Comments by "Gort" (@gort8203) on "Why Stalin Didn't Want The ME-262 Copied (And What Happened Next)" video.

The photo at time 1:10 should be very informative for those who refuse to accept the purpose of the wing sweep of the 262. This photo of a prototype clearly shows that at first only the outer panels were swept back from the originally straight design, which was done to change the relationship between the center of gravity and the center of pressure caused by engines that were heavier than planned. You can see the wing inboard of the engine remains straight. The whole point of sweeping the outer panel was to avoid changing the structure of the fuselage to move the wing attach point. The sweep of the inboard panel was added later simply by extending the line of the outer leading edge to add additional surface area at the front of inner panel, and the trailing edge remained straight. By the way, the 262 wing was swept nowhere near 35 degrees, it was only 17.5, the same as the DC-3. 35 degrees is more like the F-86.
101
Yes the design was already obsolete, but it was still the best jet in actual combat over Germany in WWII. So it wasn't as good as who thought it was, Adolf Galland in 1944, or the YouTube 'community' 80 years later? It was a tool for a job. The controversy has little to do with the machine itself, the problem is that social media 'discourse' causes people to pick a side either for or against something. Like most real things the truth is much less dramatic, but modern society craves drama rather than truth.
27
@SoloRenegade No question that the P-80 was a better airplane. If the Luftwaffe had not been already defeated it would have been interesting to see the P-80 in combat. But it wouldn't have had the range to escort the heavy bombers until it could be based pretty far forward, and by then the Luftwaffe was on the ropes anyway.
5
Its not that it wasn't good, it was very good against the aircraft it met in combat. But by 1945 it was already a dated design. Much better designs were already on the drawing boards, so it would have been counterproductive to copy the 262.
4
@SoloRenegade Oh, you're trying to hurt my feelings. Good thing I don't have any. Like I said, if you think the range reduction at low altitude is comparable there is no use talking to you. Enjoy having the last last word, which of course has to be an insult given your mentality.
3
You don't have to have a swept trailing edge to have a swept wing. The angle of sweep is measured by the angle of the 1/3 chord line. This 262 wing was not swept by much, and it was not done to delay compressibility. It was swept only 17.5 degrees, not the 35 degrees stated in the video, which is a number from the F-86. The photo at time 1:10 should be very informative for those who refuse to accept the purpose of the wing sweep of the 262. This photo of a prototype clearly shows that at first only the outer panels that were swept back from the originally straight design, which was done to change the relationship between the center of gravity and the center of pressure caused by engines that were heavier than planned. You can see the wing inboard of the engine remains straight. The whole pit of sweeping the outer panel was to avoid changing the structure of the fuselage to move the wing attach point. The sweep of the inboard panel was added later simply by extending the line of the outer leading edge to add additional surface area at the front of inner panel, and the trailing edge remained straight.
2
@SoloRenegade Of course it took time to form up into large formations, and that involved circling the field at lower altitude where the jets would suck down a lot more fuel than the pistons of the P-47. That's not grasping at straws, that's considering real world escort operations instead of thinking like a simple 4-ship sortie. I don't need to fish for anything. Have a nice day in the perfect world your airplanes inhabit.
2
@SoloRenegade You don't think there is a difference in fuel consumption between a P-80 and P-47 at low altitude. Then you think the range figures of the airplanes include fuel for circling. Goodbye, I'm done here.
2
@thelandofnod123 "Galland was a fool then if he wanted to switch to just 262 production." Thank you for so clearly illustrating my point. You are an armchair non-expert who thinks he is smarter that the Luftwaffe general of fighters who actually had to fight the air war. You can't even make the simple connection that when you have a shortage of resources you need to expend them on things that can make a difference in the battle. The fact is that Germany had no shortage of fighter planes at the end of the war; what they were short of was the high-octane fuel and trained pilots needed to fly them. Galland, being way smarter than you, wanted to give those pilots a jet that outperformed the opposition. That is the opposition actually over Germany, not better aircraft that never fought there. So the fact that the 262 was the best jet fighter over Germany at the time is exactly the point. It doesn't matter how inferior it might have been to fighters that were not there. You seem to have no ability to understand the issues here. And why don't you just look up the word discourse if you are going to keep misusing the word? It's not an insult to observe that you don't even understand what it means. I'm done arguing with you.
2
@Eric-kn4yn "But why 262 have sophisticated swept empennage?" Probably for the same reason the Grumman F6F had one.
2
@gregp6210 Since your information is exactly what I have, I suspect you also have Dan Sharp's very detailed book on development of the 262. I was wondering if you have another source that is anywhere near as thorough, and perhaps gets as much into operations as development.
2
@gregp6210 Thanks. If that book was Smithsonian Press that means government funded and should be in the public domain now. Maybe I can find a PDF somewhere. I recently discovered a PDF of their "Carl Spaatz and the Air War in Europe", which can't replace my hardcover copy but is easier to search and copy text from.
2
@gertjanmoens4188 Sorry, no. I do have imposters. ;-)
2
@Ernest-jr The Curtiss Ascender is another example of wing sweep for the purpose of balance and stability rather than delay of shock formation. It was not an unusually fast airplane and didn't even break 400 mph before being cancelled.
