What if the Me-262 was created earlier?

How successful were the actual Nachtjagd Me 262s that did come into service?

 

as I am going to cover the victories in my book I must say more successful than one imagines Za. will not give out the count yet but with the training, most pilots had been taken from the night fighter training schules as instructors or had previously flown bombers at night and those that were active in NJGr 10 and JG 300, NJG 11 as fighter pilots flying Bf 109G's on missions. the down side is that at least from the starting point the familization trials took their toll of accomplished new pilots, stalls, flame-outs and crash landings.

Happy New Year M and much success with the restaurant eh ~

 

From what I've seen on the answers to this thread & also my own personal knowledge. My opinion is that the ME262 & others of the same Jet ilk, because of there infancy of technology could never be superior to it's piston engined counter-parts. The P51, which I consider to be the best fighter of WW2 may have been a bit slower, but it was better for reliability, manouvering in a dog fight with a ME262, user friendliness et al... I can't back all this up with stats, but I know what I have read & seen on documentaries!

.........& while i'm here. Happy new year to all the threaders!

PS. Za Rudinu. That is a great picture of a 262 with the cannon up front!

 

The raf would have problems shooting them out of the sky

 

For the Me 262 to be created earlier would depend on the British to invent and develop the gas turbine earlier, there seemed throughout the war to be a real parity of fighting machines, so Im sure had jerry used the jet engine sooner, the USA and Brits would have developed similar machines to sustain a status quo.

 

Why does development of jets in Germany require Britian to invent or develop gas turbines? Development of this propulsion system occured independently and along parallel lines in Britain and Germany at the same time. One does not depend on the other.

 

That might be a tad wrong, but I don't think completely. But then again one has to put themself back into the Great Britain which was "busted flat" as a result of WW1.

Frank Whittle was the first to register a patent for the centrifugal turbojet engine in 1930, and unlike von Ohain he had to develop his engine on his own and investor’s money, form his own company (Power Jets Ltd.), while being ignored by both the government and engine/aircraft manufacturers. No funds to spare. The RAF itself seems to have always believed in Whittle’s idea and helped him all they legally could.

Whittle always maintained that if his ideas had been adopted earlier Britain would have developed a jet-propelled fighter aircraft before the outbreak of WW2, giving it an enormous advantage against the Nazis. I don't know what a jet powered "Spit" would have been like, but I doubt the Nazis would have been too keen on picking a fight with it! But his invention was met with mostly economic influenced indifference by the authorities, who claimed it would never work. Let’s not ignore that after Whittle took out a patent to protect his turbojet idea it was duly published by the Patent Office. "Someone" must have seen its potential since the German diplomats in London wasted no time ordering copies of the patent, and circulating them back in Germany. But when the patent expired in 1935, the British Air Ministry (in their infinite wisdom) refused to pay the £5 renewal fee as the patent lapsed.

Hans von Ohain was granted a patent for his own centrifugal turbojet engine in 1934, and was funded and backed by Heinkel from 1936 on. Now, while I don’t doubt von Ohain’s honesty here, it isn’t outside the realm of possibility that he saw the copies of Whittle’s patent while still in university, and developed his own engine from this. Von Ohain’s jet propulsion engine design was similar in concept of Sir Frank Whittle's but slightly different in internal arrangement. Whittle and von Ohain seem to have had no animosity toward one another, and were recognized as co-inventors of the turbojet engine by the International Aeronautic Society.

That said however, Hans von Ohain's jet was the first to fly in 1939. But both Whittles (W-1) and von Ohain’s (He S-3) engine were centrifugal flow, not AXIAL flow like the Wagner style engine developed by Jumo (and BMW), which was installed on the Me-262, and other jets. Von Ohain developed a second improved jet engine, the He S-8A, which was first flown in underslung pairs on April 2, 1941 on a Heinkel (280), and while a more compact and reliable design, was still a centrifugal style, made no more thrust (1,100 lbs) than his original. Whether Whittle or Ohain’s engine came first or were developed independently is of no import, as that engine style was NOT used by Germany in war planes.

Jumo-004 (Junkers):

Designed in 1939 by Anselm Franz the Jumo 004 was a very conservative engine, it first ran in 1940 making around 1,000 lb of thrust. In 1943 the production engine 004-B made 2,000 lb of thrust, by the end of the war over 6,000 engines had been made. Fitted to the Me 262, Ar 234 A/B, Ju 278, He 343, Me P1101, Ho IX/Go 229 and Ta 183V-1.

