Fastest WW2 Fighter plane

T. A. Gardiner,
It seems some sources say the me 262 had a higher mach number then say the P-80 but didn't the German plane also lack dive brakes which would kind of cancel out said advantage?

 

Agreed "T.A.Gardner"; the P-80A was, alongside the Me-262A-1a, a comparatively heavy fighter, but it was equipped with a speed brake that helped with deceleration, which "could" help in a dogfight. It must be remembered that most fighter pilots prefer not to use them if they can avoid it, but the P-80A had ‘em to use. (Advantage, P-80)

The 262 had an advantage being slightly lighter, which might give it somewhat quicker acceleration in theory, but its engines would "bomb" with quick power change input. No advantage to either aircraft in the case of "weight".

And like most early jets the Me-262 was a fuel hog and had very limited range. The P-80 used both internal and the standard wing-tip tanks (780 miles) and could be fitted with drop style fuel tanks (1440 miles). (Advantage, P-80 in range)

The Me-262 also had a disadvantage in that its controls were not power boosted and tended to be very stiff at higher speeds. (Advantage, P-80)

The earliest XP-80s which flew with the British Whittle engine were reliable as houses, but did not match the performance of the production P-80A Allison and GE powered models which were in the engines in service in the ETO and PTO, so if the war had lasted any longer those, not the Whittles would have remained in service. Advantage P-80 on engine reliability. BTW, one of the first P-80s sent to Great Britain for testing crashed when it was being used as a "test bed" for the new R-R Nene engine which would come to fame powering the MiG-15!

Neither the Me-262 nor the P-80A were extremely capable dog-fighters, but the P-80 did have some advantages; i.e. top speed, roll rate, rate of climb, and a dive/speed brake. (Advantage, P-80)

The P-80 maximum speed was 558 mph at sea level and 492 mph at 40,000 feet. Initial climb rate was 4580 feet/minute, and an altitude of 20,000 feet could be attained in 5.5 minutes. Service ceiling was 45,000 feet. The P-80A’s normal range was 780 miles, and maximum range was 1440 miles. (Advantages, P-80)

Armament is a toss up, but the cannons of the 262 were slower in cyclic rate, tended to jam, and had a greater bullet drop rate at range. Speed of fire goes to the P-80, but hitting power goes to the Me-262. No advantage to either.

As far as I know the Junkers Jumo engines used on the Me-262A-1a had more than one drawback, not only were they thirsty and gave the aircraft very limited range and time for combat; they would tend to explode on run-up if not approached with a "gentle hand". Both the Allison and GE/Whittle centrifugal style turbo-jets in the P-80 were less temperamental than the Jumos. (Advantage, P-80)

Plane to plane, I would think it would not be too much of a contest with equal pilots and both flying first generation production examples.

P-80 top speed is slightly faster at sea level. (558 v 540 miles per hour)

P-80 range, without drop tanks is greater. (780 v 652 miles)

P-80's climb rate is almost 700 feet per min faster. (4580 v 3880 feet per minute)

And the P-80’s service ceiling is 7,400 feet higher. (45,000 v 37,565 ft.)

If needed, the P-80 could just climb, get to the higher altitude quicker and have all the advantages. But, we will never know since the two never met in combat. The only time they flew against each other in a "mock combat" was flawed in that the Me-262s had been modified by Watson’s Whizzers so they didn’t kill the American pilots when the engines went "ka-boom". In that contest the P-80 and Me-262 "seemed" about equal to the pilots who flew both.

"On paper" at least; the P-80 has a few advantages, the Me-262’s swept wing wasn’t that big a deal at only 18% sweep. That only gave it a 5% increase in speed over the same engine/weight ratio it would have had with a straight wing.

BTW, my numbers are compiled from Joe Baugher's aircraft pages. Equal pilots, P-80 wins.

 

Are you seriously suggesting that they had any real issues with the landing gear TA ? If so do you have a source ?

Sorry but that just isn't the case. The Me-262 was a fully developed aircraft which just happened to suffer from having to rely on engines built with the wrong materials because of shortage issues.

Where in the name of all that is holy are you getting this from TA ?? I all my years of research I have never come across anything like that.

