Re: G-loads in WW2

[Keith Willshaw]

"Jay Stranahan" > wrote in message
...
> Just mildly curious, because this information doesn't seem to be
> available on any of the web sites I visit: What sort of gee forces were
> WW2 fighter aircraft built to withstand? I keep hearing stories about
> wings coming off in dives or very tight sustained turns -- were they
> *that* much more fragile than modern military craft?
>

Depends on the aircraft

The Spitfire and Hurricane were just about unbreakable being
able to handle more g than the pilot but the Me-109 was
known to have suffered wing tip and tail spar failures and had real
compressibility issues. One of the results was that despite the
theoretical performance Luftwaffe pilots were often a little
more hesitant about really aggressive manoeuvering than their
RAF opponents.

The early versions of the Hawker Typhoon also had
structural problems with the prototype actually breaking
just aft of the cockpit, fortunately the pilot survived.
Improvements were made but tail failures were always
a problem.

Keith




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[Cub Driver]

On Wed, 04 Aug 2004 03:38:51 GMT, Jay Stranahan >
wrote:

>Just mildly curious, because this information doesn't seem to be
>available on any of the web sites I visit: What sort of gee forces were
>WW2 fighter aircraft built to withstand? I keep hearing stories about
>wings coming off in dives or very tight sustained turns -- were they
>*that* much more fragile than modern military craft?

Jay, without looking at any references, I recall that British pilots
in primitive G suits were able to pull 9 Gs in the late marks of the
Spitfire. That's a lot, as I understand it. Isn't the rule of thumb
that a fit pilot can withstand 5 Gs?

Some planes were certainly fragile. There were several cases of
Japanese army Hayabusa ("Oscar") pilots shedding their wings in close
combat in SE Asia in 1941-1942. And there were at least two cases
where a P-40 collided with a Hayabusa wing to wing, with the result
that the Hayabusa lost the wing and went down, while the P-40 flew
home.

I don't think they were fragile as a matter of course. The problem was
that all 1930s airplanes were basically designed by guess; the fittest
survived the testing process and were put into service.


all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
Expedition sailboat charters www.expeditionsail.com

[Eunometic]

"tw" > wrote in message >...
> "Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Jay Stranahan" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > Just mildly curious, because this information doesn't seem to be
> > > available on any of the web sites I visit: What sort of gee forces were
> > > WW2 fighter aircraft built to withstand? I keep hearing stories about
> > > wings coming off in dives or very tight sustained turns -- were they
> > > *that* much more fragile than modern military craft?
> > >
> >
> > Depends on the aircraft
> >
> > The Spitfire and Hurricane were just about unbreakable being
> > able to handle more g than the pilot but the Me-109 was
> > known to have suffered wing tip and tail spar failures and had real
> > compressibility issues. One of the results was that despite the
> > theoretical performance Luftwaffe pilots were often a little
> > more hesitant about really aggressive manoeuvering than their
> > RAF opponents.
>
> Wasn't this also because at least the Spit's stall characteristics were
> docile, whilst the 109 and 190 were rather vicious in that respect?

Both aircraft were difficult though the Spitfire was marginal better
in the earlier series but much better in latter. The nerve of the
pilot counted for more than the differences in aircraft and at least
in the early series aircraft Me 109E, Me 109F the differences in
handling were not so great. The 109 had handly page automatic leading
edge slats that made it possible to opperate the aircraft with high
wing loading and gave a relatively benigne stall. (Handley Page and
Messerschmitt swapped a nos of usefull patents)

> Geoffrey Welland talks of being able to hold a turn on the spit on the
> pre-stall "buffet" while watching an Me 109 trying to follow him, stalling
> and flick-rolling the other way into the ground.

The Luftwaffe wern't particulary concerned with turning circle in
specifying and selecting the Bf 109. The idea was to make an aircraft
as small as possible with the biggest engine and therefore the highest
power to weight ratio and lowest drag. In this they succeded. They
also succeded in making a very easy to produce aircraft. (1/4th the
labour content of the Spitfire excluding engine as its sheet metal was
all 2 dimensional) Throughout the war it always maintained the
abillity to perform a steep corkscrew climb that no aircraft could
follow and in the early Me 109E, Me 109F and final Me 109K had a climb
advantage due to power to weight ratio.

However it is an airframe that in chronilogical age was more in the
Hawker Hurricane era than the Spitfire.

The aerodynamics became outmoded: the slats limited role rate, the
ailerons became so stiff that the roll rate was only 1/4th that of a
Fw190 at speeds of over 400mph and the whole airframe was too draggy.
It soldiered on to long and the high wing loading meant that the
aircraft couldn't grow as well as the spitfire

The real reason the 109 suffered mostly was the quality of pilot
training.


> The FW190 had a similarly
> nasty stall I believe and pilots were leery of hauling it around too close
> to the ground.

For the 190A: Its strength was in a very high roll rate and a very
effective engine at low altitude and its performance in the vertical.

The Ta 152H, a derivative of the FW190, could out turn and out run any
allied fighter though its roll rate was average.



>
>
> > The early versions of the Hawker Typhoon also had
> > structural problems with the prototype actually breaking
> > just aft of the cockpit, fortunately the pilot survived.
> > Improvements were made but tail failures were always
> > a problem.

Flutter. A very difficult problem that causes fatigue failure. The
first German digital computers Konrad Zuse Z3 was used in solving
flutter problems in Germany.

[Eunometic]

(Peter Stickney) wrote in message >...
> In article >,
> Jay Stranahan > writes:
> > Just mildly curious, because this information doesn't seem to be
> > available on any of the web sites I visit: What sort of gee forces were
> > WW2 fighter aircraft built to withstand? I keep hearing stories about
> > wings coming off in dives or very tight sustained turns -- were they
> > *that* much more fragile than modern military craft?
>
>>
> The AMericans and British put a _lot_ of effort into figuring out what
> wa happening at these speeds, and finding ways for airplanes to
> operate safely in this region. This effort let to proper instructions
> for pilots to safely maneuver out of the dangerous regions (No nose up
> trim, for example, and no recovery likely above some particular
> altitude) and systems to allow safe recovery in the Transonic Zone,
> such as the Dive Recovery Flap - a small flap on the underside of teh
> wing that produced a nose-up moment when deflected, cancelling out the
> nose-down pitching moment of teh airfoil. Note that this wasn't a
> Dive Brake. It was too small to have enough drag to slow the airplane
> down.

The only aircraft that actualy received this dive recovery flap was
the P47M in what must have been early 1945. It was an impressive
aircraft. The P47N might also have had it.


>
> For some reaon, the Germans, for all their pioneering efforts in high
> speed flight, did not investigate compressibility phenomenon on any
> sort of a sytematic level, and put little or no effort into working
> with existing airplane tyoes. Their solution was to put a Big Red
> "Thou Shall Not Exceed Susch-and-So an Airspeed at X Meters Altitude"
> in the Pilot's Handbook, and leave it at that.

The jets were supposed to be in service in August 1943. Problems in
engine development caused by having to develop low/zero nickel alloys
delayed them. It would seem pointless developing these sorts of
things if the would be of no use in a fast jet.

