If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
The a/c's airframe and engines were underdeveloped, and as a consequence it was as much of a threat to its pilots as was enemy action. I suppose that I (and other Me-262 fans) are overwhelmed by its good looks. More than any other WWII, with the exception of the Zero, it looks sinister. (The Zero was also a bit of a threat to its pilot I read Mr. Whittle's bio a few years ago. IIRC, all he needed was official backing (i.e., money) and he could have produced and perfected his gem far earlier than historically. Well, every genius thinks he's unappreciated. It's true, he didn't get the money until September 1939, and that may be a major reason why the Germans were ahead of him. For all that, I suspect that the Whittle Unit was a dead end. It looks like a collection of tin cans from a scrap drive. No other turbojet looks remotely like it. Did even GE stick with the contraption very long? all the best -- Dan Ford email: www.danford.net/letters.htm#9 see the Warbird's Forum at http://www.danford.net/index.htm Vietnam | Flying Tigers | Pacific War | Brewster Buffalo | Piper Cub |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
"Cub Driver" wrote in message ... The a/c's airframe and engines were underdeveloped, and as a consequence it was as much of a threat to its pilots as was enemy action. I suppose that I (and other Me-262 fans) are overwhelmed by its good looks. More than any other WWII, with the exception of the Zero, it looks sinister. (The Zero was also a bit of a threat to its pilot I read Mr. Whittle's bio a few years ago. IIRC, all he needed was official backing (i.e., money) and he could have produced and perfected his gem far earlier than historically. Well, every genius thinks he's unappreciated. It's true, he didn't get the money until September 1939, and that may be a major reason why the Germans were ahead of him. For all that, I suspect that the Whittle Unit was a dead end. It looks like a collection of tin cans from a scrap drive. No other turbojet looks remotely like it. Did even GE stick with the contraption very long? The Mig-15 was powered by Whittle type jet with a centrifugal compressor and is considered to have been a rather significant aircraft. Axial flow engines were certainly the way ahead but centrifugal engines were easier to build and around for quite a while. Keith |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message ... Axial flow engines were certainly the way ahead but centrifugal engines were easier to build and around for quite a while. They are still around. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Where I can't agree with you yet is over whether the Me-262 is impressive.
Seems to me that a fighter which has trouble getting airborne, trouble staying airborne for more than 25 minutes and which is unable to complete a turn while over a single county Hmmmm... can't agree with those statements. It had a far better takeoff accident rate than the 109 and other than requiring a hard-surfaced runway, the greatest difficulty in getting airborne was fighting their way through the Mustangs over their base. As for its flight duration, 25 minutes was nothing close to their sortie length. Logbooks I have seen suggest that four or five times that was most common. The last comment, concerning their maneuverability, is not true - while not as nimble as a P-51 or Yak, its good to remember that neither of those fine aircraft were as nimble as a Po-2, or a Sopwith triplane for that matter. When an aircraft possesses a speed advantage that causes the enemy aircraft to "hang in the air as if motionless", such an advantage will quite likely cause it to suffer somewhat in other performance areas. Maneuverability isn't what kills you - that's usually a defensive skill - its speed that kills. That, and overwhelming numbers! v/r Gordon |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
I suppose that I (and other Me-262 fans) are overwhelmed by its good looks. I think my fascination with it, and the Mosquito, were that they both were the best each respective nation could field during the conflict. No other aircraft over Europe, on their own, caused as much consternation among their foes or brought as much terror to their intended targets. Goebbels mentions the hated Mosquito in every diary entry he made in the last three months of his life, with few exceptions. The RAF and many US heavy bomber crews were mortified when they came under Me 262 attack. "Turbos" and Mossies raised the bar and looked damned impressive while doing it. v/r Gordon |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
|
#27
|
|||
|
|||
