Me262 over Korea

Assuming it's engines had been uprated and made reliable, and the aircraft fully developed, would an Me262 still have been able to mix it with a 1950 Meteor, Vampire, Sabre or Mig 15 in Korean war type combat? Or would it have been totally outclassed by then?

[drgondog]

Interesting question and not really predictable w/o looking at some data, specifically wing loading, critical Mach No, and proposed engines.

Off hand I would guess that the MiG and the 86 would be faster, out turn, out dive and out roll the 262 no matter what you replaced the Jumo with as both the 86 and the MiG should be aerodynamically 'cleaner' with the single engines.

It's possible the 262 might acclerate faster initially, and even outclimb, if the thrust of both engines exceeded the Thrust to weight ratio of the 86/MiG 15.

[Graham Boak]

As a first generation jet with a straight wing (yes, it did, in aerodynamic terms) it could have been developed in parallel with the Meteor, F-80 and even F-84 - or indeed the Panther and Banshee. It could not have been made competitive with the later generation fighters such as MiG 15 and Sabre. It's thick straight wing could not compare in top speed, being limited to around 0.82M (I forget the precise number).

Given its design as a heavily-armed high wing-loading bomber destroyer, it could have been pretty murderous to the B-29s, but there's considerable room for doubt over its capabilities in dogfights with even the earlier generation.

[Kutscha]

But Mtt was working on better versions of the 262, and with real swept wings. There was better engines coming as well.

[drgondog]

Even with swept wings and better engines, the two engine wing mounted design would have been an aerodynamic hog, consumed much more fuel per mile of climb/flight. According to Yeager, who flew the 262 after the war, it would not do more than .9-.92 mach in a dive. While sweeping wings might have helped marginally, it was probably more drag related to engines/nacelles than airfoil. There were sound reasons that ALL future high performance twin engine fighters housed the engines in the fuselage

None of the later design twin engine fighters in the late 40's and early 50's could compete with the 86 or MiG 15... so 'new' 262 climb performance and turn performance would have been aligned with thrust to weight and wing loading respectively of the 'newer' Me 262.

I would have to look at the drag profiles and the Mach critical number to have a better feel but would bet large amount that it would be inferior to both except for armament- which does not diminish the importance of this marvelous fighter.

[Graham Boak]

Sorry, but it quite definitely was the aerofoil section that limited the top speed of the Me 262, and 0.92M seems highly optimistic, probably due to a pressure error effect. The engine nacelles being below the wing, they would not have interfered with the fuselage flow in the same was as they did on the P-38, for example. Swept wings would indeed have helped, but the resulting aircraft would not have been a 262.

As for your contention that all high speed twin jets had the engines in the fuselage, what about the multiple variants of the Yak 25 family? The Bristol 188 testbed and the SR71? Or, in more modern times, the Tomcat and the Flanker? Certainly there were many other projects, even if they didn't reach fruition, that retained podded engines.

[Six Nifty .50s]

The drag penalty of outboard jet engines is an interesting topic. But I would think that structural integrity rather than drag is the main strike against underwing engines. Simplicity and ease of maintenance might be the best reasons to use outboard engine pods.

It prompts me to wonder what sort of violent test pilot maneuvers that a multi-engine jet can withstand before the turbines were pulled off the wings (Me 262, Ar 234, SR-71, B-52, B-58, B-1, etc).

[Franek Grabowski]

Graham, please note Tempest II and Tempest V or Beaufighter family. It was certainly dependant on government/parliament's policy, either willing to invest in new types or rather to rely on old ones. Concerning Airacobra, after the turbo-compressor was canceled, a new designation had been considered but not implemented after it had been realised there is no money in the budget for new types.

[Graham Boak]

[quote=Franek Grabowski;42132]Graham, please note Tempest II and Tempest V or Beaufighter family.


You could also add Wellington, or Sunderland, and I suspect others, to your list but by the start of WW2 it had stopped being the British habit to change the name of an aircraft just because the engine type changed. Given the rate of spend during WW2, economic/political influences were totally irrelevant on the choice of name, if it ever had been. Later, the Hunter, Buccaneer and Victor changed engines without a name change.

I can't think, offhand, of a single example of a British aircraft where the name was kept the same for economic/political reasons. The British system just doesn't work in that manner. It is much more an American habit, because of the US system of annual budget reviews passing through Congress and the Senate. Which might perhaps point the finger at the Harrier II, where a new name would indeed have been justified, but there the pressure would have been to go with the US name - it was 1942 when the British stopped giving aircraft different names than the US. And besides, the name Harrier had a particularly special cachet; perhaps like the Spitfire there was a popular/"political" reason but little to do with our democratic representatives.

[Nick Beale]

Originally Posted by Graham Boak

Given the rate of spend during WW2, economic/political influences were totally irrelevant on the choice of name, if it ever had been. Later, the Hunter, Buccaneer and Victor changed engines without a name change.

I can't think, offhand, of a single example of a British aircraft where the name was kept the same for economic/political reasons. The British system just doesn't work in that manner.

Maybe ships are different, though? I remember how the Invincible class aircraft carriers appeared in 1970s defence budgets as "through-deck cruisers" to get them past sceptical politicians.