ago the P-80s
flew escorted by P-51s and the pilots were ordered
to run if confronted by German fighters.

my guess is the reason for their appearance in ETO and MTO
was for the German spys. As I remember a single
B-29 did pay a visit for the same reason.
Makes em nervous....

Sergio
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

DomJScott
10-04-2006, 07:33 PM
Originally posted by Sergio_101:
P-80 was a very good performer, superior to
all other Jet fighters of the time. (yup, even the 262).

Mmm don't agree, overall the best WWII era jet has to be the Meteor. The 262 had some interesting features which with a decent engine would have made it the best but lack of the metals needed to make the engine as good as potentially possible hampered it.

The Meteor OTOH had the best armement ( 4x20mm is better for a fighter than 30mm - although the 30mm is excellent for bomber attack ) and speed ( 600mph - same as the 80 ) and went on to be a speed record setter and have a longer service than the P80.

Ob.Emann
10-04-2006, 07:36 PM
Originally posted by Sergio_101:
P-80 was a very good performer, superior to
all other Jet fighters of the time. (yup, even the 262).

Yes, if speed, lateral stability, engine reliability, acceleration, and critical Mach are not part of the factor (note that I'm just comparing it to the Me 262). http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif



But there were a couple of P-80s in Europe and if it
was needed it could have been used.

Judging from the fact that this handful of prototypes were being grounded for reasons ranging from engine malfunction (which would make for the humiliating death of Richard Bong) to catastrophic structural failure, I don't see how they could have been used effectively, given the time frame. Even when the engine was vastly improved, the P(F)-80 was still a dog of a fighter, as evidenced by its less-than-spectacular performance in Korea.

3.JG51_BigBear
10-04-2006, 07:48 PM
Originally posted by DomJScott:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Sergio_101:
P-80 was a very good performer, superior to
all other Jet fighters of the time. (yup, even the 262).

Mmm don't agree, overall the best WWII era jet has to be the Meteor. The 262 had some interesting features which with a decent engine would have made it the best but lack of the metals needed to make the engine as good as potentially possible hampered it.

The Meteor OTOH had the best armement ( 4x20mm is better for a fighter than 30mm - although the 30mm is excellent for bomber attack ) and speed ( 600mph - same as the 80 ) and went on to be a speed record setter and have a longer service than the P80. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


The later models of the Meteor were solid aircraft but the early production aircraft were border line junk. The Mk1 was structuraly weak and couldn't fly much faster than late war prop fighters. Its controls had to be stiffened with springs because it would disintigrate in agressive manuevers. The MkIII, which flew with the 2nd TAF on the continent, was a good aircraft but as an air to air fighter would probably have been fairly poor. It wasn't until the MkIV model that the Meteor really hit its stride and that was a post war fighter.

berg417448
10-04-2006, 07:49 PM
Originally posted by DomJScott:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Sergio_101:
P-80 was a very good performer, superior to
all other Jet fighters of the time. (yup, even the 262).

Mmm don't agree, overall the best WWII era jet has to be the Meteor. The 262 had some interesting features which with a decent engine would have made it the best but lack of the metals needed to make the engine as good as potentially possible hampered it.

The Meteor OTOH had the best armement ( 4x20mm is better for a fighter than 30mm - although the 30mm is excellent for bomber attack ) and speed ( 600mph - same as the 80 ) and went on to be a speed record setter and have a longer service than the P80. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Meteor developed into a great plane over time but it depends upon which Meteor version you are speaking of. The MkI only did 415 mph, not 600. The MKIII was the version in which the ailerons were deliberately made heavy to prevent aerobatic maneuvers from overstressing the wings. Pilots reported that maneuvers in this version could be very tiring.

DomJScott
10-04-2006, 08:20 PM
Originally posted by berg417448:
The Meteor developed into a great plane over time but it depends upon which Meteor version you are speaking of. The MkI only did 415 mph, not 600. The MKIII was the version in which the ailerons were deliberately made heavy to prevent aerobatic maneuvers from overstressing the wings. Pilots reported that maneuvers in this version could be very tiring.
Fair point, however the P80 was not without it's faults and couldn't develop into a long term fighter ( as witnessed by the Sabre replacing it ) whereas the Meteor developed into a long term aircraft which is still used today with 2 or 3 being used to test Ejection seats at Martin Baker.

berg417448
10-04-2006, 08:27 PM
Originally posted by DomJScott:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by berg417448:
The Meteor developed into a great plane over time but it depends upon which Meteor version you are speaking of. The MkI only did 415 mph, not 600. The MKIII was the version in which the ailerons were deliberately made heavy to prevent aerobatic maneuvers from overstressing the wings. Pilots reported that maneuvers in this version could be very tiring.

Fair point, however the P80 was not without it's faults and couldn't develop into a long term fighter ( as witnessed by the Sabre replacing it ) whereas the Meteor developed into a long term aircraft which is still used today with 2 or 3 being used to test Ejection seats at Martin Baker. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree that the Meteor was useful as a front line aircraft longer. Except for range, the photo recon version was an excellent performer. The P-80's long lifetime was spent as the T-33 trainer. I used to regularly see one that Lockheed was operating as a chase plane for the C-5 program.
Interestingly enough, the AT-33 is still isted as an active aircraft in the air force of Paraguay!

VW-IceFire
10-04-2006, 08:45 PM
Originally posted by DomJScott:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Sergio_101:
P-80 was a very good performer, superior to
all other Jet fighters of the time. (yup, even the 262).

Mmm don't agree, overall the best WWII era jet has to be the Meteor. The 262 had some interesting features which with a decent engine would have made it the best but lack of the metals needed to make the engine as good as potentially possible hampered it.

The Meteor OTOH had the best armement ( 4x20mm is better for a fighter than 30mm - although the 30mm is excellent for bomber attack ) and speed ( 600mph - same as the 80 ) and went on to be a speed record setter and have a longer service than the P80. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Love the Meteor myself...but during WWII it was a terrible jet. The top speed was in prop fighter range (the Mark I only did low to mid 400mph). Armament was excellent and visibility was substantially improved in the Mark III but it was still restricted by limiters on the stick force and forbidden from performing any serious aerobatics as the aircraft was simply not ready.

Later models were superb aircraft developed into an impressive design and serving for a very long time in different roles. Later models even with radars and the whole thing. Impressive aircraft...but not during WWII.

The P-80 on the other hand, although not without faults, was an excellent aircraft for aerobatics, had a high roll rate, a fairly well developed but conventional design.

Both designs actually lasted a very long time. I believe the last Meteor model was finally retired only maybe 10 years ago. The P-80 was developed into the T-33 of which was still in service with some air forces including the RCAF up until very recently.

HellToupee
10-04-2006, 10:46 PM
http://www.ctie.monash.edu.au/hargrave/images/an000367_500.jpg

WOLFMondo
10-05-2006, 01:10 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

Xiolablu3
10-05-2006, 01:30 AM
De Havilland Vampire FTW.

Ready in 1944, Outurns a Spitfire, 4x20mm, Very fast

Best Jet made in WW2.

And I am not biased at all, I live in Outer Mongolia. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

Badsight-
10-05-2006, 03:47 AM
has to be the first time ive seen the Meteor put foward for that title http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Sergio_101
10-05-2006, 04:20 AM
Originally posted by HH_Emann:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Sergio_101:
P-80 was a very good performer, superior to
all other Jet fighters of the time. (yup, even the 262).

Yes, if speed, lateral stability, engine reliability, acceleration, and critical Mach are not part of the factor (note that I'm just comparing it to the Me 262). http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif



But there were a couple of P-80s in Europe and if it
was needed it could have been used.

Judging from the fact that this handful of prototypes were being grounded for reasons ranging from engine malfunction (which would make for the humiliating death of Richard Bong) to catastrophic structural failure, I don't see how they could have been used effectively, given the time frame. Even when the engine was vastly improved, the P(F)-80 was still a dog of a fighter, as evidenced by its less-than-spectacular performance in Korea. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

P-80 could fly faster in level flight than
where a Me-262 would break up!
Note the P-80R test plane, all stock
flight surfaces, "Maximum speed: 623.753 mph".
Higher critical MACH for the 262? NONSENSE!

In time to climb, acelleration and turning
the P-80, especially the P-80C kicked the 262's butt.
The 262 had heavier firepower.

The last varient of the P-80 has yet to be retired.
The USAF retired it's last T-33 two years ago!
Seems a few dozen are still in service around the world.

To say that in any way the Meteor or Me-262
was superior to the P-80 is nonsense (except for firepower).

Sergio

Hoarmurath
10-05-2006, 04:35 AM
the good part of having the same discussion over and over, is that all you have to do is copy/paste old posts...


Me 262 volume 4, by J.Richard Smith and Eddie J.Creek, Classic Publications, pg 855

On 17 May 1946, the last remaining flyable Me 262 at Wright Field, FE-4012, was flown to Patterson Field for comparison trials with the prototype Lockheed XP-80, prototype of America's first operationnal jet fighter, probably FE-111, by the Hugues Aircraft Corporation in Culver City. Eight trials were flown by the aircraft against the XP-80, carried out by Colonels Al Boyd and Hal Watson. The tests were to prove an eye opener for the later :
"There was no comparison as far as i'm concerned between the operationnal capability of the Me 262 and the P-80. There was nothing comparable with the Me 262 in Brittain or the US. It was another couple of years before the P-80 began to approach it."
When Boyd reported the results of these trials and the earlier ones with T2-711 (Fay's aircraft) to his superiors he was cautioned not to release his findings. The conclusions of the official report on the tests were also censored. They stated :
"Despite a difference in gross weight of nearly 2000 lbs (907 kg) the Me 262 T2-711 was superior to the average P-80A in acceleration, speed, and approximately the same in climb performance... The Me 262 apparently has a higher critical Mach number, from a drag standpoint, than any other current air force fighter."

After completion of the trials the aircraft was returned to the Hugues company for a more extensive refurbishment. It eventually emerged at the end of February 1948 with all structural gaps filled, the gun ports faired over and several coats of high gloss paint applied. Spurious German markings were applied and its earlier "FE" (Foreign Equipment) number replaced by T2-4012. The intention was to enter the aircraft in the Bendix Thompson Jet Trophy Races, in wich only Americans P-80 were due to compete but, as Watson was to record, this plan was stopped by General Arnold to prevent a potential - and predicted - source of embarrassment for the fledgling Air Force.

KIMURA
10-05-2006, 04:48 AM
Hey guys don't compare after war P-80C/Meteor Mk.III with war used Me262 - that's window-dressing.

Fact is that 1944/45 the Allies did not have a jet fighter AND jet pilot AND jet tactics at hand that could handle the German jet fighter menace. The P-80 was, at that date the 262 already had kill markings on its tail, not capable to enter 1:1 service with the troops.

If both, the P-80/Meteor, would be that capable as some in here wish the Allies had put the jets into into direct confrontation to the Me262. With good reason the Allied avoided any confrontation.

jeroen_R90S
10-05-2006, 05:12 AM
Just wondering, as times of war tend to speed up development, one would think the (X/Y)P-80 could (and would, if the Germans had more operational jets) be developed much faster?

Or were there really big problems with it, in that it took 2-3 years for it be 'new best'?

Just curious!

Jeroen

ImpStarDuece
10-05-2006, 06:15 AM
Originally posted by KIMURA:
Hey guys don't compare after war P-80C/Meteor Mk.III with war used Me262 - that's window-dressing.

Fact is that 1944/45 the Allies did not have a jet fighter AND jet pilot AND jet tactics at hand that could handle the German jet fighter menace. The P-80 was, at that date the 262 already had kill markings on its tail, not capable to enter 1:1 service with the troops.

If both, the P-80/Meteor, would be that capable as some in here wish the Allies had put the jets into into direct confrontation to the Me262. With good reason the Allied avoided any confrontation.

Meteor III saw wartime service: first combat operations were in Dec 1944. There were two Meteor III equipped squadrons by the end of hostilities in the ETO.

Meteor IV, which first flew in April 1945, and saw squadron service in late 1946, achieved a post-war level speed record of 606 mph in November 1945 and 616 mph in September 1946, not too shabby. Regular versions were capable of 585 mph at sea level and an initial rate of climb of around 8500 feet/minute

luftluuver
10-05-2006, 06:17 AM
Originally posted by HH_Emann:

Judging from the fact that this handful of prototypes were being grounded for reasons ranging from engine malfunction (which would make for the humiliating death of Richard Bong) to catastrophic structural failure, I don't see how they could have been used effectively, given the time frame. Even when the engine was vastly improved, the P(F)-80 was still a dog of a fighter, as evidenced by its less-than-spectacular performance in Korea. Didn't Bong's engine stop because of a lack of fuel?


The service history of the Shooting Star begins in 1944, when the decision was made to deploy four service test YP-80As to Europe to demonstrate their capabilities to combat crews and to help in the development of tactics to be used against Luftwaffe jet fighters. 44-83026 and 83027 were shipped to England in mid-December 1944, but 44-83026 crashed on its second flight in England, killing its pilot. 44-83027 was turned over to the British government and modified by Rolls-Royce to flight test the B-41, the prototype of the Nene turbojet. On November 14, 1945, 44-83027 was destroyed in a crash landing after an engine failure. 44-83028 and 83029 were shipped to the Mediterranean. They flew some operational sorties, but they never encountered any enemy aircraft. They were both returned to the USA after the war.

Baugher

So only 44-83026 was lost with the J33 engine. http://web.ukonline.co.uk/lait/site/YP-80A%20%2044-83026.htm

I would also suggest looking at the 262S series and the problems they had.

Daiichidoku
10-05-2006, 07:26 AM
Yet again, the poor He 280 is omitted from a measure of "the best jets"

it had the performance that topped all those mentioned in this thread so far (save the manuverablility of the Vamp, natch), plus EJ seat, and in the case of the 80, it had a minimum TWO year lead in development (almost 3 in airframe dvl)

one can only imagine how much further it would have advanced in that time, had it been allowed to go further, especially with Hirth engines, lighter and more powerful than Jumos

luftluuver
10-05-2006, 07:38 AM
The He280 was the German Meteor.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinkel_He_280

The compressed air ejection seat was known to give trouble in the He219.

berg417448
10-05-2006, 07:42 AM
Originally posted by luftluuver:
Didn't Bong's engine stop because of a lack of fuel?

I once read that Bong's crash occurred because of a loose fuel cap. The fuel cap came off and allowed fuel to spill into the engine and that resulted in an explosion a short time after he took off.

HuninMunin
10-05-2006, 07:48 AM
Originally posted by luftluuver:
The He280 was the German Meteor.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinkel_He_280

The compressed air ejection seat was known to give trouble in the He219.

More likely the Meteor is the english 280. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
Btw. Did you read the link you just posted?
The ejection seat saved one of the test pilots life.

luftluuver
10-05-2006, 09:04 AM
Yes it did but read up on the 219 at its use in it.

