Well, Randy, if the Me262 was as good as is claimed ad nauseum, why did only two air forces ever operate it? That of the Greater German Reich and Czechoslovakia
Read the rest of your responses but it boils down to pretty much if it was any good everyone would use them but still...
Why did the USAAF/RAF not order an Me262 copy with more reliable axial flow engines?
First of all the 'claims' were made by the ALLIES after comprehensive testing versus their own first generation jets. Second let me point out the Allies already HAD
better aircraft on the drawing boards but post-war development and budget issue were delaying production so they (naturally) built what they had set up to build for the war. As most of the new generation had better capabilities and used axial flow engines there was no need.
Czechoslovakia already had parts production and some assembly plants in place, (thanks to the Nazi's) so it made sense to produce what they COULD rather than buy from someone else. When later second generation aircraft became available they did in fact buy them.
They evaluated many captured examples, and wrote long reports on their performance, and then scrapped all but a few of them.
Which they did with the Me262 and because they had vastly more piston aircraft already on-hand and first generations jets already built or building. I'm guessing your "point" was why do this when some had superior performance to comparable Allied aircraft? Not sure why you'd think anyone would consider it cost effective to do so for the rather 'short' time the surplus Allied aircraft were expected to serve.
Why did they instead order the P-80 and P-86, and the Meteor and Vampire, instead of cancelling them and ordering Me262 analogs?
The a fore mentioned were already on order and factories and facilities existed in the Allied countries to produce them in quantity while the Me262 factories and production facilties were mostly in ruin.
Why did the export customers for those aircraft types enter double figures, when they could just copied the Me262?
See this is why it helps to understand things beyond the basic performance figures, this has been answered multiple times in this post alone but I highly doubt, (since your using an easily researched and refuted "argument" and ignoring things like economics and national pride. "Copying" the Me262 would not have been either easy or cheap to do since all the current production line were destroyed or heavily damaged and the limited production in Czechoslovakia was for internal use only. So quite naturally since the Allies would be producing their own already existing designs it only made sense to make more and sell them to foreign customers.
Of course the ACTUAL question your asking is why didn't those 'forgien' customers spend millions of dollars to develop and build their own national infrastructure, industries and such to produce their own 'copies' of the Me262. Which is to ask why those same 'customers' bought anything from someone else in the first place but ignores realities like lower technical and industrial bases and the 'economy' of buying jets instead of producing them locally. Further, unlike the Me262 the first generation Allied jets (specifically the centrifugal engines) used technology and had operational requirements more similar to late generation high-performance propeller aircraft which greatly reduced training time and maintenance expenses.
(Post war this was very important)
The French and the Canadians used the Jumo 004 as the starting point for their jet engine programs, culminating in the Atar and the Orenda, after all
Everyone actually used concepts, ideas and technology from the German axial flow jets in their programs. They did so BECAUSE they were advanced over Allied centrifugal engines. This was far from the only area of technology this was done.
Why did the Soviets build a succession of jet fighter designs, when they too, could have copied the 'superior' Me262, seeing as Messerschmitt had already produced the 'perfect' 1st generation fighter?
You could easily have included the Soviets in with the other Allied examples above. That you specifically chose not to shows your running rapidly out of 'arguments' and need to keep beating strawmen to attempt to bolster your point. In Debate this would be followed by name calling and insults but I hope this doesn't descend to that level.
Could it possibly be, that it wasn't quite as good as its proponents proclaim?
I'd say "nice try bundling the "arguments" in the hope that no one would notice they are two different and unrelated points" but as it's so obvious and weak it's not even 'nice' really.
Those 'proponents' were professional aviators familiar with the relevant Allied aircraft tasked with truthfully and efficiently evaluating the Me262, (among other aircraft) in comparison to equivalent Allied aircraft. So because those evaluations differ from your preferred opinion, and despite the fact that those evaluations and conclusions were validated, accepted and included in the official histories and records you wish to attempt to cast doubt on their knowledge and professionalism by proposing your opinion is in fact "better"?
And you have I might add no evidence to "support" your opinion over those professionals?
Lets just leave it that even granting the evaluating pilots and engineers might have been 'proponents' of the Me262 the very fact that existing data, records, eyewitness testimony, gun camera and other photographic evidence all points to those evaluations being far more correct than your opinion,
That it was vulnerable to being shot down by propeller driven aircraft?
Really? That's all you have as a 'killer' argument? That's your 'support' for the opinion that the Me262 wasn't any good? Really?
::::Sigh:::: Well I guess that shows everyone that we should never have given up the obviously superior and unbeatable propeller driven aircraft! I mean F-16s have been shot down by bows and arrows, B-52 have been brought down by birds and of course B-2s have been downed by water so quite obviously Me262s being shot down when landing and taking off PROVES that despite reports and evidence by pilots at the time of the difficulty in engaging let alone destroying the Me262 in 'normal' combat conditions AND the recommendations, action-reports and official policy of mainly engaging the Me262 during landing and take off or conditions during which the jets could not use their LISTED superior speed to avoid engagement that 'everyone' was lying to cover up horrible the Me262 was and how superior propeller driven aircraft were.
I'm so glad your here to show how ignorant and biased the people who were actually there and flew against these obviously terrible, awful, and useless aircraft were. Obviously they didn't have a clue and had no idea what they were about.
As you say:
Surely not.
That would be heresy.
Randy