Aces High Bulletin Board

General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: agent 009 on July 28, 2005, 12:26:10 AM

Title: Heinkel 280 maneuver like a 190??
Post by: agent 009 on July 28, 2005, 12:26:10 AM
Saw this & was taken aback. I thought the jet motors were too heavy & didn't cut the wind very well which would render the a/c as not all that maneuverable in comparison to prop jobs.


The He280 instead had similar maneuverability like the Fw190A (wingload 4125kg : 21.5m2 = 191kg/m2, less than Fw190D!) and was
with its speed advantage and good armament most probably the best dogfighter of World War 2, especially in hit-and-run tactics.
The HeS08 and BMW109-003 engines had better handling and provided better acceleration than the Jumo109-004.

This leads to a multiple mission profile I´ve developed for it in the last time; Spring 1944, beginning of effective 8th AF fighter escort
( Two He280 wings in France, two northwest of the Ruhr area and one in the line Bremen-Hamburg, defended by 20mm and 37mm AAA.
Stronger armour plating to protect the pilot against 0.5" M2 machine guns.)
3. Interception of recon planes (Mosquito PR XVI, Spitfire XI, F-5 Lightning, F-6 Mustang) in Rotte formation (2 planes) by the wing staffs
4. Interception of medium to heavy bombers with R4M rockets with hit-once-and-run tactic at group strength
(the deadly R4M was actually developed in late 1944, but so simple that it could have been operational years earlier; the 8th AF just had luck.)
5. Interception of P-51 fighters that follow the bomber formations with a delay as cover for the phase deep in enemy´s land (in group strength).
(Interception at that time forces the P-51 to decide between dropping all external tanks (and give no cover) or to be shot down.)
6. Interception of fighter-bombers and light bombers near the own airfield (self-protection & forcing them to release bombs and abort mission).


Behind this cover (if after the R4M Orkan salvos necessary anymore) heavily armed and armoured fighters could have attacked the B-17 and B-24
without great danger by escort fighters; the same situation as before introduction of the P-51B and the only situation where the low quality of german
fighter pilot training wouldn´t have hurt. The allied capability for doing air reconnaissance would have been over germany as low as the german over
england, a decisive factor for long-range operations. In such good fighters, the losses of expert and veteran pilots wold have been small and the
Luftwaffe would have been able to repel attacks or even the complete strategic daylight bombing campaign even against the P-51!
If you think there´s anything political ar patriotic behind these lines, you should read
my critic on USAAF´s strategic air war against the "Third Reich" carefully.


 But, I could be wrong. Thoughts?
Title: Heinkel 280 maneuver like a 190??
Post by: Shane on July 28, 2005, 12:48:26 AM
i think berlin would have been nuked.

:aok
Title: Heinkel 280 maneuver like a 190??
Post by: agent 009 on July 28, 2005, 12:52:17 AM
Yah, but loads of jets would've been buzzing about before Aug 45.
Title: Heinkel 280 maneuver like a 190??
Post by: Furball on July 28, 2005, 01:43:06 AM
the DeHavilland Vampire could out turn a Spitfire
Title: Heinkel 280 maneuver like a 190??
Post by: agent 009 on July 28, 2005, 02:32:22 AM
Well, Ok then. He 280 had tail probs a friend just pointed out, but that doesn't seem a ninsurmountable prob.
Title: Heinkel 280 maneuver like a 190??
Post by: justin_g on July 28, 2005, 04:15:41 AM
They never did fix the tail in time. The Me 262 development caught up with them, and the Heinkel project was cancelled in favour of the Messerschmitt design.
Title: Heinkel 280 maneuver like a 190??
Post by: HoHun on July 28, 2005, 08:25:05 AM
Hi Justin,

>They never did fix the tail in time.

Additionally, the He 280 was a smaller aircraft than the Me 262, and the jet engines turned out to be more fuel-thirsty than originally expected. The He 280 would have had to be re-designed to get it up to a decent endurance, so the larger Me 262 appeared like an attractive alternative.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)
Title: If i read my sources correctly,
Post by: rshubert on July 28, 2005, 04:17:34 PM
the real hold back on jet deployment was not the airframes so much as it was the engines.  Germany had serious problems getting the early jet engines operational and reliable enough to risk a service pilot.  IIRC, the Me-262 went through at least one engine source change during development for that very reason.

I guess I am saying that the delays in jet engine production doomed whatever airframe the Germans could have used.  Germany lacked sufficient quantities of the high strength materials needed to make the hot sections for their engines.
Title: Re: If i read my sources correctly,
Post by: HoHun on July 28, 2005, 04:52:22 PM
Hi Rshubert,

>I guess I am saying that the delays in jet engine production doomed whatever airframe the Germans could have used.  Germany lacked sufficient quantities of the high strength materials needed to make the hot sections for their engines.

Spot on! The Jumo 004A, using high-strength materials, was ready for service about 12 months before the Jumo 004B that was redesigned for mass production with inferior materials. When Galland first flew the Me 262, it was fitted with the Jumo 004A, and apparently he was not informed these were built from the proverbial "unobtainium" as he recommended the type for immediate production.

It's my impression that this contributed significantly to the "What if the Luftwaffe had the Me 262 in 1943?" hype.

With an affluence of strategic materials, the Me 262 might in fact have been introduced at roughly the same time as the P-51, and that would have made the task of achieving air superiority over the Reich a lot harder for the USAAF.

However, it was not an incompetent decision by the top brass or by Hitler himself that prevented this from happening, but an unsurmountable obstacle - the scarcity of materials like tungsten that were required in excessive amounts for the jet engine.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)
Title: Heinkel 280 maneuver like a 190??
Post by: Angus on August 01, 2005, 10:44:53 AM
Uhm...this:
"the DeHavilland Vampire could out turn a Spitfire"

Sure about this Furbie?
And which one?
Title: Heinkel 280 maneuver like a 190??
Post by: Furball on August 01, 2005, 02:10:38 PM
not sure Angus....

read it in a book, was a photocopy of the DH vamp flight trials against a spitfire, probably a late griffon one.

guppy probably has the book...
Title: Heinkel 280 maneuver like a 190??
Post by: Angus on August 01, 2005, 05:56:26 PM
The Vampire is one little devil, with a lot more thrust than i.e. the Meteor.
Saw one at the Farnborough airshow, - the one that was the first jet to cross the Atlantic (over Iceland?) in what, 1948?
Wouldn't surprize me at all that this little Vampire tured on it's tail.
However, when it comes down to 120 mph or so....hmmm.
Title: Heinkel 280 maneuver like a 190??
Post by: justin_g on August 02, 2005, 08:11:05 AM
Quote
Originally posted by Angus
Uhm...this:
"the DeHavilland Vampire could out turn a Spitfire"

Sure about this Furbie?
And which one?


AFDU Tactical trial(iirc); DH Vampire PROTOTYPE vs Spitfire XIV

(Fun Factoid: Vampire was first jet a/c to takeoff & land on a carrier)
Title: Heinkel 280 maneuver like a 190??
Post by: Angus on August 02, 2005, 08:53:01 AM
Would love to see the trial.
How was it compared to the Shooting star and the Sabre?
Title: Heinkel 280 maneuver like a 190??
Post by: Meyer on August 02, 2005, 11:58:15 AM
Hmmm don't think a He280 could roll like a 190 :)