Infact according to all who flew the Me-262 its' controls were some of the lightest and most harmonic that they'd experienced in any aircraft at all speeds and especially at high speeds.

Also the Me-262 had a very high rate of turn at high speeds and retained its speed in tight turns a lot better than any conventional fighter. Rate of roll was good at all speeds and the aircraft was described as agile & docile by all who flew it.

Not such a big problem when you note that the aircraft was fitted with full span leading edge slats which increased lift by over 30%.

 

Which would have prevented it from being fielded by any allied airforce. Well maybe the Soviets would have accepted it.

 

side notation:

in regards to turning of the 262 with the US P-51 .............. don't.

as I am compiling data on a future work, ah yes another one, and mentioned this several times on these forums, the 262 was a killer for the pilot in a fast speed turn and when pursued by Allied escort piston engines usually lost the battle as the P-51 for one could easily tun inside of the 262 and make a kill. Falt out the 262 was a nemesis to be reckoned with if it could be caught

 

If you want to know about starting the 262's engines read pages 61-62 of Eric Brown's "Wings of the Luftwaffe" . Read page 63 on the dangers of taking off. Page 66 on recovering from a dive.

 

Let's start with the venerable Green The Warplanes of the Third Reich. I could throw a dozen other sources in but, it really isn't necessary.
To start with, the Me 262 was originally designed as a tail dragger. It didn't have a nose wheel. In service the two major non-combat causes of losses of Me 262 were engine failure followed by nose wheel collapse due to it being less than capable of taking the plane's weight and being made of indifferent grades of steel. All the landing gear were made with low carbon steels (no high strength alloys), from seamless tubing and, received no heat treating post construction.
A similar problem was present on Messerschmitt's Me 309 design too.

This is not really the case. The Me 262 continued to undergo developmental issues well after entering service. One example is the Me 262 V 10 that was used specifically to evaluate means of reducing heavy stick forces on the control surfaces, and ailerons in particular. While a number of different ailerons were fitted (blunt front edge, rounded, different hinging arrangements etc.) the final solution adopted was a crude one to give mechanical advantage: Messerschmitt added a moving sleeve to the control stick that would lengthen it so the pilot could apply more leverage at high speeds.
The number of Umrüst-Bausatz (eg., factory conversion kit) that were made also shows the lack of development done before pushing the plane into service. These represent a sort of after-thought by the manufacturer to meet operational needs that didn't have time for proper development before the plane entered service.

Then you didn't research it very well. The 262 had at best a moderate roll rate and at high speed a very low one. Its turning circle was larger than contemporary piston engined fighters. JV 44 (the primary operational development unit) had to adopt the three plane Kette formation rather than the standard schwarm of four planes in two sections with the 262 because it couldn't maneuver sufficently well to operate in the later formation.
It was noted that the reasons for this change in formation were poor turn rate and low acceleration of the aircraft.
In addition, like many first generation jets, the 262 tended to snake and porpous at high speeds. That is, laterial and pitch stability were poor. The laterial problem was too small a tail surface while the pitch problem was due to shifting points of air flow breakdown over the wing. The Meteror and P-80 had similar problems in this respect to some degree too.

This (high wing loading) was a problem. It meant longer take off runs and landings. This restricted the 262 to only the largest airfields available in most cases. It also required the pilot to make longer approaches at a shallower glide slope. This is why the Germans adopted the use of top cover using piston engined fighters over jet bases. The jets were very vulnerable during their landing approach and the Germans knew it.
High wing loading also translates into a lower turn rate. This is particularly true on an aircraft like the 262 where there are no high strength materials being used in its construction. The airframe wasn't going to take repeated high g maneuvers and survive. But, the wing loading was such that at any given speed it resulted in a much larger turning circle than any of the Allied piston engine fighters it was up against.

 

Terry:

JV 44 should read JG 7

 

I think when one goes to proving one weapon or the other is better one must look at the fact that Germany tried basically to develop 1950's type technology with a major,major war going on which IMHO equals one very,very bog mistake .Technologies like the jet,V-1, V-2 ,SAM's , Tabun/Sarin ect.,ect.,and ect. The Allies IMHO basically took 1930's technology and pushed it to it's extreme limits. Of course the US developed the A-Bomb BUT the US had the excess industrial/research/manpower resources to do this.
Now in regard to my above statements just how superior was the Me 262? How much resources did that program take away from say Hitler's Panzer legions? The Manhatten Project, It's own jet program and chemical/biological programs were nothing in relative terms to what Germany tried to do. You win a war with today's technologies not tommorrow's.

