I was a crew chief in the USAF in the 60's and worked on the P-80 and AT-33, the AT-33 was a T-33 with guns and bomb racks. I laughed every year when we had to do a "termite inspection" yearly as the floor of the jet was wooden. During Viet Nam the AF decided to try to convert an AT-33 to carry a Vulcan 20 MM gun pod for close ground support. We modified it to mount a gun pod on the centerline rack and took it to the borescope gun range where we jacked it and retracted the nose gear. We had to pump the gear struts up to give clearance. The gun fired great. The jet flew on a test flight to Gila Bend Az. range to test the gun. The acft came back on an emergency and it was parked by me and the canopy was still down. I had to open the canopy and saw that the pilot was very upset, he told me that when he hit the gun the recoil from the gun almost stopped the jet in flight. He said some other things but I can't put them here. Oh well we tried.
@@galenhaugh3158 Yeah, we were crew chiefs on F-4 fighters that used the same gun and we knew that there would be problems but the "expert" engineers that were from the USAF thought different. The engineers usually don't listen to lowly mechanics so I learned through my career in the AF. We were told to take the gun off. One of the guys drew a cartoon of a T-33 with a Hound dog missile (from a B-52) on the centerline. We were told to not do that anymore by the commander although he was smiling.
@@derekadair7522 No, we weren't allowed to take pictures on the flight line, the F-4's were secret and the U-2's were top secret. The T-33's were right next to them. I do think that that flight is embedded in that pilots memory for ever, I wish I had a picture of him when I opened the canopy.
The last time I watched the History Channel it was actually a channel and it actually ran programs about history. That shows how long it's been since I watched the History Channel.😋
What would have happened if the P80 Shooting Star had encountered the ME262? It probably would’ve crashed.. For one thing, the Americans had not yet adopted they swept mine concept that the Germans had figured out in their wind tunnel research. This was one theory proposed as to the instability of the P80 at its top speed.
So did Korea; the North Koreans were still using the old Polikarpov Po-2s for night nuisance raids (commonly known to US Troops as Bed Check Charlie), right up to the armistice. World War 2 also saw a few horseback charges, mainly in Poland and in China, and the first TV-guided drones and first weapons to definitively cross the 62-mile line into space. (There are arguments about whether WW1's Paris Gun did or didn't get quite that high, but the V2 sure did). And the early phases of the US war against the Taliban in 2002 saw horse-mounted US Special Forces calling in airstrikes via satellite.)
@Marco D'Magnifico They surrendered to the model planes because they knew what their appearance foreshadowed. One Iraqi armour unit commander was asked why he surrendered without a fight. His answer was "the damn B-52's". When it was stated that his unit had not been attacked by the bombers, his answer was "Yes I know that, but I saw one that had been".
Gravity bombs to ballistic missiles, ground spotters to radar technology, bolt actions to selective fire rifles. It really is the most fascinating, albeit terrible, war when it comes to military advances.
My dad had 8 hrs in the T33 before he washed out of flight school. One of the high points of his life. On his deathbed, flying on synthetic morphine, he described to me a waking dream....turning in formation in the T33, high above Lackland air base. I salute you, Pop.
Random fact: Mark's grandfather was a British soldier who fought in the Burma front of WWII. He said so himself in a community post a little while back. Just something for new viewers that I thought you'd find interesting. :)
He must have gone through some tough times. My dad was conscripted in 1944 and was sent for jungle training - he was going to be dispatched to Burma and he said he was absolutely terrified. Luckily he was re-assigned to a fuel supply team, worked on fuel supply projects for the Normandy landings and was eventually posted to Greece
Many grandfathers probably fought, mine WW1 and WW2. I would have loved now to talk to him about his experiences, but most i remember him, hands on face , elbows on knees staring at the floor. I wonder what he was thinking. This was back in 70's. I'm now 60, i think more of the past than the present.
@@davidwilliams5749 agreed, and also I feel that it's really unique stories and new fresh untold stories from different perspectives. With the same staccato delivery from Mark.
Yeager commented in his book that the ME262 and P80 had very similar flight characteristics. However, I should add that I read his book back when it was published in the mid-1980s. I don't trust my memory, but this was one of the things I most recall about his book.
From my readings... after the war both of the inventors of the jet engine met, German and British. They shared information with each other and were amazed to find out they both reached the same conclusion via different design routes. One of those rare times in history where simultaneous inventions take place with neither person aware of the others work. They became close friends, working together on projects well into their latter years.
Nearly but not quite? Post war, Von Ohain later admitted that he was aware of Whittle's work and had studied his patent. Although he had already started on his own path by the time he saw them. I believe Eric Brown also mentions this in one of his interviews as he obviously knew Whittle.
My dad was an Air Force fighter pilot. He was an instructor pilot for a time in the T-33. In fact, the picture shown is my dad getting into his T-33 as a Capt/Instructor in Texas where my mom met him. Miss you dad! He served over 30 years. Starting on the F-86, F-102 and 106, Forward Air Controller in Vietnam in OV-10s, 10 years in SAC flying B-52s and KC-135s, then back to OV-10s in Germany. Finishing with the B-1 Bombers in Kansas before retiring.
As a pilot I once met an old man on the golf course in Brunswick GA. He said he was a pilot too . He said he was the LSO on the USS Langly. He also said his last assignments were to fly the P-80 at the airport In Brunswick. He said it was a Navy airstrip during the war. He looked pretty old but…while we spoke he came alive …and appeared grow “younger “ the more we spoke of his fighter pilot days.
Don't forget one of the best jet out of WW2, the D.H. Vampire which first flew in Sept 1943 and were in production before the end of the war. By the way it had the engine within the fuselage.
My local college rescued one from the shredder. Restored it, flew it around for a few years then put it on display out front of the local airport. They did a great job on it. There's still quite a lot of them in private hands that are air worthy.
