Messerschmitt Me 262 and P-80 Thrust, Drag, and Horsepower

Thank you Greg, you make perfect sense

It does seem this is the classic matchup of fighter versus interceptor.

Remarkable. As simple as that.

now i think about me 262 c1a it will havevreally good climb rate woaw thats a lot by 1945 and i learned a lot thanks

The question of how the 262 and the p 80 would perform against each other has long interested me. My take is the 262 would out class the p80. I base it on the fact that not only is the 262 a great aircraft, but the pilots were best and for most part very experienced. I am open to debate. This is only an imho 😃

Awesome greg ,thanks again, i hoping to find a Pitts biplane under Christmas tree this yr,,,,green &white 50s color

The Me-262 has the advantage of just looking more awesome. The Germans of the era knew how to make aircraft look amazing as well as uniforms. Sadly they were kind of lacking in their moral compasses.

in some ways the p80 was more advanced than the me262 such as incorporating the jet engine into the fuselage. if you watch the history channel from years back, they would have you believe the nazis had laser guided bombs...

Does thrust compensate for weight or mass?

Why oh why did I take the red pill...?

Greg I watched a video you made comparing the P-51 the P-47 and the real reason the United States Army AF did not use the P-47 to go deep into Germany as escorts for the bombers! I would love to see that again as know one has ever put out the truth why the P47 was not used. ie ( it was not because the P-51 was more fuel efficient). You mentioned the AAF DID NOT make the drop tanks large enough and in quantity for the P-47 to do the distance. Have I got that correct ?
Could you put that video up again or put a link too it. Thank You very much

Most low altitude max climb rates in a jet are accomplished at a constant indicated or calibrated airspeeds. This requires a small amount of acceleration to maintain, while small, is not zero and is noticeable.

Why does the P80 have bouys at the wing tips? Surely you wouldn't want fuel tanks as far from the center line as possible.

Interesting comparison

I love that you regularly have to do things like explain what power actually is, and convert things into metric.

those are elementary concepts, but in a world where absolutely nobody is self aware and by definition half of people are of below average intelligence, the only way to appeal to the masses is to accommodate the morons.

Me 262. Sinister a/c made by nazis can't beat that

Did not the komet 163 take sweep wings to the next level wings where such from the start and more so

Better than a glide of a rock .

Back to the slide rule.

So how does the first metor compare to the 262 at best ?

Very interesting, as a mere life sciences grad, the non intuitive maths is very enlightening and obvious when you think about it which of course I didn’t initially 🙈 Thanks for a mathematical workout - I always learn lots from your videos Greg!

semi OT request. Could you make a video where you explain the importance of acceleration? I hear always "top speed here and top speed there", but if I need 2 years to reach my top speed, is not going to work.

I would assume that the climb rate is a sort of acceleration diagram, because without climb speed (of any type) one can also forget to accelerate at level flight, But I am unsure about that.

I would imagine that acceleration would help to get away from a bad position while not going in a straight line (otherwise the opponent can still try to land a couple of shots), thus I think it is important.

The P-80 fitted with America's first axial flow turbojet was the first A/C in the world to achieve 600 mph in level flight and with center of weight inside the fuselage it would have turned circles around the Gen. 1 262

Greg I may be delusional.. But as i see the 262 . It appears to have lift body fuselage incorporated into its design to what looks like an extremely well thought out use of balance. As far as lift/drag coefficient while maintaining function.. compared to other designs in early jets that simply seem to be chasing low drag numbers like the p-80 as a comparison??!

FAA: WHERE DID YOU GET THIS INFO?
Student pilot:Greg
FAA: please continue

I’m surprised there are pilots who don’t understand induced drag… Isn’t that a big part of why adverse yaw is a thing?

To clear up the correct spelling of the ME262‘s name...

I‘m german and very old 😂. In all older german documentaries, wochenschauen or pilot interviews it was always the „MEH zweizweiundsechzig“, means „MEH twosixtytwo“. Not „M.E. Two six two“.

