262 vs F-86

[Gman]

I think it was mentioned in one of the later posts in this thread, but that radar assisted/computed gun sighting system in the F86 would have been a huge advantage over the Me262.  Those poopy Mk108's with their blooby trajectory and extremely slow velocity versus the accuracy of that little nose radar telling the gunsight in the F86 exactly where the bullets will strike....no contest in the shooting department.  It was the first time a gyro assisted gunsight was combined with a radar system in a production airborne platform, which would give the already excellent gyro system accurate range information which made the firing solution even better.  PEW PEW PEW!

Stolen from an article in Air Force Magazine:

The later acquisition of the radar gunsight in the F-86 was probably the greatest single improvement of the airplane during the Korean War. Expert gunners such as Lt. Col. Vermont Garrison and Maj. Manuel J. Fernandez could hit a MiG at 3,000 feet and high angles off with the radar gunsight, and the shooting problem was also considerably lessened for the more inexperienced pilot.

Widewing, do you have any really precise information regarding the gunsight system on the F86, as well as the F86D which used it for shooting rockets at ground targets at night?

[Oldman731]

The simple answer is that they weren't

Germany had a lot of the same/similar stuff on the drawing board in 1944, 1945 as the US, USSR and UK. Jet engines were simultaneously invented in the UK, Germany and Italy, and the US and the USSR got their own jets from the UK and were building lack luster jet fighters at the same time Germany was. Unlike the latter powers, however, which just continued to develop them into the post war years, in Germany there were a lot of half baked designs that were pressed into service out of desperation. The reality of the situation is that by late 1944 Germany was relying on fighters that were supposed to be phased out at least a year before hand, but couldn't because development resources were focused on experimental aircraft that really should've never been fielded in the first place.
"Of course, that the question can still be asked without being laughed off of the internet says a lot about the German's aeronautical engineering."
Not really, it says a lot more about the myth of German technical superiority. The idea that the Me 262, which is honestly the second-best jet of that war anyway, could compete with the F86 is actually ridiculous.
There's a gigantic myth about German military technology during the Second World War that has surfaced because a lot of designs and novel ideas were put forth that never got far enough into development for everyone to say 'hey, this is stupid and it will never work', and to us they look like amazing creations from some sort of fantasy sci-fi world... because that's exactly where they came from.

Lookit that!  The oldman and Motherland agree on something again!

- oldman

[GScholz]

You may agree with him all you like, but it won't make it true. In 1944 and 1945 the 262 was far, far superior to both the Meteor and the XP-80/P-80A. Legendary test pilot Eric Brown flew both the 262 and the Meteor and he told me personally that the Meteor was a "pedestrian aircraft" compared to the 262, and that it would be "no contest". Even after the war when the 262 was tested against the P-80A at Wright Field by another legendary test pilot, Al Boyd, the 262 outperformed the P-80A to such a degree that the report was suppressed. The report concluded: "Despite a difference in gross weight of nearly 2,000 lb, the Me 262 was superior to the P-80 in acceleration, speed and approximately the same in climb performance. The Me 262 apparently has a higher critical Mach number, from a drag standpoint, than any current Army Air Force fighter."

[Butcher]

Tank had the opportunity to build his fighter after the war in Argentina, the FMA IAe 33 Pulqui II... It was considered a failure for reasons not all related to the design. It was not a great performer. The Argentines bought the F-86, which was fully developed and offered significantly better performance.

Argentina was broke, and Tank couldn't live a day without pain killers.

[drgondog]

Even after the war when the 262 was tested against the P-80A at Wright Field by another legendary test pilot, Al Boyd, the 262 outperformed the P-80A to such a degree that the report was suppressed. The report concluded: "Despite a difference in gross weight of nearly 2,000 lb, the Me 262 was superior to the P-80 in acceleration, speed and approximately the same in climb performance. The Me 262 apparently has a higher critical Mach number, from a drag standpoint, than any current Army Air Force fighter."

Air Materiel Command Flight Test Report, Serial No. TSFTE-2008.. do you have a copy of it?

IIRC the CDo of the 262 was ~ .019, the P-80A-1 was ~.0134 ( the P-51 was ~.017). 

The 262 had a slightly swept wing which accounts for a slightly higher Mcr.  I don't have the report but I have heard the 262 was borrowed from Howard Hughes and especially prepped to race in the Bendix race, having stripped >1000 pounds from the airframe and modified Jumo's.. while the P-80A-1's were from those at Wright Pat at the same time WP was testing some randomly selected a/c against 44-85075 - a notoriously poor performing P-80A-1 (see http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-80/P-80.html for reference tests of 44-85075).

Additionally the P-80A's all had full internal fuel, guns and ballast to account for ammo - tested at 11,550 pounds.

If you have the above mentioned report we can see what the test GW and engine thrust was for the 262 during the tests?

Last, I doubt that Al Boyd who was Chief, Flight Test at Wright Pat actually flew the 262.  Johnson and Yeager were the two primary test pilots for the jets then.

[GScholz]

No I do not have a copy of the TSFTE-2008 report, I just have quotes from it in books. The 262 used for the test was a recon version with a glass nose, which they put a fighter nose on prior to testing. The report's conclusion states that the 262 was almost 2,000 lbs heavier than the P-80A; If the P-80A had a normal load it would be just over 12,000 lbs, which gives the tested 262 a weight of around 14,000 lbs. The normal loaded weight of a fighter 262A-1a is 14,272 lbs.

