GERMAN JET FIGHTER REPLICA HEADS OVERSEAS (US Gov. alarmed at "war weapon export")

AOPA Online | 1/13/06

[pabianice]

A replica of one of Germany's greatest technological triumphs late in World War II, the Messerschmitt Me.262 fighter jet, has left American soil and reached Germany after U.S. State Department officials delayed it 60 days because they saw it as a weapon of war.

The four 30 mm replica cannons aboard lack a firing mechanism and still wouldn't fire if they had one. The aircraft now has arrived in Germany where it will be reassembled by the Messerschmitt Foundation aircraft collection and flown once again.

The replica project has been taken over by a group of retired Boeing engineers operating in Everett, Washington, as Legend Flyers. The aircraft are for sale by Air Assets International/Warbird Recovery in Colorado. Messerschmitt granted five additional serial numbers. Two have been built, with three to go.

[LRS]

I would be more concerned over someone expressing info on this design:

[Gamera977]

I've always read that the first jet vs. jet combat was Korea, MiG-15 vs. Lockheed P-80 Shooting Star. I've never heard of the 262 vs. a Meteor. The Meteor, though a jet, really didn't have performance any better than a Griffin engined Spitfire or a Hawker Typhoon, Tempest.

Though if the A-bombs hadn't been dropped the first jet combat very likely would have been in the Second World War- the Lockheed P-80 vs. the Nakajima Kikka.

And though I hate to say this as an American- best-looking aircraft ever, IMHO the Supermarine Spitfire. Graceful, classy lines, a very elegant design for the brutal work of killing.

[thulldud]

litterally the hottest plane ever built.

I heard those had to be refueled after every takeoff because they leaked like a sieve until the airframe got up to cruising temperature. Think it was an old retired USAF coworker that told me.

[narby]

B-58. Cool.

Got to climb all over one of those once. It was a gate guard at the AFB in Ft. Worth Tx.

The thing was made of laminated aluminum foil composite stuff. I doubt the structure on any of the ramaining aircraft is viable. And this gate guard had the wings cut off with a saw for transport, and stuck back on for show. Sad.

[AFreeBird]

Ha! You think if I had those two AC for you to try, that I actually would? :-))

[Buffalo Head]

"You'd find some argument with the B-24 crowd."

B24's could fly faster, higher and further with a greater bomb load than the B17's and dropped more bomb tonnage on the Germans. The Flying Fortress's name and a couple of movies grabbed most of the glory and fame.

[massgopguy]

What an awful Blue Oyster Cult song.

[LRS]

The Horten? That influenced Ralph Northrup and was ahead of its time. Until the designers of the B-2 used it. Had to wait until the computer age and some fancy avionics to keep a flying wing stable, though.

Yep!

[AFreeBird]

I heard those had to be refueled after every takeoff because they leaked like a sieve until the airframe got up to cruising temperature. Think it was an old retired USAF coworker that told me.

TRUE!

Not only that, but the fuel was also used to cool certain engine components.

[Sensei Ern]

I know. I was being kind to his assertion.

Of course we all not what happens when you make an assertion...you make an ass out of er and tion.

[narby]

IMHO the Supermarine Spitfire.

The only thing wrong with the spit is the airfoil. The wing planform is beautiful, but the airfoil is a flat bottomed joke.

Would love it if someone would come out with a kit plane with an eliptical wing like that. The Lancair Legacy almost did, but they cheesed out and just made it a double taper. There they went and built a great composite wing, but cut it like it was an aluminum wing limited to 2d curves.

[yarddog]

I always thought the WWII airplanes were the most beautiful ever although I think modern ones are sharp too.

If forced to choose the most beautiful plane ever made I would take the Spitfire. It really was a work of art.

Even the plain ones like the B-24 and B-29 had their own attractiveness.

[Sensei Ern]

Back then, when everything was relying on the pilot for everything, the desogns for fighters was a balance between performance and ease to fly. To get the best performance, you had to push the planes to the limit of the envelope. To make it easy to push, you had to make it highly unstable.

I have been told by reliable sources that the F-16 and most modern fighters would be unable to fly and are absolutely not aerodynamic without computers controlling them.

[af_vet_rr]

I doubt that.

I disagree - if the 262s had been deployed in serious numbers, as fighters, against bomber formations, from the old-timers I've talked to it might have really changed things. Keep in mind that these things would not have been circling the formations - they would have been doing straight runs across the formations, and moving at high speed (for that time).

As good as our gunners on the bombers were, the amount of time they would have had to take them out would have been reduced a great deal, which meant they would have to be extremely lucky. You had to have been inside a B-17 or B-24 to understand what I mean - your visibility is greatly limited and by the time somebody called out a target to you, it might have already passed your field of view. Your only chance would be if you saw it from the start.

Even if they didn't shoot down that many bombers, they would have had a tremendous impact on morale, and they might have been able to disrupt the formations enough to reduce the effectiveness of bombing - we didn't have laser guided bombs, and besides defense, the whole point of bomber formations was to dump a lot of HE on the target to make sure that something hit it since they weren't that accurate.

I maybe wrong on this, but I remember reading somewhere that a large number of 262 kills were made either when they were taking off or landing.

Had they not wasted so many resources going back and forth on what it should/should not be, had it been straight up bomber defense from the beginning, including the better pilots from the start (towards the end of the war, pilot quality went way down), you might have seen vastly improved engines and tactics.

Regardless of the view either of us has, historical what-ifs are always pretty fascinating to think about.

[El Gato]

They still couldn't stop the B-17's.

Only because they didn't have enough of them, and they came too late in the war. If they'd had them a year or two earlier, and they'd had pilots to fly them, it could have gotten dicey. Of course Boeing would have just developed the B-47 a few years early. The Brits would have needed to produce more of their jet fighters, and we'd have needed to put the P-59 and P-80 into production a mite sooner.

[Sensei Ern]

I want to know what plane took that shot. I am sure it is either a touched photo or was done by a satellite.

I reminds me of the old movies where we thought the parachutist who did daring acts was the bravest man but never thought about the cameraman who did the same jump PLUS worried about getting the shot.

[af_vet_rr]

The first ever jet combat was a Gloucester Meteor against one of these 262's. The Meteor won, but be very glad that Hitler delayed jet research for about two years. I don't think Germany would have won the war with earlier jets, but the defensive advantage of fast short-time-of-flight fighter jets would have extended the war by about two years IMO.

That's pretty much how I feel - Germany was doomed once we starting putting a severe crimp in their oil production/supplies. We would have won (and we had our own jet fighters on the verge of coming into service), but I think they could have disrupted things enough to make it last a little while longer.

[Little Ray]

Actually the Swedes "borrowed" the TA 183 design amost line for line:
http://www.vectorsite.net/avj29.html

[hiramknight]

My vote goes to the Chance Vought F4U Corsair. Otherwise known as "wispering death" by the Japs. I believe it boasts a 10 to 1 kill ratio.