G-loads in WW2

(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.