I'm so glad I found this channel. I have been fascinated by ww2 since I was a boy and my grandfather would tell me about battles. I have never watched any documentaries with a better narrator. Mark is a natural and I've watched thousands of documentaries. Thank you so much Dr. Felton
Mark Felton is much, much more than a narrator, but yes, he is a wonderful narrator. He is also a very highly respected author. I love his writing style.
During the Korean war, Australian pilots flying the Gloster Meteor F8 against the superior MIG15 had a song; 'all I want for Christmas is my wing swept back'.
Seems pretty obvious to me. A boozer rewording of the children's song 'All I Want For Christmas Is My Two Front Teeth.' Cant imagine Dickens or some stage musical years after the war ended had anything to do with it?
Thanks for Featuring my great uncle Frank Whittle! Woohoo!! His legacy lives on in my family with careers in AeroSpace and hobby of building and flying planes. (I also just got the new Microsoft Flight Sim). Keep up the great videos, Mark!
I read a book, a few years ago, about his invention and development of the jet engine, and I must say that it certainly didn't seem like he was given very much help to start with, whereas the Germans saw its potential and invested in research quite early on.
@@jerribee1 FUN FACT: Ohain, the inventor of the German jet engine, read Whittle's patents and copied them. Whilst Whittle was begging for funding, Ohain received generous state funding before the war. Then the funding was reduced because Hitler believed the war would be over and won before the jet engine would enter service. The Whittle design was superior to the German imitation.
I'm getting tears for you Dr. Felton. You now reached the million mark. A feat that is so hard to achieve to history based channels on UA-cam. Also, I'm so proud to say that I am one of the early subscriber of your Channel ever since you reached 10k subscribers. It's a privilege to listen to a history geek like you to a now a graduate of BA in History like me.
I've seen my share of T-33's until the 1990's. They looked and flew wonderfully. That proves the success of the design. Thanks for yet another excellent upload, Mark.
I worked as an Avionics Technician on the T-33 from 1982-1988 at Tyndall AFB. I have many back seat hours on this fun plane. It was a very good trainer. Two of them are at the Air and Space Museums in DC and Virginia, and I worked on both of them back in the day.
To cool we where there at the same time. Good old 95 AMU. Loaded ECM pods and run and taxi for engine shop. To bad he didn't show one short stacked. Go Bone Heads.
I met the son of a man who was one of the pilots of the F-80s assigned to Italy and his father told him they were sent there to intercept the German recon jets.
Can you believe we went from those quick-made jets and other prototypes to the F-86 Sabre in less than eight years? The late 40s were probably one of the fastest innovation eras for aircraft in history.
“Highlighting how dangerous early jets could be” as Mark correctly points out while I would like to highlight how dangerous early jets were to the test pilots that flew them.
One of the most dangerous jobs was for the German ground crews. They had to fuel the jets with highly corrosive jet fuel. A drop could go through the glove, the boot and into the ground.
I remember watching Mark Felton's WW2 documentaries on Saturday and Sunday mornings when I was like 6 or 7 and it's so cool to find him after all these years still pumping out the same content on UA-cam, I'm 25 now, it's really cool to have grown up with your stuff. You're right up there with R Lee Ermey when it comes to WW2 content. God Rest that man's soul. Thank you for being so passionate Mark Felton.
Thank you very much, Mark, for your inspiring videos and stories. I read a lot about WW2, but you add significant knowledge, for which I am grateful! Best regards from the Netherlands!
My girlfriend too u listen more to mark Felton than me! We have argued about this many times! So yeah we're ALL together at most of time BTW my gf is like this 🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬😵😡😠😤😤 but me I'm like this 😎😎😎😎😎😎😎😎😎😎😎😁😁😁😁😁😄😃😀😇😇😇👍 To mark Felton 👍👍👍👍👍👍
I've read that the T-33s (and they may have been F-94 Starfires, despite what Wikipedia says about that aircraft's retirement date)) were used as "squadron hacks." Officers, mostly higher ranking ones, used them to commute to other bases for meetings, etc. This kept up their flight time/proficiancy. (Speculation: this may also have kept their hours up enough to maintain their flight pay.)
The P-80 was not the only allied jet with the engine in the fuselage, the De Havilland Vampire, which first flew before the P-80, also had the engine within the fuselage.
@@craigwall9536, the bit the wings attach to is commonly referred to as the fuselage, it doesn’t matter if it’s a long slim thing or a short stubby “pod” it’s still the fuselage.
Great pity that the Yanks demanded the second Halford ( Goblin ) engine after crashing the the first prototype . This held up the development of the great De Havilland Vampire which was ready in early 1944 until late in 1945 . The Vampire with the Goblin engine was a better aircraft than the Meteor( and the P 80 !! having a top speed of over 500mph . Typical Yank demands and threats that they want all the available technology and screw and delay our own developments.
I was a Naval aviator in the early 70s. I was a S.L.U.F. Jocky.. A good friend owned a p80 single-seat, He entrusted me to take her up with a 15-minute pass- down on its flight characteristics. What a sweet bird and so operator orientated. More so than any aircraft I have flown. I'm surprised Mark did not mention its characteristics as far as pilot friendly and handling. Grand aircraft after the bugs worked out.. PostScript.. Rest in peace Major Richard Bong..
Nice job Mark. As a kid I played with plastic Shooting Stars in the sandbox. If you have ever heard one scream by at an airshow the sound is mesmerizing! Keep up the great work!
Another great "What if Encounter" of WW2 anywhere over/in Europe - production numbers always will win is my thoughts on the outcome. Cheers and stay safe.