Daiichidoku
10-05-2006, 10:10 AM
Originally posted by luftluuver:
The He280 was the German Meteor.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinkel_He_280

The compressed air ejection seat was known to give trouble in the He219.

lmao!

dont go by a wiki quote of 405 mph

most references for the 280 vary widely, and go up to 590 mph, but most settle on 560-70 mph

Daiichidoku
10-05-2006, 10:29 AM
http://members.tripod.com/Air_Museum_ww2/id45.htm
Engines: two Heinkel Hirth HeS 8A 1,540lb/thrust turbojets
Armament: Three 20-mm MG151 cannon
Performance: Maximum speed 570mph; endurance 46 minutes


http://www.geocities.com/lastdingo/aviation/he280.htm
The He280 instead had similar maneuverability like the Fw190A (wingload 4125kg : 21.5m2 = 191kg/m2, less than Fw190D!)
The HeS08 and BMW109-003 engines had better handling and provided better acceleration than the Jumo109-004
Performance:
Maximum Speed: 820km/h (official)
Service Ceiling: 11.500m
Normal Range: 970km
Powerplants:
Two 600kp HeS 8A (He109-001A) radial turbojets


http://www.simviation.com/fsdcbainhe280.htm
Performance: (V6) maximum speed 508mph (817km/h);
range at height 382 miles (615km)


http://www.faqs.org/docs/air/avme262.html#m9
max speed at altitude 900 KPH/540 MPH/470 KT
range 970 kilometers/603 MI/524 NMI


http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/LRG/he280.html
Engines: two 1,852lb (840kg) thrust Junkers Jumo 004A turbojets
Performance: Maximum speed 508mph (817km/h); Range 382 Miles (615km)


http://www.airpages.ru/cgi-bin/epg.pl?nav=lw50&page=he280
Maximum speed at altitude 6458m...800kph

Germany's Secret Weapons in World War II by Roger Ford, Paul Wood; Motorbooks International; ISBN: 0760308470; (March 2000)
900kph/560mph at 6000m/19,700ft


mostly it depends upon which of the three engines were used, and this is not always listed

Jumos were far heavier and lesser power than the Hirths, and the BMWs (although a project given to them by RLM from an original Hirth project) was developing more power than the HeS8a

but clearly the 280 was NOT a Meteor, and seems to surpass all other WWII jets in over all performance

luftluuver
10-05-2006, 11:06 AM
HEINKEL HE-280A-0:
_____________________ _________________ _______________________

spec metric english
_____________________ _________________ _______________________

wingspan 12.2 meters 40 feet
length 10.4 meters 34 feet 1 inch
height 3.06 meters 10 feet

empty weight 3,055 kilograms 6,375 pounds
loaded weight 4,300 kilograms 9,480 pounds

max speed at altitude 900 KPH 540 MPH / 470 KT
range 970 kilometers 603 MI / 524 NMI
_____________________ _________________ _______________________

Performance figures are of course estimates, as this particular configuration was never built.

The He-280 was to be armed with three MG-151/20 20 millimeter cannon in the nose, though the V1 prototype was not fitted with guns.

from the links provided.

Gibbage1
10-05-2006, 12:10 PM
The "engine problems" with the YP-80's that killed Bong was a bad gas cap directly behind the canopy. At takeoff, a vaccume formed behind the canopy, and would pop-off that gas cap. The fuel would get sucked out of the gas cap and run down the back of the engine causing a fire or explosion.

Some T-33's still fly today with there original compressor blades. Compair that too the Me-262's 10 hour engine life span.

The P-80 could do everything the Me-262 could do, and more, with 1 engine. Fact. It also had the lowest drag of any WWII aircraft, even the P-51. Putting the engine INSIDE the aircraft was an innovation the Germans seem to have missed. He-162 and Me-262 all had there engines externally in draggy engine pods. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

p1ngu666
10-05-2006, 12:34 PM
they had engines in pods cos of there dire engine life... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Kurfurst__
10-05-2006, 12:40 PM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:
The "engine problems" with the YP-80's that killed Bong was a bad gas cap directly behind the canopy. At takeoff, a vaccume formed behind the canopy, and would pop-off that gas cap. The fuel would get sucked out of the gas cap and run down the back of the engine causing a fire or explosion.

Just one of the myriad of problems occuring with the P-80, coming from the fact it was put together in haste, without proper testing.


Some T-33's still fly today with there original compressor blades. Compair that too the Me-262's 10 hour engine life span.

Jumo 004B lifespan was 50 hours, only the very first semi-production series of mid-1944 having such short lifespan.


The P-80 could do everything the Me-262 could do, and more, with 1 engine. Fact. It also had the lowest drag of any WWII aircraft, even the P-51.

What was it's drag actually like, then?


Putting the engine INSIDE the aircraft was an innovation the Germans seem to have missed. He-162 and Me-262 all had there engines externally in draggy engine pods. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Uhm, yeah.

http://www.aircraftenginedesign.com/pictures/He178n.GIF

He 178, the world's first jet airplane.

http://www.aircraftenginedesign.com/pictures/Gloster%20E28_39n.GIF
Gloster E28/39, May 1941.

Yeah it was big innovation nobody managed to find out until the P-80. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

The Me 262 (and Meteor), ie. early military jet designs had to mount two jet engines on the plane for the simple reason that at the time their airframes were concieved, there were not enough powerful jet engines around for the desired performance. P-38 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif and pretty much all 'heavy' twin engined fighters are examples of this limitation of powerplants effecting the designs, single engine output not being sufficient to obtain desired performance, range, or load. The P-80 was concived years later than these early jets, when sufficiently powerful powerplant were available. It has to be pointed out that the P-80's jet powerplant was a rather large one, even amongst centrifugals it had a huge cross-section compared the slim axial jets the Germans were using, so engine pods in the wings would have been a no-no anyway, fuselage being much more practical.

One just have to look at the next-gen Jet designs of FW and Mtt to see how wrong it is to believe it was not followed in their next gen jets, by when engine reliabilty and output levels were sufficient for a single engine being enough. Vampire, Huckbein, Mtt's jet designs etc.

Xiolablu3
10-05-2006, 12:40 PM
SOme German Designs had the engine in the body far far earlier than the P80.

Also some British too, their very first jet had the engine in the body..

The Vampire was developed at the same time (Possibly Before) as the P80 and has the engine in the body.

EDIT: Sorry, I read the thread then replied, obviously some more people replied in that time. It was a response to Gibbages post.

KIMURA
10-05-2006, 12:51 PM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:
Some T-33's still fly today with there original compressor blades. Compair that too the Me-262's 10 hour engine life span.
In case that would be true their lifespan would exceed todays compressor blades. A lifespan from 44 to today - yes sure. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif



The P-80 could do everything the Me-262 could do, and more, with 1 engine. Fact.


Fact is that at the time the YP-80A went to Italy and GB the Me262 already operated in front line service of about a year.
Fact is also that of those 4 YP-80A only 2 operated correctly, one ended somewhere in GB farmland the other was plaqued with problems. So it seems the YP-80 was a sunny weather promenade jet compared with the work horse Me262 that worked as a mudmover as well as nightmare to the US SAC. Fact is that the Shooting Star was a good a/c on paper and performed well somewhere in Texas desert but failed to prove its "superior" performance in RL in combat enviroment.

So you have a workhorse with about +700 airkills on one hand and 2 out of 4 a/c with problems on the other hand. Which one seems to be the better performer? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gif




Putting the engine INSIDE the aircraft was an innovation the Germans seem to have missed. He-162 and Me-262 all had there engines externally in draggy engine pods. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Planned German successors to the Me262 (also some paper planes)had the engine inside the fuselage.

berg417448
10-05-2006, 12:51 PM
By the way, here is some interesting information on Lockheed's previous idea for a jet fighter in 1939:

http://tanks45.tripod.com/Jets45/Histories/Lockheed-L133/L133.htm

luftluuver
10-05-2006, 12:53 PM
How can Gibbage forget about the Horten? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

KIMURA
10-05-2006, 12:57 PM
Originally posted by ImpStarDuece:
Meteor III saw wartime service: first combat operations were in Dec 1944. There were two Meteor III equipped squadrons by the end of hostilities in the ETO.


I know that but still my argument. What you are doing if you got a first class tool at your hands and your are completely convinced of it and its perfomrance? Right! You're using it. You'll test it under any circumstances.

Xiolablu3
10-05-2006, 12:58 PM
Yeah Berg, I saw a program on the L133 on TV 'Planes which never flew'.

Looked an interesting concept, very strange looking.

They also planned an afterburner for it. Although I bet fuel capacity would have been a problem if they had used it at that time. I think afterburners devour massive amounts of fuel, and the jets of 1945 didnt carry that much to be wasting it on afterburners.

It would have been good for an emergency tho http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Another intersting design which never flew, is the British Rocket interceptor which used a rocket to climb very high very fast (like the Me163), shoot down incoming Russian bombers, and then used a small jet engine to fly back and land. It was called the Saunder Roe SR177

http://www.spaceuk.org/sr53/177/sr177.htm

It was designed specifically to combat a RUssian bomber attack on Western Europe, to get very high, very fast. Cancelled just before it went into production.

Xiolablu3
10-05-2006, 01:03 PM
Originally posted by KIMURA:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ImpStarDuece:
Meteor III saw wartime service: first combat operations were in Dec 1944. There were two Meteor III equipped squadrons by the end of hostilities in the ETO.


I know that but still my argument. What you are doing if you got a first class tool at your hands and your are completely convinced of it and its perfomrance? Right! You're using it. You'll test it under any circumstances. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The British were more worried about giving the Tech to the Germans than needing Jet powered planes at that time. They had overwhelimg Air Superiority from 1944 without Jets, and the Me262's only shot down a tiny amount of planes in the grand scheme of things. Although they were obviously very scarey when you encountered one, this was very rare. Also Prop planes like the Tempest,P51 and Spitfire MkXIV were capable of shooting the Jets down.

They did use it, but only over occupied territory, in case it was shot down. It shot down V1's over the UK.

luftluuver
10-05-2006, 01:12 PM
Hans Fay, 262 factory pilot

Life of Engine and Ground Check
Fay was told that the normal life of the engine is 25hr in flight. His experience is that it rarely reached 15hrs. After that the schuflduesennadel(needle valve) nad schufldeuse(tail pipe) in addition to the brennkammer(combustion chamber) might be damaged through overheating. The metal of the needle might even develope cracks and the blades of the turbine wheel might bend. These parts have to be watch carefully.

Fay suggests after each flight the following checks should be made:
1. from the rear - whether the turbine awheel blade are bent, whether the tail pipe metal has buckled and whether the tail [ipe has developed cracks.
2. from the front- whether the blades of the compressor have been dented. The compessor sahould be replaced if the dents exceed 3mm

I ask, who do you believe, a German who was there flying the 262 or someone who is a known for not exactly telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?

Daiichidoku
10-05-2006, 01:56 PM
Originally posted by luftluuver:
The He-280 was to be armed with three MG-151/20 20 millimeter cannon in the nose, though the V1 prototype was not fitted with guns


http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=fr&u=htt...Den%26lr%3D%26sa%3DN (http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=fr&u=http://jpcolliat.free.fr/he280/he280-2.htm&sa=X&oi=translate&resnum=6&ct=result&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dhe%2B280%26start%3D240%26hl%3Den%26lr %3D%26sa%3DN)

The first prototype, He-280 V1 (DL+AS), was ready a long time before the engines
The gliding flights began on September 22, 1940 at Rechlin.
During the third flight, He-280 joined the ground of Heinkel with Marienehe. During following flights, 550 km/h are reached to 4000 m of altitude, against 175 km/h during the first flight. The pilot is Flugzeugbaumeister Paul Bader

The gliding flights continued until the first two engines good of flight are assembled on the second prototype. The V1 prototype will never receive its engines but will be equipped later with 4 aeropulses Argus 014 (spark-ignition engine pulsated of the flying bomb V1). The first flight with aeropulses, on January 13, 1943, will be besides the occasion of first world since the Schenk pilot will have to eject fault of being able to release the cable of towing (the aeropulses of did not push enough for a takeoff without assistance). Schenk was thus the first pilot of the world to use an ejector seat.

At the end of 1941, Heinkel He-280 V2 (GK+CA) was ready to fly, provided with his engines HeS 8a, an evolution of HeS 3b of He-178 with the combustion chambers placed behind of the compressor


This is why, on March 30, 1941 with 15h18 min, the first jet fighter of the world, Heinkel He-280 V2, flies away for the first time with its engines with the free air. The apparatus was controlled by Fritz Schafer, a new pilot at Heinkel, who could not exceed the 13000 rpm because HeS 8a did not have their regulators yet mixes/rotation

On July 5, 1942, Fritz Schafer makes take off He-280 V3 (GJ+CB) for its first flight. The engines HeS 8a were often dismounted to repair various breakdowns. The speed of 700 km/h is hardly reached during many flights, of which that of February 8, 1943 which shows a belly landing after a blade of turbine, while breaking, involves, on the right, of terrible vibrations followed by the fire of the engine. He-280 V3 will be repaired and will reach all the same the speed of 800 km/h during a trial flight.


On March 16, 1943, He-280 V2 takes off of the ground of Vienna-Schwechat, under the push of two engines Junkers Jumo 004. He-280 V2 will easily reach the speed of 800 km/h but this motorization will not have a continuation because the higher diameter of the engines Jumo 004 reduced the ground clearance considerably

After the abandonment of He-280, the prototypes of He-280 will be used as flying test benches. He-280 V5 (GJ+CD) was equipped, with the state of model, of an armament of three MG 151/20, was envisaged, at the origin on the version of series He-280A-1. (in other words, the A5 was eq with 3x mg 151, what was the intended standard armament for the A-1)
It flies for the first time in July 1943 but is destroyed following the fire of its engines involving an emergency landing

Heinkel He-280 V6 (NU+EA) accepted two MG 151/20 and two MK108 of 30 mm but will never fly.

He-280 A-1 /He-280 B-1
Motorization: 2x Heinkel 001A /2x Jumo 004B
Pushed: 700 kg /900 kg
Empty weight: 3215 kg / ?
Mass in load: 4300 kg /5170 kg
Speed max on the sea level: 870 km/h /800 km/h
Speed max to 6000 m: 900 km/h /880 km/h
Climbing speed: 19.1 m/sec /24.65 m/sec
Range: 970 km /718 km
Armament: 3 guns of 20 mm /6 guns of 20 mm
Loading: None/(500 kg)


seems at least one of the examples WERE fitted with 3x151..and another with 2x151 + 2x Mk108

Kurfurst__
10-05-2006, 02:02 PM
Fay was a factory acceptance test pilot, not a frontline pilot with actual experience, so he tells what he heard. He defected to the Allies in the last phases of the war. As noted the Jumo 004 had it's lifespan constantly improved, and I don't think it should be noted how official and actual frontline lifespans differ - if an engine lived up to just 1/3 to it's spec it as good already, not to mention how lucky airframe/pilot that wasn't shot down before that anyway.