[Ed Majden]

in article , Guy Alcala at
wrote on 8/3/04 23:14:

> Billy Preston wrote:
>
>> "Jay Stranahan" > wrote
>>> Just mildly curious, because this information doesn't seem to be
>>> available on any of the web sites I visit: What sort of gee forces were
>>> WW2 fighter aircraft built to withstand? I keep hearing stories about
>>> wings coming off in dives or very tight sustained turns -- were they
>>> *that* much more fragile than modern military craft?
>>
>> Right out of the factory they were excellent aircraft, but the technology
>> back then couldn't hold a form, and it wasn't uncommon for the 10th
>> pilot to pull 6 G's and something break. I'm not sure when the strain
>> maneuver was developed, but I think that WW2 pilots only had a G
>> suit (dive bombers mostly) and did not strain for added G's, so most
>> planes were built for more G's than a pilot could produce normally.
>
> Checking the P-51D operational load limit chart (at Zeno's), for design gross
> weight of 8,000 lb. the a/c is stressed for +8/-4g. G-suits only came in in
> mid-44, and IIRR only for the allies. I don't know if dive bomber pilots got
> them; I know allied fighter pilots in the ETO did.
>
> Guy
>
>
The first G-suit used in combat was designed by Wilbur R. Frank at the
University of Toronto, Canada in 1942.
Ed

[Cub Driver]

Why does everyone get so bent out of shape over the Me-262? Its
contemporary, the P-80 in its two-seat trainer version, is still in
service as a recce and light-attack aircraft with several air forces
around the world, 60 years of continuous service after its first
flight. If that's not the better aircraft, or indeed the best turbojet
ever built, I scratch my head as to what standards are being applied.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
Expedition sailboat charters www.expeditionsail.com

[ANDREW ROBERT BREEN]

In article >,
Cub Driver > wrote:
>
>Why does everyone get so bent out of shape over the Me-262? Its
>contemporary, the P-80 in its two-seat trainer version, is still in
>service as a recce and light-attack aircraft with several air forces
>around the world, 60 years of continuous service after its first
>flight. If that's not the better aircraft, or indeed the best turbojet
>ever built, I scratch my head as to what standards are being applied.

And, of course, the Meteor is still in service too. Well, two of them
are - a hybrid "T8" used for ejector-seat development and a converted
F8 used for drone control system calibration at Llanbedr. The latter
will leave service later this year when Llanbedr closes.
Not bad for the first jet to enter service.

--
Andy Breen ~ Interplanetary Scintillation Research Group
http://users.aber.ac.uk/azb/
"Time has stopped, says the Black Lion clock
and eternity has begun" (Dylan Thomas)

[Eunometic]

Cub Driver > wrote in message >...
> Why does everyone get so bent out of shape over the Me-262? Its
> contemporary, the P-80 in its two-seat trainer version, is still in
> service as a recce and light-attack aircraft with several air forces
> around the world, 60 years of continuous service after its first
> flight. If that's not the better aircraft, or indeed the best turbojet
> ever built, I scratch my head as to what standards are being applied.

I don't think anyone is getting bent out of shape. The Me 262 was the
first jet fighter but unlike the Meteor and P-80 the Me 262 had its
development and the development of its engines cut short and
interfered with by the war. The Junkers & BMW teams were way ahead in
using cooling films in combustion chambers and in hollow blade
cooling. They were also ahead in the use of vitrious and metallic
oxide coatings.

It's not right to triumphantly rubbish completely the technology and
efforts of the Germans: they were ahead in many areas as well as
behined. Often when they failed it was due to absence of raw
materials or the problems of war time construction far more severe
than the ones the allies faced.

The Jumo 004 engine was actualy produced for many decades after the
war in the eastern block (initialy in the junkers factories) then the
Soviet Union as the RD-10 as was the BMW003 as the RD-15 and then also
Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia which used its own versions to power its
trainers. Once given proper materials and improved controls it
performed reliably. In France the Jumo 004 and BMW 003 were studied
and fitted into the Sud-Est S.O. 6000 "Triton" and the Arsenal VG-70.
Both the chief engineers of BMW and Junkers went on to designe great
engines after the war for the west. The Adour of the Mirage, the T53
of the UH-1 Iroqois, T55 of the Chinook and AGT-1500 of the Abrams
came from the designers of the Jumo 004 and BMW 003.

I suspect that the basic Me 262 would have ended up as projected with
more powerfull engines such as the HeS 011 mounted in the armpit
position and remained in use as a heavy figher for quite a while.

[Jack]

Cub Driver wrote:

> Why does everyone get so bent out of shape over the Me-262? Its
> contemporary, the P-80 in its two-seat trainer version, is still in
> service....

If the -262 had survived this long it probably would have been a bit
better than it was in 1945, too. The last time a flew a T-33 was 1971,
and there were no -262s available to me for comparison.

The question is, was the P-80 better than the ME-262 in 45? We'll never
know, but we can say that the -262 was operational in '45, and that the
-80 was not.

Were German Generals better than American Generals? At least we have
some basis for comparison.


Jack

[Greg Hennessy]

On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 10:46:03 -0500, Jack > wrote:


>but we can say that the -262 was operational in '45, and that the
>-80 was not.

I suggest you look a little more, the P-80 was operational in italy before
the end of the war.


greg

--
Konnt ihr mich horen?
Konnt ihr mich sehen?
Konnt ihr mich fuhlen?
Ich versteh euch nicht

[Peter Stickney]

In article >,
Cub Driver > writes:
>
> Why does everyone get so bent out of shape over the Me-262? Its
> contemporary, the P-80 in its two-seat trainer version, is still in
> service as a recce and light-attack aircraft with several air forces
> around the world, 60 years of continuous service after its first
> flight. If that's not the better aircraft, or indeed the best turbojet
> ever built, I scratch my head as to what standards are being applied.

Note - more on the various turbojets later tonight - I'm checking
references and lining up ducks.

I don't think there's a single reason. I'll throw out some that popped
into my head, though.

Novelty - the Me 262 was the first jet fighter to engage in combat.
The difference in the performance envelopes of any jet vs. any
piston-propeller pwered fighter are such that on that day, Air Combat
changed. If the Meteor had engaged airplanes first, we'd be talking
about it the same way.

Mysticism/Mythology/Psychology - However you want to put it.
This works on several levels. The Germans themselves had an almost
pathological belief that they could pull off some kind of "Hammer
Blow" that would psychologically paralyze their enemies, and allow
them to win at the last second. Some of this was manifested in
weapons development - pursuing rediculous projects on the vain hope of
their succeeding, such as th Maus and E.100 tanks, or the hopes placed
on the employment of the V-1 and V-2, or, for that matter, pushing the
Me 262 into service long before it was ready. It was also strategic -
the Ardennes Offensive, or Galland's husbanding the Luftwaffe's
strength in the Autumn of 1944, hoping to strike a single strong blow
that would stop the Eighth Air Force in its tracks. Of course, by the
time he'd managed to scrape up a sizable number of pilots, the Eighth
wa flying raids where the number of escort fighters alone exceeded the
strength of Luftflotte Reich. These carefully husbanded, and, for the
most part, half-trained forces were squandered in Operation
Bodenplatte over the turn of the New Year into 1945. (Another
Mystical Hammer Blow)

This wasn't a recent phenomenon - they went through the same process
in World War One, culminating in the Kaiserschlacht of 1918, which
finished the Imperial German Army as a fighting force.