Good point about production numbers - the Germans were way ahead, but by that point were struggling as their industries were being bombed and materials running out. The Americans still had their war production going full speed, and fairly soon would have had these things coming out by the hundreds, as they did with P-51s and other aircraft. Had the war gone on a few more months the Americans could have eclipsed the Germans in jet numbers. Also helps that the P-80 required a single fairly simple to manufacture centrifugal-flow jet engine, while each Me 262 required two more complicated axial-flow engines. I would still suspect the Me 262 was probably the more advanced, superior aircraft, but as you say production numbers can overcome that. This was probably true of most US versus German designs, the German designs were probably usually superior, but good design couldn't make up for production capacity.
@@johnburns4017 You mean the Jumos? I don't know how they compared with the centrifugal flow engines, but I do get the sense they're more tempramental. All early jets of either type were, the video describing how many P-80s were lost to accidents shows how troublesome they were, and in turn how dangerous aircraft powered by them were.
@@johnburns4017 Also a matter of building what they could, given their lack of alloying metals, which denied them the option of building better/more advanced...
My hometown in northern California has a small airport that was quite active in the 1990s. Some T-33s were stationed there at the time, and I remember seeing them perform takeoffs and flyovers as a kid. One of the few surviving planes is now an exhibit at the local air museum.
mark great info confirming my dad story. He was ground safety officer HQ-HQ 1st BAD Burtonwood 10/1943- 4/1946 and he told the family that we had jets in WWII. no one belived him. you confirmed his story. now i can belive his other comments about his ride along experiences.
It's very disconcerting to push the throttle forward and wait for a lifetime before the power comes up. Remember the problems with surge? I would think the early carrier jocks all had a death wish!
A most enjoyable episode indeed. The Shooting Star was a clean looking 1st generation Jet , I think it was around 50 mph slower in top speed than the Me 262. Would have been most interesting to see it go head to head with the infamous German Horten Ho 229 twin Jet / Pure Flying Wing!
The Horten IX has major aerodynamic issues, it can not be flown safely in hard aerobatics. This means, it can not be used as a fighter without major reconstruction of the overall layout. There is quite a large number of flying wing enthusiasts in rc modelling. Some of them are aerodynamics engineers with decades of experience in developing flying wings, including high quality calculation and simulation software and the whole theoretic background. The physics are the same, no matter how big the airplane is. The only difference is, that you an not scale the air. The molecules have their size and they allways act the same. When a flying model gets smaller, Reynolds numbers get lower. That's why a bigger plane flys better than a very small plane. What works well in small scale, does work at least as good when you scale it up. This means, what flys well as a modell, usually flys at least as well in full size. The Horten IX is the only Horten, that has huge stability issues, no matter what they do to improve the design and no matter in which scale the model is built. No matter how the airfoil or the twist in the wing is changed, the problem is never solved well enough for hard aerobatic oder combat style flying. This wing plan view simply does not work very well as a pure flying wing. Every other Horten (except for the Horten X project, that is completely unflyable in its 1945 layout) makes a really great and safe flying model, but not the IX. You have to ad a vertical fin under the tail of the center section to ged rid of the stability issues and make it into a safe flying model. The only way to get stability without a vertical fin is to greatly modify the wing plan view. With the original wing plan view, aerobatics are extremely dangerous because it stalls and spins without warning, when it is pushed over its limits. Of course this does not mean, the design is complete rubbish. As long as you are careful with the angle of attack, with stalling in general and with side slipping and never push the limits, it actually is a nice flying airplane and it is quite a fast airplane. It can not be used as a fighter, but most probably it is usable as a fast high altitude recce plane with higher speed, greater range and, due to its lower wing loading, higher service ceiling than the Ar 234.
The truth was that everybody had a jet fighter towards the end of WW2. The only reason the German's fielded the Me262 so early was out of desperation and while their introduction was shocking to the allies, that shock faded as Germany was unable to conduct basic maintenance of the complex aircraft. The introduction of the P-80 pretty much made the Me262 obsolete as the P-80 was nearly 100mph faster than the Me262 and did it with only a single engine.
Thank you, Mark Felton. Job well done. I flew RF-80A's, 15th TRS, 363rd TRG, 67th Tac Recon Wing, out of Kimpo in 1953. None of our A's had ejection seats. We had 4 that had not been upgraded to hot canopies. Try to crank it open, set full nose-down trim, unfasten the set belt and let go of the stick. Flying fighters at this stage of development was a very high risk activity.
ME-262 vs.P-80=1 toasted P-80. The ME-262 with TWO Jumo engines had a much superior climb rate, superior agility, superior dive rate, and top-end speed, and more experienced pilots with actual JET combat experience.
@@R.U.1.2. P-80 Performance Maximum speed: 594 mph (956 km/h, 516 kn) at sea level Range: 825 mi (1,328 km, 717 nmi) Service ceiling: 46,800 ft (14,300 m) Rate of climb: 6,870 ft/min (34.9 m/s) Thrust/weight: 0.364 ME-262 Performance Maximum speed: 900 km/h (560 mph, 490 kn) Range: 1,050 km (650 mi, 570 nmi) Service ceiling: 11,450 m (37,570 ft) Rate of climb: 20 m/s (3,900 ft/min) at max weight of 7,130 kg (15,720 lb) Thrust/weight: 0.28 P-80>ME-262
The Germans used axial flow engines, the British used centrifugal flow engines. German design was superior and is still used. Early jets had a very slow throttle response causing a very high accident rate for new pilots and even experienced piston engine pilots. This was main reason German jets were attacked on take off and landing. Interestingly, the British sold the plans for the Rolls Royce Nene engine which powered the Soviet Mig 15. Congratulations to you and bigger congratulations to the over one million subscribers who get to enjoy your content!
