G-loads in WW2

Greg Hennessy wrote:

There was 54 in service by wars end, that is 'operational' by any rational
assessment.

The USAFAM's statement that, "Several early P-80s were sent to Europe
for demonstration, but WW II ended before the aircraft could be employed
in combat," is adequate for my purposes in claiming that the the early
P-80's had no record which would allow them to be compared to the ME-262
-- a simple statement of fact.

If you are offended by my use of the term "operational" to refer to an
aircraft which was already destroying the enemy, as opposed to an
airplane which had never fired a shot in anger prior to the end of the
war, I trust you'll get over it, eventually.


Jack

On Fri, 13 Aug 2004 02:52:43 GMT, Guy Alcala
wrote:

It seems to have been more of a proof-of-concept a/c than an operational
design. Its performance was lower than that of the piston engined
fighters it might have replaced, so there was no reason to put it into
production.

What is it you are trying to prove with this logic-chopping? The P-59A
was built in larger quantities than the Me-262s brought to the
U.S.--nine of them, as I recall. So the statement stands: there were
plenty of P-59As to serve as air show ooohs! and aaaahs! if all that
was wanted was a jet to fly past. You seem to be such a breathless fan
of the 262 that you can't read a simple English sentence.

What I said was: the USAAF didn't need the Me-262 for air shows if all
it wanted was to demonstrate a jet. There was something else going on,
and I suspect it had more to do with the shark-like good looks of the
262 than it did with the little frisson that came from its being
captured enemy stuff--and certainly more than it did with the 262's
performance, which couldn't have been obvious to the folks in the
grandstands, even at the close distances commonly used in those days.
(Twenty feet is mentioned in one account, for newspaper photographers
and newsreel cameramen.)

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
Expedition sailboat charters www.expeditionsail.com

Cub Driver wrote:

On Fri, 13 Aug 2004 02:52:43 GMT, Guy Alcala
wrote:

It seems to have been more of a proof-of-concept a/c than an operational
design. Its performance was lower than that of the piston engined
fighters it might have replaced, so there was no reason to put it into
production.

What is it you are trying to prove with this logic-chopping?

I was replying to your statement (which you presumably snipped inadvertently)

Interesting. A major reason why the Bell P-59A (first flight August?
1942 wasn't developed as a fighter was its instability as a gun
platform.

To which I replied:

It seems to have been more of a proof-of-concept a/c than an operational
design. Its performance was lower than that of the piston engined
fighters it might have replaced, so there was no reason to put it into
production.



The P-59A
was built in larger quantities than the Me-262s brought to the
U.S.--nine of them, as I recall. So the statement stands: there were
plenty of P-59As to serve as air show ooohs! and aaaahs! if all that
was wanted was a jet to fly past. You seem to be such a breathless fan
of the 262 that you can't read a simple English sentence.

I believe you have confused me with Robert Arndt or possibly Eunometic. And
I managed to read your paragraph above and reply to it just fine, Dan.

What I said was: the USAAF didn't need the Me-262 for air shows if all
it wanted was to demonstrate a jet. There was something else going on,
and I suspect it had more to do with the shark-like good looks of the
262 than it did with the little frisson that came from its being
captured enemy stuff--and certainly more than it did with the 262's
performance, which couldn't have been obvious to the folks in the
grandstands, even at the close distances commonly used in those days.
(Twenty feet is mentioned in one account, for newspaper photographers
and newsreel cameramen.)

That was part of what you siad, but as shown above, it wasn't the statement I
was replying to. Have we gotten that all straightened out now?

Guy

On Fri, 13 Aug 2004 17:52:11 GMT, Guy Alcala
wrote:

Interesting. A major reason why the Bell P-59A (first flight August?
1942 wasn't developed as a fighter was its instability as a gun
platform.

To which I replied:

It seems to have been more of a proof-of-concept a/c than an operational
design. Its performance was lower than that of the piston engined
fighters it might have replaced, so there was no reason to put it into
production.

