Post-war Me 262 development

[macelena 1,070]

Inspired by the service of the Gloster Meteor after WW2 and the evolution of other fighters in that era, I've been thinking about the possibility of Me262s being used post-war in a wide scale than it really was. The Schwalbe outperformed the Meteor, but never evolved as the Meteor did, and i´m wondering how well could they have performed if they had been improved beyond the limitations it found in war. Please share your ideas about the topic

 

As a what-if, i felt that it could have been something along the lines of the Post-War Me-109s made by Avia and Hispano Aviacion. Been picturing a HA.2262 in the Spanish Air Force or a 101Sqn IDF Avia C92...sounds awesome to me.

 

 

Among those, i thought, in example, of replacing the Jumo engines with Derwent V engines, wich made the Meteor F.8, with less advanced fuselage, outperform its German counterpart. In fact, the Russians had reverse-engineered it into the Klimov RD-500, wich doubled the Jumos performance and was much more reliable and durable. It was used by Yak-23s, but I don´t know if they could have been fitted properly to the Me 262 airframe, i´m interested in any input you can make.

 

Another ideas were changes in the cockpit, adding an ejection seat and replacing the original canopy with a bubbletop like the one in the Meteor and Mustang.

 

Regarding control surfaces, they were said to need badly some sort of airbrakes, but i don´t know where to put them. Perhaps at the sides of the waist fuselage, like in the A-4s. Also, an all-flying tail like in the late F-86s could have meant a significant improvement, while i don´t think supressing the leading edge slats would have been inherently a good idea, perhaps the new engines, being more powerful and reliable, could have compensated for the issues that dictated their use. Again, any ideas are welcome.

 

 

Finally, the armament could have been improved. Switching the 30mm cannon with some 20mm could have provided a flatter trayectory and more ammunition, and perhaps, if vibrations were reduced this way, a ranging radar and associated sight would have been a game changer.

 

In case I haven't told you yet, I will be happy to read what you think about it

 

 

 

[JediMaster 451]

There had to have been a reason the Germans were heading to the P.1101 design, and that the others all followed post-war. I don't know what it was, but considering the 262 and others like the Ar235 were proven in combat, it must have been compelling to make everyone copy the 1101 for planes on both sides of the curtain in US, France, Russia (multiple bureaus)...

[Lexx_Luthor 57]

What about the Mk103 30mm cannon? If you are gonna increase thrust, you may get away with increasing the weight of the cannons, and if needed, reducing the number of cannons as well. Also can you fit Mk103s at about double the length?

[+76.IAP-Blackbird 3,557]

would change them to 20mm, better muzzle velocity and more ammo

[macelena 1,070]

There had to have been a reason the Germans were heading to the P.1101 design, and that the others all followed post-war. I don't know what it was, but considering the 262 and others like the Ar235 were proven in combat, it must have been compelling to make everyone copy the 1101 for planes on both sides of the curtain in US, France, Russia (multiple bureaus)...

 

Perhaps it was simpler, more compact, and more conventional when compared to propeller driven aircraft, after all, it was a single engine aircraft...but the engine layout was still used succesfully by the Meteor wich soldiered on for years. I´m not talking about developing more aircraft types based on Me262s, only improving the original, proven design as an stop gap while more advanced designs are developed

 

 

 

What about the Mk103 30mm cannon? If you are gonna increase thrust, you may get away with increasing the weight of the cannons, and if needed, reducing the number of cannons as well. Also can you fit Mk103s at about double the length?

 

Yes, while perhaps some changes to the fuselage would have been needed for the guns and fire control radar, but either way, most probably I....

 

would change them to 20mm, better muzzle velocity and more ammo

 

as 76.IAP said. The new one would be more fit not only for bomber destroying, but also better for air superiority, considering all the improvements to the already relatively satisfactory original design.

[Wrench 9,851]

http://www.stormbirds.com/project/index.html

[Lexx_Luthor 57]

How long does your scenario last? Think Aden and DEFA MG213K derivatives. The initial 213K seemed to have a slow muzzle velocity, later greatly increased by the British and French for all their jet fighters. Does your story have time for Mauser to improve this for Germany?

 

For attacking bombers, you want 30mm. B-29 crews in Korea most feared the 37mm shell despite its low muzzle velocity and rate of fire because they saw it blowing gigantic holes in their airplanes.

 

 

 

 

 

[macelena 1,070]

DEFA-ADEN would rock, without a doubt. In fact, while i would settle for 20mm guns, armament is not what the aircraft needs to change, other than those range issues. It is not like the Hawker Hunter had any trouble (well, beyond the ammo links caused damage) with that heavy weaponry 

[JediMaster 451]

Above a certain useless caliber (I'm looking at you, .303!), it's accuracy and rounds on target that matter more. US doctrine long emphasized spray-and-pray from the .50s to the M61 vs "higher caliber but reduced chance of hitting" emphasized in Europe on both sides of the curtain.

 

I'm not sure that either approach was ever proven better, but if you could guarantee a 100% hit rate, you obviously would prefer a larger caliber. I know the Flanker and Fulcrum guns were touted as having excellent accuracy, but I don't know if they've been used in combat all that much.

[Lexx_Luthor 57]

mac, I had forgotten your assumption here: real history, only adding 262, like the 109 as you said, which was used by a good number of air forces after the war, while adding postwar development. I had never thought of 262 used like this. Interesting indeed.

 

JD, yeap, here I'm thinking as aircraft become ever larger and stronger built, the 0.50 becomes the "new" 0.303, 20mm the "new" 0.50, etc... :)  Granted the M61 has its unrivaled rate of fire which makes up for small shell, but also needed a burst limiter to (kinda, sorta) cut the rate of fire.

