I think the reason is much simpler. The western powers saw for themselves that Jews from countries they liberated had all been taken away, and found at places like Bergen-Belsen direct evidence of what had been done to them. The Genocide committed against the Slavs was largely (with the exception of Soviet PoWs - and cruelty to men of fighting age is always somehow less viscerally shocking) committed on Soviet territory in the place people lived. Hence, it was largely hidden from the Western allies and at least in part dismissed as propaganda. This gives the suffering of the Jews a much higher profile than that of the Slavs, Gypsies, Homosexuals, etc.
pdf27,
The Bergen-Belsen camp was NOT an extermination camp at all and the inmates died due to neglect and causedthat lead to starvation and epidemy. The extermination camps for jews were on the territory libirated by RKKA.
So your point that the extermination of jews was more visible to western public looks a bit artificial to me. Well, I agree that it had/has higher profile. It is not the issue. The issue WHY it has higher profile. And this is not so simple as one may think.
.
Indeed. However, the BBC were among the first troops to liberate the camp, and the government had a special documentary made of it which was shown in just about all the cinemas in the UK. Call it wartime propaganda if you will, but within a short time of Bergen-Belsen being liberated the overwhelming majority of the British public had seen images of Germans treating Jews in thoroughly beastly ways - and the news from the Nuremberg trials (complete with documentary evidence of Auschwitz, Treblinka, etc. provided by the Soviets) reinforced this impression. So far as I’m aware something similar happened with the US, while the occupied European countries had their own direct experiences to go on.
Maybe. I tend to apply Occam’s Razor to things like this - the theory that the simplest explanation for something is usually right. In this case it seems to me that the simplest explanation is that more information was available in the west about the mistreatment of Jews than any other group, and it came from sources the western populace were accustomed to trust (governments, newspapers and organisations like the BBC).
The measure of the US system in the field was that when the US entered the war and started supplying their items and parts for them the British artificers, armourers, mechanics etc were astounded by parts that fitted without the need for filing, hammering and so on. The savings in time and efficiency, and getting equipment back into the field, were immense.
Germany and Britain, while often capable of better design and engineering than the US, were often more like large cottage industries compared with the price-efficient and productive factories of the US. We’re seeing the same nowadays with cheap and adequate, but not very good or durable, power tools and other products coming out of China, with which nobody else can compete.
Britain managed to carry on its sound engineeering but unsatisfactory production tradition after the war, such as by designing some excellent cars but building them to varying standards on the same production line, which might involve moving the car about on dollies rather than the American idea of a production line.
In comparing the quality of product of the different nations, and in particular the consistency of American parts, it is worth remembering the dictum (which I think might have come from W. Edwards Deming, the American father of Japan’s industrial resurgence) that quality control doesn’t mean the item is any good, it just means they’re all the same as each other.
Absolutely. And the thing is, that’s actually a pretty minor benefit of proper process control. The real benefit is that if you need to fettle parts to get them to fit together in a factory, you need skilled craftsmen who can do the job and know what to modify to get it to work. With properly toleranced truly interchangeable parts, the skill level is reduced to knowing which bits to attach to each other. This pretty much eliminates the skill requirements on the factory floor while sending productivity per worker through the roof. It’s absolutely a work of genius, almost worthy of being described as a second industrial revolution.
The interesting thing is that many engineering companies - at least the ones who sell the final product - don’t care. They keep the design and engineering functions in the first world, create the prototypes there, and move long term production to China. The experience of my company is that something like 90% of the value of a product moved to China will stay in the UK. This actually increases barriers to entry for companies in China entering our market, so the Chinese entry to the market is actually improving our competitiveness, not reducing it.
The real problems are for subcontractors making cheap, simple parts with no critical dimensions. They’re screwed, frankly. Where they have design input, or the part is cheap and tolerances critical then manufacture is likely to stay in the first world.
To what extent were these improvements the product of machine tools designed and produced to finer tolerances? Or of the necessary machine tools being limited to a small proportion of manufacturers? Did the Americans have better tooling?
