Which early jet fighter had the greatest development potential?

Originally posted by Wombat
Flood

Can you recall the modifications carried out for the Mk IV Special to enable the speed record attempt?

Wombat

The two ‘Star’ Meteors – EE549 and EE550 – had the following mods –
Specially rated Derwent 5s, producing 4,200ibs thrust instead of 3,500ibs as normal. Fitted 12-13/8/46.
Ballast weights, with two 15 gallons fuel tanks replacing the guns and a 43 gallon tank replacing the ammo boxes.
The VHF mast removed.
The air brakes secured closed.
Geared aileron tabs fitted.
Rudder tabs locked.
Gun ports faired over.
Machmeter and accelerometer fitted.
A specially mad duralumin hood was fitted, with Perspex portholes since the standard canopy was not thought to be able to withstand the high speed heat friction.
A gloss high-speed finish with all rivet dimples and plate edges filled and coated in a plastic stopping.

The aircraft were finished in standard day fighter camouflage colours to emphasis that they were just ‘ordinary’ Meteor F4s, although they were highly polished to reduce skin friction.
Pic from – http://www.aeroflight.co.uk/mus/uk/s-t/tangmere.htm
Info from Meteor by Brian Philpot (PSL).

Flood.

Re: That’s the one

Originally posted by Wombat

P1111 Ein-TL- Jager (One/Single ? Fighter – my interpretation)

“Ein-TL …” means “Einmotoriger Turbinen-Luftstrahl …” = single turbojet

Flood

Can you recall the modifications carried out for the Mk IV Special to enable the speed record attempt?

Wombat

The Meteor that held the speed record, EE459, was a Mk.IV Special – not a later square tail variant – and is currently on display at Tangmere.
The Meteor and the P80 both spawned trainers for which they are more likely to be remembered (the T7 and T33 respectively), especially after being outclassed as fighters. Would the Me262 have been able to go further as a trainer/night fighter? Was there space for the radar systems like those the Meteor night fighters used, and was the visibility good enough from the rear seat to make it successful as a trainer (although that never stopped many tandem training aircraft!)?

Just thoughts, questions…

Flood.

That’s the one

Guys

Both the line drawings and the beaut picture are correct. To quote my reference regarding this design:

“There were two proposals for the intake. : 1) intakes on either side of the fuselage,, 2) annular , around the entrire aft fuselage section. This latter variant had a V tail.

P1111 Ein-TL- Jager (One/Single ? Fighter – my interpretation) Belatedly submitted (early 1945) to OKL for fighter competition. Alternative proposal to P1110. Tailless aircraft with span of 9.16m, Wing sweep was 45 degrees. Calculated speed was 995 km/h, empty weight 2740 kg, take off weight kg, armament 4 x MK 108.”

To look at the simple line drawings, one can see the development of the 1110 design in the 1111. I would attach the pictures if I had a scanner.

The point is also made that the Meteor actually attained 616 mph and held the speed record for a while, which is quite correct. That shows the potential of the Meteor which, when first issued to squadrons, was barely capable of matching the later mark Spitfires and Tempests, at around 420 mph tops. I think it was a Mark VIII which attained the speed record in 1946? This tends to support my original question – if the “barn door” Meatbox could attain those speeds with its poor aerodynamics, what might the 262 have achieved with similar development?

JDK

I’m glad that we do agree on this issue. I don’t really dislike the Buchon – my issue is with the aesthetics of the engine transplant and the fact that everybody who has one wants to paint it to represent something it was not. It’s true that, if we had no Buchons, we would have no “109’s”, but it just aint the real thing.

Regards

Wombat;) 😉 😉

Messerschmitt P1110

This’ll be it then, the Messerschmitt P1110/1

Found it HERE

It’s similar, but I don’t remember a butterfly tail and it seemed more obviously Hunter-ish.

Messerschmitt P1110

Was this it?

I’m not much of an expert, but I would have said the ‘262 had the most development potential before anyone else had said anything.

Wombat, I think you’re right about the P1110. I did remember the number for a month or so, but it’s gone now. Old age, I suspect.

Re the 1000km/h plan. IIRC, a Meatbox took the world speed record at 616mph, which is just short of 990km/h. I’m sure it was a later Meteor, but it still wasn’t much more aerodynamic than a barn door. I think with decent engines, or better materials, the 262 is likely to have beaten that.

