#1 Jet of World War II

Peter Stickney wrote in message ...

I just double checked, he numbers I gave are a bit muddied-up, too.
I've two Pilot's Handbooks for the Mosquito, one for the FB.6
(Fighter-Bomber) from 1950, and one for the various single-stage
Merlin Night Fighters, published in 1945. The numbers I quoted were
from the FB.6 handbook, and the NF.12 handbook is different. The NF.12
book lists best cruise as 220 mph IAS, which is nudging 330 TAS at
25,000'. and 360 TAS at 30,000'. It's possible that the FB.6 numbers
are for an airplane carrying external bombs and rockets, but it
doesn't say.

Sounds like the time to add the information from the book Mosquito
by Sharpe and Bowyer.

The FB6 used Merlin 21/22/23/25, the NF12 merlin 21/23.

Appendix 8, performance of the B35 (merlin 114) versus the FB6
(merlin 25).

B35, 22,000 pounds, bomb load 1,500 pounds including 2 x 500
pounds bombs under the wings, 539 gallons of fuel, still air range
1,600 miles at 25,000 feet at 300 mph TAS, 1,250 miles at 37,000
feet at 375 mph TAS. Top speed 425 mph at 30,500 feet.

FB6 21,700 pounds, bomb load 1,500 pounds including 2 x 500
pounds bombs under the wings, 453 gallons of fuel, still air range
1,120 miles at sea level at 250 mph TAS, 960 miles at sea level
at 296 mph TAS. Top speed 378 mph at 13,200 feet.

The Merlin 72/73 or 76/77 versions (VII, IX and XIV) outward
recommended cruising speed 220 mph IAS, economic cruise
in clean condition was 295 mph TAS at 20,000 feet and 350
mph at 30,000+ feet, maximum continuous cruising, clean,
349 mph TAS at 20,000 feet, 378 mph TAS at 30,000 feet.

For the merlin 21/22/23/31 equipped versions maximum
continuous cruise was 341 mph TAS at 20,000 feet but this
fell to 329 mph at 25,000 feet, I assume in clean condition.
Again outward bound recommended cruise was 220 mph
IAS at around 25,000 feet.

The return flight recommendation was for around a 5% reduction
in cruise speed compared with outbound, 210 mph IAS.

Geoffrey Sinclair
Remove the nb for email.

On 15 Jul 2003, ArtKramr wrote:

That is a very interesting number. I can't help but compare it to the B-26
which got its best range at 180 IAS loaded with steel plate armor and bristling
with machine guns and carrying a crew of 6. Take off the armor, take off the
guns and top turret and cut the crew to two and the B-26 may well have
outperformed the Mosquito by a large margin..

But, as you say, an unarmed and unarmored B-26 would have been of
"no value".

OTOH, the Brits found the Mosquito of some considerable value in a
variety of roles. As did the USAAF which acquired quite a number of
mosquitoes.

Cheers and all,

Subject: #1 Jet of World War II
From: (The Revolution Will Not Be Televised)
Date: 7/4/03 11:41 AM Pacific

er, if you did, and you served in the RAF in
the 2nd Tactical Air Force at the time in question, please pass on the
information.

No. I served in the 344th Bomb Group, 494th Bomb Squadron of the 99th wing of
the 9th Air force, But you see the Luftwaffe was a very democraticc
organization They didn't restrict their hits to the RAF 2nd Tactical Air
Force. They would hit anybody any time. , The Luftwaffe was an equal
opportunity hitter.

..
Arthur Kramer
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

On 04 Jul 2003 18:55:13 GMT, (ArtKramr) wrote:

er, if you did, and you served in the RAF in
the 2nd Tactical Air Force at the time in question, please pass on the
information.

No. I served in the 344th Bomb Group, 494th Bomb Squadron of the 99th wing of
the 9th Air force,

So you didn't serve in 2nd TAF or experience operations on the 2nd
TAF area of operations? If not, why are you commenting on such
operations which you did not personally experience, given your own
views about such an approach, as posted to this group on numerous
occasions?

But you see the Luftwaffe was a very democraticc
organization

I was unaware that the Luftwaffe was a democratic organisation.

They didn't restrict their hits to the RAF 2nd Tactical Air
Force.

Again, who said they did?

If you want to criticise the points I'm making, it would help your
case if you could discern what they were in the first place instead of
making up all these straw men of your own and attributing them to me.


In the remote chance that you actually are interested in responding to
the points I have made, I again direct you to the comments and points
you have already refused to answer in the " #1 Piston Fighter was
British" thread.

They would hit anybody any time. , The Luftwaffe was an equal
opportunity hitter.