2
@SoloRenegade Yes, they would have to have been forward based to escort the deeper missions, and they certainly could have done the closer escort relays. It would have been more challenging in terms of combat radius, but doable. One point to consider is that the book figures for range would not hold up well for a combat mission involving a lot of time spent joining up into squadron and group formations. Circling the field at low altitude while everyone gets joined up would impact the range of a jet more than it did for a piston. The F-80 successfully flew ground attack missions from Japan to Korea and back in the early days of that war, but they were small formations that could almost immediately begin climb to cruise altitude.
1
@wanderschlosser1857 You are clearly and demonstrably wrong, but thankfully someone else has already explained why and saved me from that dreary task.
1
@thelandofnod123 So, I mention the fact that opinions on how good the 262 was have become artificially polarized by the state of online discourse, and you blame me for the polarization. I think you must have nodded off at some point. It seems you don't even understand what the word discourse means. I didn't say you said something controversial, I said judging how good the airplane was outside the context of its use is pointless. You think it wasn't as good as people thought it was. Which people? It seems you mean armchair aviation enthusiasts that didn't fly the airplane in combat, and who compare it to other jets that came later. Adolf Galland thought the 262 was terrific and wanted to cancel production of all piston fighters in favor of the 262. He didn't know North American would soon produce an F-86, he knew he need to best the North American P-51 and get at the B-17. The 262 was pretty damned good in the context of what the Luftwaffe needed at the time. Who cares if it wasn't as good as fighters developed later. In that context the P-80 was "better", but as I said it wasn't in combat over Germany.
1
@paulmaxwell8851 Thank you for understanding my point and not using it to go off on a tangent as some others have.
1
@johnshepherd9676 If you say so.
1
@wanderschlosser1857 The fact that the early P-80 may have been a few knots slower on its early engine doesn't change anyone's mind as to which was the better airplane overall. Sometimes models the Spitfire were faster than the Fw190 and sometimes it was not. The 262 design was a dead end and the P-80 lived on for a long time.
1
@thelandofnod123 Thanks for providing a perfect example of what I was talking about. He was fighting the war and you are an armchair opinionist who thinks he knows better. He is certainly not the foolish one. That fact that you think an aircraft that was superior in combat pointlessly consumed resources indicates just how foolish you are. As I suspected, you are indeed on one side of an ignorantly polarized argument. Have fun constructing more dumb conclusions.
1
@wanderschlosser1857 You keep pointing to Greg's analysis as though it will change my mind. I've already seen it. While I value Greg's analysis of supercharging and piston engine control systems, he is not the expert in all areas his followers think he is. At any rate I'm not really interested in arguing the P-80 vs the 262 in the first place. I merely politely agreed with solo renegade when he said that to me. If you want go on arguing that the 262 was better I suggest you take it up with him because he likes arguing about it. Bye.
1
@wanderschlosser1857 I'm not obliged to argue with you about anything just because I made a simple comment. You just want to keep dicing the mouse turds when I told you I'm not interested in the mouse. Get a grip.
1
@thelandofnod123 Did I not say I'm done with you. You can't think your way out of a paper bag, and I'm not interested in reading any more of your moronic comments.
1
@thelandofnod123 I've already read enough of your illogical drivel to know you are the fool you claim Adolf Galland to be. I will not waste any more time with you.
1
@wanderschlosser1857 I don't like arguing over opinions with someone such as yourself who can't see the issue and just wants to focus on meaningless details. Nobody is obligated to argue with you.
1
@thelandofnod123 I did make an argument, you are just too stupid to recognize it. It's also stupid of you to demand I cite sources when you do nothing of the kind. One can't win an argument with a stupid person, which is why it is pointless to continue with you. For the benefit of others I will say that nod's argument that Galland was a fool for wanting to suspend production of prop fighters in favor of the 262 rests mainly on the fact that German aircraft production was restricted by lack of resources. That is a stupid argument, because scarcity of resources is itself the very reason Galland wanted to shift them from propeller fighters to the 262. When you can only build, fuel, and crew a limited number of fighters, it makes sense to expend scarce resources on planes that will have the advantage in combat.
1
@GreenBlueWalkthrough What wasn’t what by any metric? If you want to comment on comments that are four months old you have to be more specific. Here you might be talking about the Me262 or the P-80. I will address a couple of you statements just to point out why I have no interest in further discussion with you. “I never heard of a ME-262 going supersonic in a dive yet it's extermly esasy to do in a Mustang” That myth has been busted many time over so I reject your claim. If this is your level of knowledge I’m not interested. “... Like where do you get this idea that it was the best jet let alone plane over germany in WW2?” Here you must be talking about this comment on the 262: “Yes the design was already obsolete, but it was still the best jet in actual combat over Germany in WWII.” You obviosity can’t grasp the point, which is that the Me-262 was the ONLY jet fighter in combat over Germany in WWII. Pay attention to what is being said before you try to jump into a pointless argument.
1
@Ernest-jr You don't know what you are talking about. The Ascender was not fast, and its swept wings were not there to make it fast. And I can't even imagine what you think the the M52 has to do with the subject of swept wings. You are obviously uninformed and I don't see any point in arguing with you.
1
@Ernest-jr I don't know what you think you are telling me, but what you actually wrote is non-factual. You think you know and understand a lot more than I do because of the Dunning-Kruger Effect. Like I said, you don't know what you are taking about, and you are not worth arguing with.
1