The British knew about axial jet engine designs, but went with the centrifugal design because it was less demanding to build and run. The German axial engines had a very short service life and many breakdowns due to fan blades fracturing. The materials technology of the time had not caught up with the demands of the axial engine, so the British approach was the way to go at the time.
@@buttyboy100 Agreed! metallurgy lagged behind the needs of engine technology. From what I've read the Jumo 004 lasted about 10 hours before it needed to be replaced. Within the limits of the technology of the time, the British design was a better choice.
was a T-33 pilot in the 80s in the ANG. we had four. tasked to fly one to Kelly where it was turned over to the Uraguay Air Force. a few years afterward at Peterson Field encountered the Skyfox. It was the T-33 with two twin turbo fans, faired over intakes (fuel cells) a Martin Baker seat and new avionics. the test pilot told me there was only one limitation. The T=33 listed 3, 505K, ,9M ond aileron buzz. These were max limiting airspeeds. After Lockheed had made that beauty in 50 years they could not overcome the aileron buzz.
For those of you wondering if a P-80 (or F-80 as I call it) and a Me262 fought, the most likely winner would actually be the P-80 due to its higher maneuverability thanks to its straight wings. I know this because Combat Flight Simulators are a passion of mine and this exact scenario is one I run alot in IL2 1946. Yes the Me262 wins every now and then but only because it had the altitude advantage or it got a lucky shot off, its slower acceleration and somewhat sluggish nature especially at lower speeds means that if a P-80s pilot is vigilant they can dance all around the Me262. Also I should mention another factor hurting the Me262 in these scenarios is the fact that unlike most other sims IL2 1946 also models engine reliability and vulnerability to pilot error (at least for Jets), and half the time the reason the P-80s win is because the Me262's engines catch fire and explode due to poor quality.
Yay Il-2s best! I expect it's true that the P-80 would be better in a dogfight, but if you want to chew through a formation of B-17s it's the '262 every time for me
A line of P-80s sits in an impact area in Ft. Irwin, California near Goldstone and China Lake. They sit like a squadron on a runway and have been shot up in air to ground gunnery practice. I saw them while touring the back ranges with my friend who was on staff there in the late 1980s.
Well that's concerning. A P-80 with such a streamline body vs the Me-262 which has two fat engines dangling off its wings handle almost identically explodes my brain.
It would of come down to pilot skill and at that point of the war the Luftwaffe had been decimated of the most skilled and experienced pilots so the P-80 would most likely have won any encounters with the ME-262.
I’m with Ben..Although Chuck was an excellent pilot, the P-80 has an all around spec advantage and better(more) pilots. It had faster climb rate, speed, and turning rate.
@@edclark5682 I think the Me-262 would have won since the Me-262 were operated only by the most experienced pilots. The P-80 was armed with four 50 caliber machine guns. While the Me-262 was armed with four 30mm cannons. This just reinforces my belief that the US just got by with the weapons it used in WWII. Like the M-26 Pershing (1944) was taken out by a Tiger (1942) and a Nashorn (1943). The confidence so evident that they fielded the Super Pershing just months after the regular Pershing. In Korea, both the Pershing and the (now designated F-80) Shooting Star were taken out of frontline service. The Pershing then being used as mobile artillery and the F-80 due to poor performance against the MIG-15.
My USAF Flight School class (66-G) flying out of Craig AFB, Selma, AL, flew the T-33 version. Craig AFB was the last school to have T-33s, the others had T-38s. Our tip tanks did not hang under the wingtip, they were mounted on the tip. The limiting airspeed included airspeed, Mach and "aileron buzz or disintegration whichever occurs first". I got to aileron buzz while descending from 40,000 feet (where I was passed by an airliner). 12 seconds from idle to full power and 30 seconds from ignition to full power. I really enjoyed the T-33.
I ran into a boneyard P-80 out behind the American Heritage Museum. It was in poor shape, with the .50's used over and the engines removed, but it was still cool nonetheless.
Mid-1990's the N.Dakota ANG at Fargo, were still flying their T-33 With parts THEY bought from Canada. Cousin Sgt. Russ Watts of Lisbon, ND, gave us a tour of the facility The plane was in immaculate condition Flown for flight hours.... They had a nice looking P-51D on a pylon... J.C.
I recently read this nice WWII book called The Tin Can Runner. It's a military history fiction novel, but very well researched. I recall that some of the things there are what Mark told us about in a few of his videos.
Thank you for this episode. The Shooting Star is close to my family. My great uncle flew a P-80 with the Acrojets after WWII and my dad spent a good deal of time in the back seat of the T-33 while with the 48th FIS in Langley in the late 60's.
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.
Also the same day Hiroshima had little boy drop on it, hence why most Newspapers at the time had it either in small print or page 2 or 3 about his crash.
As I heard from my father, a F86 pilot, Bong was long on “seat of the pants” and short on “procedures”. The jet he was flying used fuel so fast that around the time you were retracting the gear on take-off, you needed to switch tanks. Bong didn’t and he flamed out. He was way too low for an air restart and with no ejection seat and too low to bail, he plowed it in. A tragic loss.
The RCAF used the trainer version (T-33) designated CT-133 Silver star. I flew in one and they were used at AETE as a ejection seat and parachute test frame (airframe 133648) until it's 46 yrs service on its retirement on 25th April 2005. It served 2.5 times it's expected lifespan of service. These birds were unbelievable reliable and amazing to fly in. I got to fly in a silver star. And tutor and an F18 and the silver star was WAY more enjoyable than the F18. It's amazing to know that truly these planes were for the most part a WWII designed airframe.
Underrated aircraft, especially her appearance. I think she’s beautiful. Clean lines, smooth, and ‘fast-looking.’ Would’ve loved to have seen a swept-wing 80 with a more powerful engine.
I would think if both jets had equally skilled pilots it would come down to aircraft performance. Now I will have to hit my referance material to find that answer.
