American jets in '44

[The Dean]

German aerodynamic knowledge was more advanced than anyone,

Not so, the German aircraft suffered just as much from compression problems and they were no closer to solving them than anybody else. The first supersonic flight was done without using German research. The fully movable elevators were a British design by Miles Aviation and variable geometry airfoils were first conceived by Barnes Wallis. Petter was already producing plans for swept wings before any German designs were captured and plans for delta configurations were also in development.

 

[fastmongrel]

I might be wrong but according to what I have read the Meteor and the Me 262 were pretty evenly matched the 262 being faster in a straight line but the Meteor was more manouverable. Basically the same as the Spit and the Bf 109 five years earlier. The advantage would have gone as always to the better pilot.

 

[CalBear]

I might be wrong but according to what I have read the Meteor and the Me 262 were pretty evenly matched the 262 being faster in a straight line but the Meteor was more manouverable. Basically the same as the Spit and the Bf 109 five years earlier. The advantage would have gone as always to the better pilot.

You could actually throw a blanket of the Swallow, Meteor, and Shooting Star as far as the range of performance of the early model of each aircraft. The Meteor and P-80 were faster in their deployed models that the -262, but not overwhelmingly so.

The big difference was in engines. The RR in the Meteor and the GE (later Allison) jet engines were much more durable than the the Junkers Jumo, with the Allied designs running 120 hours between overhauls while the German engine was fortunate to get 20, giving the two Allied jets six times the availability of their opponent (the P-80 and Meteor were also apparently subject to a shorter down period for each overhaul, mostly because of the uneven part quality available to the Germans).

 

[KyleB]

The Me 262 was flawed at best, but if the war lasted a few years later then the Ta 183 would have proven much superior to the F-84s and Vampires that the Allies would have.

 

[The Dean]

The Me 262 was flawed at best, but if the war lasted a few years later then the Ta 183 would have proven much superior to the F-84s and Vampires that the Allies would have.

If the war lasted a few more years then Sea Hawks and Venoms would be in service with the UK and F 86s in the USA.

 

[fastmongrel]

The Me 262 was flawed at best, but if the war lasted a few years later then the Ta 183 would have proven much superior to the F-84s and Vampires that the Allies would have.

and Miles Avıatıon would have flown the supersonıc M52

 

[CalBear]

The Me 262 was flawed at best, but if the war lasted a few years later then the Ta 183 would have proven much superior to the F-84s and Vampires that the Allies would have.

And, of course, the Allies would have remained running in place while the Reich advanced.

I would imagine that, after the work was done on the Atom Bomb and the B-36 to carry it (above the theoretical service ceiling of the Ta 183) the U.S. might get around to building a high performance jet, along with the advanced aircraft that the UK would be building. of course the USAAF might just go ahead and build the B-47 and just outfly the Ta 183.

This of course assumes that the 183 would have actually flown. The Soviets had to modify the hell out of the design to get the MiG-15 (including adding the wing "fences") to be even somewhat stable. Even then the rule in the Soviet Air Force was if the plane went into a spin your waited "three turns and then you go" (i.e. eject) becuase the aircraft was lost. This was improved in the bis version, but the problem wasn't really ironed all the way out until the introduction of the MiG-17.

BTW: American NACA engineers had begun work on the swept wing in early 1945 and had the data out to the American aircraft industry within three weeks of the release of the German research on the subject.

 

[KyleB]

I still think it would be cool if the Germans somehow managed to build the flying-wing bomber they were planning with a 50,000kg bomb load.

 

[CalBear]

I still think it would be cool if the Germans somehow managed to build the flying-wing bomber they were planning with a 50,000kg bomb load.

Cool as hell, as long as your folks didn't live on a targeted location. ASB, beyond any doubt, but it would look good in a video game.

BTW: The B-2 can't handle a 50,000 kg bomb load. B-52 couldn't/can't either, same for the B-36. As far as I know the heaviest bombload ever was the B-36 Featherweight, which could carry a bit over 39,000kg over a useful combat radius.

 

[Mote]

And, of course, the Allies would have remained running in place while the Reich advanced.

I would imagine that, after the work was done on the Atom Bomb and the B-36 to carry it (above the theoretical service ceiling of the Ta 183) the U.S. might get around to building a high performance jet, along with the advanced aircraft that the UK would be building. of course the USAAF might just go ahead and build the B-47 and just outfly the Ta 183.

This of course assumes that the 183 would have actually flown. The Soviets had to modify the hell out of the design to get the MiG-15 (including adding the wing "fences") to be even somewhat stable. Even then the rule in the Soviet Air Force was if the plane went into a spin your waited "three turns and then you go" (i.e. eject) becuase the aircraft was lost. This was improved in the bis version, but the problem wasn't really ironed all the way out until the introduction of the MiG-17.

The MiG-15 wasn't derived from the Ta 183 at all, similarities are due to convergent evolution. And from what I can tell, the B-36 would be operating at a maximum altitude of about 40,000 feet (certainly so for any version you could get to operate against Nazi Germany), which would be within the capabilities of the Ta 183. Of course, might as well just build Savages if you're going to do the whole nuclear B-36 thing.

Cool as hell, as long as your folks didn't live on a targeted location. ASB, beyond any doubt, but it would look good in a video game.