 

Too true. Yes, the Nazis could and did throw good money after bad, and with alacrity. Each V-2 had a production cost bordering on RM 120,000 per unit, using slave labor! In 1939 the production cost would have been much higher as the slaves from conquered lands would be unavailable. The cost may have been able to be lowered as the production was streamlined, and slave labor incorporated, but it would probably never have gotten below RM50,000.

That makes them equivalent in cost of about six per B-24 or five per B-17 at the historical cost (using slave labor for the V-2), and a one shot delivery of less payload. The American bombers carried more payload, further, and returned again and again. I am not including the cost of the training for aircrew for the bombers, or ground crew for either as they are not comparable in any meaningful manner. And this part ignores the venerable Lancaster bombers, with even higher payloads, since I haven't looked up their production costs.

A B-24 cost about $296,000 (RM 750,000), while a B-17 ran about $240,000 (RM 600,000) at similar times of production. This was using slave labor of the V-2 which kept the cost as low as it was. Not only including the cost of a low warhead delivery system which is a one shot wonder, one must factor in Hitler’s attitude toward the system. After the death of his close friend who was well versed and experienced in rocketry (Max Valier), in a liquid fueled rocket experiment he regarded them with the same jaundiced eye as he did Zeppelins in war. Hitler felt they were both dangerous, explosive, and thus unusable/unsuitable. It took the specter of certain defeat in the field to alter Hitler’s mind-set concerning the A-4 (V-2).

While the accuracy of the Norden bombsight was vastly over-rated, it did have a CEP (circular error probability) of about 3,000 feet (1,000 meters), the V-2 had a recognized CEP of between 6 and 17 kilometers! This discounts wind cross currents as it would effect both, only cloud cover would give the rocket any advantage as it was preset and not reliant on visibility of the target.

Here is some data I have yet to verify, but I will post it none the less:

Number of V-2s manufactured: 6,240

Number launched: 3,590
Successes: 2,890 (81%)
Failures: 700 (19%)
In inventory at war’s end: 2,100
Works in progress: 250
Expended in research and development: 300

Development program cost: US$ 2 billion
Development cost per launcher: US$ 350,512
Total manufacturing cost per launcher: US$ 43,750
Marginal cost, launchers 5000+: US$ 13,000 (Yes, 13K!)

These are actual figures for the first mass-produced rocket vehicle, the V2 (A4) years ago. Prices are in gold backed US wartime dollars.

Stating the obvious.... The V2 was a sub orbital vehicle, intended to lob high explosive over relatively short distances. Quantity production of the V2 at Mittelwerk was accomplished with unpaid slave labour under the brutal rule of the SS. And the failure rate was unacceptable by current standards.

From:

A Rocket a Day Keeps the High Costs Away

That didn’t keep the Nazis from trying to apply the V-2, why should it keep them from deploying the marginal Me-262, or really terrible Me-162? Ironically the entire V-2 project from start to finish cost the Third Reich the equivalent of about $2 billion 1940’s USD. Compare that to the entire Manhattan Project (excluding the $74 million spend to convert the special B-29s into the Silver Plate versions); at $1,889,604,000.

At the end of 1945, there were four complete devices finished (three expended), and two more sets of implosion cases and plutonium cores which were NOT coupled together, all for under $2 billion.

See:

Manhattan Project Costs

And remember that $20 billion mark at the beginning of the page is the "adjusted for inflation" number when the article was written.

Both Tabun and Sarin were patented in the mid-thirties by IG Farben (international patents), while they were working hand in glove with DuPont, and were NOT secrets by any stretch. Hitler was so disappointed to learn this he stomped out of the meeting when he was informed of same.

