:angry: Ok, not acceptable. Ome_Joop, stop needling Danyel. Personal remarks of that nature are not tolerated on here, and I see no sign that it is a joke. Please stop it, and preferably apologise to Danyel also. Ricky the Moderator
Oh come on, I grew out of the need for apologies when I was ten-years-old. I don't want nor care to hear it. Even if he was to apologize, there's no guarantee he means it. Of course, I’m also mature enough to admit that I honestly wanted to get in a fight there as well.
Actually I'm inclined to agree with TD. Too often on boards I read that the Me262 could have won the war if only it hadn't been delayed by the order to develop it as a bomber. I really don't see how, and so far not a single poster I have challenged has been able to tell me exactly how it could have made the difference between victory and defeat. In that resect alone they are over-rated. That's without considering the dismal reliability of the engines. Yes, the engines required less refined fuel, but unfortunately for them Germany simply didn't have access to the raw materials to refine or sythesise the fuel from. No real help there, a greater number of jets would have been just as grounded in any alternative history as they were in real life. They were the future of combat aircraft, but for WWII they were pityful in numbers and largely unreliable.
i agree with you, even adolf galland , in the book me262 stormbird rising by hugh morgan, he worte: a total of about 1440 me 262's were built, but they were not all completed. many were missing vital parts, and the people who were in charge of production exaggered the numbers that they produced, often counting as complete aircraft those which were missing vital parts. a great number of the total aircraft were destroyed by american bombing attacks, also in strafing sorties by fighers aircraft. never more than 50 to 60 of our me 262 jet came to operation at the same time. the fuel shortage presented an additional disadvantage. but even if all the mistakes around the me 262 had been avoided, the outcome of the war would not been changed. the was was lots, politically at least, when hitler started it. the war was lost military at the beginning of 1943, when the planned new german offensive in the east was over-run by the russian's onw offfensive. the war was already lost when the united states joined the allies. but the avoidance of all mistakes, as well as the correct operation of the me 262, would have change the operations of the us daybomber forces completely. i am of the opinion that with only 300 me 262 jet fighters we could have on any day shotdown a minimun of 200 bombers. if this would have continued for a week or two, then the day bombing would have had to be stopped. as a consecuence, the dimensions of the destruction of targets in germany would have been diminished. as a negative consecuence, the war would most probably have been prolonged, and the russian allowed more time to conquer further germany territory. so let us be satisfied with hitler's mistake towards the legendary me 262 adolf galland generalleutnant a.d. 9 june 1994
So we are talking me-262 now... I was talking about Jet engines generaly... If the Germans had Jet powered Aircraft a few years earlier... Why not? The He-280 flew in 1941 and had JuMo's in 1942! So even a year or so before 4 July 1943 (Kursk is what Galland is talking about)... BTW Me-262 could have entered service also before 1943 (now it was 1944 and to late) If produced in enough numbers and ofcourse with good pilots (wich still could be trained in those days ) yes than i would think the war could have ended differently...actaully ofcoarse the war would have ended differently because than in our history books we would read that the Heinkel 280 entered service in 1942! It's impossible to say what would have happened (maybe no Kursk at all), but an aircraft much faster/better than it's enemy and in sufficient numbers early on in the war would have had an impact on how the war would go (even Galland recognised that fact!). BTW (1) :Engine relliabilty was better early on (because of better materials used for the turbines!). BTW (2) :I don't see the Me-262 as a wonder weapon, it was just a good aircraft wich could/should have entered service much earlier. BTW (3) :Wonder weapons are in my oppinion things like the Atombomb, the one thing that stopped the war much earlier and not longer!
actually the first JuMo 004b's run well over 100 hrs! (with an overhaul at 50 hrs)! latter thanks to material shortage an engine did less than 20 hrs...so somewhat more than 5 but not much!
IIRC the Jumos proved too large for the He280, yes it flew with them but as a temporary lash-up. I believe the engines the type was designed for had reliability problems of their own which made the Jumos look pretty good. Engine reliability was better earlier on because they were almost handmade to exacting tolerances, poor materials and poorer workmanship when they went to mass-production were also to blame. The Me262 could not have entered service any earlier as a jet fighter because of the difficulties getting the engines into mass production. Like it or not there is no way the engines were likely to be available in quantity before about early 1944. Fine let's consider the Jets as a whole. Me262: Over-rated wunderwaffen. He162: Disasterous programme intended to take child glider pilots and put them more or less straight into a jet fighter. Could only have ended in catastrophe. He280: Never attracted orders as anything other than a prototype. Arado Ar234: Same engines as the Me262, same problem. So that's why I consider them over-rated. They're over-rated because a lot of people ignore their faults (poor weaponary generally, poor undercarriage (Me262), dismal reliability) and focus purely on their speed. They had huge flaws which are ignored, mass production of the Jet engines was simply not available until too late nor was there any realistic way this could be speeded up and yet they are almost always held up at some point on every WWII related board by someone who cries "They would have won the war if only they hadn't been built as bombers!". Mustangs and Thunderbolts were able to neuter the speed advantage of the Me262 by an altitude advantage, they could have done the same with the He280 even if all the problems of mass-producing the engines and training the technicians to service them are ignored. So what difference would the He280 make? Maybe higher bomber casualties, probably not prohibitively high though, and the 8th AAF would be restricted to bombing within the range of their escort fighters, which they quickly learnt to do historically anyway.