You'd think that after 3 years of constantly backpedalling against the
Soviets. Brits and Commenwealth, and Americans, who all absorbed these
"Hammer Blows" as they were struck, they'd get to thinking that they
wouldn't work. The didn't learn the lesson.
(Too much Wagner, I think. Or perhaps Wagner touched on somehing in
the German culture up through that time.)

Esthetics - it just plain looks cool.

Promise - this sort of ties in with Novelty and Mysticism. The advent
of teh jet fighter was a watershed in air combat. Properly developed,
with properly prepared pilots, and all of that occuring in a timely
manner, the Me 262, or any jet, would have had far-sweeping
consequences. For various reasons, the Germans were unable to get
things together before their entire system started falling apart.
They couldn't produce engines, they couldn't tranistion pilots, and
they couldn't support airplanes in the field by the time the 262
became operational. The Germans were, on the best day they ever had
(for jets) able to put about 60 jets in the air. These were facing
over 3000 Allied bombers and fighters.

And for some, it's just plain racism/nationalism - It was German, and
therefore it had to be better/more advanced/superduper.

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

[Peter Stickney]

In article >,
Jack > writes:
> Cub Driver wrote:
>
>> Why does everyone get so bent out of shape over the Me-262? Its
>> contemporary, the P-80 in its two-seat trainer version, is still in
>> service....
>
> If the -262 had survived this long it probably would have been a bit
> better than it was in 1945, too. The last time a flew a T-33 was 1971,
> and there were no -262s available to me for comparison.
>
> The question is, was the P-80 better than the ME-262 in 45? We'll never
> know, but we can say that the -262 was operational in '45, and that the
> -80 was not.

The Germans were deparate in 1945, and we weren't for one thing. I've
also flown a T-33, and, while I haven't flown an F-80A, or an Me 262,
I do have the -1s for both, and a number of comparison studies. At a
first glance, the biggest thing that pops out in a comparison of the
Pilot's Handbooks is the number of Red/Boldface items on the 262
vs. the F-80. The 262 has 2 pages of big red "Thou Shalt Not"
entries. Everything from Mach limits to slow rolls, to fiddling with
the throttles. The F-80SA has 2 - If aileron buzz develops above Mach
0.8, slow down (Easily done with the Speed Brakes), and don't point it
much downhill below 10,000' until you get a feel for how fast the
airplane accelerates. We could have pushed the F-80 into service
sooner, if we had needed to, but we didn't need to.

One bit of source material that has some bearing is Technical Report
F-TR-1133-ND, "Evaluation of the Me 262, (Project Number NAD-29)",
Headquarters Air Materiel Command, Technical Intelligence, Wright
Field, released February 1947, declassified and released under FOIA in
1994. It's the results of teh stateside evaluations of the Me 262
conducted at Freeman Field, after V-E Day.

The gist of the pilot's comments, discounting their experience in
single-engine handling (9 engine failures in 15.5 flight hours)
are these - handling was poor at speeds over 350 mph. Snaking was
severe enough to prevent effective gun aiming at speeds above 400 mph
IAS. Trim chages with power were objectionable. Stalling behavior was
good. Cockpit visibility was poor. Excessive trim changes at low
speeds when lowering/raising the gear and flaps required a lot of
attention during approach and landiing.
The gneral maintenace load, given enough spare parts, wasn't
considered excessive, with the exception of constantly needing to pull
engines.

The final conclustions were that the Me 262 was about the same as an
F-80A, with slightly better acceleration and speed, and comparable
climb rates. The handling characteristics of the F-80A were much
superior, and the F-80 was a superior gun platform. (Albeit not as
hard hitting) It pretty much sounds like a wash.

> Were German Generals better than American Generals? At least we have
> some basis for comparison.

I've read quite a number of the Memoirs of German Generals. The
General Staff School apparently had an exceptionally good class in
finger-pointing. The constant running theme is that it's Always
Somebody Else's Fault. It's not at all unlike reading the memoirs of
Robert S. MacNamara or McGeorge Bundy.

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

[ANDREW ROBERT BREEN]

In article >,
Peter Stickney > wrote:
>Pilot's Handbooks is the number of Red/Boldface items on the 262
>vs. the F-80. The 262 has 2 pages of big red "Thou Shalt Not"
>entries. Everything from Mach limits to slow rolls, to fiddling with
>the throttles. The F-80SA has 2 - If aileron buzz develops above Mach
>0.8, slow down (Easily done with the Speed Brakes), and don't point it
>much downhill below 10,000' until you get a feel for how fast the
>airplane accelerates. We could have pushed the F-80 into service
>sooner, if we had needed to, but we didn't need to.

Galland, who flew the 262 _and_ the Meteor extensively (probably
one of very few who did) rated the Meteor as the better aeroplane,
though he did qualify this by claiming that a 262 with Derwents
(an interesting thought..) would have been best of all.
ex-pilots I've spoken to who flew the Meat-box were unanmious that
while not spectacular, the old beast was pretty agile, accelerated
well and had no major vices. Sounds, from that, as if it might
have hadd the edge in the hands of anyone less than an expert even
if the 262 had had engines which worked..

Provisio: All of these comments apply to the F4 Meteor and onwards!
Never spoken to anyone who flew a F1 (few did!) or F3, and Galland
flew F4s in the Argentine.

--
Andy Breen ~ Interplanetary Scintillation Research Group
http://users.aber.ac.uk/azb/
"Time has stopped, says the Black Lion clock
and eternity has begun" (Dylan Thomas)

[Eunometic]

(ANDREW ROBERT BREEN) wrote in message >...
> In article >,
> Peter Stickney > wrote:
> >Pilot's Handbooks is the number of Red/Boldface items on the 262
> >vs. the F-80. The 262 has 2 pages of big red "Thou Shalt Not"
> >entries. Everything from Mach limits to slow rolls, to fiddling with
> >the throttles. The F-80SA has 2 - If aileron buzz develops above Mach
> >0.8, slow down (Easily done with the Speed Brakes), and don't point it
> >much downhill below 10,000' until you get a feel for how fast the
> >airplane accelerates. We could have pushed the F-80 into service
> >sooner, if we had needed to, but we didn't need to.
>
> Galland, who flew the 262 _and_ the Meteor extensively (probably
> one of very few who did) rated the Meteor as the better aeroplane,
> though he did qualify this by claiming that a 262 with Derwents
> (an interesting thought..) would have been best of all.

I think Galland was being a diplomat towards his old collegues in the
German aerospace insudustry. (His letter head described himself as an
aerospace consultant) and his British hosts and a few respecting
admirers on the allied side.

The British double sided impellor engines while light and rubust (at
least when the controls were sorted) were of a very large diameter.
Apart from some drag this meant that the Meteor I suffered extensive
development delays in integration of the engines into the
wings/fueselage. The solution was to actualy forge a semi-circular
bend in the wing spar at considerable expense. The British never did
flinch from a preponderance of curves and this method seems to have
become favoured technique in Britain.

One of the reasons the Germans decided to focus on axial designes was
to avoid this problem so that the engines are narrow enough to suspend
under the wings.

To fit Derwents to a Me 262 would thus probably have meant bending the
spars to accomodate them.

Of course in a single engine designe this is not so much a problem.