Hi Wombat,
I’m worried – we seem to agree! (still prefer the looks of the Buchon to the 109G though :p )

Taking your original Q:

If you compare the first P-80, Meteor I / III against the 262, (i.e. like for like) the 262 is clearly the more efficent and effective aircraft DESIGN, though the build quality of engines and structure were ‘under pressure’.

There’s no argument (anyone?) 1 – Axial vs Centrefugal flow engines. The centrifugal flow engine worked, but like the rotary of W.W.I was a ultimately dead-end development. Axial was (is) the way to go, and with decent metals… Swept vs unswept wings. Don’t forget that the Meteor had a hefty wing with the engines 1/2 way out in span, and undercarriage bay with bulges all over the place – messy, Mr Carter. The P-80 was cleaner, but unswept. My ranking:
1. 262
2. P-80
3. Meteor
This has nothing to do with desperation for being on the losing side in a war, trying anything to get out of the hole. Remember while the war was going well, the RLM wasn’t letting the Luftwaffe have any new a/c designs. It’s only when it got tough that they started looking for miracles. – that’s another discussion.

Cheers

Originally posted by dhfan
Next generation compared to the Meteor and P-80.

At the forum meet at Duxford in October I was looking through a post-war report on German aviation technology. There was an outline drawing of a Messerschmiit P11??, or similar, which even at second glance was a Hunter.

DhFan

The aircraft you are thinking of is the Me P1110. The comment was made in another post that the Germans probably wouldn’t have bothered developing the 262 and that is possibly correct, given the vast number of paper designs found after the war.

The P1110 definitely resembles the Hunter and was a 1944 design. It was a Messerschmitt proposal for the OKL fighter design competion of 1944. It was to be powered by an He S-011 engine, have wings swept 40 degrees and was aiming for a top speed of 1,000 km/h.

I must agree that it is highly probable that Germany would have developed other aircraft rather than spend time on the 262. However, returning to my original question, which of the three “Generation 1” fighters possessed the greatest development potential, I have to adhere to the 262. Whilst Britain and the US spent considerable time and money developing the P-80 and the Meteor, eventually they were both replaced with more modern aircraft. In the Meatbox’s case, the development probably went on too long and the aircraft should have been replaced some years before it was. Had the 262 been developed and used operationally as a front-line allied aircraft, say until 1950, what potential might it have possessed?

Regards

Wombat

Good point, you’d think the last thing they would want was high-viz black.

Why did they make them out of Jet anyway?

Bunch of smart-****. 🙂

If they’d been efficient, we wouldn’t be having this discussion today.

Just had a quick glance at Luft46 and can’t see either of them.

We weren’t dreaming, Steve, were we?

Originally posted by dhfan
Next generation compared to the Meteor and P-80.

At the forum meet at Duxford in October I was looking through a post-war report on German aviation technology. There was an outline drawing of a Messerschmiit P11??, or similar, which even at second glance was a Hunter.

Clever chaps, those Germans. I remember you showing me that one. Do you remember that document I was looking at, which made references to the German (Junkers?) design which had a swept wing with a pair of engines in each wing root. I seem to recall the report noted that British scientists had decided very early on that this could have a lot of benefits to British civil aviation; four years after the war the Comet first flew, and it’s descendent the Nimrod still serves today…

Sorry – reliability?
When is it due to fly again…?

Flood.

Actually good point,

well,…the engines would be more reliable than the original Jumos…if nothing else (ie undercart):(

Next generation compared to the Meteor and P-80.

At the forum meet at Duxford in October I was looking through a post-war report on German aviation technology. There was an outline drawing of a Messerschmiit P11??, or similar, which even at second glance was a Hunter.

Yeah… Lippisch was much more fun. Coal-powered transonic delta fighters, anyone?

Originally posted by turbo_NZ
Me262 for sure !!!

Imagine it with the Stormbirds build and reliabiltiy back in ’44.

Sorry – reliability?:confused:;)
When is it due to fly again…?

Flood.

Well, measured by the technology Germany had developed back in ’44 and ’45, the Me262 was already obsolete. Take a look at the Ta183, the Hortens and the Lippisch deltas and you will see what state of the art was in 1944 and 45. The Luftwaffe wouldn’t have spent any more ressources on the 262 and would have continued to a transonic design first and maybe towards a supersonic Lippisch with guided AAMs. The technology was far more advanced than what was actually fielded and what was actually built.