@@jamessotherden5909 probably. And on circumstances. Who sights the other first, at what altitude, etc. etc. Say one is faster but the other turns better, who has the advantage and when? It's not as simple as "this aircraft is superior", it's highly situational.
@@jwenting That is true, Also who has the better armament. It was found during the Korean war that the .50 cal was not hard hitting enough to bring down a jet reliably . One reason why it was replaced by the 20 MM canon on the F-86.
@@jamessotherden5909 The M2 50 cals had little trouble bringing down 262s, the P-80s M3s with their significant fire rate increase would have less trouble.
As a kid in 1950, I played with toy models of this thing. Imagine my surprise, 75 years later, when one flew over my apartment balcony. It was from the War Heritage Airplane museum in Hamilton Ontario and was one its way back there after visiting our local airport. Looked just as cool now as it did to me as a kid.
According to Chuck Yeager, who flew both the ME 262 and the P-80 after the war, the planes had nearly identical flight characteristics. A dogfight between the two planes would have been determined by the skill of the pilots.
Eric "Winkle" Brown, the most accomplished test pilot in history, flew almost every WWII warbird (even the Me 163...yikes!), and decisively held the 262 above the rest.
Too many people enamored with the ME-262 don't realize that it's advantages were small. The Jumo 004 engines were notoriously unreliable and required frequent downtime for service. The Germans couldn't keep more than 200-300 airworthy at anyone time and with major overhauls required every 30-50 hours (the Jumo 004 engines themselves required combustion chamber maintenance every 20 hours or so), and each downtime requiring upwards of 20 hours to complete, it would have been impossible to keep a fleet of 262s in the air. Yes they were fast but not particularly maneuverable when compared with the P-51. They had a much higher rate of climb than the P-51 and could easily outrun the P-51 but with horrible throttle response they couldn't always gather speed fast enough to get away. They couldn't use their speed to attack bomber formations which the P-51 pilots quickly learned to take advantage of. The P-51 pilots simply stayed above the bombers until the 262s had made their "reduced speed" attack run. The P-51 pilots would then dive on the 262s which couldn't always accelerate fast enough to get away. The 262 was also a gas hog. The P-51 had easily twice the range and so could stay in the air a lot longer. Since the 262s could only use certain airfields the P-51s would remain and loiter around them until the 262s came home. As soon as the 262s slowed for their approach the P-51s would pounce on them for an easy kill. The ME-262 was certainly fast with deadly firepower and served to make an incredible psychological weapon but in such small numbers was essentially useless.
Konck knock ta152 Knock knock FW 190 D13 Knock knock Bf109 K4 The geeman wouldnt have needed an jet even without fancy high octane fuel And stll the me262 could runn on any fue so fuel hog for that performance is a major + for the me262 the kill ratio says all
@@Snobiker13 Perhaps, but their real problem was that they were also running out of trained and experienced pilots. That and allied ground forces closing in from both east and west.
It was a perilous time for test pilots - so many died in crashes of these early jets. Even the ME-262 had its share of mishaps. Kudos to those who died and men like Chuck Yeager who made it all a success.
I won't name the other channel, but I recently saw a video on WWII war planes which was so full of errors and inconsistencies that it's main effect on me has been that I gained even more respect for Dr Felton. It shows that if you want to learn something ask an expert.
The P-80 had a beautiful transitional design, with a clear P-38 heritage and straight wing design. Still a clean looking aircraft. It would serve a long career through its derivatives.
@robotorch He was no doubt reading ahead to the He-162 Volksjaeger and just had a verbal slip. Imagine what kind of verbal oops he might've made if he had also included the Ba-349 Natter in that list of examples! 🙂
@@Getoffmycloud53 You are correct. I was offering my supposition as to why the mistake of referring to a Messerschmitt and a Heinkel was made. I hope you have a happy Fourth of July. 🇺🇸
In spite of the losses of test pilots, once developed it was a really great plane and stayed around for many years after the end of it's fighter career as the T-33 Training Jet. I remember those constantly flying around the base as a kid growing up on Air Force installations.
I was a crew chief in the USAF in the 60's and worked on the P-80 and AT-33, the AT-33 was a T-33 with guns and bomb racks. I laughed every year when we had to do a "termite inspection" yearly as the floor of the jet was wooden. During Viet Nam the AF decided to try to convert an AT-33 to carry a Vulcan 20 MM gun pod for close ground support. We modified it to mount a gun pod on the centerline rack and took it to the borescope gun range where we jacked it and retracted the nose gear. We had to pump the gear struts up to give clearance. The gun fired great. The jet flew on a test flight to Gila Bend Az. range to test the gun. The acft came back on an emergency and it was parked by me and the canopy was still down. I had to open the canopy and saw that the pilot was very upset, he told me that when he hit the gun the recoil from the gun almost stopped the jet in flight. He said some other things but I can't put them here. Oh well we tried.
The recoil on the GAU in the A-10 is almot equal to the thrust of its engines.
@@galenhaugh3158 Yeah, we were crew chiefs on F-4 fighters that used the same gun and we knew that there would be problems but the "expert" engineers that were from the USAF thought different. The engineers usually don't listen to lowly mechanics so I learned through my career in the AF. We were told to take the gun off. One of the guys drew a cartoon of a T-33 with a Hound dog missile (from a B-52) on the centerline. We were told to not do that anymore by the commander although he was smiling.
@@galenhaugh3158 I believe they fixed this on the A10 by inserting inert cartridges every so many rounds
This sounds hilarious and really cool at the same time, do you have any pictures?
@@derekadair7522 No, we weren't allowed to take pictures on the flight line, the F-4's were secret and the U-2's were top secret. The T-33's were right next to them. I do think that that flight is embedded in that pilots memory for ever, I wish I had a picture of him when I opened the canopy.