 

Besides from the fact that I am far from convinced of the validity of those claims I will also point out that even if they were to be true (Which they aren't), then it is not a design issue or fault but again a construction material issue, which are two very different things. But seeing that LuftWaffe flight captain Fritz Wendel in none of this batch quality control & factory feedback reports back to the OKL & MTT as much as mentioned a single weakness in the landing gear construction then I must say that this claim that the landing gear was an issue and suffered from any weakness is completely unsupported.

It seems someone is confusing German a/c with Japanese ones...

Sorry but you're just speculating at this point TA. Read both the German & Allied pilots opinions of the Me262's control forces and harmonics, the ailerons are specifically mentioned as VERY effective esp. at high speeds, so there goes that claim of yours, it's quite simply 100% untrue.

Erm, no. Check out the conversion kits, they were not just few and very simple but also of the same magnitude as those delivered for old a/c like the Spitfire & Bf-109. Are you suggesting these a/c weren't fully developed as-well ?

Oh I've researched it plenty, and certainly more than you from the looks of it.

So was that of any Jet (Vampire, Me262, Meteor, P-80 etc etc), but the turning circle is of less importance than the actual turn rate of the a/c. And in combat what you want is as high a continious turn rate as possible, and at high speed the Me262 had a very high turn rate, fora number of reasons you're obviously oblivious to.

Source?

Sorry but again you're wrong as only some batches of Me262's suffered from this issue (Snaking), which btw was easily corrected even in the field, and it was primarily a problem only a few of the ones built by use of forced labor causing a reduction in built quality suffered from.

Also as noted in both the German & Allied pilot's handbooks, the Me262 exhibited no flutter or vibrations in high speed dives.

Wrong again. It was the slow spool up time and low speed acceleration of the jet engines which demanded longer runways and nessicated top fighter cover upon landing approaches and take offs. It had nothing to do with wing loading, you're making stuff up now TA.

How else do you think the Fw190A featured a shorter take off & landing run than the MUCH lower wing loading Spitfire ? According to you that wouldn't be possible.

Short answer: When it comes to take off & landing distances engine power & acceleration at low speeds matters just as much if not more than wing loading does.

Complete and utter nonsense. By now you're demonstrating a very serious lack of knowledge when it comes to aircraft and how they function.

Fact is that when it comes to turn rate then what matters the most is the amount of lift that the wings generate in comparison to the weight of the a/c itself and then the amount of drag that the a/c produces compared to how much thrust is available. And each type of wing acts different to the other, some provide a lot of lift for their size while others provide very low drag instead, and then there are those which do both because of certain devices added to increase lift and decrease drag when needed.

And this is where the Me262 is great, esp. at high speeds. The Me262 features a high aspect ratio wing (the higher the AR the higher Lift/Drag ratio), increasing lift and decreasing drag, and was equipped with full span automatic slats which pop out as soon as the a/c starts turning hard and increase the lift by over 30% in the covered areas. This has the same effect as would increasing the overall wing area by over 30% whilst gaining no extra parasite drag, just induced as always. (Yes, when it comes to fighters, smaller is better) Furthermore its jet engines produced a lot more thrust at speeds of 450 km/h and above than that of any piston engined propeller, giving the 262 a much higher Thrust/Weight ratio at high speeds than any piston engined fighter. And on top of this the absence of a prop and the clean design of the 262 in general meant that drag was much lower that of any piston engined fighter, allowing for a maximum Thrust/Drag & Lift/Drag ratio, allowing the a/c to hold its speed in maneuvers a lot better than any conventional prop job. And this is what allows the the Me262 to turn better than any piston engined fighter at high speeds, as is mentioned in both the German & Allied POH for the Me262.

Wrong again. The Me262 featured the strongest wing body assembly of any fighter in service during WW2, esp. in terms of its ability to handle negative G's. The wings were purposely designed & built much stronger than usually in a fighter as it was known that the speed regime in which this new fighter was mostly going to operate, usually some 250 to 300 km/h faster than any conventional fighter, the amount of G's that the pilot was going to be expected to pull would often exceed 6 or even 7 G's. And so the wing were designed & tested to be able to take a full 9.5 G's fully loaded, which was some 4 G's over what most pilots where at best capable of dealing with anyhow.