Speaking of the whole truth, someone here is selectively qouting Fay as usual to incite some flames as usual with his umpteenth nick, as Fay has some pretty interesting comments on airframe quality and strict acceptance standards shown by BAL.

Daiichidoku
10-05-2006, 02:05 PM
it would seem from more research, that the he 280 never actually exceeded 817 kph in flight, but it seems a certainty that with mroe development, it would have easily reached much higher speeds (not that 817 kph is slow http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif )

http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=de&u=htt...Den%26lr%3D%26sa%3DN (http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=de&u=http://www.kheichhorn.de/html/body_heinkel_he_280.html&sa=X&oi=translate&resnum=6&ct=result&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dhe%2B280%26start%3D10%26hl%3Den%26lr% 3D%26sa%3DN)

On 17 December 1942 in Marienehe before representatives of the RLM an aerial combat is simulated between the He-280 V3 and a Fw-190, in order to prove the superiority of the jet aircraft over the airplane with piston engine. During the demonstration the pilot of the Fw-190 tries again and again to set itself behind the He-280 but shepherd (the pilot of the He-280) can prevent by fast flies in circles with large diameter around the Fw-190. From time to time opportunity results to by-supply with high speed directly on the Fw-190 zuzustossen and at it without it can follow the jet aircraft. After the demonstration of the airplane, wants the RLM wants 300 airplanes of the type He-280 in order to give

Gibbage1
10-05-2006, 02:14 PM
The compressor blade on the P-80 was a huge metal disk, not thin blades. Thats what led too its longevity. It was also a very robust engine.

Also I was talking in terms of PRODUCTION aircraft, not prototypes or drawings. Those mean nothing. I also did not say that putting the engine in the body was an American innovation. All I said is that its one the Germans did not use (on production aircraft).

Also Kurfy, whats your source for your Jum 004B 50 hour figure?

luftluuver
10-05-2006, 02:27 PM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
Speaking of the whole truth, someone here is selectively qouting Fay as usual to incite some flames as usual with his umpteenth nick, as Fay has some pretty interesting comments on airframe quality and strict acceptance standards shown by BAL. The medicine for your paranoia not working? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

What does airframe quality and strict acceptance standards have to with the life of a Jumo 109-004 engine.

You also have an English reading comprehension problem.<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">Fay heard 25hrs</span> but that in <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">his experience </span> it <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">rarely reached 15hrs</span>. Yes a factory pilot who would not 'push' the a/c like a front line pilot would and from experience 15 hrs was rarely reached. Tell me Kurfurst what "his experience" means.

Your problem Kurfurst is you have shovelled so much fertilizer for so long that even if you do tell the truth no one will believe you. You made your own reputation, now live in it.

Abbuzze
10-05-2006, 02:50 PM
Originally posted by ImpStarDuece:


Meteor III saw wartime service: first combat operations were in Dec 1944. There were two Meteor III equipped squadrons by the end of hostilities in the ETO.

Meteor IV, which first flew in April 1945, and saw squadron service in late 1946, achieved a post-war level speed record of 606 mph in November 1945 and 616 mph in September 1946, not too shabby. Regular versions were capable of 585 mph at sea level and an initial rate of climb of around 8500 feet/minute

Skychimp posted differnt figures some times ago.
http://members.cox.net/us.fighters/meteor.jpg

ImpStarDuece
10-05-2006, 03:43 PM
Originally posted by Abbuzze:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ImpStarDuece:


Meteor III saw wartime service: first combat operations were in Dec 1944. There were two Meteor III equipped squadrons by the end of hostilities in the ETO.

Meteor IV, which first flew in April 1945, and saw squadron service in late 1946, achieved a post-war level speed record of 606 mph in November 1945 and 616 mph in September 1946, not too shabby. Regular versions were capable of 585 mph at sea level and an initial rate of climb of around 8500 feet/minute

Skychimp posted differnt figures some times ago.
http://members.cox.net/us.fighters/meteor.jpg </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Considering those speeds are well below the continious CRUISE ratings for the Mk IV, and lower than the maximum speeds of the Mk III, I'm a little confused at to where they come from, unless its mislabeled as a Mk IV and its actually an early mk III with short nacells.

AKA_TAGERT
10-05-2006, 05:54 PM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:
The "engine problems" with the YP-80's that killed Bong was a bad gas cap directly behind the canopy. At takeoff, a vaccume formed behind the canopy, and would pop-off that gas cap. The fuel would get sucked out of the gas cap and run down the back of the engine causing a fire or explosion.

Some T-33's still fly today with there original compressor blades. Compair that too the Me-262's 10 hour engine life span.

The P-80 could do everything the Me-262 could do, and more, with 1 engine. Fact. It also had the lowest drag of any WWII aircraft, even the P-51. Putting the engine INSIDE the aircraft was an innovation the Germans seem to have missed. He-162 and Me-262 all had there engines externally in draggy engine pods. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif Agreed 100%

Sergio_101
10-05-2006, 05:59 PM
I got the story about the Hughes Me-262 Thompson attempt here.
Says bad publicity and lack of spare parts are the reasons
the Me-262s were not raced in the Thompson Trophy race.

No mention of official USAF intervention.

Sergio

Gibbage1
10-05-2006, 06:30 PM
Originally posted by ImpStarDuece:
Meteor IV, which first flew in April 1945, and saw squadron service in late 1946, achieved a post-war level speed record of 606 mph in November 1945 and 616 mph in September 1946, not too shabby. Regular versions were capable of 585 mph at sea level and an initial rate of climb of around 8500 feet/minute

The P-80A set the world speed record on June 19, 1947, at 623.8 miles per hour.

Sergio_101
10-05-2006, 06:45 PM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ImpStarDuece:
Meteor IV, which first flew in April 1945, and saw squadron service in late 1946, achieved a post-war level speed record of 606 mph in November 1945 and 616 mph in September 1946, not too shabby. Regular versions were capable of 585 mph at sea level and an initial rate of climb of around 8500 feet/minute

The P-80A set the world speed record on June 19, 1947, at 623.8 miles per hour. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>



P-80 could fly faster in level flight than
where a Me-262 would break up!
Note the P-80R test plane, all stock
flight surfaces, "Maximum speed: 623.753 mph".
Higher critical MACH for the 262? NONSENSE!

In time to climb, acelleration and turning
the P-80, especially the P-80C kicked the 262's butt.
The 262 had heavier firepower.

To say that in any way the Meteor or Me-262
was superior to the P-80 is nonsense (except for firepower).

Sergio

SkyChimp
10-05-2006, 06:47 PM
Originally posted by DomJScott:
The Meteor OTOH had the best armement ( 4x20mm is better for a fighter than 30mm - although the 30mm is excellent for bomber attack ) and speed ( 600mph - same as the 80 ) and went on to be a speed record setter and have a longer service than the P80.

Speed records mean nothing. The planes that set them were usually stripped of almost everything, sanded and taped. They were hardly presentative of a service plane.

With respect to the Meteor's service life, it had a long life because it was versatile and a good test bed. But it was obsolete in the fighter role in 1947. The P-80, in the form of the T-33, had a very long service life. But it, too, was obsolete as a fighter in 1947.

AKA_TAGERT
10-05-2006, 06:49 PM
Originally posted by Sergio_101:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gibbage1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ImpStarDuece:
Meteor IV, which first flew in April 1945, and saw squadron service in late 1946, achieved a post-war level speed record of 606 mph in November 1945 and 616 mph in September 1946, not too shabby. Regular versions were capable of 585 mph at sea level and an initial rate of climb of around 8500 feet/minute

The P-80A set the world speed record on June 19, 1947, at 623.8 miles per hour. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>



P-80 could fly faster in level flight than
where a Me-262 would break up!
Note the P-80R test plane, all stock
flight surfaces, "Maximum speed: 623.753 mph".
Higher critical MACH for the 262? NONSENSE!

In time to climb, acelleration and turning
the P-80, especially the P-80C kicked the 262's butt.
The 262 had heavier firepower.

To say that in any way the Meteor or Me-262
was superior to the P-80 is nonsense (except for firepower).

Sergio </div></BLOCKQUOTE>But.. But.. But.. the Me262 had a cool paint job!

Sergio_101
10-05-2006, 06:53 PM
I agree, but in the 40's a fighter was nearly
obsolete as it entered service!
The first truly operational P-80s entered service in 1947
as the first P-86 broke the sound barrier in a dive!

The trend continued into the early 70's when
the limits of how capable you can build
an aircraft were finally reached with the F-15.
Note the 30+ year lifespan and 100:0 + kill ratio
for the F-15.
I got to wonder if the F-15 will ever be replaced.
F-22 is a worthy replacement, but too expensive.

The next step will be pilotless fighters.

Sergio

SkyChimp
10-05-2006, 06:54 PM
Originally posted by HH_Emann:
Yes, if speed, lateral stability, engine reliability, acceleration, and critical Mach are not part of the factor (note that I'm just comparing it to the Me 262). http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif


Hmmmm. The P-80A was faster at all altitudes, had an 8,000 ft greater ceiling, had better wing loading, better thrust to weight ratio, better range, and better manueverability. Of course the P-80 had its early problems as any jet did. But I don't think a serious argument can be made that the Me-262 was better at, well, much.




Judging from the fact that this handful of prototypes were being grounded for reasons ranging from engine malfunction (which would make for the humiliating death of Richard Bong) to catastrophic structural failure, I don't see how they could have been used effectively,


The death of Bong was tragic, not humiliating. What in the world was humiliating about it?

As stated, the P-80 had its share of gestational problems, like every jet did.




given the time frame. Even when the engine was vastly improved, the P(F)-80 was still a dog of a fighter, as evidenced by its less-than-spectacular performance in Korea.


Yeah, against the MiG-15. The P-80, just like every other WWII jet, were obsolete as fighters by 1947.

Sergio_101
10-05-2006, 06:56 PM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Sergio_101:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gibbage1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ImpStarDuece:
Meteor IV, which first flew in April 1945, and saw squadron service in late 1946, achieved a post-war level speed record of 606 mph in November 1945 and 616 mph in September 1946, not too shabby. Regular versions were capable of 585 mph at sea level and an initial rate of climb of around 8500 feet/minute

The P-80A set the world speed record on June 19, 1947, at 623.8 miles per hour. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>



P-80 could fly faster in level flight than
where a Me-262 would break up!
Note the P-80R test plane, all stock
flight surfaces, "Maximum speed: 623.753 mph".
Higher critical MACH for the 262? NONSENSE!

In time to climb, acelleration and turning
the P-80, especially the P-80C kicked the 262's butt.
The 262 had heavier firepower.

To say that in any way the Meteor or Me-262
was superior to the P-80 is nonsense (except for firepower).

Sergio </div></BLOCKQUOTE>But.. But.. But.. the Me262 had a cool paint job! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

And those kinky swept wings.
They may have had a low speed airfoil, but
they were swept!

Sergio

SkyChimp
10-05-2006, 06:57 PM
Originally posted by DomJScott:

Fair point, however the P80 was not without it's faults and couldn't develop into a long term fighter ( as witnessed by the Sabre replacing it ) whereas the Meteor developed into a long term aircraft which is still used today with 2 or 3 being used to test Ejection seats at Martin Baker.

This doesn't make any sense:

The P-80 couldn't be developed into a long term fighter.
The meteor could be developed in a long term aircraft.

Well, the P-80 was developed into a long term aircraft - the T-33.
The Meteor could not be developed into a long term fighter - it was obsolete in 1947, and totally outclassed in the Korean war.

AKA_TAGERT
10-05-2006, 07:00 PM
Originally posted by Sergio_101:
And those kinky swept wings.
They may have had a low speed airfoil, but
they were swept!

Sergio Just to correct the cg only.

Sergio_101
10-05-2006, 07:02 PM
Originally posted by SkyChimp:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DomJScott:

The Meteor developed into a great plane over time but it depends upon which Meteor version you are speaking of. The MkI only did 415 mph, not 600. The MKIII was the version in which the ailerons were deliberately made heavy to prevent aerobatic maneuvers from overstressing the wings. Pilots reported that maneuvers in this version could be very tiring.
Fair point, however the P80 was not without it's faults and couldn't develop into a long term fighter ( as witnessed by the Sabre replacing it ) whereas the Meteor developed into a long term aircraft which is still used today with 2 or 3 being used to test Ejection seats at Martin Baker. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This doesn't make any sense:

The P-80 couldn't be developed into a long term fighter.
The meteor could be developed in a long term aircraft.

Well, the P-80 was developed into a long term aircraft - the T-33.
The Meteor could not be developed into a long term fighter - it was obsolete in 1947, and totally outclassed in the Korean war.[/QUOTE]

you hit the nail on the head Chimpster.
T-33 was in US and Canadian service
as a trainer untill recently! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

The Meteor is alive only as a warbird at airshows
and, maybe testing ejection seats. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

There are still T-33's in service overseas.
Some as armed combat planes. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

By the way you luftworshipers.
Note the fat pudgy airfoils on the Me-262. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

Then note the thin high speed airfoils on the P-80.
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif
Sergio

Gibbage1
10-05-2006, 07:03 PM
Originally posted by Sergio_101:
To say that in any way the Meteor or Me-262
was superior to the P-80 is nonsense (except for firepower).

Sergio

Firepower is nice, but its useless without the ability too place it. The Mk-108's had a low MV and the K-14 had CLEAR advantages. M2 .50 cal was showing its age, but was still a good accurate weapon when placed well. With a very tight grouping and the K-14, the P-80 pilots I think had the advantage as a gun platform. During Korea the M2 was deamed weak because the higher stress of jets reqired stronger metals and construction in aircraft, but WWII is another story. .50's were still very usefull.

Gibbage1
10-05-2006, 07:06 PM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Sergio_101:
And those kinky swept wings.
They may have had a low speed airfoil, but
they were swept!

Sergio Just to correct the cg only. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

And lest we forget the P-80 was still faster with straight wings.

SkyChimp
10-05-2006, 07:08 PM
Originally posted by Hoarmurath:
the good part of having the same discussion over and over, is that all you have to do is copy/paste old posts...

Me 262 volume 4, by J.Richard Smith and Eddie J.Creek, Classic Publications, pg 855

On 17 May 1946, the last remaining flyable Me 262 at Wright Field, FE-4012, was flown to Patterson Field for comparison trials with the prototype Lockheed XP-80, prototype of America's first operationnal jet fighter, probably FE-111, by the Hugues Aircraft Corporation in Culver City. Eight trials were flown by the aircraft against the XP-80, carried out by Colonels Al Boyd and Hal Watson. The tests were to prove an eye opener for the later :
"There was no comparison as far as i'm concerned between the operationnal capability of the Me 262 and the P-80. There was nothing comparable with the Me 262 in Brittain or the US. It was another couple of years before the P-80 began to approach it."


