Don't know if this has been covered before, but if not- given equal pilots, which aircraft would have defeated the other.
it is not matter of plane, it the pilot that counts in a dogfight, even a underated plane in the proper hadns can be deadly
That's why I said "given equal pilots". For instance say Dick Bong in a P-80 was going up against Johannes Steinhoff in a Me262. Both aces with many victories and great ability. Have them start at 20,000 ft., airspeed 450kts. 10 mile seperation. They see each other at the same time and begin maneuvering to engage. Who would you put your money on. Does it go to Bong because he has a slight speed and max. ceiling advantage. He's in an aircraft that is a stable gun platform, with 6 weapons of proven effectiveness in air combat. They are quick firing but somewhat light. He has excellent visibility out his bubble canopy but his straight wings mean his craft has a slower roll rate than his opponent and compressibilty problems in a dive. On the other hand Steinhoff is in an aircraft with a more modern wing design which allows him to roll faster and dive away at a greater speed. His armament is designed to destroy heavy bombers with 2-3 hits and one round on target would destroy an opposing fighter. The 4 30mm cannon have a slow rate of fire and low muzzle velocity. This isn't a problem when attacking 4-engined bombers flying level at 160mph. Against a small fast moving target, rapidly maneuvering in a dogfight it would take a great deal of luck and even more skill to get one hit on a P-80 in the hands of an expert pilot. IMO the P-80 would win in this situation.
Wich 262? Me-262A-1/U1 had two 20mm MG 151 cannon with 146 rounds each, two 30mm MK 103 cannon with 72 rounds each, and two 30mm MK 108 cannon with 66 rounds each....wich would maybe be more suitable for fighter intercepts....Mk103 altough heavy had a much higher muzzle velocity compared to the Mk108
The P-80 would have the edge from engine reliability alone. And the P-80 was faster, more agile and had a slightly better range. But, the Me 262 had in general more powerful armament.
P-80 would probably win. The roll rate advantage gien by the Me262's wing would be cancelled out by the fact that the engines are on the wings - the closer all weight is to the centreline, the faster you roll.
The typical armament for the Me262 was 4 MK 103s in the air superiority version and 2 MK 103s in the fighter bomber, although like with almost all German aircraft there were any number of variants. One Me262 version was even armed with a 5-cm cannon for bomber busting.
Typical armament was 4 Mk108 (not 103...) Fighter bomber had just 2 Mk108...the Me-262A-1/U1 was a test version (only 3 built) to enhance its armament... I only wonder how the spread would be with 3 diffrent kinds of armament...not really concentrated fire i would gues?
The Me-262s were then shipped to the US on the Royal Navy "jeep" carrier HMS REAPER for further evaluation at Wright Field in Ohio. The tests there included a competitive fly-off against a Lockheed P-80 Shooting Star jet fighter that concluded the Me-262 was generally superior. Could someone clarify this... The Me-262 was faster than the F-80a at altitude....P-80 was faster at sea level!
I'd still give the Shooting Star the edge, if only because of its superior engine reliability. A 262 with a sick engine is nothing more than a stting duck, even to a piston engine fighter.
I don't know..those early P-80a's(engines) weren't that reliable either! The ones that were send to Europe were all grounded because of engine problems of wich one of those failures killed a pilot IIRC!
No early jet engine was relaible, either when compared to pistons or todays jets. The GE J33 was much more reliable than the Jumo 004.
This is true....but if the roll rate of the Me-262 is faster than a P-80 it wont really matter were the engines are does it (if it's roll rate is faster it's just faster)? What is the roll rate of a P-80 and what is it of a Me-262?
Those Early Ge J-33 were not reliable (as early aircraft had much problems with it) later they were....JuMo 004 were reliable (high life expectancy 200+ hrs) but later thatdeteriorated enormously (to only 20hrs or so)! The Avia S92/CS92 had JuMo engines as well but were reliable like the Ge J-33
I said no early (WWII era) jet engine was reliable, but even with it's early problems the GE was more relaible than the Jumo. Expectation was for Jumo life was 200+ hours, reality never matched that.
Actually those early engines did (because they were completly hand made)! The problems began when full production started!