I’ve never understood how Britain could produce the RR Merlin yet have basic parts for lesser equipment that needed to be filed and hammered etc to fit.
The interesting thing is that many engineering companies - at least the ones who sell the final product - don’t care.
Yes, and it shows in the declining standards of their products.
Chinese manufacturers are renowned for shaving quality and content wherever possible. Nobody much cares if they do it over a year or so as it’s barely noticeable, but wait five years and see what you get.
Although, oddly enough, the cheap Chinese stuff that’s been arriving in the Antipodes has been improving slightly in quality over the past few years. Which doesn’t mean it’s great quality, but for home use the power tools are generally adequate if you don’t mind noisy brush motors and a bit of shaft run out and so on. Where they really fall down is in cheap but simple precision tools like spirit levels. Tested half a dozen in a store recently by swapping ends and they were all close, but no cigar. Then again, they produce very acceptable laser levels for AUD $20 and plastic digital vernier calipers for AUD $15 that are close in accuracy to stainless steel ones ten times that price maybe five years ago. But I still keep my steel one in a case for good.
I’ve just had another thought that relates to British and possibly Commonwealth tanks and is very relevant here.
One of the problems the British Army had in WW2 was recruiting the best and brightest. It was very much the least glamourous of the services, with the worst conditions. Thus, there was a tendency for the most able and brightest young men to join the RN or RAF instead of the Army. These are the very people you are relying on the most to provide your officers and junior NCOs - without good people filling these positions, you’re frankly screwed.
It got worse for the tankies though. The Paras and Commandos were the most glamourous units, while the county/Guards infantry regiments tended to sweep up the best of the rest. This meant that the tanks tended to get by and large the less good officers and JNCOs. There were some attempts to correct this - for instance the formation of the Guards Armoured division - but the problem was never really solved.
I’m not sure how this affected Commonwealth or US forces. I suspect that it would be much the same for Commonwealth units, with US forces being less badly hit (not having the county regiment system, I suspect that the Infantry would suffer even worse in the US system).
Off the top of my rough old head, I’m not sure that it would have translated to the Australian forces to quite the same extent.
We certainly lost many of our best and brightest to Britain as pilots and aircrew, and to our own air force.
But tanks didn’t play such a huge role in our activities in the Pacific, where we did all our land fighting from 1942 onwards, as they did in Europe. The Pacific was much more an infantry war, although we certainly used tanks but nothing like in Europe and not opposed to anything like the tank forces anywhere in Europe. Tanks in the Australian Pacific campaigns were more infantry support than tank-tank weapons.
IIRC we disbanded some armoured units around 1944 and converted them to infantry, which is an indignity no cavalryman should ever have to suffer.
Were the conditions that bad?
Having spent my brief and entirely undistinguished military career in an armoured unit, which I joined because (a) the recruiting sergeant confirmed my expectation that I would be flying across the countryside with my yellow silk scarf streaming behind me as I commaded a Ferret scout car within weeks or at worst a few months of joining (carefully concealing from me the fact that the unit had only a few Ferrets with immortal sexagenarian crews welded to them) and, (b) why walk when you can ride (which was another disappointment as the recruiting sergeant didn’t tell me that I actually had to spend about ten years, or a bit less with an unusual run of harsh winters causing unexpected deaths among elderly soldiers, as a mechanised grunt), the facts remained that you could put an awful lot of food and other gear on an armoured vehicle.
You could sleep in it, on it, beside it, or under it, without having to dig a hole or any of those other quaint things that infantry do.
You usually had engine heating for water, cooking, and personal comfort.
You always had petrol for starting fires for water, cooking etc.
You never had to walk very far.
You always had a nice big MG behind you if things went wrong at your end.
Apart from the risk of being brewed up, which was pretty low in my case as we weren’t allowed to sully the vehicles by spending too much time in them, it was the best way to go to war.
Sorry, I should have been clearer about that. I was comparing the Army to the Navy and RAF. Of those three, the Army was clearly the shortest on creature comforts and had the least glamour going for it.
The allies prevailed in World War I even though Russia dropped out of the conflict.