The XP-80 was a totally different plane from the YP-80A or P-80A. The XP-80 was dimensionally smaller and had a far less powerful engine. Additionally, the Me-262 tested was a stripped recon version that flew at a weight far less than it would in service. Not a representative test.

I've seen the Smith and Creek excerpt a number of times on other forums, and this was my reply. it works here, obviously.

I agree the P-80A was the best jet fighter to emerge from WWII. It simply gave up nothing to the Me-262 in terms of performance, being superior in just about every imaginable performance category. It was faster at all altitudes. Had a ceiling of some 8,000 feet higher. It had a better drag coefficient. It had a higher critical mach. It had better power-to-weight ratio. Better wing loading. Better range.
The P-80A roll rate was simply amazing for that era:

The only area where the P-80 could have used improvement was the stick force required in longitudnal manuevers with a signficantly forward center-of-gravity. It could be very high. As center-of-gravity shifted back, control stick forces were exceptionally light.

I've seen (In the book Me-262, Smith and Creek, Volume 4) a summary of a direct comparison test done after the war that suggested the overall superiority of the Me-262. But it's important to note that that comparsion was between a stripped recon verson of the Me-262 and the XP-80 (which was dimmensionally smaller and had 1,000 lbs less thrust than the P-80A). This was the only test that I know of where both planes were present at the same place and time.

However, I know of at least 4 other comparison studies that were done by the USAAF between the P-80A and the Me-262. Results of two of those tests are unknown to me. The others concluded the general superiority of the P-80A. One pilot in one of the latter tests stated "The Me-262 may be the best jet fighter in service, but the P-80 is the best jet fighter in the world." I guess he meant combat service.

AKA_TAGERT
10-05-2006, 07:08 PM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:
And lest we forget the P-80 was still faster with straight wings. Good Point

SkyChimp
10-05-2006, 07:14 PM
Originally posted by KIMURA:
If both, the P-80/Meteor, would be that capable as some in here wish the Allies had put the jets into into direct confrontation to the Me262. With good reason the Allied avoided any confrontation.

The British may have avoided confrontation, but the Americans did not. The P-80A had the same production priority as the B-29. YP-80As were rushed to England and Itlay for operational trials before they were really ready. It appears the Americans were eager to get the P-80A into combat.

Sergio_101
10-05-2006, 07:17 PM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gibbage1:
And lest we forget the P-80 was still faster with straight wings. Good Point </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Never been any doubt that the P-80, from the YP-80
onwards was superior to the Me-262.

Taken in context the Me-262 was amazing, as it was a first gen Jet fighter.
the P-80 was a bit later and had superior
wings....Hell it was a far more advanced airplane!

Things were changing fast.

Sergio

SkyChimp
10-05-2006, 07:25 PM
Originally posted by KIMURA:

Fact is that at the time the YP-80A went to Italy and GB the Me262 already operated in front line service of about a year.
Fact is also that of those 4 YP-80A only 2 operated correctly, one ended somewhere in GB farmland the other was plaqued with problems. So it seems the YP-80 was a sunny weather promenade jet compared with the work horse Me262 that worked as a mudmover as well as nightmare to the US SAC. Fact is that the Shooting Star was a good a/c on paper and performed well somewhere in Texas desert but failed to prove its "superior" performance in RL in combat enviroment.

So you have a workhorse with about +700 airkills on one hand and 2 out of 4 a/c with problems on the other hand. Which one seems to be the better performer? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gif


Kimura, you can come up with something more rational than that.

Of course the Me-262 came first. And it was a more relaible jet at the beginning of 1945 than the 4 YP-80As in Europe. But the Me-262 had its gestational problems, too. They crashed, they came apart, they had failures - just like any new jet did. It took time to become reliable - and apparently it never became really reliable.

The Me-262 was a great plane for its time. But it was NEVER a nightmare to the USAAF or RAF. In fact, it never really made a difference to the war. NO jet did. It was an interesting LW sideshow that created worry and spurred an American effort to get a jet fighter into service. The US rushed its jet fighter into service before it was completely refined, and it had problems. The Germans were no strangers to that.

SkyChimp
10-05-2006, 07:30 PM
Originally posted by ImpStarDuece:
Considering those speeds are well below the continious CRUISE ratings for the Mk IV, and lower than the maximum speeds of the Mk III, I'm a little confused at to where they come from, unless its mislabeled as a Mk IV and its actually an early mk III with short nacells.


It doesn't much matter, since the F Mk. 4 was not a WWII fighter by any stretch. Nevertheless, I suspect the numbers refer to the production F Mk. 4s with long wings which were less performant than later F Mk. 4s with short wings and up-rated engines.

Gibbage1
10-05-2006, 07:53 PM
Originally posted by Sergio_101:
Never been any doubt that the P-80, from the YP-80
onwards was superior to the Me-262.

Taken in context the Me-262 was amazing, as it was a first gen Jet fighter.
the P-80 was a bit later and had superior
wings....Hell it was a far more advanced airplane!

Things were changing fast.

Sergio

I dont agree at all. The Me-262 was Germany's 2nd gen jet. The He 178 was the 1st gen. The P-80 yes was the US's 2nd gen, the P-59 being its first, so really the two are very compairable. Its not like we had the benifit of Germany's years of experance in jets, yet we were able to make something compairable and in many ways better in a very short time.

Daiichidoku
10-05-2006, 07:56 PM
Originally posted by Sergio_101:
I got the story about the Hughes Me-262 Thompson attempt here.
Says bad publicity and lack of spare parts are the reasons
the Me-262s were not raced in the Thompson Trophy race.

No mention of official USAF intervention.

Sergio

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

AKA_TAGERT
10-05-2006, 08:23 PM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:
I dont agree at all. The Me-262 was Germany's 2nd gen jet. The He 178 was the 1st gen. The P-80 yes was the US's 2nd gen, the P-59 being its first, so really the two are very compairable. Its not like we had the benifit of Germany's years of experance in jets, yet we were able to make something compairable and in many ways better in a very short time. Very good points

HayateAce
10-05-2006, 09:09 PM
...and no counter from *****Mouth.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif

Xiolablu3
10-05-2006, 11:20 PM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gibbage1:
I dont agree at all. The Me-262 was Germany's 2nd gen jet. The He 178 was the 1st gen. The P-80 yes was the US's 2nd gen, the P-59 being its first, so really the two are very compairable. Its not like we had the benifit of Germany's years of experance in jets, yet we were able to make something compairable and in many ways better in a very short time. Very good points </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

AHem, maybe Britain giving the US an engine and all its data on Jets helped a little http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif In fact they gave up the WW2 Vampire project (put it on hold) so that the US could have their only other Jet engine. (After the P80 builders knackered the first one)

I think The Brits deserve just a LITTLE mention here, don't you? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Daiichidoku
10-05-2006, 11:57 PM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:
I dont agree at all. The Me-262 was Germany's 2nd gen jet. The He 178 was the 1st gen. The P-80 yes was the US's 2nd gen, the P-59 being its first, so really the two are very compairable. Its not like we had the benifit of Germany's years of experance in jets, yet we were able to make something compairable and in many ways better in a very short time.

the he 178 was germany;s first gen jet...barely that, more what we would call today a "technology demonstrator" or "proof of concept vehicle"...the He 280 (yet again, conveniently omitted http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif) being its 2nd gen...262 the 3rd

campare that with britain's 1 st gen, the E./41 (never remember the designation, sorry), equivalent to the he 178 in research terms...and its 2nd, the meteor..whether the vamp was its 3rd, or was merely a better 2nd gen, is debatable..

usa, on other hand, jumped directly into its 1st gen with the p 59, intended from the start to be a fully fledged jet day fighter, NOT on a par with he 178 or E/41...it was only relegated to this after it was found sorely lacking...the p 80 being it 2nd

so perhaps the best comparison would be among the he 280, meteor, vamp, and p 80

how do they stack up? the meteor can be written off immediately, this is clear...leaving the 28o, vamp and 80

p80 hold speed over he 280...manuverability? i dunno, but somehow i dont imgaine the p 80 could handle as well as a 190 anton...which the he 280 could

but given that the time period he 280 COULD have had continual, and increased development, from where it started, over the p 80, it should leave little doubt who would really come out on top

perhaps only the vamp could seriously threaten the dominance of an he 280 in a 44/45 scenario...but as ever, its range/endurance would play a role in hindering this


whatever...i know the p 80 denial will never end round here http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Aaron_GT
10-06-2006, 12:30 AM
The Vampire was developed at the same time (Possibly Before) as the P80 and has the engine in the body.

Vampire development was slowed by a requirement to send the Halford engines to the USA for the XP-80. In the end the Halford engine was not used in the YP-80 and beyond.

Badsight-
10-06-2006, 01:08 AM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:
Firepower is nice, but its useless without the ability too place it. The Mk-108's had a low MV and the K-14 had CLEAR advantages. M2 .50 cal was showing its age, but was still a good accurate weapon when placed well. With a very tight grouping and the K-14, the P-80 pilots I think had the advantage as a gun platform. During Korea the M2 was deamed weak because the higher stress of jets reqired stronger metals and construction in aircraft. during Korea didnt the saber get fitted with the M3 ?

higher ROF & faster MV

Gibbage1
10-06-2006, 01:14 AM
Originally posted by Daiichidoku:
the he 178 was germany;s first gen jet...barely that, more what we would call today a "technology demonstrator" or "proof of concept vehicle"...the He 280 (yet again, conveniently omitted http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif) being its 2nd gen...262 the 3rd


First, I omitted the He-280 because I dont know much about it. From what I am reading about it now, it seems that the He-280 was in compatition with the Me-262 at about the same time perioud, and ultimatly the RLM went with the 262. Why, I dont care. But both seem to be Gen 2. In order for it to be Gen 3, the Me-262 would need to be after the He-280 and learn from its development, not compete with it. Considering the two aircraft are rather similar minus the swept wings (well, the Me-262 did start with straight wings) I dont see a huge improvement that would dictate it being a Gen 3. Ta-183 would of been a proper Gen 3, same for the Go-229.



campare that with britain's 1 st gen, the E./41 (never remember the designation, sorry), equivalent to the he 178 in research terms...and its 2nd, the meteor..whether the vamp was its 3rd, or was merely a better 2nd gen, is debatable..


So your stating Me-262 was the 3rd when it was being developed alongside the 2nd gen, but when the same happens on the british side, its "debateable"? That's a good look into possible biest nature of your postings.



usa, on other hand, jumped directly into its 1st gen with the p 59, intended from the start to be a fully fledged jet day fighter, NOT on a par with he 178 or E/41...it was only relegated to this after it was found sorely lacking...the p 80 being it 2nd


Bell P-59 lacked big in 1 area. Its engines. It was a good first try, and I must say was much better then the German or British first try. Somehow you turned that into a negitive. Yes, it was late, but not out of lack of engineering, but politics.



so perhaps the best comparison would be among the he 280, meteor, vamp, and p 80


OK. How bout you give us some stats on the He-280? You seem to have lots of faith in this aircraft, even though the data I found on the net is not very favorable.



how do they stack up? the meteor can be written off immediately, this is clear...leaving the 28o, vamp and 80


The 1 thing we agree on



p80 hold speed over he 280...manuverability? i dunno, but somehow i dont imgaine the p 80 could handle as well as a 190 anton...which the he 280 could


You dont know much about the P-80 then, or even less of the Anton. The P-80 was the only aircraft that could out-roll the FW, and lets just say about any fighter of the war could out-turn an anton. After that, its up too speed, and the P-80 as you said has it there.

Lets do a little math.

P-80 has a 53lb/ft wing loading.
He-280 has a 40lb/ft wing loading.

Sounds favorable too the He-280? Ya. Im sure you would LOVE me to stop there. Lets take a look at the wing itself. Ow, ya. There are these two big engine pods on the wing. The area they occupy on the wing PRODUCE NO LOFT since it does not have an air foil. So, lets take that away from its wing loading. Lets say the engines take up 20% of the wing. That means instead of having 233 square feet of wing area that provides lift, it has around 195. That bring it to 48lb/ft. So much for the advantage. Thats going off of the ~9500lb weight that im guessings os for the un-armored prototype. Add a few hundred pounds of guns, ammo, and armor, and the two are on even grounds. Unless you wanna give me some proper numbers so I can fine tune the math?



but given that the time period he 280 COULD have had continual, and increased development, from where it started, over the p 80, it should leave little doubt who would really come out on top


Just keep telling yourself that, and maybe one day it will come true!! Maybe in your mind. I guess we will never know, so from your rose colored glasses, the glass is half-full... Of Nazi propaganda.



perhaps only the vamp could seriously threaten the dominance of an he 280 in a 44/45 scenario...but as ever, its range/endurance would play a role in hindering this


Lol. Thats not saying much. The Vamp in 1944/45 was VERY underpowered. If that pig stood a chance vs your all-powerfull and superior He-280, then the P-80 would wipe the floor with it.



whatever...i know the p 80 denial will never end round here http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Denial? Im giving you solid numbers, your giving me your asumptions based on no proof. You wanna end the denial? Show us some proof! Do you honestly think anyone is gonna sit here and say "Wow, he done told me! He said the He-280 was better, then it must be!". If you think so, your just kidding yourself. Go home, and bring back some numbers kid. Let the big boys debate, and keep your un-informed openions too yourself.

Kurfurst__
10-06-2006, 01:34 AM
A few comments (though generally I am in line with Chimp, who made some sensible comments).

1, Speed. I've not seen yet a speed curve for the production speed of the P-80, however from the published data one thing is clear, the P-80's top speed is given at SL, ie. at all other altitudes it's slower. The Me 262's is given at around 6 km iirc, which could mean that the speeds at combat altitude, where it really matters are likely be in fact very similiar or even favour the Me 262.A speed curve could tell.

2, Armament. I am quite sure more Me 262s had the EZ 42 gyrosight in service than YP-80s and maybe even earlier. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif The quad MK 108s were a logical choice for bomber destruction, but other armaments like twin MK 103s were also possible. An EZ42 + 2xMK 103 combo is deadly for air combat, at the same weight, had the need arised.

2, Turn rate. Again, it's just poor guessess from people who'd love to make the YP-80 better looking. Fact is that every account shown by comparison by US pilots claim the '80 and the '262 were quite similiar planes, or give the 262 the edge. Yeager puts it in a way they were equal, with the 262 having edge in firepower. In any case, it's just again a laminar flow wing with maybe somewhat better wingloading on paper, vs. a full-lenght slatted wing. I see analogy with the p51/bf109 turn capabilities.

4, Roll rate. That the SS could compete with the FW 190 is bullocks. The SS had nice roll rate, but if anyone reads NACA's reports the 160+ deg/sec roll rates qouted around here refer to 40 000 feet or so. Higher altitude improves roll rate on all planes, the NACA also measured at normal alts (6k or 10k ft), making them directly comparable to other NACA roll charts at 10k feet, and the results were 120 deg/sec or so. Which is still nice, above avarage, but no 190.