From:

EnginesD

 

appreciate the link, very interesting interview.

 

Jet ilk? Never superior? Muhahahah! Sure you are entiteld to your opinion, but I am afraid that in a factual world that you are wrong! Very wrong! You might be a little right if you confine your statment to only during the 1940s.

In the P-51D, G, H the piston engine fighter peaked. They can not go much faster, higher, nor be more manuverable then they were. To demonstrate the point to its fullest, take the F-22 and have it fight a P-51 of any revision. The F-22 wins every time (ruling out flukes). No I do not wish to enter the pilot ability issue.

After the Jet Engine was developed and became robust (cir 1950) the piston engine was doomed to fall from the ranks of the fighter airplane powerplants. Jet powered airplanes go much faster for less weight (in general). We could go into all the aerodynamic charicteristics but let it suffice to say that the thrust to weight ratio is best when it is above one. The structure of a pistion driven engine would have to be negligable to even come close to a jet propelled aircraft.

More power also lets you cary more weight. This results in better weapons platforms as well as defenses.

You may like the looks of the prop jobs but as the P-39 Aircobra will atest to, looks do not win dogfights.

 

I think what the poster was trying to express is that the apex or final version of an old technology is almost always superior to the first version of a new technology, and the poster was confining his opinion to WW2, i.e the forties. In that I must agree, the jets of WW2 were barely capable to fight against the prop jobs in the sky who were their adversaries. I am not aware of a single jet shooting down a prop fighter in a dog fight. I know that one Me-262 ran up behind and shot down (or damaged) a Mosquito, but since those planes were un-armed that was hardly a "fight" was it!

There may be a documented "kill" of a prop fighter by a jet, but I just am ignorant of same.

 

UUURRGGGG ARRRGGGGGGHHH :zombie1:. :headbash: :deadhorse:. but I might as well post this again LOL.

And just because someone is flying a jet doesn't always mean a Propeller driven aircraft will always lose.It takes more then just an aircraft to win. It takes pilot skill too. .

"By the time the Korean War began, the Allies still utilized propeller-driven fighters as well as their own set of jet fighters. On August 2, 1952, a Hawker Sea Fury of 805 Squadron flying off HMS Ocean piloted by Peter “Hoagy” Carmichael became the first piston fighter of the war to shoot down a jet when he bagged a North Korean MiG-15. Not to be outdone by the British, and almost a month later, USMC Capt. Jesse G. Folmar of VMA-312, flying his F4U-4B Corsair, shot down a North Korean MiG-15. Unfortunately, Capt. Folmar had to bail out of his Corsair when he, in turn, was attacked by an additional four MiG-15s.
When the Vietnam War started, the U.S. military had an assortment of all-jet fighters to tangle with the North Vietnamese MiG-17s and MiG-21s. There wasn’t any further need for the propeller aircraft to tangle with a jet. At least that’s how it was supposed to work. The 1950s vintage USN/USAF Skyraider was everything a jet wasn’t: slow and heavy. But that didn’t stop the Skyraiders from shooting down their own small share of MiGs. The last took place on October 9, 1966, when Lt. (j.g.) William T. Patton of VA-176 shot down a MiG-17 while flying his Skyraider over North Vietnam. "

Props vs. Jets | Article Titles and Pages | The Magazine | Flight Journal Magazine



"Although the Skyraider was never intended to be a fighter, it did achieve a couple of MiG "kills" during the Southeast Asian War. On June 20, 1965, Lts Charles Hartman and Clinton Johnson in A-1H BuNo 137523 and 139786 shared in the downing of a MiG-17 by cannon fire. On October 9, 1966, Lt JG William T. Patton of VA-176 flying A-1H BuNo 137543 shot down a MiG-17 near Hanoi."

Service of AD Skyraider with US Navy

 

"The Me 262 had a negligible impact on the course of the war due to its late introduction, with 509 claimed Allied kills[5] (although higher claims are sometimes made[6]) against the loss of more than 100 Me 262s."

This actually sounds pretty good even if the kills are halved (and were presumably mostly bombers), particularly for the late war stage.

 

It would certainly have caused more casualties amongst the allied aircraft, but changing the outcome? not going to happen, Germany would always have lost that war as long as they insisted on the three front war and no 'super weapon' would stop that.

 

The source also states that the 30mm cannon firing @ 650 rpm mounted on the Me-262 could destroy a B-17 with an average of 4 hits? wtf!