If the allies maintained a large army in Germany after World War I I don’t see how the Nazis would have taken power. I don’t undestand why Germany would be a problem given that the Germans had already been beaten in the Great War.
Well i know about problems of aircrafts in that regime of fly. And what is the haracter - it was proved by the manies deads of the tested pilots the straight wingis absolutly uneffective for the jet fighters. In the speed over 750-800 km/h the corkscrew was inevitable. The ONLY sweptback wing was able to use in this limit of speed. In fact the germasn was first who began to use the sweptback wing on the Me-262.
Moreover the lates modification Me-262 HG II had a more sweptback wings and tail. Unlike the Meteor and Aircomet.
So i agree the Germans had a problems with engeens which were explained mostly shortage of the Nikel and ets, but the germans undoubted had a better knowlege about high-speed aerodynamic. The form of wings of the last modification of Me-262 proved this.
Personally I think it was politics. The Germans seem to have used rockets as the answer to most things, even when it was a really dumb idea. For examples see the Natter last-ditch fighter which killed the only pilot dumb enough to try flying it, or the Me-163 which could only intercept enemy flying right over it’s airfield and would dissolve the pilot given half a chance.
Yes in the last period of existence the Nazy was a full of any ideas even a really dumb.I am agree the Me-163 was a “coffin for the Luftwaffe pilots”.
But could you deny the fact the germans could produce a best piston fighter of WW2?
Moreover when they polished the methods of a attack of the stategic bombers formation with using the small rocket.
Before the introduction of escort fighters, this was true - the long range raids, whether day or night suffered horrendous losses. It’s worth noting that (for the war in the west - I have no access to Soviet statistics) the only job more dangerous than RAF Bomber command was being part of a U-boat crew.
However, once the escort fighters got going this probably wasn’t true. The USAAF had a hell of a lot of very high performance fighters which were free to engage the enemy, and they usually killed more than they lost. I see no reason why adding German reinforcements would change this trend.
Not so effective was the escort fighter as at first view it could seems.
How do you think the Germans has the fighters in the union AA-defence ?
In the best months of 1943 there were no more 400-500 fighter at the whole continental territory.
In the 1944-45 this quantuty was no more 300-100 ( at last month of war).
So when the allies armades of 600 / 1000 and even 1500 bombers under cover of 300-500 Mustangs and Tanderbolt meeted the 100-200 Germans fighters- the germans could nothing did against them. Certainly they was able to shot down a 10-15% of bombers ( and losed about so of own fighters) but it was too small and too late - The grmany industry was not capable to compensate for the losses.
Indeed - but remember that Wittman was eventually killed by a Sherman (probably a Sherman Firefly). Furthermore, Wittman was a truly exceptional tank commander - the average would be much less capable - and his Tiger was mobility killed and abandoned during the battle.
Incidentally, during this operation the six tanks under Wittman’s command killed roughly 30 British tanks. Wittman was credited with 27 of these - suggesting that either he was massively better than the average, or someone was cooking the books for propaganda purposes.
I know the Wittman was a exceptional commander. But if you wrote the description of this battle more attentive you could find the Tiger of Witmans had a some hit of british shell and NO one of this was critical for the life of crew. Even the last hit which caused the damage to the undercarriage was not danger for the crew and Witman calmly left tank and returned on foot into its part where it it changed seats to new Tiger it continued battle.
This just proved the combat power of Tiger was a capable fight with 10-15 of allies tanks and win.
The 17pdr on the Sherman Firefly was effective, as were a number of the US tank destroyer designs, and the British towed anti-tank guns. In any case, the western Allies had plenty of air support and could use that against the Germans. Again, their industrial capacity was superior - they could have both.
The Furefly Sherman was not widly used in the WW2 and even the Pershing M-26 was too late for the combats. But already in the 1944 the germany had a 67-tonn Tiger -2 which had a worst armoure becouse the Germany had a constaint shortage of materials ( don’t forget we considered the case when the USSr losed and germany get the resources of the Caucause and Turkey). So the both Pershing and firefly was just a tiny copy of Tiger and they inevitably losed in the battle.