I also noticed that in modern english or even german documentaries the BF109 is mostly called „B.F. One O Nine“ while german pilots called it the „B.F. Hundred Nine“ or some the „MEH Hundred Nine“ or simply the „Hundred Nine“.

I‘m not saying this is the official correct spelling but i noticed this has changed since the rise of the internet.

First off i glad i found this channel its full of interesting information. For instance this video i watched several times as each time i gained useful knowledge.. . Thanks for the videos they will give me a better understanding of this field ..i use to work for a power generation company..i spent some time in the engineering office having the fellow in there show me on paper the math behind why thing certain things do what they do . Interesting to me . Thanks

I had aerodynamics for naval aviators at cal poly, unfortunately it's lost. It would be nice to have it and my notes, but such is life.

Thank you

Never thought anybody would ever put this excellent presentation together. Thank you. Look forward to more !

hmm... since you mentioned later upgrades, could we consider the newer Me 262 with GE engines in comparison to upgraded P-80's and late war meteors too? would be quite interesting to compare the newer frame (altho not as fast on the deck for safety reasons...).

Mr Greg,

It's possible to fill in all of the blanks for the 262 numbers. The Me-262 that Paul Allen's FHCAM museum restored to flying condition was done to all original specs, including the engines (but now with reliable metals).
Not sure where the specimen is at this time, with Mr Allen passing, and WalMart Walton kinfolk buying.
The excellent summer monthly fly days of the WW2 collection have not resumed. (And supposedly they will continue the Stuka build).
Last news, years dated, 262 was flight certified,
( by Hinton?).

You could probably obtain modern test numbers for the 262 that would be identical to 1945.

Cheers

PT6s and other turboprop engines use hp, naturally. So it's interesting hear you convert thrust to hp.

Just thinking. The turbine section drives a shaft that, in turn, drives the compressor section. There is some measurable hp there. The accelerated exhaust being the source of propulsion that is hard to calculate into hp.

Have you read the account of the P-47 pilot who got to do a test flight of a 262 right soon after VE day?

Flight interview n prep. Dude ur funny AF

How does water injection hsve any effect on a jet ?

In my understanding a stationary jet engine does develop horse power because it is doing work on the intake gasses and accelerating them rearwards. Power is rate of doing work. Any forward motion by the aircraft is just the reaction to that rearward motion.

I flew Avon Sabre and Mirage. Sabre glide 190 kts, climb 350 kts. Mirage glide 300 kts, climb 450 kts IAS

Elaborate on ' spinny stuff'...

In my 262 book.The Americans flew 262's against p80's in mock combat and the results were suppressed.Hi from Australia

This commentary is great Greg. I often see comments / discussion saying that the P-80 was the better performing aircraft, but they often don't compare apples with apples (e.g. variants from the same years for a start). I remember Chuck Yeager stated the P-80 compared well to the Me 262 and given the variants he is likely to have flown that sounds about right.
Of course its very likely that the engines in the P-80 would have been more reliable / longer lasting that the Jumo engines, simply due to the unavailability of the materials in Germany (to make reliable turbine blades) at the time. Which is just as well as the P-80 only had one engine.
I have seen ME 262 aircraft in museums and they are great looking aircraft. The sweep back of the wings likely helped with max mach number, which I have heard was originally introduced to correct COG issues when the engines turned out heavier than expected.

Just want to say that if you do velocity in m/s, and thrust in newtons, you get kW without needing a correction factor.
Why I like working in SI units.

For information about the Me 262, try Dan Sharp. I have his Me 262 book which seems to be based on primary sources.

Interesting that the Germans did not try to embed the jet engine in the fuselage. Seems like a superior design to reduce drag and give the plane a better roll moment. (ok Focke-Wulf did *start* on the Ta-183 which was exactly this type of design). Seems to me that the Americans took their time and did it right!

Too many noisy ads