> ex-pilots I've spoken to who flew the Meat-box were unanmious that
> while not spectacular, the old beast was pretty agile, accelerated
> well and had no major vices. Sounds, from that, as if it might
> have had the edge in the hands of anyone less than an expert even
> if the 262 had had engines which worked..
>
> Provisio: All of these comments apply to the F4 Meteor and onwards!
> Never spoken to anyone who flew a F1 (few did!) or F3, and Galland
> flew F4s in the Argentine.

The Me 262 was following its own development progression. Apart from
more reliable engines (duplex injectors to counter thin air flameout
and throttle limiting to prevent destructive turbine inlet temperature
excursions) there were proposals to return the engines to the
originaly propose armpit position between wing and fueselage as well
as versions with considerably increased wing sweep (45 degrees). The
Meteor itself went through what appears completely revised wings.

I have quite a lot of respect for the approach of thin straight flat
wings to achieve high speed flight.

I am unaware of any problems of the Meteor I,III which were
contemporaries of the Me 262A series. The Me 262 handelled well apart
from a little snaking at high speed and a Mach limit at about 0.85 so
on balance of probabilities the Meteor might have handled better with
the Me 262 faster in the early versions when both had weak engines due
to its lower drag. Modifications of the Me 262 such as the Me 262 HG
IV were supposed to be supersonic.

[Eunometic]

(Peter Stickney) wrote in message >...
> In article >,
> Cub Driver > writes:
> >
> > Why does everyone get so bent out of shape over the Me-262? Its
> > contemporary, the P-80 in its two-seat trainer version, is still in
> > service as a recce and light-attack aircraft with several air forces
> > around the world, 60 years of continuous service after its first
> > flight. If that's not the better aircraft, or indeed the best turbojet
> > ever built, I scratch my head as to what standards are being applied.
>
> Note - more on the various turbojets later tonight - I'm checking
> references and lining up ducks.
>
> I don't think there's a single reason. I'll throw out some that popped
> into my head, though.
>
> Novelty - the Me 262 was the first jet fighter to engage in combat.
> The difference in the performance envelopes of any jet vs. any
> piston-propeller pwered fighter are such that on that day, Air Combat
> changed. If the Meteor had engaged airplanes first, we'd be talking
> about it the same way.

And quite rightly.

>
> Mysticism/Mythology/Psychology - However you want to put it.
> This works on several levels. The Germans themselves had an almost
> pathological belief that they could pull off some kind of "Hammer
> Blow" that would psychologically paralyze their enemies, and allow
> them to win at the last second.

When you are outnumbered by 4:1 the possibility of hard hiting blows
inflicted by new weapons and tactics is the only real hope and so it
is a tactic you follow.


> Some of this was manifested in
> weapons development - pursuing rediculous projects on the vain hope of
> their succeeding, such as th Maus and E.100 tanks, or the hopes placed
> on the employment of the V-1 and V-2, or, for that matter, pushing the
> Me 262 into service long before it was ready. It was also strategic -
> the Ardennes Offensive, or Galland's husbanding the Luftwaffe's
> strength in the Autumn of 1944, hoping to strike a single strong blow
> that would stop the Eighth Air Force in its tracks. Of course, by the
> time he'd managed to scrape up a sizable number of pilots, the Eighth
> wa flying raids where the number of escort fighters alone exceeded the
> strength of Luftflotte Reich. These carefully husbanded, and, for the
> most part, half-trained forces were squandered in Operation
> Bodenplatte over the turn of the New Year into 1945. (Another
> Mystical Hammer Blow)
>
> This wasn't a recent phenomenon - they went through the same process
> in World War One, culminating in the Kaiserschlacht of 1918, which
> finished the Imperial German Army as a fighting force.

The end of the war for Germany in WW1 was the entry of the USA. They
managed to defeat the Russians.

>
> You'd think that after 3 years of constantly backpedalling against the
> Soviets. Brits and Commenwealth, and Americans, who all absorbed these
> "Hammer Blows" as they were struck, they'd get to thinking that they
> wouldn't work. The didn't learn the lesson.

In 9AD Herman/Armenious ambushed and slaughtered 3 legions and 6
cohorts of 20,000 Roman soldiers led by Varsus who were marching
through to the Baltic to meet up with a Roman fleet sailed from Roman
Britain. This was the end of Roman attempts to conquer Northern
Europe and ensured the ascendancy of English becuase Armenious was a
Cherusci: ancestors of the Saxons who settled in Britain from about
400AD. (although they had been there at a lower level preceding the
romans)

> (Too much Wagner, I think. Or perhaps Wagner touched on somehing in
> the German culture up through that time.)

Its clear you are expressing biggoted opinions based on ignorance.

There was an natural emergence nationalism in Bismarks Germany:
afterall the 16 'Germanic states' were finaly being allowed to unite
after having defeated France. NOTE it was a war France declared on
Germany under the vainglorious Napoleon IV.

Prior to the Franco Prussian war France had attacked Prussia and the
German states over 25 times begining with Louis XIV who smashed them
to keep them seperate and poor and divided.

Under Napoleon and the Jocobins they invaded Germany on the pretext
of "liberating" it while plundering, raping and murdering their way
through the German states. (Beethoven removed the dedication of the
9th Symphony when he found out what they were really like). The wars
actualy started by Bismarck
killed only around 1000 people.

Even Bismarck was more bark than bite. In all the wars (and he had
some real threats to deal with) that he started perhaps only 800 to at
most 2000 people died. (I've read his Biography). Indeed he
blustered to AVOID war.

Here is a proof:
Dealing in Hate: The development of anti-German propaganda

http://64.143.9.197/books/connors/dealinginhate.html

It has been estimated that there were "about twenty-six hundred
important battles involving European states" in the 460 years between
1480 and 1940. Of these, France participated in forty-seven percent,
"Germany (Prussia)" in twenty-five percent, and England and Russia in
twenty-two percent each.6 The Prussian record can hardly be described
as uniquely warlike on the basis of such evidence! It might also be
added that geographic factors, like Britain's insular position and
Russia's remoteness from the mainstream of European history during the
period, doubtless helped considerably to reduce their percentage of
involvement.

Professor Quincy Wright offers this further statistical evidence for
the same period, that is, 1480-1940:

Of the 278 wars involving European states during this period, the
percentage of participation by the principal states was: England, 28;
France, 26; Spain, 23; Russia, 22; Austria, 19; Turkey, 15; Poland,
11; Sweden, 9; Netherlands, 8; Germany (Prussia), 8; Italy
(Savoy-Sardinia), 9; and Denmark, 7.7

In the circumstances, one is compelled to assent to Dr. Wright's
conclusion that "attribution of a persistently warlike character to
certain states ... seems not to have been based upon a comparison of
any objective criteria of warlikeness."8

It should also be noted that Fredrick II followed for most of his life
a policy of neutrality and enlightenment.

>
> Esthetics - it just plain looks cool.
>
> Promise - this sort of ties in with Novelty and Mysticism. The advent
> of teh jet fighter was a watershed in air combat. Properly developed,
> with properly prepared pilots, and all of that occuring in a timely
> manner, the Me 262, or any jet, would have had far-sweeping
> consequences. For various reasons, the Germans were unable to get
> things together before their entire system started falling apart.
> They couldn't produce engines, they couldn't tranistion pilots, and
> they couldn't support airplanes in the field by the time the 262
> became operational. The Germans were, on the best day they ever had
> (for jets) able to put about 60 jets in the air. These were facing
> over 3000 Allied bombers and fighters.
>
> And for some, it's just plain racism/nationalism - It was German, and
> therefore it had to be better/more advanced/superduper.