I was trying to point out that the British equivalent to the Me-262 - which was in squadron service a little before it - was a much better dogfighter yet had the same speed. Had the Me-262 ever become a major problem then the Meteors would have moved to the continent (they did anyway in early 1945, probably tasked to shoot down V-1s) and we would have seen Meteor .vs. Me-262 dogfights. I think the Meteor would probably have won these - it was the better fighter and had a more suitable armament.
Not fact .
As we could to see the Meteor was deadline way of jet fighters (the Korean war it obviously demonstrated) the straight wing did not make it possible to fly at the high speeds.
Perhaps the Meteor in dogfighter could win the Me-262 ( as could win the Mustang and Yak) but if the Me-262 could get the reliable engeens ( this couldb be possible in the case which we are consigering) it could be the UBER-fighter for the allies strategic armades.
Umm… not so sure about that one. The Japanese prewar really didn’t have any effective antisubmarine warfare capability, and never built one. They concentrated on using their fleet as an offensive arm.
Well i/m agree the japanes never had the enought ant-submarine means.
Right according your tend i have to admite the more simplest explanation 
Indeed in the west it was widly known the death rate of slav in this war.
The overal statistic of victims was a enought good. But begining of Cold war forces to present the most of the Slavs as the enemy (they were joined to the soviet block).
Therefore for a long time in the west it is inconvenient to speak about the victims of Slavs in this war at least purely from a propogandic point of view.
Also don’t forget a simplest fact the most of biggest Mass media sources are HEADED by the jews ( at least in the USA). Every time when they speak about victims of WW2 they mean only the Holocaust. And just somethimes they add - Gipsies,homosexuals and … the Slavs.
The more simpleast reason i could not to imagine
Cheers.
I know this story. And I do not deny that films like that should be shown. I assume the the film depicted what happened. But atributing Bergen-Belsen to the extermination of Jews is not correct. And in lesser or bigger extent can be seen as the result of a direct media campain. Even nowadays Bergen-Belsen is atributed as the symbole of the Holocaust by many people.
[QUOTE] Originally Posted by Egorka
So your point that the extermination of jews was more visible to western public looks a bit artificial to me. Well, I agree that it had/has higher profile. It is not the issue. The issue WHY it has higher profile. And this is not so simple as one may think
Maybe. I tend to apply Occam’s Razor to things like this - the theory that the simplest explanation for something is usually right. In this case it seems to me that the simplest explanation is that more information was available in the west about the mistreatment of Jews than any other group, and it came from sources the western populace were accustomed to trust (governments, newspapers and organisations like the BBC).[/QUOTE]
Yes, lets go for a simple explanation. What do we have when speaking of Western Europe / USA?
[ul]
[li] We have more or less correct statistics available freely.[/li][li] We have freedom of speech.[/li][li] We have people whose average education level is relatively high (compare to the wilderness of, per instance, USSR).[/li][li] We have presumably smart people capable of making reasoable conclusions.[/li][/ul]
So I look at these points… and I wonder! And ask: “How come?”
If you tell me it a result of a sporadic process, I whould disagree. It is a result of largerly (but not entierly) directed media campain.
And, by the way, I do not think those who organised that campain were/are evil. I kind of understand them a bit.
Lockheed P-80 Shooting Star
http://www.ww2incolor.com/forum/showpost.php?p=85682&postcount=6
http://www.ww2incolor.com/forum/showpost.php?p=85683&postcount=7
http://www.ww2incolor.com/forum/showpost.php?p=85684&postcount=8
Lockheed P-80A vs Messerschmitt Me 262A
http://www.ww2incolor.com/forum/showpost.php?p=85698&postcount=13
Jack Northrop’s XP-79B Jet Fighter
http://www.ww2incolor.com/forum/showpost.php?p=85706&postcount=16
http://www.ww2incolor.com/forum/showpost.php?p=85707&postcount=17
http://www.ww2incolor.com/forum/showpost.php?p=85720&postcount=19
WWII McDonnell FD/FH Phantom - the U.S. Navy’s first operational jet
http://www.ww2incolor.com/forum/showpost.php?p=85719&postcount=18
Lockheed L-133 Project
http://www.ww2incolor.com/forum/showpost.php?p=85918&postcount=22
Gloster Meteor vs Me-262, Allied vs Axis jets, etc.
