#1 Jet of World War II

The a/c's airframe and engines were
underdeveloped, and as a consequence it was as much of a threat to its
pilots as was enemy action.

I suppose that I (and other Me-262 fans) are overwhelmed by its good
looks. More than any other WWII, with the exception of the Zero, it
looks sinister. (The Zero was also a bit of a threat to its pilot

I read Mr. Whittle's bio a few years ago. IIRC, all he needed was official
backing (i.e., money) and he could have produced and perfected his gem far
earlier than historically.

Well, every genius thinks he's unappreciated.

It's true, he didn't get the money until September 1939, and that may
be a major reason why the Germans were ahead of him.

For all that, I suspect that the Whittle Unit was a dead end. It looks
like a collection of tin cans from a scrap drive. No other turbojet
looks remotely like it. Did even GE stick with the contraption very
long?


all the best -- Dan Ford
email: www.danford.net/letters.htm#9

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

"Cub Driver" wrote in message
...

The a/c's airframe and engines were
underdeveloped, and as a consequence it was as much of a threat to its
pilots as was enemy action.

I suppose that I (and other Me-262 fans) are overwhelmed by its good
looks. More than any other WWII, with the exception of the Zero, it
looks sinister. (The Zero was also a bit of a threat to its pilot

I read Mr. Whittle's bio a few years ago. IIRC, all he needed was
official
backing (i.e., money) and he could have produced and perfected his gem
far
earlier than historically.

Well, every genius thinks he's unappreciated.

It's true, he didn't get the money until September 1939, and that may
be a major reason why the Germans were ahead of him.

For all that, I suspect that the Whittle Unit was a dead end. It looks
like a collection of tin cans from a scrap drive. No other turbojet
looks remotely like it. Did even GE stick with the contraption very
long?



The Mig-15 was powered by Whittle type jet with a centrifugal
compressor and is considered to have been a rather significant
aircraft.

Axial flow engines were certainly the way ahead but centrifugal
engines were easier to build and around for quite a while.

Keith

"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message
...

Axial flow engines were certainly the way ahead but centrifugal
engines were easier to build and around for quite a while.


They are still around.

Where I can't agree with you yet is over whether the Me-262 is impressive.
Seems to me that a fighter which has trouble getting airborne, trouble
staying airborne for more than 25 minutes and which is unable to complete a
turn while over a single county

Hmmmm... can't agree with those statements. It had a far better takeoff
accident rate than the 109 and other than requiring a hard-surfaced runway, the
greatest difficulty in getting airborne was fighting their way through the
Mustangs over their base. As for its flight duration, 25 minutes was nothing
close to their sortie length. Logbooks I have seen suggest that four or five
times that was most common. The last comment, concerning their
maneuverability, is not true - while not as nimble as a P-51 or Yak, its good
to remember that neither of those fine aircraft were as nimble as a Po-2, or a
Sopwith triplane for that matter. When an aircraft possesses a speed advantage
that causes the enemy aircraft to "hang in the air as if motionless", such an
advantage will quite likely cause it to suffer somewhat in other performance
areas. Maneuverability isn't what kills you - that's usually a defensive skill
- its speed that kills. That, and overwhelming numbers!

v/r
Gordon

I suppose that I (and other Me-262 fans) are overwhelmed by its good
looks.

I think my fascination with it, and the Mosquito, were that they both were the
best each respective nation could field during the conflict. No other aircraft
over Europe, on their own, caused as much consternation among their foes or
brought as much terror to their intended targets. Goebbels mentions the hated
Mosquito in every diary entry he made in the last three months of his life,
with few exceptions. The RAF and many US heavy bomber crews were mortified
when they came under Me 262 attack. "Turbos" and Mossies raised the bar and
looked damned impressive while doing it.

