Me262

[MiloMorai]

official US evaluation of captured Me 262s

 

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

 

Me 262 FLIGHT CHARACTERISTICS:

Two airplanes, Nos. T-2-711 and T-2-4012  were used in this test program. General maintenance was very difficult on both airplanes. Number T-2-711 was flown, 12 flights for a total of 10 hr and 40 min, and No. T-2-4012 was flown eight times for a total of 4 hr and 40 min. Four engine changes were necessary on No. T-2-4012 and five on No. T-2-711. Power failure in flight resulted in abandonment of the airplane and complete, destruction of No. T-2-711.

Tests were discontinued on No. T-2-4012 after two single-engine landings resulting from engine failure in flight, because the value of further flights was not believed to be worth the risk and trouble of maintaining the airplane...

 

Handling and control at various speeds:

The handling characteristics were poor at all speeds above 350mph. The airplane would not make a very satisfactory gun platform because of a tendency to hunt directionally, which resulted in snaking at speeds above 400 mph IAS.

CONCLUSIONS:

The handling characteristics of the Me-262 airplanes tested were very poor. However, it is believed that, with the exception of the directional hunting or yawing, they would have been considerably improved if the aileron and elevator servo tabs had been connected.

The pilots concluded that the Me-262 would not make a satisfactory gun platform because of its tendency to hunt directionally which turned into actual snaking the faster the plane went.

Which should make one take pause and consider the irony here... That one of the Me-262 strengths, i.e. its superior speed is also a weakness when it comes to stability and its usefulness as a gun platform.

FLIGHT CHARACTERISTICS:

Cockpit Layout:

The cockpit is somewhat cramped and it is difficult to turn in the seat to obtain vision to the rear. The location of the instruments and controls is satisfactory except that the throttles and starting controls are located too far aft for easy manipulation.

Brakes and ground handling:

The brakes were very poor, which made ground handling difficult.

Take-off and initial climb:

All take-offs were running take-offs, due to the poor brakes. The ground roll was slightly longer than ordinarily required. The nose wheel could be lifted off at about 100mph IAS, and the take-off was made at about 120 mph in a nose-high attitude.

Vision:

Vision was rather poor, due to the design of the canopy; many braces obstructed the line of vision and distortion was apparent when looking upward. Vision to the rear was poor because of the difficulty of turning in the seat to look aft.

 

Anyone taking off in one of  those machines was taking his life in his hands.

[Caudron431]

On the other hand:

 

"The normal range of flight characteristics from aerobatic manoeuvres to the stall revealed the Me 262 as a very responsive and docile aeroplane, leaving one with a confident impression of a first-class combat aircraft for both fighter and ground attack r????les. Harmony of control was pleasant..."

 

[...]

 

"That, then, was the Me 262, variously known as the Schwalbe and the Sturmvogel. But whatever the appellation, it was in my view unquestionably the foremost warplane of its day; a hard hitter which outperformed anything that we had immediately available but which fortunately for the Allies, was not available to the Luftwaffe in sufficient numbers to affect drastically the course of events in the air over Europe. It was a pilot's aeroplane which had to be flown and not just heaved into the air. Basically underpowered and fitted with engines sufficiently lacking in reliability to keep the adrenalin flowing, it was thouroughly exciting to fly, and particulary so  in view of its lack of an ejector seat. I was reminded vividly of this aircraft when i first flew the F-4 Phantom some 20 years later. This later-generation US aircraft offered its pilots that same feeling of sheer exhilaration, but the Phantom possessed the added attractions of safety and reliability which perhaps kept the pulse at a somewhat lower tempo than it attained when flying the Me 262 in those now-distant days of 1945."

 

Captain Eric "Winkle" Brown, CBE, DSC, AFC, RN

Edited April 4, 2013 by RegRag1977

[Magnon]

Brown flew it very leisurely in a few  circuits.. He wasn't allowed to push it  to its  limits.  Me 262 aerobatics were banned for both the German Luftwaffe and USAAF pilots. Check out Me 262 Pilot's Handbook.

 

In the performance tests above in http://www.dtic.mil/...oc?AD=ADA800524, the average engine life was 3.4 hours!.. 

 

There has been a lot of exaggeration in some people's estimates of the JUMO's durability.

 

Admittedly they were operating with exhaust  temperatures  up to 735C as against  650C recommended maximum (ref. Me 262 Pilot's Handbook  http://www.zenoswarb...lotHandbook.pdf).

 

But if they hadn't gone to 735C, they wouldn't have achieved 560 mph. Take what you want, and pay the price... 

 

..."underpowered and fitted with engines sufficiently lacking in reliability to keep the adrenalin flowing, it was thouroughly [sic] exciting to fly."

 

That sounds a lot like trying to make a virtue of necessity.

Edited April 9, 2013 by Magnon

[FlatSpinMan]

Jumpin' the gun, fellas. It's still 1943 in our world!

[MiloMorai]

Jumpin' the gun, fellas. It's still 1943 in our world!

 

What is the name of this forum?

 

It doesn't say 1943 Weapons and Equipment.

[AX2]

 

(ref. Me 262 Pilot's Handbook  http://www.zenoswarb...lotHandbook.pdf).

 

 

 

Downloading 

[Caudron431]

Hi Magnon,

 

Is this only your interpretation, or do you have information backing your claims (that Brown did only fly it "very leisurely in a few circuits.. [sic])

 

As for me, I read Brown stating:

 

"The normal range of flight characteristics from aerobatic manoeuvres to the stall revealed the Me 262 as a very responsive and docile aeroplane, leaving one with a confident impression of a first-class combat aircraft for both fighter and ground attack r????les. Harmony of control was pleasant..."