I think you've gotten carried away with anti german stereotypes and a
bit of ' "Honi Soit" i.e. my triumphalism and nationalism good, yours
bad.'

[Keith Willshaw]

"Eunometic" > wrote in message
om...
> (ANDREW ROBERT BREEN) wrote in message
>...
> > In article >,
> > Peter Stickney > wrote:
> > >Pilot's Handbooks is the number of Red/Boldface items on the 262
> > >vs. the F-80. The 262 has 2 pages of big red "Thou Shalt Not"
> > >entries. Everything from Mach limits to slow rolls, to fiddling with
> > >the throttles. The F-80SA has 2 - If aileron buzz develops above Mach
> > >0.8, slow down (Easily done with the Speed Brakes), and don't point it
> > >much downhill below 10,000' until you get a feel for how fast the
> > >airplane accelerates. We could have pushed the F-80 into service
> > >sooner, if we had needed to, but we didn't need to.
> >
> > Galland, who flew the 262 _and_ the Meteor extensively (probably
> > one of very few who did) rated the Meteor as the better aeroplane,
> > though he did qualify this by claiming that a 262 with Derwents
> > (an interesting thought..) would have been best of all.
>
> I think Galland was being a diplomat towards his old collegues in the
> German aerospace insudustry. (His letter head described himself as an
> aerospace consultant) and his British hosts and a few respecting
> admirers on the allied side.
>

The British werent his hosts, he was flying Meteors for
Argentina at the time.

> The British double sided impellor engines while light and rubust (at
> least when the controls were sorted) were of a very large diameter.
> Apart from some drag this meant that the Meteor I suffered extensive
> development delays in integration of the engines into the
> wings/fueselage. The solution was to actualy forge a semi-circular
> bend in the wing spar at considerable expense. The British never did
> flinch from a preponderance of curves and this method seems to have
> become favoured technique in Britain.
>
> One of the reasons the Germans decided to focus on axial designes was
> to avoid this problem so that the engines are narrow enough to suspend
> under the wings.
>
> To fit Derwents to a Me 262 would thus probably have meant bending the
> spars to accomodate them.
>
> Of course in a single engine designe this is not so much a problem.
>

Hence the Vampire, Mig-15 etc

>
> > ex-pilots I've spoken to who flew the Meat-box were unanmious that
> > while not spectacular, the old beast was pretty agile, accelerated
> > well and had no major vices. Sounds, from that, as if it might
> > have had the edge in the hands of anyone less than an expert even
> > if the 262 had had engines which worked..
> >
> > Provisio: All of these comments apply to the F4 Meteor and onwards!
> > Never spoken to anyone who flew a F1 (few did!) or F3, and Galland
> > flew F4s in the Argentine.
>
> The Me 262 was following its own development progression. Apart from
> more reliable engines (duplex injectors to counter thin air flameout
> and throttle limiting to prevent destructive turbine inlet temperature
> excursions) there were proposals to return the engines to the
> originaly propose armpit position between wing and fueselage as well
> as versions with considerably increased wing sweep (45 degrees). The
> Meteor itself went through what appears completely revised wings.
>
> I have quite a lot of respect for the approach of thin straight flat
> wings to achieve high speed flight.
>
> I am unaware of any problems of the Meteor I,III which were
> contemporaries of the Me 262A series. The Me 262 handelled well apart
> from a little snaking at high speed and a Mach limit at about 0.85 so
> on balance of probabilities the Meteor might have handled better with
> the Me 262 faster in the early versions when both had weak engines due
> to its lower drag. Modifications of the Me 262 such as the Me 262 HG
> IV were supposed to be supersonic.

Not a hope without a complete redesign. The Me-262 had
severe problems with compressibility.

Keith




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[Cub Driver]

>If the -262 had survived this long it probably would have been a bit
>better than it was in 1945, too. The last time a flew a T-33 was 1971,

Ah, but it didn't survive, and the P-80/T-33 did. Given that the
Russians could and did build an exact copy of the B-29, why didn't
they replicate the 262 if it was so exceptional (as opposed to looking
great)?

That the P-80/T-33 is *still operational* with several air forces
suggests that it was a truly remarkable airplane. Never mind
turbojets--how many airplanes are operational 60 years after first
flight? I believe that the last Super Cubs were surplussed a year or
two ago by the Israelis. I suppose a few air forces are still flying
the DC-3/C-47?


all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
Expedition sailboat charters www.expeditionsail.com

[Cub Driver]

On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 14:58:52 -0400, (Peter
Stickney) wrote:

> We could have pushed the F-80 into service
>sooner, if we had needed to, but we didn't need to.

It was also completely useless to a nation on the offense, given the
range of 1945 turbojets. The British found employment for the Meteor
shooting down V-1s. They based a few in France toward the end of the
war, but I suspect that was mostly anxiety to get it deployed
"overseas".

The role of any of these planes in 1945 had to be as a bomber
interceptor. The U.S. didn't need a bomber interceptor in 1945; it
needed escort fighters, and that was a role the P-80 couldn't have
filled.

(Crikey, even now when turbojets/fans are more reliable than recips
ever were, I read of jet fighters being refueled over the base they
just took off from, in order to proceed toward the target. Aerial
refueling didn't exist as a practical matter during WWII.)

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
Expedition sailboat charters www.expeditionsail.com

[Cub Driver]

On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 14:58:52 -0400, (Peter
Stickney) wrote:

>Snaking was
>severe enough to prevent effective gun aiming at speeds above 400 mph
>IAS.

Interesting. A major reason why the Bell P-59A (first flight August?
1942 :) wasn't developed as a fighter was its instability as a gun
platform.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
Expedition sailboat charters www.expeditionsail.com

[Cub Driver]

On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 14:34:10 -0400, (Peter
Stickney) wrote:

>Esthetics - it just plain looks cool.

Surely the big item. I think it's fascinating that in order to get the
P-80 program off the ground, the USAAF toured air shows with the
Me-262. In American Raiders, Wolfgang Samuel says that people were
just bowled over by the sight of a jet.

Yet the USAAF had plenty of P-59As to put on air shows! The added kick
of this being war booty doesn't in my mind suffice to explain the
difference between a P-59A and a Me-262, if all you want is the thang
to come whining over and trailing the stink of kerosene.

Nichts! It's the *look* of the thing! It's gorgeous. Apart from the
Zero, I can't think of a WWII fighter that looks the role better than
the 262. It looks like it was designed by an Italian design shop that
was tasked with creating the best-selling interceptor of all time:

THE 1945 STORMBIRD!
ALL NEW!
ALL OVER AGAIN!

It's industrial design at its very best--or Madison Avenue, whichever
you prefer.


all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
Expedition sailboat charters www.expeditionsail.com

[Chris Mark]

>(Beethoven removed the dedication of the
>9th Symphony when he found out what they were really like).

Of course you meant to type 3rd Symphony, the Eroica.