History Channel: We got Pawn Stars and Ice Road Truckers!
Everyone else: We got Dr. Mark Felton.
Don’t forget Ancient Aliens!
True that. Can't remember the last time I watched the Hist Channel.
History and Discovery channels are huge disappointments.
The last time I watched the History Channel it was actually a channel and it actually ran programs about history. That shows how long it's been since I watched the History Channel.😋
What would have happened if the P80 Shooting Star had encountered the ME262? It probably would’ve crashed..
For one thing, the Americans had not yet adopted they swept mine concept that the Germans had figured out in their wind tunnel research. This was one theory proposed as to the instability of the P80 at its top speed.
I'm often amazed by the fact that WWII saw both canvas biplanes and jet fighters on the air.
In the same way the WW1 saw both horseback cavalry charges and tanks and aircraft. War makes innovation look easy
So did Korea; the North Koreans were still using the old Polikarpov Po-2s for night nuisance raids (commonly known to US Troops as Bed Check Charlie), right up to the armistice. World War 2 also saw a few horseback charges, mainly in Poland and in China, and the first TV-guided drones and first weapons to definitively cross the 62-mile line into space. (There are arguments about whether WW1's Paris Gun did or didn't get quite that high, but the V2 sure did). And the early phases of the US war against the Taliban in 2002 saw horse-mounted US Special Forces calling in airstrikes via satellite.)
@Marco D'Magnifico Wise decision, because the reconnaissance UAVs were often followed by air strikes.
@Marco D'Magnifico They surrendered to the model planes because they knew what their appearance foreshadowed. One Iraqi armour unit commander was asked why he surrendered without a fight. His answer was "the damn B-52's". When it was stated that his unit had not been attacked by the bombers, his answer was "Yes I know that, but I saw one that had been".
Gravity bombs to ballistic missiles, ground spotters to radar technology, bolt actions to selective fire rifles. It really is the most fascinating, albeit terrible, war when it comes to military advances.
My dad had 8 hrs in the T33 before he washed out of flight school. One of the high points of his life. On his deathbed, flying on synthetic morphine, he described to me a waking dream....turning in formation in the T33, high above Lackland air base. I salute you, Pop.
Random fact: Mark's grandfather was a British soldier who fought in the Burma front of WWII. He said so himself in a community post a little while back. Just something for new viewers that I thought you'd find interesting. :)
The VJ day post I see says it was his grandfather. (Unless there are multiple posts)
He must have gone through some tough times. My dad was conscripted in 1944 and was sent for jungle training - he was going to be dispatched to Burma and he said he was absolutely terrified. Luckily he was re-assigned to a fuel supply team, worked on fuel supply projects for the Normandy landings and was eventually posted to Greece
Many grandfathers probably fought, mine WW1 and WW2. I would have loved now to talk to him about his experiences, but most i remember him, hands on face , elbows on knees staring at the floor. I wonder what he was thinking. This was back in 70's. I'm now 60, i think more of the past than the present.
So did my father. What he experienced affected him for the rest if his life.
Ty
Crazy how your videos feel more like a full production rather than just a YT vid. Thanks for your amazing work!
Ikr its amazing its better then multi billion channels such as the history channel which keeps repeating them selfs to extend time
Because they are PACKED with interesting content, instead of lingering on fancy-yet-repetitive graphics, boring re-caps and endless commercials.
@@davidwilliams5749 agreed, and also I feel that it's really unique stories and new fresh untold stories from different perspectives. With the same staccato delivery from Mark.
It’s called “MARK FELTON PRODUCTION” for a reason!! @vuk stAjic!! MARK IS THE MAN!! Always wonderful content!
@Derek Davis Yes aware of this, that's exactly where my comment came from. That he alone carries that full production value into his YT vids.
Crazy they flew till 1997 in active service. Trainer or not that's a hugely impressive lifespan.
I can hear the B=52 now: "Am I a joke to you?!"
@@CB-mn4lf This is not a competition. We can appreciate all the aircraft without putting any down. And for a fighter jet this IS impressive.
What about the B 52?
@Suðringa o Impressive comment, it got me thinking.
I think there was a meteor that was used to test ejection seats and only was retired recently
Yeager commented in his book that the ME262 and P80 had very similar flight characteristics. However, I should add that I read his book back when it was published in the mid-1980s. I don't trust my memory, but this was one of the things I most recall about his book.
I inherited the book just recently so I'm going to have to go back and read it now to confirm
From my readings... after the war both of the inventors of the jet engine met, German and British. They shared information with each other and were amazed to find out they both reached the same conclusion via different design routes. One of those rare times in history where simultaneous inventions take place with neither person aware of the others work. They became close friends, working together on projects well into their latter years.
Nearly but not quite? Post war, Von Ohain later admitted that he was aware of Whittle's work and had studied his patent. Although he had already started on his own path by the time he saw them. I believe Eric Brown also mentions this in one of his interviews as he obviously knew Whittle.
And then we gave the engine to the Soviets and the US nicked it. British desperation and naivety in the late war and post war 😞
That happens quite intense, actually. There is even a common phrase that parallels it: great minds think alike.
It's a shame that America's highest scoring ace of all time, Richard Bong, died test piloting a P-80 on August 6th, 1945.
His crash site is about a mile from my home in Burbank. As it turns out, this is not a "fun fact" to bring up at parties.
Sad deal
@Derek Davis Huh?
Heh!!
@Derek Davis right! How many pics of his P38 I've seen. I should have remembered.
The best reference to jets in history is Chuck Yeager. "The first time I saw a jet, I shot it down."
Chuck Yeager was a badass! Not scared by going fast either!
May he rest in peace
And Chuck Yeager said, “Bud Anderson is the best fighter pilot I’ve ever seen.”