Gibbage1
10-06-2006, 01:37 AM
Originally posted by Badsight-:
during Korea didnt the saber get fitted with the M3 ?

higher ROF & faster MV

So did the P-80's, but they still had a hard time bringing down the Migs. Very strong aircraft. Much stronger then any fighter of WWII. In Korea, a few P-80's smacked the ground trying to pull up from a straifing fun, and still flew home with a belly full of dirt. Not just once!!! I found at least 2 cases that this happened! I dare anyone find a WWII aircraft that did the same and flew home. Well besides a P-47 smacking telephone poles and chimney's.

Gibbage1
10-06-2006, 01:50 AM
Kurfy. You forgot too mention that not only did the P-80 have better wing loading, but swept wings produce less lift. Its basic aerodynamics. I thought you would know this, or you did and omited that fact. Not all wings are created equal. Also what about thrust to weight ratio? That plays a lot in turns. The P-80 has a much better thrust to weight ratio.

So lets see. The P-80 has a better wing, better wing loading, better power loading, yet somehow those crafty German engineers defy physics and aerodynamics in the Me-262 to make it turn better then the P-80? Wow. Im impressed. If that was true.

Also remember the Me-262's wing also slung the engines on it, removing some of its air foil, lowering its wing loading even more.

P-80's wing loading = 53lb/ft
Me-262 wing loading = 60lb/ft or more factoring the engines.

So. How does the Me-262 turn better Kurfy? Pixy dust?

Kocur_
10-06-2006, 02:25 AM
Originally posted by Badsight-:
during Korea didnt the saber get fitted with the M3 ?

higher ROF & faster MV

Indeed M3 had higher ROF than M2 (1100rpm vs 800rpm), but it used the very same types of ammo, so muzzle velocities were the same. The only difference can be made by the fact, that M3 is quoted with MV of the ammo it used commonly -ammo with lighter than others, i.e. M23 I projectile: 33g instead of say 46g of other types, resulted in MV of 1036m/s instead of say 860m/s.



Originally posted by Gibbage1:
In Korea, a few P-80's smacked the ground trying to pull up from a straifing fun, and still flew home with a belly full of dirt. Not just once!!! I found at least 2 cases that this happened! I dare anyone find a WWII aircraft that did the same and flew home. Well besides a P-47 smacking telephone poles and chimney's.

Well lets ask Gabreski about how can a PROP plane return home after hitting ground with its belly http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif In another words: you would surely know of such incidents from WW2 if those planes didnt have props, which would inevitably be damaged if the plane was to touch ground with its belly...

Kurfurst__
10-06-2006, 02:31 AM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:
Kurfy. You forgot too mention that not only did the P-80 have better wing loading, but swept wings produce less lift. Its basic aerodynamics. I thought you would know this, or you did and omited that fact. Not all wings are created equal. Also what about thrust to weight ratio? That plays a lot in turns. The P-80 has a much better thrust to weight ratio.

So lets see. The P-80 has a better wing, better wing loading, better power loading, yet somehow those crafty German engineers defy physics and aerodynamics in the Me-262 to make it turn better then the P-80? Wow. Im impressed. If that was true.

Also remember the Me-262's wing also slung the engines on it, removing some of its air foil, lowering its wing loading even more.

P-80's wing loading = 53lb/ft
Me-262 wing loading = 60lb/ft or more factoring the engines.

So. How does the Me-262 turn better Kurfy? Pixy dust?

Everybody can speculate on how things should have been, especially you Gib.
I am interested in facts only, so I'd leave the speculating part to you.
As for aerodynamics, I don't think your words carry much weight in this matter. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

DomJScott
10-06-2006, 03:07 AM
Originally posted by SkyChimp:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DomJScott:

Fair point, however the P80 was not without it's faults and couldn't develop into a long term fighter ( as witnessed by the Sabre replacing it ) whereas the Meteor developed into a long term aircraft which is still used today with 2 or 3 being used to test Ejection seats at Martin Baker.

This doesn't make any sense:

The P-80 couldn't be developed into a long term fighter.
The meteor could be developed in a long term aircraft.

Well, the P-80 was developed into a long term aircraft - the T-33.
The Meteor could not be developed into a long term fighter - it was obsolete in 1947, and totally outclassed in the Korean war. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Curiously there was success in the Korean war for the Meteor... Reading in Wikipedia they shot down 5 Mig-15's (I assume for no loss) and where only relegated to ground attack when 4 where lost.............. in a 12 Meteor vs 40 Mig 15 fight.. Pretty good going for an 'obsolete' fighter... (bet a F86 would have struggled to lose less than 4 in that fight).

ImpStarDuece
10-06-2006, 03:19 AM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Badsight-:
during Korea didnt the saber get fitted with the M3 ?

higher ROF & faster MV

So did the P-80's, but they still had a hard time bringing down the Migs. Very strong aircraft. Much stronger then any fighter of WWII. In Korea, a few P-80's smacked the ground trying to pull up from a straifing fun, and still flew home with a belly full of dirt. Not just once!!! I found at least 2 cases that this happened! I dare anyone find a WWII aircraft that did the same and flew home. Well besides a P-47 smacking telephone poles and chimney's. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Mosquitos did it over Europe and made it back home, although sometimes on one engine, pulling out from night bombing straffing runs a little too late sometimes. There was one Mossie FB Mk IV that even returned from a night dive bombing over Holland with a section of brick chimney lodged in its port radiator intake and bomb bay, after a low level dive bombing that got a little too low level

Sergio_101
10-06-2006, 03:51 AM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
Everybody can speculate on how things should have been, especially you Gib.
I am interested in facts only, so I'd leave the speculating part to you.
As for aerodynamics, I don't think your words carry much weight in this matter. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

FACTS! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif
Kurfie, YOU NEVER let the facts stand in the way of your fantasy! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Weather it be "pixie dust" or carried on the backs of the "Tutonic Knights"
all things German must out perform all things Allied, especially American. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
Bad fuel, poor wing loading, those numbers mean nothing. P-80 being
faster, no problem, whip out the MS paint program and we can cook up a chart! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif
Need a performance curve? No problem for Kurfie and Paint! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif
Gobbels would be proud of you Kurfie. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

Sergio

Xiolablu3
10-06-2006, 05:03 AM
Nevermind

DomJScott
10-06-2006, 07:59 AM
Originally posted by ImpStarDuece:
Mosquitos did it over Europe and made it back home, although sometimes on one engine, pulling out from night bombing straffing runs a little too late sometimes. There was one Mossie FB Mk IV that even returned from a night dive bombing over Holland with a section of brick chimney lodged in its port radiator intake and bomb bay, after a low level dive bombing that got a little too low level
One of the Dambusters Lancasters made it home after ripping it's upkeep off when it clipped the sea with it. Now THAT's low http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif.

Hoarmurath
10-06-2006, 08:16 AM
Originally posted by Sergio_101:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
Everybody can speculate on how things should have been, especially you Gib.
I am interested in facts only, so I'd leave the speculating part to you.
As for aerodynamics, I don't think your words carry much weight in this matter. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

FACTS! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif
Kurfie, YOU NEVER let the facts stand in the way of your fantasy! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Weather it be "pixie dust" or carried on the backs of the "Tutonic Knights"
all things German must out perform all things Allied, especially American. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
Bad fuel, poor wing loading, those numbers mean nothing. P-80 being
faster, no problem, whip out the MS paint program and we can cook up a chart! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif
Need a performance curve? No problem for Kurfie and Paint! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif
Gobbels would be proud of you Kurfie. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

Sergio </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If he is wrong, prove him wrong. If you can't prove him wrong, turning to personal attacks not only bring nothing to the debate, but place you in the category of the "rabid fanboys". If this is indeed the case, please save us any further attempts to look informed about anything.

If you have facts, bring them on, if not, STFU... We have enough a one hayateace in the boards.

Daiichidoku
10-06-2006, 08:31 AM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:
First, I omitted the He-280 because I dont know much about it. From what I am reading about it now, it seems that the He-280 was in compatition with the Me-262 at about the same time perioud, and ultimatly the RLM went with the 262. Why, I dont care. But both seem to be Gen 2. In order for it to be Gen 3, the Me-262 would need to be after the He-280 and learn from its development, not compete with it. Considering the two aircraft are rather similar minus the swept wings (well, the Me-262 did start with straight wings) I dont see a huge improvement that would dictate it being a Gen 3. Ta-183 would of been a proper Gen 3, same for the Go-229.

http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=fr&u=htt...Den%26lr%3D%26sa%3DN (http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=fr&u=http://jpcolliat.free.fr/he280/he280-2.htm&sa=X&oi=translate&resnum=6&ct=result&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dhe%2B280%26start%3D240%26hl%3Den%26lr %3D%26sa%3DN)

http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=de&u=htt...Den%26lr%3D%26sa%3DN (http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=de&u=http://www.kheichhorn.de/html/body_heinkel_he_280.html&sa=X&oi=translate&resnum=6&ct=result&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dhe%2B280%26start%3D10%26hl%3Den%26lr% 3D%26sa%3DN)

there ya go Gib, if you alredy havent read from these links, these two (and in your fav language, french!) are the best online info sources for 280 i have ever seen

yea, airframe and concept were about the same time...although the 262 didnt fly until over a year after the 280...

i'll concede that sure, they could be considered same gen.




Originally posted by Gibbage1:
Bell P-59 lacked big in 1 area. Its engines. It was a good first try, and I must say was much better then the German or British first try. Somehow you turned that into a negitive. Yes, it was late, but not out of lack of engineering, but politics.

its was a good first try..and while better than brit or german attampts, the 59 had benefit of E/41's data et al

i wasnt so much trying to turn the 59 into a negative, as much as diffuse your contention that the 59 was so great comapred to the 178 and E/41, the 59 was 1st gen, but still in a different league than 178 or E/41

would be better to leave the 59 out of the 1st gen comaprison, given it wasnt a "virgin" as the 178, E/41 (and even that italian POS "jet")



Originally posted by Gibbage1:
OK. How bout you give us some stats on the He-280? You seem to have lots of faith in this aircraft, even though the data I found on the net is not very favorable.

again, refer to the links above i posted

top speed it ever flew would seem to be 817kph, and had very good all round performance

compared to the meteor of 2 yrs later, the meteor sucks...and it is reasonably close to the 80, of THREE yrs later, and better in many respects..imagine if it had full support during that time...it was only ever a private venture!


Originally posted by Gibbage1:
The 1 thing we agree on

yea, you're not all bad, GIb http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif



Originally posted by Gibbage1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">(by Daii)
p80 hold speed over he 280...manuverability? i dunno, but somehow i dont imgaine the p 80 could handle as well as a 190 anton...which the he 280 could


You dont know much about the P-80 then, or even less of the Anton. The P-80 was the only aircraft that could out-roll the FW, and lets just say about any fighter of the war could out-turn an anton. After that, its up too speed, and the P-80 as you said has it there. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

re-read my post...i bolded for you this time so u dont miss it...as said as much, that i dont know...that for informing me...although, the earlier antons (which this would be, the mock combat date was feb 42) were not bad at all in the turn...but while you mention the p80s roll, u say nothing of its turn? why? u dunno, or is it cuz the 280 would out-turn the p 80? one has roll, the other turn...a toss up



Originally posted by Gibbage1:
Lets do a little math.

P-80 has a 53lb/ft wing loading.
He-280 has a 40lb/ft wing loading.

Sounds favorable too the He-280? Ya. Im sure you would LOVE me to stop there. Lets take a look at the wing itself. Ow, ya. There are these two big engine pods on the wing. The area they occupy on the wing PRODUCE NO LOFT since it does not have an air foil. So, lets take that away from its wing loading. Lets say the engines take up 20% of the wing. That means instead of having 233 square feet of wing area that provides lift, it has around 195. That bring it to 48lb/ft. So much for the advantage. Thats going off of the ~9500lb weight that im guessings os for the un-armored prototype. Add a few hundred pounds of guns, ammo, and armor, and the two are on even grounds. Unless you wanna give me some proper numbers so I can fine tune the math?

again, refer to the posted links for info



Originally posted by Gibbage1:
Just keep telling yourself that, and maybe one day it will come true!! Maybe in your mind. I guess we will never know, so from your rose colored glasses, the glass is half-full... Of Nazi propaganda.

you know, of course, that 70%+ of my rides are 38s, 63s and 47s, no?
plz do NOT get me confused with "K" http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-mad.gif



Originally posted by Gibbage1:
Lol. Thats not saying much. The Vamp in 1944/45 was VERY underpowered. If that pig stood a chance vs your all-powerfull and superior He-280, then the P-80 would wipe the floor with it.

ummm you know as well i as, that ALL these types were under powered...was a LONG time before ANY jets crawled out from under low P/W ratios...and i NEVER called the 280 "all-powerful"...but yes, Gib, you ARE correct...the 280 was "superior" http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


Originally posted by Gibbage1:
Denial? Im giving you solid numbers, your giving me your asumptions based on no proof. You wanna end the denial? Show us some proof! Do you honestly think anyone is gonna sit here and say "Wow, he done told me! He said the He-280 was better, then it must be!". If you think so, your just kidding yourself. Go home, and bring back some numbers kid. Let the big boys debate, and keep your un-informed openions too yourself.

most here DO seem to deny the 280 was ever around, given they always forget about it, conveniently, and instead go to the 262...could that be cuz the 280 was so good for its time (spring 41), and wish to deny the fact that given that date, had it been supported, it WOULD have been quite awesome by the time the allied stuff could have shown up?

Daiichidoku
10-06-2006, 08:33 AM
Originally posted by DomJScott:
Curiously there was success in the Korean war for the Meteor... Reading in Wikipedia they shot down 5 Mig-15's (I assume for no loss) and where only relegated to ground attack when 4 where lost.............. in a 12 Meteor vs 40 Mig 15 fight.. Pretty good going for an 'obsolete' fighter... (bet a F86 would have struggled to lose less than 4 in that fight).

MiG15s were also killed by F 84s, Corsairs, and Skyraiders

so?

Slickun
10-06-2006, 09:35 AM
I think the Communists claimed 5 Meteors downed in one day.

They can't be wrong, since they did the claiming, right?

Abbuzze
10-06-2006, 11:23 AM
P80 and Me262 are a bad comparision. 262´s were already shooting down bombers when P80´s were still step away from such duty. (Even with the problems of the ME)

I think it is more interesting when the planes went into combat. If the war would be longer and if the P80 would apear in greater numbers, the HE162 would also be already in duty.
In such a scenario the 262 would be the bomberhunter with 2 engines and the He162 would be the cover. Similar to the 109/190.

If you like to compare the P80 - compare it to fighter with a similar layout and similar timeline.

