Impact if Me-262 developed only as a fighter?

Re: Impact if Me-262 developed only as a fighter?

feeds@yuku.com (delcyros) — Sun, 27 Apr 2008 09:53:19 GMT

The Nickel scarcity is valid only from a time starting in oct. 44, when soviet troops captured the Nickel mines in northern Finland. Until this time, they produced about 80% of the german industrial demands of Nickel. Chromium was a more severe problem, agreed.
The change from Chromadur alloys to Tinadur alloys is indicative for this. Another approach to adress the problems have been sophisticated cooling techniques and experimentation with rather unconventional materials. Kay´s...

Re: Impact if Me-262 developed only as a fighter?

feeds@yuku.com (ickysdad) — Sat, 26 Apr 2008 21:24:37 GMT

Finland, Norway and probably Sweden but how much was needed for say artillery tubes????? I think Chromium was availiable in Europe only in Turkey.

Re: Impact if Me-262 developed only as a fighter?

feeds@yuku.com (delcyros) — Sat, 26 Apr 2008 09:40:31 GMT

Nickel did came from finnish mines in quantities up to late 1944 into Germany. Chromium was largely the more difficult material to get hands on. While oil production was very important, it was not that much the case for jet aviation. The jet engines always run on low grade fuels, while the high performance piston fighters (Fw-190, some Bf-109 versions) required the more difficult to produce high grade C3 fuel, instead, which was not in short supply for the fighter force until feb. 45, when it...

Re: Impact if Me-262 developed only as a fighter?

feeds@yuku.com (Craiglxviii) — Mon, 21 Apr 2008 22:15:55 GMT

Of all the warbirds I got to work on- well, spend money on- the Mossie was always my favourite, but I do like her successor too. It's a shame the Hornet never got to prove her worth.

Re: Impact if Me-262 developed only as a fighter?

feeds@yuku.com (emc) — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 16:43:40 GMT

Craiglxviii wrote:
EMC.. I think you're onto something there. Wait, what if we reduce the crew to 2? Increases payload by 350-400lbs. Remove tail guns- ditto. We could also make the bomb aimer/ navigator lie prone.. hmm. What if we also go for non-strategic structural material? Canada has endless spruce and birch forests.

Hang on.. does this sound familiar?

...and birch and spruce are...

Re: Impact if Me-262 developed only as a fighter?

feeds@yuku.com (Craiglxviii) — Wed, 09 Apr 2008 23:04:09 GMT

EMC.. I think you're onto something there. Wait, what if we reduce the crew to 2? Increases payload by 350-400lbs. Remove tail guns- ditto. We could also make the bomb aimer/ navigator lie prone.. hmm. What if we also go for non-strategic structural material? Canada has endless spruce and birch forests.

Hang on.. does this sound familiar?

Re: Impact if Me-262 developed only as a fighter?

feeds@yuku.com (flyingdutchman1980) — Wed, 09 Apr 2008 15:37:14 GMT

Despite the fact that early B-17's carried much less defensive armament than the later models, I believe that the USAAF (and RAF and, presumably, the air forces of Germany, France, Italy, and Japan) had all developed their heavy bomber forces on the principle that defensive fire would be successful. Given that principle, which was held by USAAF leadership after it was demonstrated to be flawed, increasing the defensive guns of the B-17 was a logical course.
...

Re: Impact if Me-262 developed only as a fighter?

feeds@yuku.com (Red Admiral) — Wed, 09 Apr 2008 14:51:10 GMT

pukalshik wrote:
I wonder why modern engines have axial compressors and not centrifugal

Depends what you mean by "modern" engines. The sort with axial compressors have a much higher thrust and much higher mass flow rates. The sort with centrifugal and mixed flow compressors have a much lower thrust and lower mass flow...

Re: Impact if Me-262 developed only as a fighter?

feeds@yuku.com (emc) — Wed, 09 Apr 2008 13:16:21 GMT

I wonder why modern engines have axial compressors and not centrifugal

Actually, modern engines have either axial or centrifugal compressors, or both, largely dependent on engine size. During the early era of the aviation gas turbine (gas turbines actually date from the early 20th century; iirc the first were built in 1904, aviation gas turbines were more-or-less simultaneously "invented" in the UK and Germany in the late 1930's), there was more...

Re: Impact if Me-262 developed only as a fighter?

feeds@yuku.com (pukalshik) — Wed, 09 Apr 2008 09:53:10 GMT

Red Admiral wrote:
The axial compressor was the main source of the unreliability, weight, and of the massive fuel consumption. It wasn't very efficient (less efficient than the centrifugal compressors used in the British jets) and was long and heavy giving poor thrust/weight ratio. The pressure ratio was rather low which gave poor fuel consumption. It also has much poorer surge characteristics than a centrifugal compressor...

Re: Impact if Me-262 developed only as a fighter?

feeds@yuku.com (Red Admiral) — Tue, 08 Apr 2008 23:55:10 GMT

Actually, the prototype engines were better in that regard as they were able to use nickel-chrome alloys, still steels rather than nickel superalloys IIRC though. For the series production engines there was nowhere near enough material and so steel with poorer thermal characteristics had to be used.