Slanting wildly OT, re your comments on French invasions of Germany and
anti-Germanism, how deep do you believe the rapprochement between France and
Germany really is? It's certainly cost the German taxpayer quite a bit of
money, with no end in sight.


Chris Mark

[Keith Willshaw]

"Chris Mark" > wrote in message
...
> >(Beethoven removed the dedication of the
> >9th Symphony when he found out what they were really like).
>
> Of course you meant to type 3rd Symphony, the Eroica.
>

Beethoven removed the dedication after Napoleon
accepted the rank of Emperor, not because of his
behaviour to the Prussians. Beethoven was a fervent
republican and was shocked by what he saw as a
betrayal. He subsequently changed his mind however
as his writings in 1810 indicate when he wrote of his
Mass in C, "the mass could perhaps be dedicated to Napoleon."
This was AFTER Bonaparte had once more defeated
Austria and Prussia and annexed much of Germany.

Note there was no such nation as Germany to invade at this time.
Note also that Prussia, Austria and other German nations
were alternately allies and enemies of Napoleon as the
mood took them.

Keith





----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[GuiltyBystander9]

>Beethoven removed the dedication after Napoleon
>accepted the rank of Emperor, not because of his
>behaviour to the Prussians.

Well, if we want to get into this, the symphony was never "dedicated" to
Napoleon but was originally _entitled_ Bonaparte. Apparently the only source
for the story of Beethoven changing the title of the symphony because he was
angry that Napoleon had proclaimed himself emperor was a student of Beethoven's
named Ries. He claimed to have seen Beethoven, when he got the news, tear up
the title page of the score, fling it to the ground and stamp on it.
Unfortunately, the original score of the piece no longer exists, so there is no
way to verify the story. A copy (date unknown) with corrections by Beethoven
still bears on the title page "intitolata Bonaparte," but they have been
crossed out, presumably by Beethoven. Napoleon's coronation took place in May,
1804. In August, 1804, Beethoven offered the symphony to his Leipzig publisher
with the note, "The symphony is actually entitled Bonaparte..."
When the piece received its first public performance in April, 1805, it was as
the Eroica, not the Bonaparte. Joseph Schmidt-Gorg, who knows as much about
Beethoven as anyone--if not more--believed that as B. evolved his ideas about
this symphony he decided to make the work commemorate the idea of the great man
in general, rather than have it refer to one specific individual.
About the controvery over the original title, he writes, "In the case of the
Eroica, so many incorrect and misleading statements have been handed down that
it provides a perfect example of how difficult it often is to ascertain which
among contradictory accounts is the correct one."
Source for the above: "Ludwig van Beethoven" by Joseph Schmidt-Gorg & Hans
Schmidt, Beethoven-Archiv, Bonn.

As an aside, I found it astounding that anyone, particularly someone who tends
to put forward the German side of things, could possibly confuse the Eroica
with the Choral. Could it be that Mr. E's musical taste runs more to Bon Jovi
than Beethoven?

[Keith Willshaw]

"GuiltyBystander9" > wrote in message
...
> >Beethoven removed the dedication after Napoleon
> >accepted the rank of Emperor, not because of his
> >behaviour to the Prussians.
>
> Well, if we want to get into this, the symphony was never "dedicated" to
> Napoleon but was originally _entitled_ Bonaparte. Apparently the only
source
> for the story of Beethoven changing the title of the symphony because he
was
> angry that Napoleon had proclaimed himself emperor was a student of
Beethoven's
> named Ries. He claimed to have seen Beethoven, when he got the news, tear
up
> the title page of the score, fling it to the ground and stamp on it.
> Unfortunately, the original score of the piece no longer exists, so there
is no
> way to verify the story. A copy (date unknown) with corrections by
Beethoven
> still bears on the title page "intitolata Bonaparte," but they have been
> crossed out, presumably by Beethoven.

Sinfonia Grande Intitulata Bonaparte (A Great Symphony on Bonaparte)
to be precise.

> Napoleon's coronation took place in May,
> 1804. In August, 1804, Beethoven offered the symphony to his Leipzig
publisher
> with the note, "The symphony is actually entitled Bonaparte..."

Indeed but both Ries and Schindler insist that the new that Bonaparte
had accepted the crown only reached Beethoven in December

The document bears the pencilled annotation Geschrieben auf Bonapart but
in the main title, the name Bonapart has been scratched out so violently
that
the erasure has left a hole in the paper.

see

Anton Schindler, Beethoven as I Knew Him, edited by Donald W. MacArdle
(Chapel Hill, N.C.: University of North Carolina Press, 1966),

> When the piece received its first public performance in April, 1805, it
was as
> the Eroica, not the Bonaparte. Joseph Schmidt-Gorg, who knows as much
about
> Beethoven as anyone--if not more--believed that as B. evolved his ideas
about
> this symphony he decided to make the work commemorate the idea of the
great man
> in general, rather than have it refer to one specific individual.

Especially as that man turned out to have feet of clay :)

> About the controvery over the original title, he writes, "In the case of
the
> Eroica, so many incorrect and misleading statements have been handed down
that
> it provides a perfect example of how difficult it often is to ascertain
which
> among contradictory accounts is the correct one."
> Source for the above: "Ludwig van Beethoven" by Joseph Schmidt-Gorg &
Hans
> Schmidt, Beethoven-Archiv, Bonn.
>
> As an aside, I found it astounding that anyone, particularly someone who
tends
> to put forward the German side of things, could possibly confuse the
Eroica
> with the Choral. Could it be that Mr. E's musical taste runs more to Bon
Jovi
> than Beethoven?

Nothing so refined I'm sure :)

Keith

[Eunometic]

(Chris Mark) wrote in message >...
> >(Beethoven removed the dedication of the
> >9th Symphony when he found out what they were really like).
>
> Of course you meant to type 3rd Symphony, the Eroica.
>
> Slanting wildly OT, re your comments on French invasions of Germany and
> anti-Germanism, how deep do you believe the rapprochement between France and
> Germany really is? It's certainly cost the German taxpayer quite a bit of
> money, with no end in sight.

Not too great even now. Most of the problems in earlier centuries
seem to have come from the French Elite in my opinion with more
admiration than animosity.


>
>
> Chris Mark

[Eunometic]

(Peter Stickney) wrote in message >...
> In article >,
> Jack > writes:
> > Cub Driver wrote:
> >
> >> Why does everyone get so bent out of shape over the Me-262? Its
> >> contemporary, the P-80 in its two-seat trainer version, is still in
> >> service....
> >
> > If the -262 had survived this long it probably would have been a bit
> > better than it was in 1945, too. The last time a flew a T-33 was 1971,
> > and there were no -262s available to me for comparison.
> >
> > The question is, was the P-80 better than the ME-262 in 45? We'll never
> > know, but we can say that the -262 was operational in '45, and that the
> > -80 was not.
>
SNIP

>
> One bit of source material that has some bearing is Technical Report
> F-TR-1133-ND, "Evaluation of the Me 262, (Project Number NAD-29)",
> Headquarters Air Materiel Command, Technical Intelligence, Wright
> Field, released February 1947, declassified and released under FOIA in
> 1994. It's the results of teh stateside evaluations of the Me 262
> conducted at Freeman Field, after V-E Day.
>
> The gist of the pilot's comments, discounting their experience in
> single-engine handling (9 engine failures in 15.5 flight hours)
> are these - handling was poor at speeds over 350 mph. Snaking was
> severe enough to prevent effective gun aiming at speeds above 400 mph
> IAS. Trim chages with power were objectionable. Stalling behavior was
> good.