Ah, sorry! I have been talking too much. I thought you were answering
another post.


all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
Expedition sailboat charters www.expeditionsail.com

In article ,
Cub Driver writes:

If the -262 had survived this long it probably would have been a bit
better than it was in 1945, too. The last time a flew a T-33 was 1971,

Ah, but it didn't survive, and the P-80/T-33 did. Given that the
Russians could and did build an exact copy of the B-29, why didn't
they replicate the 262 if it was so exceptional (as opposed to looking
great)?

In fact, the Czechs did. A couple still survive today in Czech museums.
IIRC, the French als operated a bunch of Ex-German equipment postwar,
from Fw 190s, through Me 262s, to Panther tanks. The only stuff that
remained in service were the Ju 52 transport, and the Feisler Storch
(Built in France as the Criquet), which proved rather useful in
Indochina in the late '40s.

That the P-80/T-33 is *still operational* with several air forces
suggests that it was a truly remarkable airplane. Never mind
turbojets--how many airplanes are operational 60 years after first
flight? I believe that the last Super Cubs were surplussed a year or
two ago by the Israelis. I suppose a few air forces are still flying
the DC-3/C-47?

The DC-3 still persists in U.S. Government (Although not military)
service. There's a jount NASA/NOAA project that's flying out of Pease
right about now - their main aircraft are a DC-8 and a P-3, but
they're using a DC-3 for logistic support. They're over by the Air
Freight Terminal.

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

Cub Driver wrote in message . ..
On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 14:34:10 -0400, (Peter
Stickney) wrote:

Esthetics - it just plain looks cool.

Surely the big item. I think it's fascinating that in order to get the
P-80 program off the ground, the USAAF toured air shows with the
Me-262. In American Raiders, Wolfgang Samuel says that people were
just bowled over by the sight of a jet.

There are reviews of several of Wolfgang Samuels Books. He is a
highly decorated RB47H pilot who immigrated into the USA from Germany
when his mother married a US serviceman. He is an excellent and
very readable writer on his experinces flying combat in the USAF, as a
young german boy witnessing the end of WW2 and as a Historian.

This is a bit of a bio and review of his 4 books.
http://www.rootsweb.com/~mnprgm/Wolfgangsamuel.html





Yet the USAAF had plenty of P-59As to put on air shows! The added kick
of this being war booty doesn't in my mind suffice to explain the
difference between a P-59A and a Me-262, if all you want is the thang
to come whining over and trailing the stink of kerosene.

Nichts! It's the *look* of the thing! It's gorgeous. Apart from the
Zero, I can't think of a WWII fighter that looks the role better than
the 262. It looks like it was designed by an Italian design shop that
was tasked with creating the best-selling interceptor of all time:

THE 1945 STORMBIRD!
ALL NEW!
ALL OVER AGAIN!

It's industrial design at its very best--or Madison Avenue, whichever
you prefer.


all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
Expedition sailboat charters www.expeditionsail.com

I never flew the P80 which is just as well because I am 6-2 and the 80
had a smaller cockpit than the 33. But I do have over 1000 hours in
the T33 and it's about as close to a fool-proof jet as they come. (now
that the early quirks were fixed!) Us Aviation cadets managed to
survive training in it - I will say I was using up the last of my
training time in the T-bird at Big Spring doing vertical rolls - I was
trying for 3 straight up when it ran out of airspeed -straight up. The
yaw string was pointing straight ahead as the low level light in the
fuselage tank illuminated but the good old T just hammerheaded gently
and we were pointing straight down and the airspeed needle moved back
up where it belonged. The engine never coughed at all, either. One
thing about the J33 engine - it wasn't very efficient but it was
pretty FOD-proof! As for range, the 80; even with its puny 165 gal
underslungs, it still had a 295 gallon fuselage tank and could go
farther out and fight than a Spitfire. The Tbird (230 gal tips and 95
fuselage; 813 total with wing and LE tanks)could give you 1200 miles
no-wind if you didn't have to go too far to the alternate. All in all
I'd like to have a Tbird right now - nice handling airplane, nice for
acro, and you can operate it out of 5000 feet of asphalt handily. We
did that at RGAFB (KCMO) when 17/35 was being worked on. Oh, and if
the J33 is up to snuff (and the pressurization) once the tips are dry
you can go up to at least 43,000 for cruise or whatever. That big
clear canopy is also good for star-gazing at night . . . .
Walt BJ