Like i said this is to the fact the started the war without truelly recognising the jet engine as a source of power for aircraft! If they believed in jetpower they could have developed the jet engine early on in war and then we could have seen jet aircraft much earlier in war (we were talking what if here...not our history) Fine let's consider the Jets as a whole. Like i said not a wonder weapon, but i could have been a great aircraft! absolutly true! Highly unstable and very hard to fly (and only ine engine wich can be dissatrous with these unreliable engines!) True but on various test it outperformed it's contenders the Bf-109 and FW-190 in speed and manouvrability Could have been what they were looking for but had the wrong name (Heinkel...) Not completly so (Ar-234c had 4 BMW003a engines...15 built) but was good at fast recon missions Absolutly true...but it could have been so different if they had devolped the jet engine much earlier Reallisticly apeaken it could have been speeded up if they saw the importance early on (they had jet engines in 1939, but decided they were not that important) altitude advantage of what ? P-51 could fly almost 2000 feet higher (41900 feet compared to 40000 feet for the me-262/He-280)...speed advantage for the Me-262 is about 90 mph faster (i think it was about 60mph for the He-280)....but the altitude is way above the ceiling of it's prime target...the B-17... I don't know if the US could have been stopped during wwii and i thank god they weren't stoped but they could have been brought even more terrible losses with a good fighter opposing them and think a good jet could have been the solution... i rest my case (always wanted to say that)
ONE DEFECT NEVER MENTIONED 2 engines the idea was if one went down it could fly on the second, except that it could not fly on just one engine so... you got twice the possibility of a breakdown and no increase in surviving a flame out silly really
Planes of the RAF I think i like the spitfire. It was one of the superior planes compared to the other and defintely better than the old RAF " Buffalo". But in the battle for Singapore, the british used Buffalos against the JApanese Zero-Fighter!! Maybe if there was a couple of spitfires, hurricanes or maybe some more types of fighters, the British would not have lost the batle. Not to blame the British, b'cause their supplies were swiftly diverted by the japanese and Churchill was engrossed in the battle for europe. So maybe that can't be helped. :lol:
Re: Planes of the RAF Do you mean Brewster F2A Buffalo? It may have been the most underrated fighter of WW2.
Notmi: In the hands of the Finns the Brewster had it best success, but it was a lighter, less-armored, export version. USN and Marine pilots flew them to their graves in the early days of the Pacific Campaign. The Japanese butchered them in the air. Perhaps an underrated casket, but not an underrated fighter... 'course you are a native Finn, so your bias is noted and understood. (BIG smile) Tim
Re: Planes of the RAF I doubt it. Firstly the crews and equipment sent to the far east were largely second rate anyway, compared to the Zeroes and Oscar pilots who were among the best in the world at that point. Secondly and a point often made by the detractors of the Spitfire, the Zero and Spitfire met in combat over Darwin, and the Spitfires fared pretty poorly (Although apparently not as badly as often gets reported). A lot came down to the pilot quality (Which favoured the Japanese at this point) and tactics (Spitfire pilots trained to dogfight Bf109s on equal terms tried the same against the much more nimble Zeroes and Oscars, and usually lost). So even getting the most modern (At that point) Spitfire MkVs out there wouldn't have overly favoured the RAF and even then they would have been unlikely to change the situation on the ground, so once the airstrips were over-run that would have been it whether they'd had Buffaloes, Spitfires or F-22 Raptors.
Simon: I think you stated your case very well. While it is common knowledge the Japanese pilots had lots of air-time and experience, I don't believe that the RAF/RAAF pilots were really "cherries." (cherries: raw recruits, untested in battle.) I think ultimately it came down to tactics. The Spitfire was a proven aircraft... as was the Zero. Rarely does a pilot decide to engage on equal terms. You play to your YOUR advantage... and make the enemy fight on your terms. Perhaps a swaggering-attitude needed adjustment... and it was provided by the Japanese. Spit-pilots thought they could take-on the Zero on equal terms, and were taught otherwise. This wasn't the Luftwaffe... and they should have been more receptive to tactics as taught "in-theatre" by pilots experienced with fighting the Japanese. Tim