By all means post your experience of combat with Me 262's if you want,
but if you're doing so in a followup to my post, criticising the point
about the prevalence of contact with Me 262s for the Gloster Meteors
in 616 Squadron in 1945, please reference your direct personal
experience of precisely such operations. Otherwise you're laying
yourself open to accusations of hypocrisy, just as you are when
talking about teaching Chaucer when you never personally experienced
the events involved in The Canterbury Tales or even spoke Middle
English to a native Middle English speaker.

Gavin Bailey
--

"...this level of misinformation suggests some Americans may be
avoiding having an experience of cognitive dissonance."
- 'Poll shows errors in beliefs on Iraq, 9/11'
The Charlotte Observer, 20th June 2003

ubject: #1 Jet of World War II
From: (The Revolution Will Not Be Televised)
Date: 7/5/03 1:39 AM Pacific Daylight Time
Message-id:

the 2nd Tactical Air Force at the time in question, please pass on the
information.

No. I served in the 344th Bomb Group, 494th Bomb Squadron of the 99th wing
of
the 9th Air force,

So you didn't serve in 2nd TAF or experience operations on the 2nd
TAF area of operations? If n

I would be interested in your experiences with the 2nd TAF. Y'know basic simple
stuff .Missions flown. Targets attacked. Y'know, simple stuff. We guys who led
the charge flying the tip of the spear gotta stick together.It's only right.

Arthur Kramer
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

Hi the Meteor was used to shoot down V1 missiles it was quite good at it!
too so it was band from front line service i think until the end of the war.

True - it's straight line speed was perfect for the running chase. In this
footrace, its lack of maneuverability was not a hindrance. Later marks of the
fighter were quite an improvement and by all accounts corrected their earlier
faults.

v/r
Gordon

In article ,
nt (Gordon) writes:

Hi the Meteor was used to shoot down V1 missiles it was quite good at it!
too so it was band from front line service i think until the end of the war.

True - it's straight line speed was perfect for the running chase. In this
footrace, its lack of maneuverability was not a hindrance. Later marks of the
fighter were quite an improvement and by all accounts corrected their earlier
faults.

In the case of the Meteor vs. V-1 situation, it's not jet a matter of
speed, so much, as the altitude at which you could reach that speed.
Jets, by and large, and most definitely, in the case of the Meteor,
develop their maximum thrust at sea level, and it begins to drop
immediately as you gain altitude. (Although not as quickly as a piston
engine above its Critical Altitude) The piston-engined fighters named
all had supercharged engines, and developed their maximum power at
heights well above Sea Level. In other words, 1000 HP at Sea Level,
and 1000 HP at 20,000' would generate teh same amount of thrust for
any particular speed. (See my previous posts on the Speed/Power
relationship). This biases the performance of the piston-powered
airplane toward the higher altitudes. A particularly germane example
is from a chart of Level Speed Performance for several types of
aircraft, from a Central Flying Establishment Report from July 12,
1946. Two of the aircraft being comared are the Meteor III and the DH
Hornet I. (Perhaps the ultimate Brit Recip fighter).
The Hornet is about 7 moh faster at 24,000 ft, and has a speed
advantage from about 22,500' through 33,000'. But a sea level, the
Meteor has an advantage of nearly 70 mph, (465 mph vs. 398.) The
other Piston fighters ahare the same basic characteristic curve,
although mot as fast as the Hornet. For example, a Mustang III, with
a V1650-7 at Military power (61"/3000R) turn in about 348 mph @ SL,
and 438 @ 27.500'. (Oh, and to be complete, the Spit XIV clocked 360
@ SL, and 448 @ 26,000'. (Griffon 65, +18 boost (67"). So,
basically, the Meteor, and, in fact, any jet, had a tremendous speed
advantage at low altitudes, even if it was at a disadvantage at high
altitude. That's what made the Meteor so useful as a V-1 interceptor.
(BTW, all of the piston fighters outclimbed the Metor III - that's why
I need to rebuild things to check on the case of high altitude Mossies
vs. Me 262s.)


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

"machf" wrote in message
news
On Sat, 28 Jun 2003 14:11:47 -0500, Alan Minyard
wrote:

On 28 Jun 2003 07:07:11 -0700, (Kenneth
Williams) wrote:

The Gloster Meteor, of course!

The Jerrys may have had many of aviation's "firsts" with their jets
but lacked anything good enough to last beyond a few years. The Meteor
lived well beyond the war and established itself quite well.

Too bad you Yanks had such misfortune with that horrid XP-59 and
troublesome XP-80 aircraft.

Keith, you are not really being fair to the US jet a/c you mentioned.