http://www.ww2incolor.com/forum/showpost.php?p=84176&postcount=4
http://www.ww2incolor.com/forum/showpost.php?p=84537&postcount=11
http://www.ww2incolor.com/forum/showpost.php?p=50583&postcount=7
http://www.ww2incolor.com/forum/showpost.php?p=50602&postcount=9
http://www.ww2incolor.com/forum/showpost.php?p=50607&postcount=11
http://www.ww2incolor.com/forum/showpost.php?p=70724&postcount=20
http://www.ww2incolor.com/forum/showpost.php?p=70870&postcount=33
http://www.ww2incolor.com/forum/showpost.php?p=70958&postcount=35
http://www.ww2incolor.com/forum/showpost.php?p=70960&postcount=36
JET ENGINE
http://www.ww2incolor.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1975&highlight=meteor
Rolls-Royce Nene jet engine
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolls-Royce_Nene
BS. The Lockheed Starfighter and Bell X-1 are both examples of supersonic aircraft with straight wings. You’re mixing up the problems of thick wings at high speed (high drag - something swept wings partially alleviates) and swept wings at transonic speeds (tip stall - giving the sort of flat spin behaviour you seem to be describing)
Actually, the swept wings on the Me-262 were brought about purely and simply by the engine problems they had. At a late stage in development, they realised that the turbine part of the engine was going to be a lot heavier than planned. The only options were to move the entire wing aft - not practical at that stage - or to move the centre of lift of the wing aft. They did this by sweeping back the tips. If you look closely at the wing you’ll see that the section inboard of the engines is tapered, not swept. It’s an aerodynamic fix to a problem they spotted very late in the day, and not a very good one. It gives you all the problems of tip stall you have from swept wing aircraft, but the wing itself is too thick to gain any benefit from being swept. IIRC the Spitfire wing (being substantially thinner) actually had a higher critical Mach number - the highest speed it can practically reach - than the Me-262 wing.
No way. Quite apart from the engine problems, it had major issues as a fighter - notably the cannon and swept wing design. Read up on the development of the MiG-15 - it took a hell of a lot of development and frightened test pilots before they worked the bugs out. I’d recommend Yefim Gordon’s book on the MiG-15 if you’re looking for an English reference - I’ve no idea what if anything is available in Russia and how good it is.
The Me-262 never got fast enough to find all this out.
Oh thanks a lot dear George.
Yer you right this theme is too much repeatable in here.
We know the “most successful” P-80 was a piece of shit in comparision with Sabre and Fagot only after after 3 years after the WW2.
If it was so good aircraft why the USA industry changed a lot of tipe jet fighters right aftter the WW2 until they developed really sucsecfull fighter F-86?
Becouse the every of early jet fighter had a lot of lacks.And a most of it was insoluble in that kind of fighters.
Cheers.
Well yes the problem of thick wings ( 10% relative thickness) was essential for the first jet fighters. The F-104 is not the best fighter - in tge west germany it deserved the nickname - the “flying coffin”. About 60 piloted perished on the F-104 for reasons the poor controllability. The ultra-thin ( 4-6%) short trapezoidal wing ids not so effective on the low ans medium speeds. Moreover the maneuverability of F-104 was even worst then on Mig-21 ( 5-6% thinkness delta wing).
Those factors were the reason of removal from the armament of USAAF (1969) and National Guard Forces ( 1975). (For comparition the soviet analog of Mig-21 were succesfully used till the end of 1980yy)
The other ecample Bell X-1 is also not “good” coz had very limited application for the laborator reseachs. This was flight in the limited number of regimes - not combat regimes.