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

"Gordon" wrote in message
...
Where I can't agree with you yet is over whether the Me-262 is
impressive.
Seems to me that a fighter which has trouble getting airborne, trouble
staying airborne for more than 25 minutes and which is unable to complete
a
turn while over a single county

Hmmmm... can't agree with those statements. It had a far better takeoff
accident rate than the 109 and other than requiring a hard-surfaced
runway,

The earliest Me-262s suffered from notoriously weak and unreliable
nose-wheels assemblies, which led to a number of fatal accidents. It was a
fault of fabrication, not design.The proper materiel in the proper numbers
weren't available. A trainer version was recognized as an urgent necessity
early in the a/c's development.

The Me-109 is acknowledged to have had a poor landing-gear design,
compromised due to the desire to obtain maximum streamlining.

the
greatest difficulty in getting airborne was fighting their way through the
Mustangs over their base.

I suggest instead that the greatest difficulty lay in simply getting the
engines started without a "hot start" occurring. Then the pilot was wise to
keep a keen ear to his radio while accelerating or climbing out for
"Achtung! Tempests!", etc. warnings, and also be alert for a flameout in one
or the other engine. Then, if he reached altitude, he was wise to pray for
smooth engine operation, without a flameout, which could have any of several
causes, no matter how carefully he managed his throttles.

As for its flight duration, 25 minutes was nothing
close to their sortie length. Logbooks I have seen suggest that four or
five
times that was most common.

Perhaps in the "Experten" squadron. Available to that organization was
presumably the best ground-crew and selected replacement parts, etc.
Otherwise, most Me-262s seemed to have to rtb early on account of
malfunctions usually related to the engines, which generally could not be
re-started in the air.

The last comment, concerning their
maneuverability, is not true - while not as nimble as a P-51 or Yak, its
good
to remember that neither of those fine aircraft were as nimble as a Po-2,
or a
Sopwith triplane for that matter. When an aircraft possesses a speed
advantage
that causes the enemy aircraft to "hang in the air as if motionless", such
an
advantage will quite likely cause it to suffer somewhat in other
performance
areas.

Unless the pilot of the opposing a/c is in a fighter, and is reasonably
alert. A typical USAAF tactic, if approached from the rear by an Me-262, was
to allow him to commit to a pursuit curve, then turn hard in one direction
or another. The Me-262 was found to be resistant to entering hard turns and
found to be all but impossible to reverse in turn without using up a lot of
sky, and would scream by, momentarily placing itself in tow of the US
fighter's guns, and rapidly bleed off speed to boot. In general, the
Me-262's preferred not to tangle with Allied escorts if at all possible.
They were supposed to bring down bombers, which were actually hurting
Germany, not insignificant Jabos, anyway.

I think it is fair to say that typically an Me-262 pilot had to devote so
much attention, upon becoming airborne, simply to a/c management, especially
wrt his engines, that his efficiency as a weapons system was severely
degraded.

Maneuverability isn't what kills you - that's usually a defensive skill
- its speed that kills. That, and overwhelming numbers!

In general, the maximum number of Me-262s available at peak numbers was
about 200. Too little. An unperfected airframe and engines. Too little
range. Susceptible to being downed by prop-driven Allied a/co. Too late in
arrival to be other than a "flash in the pan".

"Lawrence Dillard" wrote in message
...

The earliest Me-262s suffered from notoriously weak and unreliable
nose-wheels assemblies, which led to a number of fatal accidents. It was a
fault of fabrication, not design.


The earliest Me 262s did not have nosewheel assemblies.

"Frank May" wrote in message
...

Probably 'cause it's considered a "flying bomb" or an early cruise
missile. Technically, it IS an enemy aircraft since it has wings &
flies, but it wasn't piloted & wasn't much of an adversary in that
aspect.


Exactly. Air combat is combat which takes place in the air, shooting down a
V-1 is obviously air combat.

Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
thlink.net...

"Lawrence Dillard" wrote in message
...
SNIP

The earliest Me-262s suffered from notoriously weak and unreliable
nose-wheels assemblies, which led to a number of fatal accidents. It was
a
fault of fabrication, not design.


The earliest Me 262s did not have nosewheel assemblies.

OK, make that the earliest "operational" Me-262s. Thanks for the correction.