Assuming the atrocious engine life and flameout issues could have been worked out, how would it have faired against other early jet fighters like the F-80, Vampire, MiG-15, etc?
shit because the mk108 is shit
>>65115186Good point. Nerf trajectory is not good for an air to air cannon.You would, of course, have to find a way to nullify the Mosquitos camping around places they would run away to land.
mig 15 at home:
>>65115186The Mk108 is basically a grenade launcher
>>65115186>>65115220They had a prototype 20mm revolver cannon, the Allies all built version of that thing postwar.But the reason the 262 had those 4 30 mm guns was obviously to just shrek bombers. So no, it wasn't a good dogfighter. It was just fast, and threw a lot of HE at a non-maneuvering target.>>651152043 or so years ahead of the MiG-15. Back in the 40s that's like two and half generations.
>>65115240the designer fled to Argentina postwar and made an actual version of it that wasn't just a concept
>>65115164Only design that actually properly entered service of the first gen I think it would beat is the Saab 21R. About the only other thing it had a chance against was the Meteor and even then that could be a close fight as the Meteor could climb higher and had way more range. Everything else was faster, had more range, and not only could fly higher but had a faster rate of climb than it. Frankly the only thing it could have done against the rest of the Gen 1's is lube up its tailpipe.
>>65115246
>>65115258kino
>>65115246>>65115258Yeah, but the rapid technological aadvances meant that the concept that was cutting edge in '44, still modern in '47 but already mainstream in '50.And at awild guess the Argentinians lacked a good engine, which was the achilles heel back then.
>>65115280Latewar German jets were intended to be used with the Heinkel hes-011 which was a better engine with a bigger compressor than the hot garbage Jumos that came before. They just didn't get to make like 10 of them before the war ended
Has anyone mentioned 'murricas first yet?It flew.
>>65115285slower than a mustang
>>65115288Same with the meteor, really nobody really knew what the fuck they were doing with jets back then
Even American engines, which didn't struggle with heat-resistant alloy materials and technology like wartime Germany, seemed to suffer from short lifespans in the 1940s.
>>65115319Indeed, Meteor was restricted to UK airspace to stop The Hun finding out its secrets.Pic Nene, the engine that powered pretty much everyones best early post war jet.
>>65115164About as well as the P-80 and Meteor in Korea, probably a bit worse because the 30mm wasn't a great a2a weapon against fighters.
>>65115336The Nene was the better engine than the Jumo, but axials ultimately defeated centrifugals
>>65115336I know that they would have "just" stolen one through the endless spies they had but can you imagine if the british didn't fucking give nenes to the soviets for free for no reasonImagine the western tech advantage lasting longer, imagine the soviets going with domestic designs instead of copying
>>65115240>They had a prototype 20mm revolver cannon,Which means it wouldn't have done them any good
>>65115220Look at it and look at the HK GMG and don't tell me they're not sons from a different mother.
>>65115368>>65115354Yeah to be fair the Nene was seen as a bit of a dead end at the time, hence it being sold for civilian use to the reds.Nobody knew it was still going to be so much better than anything they had up to that point.
>>65115280> which was the achilles heel back then.You say that like not having a good engine hasn’t always, and continues to be an Achilles heel.
>>65115164To offer a best-case scenario rather than the realistic assessments so far, the Me-262C would stand a fighting chance thanks to it's integral rocket boosters, especially if re-armed with MG151 or MK103 cannon. Zoom climbs, sustained turning engagements or evasive maneuvers, and high-altitude engagements become far more manageable with temporary access to twice the TWR of it's rivals (and still 1.5x versus 1947-48 models). 90-120 seconds isn't much time, but it's effectively afterburner capability which nobody else would have in wide use until the late 50s and were rarely lit much longer anyway due to fuel + compressor temperature limits (even larger, more advanced designs like the F-4 only have ~20-30min of fuel at full burner, depending on altitude and ambient atmosphere). By no means does it turn the tide for Germany, but perhaps this different turn of events sees surplus Czech models exported to 3rd-rate air forces just like the shooting star and meteor were to S. America + Africa through the 50s and 60s.
>>65115164>german thing bad because, it is okayWhy are you all dilating for German hate
>>65115283The BMW-018 would be developed into the Snecma Atar, and at the very least the early versions of that engine were basically designed by the german design team, so there was more than just one route there. At the end of the day, the material and manufacturing capabilities available to late war germany basically precluded them from producing much of the wunderwaffe people like to wank about, but they had the technical capabilities to design them.>>65115164Poorly because it was designed like at least 3 years ahead of everything else in that list, and was constrained by wartime german industrial capabilities. Actual late-war german designs would've performed pretty well, though even without the constraints of late-war germany, the designs would've had a slew of teething issues.