Moreover later the catastroph of X-15 with the short trapezoidal wing was the reason of finishing the Porgam X-15. Athough was ready the new project of X-15 with Delta wings. ( but it was too late)
Actually, the swept wings on the Me-262 were brought about purely and simply by the engine problems they had. At a late stage in development, they realised that the turbine part of the engine was going to be a lot heavier than planned. The only options were to move the entire wing aft - not practical at that stage - or to move the centre of lift of the wing aft.
it sadly but you simply ignore my arguments pdf. Sorry.
Do you heared about modification of Me–262 like HG2/3 I think no.
It doesn’t look like the Germans simply think about engines. Right?
Those modifications could appeared in Gemrnay in the 1946/47 and it was MUCH better the Meteor or Shoting Star.
Cheers.
Aircraft design is constantly evolving. Naturally, more advanced designs will be developed.
The P-80 Shooting Star was the most successful jet fighter to come out of WWII. Although, it was superceded by more modern designs by the Korean War, on November 10, 1950, Lieutenant Russell Brown, flying a Shooting Star, made history when he destroyed a Russian MiG-15 fighter in the world’s first decisive all-jet combat. It’s trainer variant, the T-33 “Thunderbird” was not retired from USAF service until 1990 and it is still flying in many air forces throughout the world.
Lockheed P-80A vs Messerschmitt Me 262A
http://ourworlds.topcities.com/blackhawk/fanfiction/ex-p80vsme262.html
The P-80 and the Me 262 never met in combat, but many students of aerial combat have debated what the outcome of such a battle might have been.
The Me 262 was an amazing aircraft, well ahead of its time in many ways, but it was also an aircraft that was rushed into production before all its bugs had been worked out. In the Earth-X timeline, I suppose that some, but not all, of those problems have been fixed, making it a more reliable aircraft than it was in reality. But it still has handling problems and a slow throttle response.
The P-80 had some development problems, also. Most notorious was the primary fuel pump that was powered by the main engine. This could cause engine failure if the auxilary pump was not engaged for take-off, as happened to several pilots, including America’s top ace, MAJ Richard Bong. But the P-80 was a more advanced design that took advantage of the work done on earlier jet aircraft. It had power-boosted ailerons and a speed brake, both of which contributed to superior maneuverability. It was faster than the Me 262, though not by a lot, and it had greater range, much greater with its wingtip tanks that actually decreased its aerodynamic drag and improved its control response.
Although the two aircraft never met in combat, they were flown in a comparison test at Wright Field after the war. According to reports from that test, the Me 262 had a speed advantage in a dive, but the P-80 was superior in all other respects.
See the table below for a direct comparison of the specifications and performance of the actual aircraft.
Lockheed P-80 Shooting Star
http://www.aviation-history.com/lockheed/p80.html
Performance:
Max. Speed: 558 mph (898 km/h) @ Sea Level
Max. Speed: 492 mph (792 km/h) @ 40,000 ft (12,192 km)
Climb Rate: 4,580 ft/min (1,396 m/min)
Climb: 5.5 minutes to 20,000 ft (6,096 km)
Service Ceiling: 45,000 ft (1,3716 m)
Me 262A-1a Schwallbe (Swallow)
http://www.ww2guide.com/jetrock.shtml#262
Performance:
Max. Speed: 540 mph 469 knot (870 km/h) at 19,685 ft (6000 m)
Max. Speed: 514 mph 446 kt (827 km/h) at Sea Level
Climb Rate: 3,937 ft/min (1200 m/min)
Climb: 6 minutes and 48 seconds to 19,685 ft (6000 m)
Ceiling: 37,730 ft (11500m)
P-80 vs. Me-262 - Which was the superior jet-fighter of WWII
http://p214.ezboard.com/ffighterplanesfighters.showMessage?topicID=9123.topic
An interesting thread and read.
