ME - 262

Can anybody tell me how good this fighter was, compared to the Allied fighters of the day? (P51, later marks of the Spitfire), and how good it was compared to the Allied jet fighters?

The short answer is 'Too few, too late, short range and poor engine reliability to make a significant impact upon the course of the war.' It's 500 mph speed and four 30mm, nose mounted cannon shook up the defensive gunners in the B-24s and 17s on their first encounters with them. The F-80, with it's six, 50 cal MGs, was slighty faster but there were no jet to jet encounters in the ETO. Some were destroyed by Allied prop fighters, often near their bases when in a pattern. They would have been no match for the F-86 or any Allied, jet fighter of the immediate post-WWII era. For history, info and pix see: http://www.stormbirds.com/warbirds/history/ history.html

The answer as always is: it depends on the situation. The Me-262 was the best interceptor of the war and nothing else really came close to it in that role. Extremely fast by the standards of the day and heavy, powerful armament.

As a tactical (point defense, front-line, light fighter, whatever is your favorite term) fighter the Me-262 was not as successful. It had a poor maneuverability and its armament was not very well suited for fighter vs. fighter combat. Its slow acceleration made it very vulnerable during take-off.

As an escort fighter, like all early jet fighters, the Me-262 was simply hopeless because of its short operating range.

The Me-262 had an excellent performance compared to other early jet fighters. More specifically it was clearly superior to the British Gloster Meteor, which was its closest contemporary. The somewhat later American P-80A is sometimes mentioned as roughly as good as the Me-262, but that is a simplification. The P-80 was much more maneuverable than the Me-262, but it had much lighter armament. The P-80A was faster at low altitude but the Me-262A-1a was faster at medium and high altitude. The P-80 was clearly a better tactical fighter than the Me-262, but the latter was the better interceptor of the two.

The most significant problem of the Me-262 were unreliable engines. They could be expected to work only for a couple of dozen hours between overhauls and required constant maintenance. To be fair, the problem was not entirely on the design of the engines, but also a result of the poor production conditions and lack of strategic materials in Germany during the last 18 months of the war.

Tero P. Mustalahti

In general, not so good as many appear to believe.

There were far too few of them manufactured and made available for combat operations in the first place.

Furthermore, neither the airframe nor the powerplant were ready for operations by the time they were committted to combat. The airframe suffered from directional control problems. It proved difficult to roll the a/c from one direction to another (an extension to the control handle was rigged to give the pilot more leverage so as to manhandle the a/c out of a turn or roll in one direction and into another).

Quality control also proved to be a problem; the nosewheel, for example, would snap apart if it were breathed on too hard. At times, engines simply fell off due to poor assembly and poor-quality materiel used in its construction.

The jet powerplants were underdeveloped and due to shortages of temperature-resistant alloys, had a poor life-expectancy and had to be overhauled at frequent intervals (although such could be accomplished in an auto garage). The fuel-flow controls for starting and for sustained flight were complicated and throttle manipulation in flight was tricky, leading to too many flameouts. This was a major shortcoming, as the a/c was essentially flown via engine manipulation rather than by its ailerons and rudders, which were not power-boosted. Its pilot had to be careful to 'baby' his engines, using gentle throttle inputs at all times, and had to avoid touching the throttle above a certain altitude, this in great contrast to the generally vigorous application of power commonplace in prop-driven a/c.

When an Me-262 pilot lost an engine, he was generally in big trouble, as the a/c was difficult to control with asymmetric thrust, and a relight following a flameout could take 30 or more long seconds during which several steps had to be completed both in sequence and in parallel, a nightmare both on takeoff and in the landing pattern.

All the above meant that only very experienced pilots with calm nerves (and plenty of engine-out or glider experience-experts

Cheers and all,

The Me-262 had a top speed of 540mph. The P-51's top was 440 (depending on which version, B,C,D,K...) P-47's around 430 (depends on the exact version and alt. also). P-38's around 414 (also depends on which version and what alt.) Tempest around 450 (ditto about version).

Catch is, the Me-262's engines could not go max for more than 30 min. Plus short range with full load. The 262 was not a turning aircraft, so energy fighting was it's only way of fighting (speed). But then, that is a real good way to fight as long as you have the gas. The 262 also had few numbers, few experienced pilots to fly them, and little gas, while the allies had lots of long range fighters, lots of experience pilots, and plenty of gas.

So the allies tactic was to lotter around known airfields the Me-262 used and try to get them landing or taking off (which worked somewhat).

As for air combat, as long as the 262 could keep their speeds up, all they had to do is Boom-and-Zoom (BZ), that is, high speed attack from above, and high speed climb, and the allies fighters could not get a shot or follow (just like WE did to the Japanese as the A6M and Ki-43 were around 70 mph slower than the P-38s that were used so much out there.

As for the P-80 and Metor fighters, they were slower than the 262 and even had more engine problems than the 262 (which is how Bong got killed in 45, in a P-80).