 

Bad tactics are their own reward, I'm aware of these combats, have a few books on the subject (geez, I read books?) and if the NViet pilots knew what they were doing it they'd be in their bar commemorating a couple of Skyraider kills.

WTF yourself. These are the same cannon that in your distinguished opinion in the other thread couldn't be any good. It seems another of the German mistakes would have been if they asked for your learned opinion.

 

If this is what he was trying to say he failed.

Me 262s shot down many allied armed fighters in actual combat. It got to be so bad that allied fighters were sent monitor known jet bases and to shoot them down during take offs and landing when they were vunerable. Most of the time you would have at least 25 P-51s trying to down a jet. (Not always, this is what most means)

Yes, Yes, I know what you are saying and this is why I said that I did not want to bring the whole pilot issue to the surface again. And as Za points out stupid pilots dont prove that their planes not superior. Look at it more as they were candidates for the Darwin Awards.

I am still trying to get over the fact that you can read.

I was also confused by the 'WTF'. I think 4 is probably too many, 1 did the job often enough. I would like to point out that the Ju-87G with these inept weapons destroyed thousands of Russian tanks. I would also like to point out that tanks are usually made out of steel and airplanes are made out of aluminum. If anyone wants to learn about material properties let me know. Let it suffice to say that steel is stronger then aluminum. To the point that 30mm cannons are more tehn capable of destoying big bombers quickly.

 

fact it took only 3 Mk 1083cm M rounds to knock down a bomber provided conditions were ideal to hit the bomber from behind at the wing root or between the two engines on one wing or the other.

in regards to the total number of LW kill claims made by 262's this can be questioned as many of the claims records are long lost for both fighter and ground attack units, thousands of Soviet tanks destroyed is plain wrong by several AT staffeln using the 3.7cm even SG 9 using the Mk 103 3cm only had a score unconfirmed with a couple hundred Soviet claims.

yes there are records from the US fg's stating their fighters were shot down by Me 262's but that is not the reason to jump the jets on taking off or landing this was done to destory the jet arm from tackling the US heavy bomber formations.

yes also from the lat page documented proof and cross examination proof of BC Mossie shot down by 262 night fighters, even a so called 4 round burst was usually 10-12 or more the same can be said of the conventional Bf 110G-4 with two upper mounted 3cm cannon.

point is the Me 262 was over armed and at it's highest point of production in spring of 45 it still could not outmaneuver a P-51 ans with the overwhelming coverage of Mustnags it was a futile effort to engage except to make a dive from the rear at a superior height and then bank away flat out

 

I was talking about its low muzzle velocity, which was a problem for Me-262.


"The low muzzle velocity needed for this simple operation became the MK 108's main shortcoming, with the result that its projectile trajectory was seriously affected by bullet drop after a comparatively short range. 41 meters of drop in the first 1000 meters of range. This made effective firing ranges very short and aiming a challenge, particularly with fast flying aircraft as the Me 262. The resulting very long times of flight made it almost impossible to hit maneuvering targets like fighter planes and the extreme curvature of trajectory made it very difficult to hit large bombers at more that the closest ranges, where the attackers were very vulnerable to the bombers defensive guns."

 

The 20mm cannon took an average of 25 hits on a B-17 to take it down, hence the source of the "WTF!"

 

You can always question kill records, I agree.

The point remains that the Jets shot down pistons contrary to what had been stated above in this thread. I did not try to give numbers on Jet kills as they are sketchy. In part because records during the last part of the war were no done with so much care as earlier on.

If the point of covering the bases was to defend the bombers then we can assume that the escorts were no effective against them. And why not? They were too fast. So you have to engage them when they are vulnerable. Sorry I did not mean to imply that the base coverage was because of fighter losses, but reading it again that is was it sounds like.

Now let be be more specific. One round kills can never be proved. Imagine if you can one 30mm round hitting the the cockpit, wingroot, tail or another vital point. That round would most likely cause the death of the plane. It amy be hit many more times, and probably would be, but the death blow would be one round if it hits a critical part. Not that any pilot would try to do this but it could and statistically speaking did happen. The only fighter delivered weapon that I am aware of do be documented as taking out a bomber in one hit would be the rockets that the Germans used late war. Also I would like to point out that the B-24 was substantially easier to down then the B-17.

As to the thousands of Russian tanks destroyed I was extrapolating, if one German Ace (and his name excapes me at the moment) clains 450 destroyed tanks and hundreds more vehicles then I figure the rest of the ground attack pilots could chalk up at least another 1500. Now I can not say for sure that all his kills were with the 30mm cannons. I will find out and report back.