F-80 vs ME262
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/post-war/f-80-vs-me262-1688.html
Another thread on the topic.
http://www.ccminc.com/vintage/history.html
The United States first production jet fighter, the F/P-80 “Shooting Star” and the classic T-33 “Thunderbird” training variant that evolved from it, as well as the USAF’s first operational night jet fighter, the F-94, all came out of Lockheed’s fabled, “Skunk Works”, directed by Clarence “Kelly” Johnson…
One of the most brilliant creations of the infamous “Skunk Works”, was the F-80 “Shooting Star” fighter and its training variant, the T-33 “Thunderbird”. In all the history of modification and revision, there has only been one fighter, the F-80 Shooting Star, that engendered a far more numerically important and famous offspring trainer, the T-33. Just under 1,500 P-80’s, later designated the F-80s, were completed. A few survive in museums, but more than 6,900 T- 33’s were built worldwide, 5,800 for the USAF, and more than 100 are still flying worldwide…
As the USAF’s & Navy’s basic jet trainer for over three decades, the T-33 trained thousands of Air Force and Navy pilots. After being phased out of the Air Training Command in the early 1970’s, it was still used as proficiency trainers for senior officers, intruder aircraft for Air National Guard intercepts, and a number of other missions. It was not until 1990, that the last of the T-33’s were retired from active USAF service. In fact, due to its high stealth characteristics (low radar signature) it is still used as a trainer and to test airborne and ground intercept facilities by the Canadian Air Force and other countries. In the United States, NASA currently operates a control configured fly-by-wire NT-33 for concept testing and flight training. By programing the fly-by-wire computer onboard the aircraft from the rear cockpit, the aircraft controls and flight from the front cockpit can be made to emulate the Space Shuttle, B-1 & B-2 bombers, XF-22, and other high technology aircraft without risking the actual plane. At Mojave, near Edwards Air Force base, Flight Systems operates a number of ex-Air Force T-33’s for government contract and test work. The Canadian Air Force intends to keep their CL- 133’s, as their T-Birds are known, in service until 1995-2000 mainly because the aircraft is relatively cheap to operate and dependable. Countries still operating the T-33 are Bolivia, Canada, Columbia, Turkey, Greece, Portugal, Ecuador, Japan, Pakistan, and Thailand. Recently, Flight Systems has proposed re-engining the T-33 with a Rolls-Royce/Turbomeca engine that will provide up to 5,800 lbs. of thrust, offer a 30 percent improvement in fuel efficiency and boost endurance to nearly 2,400 miles. If their plans for the T-33 take off, the first product of Kelly Johnson’s Skunk Works will continue to fly well into the next century, thus proving again the timeless perfection of Lockheed’s original design.
Not bad for an aircraft originally designed over 60 years ago during WWII.
Aircraft design is constantly evolving. Naturally, more advanced designs will be developed.
The P-80 Shooting Star was the most successful jet fighter to come out of WWII. Although, it was superceded by more modern designs by the Korean War, on November 10, 1950, Lieutenant Russell Brown, flying a Shooting Star, made history when he destroyed a Russian MiG-15 fighter in the world’s first decisive all-jet combat. It’s trainer variant, the T-33 “Thunderbird” was not retired from USAF service until 1990 and it is still flying in many air forces throughout the world.
Lockheed P-80A vs Messerschmitt Me 262A
http://ourworlds.topcities.com/blackhawk/fanfiction/ex-p80vsme262.html
The P-80 and the Me 262 never met in combat, but many students of aerial combat have debated what the outcome of such a battle might have been.
The Me 262 was an amazing aircraft, well ahead of its time in many ways, but it was also an aircraft that was rushed into production before all its bugs had been worked out. In the Earth-X timeline, I suppose that some, but not all, of those problems have been fixed, making it a more reliable aircraft than it was in reality. But it still has handling problems and a slow throttle response.
The P-80 had some development problems, also. Most notorious was the primary fuel pump that was powered by the main engine. This could cause engine failure if the auxilary pump was not engaged for take-off, as happened to several pilots, including America’s top ace, MAJ Richard Bong. But the P-80 was a more advanced design that took advantage of the work done on earlier jet aircraft. It had power-boosted ailerons and a speed brake, both of which contributed to superior maneuverability. It was faster than the Me 262, though not by a lot, and it had greater range, much greater with its wingtip tanks that actually decreased its aerodynamic drag and improved its control response.
Although the two aircraft never met in combat, they were flown in a comparison test at Wright Field after the war. According to reports from that test, the Me 262 had a speed advantage in a dive, but the P-80 was superior in all other respects.