Still boggles my mind that the bongistanis could have been fielding jets with radars in like 1938 but they ignored both Whittle's engine and the cavity magnetron.
>>65115945They didn't "ignore" the cavity magnetron. Bongs invented it but they didn't have the production capacity to make use of it so they gave it to the Americans.
>>65115945The quiet truth is that the UK of 1938 had many of the same national diseases as the USA of 20XX - major debts looming over the economy, a massive but outdated industrial base, a housing crisis, and divided + war weary population (albeit not as badly as France). That left limited appetite or means for military spending that wasn't a matter of tradition and influence, such as upkeep on the Royal Navy.
>>65115969They really didnt manage the maintenance part of the Royal Navy very well either. See issues with HMS Hood ans Prince of Wales gun jams.>>65115283Dont hate the Jumo it was perfect for a alloy constained country. Mf engine used stamped blades and significantly less man hours to make than a DB605. Further despite being more thirsty could use regular diesel.
>>65115368>>65115431Rolls-Royce later attempted to claim £207m in license fees, without successAt even the russians new to force the Chinese to buy a bunch of jets than sell engines for copying.
>>65115204I vaguely remember reading they did wind tunnel testing on the models post-war and they were badly unstable.
>>65116003interesting. Its actually neat all the nazi 'prototypes' and think the nazis were like the smartest ever even tho 90% of the shit didnt even make it off the drawing board because it fucking sucked.
The Swedish flying barrel seems to have been a success, but generally speaking, the fuselage should be longer for the stabilizers to be fully effective.
>>65115965Let me rephrase that, then: it amazes me that despite their enthusiasm for radar, the bongs didn't recognize the cavity magnetron for the game-changing cheat code that it was and they could have been producing functional units as early as 1938 to go on the hypothetical jet fighters that they could also have been fielding by 1938.
>>65115368>no reasonit wasn't for no reason, it was a labour government and the minister in charge of the relevant department was a communist.
>>65116109>the bongs didn't recognize the cavity magnetron for the game-changing cheat code that it wasexcept they did and they used it to bribe america to join the war. >Tizzard Missionthe british had chain home, they knew exactly the value of radar.
>>65116249Please remember that some people on this board have a World Series that doesn't invite other countries.
How many F-15s would it take to bring down a 262, realistically? Assume the F-15s know where it is ahead of time, and everyone starts at 20,000 feet, 40nm apart
>>65116268Aim-9
>>65115573The real question is what would have been the performance of the Me-262C versus paper stats? In a best case scenario it would be a contender. In a real world scenario I really think its still going to get boom and zoomed to death.>>65115969UK was also ripe with corruption as well. They were for example closing and demolishing dockyards as late as 1938 for private profit when they knew war was on the horizon. Frankly if you were to travel back in time and put a stop to such scandalous activity the UK would be entering WW2 swinging a lot harder and leaving it in a much better state.
>>65115945Britsih and German jet development really ran in parallel for almost a decade.The German program settled on axial, the British on centrifugal compressor, and the Brits had better rare metal supply during the war to build a sturdier, long lived turbine.Both sides knew that axial was the technology that would scale better in the end, the Brits just went with what they knew they could get to work now.>>65116109Nobody really did, in 1940. But the British and the US kept going, and made it work.The Germans had one professor who just stated that the whole centimetric radar stuff was useless, and just abandoned the concept. Why, you ask? All their tests were, by accident, at the wavelengths that reflected off water vapour. Clouds.And that is how we got weather radar.They found out the allies were using in '43 or '44, and actually sttarted using crashed cavity magnetrons to build some sets of their own.>>65116003>>65116019It's an unfinished model that was in development, if you look at the last concepts it's closer to a Sabre/MiG-15. The fuselage is longer, the tail shorter. It must've been this set that the designers at North American and MiG got to work with.it must've been a wild time where you could go from double deckers with radials to swept-back wings and jet engines in ten years.
>>65116299>Brits just went withRover as a jet engine maker. That went well.Oddly a trade with Rolls Royce happened.
>>65116281>real performance versus paper stats?Just ask gaijin, you will learn that all German planes and vehicles are complete trash, all Soviet and Russian vehicles are ackshually unbeatable mechanical wonders conjured up by the spirit of Stalin and the will of the Workers.That being said, logicallly we should expect the third iteration of a design to be generallyl a bit more refined, and with various smalller problems ironed out.The rocket boost afterburner analogue is something we can see at work with German piston engined fighters, they used different types of injection systems (MW50, GM1) with generally good results.With a pilot who knows his plane, and what such a system can do, it's probably a valid threat to late 40 jet fighters that are nominally more modern, like Sabre or MiG-15. The abilitty to go vertical thanks to rocket boost even at high altitiudes is pretty interestingThe Sabre gets the moving tailplane of course, which is the next big step.Kinda unrelated, but both F-104 and Mirage 3 did tests with rocket assist.