[+daddyairplanes 10,252]

macelena, who uses it?  Czechoslovakia used built a dozen as the Avia-92,  complete knock off of Messerschmitts work. the russians also had Sukhoi reverse engineer it, but was not very successful i believe.

 

i had wonder a year or so back about a similar scenario, but of rearming West Germany right after the airlift rather than several years later.  figured on Fw190s for ground attack and Schwalbes upgraded and re engined for a2a work. 

[+Gepard 11,323]

The 30mm armament of the Me-262 was neccessary to kill heavy bombers. The 20mm guns of this timeframe were not efficient enough to do this job. It happend to often, that german fighters hit US heavies with a lot of 20mm rounds, but the attacked plane survived. IIRC there were 20 to 30  hits with 20mm guns neccessary to kill a B-17 or B-24 in average. With 30mm guns only 3 or 4 kills had done the job.

Today the 30mm is the caliber which the most fighter aircraft  building nations use. Only the USA are still using 20mm spray and pray guns. Britain, France, Russia, China. All use 30mm guns.

[Toryu 156]

The Me 262 - while being ahead of it's time at EIS - was a dead-end in fighter-development. As was the Meteor. If you look at the general configuration of those aircraft, little was to follow: the SUD Vautour and the Yak-25 and -28 had podded engines below their wings. Most other fighters had their engines buried within the fuselage for minimal drag.

 

The reason why the Meteor was so successful was because lots of countries wanted to enter jet-flying and needed an affordable aircraft. It also offered night-fighting and recce-capability, which was highly valuable at the time, when prop-aircraft became obsolete ever-more quickly.

 

Also, the Meteor could be fitted with more and more powerful engines over time, which helped hide it's weaknesses. The 262 with it's axial-flow engines was somewhat out of the loop, as it took quite some time until somebody could build reliable and more powerful axial-flow engines.

Integrating radial-flow engines (there were plenty available!) into the 262's nacelles would not have worked feasibly.

[macelena 1,070]

macelena, who uses it?  Czechoslovakia used built a dozen as the Avia-92,  complete knock off of Messerschmitts work. the russians also had Sukhoi reverse engineer it, but was not very successful i believe.

 

i had wonder a year or so back about a similar scenario, but of rearming West Germany right after the airlift rather than several years later.  figured on Fw190s for ground attack and Schwalbes upgraded and re engined for a2a work. 

 

 

I thought of those who used Me-109 derivatives after the war (Israel, Czechoslovakia, Spain) and some other poor airforces both sides of the courtain. 

[Stratos 3,192]

I'm interested in this. What about Spain developing it? A easy way to enter jet era with all sources closed by blockade to Spain.

[macelena 1,070]

Yes, indeed, i was inspired by the post-war Me-109s being built by Avia and Hispano Aviacion with new engines for that idea. I doubt, however, that we could have been able to set a proper industry to have them operational.

[Stratos 3,192]

I doubt, however, that we could have been able to set a proper industry to have them operational.

 

Well, this is a game, we don't need real factories, design teams or expensive materials. :D

[+daddyairplanes 10,252]

difference: in 1945 the russians swiped alot of equipment and whole factories as reparations.  used the items produced for themselves. hard to make new planes

                  in 2014, we just make it for all of europe in game. no factory jigs needed

                  bonus for 2014:  if some kind russian soul would swipe from a-team site, in twenty first century they would then give to the rest of the world.

 

 

 

(yes i know thats piracy. not suporting it for piracy purposes. just wishing bad ju ju on a-team.  and foriegn piracy is more likely than the head of that site being devoured by a pack of feral dogs.  only a minor grudge, sorry for the rant)

[JediMaster 451]

Anyone know what caliber guns the latest Chinese fighters use? J-10 and all those?

[macelena 1,070]

23mm for the J-10 and 30mm for Flankers and so on, if you trust Wikipedia.

[FastCargo 412]

A captain who flies for the Collings foundation, and is one of the very few people who has flown the 'factory built' Me262 with the J85 engines, says the Me262 had some very nasty flying characteristics at the low end...insufficient rudder being the big one.

 

It's not hard to figure out why looking at the podded, low slung engine design. The combination of high yaw and pitch moments caused by the loss of an engine would overcome the max rudder authority of the aircraft. During the takeoff roll, you had a 'dead man' area, where if an engine was lost, you did not have enough altitude to be able to throttle back the good engine (in combination with max rudder) to keep the aircraft pointed straight. You'll note this is why modern fighters have closely spaced engines.

 

In addition, you don't want radial (centrifugal) designs in a jet engine for a couple of reasons. One, they tend to be more inefficient, because energy is being used bending the airflow outward and back inward. Two, they tended to use large, heavy compressor disks...which made them more resistant to throttle changes because of simple inertia.

 

FC

[Lexx_Luthor 57]

Meteor same way, but with the cf engines. I found a loooooong PPRuNe thread discussing one engine Meteor flying, and crashing, many ex-Meteor pilots here...

 

l'>Meteor Accident Statistics

 

Leg strength is a big item. A very unsafe design.

[Toryu 156]

IIRC, Eric Brown even said that Vmca was only achieved after being airbourne (the two-seater was worse d/t larger side-area ahead of the CoG). Lots of 262-crashes might be traced back to this issue.

 

There is a range of massflow where centrifugal engines make sense (lower end, as in small business-jets). Above that, there's mixed axial/ radial compression (the last compressor-stage being radial usually) and above that, there's purely axial designs.

 

 

Leg strength is a big item. A very unsafe design.

 

Most first-gen jets were. Nobody knew how to build jets properly and how to fly and maintain them well enough to make it safe.

Scary days, indeed!

Edited July 4, 2014 by Toryu