See the table below for a direct comparison of the specifications and performance of the actual aircraft.
Lockheed P-80 Shooting Star
http://www.aviation-history.com/lockheed/p80.html
Performance:
Max. Speed: 558 mph (898 km/h) @ Sea Level
Max. Speed: 492 mph (792 km/h) @ 40,000 ft (12,192 km)
Climb Rate: 4,580 ft/min (1,396 m/min)
Climb: 5.5 minutes to 20,000 ft (6,096 km)
Service Ceiling: 45,000 ft (1,3716 m)
Me 262A-1a Schwallbe (Swallow)
http://www.ww2guide.com/jetrock.shtml#262
Performance:
Max. Speed: 540 mph 469 knot (870 km/h) at 19,685 ft (6000 m)
Max. Speed: 514 mph 446 kt (827 km/h) at Sea Level
Climb Rate: 3,937 ft/min (1200 m/min)
Climb: 6 minutes and 48 seconds to 19,685 ft (6000 m)
Ceiling: 37,730 ft (11500m)
P-80 vs. Me-262 - Which was the superior jet-fighter of WWII
http://p214.ezboard.com/ffighterplanesfighters.showMessage?topicID=9123.topic
An interesting thread and read.
F-80 vs ME262
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/post-war/f-80-vs-me262-1688.html
Another thread on the topic.
http://www.ccminc.com/vintage/history.html
The United States first production jet fighter, the F/P-80 “Shooting Star” and the classic T-33 “Thunderbird” training variant that evolved from it, as well as the USAF’s first operational night jet fighter, the F-94, all came out of Lockheed’s fabled, “Skunk Works”, directed by Clarence “Kelly” Johnson…
One of the most brilliant creations of the infamous “Skunk Works”, was the F-80 “Shooting Star” fighter and its training variant, the T-33 “Thunderbird”. In all the history of modification and revision, there has only been one fighter, the F-80 Shooting Star, that engendered a far more numerically important and famous offspring trainer, the T-33. Just under 1,500 P-80’s, later designated the F-80s, were completed. A few survive in museums, but more than 6,900 T- 33’s were built worldwide, 5,800 for the USAF, and more than 100 are still flying worldwide…
As the USAF’s & Navy’s basic jet trainer for over three decades, the T-33 trained thousands of Air Force and Navy pilots. After being phased out of the Air Training Command in the early 1970’s, it was still used as proficiency trainers for senior officers, intruder aircraft for Air National Guard intercepts, and a number of other missions. It was not until 1990, that the last of the T-33’s were retired from active USAF service. In fact, due to its high stealth characteristics (low radar signature) it is still used as a trainer and to test airborne and ground intercept facilities by the Canadian Air Force and other countries. In the United States, NASA currently operates a control configured fly-by-wire NT-33 for concept testing and flight training. By programing the fly-by-wire computer onboard the aircraft from the rear cockpit, the aircraft controls and flight from the front cockpit can be made to emulate the Space Shuttle, B-1 & B-2 bombers, XF-22, and other high technology aircraft without risking the actual plane. At Mojave, near Edwards Air Force base, Flight Systems operates a number of ex-Air Force T-33’s for government contract and test work. The Canadian Air Force intends to keep their CL- 133’s, as their T-Birds are known, in service until 1995-2000 mainly because the aircraft is relatively cheap to operate and dependable. Countries still operating the T-33 are Bolivia, Canada, Columbia, Turkey, Greece, Portugal, Ecuador, Japan, Pakistan, and Thailand. Recently, Flight Systems has proposed re-engining the T-33 with a Rolls-Royce/Turbomeca engine that will provide up to 5,800 lbs. of thrust, offer a 30 percent improvement in fuel efficiency and boost endurance to nearly 2,400 miles. If their plans for the T-33 take off, the first product of Kelly Johnson’s Skunk Works will continue to fly well into the next century, thus proving again the timeless perfection of Lockheed’s original design.
Not bad for an aircraft originally designed over 60 years ago during WWII.