Also said PAF has best pilots
A german FW190 Pilot: The first time I saw Chuck Yeager, I shot him down
P80 with the wing tanks is straight ICONIC
My dad was an Air Force fighter pilot. He was an instructor pilot for a time in the T-33. In fact, the picture shown is my dad getting into his T-33 as a Capt/Instructor in Texas where my mom met him. Miss you dad! He served over 30 years. Starting on the F-86, F-102 and 106, Forward Air Controller in Vietnam in OV-10s, 10 years in SAC flying B-52s and KC-135s, then back to OV-10s in Germany. Finishing with the B-1 Bombers in Kansas before retiring.
As a pilot I once met an old man on the golf course in Brunswick GA. He said he was a pilot too . He said he was the LSO on the USS Langly. He also said his last assignments were to fly the P-80 at the airport In Brunswick. He said it was a Navy airstrip during the war. He looked pretty old but…while we spoke he came alive …and appeared grow “younger “ the more we spoke of his fighter pilot days.
Don't forget one of the best jet out of WW2, the D.H. Vampire which first flew in Sept 1943 and were in production before the end of the war. By the way it had the engine within the fuselage.
I got a look at the manual for a P-80 once. One of the illustrations in it was an artist conception of p-80s defending B-29s from zeros.
Cool! :)
My local college rescued one from the shredder. Restored it, flew it around for a few years then put it on display out front of the local airport. They did a great job on it. There's still quite a lot of them in private hands that are air worthy.
we have one here in front of b.g.s.u. airport here in bowling green ohio,been there for decades
Lots of T-33's are still airworthy but, sadly, no P/F-80's.
I'm so glad I found this channel. I have been fascinated by ww2 since I was a boy and my grandfather would tell me about battles. I have never watched any documentaries with a better narrator. Mark is a natural and I've watched thousands of documentaries. Thank you so much Dr. Felton
Mark Felton is much, much more than a narrator, but yes, he is a wonderful narrator. He is also a very highly respected author. I love his writing style.
During the Korean war, Australian pilots flying the Gloster Meteor F8 against the superior MIG15 had a song; 'all I want for Christmas is my wing swept back'.
Not likely. That song is from "The Music Man", which did not appear on stage until 1957.
I found all kinds of sources for this and it's most likely based on a rhyme from Dickens 'a tale of two cities'
Thanks for sharing, mate. 👍🏻
Seems pretty obvious to me. A boozer rewording of the children's song 'All I Want For Christmas Is My Two Front Teeth.' Cant imagine Dickens or some stage musical years after the war ended had anything to do with it?
@@edwardd9702 yeah, you're absolutely right. Cheers mate!
@@edwardd9702 The song was originally recorded by spike jones in 1947.
Amazing how quickly humans went from piston engines to jets.
Wartime is an efficient driver of innovation.
@@alejandrayalanbowman367 oh I know. Still amazing to see. Just like how USA went to the moon from scratch in 10 years
Imo it's especially amazing how fast aviation evolved during WW1. Plane designs often were obsolete after only a few weeks.
@@legiox3719 that's what they want you to think. The Nazis where on the moon first we stole their technology.
Went from Sopwith Camel to Saturn V in 51 years
Thanks for Featuring my great uncle Frank Whittle! Woohoo!! His legacy lives on in my family with careers in AeroSpace and hobby of building and flying planes. (I also just got the new Microsoft Flight Sim). Keep up the great videos, Mark!
You're from an illustrious line. Make sure your kids and grand kids learn all about him.
I read a book, a few years ago, about his invention and development of the jet engine, and I must say that it certainly didn't seem like he was given very much help to start with, whereas the Germans saw its potential and invested in research quite early on.
@@jerribee1 FUN FACT: Ohain, the inventor of the German jet engine, read Whittle's patents and copied them. Whilst Whittle was begging for funding, Ohain received generous state funding before the war. Then the funding was reduced because Hitler believed the war would be over and won before the jet engine would enter service. The Whittle design was superior to the German imitation.
In modern jet flight, we owe everything to the genius of Frank Whittle. It cannot be overstated.
@@DestryAlecto Agreed.
They would have flown past each other very quickly.... greetings from NYC!
And given each other a thumbs up.
I'm getting tears for you Dr. Felton. You now reached the million mark. A feat that is so hard to achieve to history based channels on UA-cam. Also, I'm so proud to say that I am one of the early subscriber of your Channel ever since you reached 10k subscribers. It's a privilege to listen to a history geek like you to a now a graduate of BA in History like me.
Great history thanks for the video! @3:18, the jet's name was "Lulu-Belle" that was the name of Bogart's tank in the film Sahara!
I saw this movie as a kid in the 60s but couldn't remember the title. Thanks. Now I can look it up for a rewatch.
I grew up with T33's flying overhead in Nova Scotia. Such a pretty aircraft.
Had one of these on a concrete pedestal at the decommissioned CFB Cornwallis, but was removed a few years ago. Not sure where it went.
I've seen my share of T-33's until the 1990's. They looked and flew wonderfully. That proves the success of the design. Thanks for yet another excellent upload, Mark.
Your ability to uncover little known facts about historical military events never ceases to amaze Dr. Felton!
The P80 had such a clean and aerodynamic design. Arguably the best looking of the WWII jets.
Really was. They had a wingless fuselage on display at Sun and Fun in Florida you could sit in, and it was amazing how narrow the frontal profile was
Congratulations on reaching 1M!
1M+
Martin Baker still has a Meteor in service to test ejection seats- a type that first flew in WW2 as described in this video.
I worked as an Avionics Technician on the T-33 from 1982-1988 at Tyndall AFB. I have many back seat hours on this fun plane. It was a very good trainer. Two of them are at the Air and Space Museums in DC and Virginia, and I worked on both of them back in the day.