Remember that the P-59 was ordered as a "proof of concept" a/c, to
demonstrate that US forms could adapt to the new technology with respect to
manufacturing procedures, etc. The P-59 was outfitted with direct copies of
a "weak" (so to speak--1st generation) Whittle turbojet. Because of its
experimental nature, it was terrifically overbuilt (and hence noticeably
overweight). If you can locate the performance figures for the 1st batch of
P-59s and compare them to the same for the first batch of "Meatboxes", you
will find close similarities. Later P-59s had more powerful engines, but
featured little or no change in weight because no effort was expended in
productionizing the bird. In short, the P-59 was never intended for combat
use. There was no "misfortune" involved with the P-59 for the USAAF,
although Bell Aircraft may have missed the boat with a too-conservative
approach to its design and development. Bell ignored suggestions to "prove
the concept" by simply fitting a pair of the Whittles to the undersurfaces
of a P-39's wings, then asking for a contract to develop a serious fighter.

I believe also that you mischaracterize the P-80. It was constructed in a
remarkable short time during 1943 to take an Halford engine, then in short
order essentially re-designed and enlarged in order to take a more powerful
engine, also adapted from the British.

The major "problem" associated with its early use was overconfidence on the
part of the first pilots who flew them. A second was a flaw in the
fabrication of early turbine blades, which came from the factory with
impurities near the tips which weakened their structure, and hence would
fail at normal operating temperatures. Another flaw was the fuel system,
again drawn from British practice, which took power via gears from the
powerplant. It was discovered that at max throttle, such as used at takeoff,
this system could not always guarantee sufficient fuel flow sustain
combustion, leading to flameouts; a simple solution was to fit an auxiliary
fuel pump, which was supposed to be engaged by the pilot prior to takeoff,
and during the landing approach, as a precaution. On a number of occasions,
crash investigation discovered that the pilot had failed to engage the aux
pump.

Meeting and overcoming unanticipated development problems is part and parcel
of making a warplane operational. The contrast in time-frames between the
Me-262's initiation and its "readiness" for combat and that of the P-80's is
remarkable. By 1945, the P-80 demonstrated docile engine characteristics,
the ability to operate at 39-40,000 ft altitude, reliable powered ailerons,
no controllability problems, high overall quality control, an efficient
laminar-flow wing, and the ability to take off on a mission, climb to cruise
altitude, fly 500 miles, drop tip-tanks, and fight at 100 per cent power for
15 minutes before having to return to base, with enough fuel remaining for
one missed approach.

The basic design, hailing from 1943, proved adaptable of taking engines of
from 4,000 to in excess of 6,000 lbs thrust; of being the basis for a very
successful two-seat land-based trainer; the basis for a two-seat
radar-equipped rocket-firing all-weather interceptor; of being adapted for
carrier-borne pilot training; and of accepting afterburning for increased
acceleration and climb. The F-80 gave excellent service in the Korean
conflict, obtaining the first victory in all-jet combat, downing a
Soviet-built Mig-15.



Kenneth Williams

Actually the P-80, in its various iterations, served quite long and
well.

I'm not sure, but I think the Bolivian Air Force still has (or had until
very
recently) its T-33s in service.

--
__________ ____---____ Marco Antonio Checa Funcke
\_________D /-/---_----' Santiago de Surco, Lima, Peru
_H__/_/ http://machf.tripod.com
'-_____|(

remove the "no_me_j." and "sons.of." parts before replying

the P-59 was never intended for combat
use.

Hap Arnold certainly thought he was getting a combat airplane in the
P-59A (not to be confused with the never-built P-59). If he'd wanted a
test-bed, he could have ordered something on the order of the Gloster
Carter Farter or the little Heinkel.

This thread is a bit silly. There was only one jet fighter in WWII,
and that was the Me 262. Getting there too late for combat (P-80)
doesn't count. Chasing V-1s (Meteor) doesn't count. Being deemed
unsuitable for combat (P-59A) doesn't count. The only thing that
counts is shooting down enemy aircraft.

Anyone who has followed my postings on the German air force knows that
I'm not a greater admirer of its war-fighting record. But in the case
of the Me-262, the Germans built a handsome, innovative, and
terrifying war machine. We can all be grateful that it came too late
to make any difference in how the air battle over Germany worked out.

all the best -- Dan Ford (email: info AT danford.net)

see the Warbird's Forum at http://www.danford.net/index.htm
Vietnam | Flying Tigers | Pacific War | Brewster Buffalo | Piper Cub

On Sat, 05 Jul 2003 06:09:22 -0400, Cub Driver
wrote:

This thread is a bit silly. There was only one jet fighter in WWII,
and that was the Me 262. Getting there too late for combat (P-80)
doesn't count. Chasing V-1s (Meteor) doesn't count. Being deemed
unsuitable for combat (P-59A) doesn't count. The only thing that
counts is shooting down enemy aircraft.

The Meteors did force down a Storch.... That's a little unfair, they
also made several strafing claims. They were too late to have any
significance, but this also applies (to a lesser extent) to the 262 as
you point out.

Gavin Bailey
--

"...this level of misinformation suggests some Americans may be
avoiding having an experience of cognitive dissonance."
- 'Poll shows errors in beliefs on Iraq, 9/11'
The Charlotte Observer, 20th June 2003