When the P80 started an active career in WW2, the 262 would be alreay in interceptor role and succsessfull. The fighter a shooting star had to fear was the Heinkel.

ploughman
10-06-2006, 11:27 AM
Originally posted by Daiichidoku:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DomJScott:
Curiously there was success in the Korean war for the Meteor... Reading in Wikipedia they shot down 5 Mig-15's (I assume for no loss) and where only relegated to ground attack when 4 where lost.............. in a 12 Meteor vs 40 Mig 15 fight.. Pretty good going for an 'obsolete' fighter... (bet a F86 would have struggled to lose less than 4 in that fight).

MiG15s were also killed by F 84s, Corsairs, and Skyraiders

so? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So you forgot the Sea Fury too.

Gibbage1
10-06-2006, 11:35 AM
I think I agree with Abbuzza that a better comparison would be the P-80 too the He-162. He-162 was more like the P-80 then the Me-262 in terms of role, and time frame. It was a pure single engine fighter and from what I have seen, very evenly matched! Firepower would be even (3x .50's = 1 20MM) and the advantage would come down too the pilot I think. I still think the He-162 would benifit from putting that engine INSIDE the aircraft though.

Lets see some He-162 numbers VS the P-80.

Daiichidoku
10-06-2006, 12:17 PM
one of the reasons the 162 was designed and built so fast (even faster than the 80, AFAIK, from napkin to flight), and was produced in the numbers in was in such a short time was by virtue of its podded engine

make an airframe, plop a motor on top=teh simple

it would be a very even matched contest in many regards, although the rear view and construction standard for the Salamander would be to its hindrance

http://64.233.179.104/translate_c?hl=en&u=http://www.kh...Den%26lr%3D%26sa%3DN (http://64.233.179.104/translate_c?hl=en&u=http://www.kheichhorn.de/html/body_heinkel_he_162.html&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dhe%2B280%26start%3D10%26hl%3Den%26lr% 3D%26sa%3DN)
Span 7.20 m
Length 9.05 m
Height of 2.60 m
Surface 11.16 m2
Unloaded weight 1.663 t
Take-off weight 2.805 t
Service ceiling of 11 km
Engine 1x turbo-jet engine - BMW 003 E-1,
max. thrust performance 920 kp
Fuel capacity: 1,055 litres
H¶chtgeschwindigkeit in 6000m height of 905 km/h
Range max. 945 km
Crew 1
Armament 2xMG 151/20 ever 120 shot
Avionics: Join 24 R/T friend enemy identification join 2a

http://www.vectorsite.net/avhe162.html

spec metric english
_____________________ _________________ _______________________

wingspan 7.20 meters 23.6 feet
wing area 11.20 sq_meters 120.56 sq_feet
length 9.05 meters 29.7 feet
height 2.60 meters 8.5 feet

empty weight 1,660 kilograms 3,660 pounds
max loaded weight 2,800 kilograms 6,180 pounds

maximum speed 900 KPH 562 MPH / 489 KT
service ceiling 12,000 meters 39,400 feet
range 600 kilometers 370 MI / 322 NMI

Gibbage1
10-06-2006, 12:27 PM
"From mid-April, I/JG-1 had scored a number of kills, but had also lost thirteen He-162s and ten pilots. Most of the losses were from flying accidents, due to problems such as engine flame-outs and occasional structural failures. The difficulties with the type seem to have been due to the fact that it was rushed into production, not that it was an inherently bad design. One experienced Luftwaffe pilot who flew it called it a "first-class combat aircraft". "

Looks like it had some "teething" problems also. I remember reading the rudder was a problem. One of the captured He-162's lost its rudder in mid flight when testing. I have seen one of the only surviving He-162's many many times, and its fit and finish is just horrible. I guess thats just a product of a war torn nation strugling too stay alive. 13 aircraft and 10 men is not a good survival ratio for something with an ejection seat. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

Daiichidoku
10-06-2006, 12:41 PM
probably the best info online for the 162 (at baughers site, natch!)

http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/he162_mm.html (http://www.csd.uwo.ca/%7Epettypi/elevon/baugher_other/he162_mm.html)

Engine: one 800kg (1,764lb) thrust BMW 003E-1 or E-2 single-shaft axial flow turbojet
Dimensions: span 7.2m (23ft 7 1/2in)
length 9.0m (26ft 6 1/4in)
height 2.6m (8ft 6 3/8 in)
Weights: empty 1663kg (3,666lbs)
max loaded 2695kg (5,942lb)
Wing Area: 14.5m2 (156ft2)
Wing Loading: 29.25lbs/ft2
Performance: maximum speed 905km/h at 5950m (562mph at 19500ft)
890km/h at sea level (553mph)
cruise speed unknown
service ceiling 12040m (39,500ft)
initial climb 1405m/min (4615 ft/min)
range 975km (605miles)
Armament: two 20mm MG151/20 mounted in the wing roots [i beleive the loadout is 120 rpg?]

how does that compare to the P80A?

Daiichidoku
10-06-2006, 12:51 PM
Originally posted by Ploughman:
So you forgot the Sea Fury too.

not really....but it was so late, could barely keep my eyes open, and couldnt be bothered typing a few more characters http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

yes, the Sea Furys kicked *** in Korea too

berg417448
10-06-2006, 12:59 PM
Originally posted by Daiichidoku:
probably the best info online for the 162 (at baughers site, natch!)

http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/he162_mm.html (http://www.csd.uwo.ca/%7Epettypi/elevon/baugher_other/he162_mm.html)

Engine: one 800kg (1,764lb) thrust BMW 003E-1 or E-2 single-shaft axial flow turbojet
Dimensions: span 7.2m (23ft 7 1/2in)
length 9.0m (26ft 6 1/4in)
height 2.6m (8ft 6 3/8 in)
Weights: empty 1663kg (3,666lbs)
max loaded 2695kg (5,942lb)
Wing Area: 14.5m2 (156ft2)
Wing Loading: 29.25lbs/ft2
Performance: maximum speed 905km/h at 5950m (562mph at 19500ft)
890km/h at sea level (553mph)
cruise speed unknown
service ceiling 12040m (39,500ft)
initial climb 1405m/min (4615 ft/min)
range 975km (605miles)
Armament: two 20mm MG151/20 mounted in the wing roots [i beleive the loadout is 120 rpg?]

how does that compare to the P80A?

Specification of the P-80A:

Engine: One General Electric J33-GE-11 or Allison J33-A-9 turbojet, rated at 3850 lb.s.t. Later production blocks powered by 4000 lb.s.t. Allison J33-A-17.
Dimensions: wingspan 38 feet 10 1/2 inches (without wingtip tanks), length 34 feet 6 inches, height 11 feet 4 inches, and wing area 237.6 square feet

Weights were 7920 pounds empty, 11,700 pounds gross, and 14,000 pounds maximum takeoff.

Fuel load: 425 US gallons normal, 885 US gallons maximum.

Performance: Maximum speed was 558 mph at sea level and 492 mph at 40,000 feet.

Initial climb rate was 4580 feet/minute, and an altitude of 20,000 feet could be attained in 5.5 minutes.

Service ceiling was 45,000 feet.

Normal range was 780 miles, and maximum range was 1440 miles.
Armament: Six 0.50-inch machine guns.

http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p80_4.html (http://home.att.net/%7Ejbaugher1/p80_4.html)

faustnik
10-06-2006, 01:00 PM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:
I think I agree with Abbuzza that a better comparison would be the P-80 too the He-162.

I don't see how the He-162 program could be seen as anything alse than a failure. The goal was to produce an aircraft that was easy for an untrained pilot to fly and the opposite was created.

I think the tail seperation problem was due to the lack of some ingredient in an adhesive???

Gibbage1
10-06-2006, 01:09 PM
Honestly, I question this source. Here is why.


Originally posted by Daiichidoku:
Weights: empty 1663kg (3,666lbs)
max loaded 2695kg (5,942lb)


All sources I see put max load at ~6133.



Wing Area: 14.5m2 (156ft2)


Im finding two differant figures for this on the net. 156, and 120. Can anyone confirm what the wing are was?



Wing Loading: 29.25lbs/ft2


With the 120ft wing area and 6133lb im getting 50lb/ft2. Thats a huge differance. Its very compairable too the P-80's 53lb/ft2



Performance: maximum speed 905km/h at 5950m (562mph at 19500ft)
890km/h at sea level (553mph)
cruise speed unknown
service ceiling 12040m (39,500ft)
initial climb 1405m/min (4615 ft/min)
range 975km (605miles)


Very short legs. He-162 has 3.5lb per lb of thrust. P-80 has 2.3lb per lb of thrust. Clearly the P-80 has a lot better power to weight ratio, and Zero-lift drag coefficient 0.0134 is very sleek. I dont know how the He can get its top speed anywhere close to the P-80. Must be that magic german pixy dust Kurfy uses to figure the Me-262 can out turn a P-80 also.

With the power to weight, and wing loading, I would say the two are very close matches. Im not sure about roll, but I suspect the two to be close since all weight is central. Rate of climb is even (even with the great power/weight ratio?) and firepower is even. I would say the battle would depend on the pilot with these two, and the high ROF 6x .50 cal, K-14, and great visibility would give the pilot an advantage in a 1 on 1 fight. P-80's construction and robust engine is also an advantage, but not much when getting hit with 20MM's. It would be out of the fight with any hit. On the otherhand, it seems the He-162 is not very surviveable. So P-80 limps home, He-162 goes home in a body bag.



Armament: two 20mm MG151/20 mounted in the wing roots [i beleive the loadout is 120 rpg?]

how does that compare to the P80A?

This is whats irking me about your data. MG151/20 wing mounted? They were mounted in the belly. You can see them in the cockpit! Look below and behind the pilots seat.

http://www.wingermodels.rchomepage.com/16.jpg

Thats not wing root mounted. Not even close.

faustnik
10-06-2006, 01:19 PM
Hs162 or P-80, who cares? Neither saw any combat (yeah, maybe a single 162 fired its guns http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif ). Both were still in development during WW2. The 162 was rushed to combat units, well, because the LW was desperate to try anything. The YP-80 was rushed to Europe because the AF wanted to show our guys that we had jets too. The ONLY WW2 jets that counted were the Meteor, Me262 and Ar234.

A valid comparison is the Meteor and the Me262.

Abbuzze
10-06-2006, 01:21 PM
Yes pushing the rudder to far would destroy the plane. Brown warned another testpilot but he didn´t follow this hint.
If I remember correct there were landing accidents because of low fuel. The ejection seat will not help in this situation.
The 162 was under a kaizen process while building improvements were immediate made at the production lines. The wingtips for example. It was a kind of fighting prototype. Under this circumstances I would say it has a lot of potential.

berg417448
10-06-2006, 01:23 PM
Originally posted by faustnik:
Hs162 or P-80, who cares? Neither saw any combat (yeah, maybe a single 162 fired its guns http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif ). Both were still in development during WW2. The 162 was rushed to combat units, well, because the LW was desperate to try anything. The YP-80 was rushed to Europe because the AF wanted to show our guys that we had jets too. The ONLY WW2 jets that counted were the Meteor, Me262 and Ar234.

A valid comparison is the Meteor and the Me262.


Apparently the He-162 did see some combat:

http://www.vectorsite.net/avhe162.html

HE-162 IN ACTION

The first Luftwaffe unit to fly the He-162 was an evaluation unit named "Erprobungskommando 162", formed at the Luftwaffe test center at Rechlin under the command of Oberstleutnant Heinz Baer, a respected combat pilot who was credited with 200 kills.

46 He-162s were delivered to the Luftwaffe in February, allowing Baer's unit to acquire familiarity with the type. That month also saw deliveries of the He-162 to its first operational unit, the "Ist Gruppe of Jagdgeschwader 1 (I/JG-1)", which had previously flown Focke-Wulf 190s.

I/JG-1 was pulled back to Parchim, not far from the Heinkel factory at Marienhe, where the Luftwaffe pilots could pick up their new jets. They began intensive training on the type in March, but by that time the Third Reich was obviously on the threshold of collapse, and transportation and fuel supply was grinding to a halt under the pressure of Allied air attacks.

On 7 April, the USAAF bombed the field at Parchim with 134 B-17 Flying Fortresses. Two days later, I/JG-1 left their demolished facilities to move to a nearby airfield at Ludwigslust. Less than a week later they moved again, flying north to an airfield at Leck, in Schleswig-Holstein, near the Danish border. In the meantime, II Gruppe of JG-1 had moved to the Heinkel airfield at Marienhe to begin trading their FW-190s for He-162s.

* The He-162 finally began to see combat in mid-April. On 19 April, the pilot of a British Royal Air Force (RAF) fighter who had been captured by the Germans informed his interrogators that he had been shot down by a jet fighter, whose description was clearly that of a He-162. The Heinkel and its pilot were lost as well, shot down by an RAF Tempest fighter on the way back to base.
On 20 April, a Luftwaffe pilot successfully ejected from a He-162, though the reason for the hasty exit from his aircraft was not recorded. One possibility is that he simply ran out of fuel. The He-162's half-hour endurance was simply not enough, and at least two of JG-1's pilots were killed making "dead-stick" landings after exhausting their fuel.

On 4 May, all of JG-1's surviving He-162s were formed into a special consolidated "Einsatzgruppen (Special Action Group)", but this action amounted to little more than "rearranging the deck chairs on the TITANIC". On 5 May, the Germans agreed to a cease-fire and the He-162s were all grounded.

From mid-April, I/JG-1 had scored a number of kills, but had also lost thirteen He-162s and ten pilots. Most of the losses were from flying accidents, due to problems such as engine flame-outs and occasional structural failures. The difficulties with the type seem to have been due to the fact that it was rushed into production, not that it was an inherently bad design. One experienced Luftwaffe pilot who flew it called it a "first-class combat aircraft".

Erprobungskommando 162 fighters, which had been passed on to an operational unit under Adolf Galland a few weeks earlier, were all destroyed by their crews to keep the jets from falling into Allied hands. However, JG-1 cooperatively turned their He-162s over to the Allies, and examples of the fighter were then flown in the US, Britain, France, and the USSR.

One British pilot who evaluated the He-162 also praised it, though a second British pilot was killed in November 1945 during an air display at Farnborough when one of the tailplanes broke off, sending the fighter into the ground.
The design had some clear weaknesses, of course, such as its short endurance and the fact that the position of the engine left the pilot almost completely blind to the vital rear "six" position. Some sources also state that the back-mounted engine made the aircraft logitudinally unstable, rendering any maneuvers that "threw the aircraft around" unsafe.

However, in one sense the He-162 was remarkable: it was designed and flown in three months, and in the five months following several hundred were built under the most difficult conditions.
favorable to it. "

Gibbage1
10-06-2006, 01:23 PM
Lol. Faust. Did you forget what forum your in? As if anyone here is concerned about what REALLY happened http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif We are mearly asking what COULD of happened. Stop bringing in such things as "facts" into this forum.