BTW: The B-2 can't handle a 50,000 kg bomb load. B-52 couldn't/can't either, same for the B-36. As far as I know the heaviest bombload ever was the B-36 Featherweight, which could carry a bit over 39,000kg over a useful combat radius.

Theoretically, including the START limited external hardpoints, a B-1B could carry 61,000kg of ordnance, but I suspect that's merely what hardpoints are rated at and not a useful load unlike the 84,000 pounds (two T12s or a crapload of 500 pounders) that a B-36 was capable of carrying.

 

[Kevin Renner]

The MiG-15 wasn't derived from the Ta 183 at all, similarities are due to convergent evolution. And from what I can tell, the B-36 would be operating at a maximum altitude of about 40,000 feet (certainly so for any version you could get to operate against Nazi Germany), which would be within the capabilities of the Ta 183. Of course, might as well just build Savages if you're going to do the whole nuclear B-36 thing.

At 40,000 ft the Peacemaker wouldn't be able to hit anything it aimed at.

The Ta 183 looks more like a Saab 29 to. And wasn't Kurt Tank's Argentine version pretty much of a dog.

http://www.vectorsite.net/avj29.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FMA_IAe_33_Pulqui_II

I have long ahd a soft spot for the old Assender. It never got the engine it was slated for (one of the P&W 24 cylinder sleeve valves IIRC) and I have always wondered if it could of been adapted ala the SAAB J-21

 

[Mote]

At 40,000 ft the Peacemaker wouldn't be able to hit anything it aimed at.

Radar bombing makes it easier to hit the targets (Page 11 refers to a radar CEP of 1,925 feet using B-36s at 40,000 feet), though of course that is still atrocious compared to what you could get lower, but with nuclear weapons, you can miss by that much or more and still destroy the target.

 

[phx1138]

Is there any rational, realistic POD that can lead to swept wing research in the US, with a swept wing F-80 class fighter fielded in '44 or '45? Who would be involved, to get the US to the level of the Me-262? I would love to see a good ATL of this.

All you really need is somebody (Kelly Johnson?) to recall the 1935 lecture on swept wings in trying to solve the P-38's compressibility issues. It wouldn't hurt for the Me-262 to appear earlier, to drive demand for Allied fighters. (They really didn't have the range for escort, tho, so you'd probably see mixed-power, something like the P-83.)

You might also see development of something like the XB-51 (based on the XB-43?) for tacair in Korea, & hence maybe an A-10 equivalent much earlier than OTL.

 

[Michel Van]

Kelly Johnson had proposed a Jet Fighter to USAAF back in 1939 !

the Lockheed L-133
powert by 2x L1000 J37 axial-flow turbojets !!!
(Johnson had buil working prototype of L1000)
Armament: 4x 0.50'' machine guns
http://tanks45.tripod.com/Jets45/Histories/Lockheed-L133/L133.htm

but for the USAAF generals was that to much "Science-Fiction"
and Johnson start new project the P-38

but WI the USAF start the L-133 "Lightning" Program ?
would be nasty surprise for Luftwaffen in 1944

 

[CalBear]

Kelly Johnson had proposed a Jet Fighter to USAAF back in 1939 !

the Lockheed L-133
powert by 2x L1000 J37 axial-flow turbojets !!!
(Johnson had buil working prototype of L1000)
Armament: 4x 0.50'' machine guns
http://tanks45.tripod.com/Jets45/Histories/Lockheed-L133/L133.htm

but for the USAAF generals was that to much "Science-Fiction"
and Johnson start new project the P-38

but WI the USAF start the L-133 "Lightning" Program ?
would be nasty surprise for Luftwaffen in 1944

I never heard of that before. Interesting.

Love the idea of canards on a pre-1940 jet fighter.

 

[The Dean]

L1000 J37 axial-flow turbojets !!!
(Johnson had built working prototype of L1000)

Lockheed started work on a prototype of the L1000 in 1940 and worked on it until '43 then it went on with several different companies none of which managed to make it work and it was abandoned in '50.

 

[Astrodragon]

I never heard of that before. Interesting.

Love the idea of canards on a pre-1940 jet fighter.

Would canards work on that early a plane? I always assumed (from the fact they didnt appear until much later) was that they (like a number of other ideas) weren't practical without computer control.
Could explain why no-one got it to work.

 

[CalBear]

Would canards work on that early a plane? I always assumed (from the fact they didnt appear until much later) was that they (like a number of other ideas) weren't practical without computer control.
Could explain why no-one got it to work.

If it had been put there by anyone but Kelly, I would dismiss them, but Johnson was a genius at design so I have to at least give it a passing glance.

 

[Caesar]

The Northrop XP-79 would certainly have been interesting if developed earlier.

 

[Astrodragon]

If it had been put there by anyone but Kelly, I would dismiss them, but Johnson was a genius at design so I have to at least give it a passing glance.

I agree, I just wonder if (like stabilisers on ships), the control theory and mechanisms of the time just weren't up to making them workable in practice.

Canards are controlled by computer on modern fighters, but thats only an indication, not necessarily proof that they are necessary (from personal experince, some quite unexpected things are controlled by computer on a fighter!)