A November 1988 'Airpower' which, in it's general review of the
Luftwaffe, includes a paragraph on Me-262 comparitive tests with the
P-80 (presumably early A models) which found that the latter was
inferior in climb rate, top speed and acceleration but that the
latter's controls
harmonies and retained agility (powered servos were not avialable on
the 262 and pilots had a hard time of it using a telescoping joystick
to get enough leveredge) at speed plus overall guns stability.

The Schwalbe had a rep for high speed snaking that could only be cured
but on a machine-by-machine basis via ground crew tweaking of the
rudder
wobbles or some such with 'shim and trim' reshaping. The Meteor was
the
same at rather lower speeds but was more extensively 'fixed' post war.

As for armament the Schwalbe might have ended up with a configuration
of 4 of the MG-213a 20mm high velocity revolver cannon or c class
revolvers and with
these, an EZ-42 and the 262C rocket-boost for takeoff.

> Cockpit visibility was poor. Excessive trim changes at low
> speeds when lowering/raising the gear and flaps required a lot of
> attention during approach and landiing.
> The gneral maintenace load, given enough spare parts, wasn't
> considered excessive, with the exception of constantly needing to pull
> engines.
>
> The final conclustions were that the Me 262 was about the same as an
> F-80A, with slightly better acceleration and speed, and comparable
> climb rates. The handling characteristics of the F-80A were much
> superior, and the F-80 was a superior gun platform. (Albeit not as
> hard hitting) It pretty much sounds like a wash.
>
> > Were German Generals better than American Generals? At least we have
> > some basis for comparison.
>
> I've read quite a number of the Memoirs of German Generals. The
> General Staff School apparently had an exceptionally good class in
> finger-pointing. The constant running theme is that it's Always
> Somebody Else's Fault. It's not at all unlike reading the memoirs of
> Robert S. MacNamara or McGeorge Bundy.

[Guy Alcala]

Cub Driver wrote:

> On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 14:58:52 -0400, (Peter
> Stickney) wrote:
>
> > We could have pushed the F-80 into service
> >sooner, if we had needed to, but we didn't need to.
>
> It was also completely useless to a nation on the offense, given the
> range of 1945 turbojets. The British found employment for the Meteor
> shooting down V-1s. They based a few in France toward the end of the
> war, but I suspect that was mostly anxiety to get it deployed
> "overseas".
>
> The role of any of these planes in 1945 had to be as a bomber
> interceptor. The U.S. didn't need a bomber interceptor in 1945; it
> needed escort fighters, and that was a role the P-80 couldn't have
> filled.

Considering that there were Spitfires based on the Continent in 1944 and
1945, the (even longer) range of the P-80 really wasn't an issue. And
the 9th AF's P-38s and P-47s were generally carrying bombs, not drop
tanks, so their combat radius wasn't all that high either. The P-80
wouldn't have needed to fly from England to Berlin, just a fair portion
of the way from eastern France, Belgium or the southern Netherlands to
there.

> (Crikey, even now when turbojets/fans are more reliable than recips
> ever were, I read of jet fighters being refueled over the base they
> just took off from, in order to proceed toward the target.

If you have it's because the airfield was too short for them to take off
with a full load from it or because they're already at MTOGW, not
because they require it to have any combat radius. Tanking once you
reach a reasonable refueling height downrange is another matter, but
that's purely a question of extending the combat radius/endurance, which
is a factor with any a/c.

Guy

[Guy Alcala]

Cub Driver wrote:

> On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 14:58:52 -0400, (Peter
> Stickney) wrote:
>
> >Snaking was
> >severe enough to prevent effective gun aiming at speeds above 400 mph
> >IAS.
>
> Interesting. A major reason why the Bell P-59A (first flight August?
> 1942 :) wasn't developed as a fighter was its instability as a gun
> platform.

It seems to have been more of a proof-of-concept a/c than an operational
design. Its performance was lower than that of the piston engined
fighters it might have replaced, so there was no reason to put it into
production.

Guy

[Jack]

Greg Hennessy wrote:

> On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 10:46:03 -0500, Jack > wrote:
>
>>but we can say that the -262 was operational in '45, and that the
>>-80 was not.
>
> I suggest you look a little more, the P-80 was operational in italy before
> the end of the war.

I looked: did you? The following is easy to find:

http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/air_power/ap37.htm

"Several early P-80s were sent to Europe for demonstration,
but WW II ended before the aircraft could be employed in combat."

And:

http://www.campusprogram.com/reference/en/wikipedia/p/p_/p_80_shooting_star.html

"The Shooting Star began to enter service in early 1945,
and 45 had been delivered before the war ended. Only two
actually made it to Europe, being tested in Italy, well
away from the front."

And:

http://www.aviation-history.com/lockheed/p80.html

"The Army Air Force planned to build the Shooting Star in
large numbers. However, only two of the machines arrived
in Italy before the end of the war in Europe, and these
were never used in operations.

Not even close to being "operational", Greg, and certainly without a
record comparable even to the limited combat exploits of the ME-262,
until the Korean war gave the F-80C an opportunity to make history.

The -262 design might have been able to support development to the level
we saw in the F-80C (or T-33) given a 15 year production run, a 50+ year
operational life, and the resources of a major world power behind it,
but that is just pointless speculation.


Jack

[Greg Hennessy]

On Fri, 13 Aug 2004 01:07:09 -0500, Jack > wrote:


>Not even close to being "operational", Greg, and certainly without a

There was 54 in service by wars end, that is 'operational' by any rational
assessment.


greg

--
Konnt ihr mich horen?
Konnt ihr mich sehen?
Konnt ihr mich fuhlen?
Ich versteh euch nicht

[Jack]

Greg Hennessy wrote:

> There was 54 in service by wars end, that is 'operational' by any rational
> assessment.

The USAFAM's statement that, "Several early P-80s were sent to Europe
for demonstration, but WW II ended before the aircraft could be employed
in combat," is adequate for my purposes in claiming that the the early
P-80's had no record which would allow them to be compared to the ME-262
-- a simple statement of fact.

If you are offended by my use of the term "operational" to refer to an
aircraft which was already destroying the enemy, as opposed to an
airplane which had never fired a shot in anger prior to the end of the
war, I trust you'll get over it, eventually.


Jack

[Cub Driver]

On Fri, 13 Aug 2004 02:52:43 GMT, Guy Alcala
> wrote:

>It seems to have been more of a proof-of-concept a/c than an operational
>design. Its performance was lower than that of the piston engined
>fighters it might have replaced, so there was no reason to put it into
>production.

What is it you are trying to prove with this logic-chopping? The P-59A
was built in larger quantities than the Me-262s brought to the
U.S.--nine of them, as I recall. So the statement stands: there were
plenty of P-59As to serve as air show ooohs! and aaaahs! if all that
was wanted was a jet to fly past. You seem to be such a breathless fan
of the 262 that you can't read a simple English sentence.