The wing loading is irrelevant, it is the lift to weight ratio which matters, and the Me262 had a higher lift to weight ratio than a fighter like the P-38 for example. And as for the turning circle diameter, again it is also irrelevant as all jets suffered from a large turning circle because of their poor low speed thrust & acceleration compared to piston engined fighters. On the other hand however the jets enjoyed a very nice advantage in terms of high speed turn rate and speed retention in tight turns, which is what really matters in real fights.

Fact is that the worst thing any jet pilot could do, be it that he was flying the Vampire, Me262 or P-80 (it doesn't matter), was to try and engage in a low speed and tight turning dogfight with any piston engined fighter, that would quickly spell the end of the jet. And this mistake was made by a few rookie 262 pilots during the war as they attempted a low speed dogfighting match with Allied prop fighters, and naturally such a thing almost always ended very one sidedly. However a smart jet pilot wouldn't fool around like that, he'd only engage in temporary and very short turning matches, and only if they occured at high speed, cause that's where he had the advantage over any of the prop fighters as he could pull just as many G's, if not more, whilst loosing less speed and retaining maximum turn rate for longer. As long as he didn't let speed drop below 450 to 500 km/h (piston engined fighters turn fought each other at speeds of primarily 250 to 300 km/h maximum), cause then his advantage in T/W, T/D & L/D ratio would start to fall away. But primarily the experienced jet pilot would utilize his immense advantage in speed & climb rate to simply dominate any piston engined fighter he may come across.

In short: If the 262 pilot knew his plane then a 1 on 1 clash with any piston engined fighter would've proven a peace of cake, it's as simple as that.

Here's a bit of reading on the Me262:
Flying the Messerschmitt Me-262

 

A classical fallacy about quality control is to conclude from the absence of detected defects in the factory that no defects de facto exist in the final product. Toyota recently issued a recall for 690,000 cars made in China because of faulty electrical window switches. There are presumably QC facilities and staff in Chinese factories. Yet, it took them 690 thousand cars to find out what's wrong with the door.

 

I guess if the wheels were falling of certain Toyatas sending people to their early death then you could compare the two things, but a faulty electric window switch is hardly a lethal flaw now is it?

In short what you're trying to suggest is that in his multitude if quality control reports Wendel somehow overlooked that many aircraft (Many according to TA atleast) had their landing gear collapse upon landing ??? Sorry but I find that very hard to believe. It's also very hard to believe that the Allies themselves wouldn't write down cautions about the landing gear in their post war pilots manuals for the aircraft if it even had the slightest tendency to collapse on hard landings.

Ergo, the Me262 didn't suffer from a weak undercarriage.

 

If you are talking operaitional planes they are not really different. If the design doesn't take into consideration the materials at hand then the item is flawed and shouldn't be issued.

History would seem to indicate otherwise. The Germans didn't give Me-262 to green pilots but several including some very experianced aces fell to piston engined fighters. The kill raito wasn't that great either from what I remember reading.

 

As an indicator of the weak landing gear take a look at:
http://www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com/Images/Me262/262PilotHandbook.pdf
Page 13 Approach and Landing note a mentions that if you made a short flight you had to be careful as the plane exceed the safe landing weight for the landing gear.

And then there is:
Classic Publications Me262 Vol. 1-4

 

I seem to remember that one certain P-47 pilot finally got credit for shooting down two Me 262's on the same day!!! However he had to wait till almost 50 years later to be credited with them.

 

no P-47 pilot was given credit for 2 262's and yes sadly in JG 7 green pilots flew the 262 it was inevitable. 1 to 1 clash has been covered at length in many documented books both German and English speaking the 262 pilot was not engage in fighter vs fighter combat unless he had a height advantage and even then the jet was to be used in almost sole pattern to attack US bomber formations later Bomber Command heavy craft from the rear. It was already proven the arc on a turn in the 262 usually spelt the death knell of the jet when being encounterd by US P-51's of which there was always a host of in 1945. again this is all written down in inumerabale texts and personal interviews for my future work.

 

Ok maybe it wasn't as P-47 pilot but I do remember reading an article where a pilot was given credit for 2 kills only after 50+ years . Are you familiar with or heard about said article? I'm not making this up but it does seem odd it taking 50 some years to get things credited right.

 

It common knowledge that the Me 262 had a weak nose wheel fact