P.S. 13 He-162's were lost in combat, killing 10 men in 1 squad. Thats a bit of action considering how little action the Luftwaffe had at the end.

faustnik
10-06-2006, 01:26 PM
OK, looks like some He162s got themselves shot down, probably didn't clear the runway before some P-51 or tempest strafed the cr4p out of them. They saw combat, I stand corrected.

Daiichidoku
10-06-2006, 03:31 PM
Originally posted by faustnik:
I think the tail seperation problem was due to the lack of some ingredient in an adhesive???

http://www.csd.uwo.ca/%7Epettypi/elevon/baugher_other/he162_mm.html

The unarmed He 162 V1 was rolled out at the beginning of December, and it made its first flight on the 6th at the Schwechat factory airbase near Vienna. The flight lasted 20 minutes until one of the gear doors fell off when the glue came undone during the high speed portions of the flight. Gotthold Peter turned around immediately and landed without problem. The flight was otherwise a success, the plane had reached a top speed of 840km/h at an altitude of 6000m (522mph at 19,700ft).

On December 10th Peter was again flying the prototype at Schwechat, this time in a show for Nazi officials. He was making a high speed run over the airfield when one of the wings came partly unglued and shed its starboard aileron. He quickly lost control and the plane rolled over into the ground and Peter was killed. The accident investigation found that the bonding agent for the wood was to blame, it was a new adhesive because the factory producing the usual glue had been bombed. The wing was then redesigned for greater strength.

Badsight-
10-06-2006, 03:31 PM
wasnt a Tempest pilot engaged by a He-162 ?

anyway Aeroplane magazine had a Kiwi pilot giving his account of flying for the RAF in Korea earlier this year

they had a Saber arrive at their base low on fuel running back home , him & the american pilot got to fly them off against each other over a 3 day period

this guy claimed the Meteor had the better zoom climb , & that he could out-turn the Saber

Daiichidoku
10-06-2006, 03:46 PM
more info on He 162 combat ops:

http://www.csd.uwo.ca/%7Epettypi/elevon/baugher_other/he162_mm.html

I./JG1 was declared combat-ready on April 23rd, but it had already claimed an RAF fighter on the 19th of April. Feldwebel Günther Kirchner was posthumously credited with the fighter when the captured pilot described the plane that had shot him down, Kirchner had been shot down and killed by another British fighter while returning to Leck. Although other planes would be claimed, this is the only kill for the He 162 that can be confirmed.

On April 20th, the only successful ejection in the 162 took place when Leutnant Rudolf Schmitt ejected from his 162, although no one seems to know why. Four days later Hauptmann Paul-Heinrich Dahne (commander of II./JG1) died when ejecting from his He 162 because the canopy did not come off. On the 2nd of May another victory was recorded by Unteroffizier Rechberger, who shot down an American P-47, and on the 4th Schmitt (unharmed from his ejection) shot down a British Typhoon near Rostock. The next day the war unofficially ended when a cease fire was accepted, and the Leck airfield was taken over by the British on the 8th of May.

http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/2072/He162.html

I./JG 1 was declared combat-ready on 23 April, after it had already claimed one British fighter on 19 April. Feldwebel Günther Kirchner was credited with shooting down a fighter when the captured pilot admitted he'd been shot down by a jet. Unfortunately Kirchner himself was shot down shortly thereafter by another British fighter. At least two other claims were made by He 162 pilots before the end of the war, although only one Tempest V can be confirmed from British records since a number of British aircraft were lost to unknown causes at times and places that match these other claims. At least one and possibly three He 162s were lost to enemy action

http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/he162.html#RTFToC1 (http://www.csd.uwo.ca/%7Epettypi/elevon/baugher_other/he162.html#RTFToC1)

The first He 162 fighters started to appear in squadron service in February of 1945. However, the introduction of the fighter into actual combat was deferred until all of the bugs could be shaken out and the aircraft was deemed completely ready. The general confusion and disintegration present in Germany in the last few months of the war caused hopeless maintenance headaches and chaotic supply situations. Aircraft and pilots were constantly being moved from one base to another to avoid advancing Allied forces. Many He 162s sat idle on their airfields, lacking either fuel or spare parts. Because of the general chaos, no fighter squadron was able to get itself sufficiently well-organized to send any He 162s into actual combat. It is possible that a few Allied pilots might have actually seen an He 162 in flight, but there is no confirmed account of any Allied aircraft ever encountering one in actual combat


some very differing views there

DomJScott
10-06-2006, 03:46 PM
Originally posted by Daiichidoku:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DomJScott:
Curiously there was success in the Korean war for the Meteor... Reading in Wikipedia they shot down 5 Mig-15's (I assume for no loss) and where only relegated to ground attack when 4 where lost.............. in a 12 Meteor vs 40 Mig 15 fight.. Pretty good going for an 'obsolete' fighter... (bet a F86 would have struggled to lose less than 4 in that fight).

MiG15s were also killed by F 84s, Corsairs, and Skyraiders

so? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Point is whilst it was considered obsolete a SMALL NUMBER of meteors had a respectable amount of success against superior jet's until they ran into over 3 times their number. Whilst I think is pretty impressive for an 'obsolete' fighter.

Daiichidoku
10-06-2006, 04:02 PM
@ Gib..if you took the time to read the linmk i posted, you'd see the sources

http://www.csd.uwo.ca/%7Epettypi/elevon/baugher_other/he162_mm.html

Heinkel He 162, Heinz Nowarra, Schiffer Publishing, 1993.

The Heinkel He-162 Volksjaeger, Greg Goebel, Vectors, June 2000

Information on the competitors and various planned follow-on versions are from Don Johnson's Luft'46 site.

Details on the production system are from The Heinkel He 162: A Salamander That Never Received its Baptism of Fire.

make of that what you will

i never wrote a word of it, merely copied n pasted what i read

go talk to Maury Markowitz
maury_markowitz@hotmail.com

heres what maury has to say about weights on his site:

Most measures and performance data in the table are taken from the primary source listed in the Sources section. I have used metric values as the primary form of measurement in most cases. The empty weight for the A-2 is sometimes listed at 1663kg while the loaded weight is always the same as above. The range figures are likewise "all over the place". If anyone has the definitive values, please forward them on.

he's the one that wrote that page..but if you read it, you;d know that


about weight, fully loaded: Baugher says it was 6200lbs
http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/he162.html#RTFToC1 (http://www.csd.uwo.ca/%7Epettypi/elevon/baugher_other/he162.html#RTFToC1)

differnt versions had differnt weights, explained here

http://www.csd.uwo.ca/%7Epettypi/elevon/baugher_other/he162_mm.html

The third and fourth prototypes both took to the air on January 16th, 1945. They had the new, stronger wing and a number of other changes, the most visible being turned-down wingtip extensions and larger vertical tails which were supposed to help with the directional instability. The various changes resulted in the He 162 weighing quite a bit more than the two tonne limit, the V4 weighed 2800kg (6,184lbs) fully loaded. However, the speed of the plane was considerably better than expected, the He 162 was capable of an astonishing 890km/h at sea level and 905km/h at 5950m, making it the fastest plane in the world

as for wing area, the 120 value is likely the original wing, once the droop was added in the new wing, with addional area from the "droop" this may explain the 156 value


i dont know what to tell you about the "wing mounted guns" tho, that does look pretty bad
btw, you neednt have "drawn me a picture", Gib, im quite aware of what make them wing mounted or not, and jsut where the guns on the 162 arehttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Daiichidoku
10-06-2006, 04:06 PM
@ Gib..if you took the time to read the linmk i posted, you'd see the sources

http://www.csd.uwo.ca/%7Epettypi/elevon/baugher_other/he162_mm.html

Heinkel He 162, Heinz Nowarra, Schiffer Publishing, 1993.

The Heinkel He-162 Volksjaeger, Greg Goebel, Vectors, June 2000

Information on the competitors and various planned follow-on versions are from Don Johnson's Luft'46 site.

Details on the production system are from The Heinkel He 162: A Salamander That Never Received its Baptism of Fire.

make of that what you will

i never wrote a word of it, merely copied n pasted what i read

go talk to Maury Markowitz
maury_markowitz@hotmail.com

he's the one that wrote that page..but if you read it, you;d know that


about weight, fully loaded: Baugher says it was 6200lbs
http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/he162.html#RTFToC1 (http://www.csd.uwo.ca/%7Epettypi/elevon/baugher_other/he162.html#RTFToC1)

differnt versions had differnt weights, explained here

http://www.csd.uwo.ca/%7Epettypi/elevon/baugher_other/he162_mm.html

The third and fourth prototypes both took to the air on January 16th, 1945. They had the new, stronger wing and a number of other changes, the most visible being turned-down wingtip extensions and larger vertical tails which were supposed to help with the directional instability. The various changes resulted in the He 162 weighing quite a bit more than the two tonne limit, the V4 weighed 2800kg (6,184lbs) fully loaded. However, the speed of the plane was considerably better than expected, the He 162 was capable of an astonishing 890km/h at sea level and 905km/h at 5950m, making it the fastest plane in the world

as for wing area, the 120 value is likely the original wing, once the droop was added in the new wing, with addional area from the "droop" this may explain the 156 value


i dont know what to tell you about the "wing mounted guns" tho, that does look pretty bad
btw, you neednt have "drawn me a picture", Gib, im quite aware of what make them wing mounted or not, and jsut where the guns on the 162 arehttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Daiichidoku
10-06-2006, 04:06 PM
Originally posted by DomJScott:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Daiichidoku:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DomJScott:
Curiously there was success in the Korean war for the Meteor... Reading in Wikipedia they shot down 5 Mig-15's (I assume for no loss) and where only relegated to ground attack when 4 where lost.............. in a 12 Meteor vs 40 Mig 15 fight.. Pretty good going for an 'obsolete' fighter... (bet a F86 would have struggled to lose less than 4 in that fight).

MiG15s were also killed by F 84s, Corsairs, and Skyraiders

so? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Point is whilst it was considered obsolete a SMALL NUMBER of meteors had a respectable amount of success against superior jet's until they ran into over 3 times their number. Whilst I think is pretty impressive for an 'obsolete' fighter. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

point taken

i wonder if the MiG flight was russian-led...

SkyChimp
10-06-2006, 05:54 PM
Originally posted by DomJScott:
Curiously there was success in the Korean war for the Meteor... Reading in Wikipedia they shot down 5 Mig-15's (I assume for no loss) and where only relegated to ground attack when 4 where lost.............. in a 12 Meteor vs 40 Mig 15 fight.. Pretty good going for an 'obsolete' fighter... (bet a F86 would have struggled to lose less than 4 in that fight).


There was success in the Korean War against the MiG by the F-80, too. But that doesn't make a competetive fighter. The simple fact is is that the Meteor, as well as the F-80 and F-84 were totally outclassed by the F-86 and MiG-15s as fighters. There's just no way around that fact.

VW-IceFire
10-06-2006, 05:59 PM
Hawker Sea Fury shot down at least 1 Mig-15...totally outclassed but in this case outflown by veteran pilots.

SkyChimp
10-06-2006, 06:00 PM
One thing I will say about the Me-262 versus P-80 debate is that the Me-262 appears to have been a more forward thinking design, and better forshadowed the course jet fighters were eventually to take. It was a very clean design, it has swept wings, and it had rather advanced axial flow engines. The P-80, while a good fighter for its time, used known technology - while the Me-262 delved into the realm of the future.

The Me-262 was more influential on future fighters than the P-80 ever was, IMHO.

Sergio_101
10-06-2006, 06:18 PM
Originally posted by SkyChimp:
One thing I will say about the Me-262 versus P-80 debate is that the Me-262 appears to have been a more forward thinking design, and better forshadowed the course jet fighters were eventually to take. It was a very clean design, it has swept wings, and it had rather advanced axial flow engines. The P-80, while a good fighter for its time, used known technology - while the Me-262 delved into the realm of the future.

The Me-262 was more influential on future fighters than the P-80 ever was, IMHO.

Here we disagree Chimpster.
The P-80 was the archetype for the future.
The fuselage mounted engine, seperating for service,
thin wings and chin air intakes were the future.
Swept wings were the only airframe artifact
from the Me-262.

Yes, axial flow engines were to dominate in
the near future.

Wing mounted engines were not to be seen in fighters
and the fuselage shape of the 262 is extremely bad
for high speed flight.
Note that the fuselage is at it's widest
at the wing root.

P-80 only lacked swept wings and a axial flow engine.
Later in the F-86 the all important "flying tail"
was introduced.

Sergio

Badsight-
10-06-2006, 06:24 PM
Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
Hawker Sea Fury shot down at least 1 Mig-15...totally outclassed but in this case outflown by veteran pilots. i have managed to get close to & bag La-7s while flying the cannon I-153

they were low on E & busy - it means nothing about the planes themselves

at low speed the straight-wing SeaFury probably is the nicer plane to manouver than the Mig-15

(probably has a better accelleration rate as well as a better initial climb ability when travelling slow than the Saber or Mig)

Sergio_101
10-06-2006, 06:30 PM
First jet vs jet kill was by a F-80 (P-80) against
a Mig-15bis.
Mig driver tried to turn fight the F-80.
F-80 was totaly out classed by the Mig-15.

Sergio

Badsight-
10-06-2006, 06:39 PM
ok Sergio_101 - 1st : some say that Mig was only damadged & wasnt lost . no confirmed crashsite & soviet reports have that mig landing back at base

& 2nd : it couldnt have been a bis Mig-15 , the improved model wasnt available at the time of encounter

how much of a DF it was isnt knowen , in high speed gunzo combat its who sees who first

that & teamwork mean little in comparison to plane performance , especially when the planes performance is close

Gibbage1
10-06-2006, 06:48 PM
Originally posted by SkyChimp:
The Me-262 was more influential on future fighters than the P-80 ever was, IMHO.

How many of todays fighter jets mount there engines in pods under the wings?

As for how much benifit the swept wings gave it in speed, the straight wing P-80 was still faster.

AKA_TAGERT
10-06-2006, 06:49 PM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SkyChimp:
The Me-262 was more influential on future fighters than the P-80 ever was, IMHO.

How many of todays fighter jets mount there engines in pods under the wings?

As for how much benifit the swept wings gave it in speed, the straight wing P-80 was still faster. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Good points

HellToupee
10-06-2006, 06:53 PM
tho how many civilian jets mount engines in pods under the wings, they are easyer and cheaper to maintain in that configuration.

With unreliable engines with short lives podded engines are definiatly the better option.

Gibbage1
10-06-2006, 07:11 PM
So the Me-262 was the future of passanger and cargo jets? Lol. I can see that. Easy acccess engine is possible with it inside the body. Ever see how easy it is to get to the engine of a P-80? The back slides off in 1 peace. But I guess that would take good engineering to figure that out. Even without a fussy 10 hour engine, the P-80 still had provisions for easy engine access.