I feel the need to point out that this test was conducted in 1946, and the report issued on September 3rd, more than 2 years after the 262 entered combat. Still it proved superior to the P-80.

[lyric1]

What would you consider the best jet of the war if not the 262?

AR-234B Hands down.

[GScholz]

Best jet bomber, no doubt. However, it was a hundred mph slower than the 262, so a fighter it wasn't.

[lyric1]

And kinda wrong thread but I want my 24 rockets the 262's commonly used.
They had several kills and were either salvo fired or all of them were fired. 

 

Not quite correct the vast majority of 262 kills were done by rockets.

Here is some pictures of a B24 that met it's end in such manner.


http://www.flickr.com/photos/21734563@N04/2113721262/in/photostream/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/21734563@N04/2112941421/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/21734563@N04/2112941171/in/photostream/

[lyric1]

Best jet bomber, no doubt. However, it was a hundred mph slower than the 262, so a fighter it wasn't.

Well it was designed to be just that & was relegated to other tasks as they pushed the 262 forward. Speed it was slower how ever they did do mock dog fights with a 262 & 234. The 234 out turned the 262 every time. In AHII it would have been the new runstang for anyone silly enough to try turn with it.

Would have been interesting if any of the C models had of come on line in time. These were going to be dedicated air to air combat planes depending on the variant.

[GScholz]

Every aircraft in AH out-turns the 262. Doesn't help them one bit.   Speed is the dominating factor of air combat with guns only. A lesson the Japanese were rudely taught by the US.

[drgondog]

http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA800524

OK - here is the Test of T-2-711 and T-2-4012 (no mention of Howard Hughes).  Stripped of 4x 30mm Mk-108's and reduced to 13,100 pounds GW from 15620 GWmax,  

It is unclear from the report how a.) critical mach number was determined for either a/c or b.) any assumption about drag could be concluded, or c.) how T/W was calculated for the P-80 as it is clear from all the 1945 and 46 test reports that accurate Thrust data was not available - and the wide range of performance for different engine changes makes that clear..

[drgondog]

No I do not have a copy of the TSFTE-2008 report, I just have quotes from it in books. The 262 used for the test was a recon version with a glass nose, which they put a fighter nose on prior to testing. The report's conclusion states that the 262 was almost 2,000 lbs heavier than the P-80A; If the P-80A had a normal load it would be just over 12,000 lbs, which gives the tested 262 a weight of around 14,000 lbs. The normal loaded weight of a fighter 262A-1a is 14,272 lbs.

Not according to the flight test reports giving the weight of the 262 at 13,500 w/0 4x30mm mk 108 and ammo but full fuel.  The P-80A-1's were at 11,560 which was full internal combat load but using 113 pounds of ballast for the 50 cal ammo. I published the report.

I feel the need to point out that this test was conducted in 1946, and the report issued on September 3rd, more than 2 years after the 262 entered combat. Still it proved superior to the P-80.

The conclusions of the test were that the 262 was faster and had about the same rate of climb but read the rest of the report relative to stability, along with questions regarding rigging... 

[Oldman731]

You may agree with him all you like, but it won't make it true. In 1944 and 1945 the 262 was far, far superior to both the Meteor and the XP-80/P-80A. Legendary test pilot Eric Brown flew both the 262 and the Meteor and he told me personally that the Meteor was a "pedestrian aircraft" compared to the 262, and that it would be "no contest". Even after the war when the 262 was tested against the P-80A at Wright Field by another legendary test pilot, Al Boyd, the 262 outperformed the P-80A to such a degree that the report was suppressed. The report concluded: "Despite a difference in gross weight of nearly 2,000 lb, the Me 262 was superior to the P-80 in acceleration, speed and approximately the same in climb performance. The Me 262 apparently has a higher critical Mach number, from a drag standpoint, than any current Army Air Force fighter."

You're reading a very small portion of Motherland's quote and ignoring the main gist.  Whether the 262 was the second best or the best of the WWII jets is a small point.  Whether Germany wasted its efforts pursuing too many bizarre designs, and whether the 262 would stand even the faintest of chances against an F86, are the main points.

- oldman

[GScholz]

The conclusions of the test were that the 262 was faster and had about the same rate of climb but read the rest of the report relative to stability, along with questions regarding rigging...  

That's a later (1947) report on the tested 262s, that interestingly share the same conclusion. From 1945 to 1947 they tested three different 262s, so which one was used in TSFTE-2008 is still unknown. The TSFTE-2008 report conclusion does still state that the 262 was almost 2,000 lbs heavier than the P-80A. That makes it about 14,000 lbs, and a couple hundred pounds give or take isn't going to change a whole lot in such a heavy plane. The difference between 14,000 and 13,500 is less than 4%. The max TO weight of 15,620 lbs could only be achieved by using external ordnance. Top speed would not be affected by a 4% reduction in weight. Given a nominal climb rate of 3,900 ft/min a 4% reduction in weight (4% increase in thrust/weight ratio) would make for a difference of about 150 ft/min.

As for the questions regarding rigging and stability it is clear that the 262(s) were tired and in poor condition, not even having functional servo tabs; they probably weren't in very good condition to begin with having been built with basic tools in a forest clearing somewhere in Germany during the closing months of the war in Europe.

Btw. thanks for the report. Interesting reading.