"Gordon" wrote in message ... Where I can't agree with you yet is over whether the Me-262 is impressive. Seems to me that a fighter which has trouble getting airborne, trouble staying airborne for more than 25 minutes and which is unable to complete a turn while over a single county Hmmmm... can't agree with those statements. It had a far better takeoff accident rate than the 109 and other than requiring a hard-surfaced runway, The earliest Me-262s suffered from notoriously weak and unreliable nose-wheels assemblies, which led to a number of fatal accidents. It was a fault of fabrication, not design.The proper materiel in the proper numbers weren't available. A trainer version was recognized as an urgent necessity early in the a/c's development. The Me-109 is acknowledged to have had a poor landing-gear design, compromised due to the desire to obtain maximum streamlining. the greatest difficulty in getting airborne was fighting their way through the Mustangs over their base. I suggest instead that the greatest difficulty lay in simply getting the engines started without a "hot start" occurring. Then the pilot was wise to keep a keen ear to his radio while accelerating or climbing out for "Achtung! Tempests!", etc. warnings, and also be alert for a flameout in one or the other engine. Then, if he reached altitude, he was wise to pray for smooth engine operation, without a flameout, which could have any of several causes, no matter how carefully he managed his throttles. As for its flight duration, 25 minutes was nothing close to their sortie length. Logbooks I have seen suggest that four or five times that was most common. Perhaps in the "Experten" squadron. Available to that organization was presumably the best ground-crew and selected replacement parts, etc. Otherwise, most Me-262s seemed to have to rtb early on account of malfunctions usually related to the engines, which generally could not be re-started in the air. The last comment, concerning their maneuverability, is not true - while not as nimble as a P-51 or Yak, its good to remember that neither of those fine aircraft were as nimble as a Po-2, or a Sopwith triplane for that matter. When an aircraft possesses a speed advantage that causes the enemy aircraft to "hang in the air as if motionless", such an advantage will quite likely cause it to suffer somewhat in other performance areas. Unless the pilot of the opposing a/c is in a fighter, and is reasonably alert. A typical USAAF tactic, if approached from the rear by an Me-262, was to allow him to commit to a pursuit curve, then turn hard in one direction or another. The Me-262 was found to be resistant to entering hard turns and found to be all but impossible to reverse in turn without using up a lot of sky, and would scream by, momentarily placing itself in tow of the US fighter's guns, and rapidly bleed off speed to boot. In general, the Me-262's preferred not to tangle with Allied escorts if at all possible. They were supposed to bring down bombers, which were actually hurting Germany, not insignificant Jabos, anyway. I think it is fair to say that typically an Me-262 pilot had to devote so much attention, upon becoming airborne, simply to a/c management, especially wrt his engines, that his efficiency as a weapons system was severely degraded. Maneuverability isn't what kills you - that's usually a defensive skill - its speed that kills. That, and overwhelming numbers! In general, the maximum number of Me-262s available at peak numbers was about 200. Too little. An unperfected airframe and engines. Too little range. Susceptible to being downed by prop-driven Allied a/co. Too late in arrival to be other than a "flash in the pan". |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
"Lawrence Dillard" wrote in message ... The earliest Me-262s suffered from notoriously weak and unreliable nose-wheels assemblies, which led to a number of fatal accidents. It was a fault of fabrication, not design. The earliest Me 262s did not have nosewheel assemblies. |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
"Frank May" wrote in message ... Probably 'cause it's considered a "flying bomb" or an early cruise missile. Technically, it IS an enemy aircraft since it has wings & flies, but it wasn't piloted & wasn't much of an adversary in that aspect. Exactly. Air combat is combat which takes place in the air, shooting down a V-1 is obviously air combat. |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
thlink.net... "Lawrence Dillard" wrote in message ... SNIP The earliest Me-262s suffered from notoriously weak and unreliable nose-wheels assemblies, which led to a number of fatal accidents. It was a fault of fabrication, not design. The earliest Me 262s did not have nosewheel assemblies. OK, make that the earliest "operational" Me-262s. Thanks for the correction. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
FS: 1984 "Aces And Aircraft Of World War I" Harcover Edition Book | J.R. Sinclair | Aviation Marketplace | 0 | July 16th 04 05:27 AM |
FS: 1996 "Aircraft Of The World: A Complete Guide" Binder Sheet Singles | J.R. Sinclair | Aviation Marketplace | 0 | July 14th 04 07:34 AM |
FS: 1984 "Aces And Aircraft Of World War I" Harcover Edition Book | J.R. Sinclair | Aviation Marketplace | 0 | January 26th 04 05:33 AM |
FS: 1984 "Aces And Aircraft Of World War I" Harcover Edition Book | J.R. Sinclair | Aviation Marketplace | 0 | December 4th 03 05:40 AM |
FS: 1984 "Aces And Aircraft Of World War I" Harcover Edition Book | Jim Sinclair | Aviation Marketplace | 0 | September 11th 03 06:24 AM |