What I said was: the USAAF didn't need the Me-262 for air shows if all
it wanted was to demonstrate a jet. There was something else going on,
and I suspect it had more to do with the shark-like good looks of the
262 than it did with the little frisson that came from its being
captured enemy stuff--and certainly more than it did with the 262's
performance, which couldn't have been obvious to the folks in the
grandstands, even at the close distances commonly used in those days.
(Twenty feet is mentioned in one account, for newspaper photographers
and newsreel cameramen.)

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
Expedition sailboat charters www.expeditionsail.com

[Guy Alcala]

Cub Driver wrote:

> On Fri, 13 Aug 2004 02:52:43 GMT, Guy Alcala
> > wrote:
>
> >It seems to have been more of a proof-of-concept a/c than an operational
> >design. Its performance was lower than that of the piston engined
> >fighters it might have replaced, so there was no reason to put it into
> >production.
>
> What is it you are trying to prove with this logic-chopping?

I was replying to your statement (which you presumably snipped inadvertently)

> Interesting. A major reason why the Bell P-59A (first flight August?
> 1942 :) wasn't developed as a fighter was its instability as a gun
> platform.

To which I replied:

It seems to have been more of a proof-of-concept a/c than an operational
design. Its performance was lower than that of the piston engined
fighters it might have replaced, so there was no reason to put it into
production.



> The P-59A
> was built in larger quantities than the Me-262s brought to the
> U.S.--nine of them, as I recall. So the statement stands: there were
> plenty of P-59As to serve as air show ooohs! and aaaahs! if all that
> was wanted was a jet to fly past. You seem to be such a breathless fan
> of the 262 that you can't read a simple English sentence.

I believe you have confused me with Robert Arndt or possibly Eunometic. And
I managed to read your paragraph above and reply to it just fine, Dan.

> What I said was: the USAAF didn't need the Me-262 for air shows if all
> it wanted was to demonstrate a jet. There was something else going on,
> and I suspect it had more to do with the shark-like good looks of the
> 262 than it did with the little frisson that came from its being
> captured enemy stuff--and certainly more than it did with the 262's
> performance, which couldn't have been obvious to the folks in the
> grandstands, even at the close distances commonly used in those days.
> (Twenty feet is mentioned in one account, for newspaper photographers
> and newsreel cameramen.)

That was part of what you siad, but as shown above, it wasn't the statement I
was replying to. Have we gotten that all straightened out now?

Guy

[Cub Driver]

On Fri, 13 Aug 2004 17:52:11 GMT, Guy Alcala
> wrote:

>> Interesting. A major reason why the Bell P-59A (first flight August?
>> 1942 :) wasn't developed as a fighter was its instability as a gun
>> platform.
>
>To which I replied:
>
>It seems to have been more of a proof-of-concept a/c than an operational
>design. Its performance was lower than that of the piston engined
>fighters it might have replaced, so there was no reason to put it into
>production.

Ah, sorry! I have been talking too much. I thought you were answering
another post.


all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
Expedition sailboat charters www.expeditionsail.com

[Peter Stickney]

In article >,
Cub Driver > writes:
>
>>If the -262 had survived this long it probably would have been a bit
>>better than it was in 1945, too. The last time a flew a T-33 was 1971,
>
> Ah, but it didn't survive, and the P-80/T-33 did. Given that the
> Russians could and did build an exact copy of the B-29, why didn't
> they replicate the 262 if it was so exceptional (as opposed to looking
> great)?

In fact, the Czechs did. A couple still survive today in Czech museums.
IIRC, the French als operated a bunch of Ex-German equipment postwar,
from Fw 190s, through Me 262s, to Panther tanks. The only stuff that
remained in service were the Ju 52 transport, and the Feisler Storch
(Built in France as the Criquet), which proved rather useful in
Indochina in the late '40s.

> That the P-80/T-33 is *still operational* with several air forces
> suggests that it was a truly remarkable airplane. Never mind
> turbojets--how many airplanes are operational 60 years after first
> flight? I believe that the last Super Cubs were surplussed a year or
> two ago by the Israelis. I suppose a few air forces are still flying
> the DC-3/C-47?

The DC-3 still persists in U.S. Government (Although not military)
service. There's a jount NASA/NOAA project that's flying out of Pease
right about now - their main aircraft are a DC-8 and a P-3, but
they're using a DC-3 for logistic support. They're over by the Air
Freight Terminal.

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

[Eunometic]

Cub Driver > wrote in message >...
> On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 14:34:10 -0400, (Peter
> Stickney) wrote:
>
> >Esthetics - it just plain looks cool.
>
> Surely the big item. I think it's fascinating that in order to get the
> P-80 program off the ground, the USAAF toured air shows with the
> Me-262. In American Raiders, Wolfgang Samuel says that people were
> just bowled over by the sight of a jet.

There are reviews of several of Wolfgang Samuels Books. He is a
highly decorated RB47H pilot who immigrated into the USA from Germany
when his mother married a US serviceman. He is an excellent and
very readable writer on his experinces flying combat in the USAF, as a
young german boy witnessing the end of WW2 and as a Historian.

This is a bit of a bio and review of his 4 books.
http://www.rootsweb.com/~mnprgm/Wolfgangsamuel.html




>
> Yet the USAAF had plenty of P-59As to put on air shows! The added kick
> of this being war booty doesn't in my mind suffice to explain the
> difference between a P-59A and a Me-262, if all you want is the thang
> to come whining over and trailing the stink of kerosene.
>
> Nichts! It's the *look* of the thing! It's gorgeous. Apart from the
> Zero, I can't think of a WWII fighter that looks the role better than
> the 262. It looks like it was designed by an Italian design shop that
> was tasked with creating the best-selling interceptor of all time:
>
> THE 1945 STORMBIRD!
> ALL NEW!
> ALL OVER AGAIN!
>
> It's industrial design at its very best--or Madison Avenue, whichever
> you prefer.
>
>
> all the best -- Dan Ford
> email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)
>
> The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
> Expedition sailboat charters www.expeditionsail.com

[WaltBJ]

I never flew the P80 which is just as well because I am 6-2 and the 80
had a smaller cockpit than the 33. But I do have over 1000 hours in
the T33 and it's about as close to a fool-proof jet as they come. (now
that the early quirks were fixed!) Us Aviation cadets managed to
survive training in it - I will say I was using up the last of my
training time in the T-bird at Big Spring doing vertical rolls - I was
trying for 3 straight up when it ran out of airspeed -straight up. The
yaw string was pointing straight ahead as the low level light in the
fuselage tank illuminated but the good old T just hammerheaded gently
and we were pointing straight down and the airspeed needle moved back
up where it belonged. The engine never coughed at all, either. One
thing about the J33 engine - it wasn't very efficient but it was
pretty FOD-proof! As for range, the 80; even with its puny 165 gal
underslungs, it still had a 295 gallon fuselage tank and could go
farther out and fight than a Spitfire. The Tbird (230 gal tips and 95
fuselage; 813 total with wing and LE tanks)could give you 1200 miles
no-wind if you didn't have to go too far to the alternate. All in all
I'd like to have a Tbird right now - nice handling airplane, nice for
acro, and you can operate it out of 5000 feet of asphalt handily. We
did that at RGAFB (KCMO) when 17/35 was being worked on. Oh, and if
the J33 is up to snuff (and the pressurization) once the tips are dry
you can go up to at least 43,000 for cruise or whatever. That big
clear canopy is also good for star-gazing at night . . . .
Walt BJ