>>65116327>The Miles M.52 gets the moving tailplaneBefore being cancelled.
>>65116281>paper statsThe performance can be reasonably assessed, particularly as the -C1a flight tested example was simply an -A1a with the Me-163 rocket motor installed in the tail. No ballast was needed, since the T-stoff oxidizer is significantly more dense than jet fuel, counteracting the weight of the extra motor aft. Approx 450kg in the front 1/3 and 200kg aft, mass further from the centers of mass/lift/pressure on an airframe means reduced moment for the elevators and rudder, in proportion to MTOW I'd expect about 15% lower initial turn than the A1a, balanced by it's leading edge slats and extra horizontal stabilizer area over the P-80 in a sustained turn. Against the P-80 and Meteor, the 262 actually has the best top-end, mach .85 vs .84 (P-80) and .82 (Meteor) nominally. Turbulent flow losses also gimp the P-80's more advanced engine.Even so, these aerodynamic factors are not different enough to be decisive (assuming types with notably large wings like Meteor aren't tangled with at low airspeeds), until the rocket motor kicks in. No 1st-gen jet normally has enough thrust to sustain max-rate turns, high-angle climbs, or get near their mach limit in level flight unless very near their service ceiling, but for ~2 minutes the C1a can do all three at will.
>>65116327The rocket in the nf-104 was designed just for high altitude testing and training. The rocket engine in the mirage iii was compatible with every version of the plane and was used operationally to intercept u-2's and canberas, among others.
>>65115164>No airbrake>Tendency to snake in level flight>18 degree wing sweep>Uncontrollable at 0.8 mach>Anti-B17 grenade launchers instead of proper gunsIt'd be slightly better than the WW2-era Meteor. Certainly worse than the Sabre and the MiG-15.
>>65115591Germans had good engineers. Unfortunately, they were led by drug addled retards.
>>65116268>How many 4th gen fighters would it take to bring down an old school subsonic jet?Ask the Serbs.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1994_Serb_J-21_Jastreb_shootdown
>>65115164>>65115186It was made to shoot down bombers that were literally genociding the shit out of Germany. If you fit it with 4x MG151s and the remaining weight in ammo, it would have been pretty competitive with the P80 (although the P80 is a bit better in every metric) and mogged the Vampire (it was pretty slow and had a low ceiling and abysmal rate of climb). The Fagot was significantly better, but it had the advantage of being designed and built significantly later, as in late to post war peorid with stolen British technology, no less.I think the real interesting comparison is the Metior. It was roughly equivalent to begin with, but it got developed until well after the war with the benefit of being on the winning side. It would be interesting to see what the ME 262 would have become under similar circumstances. >>65115198>have to find a way to nullify the Mosquitos camping around places they would run away to land.That could be handled by classic War Thunder tactics and not already losing the war. Just fake land and let the base AA take care of the plywood shits.
>>65115368>imagine the soviets going with domestic designs instead of copyingKek, how many hamsters can you fit inside a MiG fuselage?Communist can't invent or creat shit. All they can do is steal and kill.Most modern inventions and discoveries came from Imperial Europe, specifically France, Germany, Northern Italy and the Low Countries.
>>65116327Don't play skinner boxes built to pander to Russians and then complain about it. Just stop playing, or shut the fuck up and accept the bed you've made for yourself to sleep in. Take some responsibility for your shitty habits and decisions.
The hypothetical scenario of the Korean War where the MiG-15s didn't arrive in time is interesting.While the B-29s could have operated freely over the Yalu River, destroying railway bridges with airstrikes was difficult even during the Vietnam War.
>>65117882>destroying bridgesRelated hypothetical, there's nothing that prevented SEAD doctrine from developing earlier. My sim squadron has>Enough planes to provide target saturation and local air superiority>A few twin/triple seaters acting as FACs with binoculars.>Everyone strafe the AAA while dive bombers knock out the span - no harder than hitting a destroyer zigzagging at 30 knots.I figure the practical problem was twofold - >AAA's disruptive effect wasn't sufficiently appreciated relative to it's lack of destructive efficiency, so target priority was low - if bomb release/pullout happens from 5000ft instead of 1200ft, it's working even if no planes were shot down.>OrganizationalThe Navy were the typically the only ones with a defined, unified air group command staff but were rarely the ones needing a bridge dropped.