 

So if you are correct Brown is probably just simply lying here. But don't get mad at me if i choose to trust him instead.

 

Otherwise i agree that the US test pilots maybe did not know how to operate the Me 262 correctly (at first at least) thus excessively damaging its already unreliable/underpowered engines, this new type of aircraft (along with the P-80), what is more from another country of origin, was probably really different from what they were used to fly.

 

"That sounds a lot like trying to make a virtue of necessity."

 

Maybe, but i think that you don't get the point that even with underpowered engines, the Me 262 was still the fastest and most exciting ride around at the time. This is so important when we know "speed is life"!

 

Anyway the Me 262 was not that bad, with all the critics in the report, you and the OP are mentionning, still the conclusion says, p.6:

 

"Despite a difference in gross weight of nearly 2000 lb, the Me-262 n?

Edited April 9, 2013 by RegRag1977

[Magnon]

Schwalbe Structural Workmanship:

 

[Hans Fey, Messerschmitt test pilot and technical inspector] says that the structural workmanship on the Me 262 is not as good as that on the Me 109.When testing the Me 262, it was not infrequent for parts to be stripped off in fast, steep dives and Fey has himself lost cockpit covers, bomb racks and the needle valve [read variable area nozzle] of the tail pipe during dives. In fact, because of these uncertainties, the pilots rarely did a roll or similar maneuver during acceptance flights...

from http://www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com/Images/Me262/ME262PILOTDEBRIEF.pdf

 

Although faster than Allied propeller aircraft, the Me 262 lacked maneuverability, its engines were relatively unreliable, its cannons tended to jam during high-g turns, and its gear collapsed on hard landings.

from http://www.aviationtrivia.info/Messerschmitt-Me262.php

 

From an WW2 ex-Luftwaffe Me 262 pilot ???

Edited April 10, 2013 by Magnon

[FlatSpinMan]

What is the name of this forum?

 

It doesn't say 1943 Weapons and Equipment.

IL2 Sturmovik. Not that it matters, but bad point.

 

I am just wondering what the intent of this thread is, MM. A propos nothing, you lay out some data and anecdotes stating the flaws of an aircraft.One might almost think this was a fishing trip.

[MiloMorai]

So FSM you are not interested in what the USAAF had to say about the a/c.

[AX2]

Me 262 was an interceptor, not a dogfighter.

Like a F14 , but no F16.

In WWII.. if you are fast you dont need be involved in a dogfight.

 

The Luftwaffe fought above 24000+ Ft against formations of  B17 + P51 + P47. In proportion of 1 german fighter vs 8 enemy fighters or more.... 

The Luftwaffe did not need an dogfighter, to perform acrobatics.. dont need  fight 1 vs 8 enemy fighters? They needed a miracle...

The only needed speed for hit   B17 fortmations  and run...

2000 Me 262 were built, I think only 500 pilots had flown the 262

The average engine life was 3 to 4 hours, But the Luftwaffe had more engines and planes than pilots.

That's the truth

 

Many pilots of  FW 190 D9  only had 15 hours of training, and never before they had  flown a plane.

it is more dangerous than no have fuel or average engine life was 3 to 4 hours..

 

Edited April 10, 2013 by Mustang

[Caudron431]

 

Me 262 was an interceptor, not a dogfighter.

Like a F14 , but no F16.

In WWII.. if you are fast you dont need be involved in a dogfight.

 

The Luftwaffe fought above 24000+ Ft against formations of  B17 + P51 + P47. In proportion of 1 german fighter vs 8 enemy fighters or more.... 

The Luftwaffe did not need an dogfighter, to perform acrobatics.. dont need  fight 1 vs 8 enemy fighters? They needed a miracle...

The only needed speed for hit   B17 fortmations  and run...

2000 Me 262 were built, I think only 500 pilots had flown the 262

The average engine life was 3 to 4 hours, But the Luftwaffe had more engines and planes than pilots.

That's the truth

 

Many pilots of  FW 190 D9  only had 15 hours of training, and never before they had  flown a plane.

it is more dangerous than no have fuel or average engine life was 3 to 4 hours..

 

 

Excellent post Mustang!

[Drum_Tastic]

Brown flew it very leisurely in a few  circuits.. He wasn't allowed to push it  to its  limits.  Me 262 aerobatics were banned for both the German Luftwaffe and USAAF pilots. Check out Me 262 Pilot's Handbook.

 

In the performance tests above in http://www.dtic.mil/...oc?AD=ADA800524, the average engine life was 3.4 hours!.. 

 

There has been a lot of exaggeration in some people's estimates of the JUMO's durability.

 

Admittedly they were operating with exhaust  temperatures  up to 735C as against  650C recommended maximum (ref. Me 262 Pilot's Handbook  http://www.zenoswarb...lotHandbook.pdf).

 

But if they hadn't gone to 735C, they wouldn't have achieved 560 mph. Take what you want, and pay the price... 

 

..."underpowered and fitted with engines sufficiently lacking in reliability to keep the adrenalin flowing, it was thouroughly [sic] exciting to fly."

 

That sounds a lot like trying to make a virtue of necessity.

 

 

Oh yeah, absolutely.......I mean what would Eric brown know about evaluating the capabilities of an aircraft, I wonder if that is why the USAAF approached him to work out why they were losing P-51's on escort duty over Germany