Originally posted by HellToupee:
tho how many civilian jets mount engines in pods under the wings, they are easyer and cheaper to maintain in that configuration.

With unreliable engines with short lives podded engines are definiatly the better option.

HellToupee
10-06-2006, 11:00 PM
that being said its still easyer to work on a podded engine, especially replacing the whole thing. Its a practical layout there were other post war miltary jets with podded engines, one being a US one i belive.

With the quality of the 262s engines its impractical to have them placed internally, especially with how they could burst into flames. Performance gains of lag drag internal placment would have ment nothing to it, it was to shoot down bombers not to face anything even remotly close in performance.

Ob.Emann
10-06-2006, 11:13 PM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SkyChimp:
The Me-262 was more influential on future fighters than the P-80 ever was, IMHO.

How many of todays fighter jets mount there engines in pods under the wings? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

How many of today's fighter jets have straight wings and centrifugal engines?

Abbuzze
10-07-2006, 12:32 AM
Originally posted by Sergio_101:


Here we disagree Chimpster.
The P-80 was the archetype for the future.
The fuselage mounted engine, seperating for service,
thin wings and chin air intakes were the future.
Swept wings were the only airframe artifact
from the Me-262.

Yes, axial flow engines were to dominate in
the near future.

Wing mounted engines were not to be seen in fighters
and the fuselage shape of the 262 is extremely bad
for high speed flight.
Note that the fuselage is at it's widest
at the wing root.

P-80 only lacked swept wings and a axial flow engine.
Later in the F-86 the all important "flying tail"
was introduced.

Sergio

If you argue in this way the first flying jet of the world the He178 had similar features.
http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/LRG/images/he178-2.jpg
fuseledge mounted engine, also straight wings. A lot in common with the P80..

The way you argue makes a Ta 183 to a Mig 15 they have also a lot of optical things in common. Neither the 262 nor the P80 was a kind of archetyp for modern jets. They have both some interesting design aspects but nothing more. The wingmounted engines of the 262 have the advantage that other engines were much more easy to fit if they have a differnt size. So the idea behind was not that bad.


Gibabe, for the "faster wing" of the P80 - any source for this? What about lift? Less drag means allways less lift.
Do you have any comparable values for the ME?

Aaron_GT
10-07-2006, 02:29 AM
The initial design for the E.9/40 had an engine mounted inside the body with intakes mounted in the wing roots, like the P-80, and any projected fighter derivative was to have nose mounted cannon. As built it had a nose intake, like the Mig-15 or F-86. This lived on in the Gloster Ace and Rocket projects which were developed immediately after the Meteor was started. In the end the Ace and Rocket did not live up to expectations and were overtaken by Supermarine and Hawker with their designs, essentially made out of bits of Spiteful and Tempest technology married to a body reminiscent of the Ace/Rocket/P-80. Gloster didn't return to jets with a product until the rather slowly developed Javelin.

At the point the Meteor was designed the engine technology gave two options - a very small plane with an integral engine, like the E.9/40 design, but with short range, or something with a bit more range that would require two of the not very powerful engines. At the point of design it was not clear what engines would ultimately be available (and several were tried in the Meteor) so to avoid lengthy redesign requirements of internal structures it was decided to have them as podded engines, and the Ace and Rocket would use one or two engines internally as a later development once engine development was more clear.

If you look at the Me-262 development there was a similar thinking as German jet engine development was unclear at the time the Me-262 was designed and so podded engines gave more scope for putting on alternative jet engines without airframe redesign.

So in a sense the P-80 should be looked at as the generation after the Me-262 and more as a contemporary of the (failed) Ace and Rocket and the successful Vampire, as they came along only a short time later but when engine weights, dimensions, thrusts, capabilities, were a little more clear.

Sergio_101
10-07-2006, 02:52 AM
Originally posted by Sergio_101:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Abbuzze:
What about lift? Less drag means allways less lift.
QUOTE]

Now that's a bunch of horseshirt.
Less drag means less lift?
Not at all!

Yes, in a perfect world the idea would be true.
Less drag would mean less lift. But the Me-262
has a 1930's style airfoil. It's drag/lift ratio
should be poor at the trans sonic speeds
those early jets encountered.

P-80 had a very thin laminar airfoil.
Kelly Jhonson used the basic idea in the F-104.
Although not nearly the same airfoil, it also
had straight wings, and was very fast.

I doubt the data of lift to drag was ever published
for those two aircraft. I can not find it.

By the way, the most efficent wing to date for
high subsonic speeds is the wings of the Boeing
"7" series, at around 12:1

Sergio

Kurfurst__
10-07-2006, 06:07 AM
Originally posted by HellToupee:
tho how many civilian jets mount engines in pods under the wings, they are easyer and cheaper to maintain in that configuration.

With unreliable engines with short lives podded engines are definiatly the better option.

The comparison with civillian jets is interesting with the Me 262, as both operate in similair speed regime, and the layout, wing sweep, full-span slats used in the Me 262 is practically repeated even today on planes designed for the same speed range.

LStarosta
10-07-2006, 06:31 AM
How many of today's fighter jets fighter jets fighter jets?

Aaron_GT
10-07-2006, 08:02 AM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
The initial design for the E.9/40 had an engine mounted inside the body with intakes mounted in the wing roots, like the P-80, and any projected fighter derivative was to have nose mounted cannon. As built it had a nose intake, like the Mig-15 or F-86. This lived on [By which I mean internal engine(s) with a split intake) in the Gloster Ace and Rocket projects which were developed immediately after the Meteor was started. In the end the Ace and Rocket did not live up to expectations and were overtaken by Supermarine and Hawker with their designs, essentially made out of bits of Spiteful and Tempest technology married to a body reminiscent of the Ace/Rocket/P-80. Gloster didn't return to jets with a product until the rather slowly developed Javelin.

At the point the Meteor was designed the engine technology gave two options - a very small plane with an integral engine, like the E.9/40 design, but with short range, or something with a bit more range that would require two of the not very powerful engines. At the point of design it was not clear what engines would ultimately be available (and several were tried in the Meteor) so to avoid lengthy redesign requirements of internal structures it was decided to have them as podded engines, and the Ace and Rocket would use one or two engines internally as a later development once engine development was more clear.

If you look at the Me-262 development there was a similar thinking as German jet engine development was unclear at the time the Me-262 was designed and so podded engines gave more scope for putting on alternative jet engines without airframe redesign.

So in a sense the P-80 should be looked at as the generation after the Me-262 and more as a contemporary of the (failed) Ace and Rocket and the successful Vampire, as they came along only a short time later but when engine weights, dimensions, thrusts, capabilities, were a little more clear.

heywooood
10-07-2006, 09:50 AM
i was gonna poke this thread with my finger....but then I would have to wash my hands.

Maybe German jet aircraft and rocket engineering in the 1940's was inferior...but somehow - the evidence doesn't support that statement.

as to the comparison between the 262 and the P-80... apples and oranges.
One was a truely innovative jet aircraft design and one was a modified prop plane type in its basic configuration, albeit well modified and effective.

SkyChimp
10-07-2006, 02:23 PM
Don't get me wrong, I think the P-80 was a great jet for its day once it got its wrinkles ironed out. But AFAIK, there wasn't really anything innovative about it except that it was, well, a jet. It used proven technology of the day - straight laminar flow wings, centrifugal engine, machine guns, etc. It was a very clean design.

But the Me-262 was very much ahead of its time. Swept wings with slats, advanced (if unreliable) axial engines, cannons, very clean design.

When North American needed to build a jet that was superior to Republic's F-84, they looked to the Me-262 for answers - not the P-80.

Philipscdrw
10-07-2006, 03:16 PM
I read this thread, and wonder...

"How many pixies can dance on the head of a pin?"

Discuss please.

(By the way, quote-tags aren't difficult to use.)

The design of every aircraft in history was based on the Hawker Hunter. FACT.

HuninMunin
10-07-2006, 03:25 PM
Von Braun was the only reason the Americans were able to fly into space. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

*takes cover and drags the family in to witness the onslaught*

berg417448
10-07-2006, 03:43 PM
Originally posted by HuninMunin:
Von Braun was the only reason the Americans were able to fly into space. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

*takes cover and drags the family in to witness the onslaught*


The Russians got there first. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Sergio_101
10-07-2006, 03:55 PM
Originally posted by Badsight-:
ok Sergio_101 - 1st : some say that Mig was only damadged & wasnt lost . no confirmed crashsite & soviet reports have that mig landing back at base

& 2nd : it couldnt have been a bis Mig-15 , the improved model wasnt available at the time of encounter

how much of a DF it was isnt knowen , in high speed gunzo combat its who sees who first

that & teamwork mean little in comparison to plane performance , especially when the planes performance is close


"The MiG-15 was widely exported, with the People's Republic of China receiving MiG-15bis models in 1950. Chinese MiG-15s took part in the first jet-versus-jet dogfights"

I have the same problem you have. I have not
examined the wreckage.
Popular press says Mig-15, some say Mig-15bis.

Prove me wrong!

Sergio

WOLFMondo
10-07-2006, 04:26 PM
Originally posted by HH_Emann:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gibbage1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SkyChimp:
The Me-262 was more influential on future fighters than the P-80 ever was, IMHO.

How many of todays fighter jets mount there engines in pods under the wings? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

How many of today's fighter jets have straight wings and centrifugal engines? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Only one, and its currently the oldest flying jet in the world.

http://eu.airliners.net/photos/photos/8/0/3/1116308.jpg

Sergio_101
10-07-2006, 04:39 PM
Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HH_Emann:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gibbage1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SkyChimp:
The Me-262 was more influential on future fighters than the P-80 ever was, IMHO.

How many of todays fighter jets mount there engines in pods under the wings? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

How many of today's fighter jets have straight wings and centrifugal engines? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Only one, and its currently the oldest flying jet in the world.

http://eu.airliners.net/photos/photos/8/0/3/1116308.jpg </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Seems to me that at least one, maybe more airforce(s)
still fly armed T-33s as fighters.....
Not bad 62 years later.

F-104s have straight wings, a few NATO AF's still use them.
Last I heard the USAF has TF-104s at it's
supersonic training school.
Maybe retired? I don't think so.

Sergio

Daiichidoku
10-07-2006, 05:12 PM
technically, its the me 262

what with the new-build examples now flying n all http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

HuninMunin
10-07-2006, 05:13 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

mortoma1958
10-07-2006, 10:54 PM
Originally posted by HH_Emann:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Sergio_101:
P-80 was a very good performer, superior to
all other Jet fighters of the time. (yup, even the 262).

Yes, if speed, lateral stability, engine reliability, acceleration, and critical Mach are not part of the factor (note that I'm just comparing it to the Me 262). http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif



But there were a couple of P-80s in Europe and if it
was needed it could have been used.

Judging from the fact that this handful of prototypes were being grounded for reasons ranging from engine malfunction (which would make for the humiliating death of Richard Bong) to catastrophic structural failure, I don't see how they could have been used effectively, given the time frame. Even when the engine was vastly improved, the P(F)-80 was still a dog of a fighter, as evidenced by its less-than-spectacular performance in Korea. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Actually the F-80 was not a dog of a fighter. It actually is the first jet to bring down the dreaded Mig-15. At lower altitudes it was far more manueverable than the Mig-15. Problem was it was not a high altitude performer and was slower than the NA-F-86 Sabre. So the P-80 was relegated to other duties rather than fighter. Why use the F-80 when the F-86 was available?? But God help a Mig-15 if it tangled with a F-80 lower than 15,000 feet. The Mig pilots only option would be to use his higher speed to bug out. Mig pilots did not come down and toy with P/F-80s. They knew better, the F-80 could fly circles around it. F-80 was no dog, just a little outdated and under-powered.

Daiichidoku
10-07-2006, 11:50 PM
Originally posted by mortoma1958:

Judging from the fact that this handful of prototypes were being grounded for reasons ranging from engine malfunction (which would make for the humiliating death of Richard Bong) to catastrophic structural failure, I don't see how they could have been used effectively, given the time frame. Even when the engine was vastly improved, the P(F)-80 was still a dog of a fighter, as evidenced by its less-than-spectacular performance in Korea. Actually the F-80 was not a dog of a fighter. It actually is the first jet to bring down the dreaded Mig-15. At lower altitudes it was far more manueverable than the Mig-15. Problem was it was not a high altitude performer and was slower than the NA-F-86 Sabre. So the P-80 was relegated to other duties rather than fighter. Why use the F-80 when the F-86 was available?? But God help a Mig-15 if it tangled with a F-80 lower than 15,000 feet. The Mig pilots only option would be to use his higher speed to bug out. Mig pilots did not come down and toy with P/F-80s. They knew better, the F-80 could fly circles around it. F-80 was no dog, just a little outdated and under-powered.[/QUOTE]

in a way, the p 80 was a latter-day P 40

Abbuzze
10-08-2006, 03:00 AM
Originally posted by Sergio_101:

Now that's a bunch of horseshirt.
Less drag means less lift?
Not at all!

Yes, in a perfect world the idea would be true.
Less drag would mean less lift. But the Me-262
has a 1930's style airfoil. It's drag/lift ratio
should be poor at the trans sonic speeds
those early jets encountered.

P-80 had a very thin laminar airfoil.
Kelly Jhonson used the basic idea in the F-104.
Although not nearly the same airfoil, it also
had straight wings, and was very fast.


Sergio

Laminar foils have less lift than a convetional foil, and also a harsh stall behavior. The F104 has a similar idea like the 109 - the biggest engine to the smallest frame with small wings. The foil will offer not much lift, angle of attack is the key.

In general you can say less drag, less lift, of course a laminar foil offers some advantage in drag, but physics usual don´t give you something for free. If you want something- you have to pay for it.

Sergio_101
10-08-2006, 05:17 AM
Originally posted by Abbuzze:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Sergio_101:

Now that's a bunch of horseshirt.
Less drag means less lift?
Not at all!

Yes, in a perfect world the idea would be true.
Less drag would mean less lift. But the Me-262
has a 1930's style airfoil. It's drag/lift ratio
should be poor at the trans sonic speeds
those early jets encountered.

P-80 had a very thin laminar airfoil.
Kelly Jhonson used the basic idea in the F-104.
Although not nearly the same airfoil, it also
had straight wings, and was very fast.


Sergio

Laminar foils have less lift than a convetional foil, and also a harsh stall behavior. The F104 has a similar idea like the 109 - the biggest engine to the smallest frame with small wings. The foil will offer not much lift, angle of attack is the key.

In general you can say less drag, less lift, of course a laminar foil offers some advantage in drag, but physics usual don´t give you something for free. If you want something- you have to pay for it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Generally the lift to drag ratio is superior
for a "laminar flow" airfoil.
At high subsonic speeds a swept laminar airfoil
such as used on the Boeing 707 etc, is very efficent.
Nothing is for nothing, I agree.

Sergio