Historic Aviation => Warbirds => Topic started by: alyster on November 22, 2005, 08:23:11 PM

Title: P-80 and Me262
Post by: alyster on November 22, 2005, 08:23:11 PM
I know this site maybe isn't so into the oldies, but I'm not active in any other aviation forum.

In 1945 few P-80 were already used above Italy. They never acualy saw any battles there and in Korea they burned, MiGs were just so much better due to the wings ::). But what if P-80 would of seen Me262 over Italy or Southern Germany.

Me262 was more usefull against bombers, not fighters due to it's abilty to lose speed easly and it was hard to get the high speed back. When it was on low speed Mustangs ate it alive.
I'm not an expert with P-80. Was it any better then Me262 or did it have similar problems and was even worse?
Title: Re: P-80 and Me262
Post by: Webmaster on November 23, 2005, 12:09:00 AM
Not sure, but at least the P-80 had its power source embedded in the airframe instead of underwing pods...maybe this makes it a better design than the Me262, with less load on the wings. You know modern days jets with or without external fuel tanks makes a big difference in terms of performance. Also the single Allison engine in the P-80 has more thrust than the two combined on the Me262... so I'd bet on the P-80 for sure, maybe it would have been a different story if Hitler would have let it develop as a true fighter instead of bomber/fighterbomber.
Title: Re: P-80 and Me262
Post by: alyster on November 23, 2005, 03:38:19 PM
Now we can say the engine part was a mistake, but at that time jet plane was so new thing, that I don't think noone really knew where to but the engine, so they just guessed. Like if we'd look at He-162, Me-163 and Me-262 - 3 totaly different ways  8)
Btw now I'm already wondering what if Me263 would of made it to the front, but that's a nvm  : :)

The bombing part wasn't such a mistake, like many say it is. The prototype was already ready and then Hitler asked Messerschmitt if the plane can carry bombs. Surely he was anwsered yes. Building it into fighter-bomber plane took only about 3 weeks. So I hardly doupt that it would of changed anything if it would of been just fighter.
Title: Re: P-80 and Me262
Post by: alyster on December 25, 2005, 02:21:11 PM
The reson I asked about the wing loading in the other subject was that I was trying to write an essey in estonian about Me262 and P-80 for another site. Reading Mike Spicks books has made wing loading one important thing for my mind in WW2 times planes. And now I can say that the trouble I had to search it up(looking the translation, troubling u guys and then looking the number for another 2h, I even tried to calculate it, but the fuel tank like things on the edge of the wings made it impossible) payed off, cause wing loading is the only advantage I found for Me262A*. 
BTW one thing that hasn't been mentioned here was also the firepower. P-80 had 6*50cal, Me262 had short range 4*30cal.

* Me262B has also it's advantages by being night fighter. Night fighter from P-80(F-94) was ready in 1949.

But thank you for the help with wing loading
Title: Re: P-80 and Me262
Post by: gman on March 10, 2006, 05:01:18 PM
One slight correction.  The P-80 had 6 x .50Cal MG's, and the Sturmvogel had 4 x 30mm cannons.  The firepower advantage was entirely with the Me262.
Title: Re: P-80 and Me262
Post by: alyster on March 10, 2006, 08:03:56 PM
Me262's ammo had very low starting speed(v0) and there for it's effective shooting range was too small. It had to get very close to enemy planes.
Title: Re: P-80 and Me262
Post by: Zeke on March 13, 2006, 02:23:49 PM
But the striking power of the 4x 30mm cannons was just immense, and with a good pilot who knew the ballistics you could get decent range out of it all.
In the end I think it comes down to the pilots and by that time of the war the American pilots were in general much superior as many of the German "Experten" had perished or burned out.
Title: Re: P-80 and Me262
Post by: alyster on March 13, 2006, 03:00:15 PM
If he gets in range. The time being in range was so small. The bombers were slow, Me262 super fast and so it was hard  being in range long time enough to acualy kill a bomber.
I'd surely go with P-80's 50cal then German 30mm, at list with jet vs bomber.

Germans were unhappy with their results of the 30mm so they even tried 50mm. Does anyone have data how that thing worked?
Title: Re: P-80 and Me262
Post by: Zeke on March 13, 2006, 04:24:22 PM
If you're talking fighter v's fighter then I'd go with the P-80 anyday, but i'd use the 262 to take down the bombers.

The 50mm cannon was a MK214 from what I remember, fitted with and auto loader and carrying about 10 shots. Apparently it was used a couple of times operationally and a few claims were made for it. It was supposed to be extremely hard to aim properly but if you did hit anything the 50mm shell would just tear it apart.
The Americans tested one tof the 262's fitted with it after the war. I wonder what they thought of it?

Title: Re: P-80 and Me262
Post by: Zeke on March 15, 2006, 11:02:08 AM
I did a bit more reading about this particular one and apparently only 3 of this type were ever made, the first had the 50mm BK5 cannon and the next two and the more effective Mk214A tht could fire at up to 150rpm
Surprisingly the pilots say that the huge gun made almost no difference to the ME262's handling with a ballast weight in the rear fuselage to counter the mass up front and the recoil was so effectively damped that the only real effect on firing was a loss of yaw stability.
Two B-17's have been claimed as destroyed but this is still under debate (like so much information from this time).

The 262 was done out with a whole stack of different armamnet fits, all sorts of various cannons and rockets were tried, even aerial bombs and bombs with V1 wings being towed behind the fighter...ha ha ha, those crazy Germans!... ;D