Re: Impact if Me-262 developed only as a fighter?

feeds@yuku.com (ickysdad) — Tue, 08 Apr 2008 22:35:45 GMT

Red Admiral wrote:
Most of the problems with the German engines were to do with their design rather than the materials themselves. The materials limited lifetime to around 10 hours, and also limited thrust and fuel consumption, but not to a great degree. Is the ten hour life a problem when your fighter will most likely be shot down in that time? It can always be rectified with proper replacement proceedures.

The...

Re: Impact if Me-262 developed only as a fighter?

feeds@yuku.com (Red Admiral) — Tue, 08 Apr 2008 20:25:40 GMT

Most of the problems with the German engines were to do with their design rather than the materials themselves. The materials limited lifetime to around 10 hours, and also limited thrust and fuel consumption, but not to a great degree. Is the ten hour life a problem when your fighter will most likely be shot down in that time? It can always be rectified with proper replacement proceedures.

The axial compressor was the main source of the unreliability, weight, and of the massive fuel...

Re: Impact if Me-262 developed only as a fighter?

feeds@yuku.com (Admiral Beez) — Tue, 08 Apr 2008 16:49:34 GMT

Perhaps the better use of the German jet program would be to produce more Arado Ar 234 Blitz (Lightning) reconnaissance aircraft. Had the Blitz been available in larger numbers by the Spring and Summer of 1944, high speed reconnaissance flights over Britain could have given the Germans detailed intelligence information on the plans for D-Day.

How will the RAF or USAAF stop the Blitz? With a top speed of over 460 mph at under 20,000 feet, by the time UK-based radar advises Fighter...

Re: Impact if Me-262 developed only as a fighter?

feeds@yuku.com (A G Williams) — Tue, 08 Apr 2008 16:44:26 GMT

emc wrote:

I had suspected that one of the reasons for the mass bomber formations was simply that operational results had shown that high altitude bombing accuracy* was so poor that vast quantities of bombs were required to have any significant effect on a target.

* Excepting some units, such as the RAF's 617 Squadron, and similar (I am quite sure they existed 8-)) units in the...

Re: Impact if Me-262 developed only as a fighter?

feeds@yuku.com (emc) — Tue, 08 Apr 2008 15:58:19 GMT

A G Williams wrote:

emc wrote:
I tend to think that stripping the guns out of existing bombers (whether B-17's, Lancasters, or Do-17's) would not be terribly effective; the aircraft had been designed with the excess fuselage volume, wing area, etc, that resulted from a design with several turrets and waist-mounted machine guns and the crew to operate...

Re: Impact if Me-262 developed only as a fighter?

feeds@yuku.com (DonnieBaseball23) — Tue, 08 Apr 2008 15:29:27 GMT

I've seen analyses (speculative, of course) that suggested that if Bomber Command had built Mosquitos instead of 4-engine heavies, that would've meant a 50% bomber force (based on the idea that three twin-engined bombers could be built for every two four-engined) and thus the RAF could've carried out a "pinpoint" daylight campaign with fast, unarmed Mosquitos (which had great range and could carry 4,000 lb. + loads) at low level, to much greater effect than the night...

Re: Impact if Me-262 developed only as a fighter?

feeds@yuku.com (jlyons97) — Tue, 08 Apr 2008 15:21:13 GMT

of guns"

Not strip perhaps, but get rid of the flex guns (waist, radio, navigator), especially after the chin turret arrived.

Five guns (about 65 lbs/apiece), two gunners , and probably 2500 rounds of ammo, plus the weight of the mountings. None of them were in position to offer the gunners anything but an impossible aiming problem.

I submit they would have not been missed. Trouble was, the gunner claims convinced everyone they were worth keeping.

Re: Impact if Me-262 developed only as a fighter?

feeds@yuku.com (A G Williams) — Tue, 08 Apr 2008 08:58:11 GMT

emc wrote:
I tend to think that stripping the guns out of existing bombers (whether B-17's, Lancasters, or Do-17's) would not be terribly effective; the aircraft had been designed with the excess fuselage volume, wing area, etc, that resulted from a design with several turrets and waist-mounted machine guns and the crew to operate them: an ab-initio design with minimal gun armament (as was the case with the Mosquito)...

Re: Impact if Me-262 developed only as a fighter?

feeds@yuku.com (ickysdad) — Tue, 08 Apr 2008 06:12:34 GMT

Dcnwilltex wrote:
If Hitler decided to co-developed a Me-262 varient bomber and fighter, he could have repelled the Normandy Invasions much better, as he could have had both in squadron service in mid 1943. Range for a bomber version would not have been a problem and the fighter versions could be escorts (CAP).

A few dozens sorties by Me-262s on the beach head is not going to affect anything. The Luftwaffe...

Impact if Me-262 developed only as a fighter?

feeds@yuku.com (Admiral Beez) — Wed, 18 Jul 1973 21:07:43 GMT

Much is said that Hitler's insistence that the Me-262 have bomber capability subsequently delayed the deployment of this aircraft in the bomber interception role. What would have been the impact if Hitler had left all alone and the Me-262 went straight into development as a fighter? Would the Me-262 have entered service earlier? Would it have turned the allied bomber offensive into a shambles?

My own thoughts are that the engines would continue to be unreliable and materials...