To cool we where there at the same time. Good old 95 AMU. Loaded ECM pods and run and taxi for engine shop. To bad he didn't show one short stacked. Go Bone Heads.
I could listen to you for days. Such a informative great docu story telling voice of the highest caliber.
I met the son of a man who was one of the pilots of the F-80s assigned to Italy and his father told him they were sent there to intercept the German recon jets.
...something they never did.
@@rainbowseeker5930 Or at least that they officially never did.
The very fact that these missions are still classified leads me to suspect that they very well may (Unofficially) have...we'll probably never know
Can you believe we went from those quick-made jets and other prototypes to the F-86 Sabre in less than eight years? The late 40s were probably one of the fastest innovation eras for aircraft in history.
“Highlighting how dangerous early jets could be” as Mark correctly points out while I would like to highlight how dangerous early jets were to the test pilots that flew them.
@Phil McCrevice. I’ve always thought a pilots life was more precious than their aircraft. Big difference if you’re the pilot.
@@apenza4304 - He means you also forget the poor people on ground that a falling Jet will kill too. It's not uncommon you know.
I assume test pilots have more experience bailing out if necessary. Still, they prob can't get a normal life insur policy.
@@halibut1249 The very first question I was asked when I applied for life insurance was “Do you have a pilots license”.
One of the most dangerous jobs was for the German ground crews. They had to fuel the jets with highly corrosive jet fuel. A drop could go through the glove, the boot and into the ground.
I remember watching Mark Felton's WW2 documentaries on Saturday and Sunday mornings when I was like 6 or 7 and it's so cool to find him after all these years still pumping out the same content on UA-cam, I'm 25 now, it's really cool to have grown up with your stuff. You're right up there with R Lee Ermey when it comes to WW2 content. God Rest that man's soul. Thank you for being so passionate Mark Felton.
Thank you very much, Mark, for your inspiring videos and stories. I read a lot about WW2, but you add significant knowledge, for which I am grateful! Best regards from the Netherlands!
My girlfriend hears Felton theme: "I feel like Mark Felton is the third person in our relationship".
Me: 😃
My girlfriend too u listen more to mark Felton than me! We have argued about this many times! So yeah we're ALL together at most of time
BTW my gf is like this 🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬😵😡😠😤😤 but me I'm like this 😎😎😎😎😎😎😎😎😎😎😎😁😁😁😁😁😄😃😀😇😇😇👍
To mark Felton 👍👍👍👍👍👍
@@rjs1jd I didn't think I'd be the only one 😂😂😂
@@markwood599 hahaahha same
What are you suggesting lol
You make my day... i'm still laughing..!!!😂😂
Just made my Friday night. Thanks professor.
The US taxpayers got their money's worth on the P-80 with T-33 and other variants serving into the 1990s.
And many still serving in minor and third world air forces.
I was in the Air Force in 1971 and we were still using the T-33 and i thought it was really old then......can't believe we still used it into the 90`s
75 years after the end of WWII we have advanced to variants of the DC3.
@Trainwreck727 Hence the continued political success of the Trudeau dynasty... *sigh*
I've read that the T-33s (and they may have been F-94 Starfires, despite what Wikipedia says about that aircraft's retirement date)) were used as "squadron hacks." Officers, mostly higher ranking ones, used them to commute to other bases for meetings, etc. This kept up their flight time/proficiancy. (Speculation: this may also have kept their hours up enough to maintain their flight pay.)
The P-80 was not the only allied jet with the engine in the fuselage, the De Havilland Vampire, which first flew before the P-80, also had the engine within the fuselage.
Bull. It didn't _have_ a fuselage. It had a _POD._ A pod and tailbooms.
@@craigwall9536, the bit the wings attach to is commonly referred to as the fuselage, it doesn’t matter if it’s a long slim thing or a short stubby “pod” it’s still the fuselage.
Great pity that the Yanks demanded the second Halford ( Goblin ) engine after crashing the the first prototype . This held up the development of the great De Havilland Vampire which was ready in early 1944 until late in 1945 . The Vampire with the Goblin engine was a better aircraft than the Meteor( and the P 80 !! having a top speed of over 500mph . Typical Yank demands and threats that they want all the available technology and screw and delay our own developments.
@Gary Tarr The US would have let the UK starve to death. There is a reason why the US can cut a better deal.
@Gary Tarr Sorry for trying to help you guys with your war. Next time we'll let Europe finish itself off.
I was a Naval aviator in the early 70s. I was a S.L.U.F. Jocky..
A good friend owned a p80 single-seat, He entrusted me to take her up with a 15-minute pass- down on its flight characteristics.
What a sweet bird and so operator orientated. More so than any aircraft I have flown.
I'm surprised Mark did not mention its characteristics as far as pilot friendly and handling.
Grand aircraft after the bugs worked out..
PostScript..
Rest in peace Major Richard Bong..
S.L.U.F.???
Like a Shooting Star
You appeared before me
Where have you been all my life?
Just flying at 20,000 mph through the void
Nice job Mark. As a kid I played with plastic Shooting Stars in the sandbox. If you have ever heard one scream by at an airshow the sound is mesmerizing! Keep up the great work!
Another great "What if Encounter" of WW2 anywhere over/in Europe - production numbers always will win is my thoughts on the outcome. Cheers and stay safe.
Good point about production numbers - the Germans were way ahead, but by that point were struggling as their industries were being bombed and materials running out. The Americans still had their war production going full speed, and fairly soon would have had these things coming out by the hundreds, as they did with P-51s and other aircraft. Had the war gone on a few more months the Americans could have eclipsed the Germans in jet numbers. Also helps that the P-80 required a single fairly simple to manufacture centrifugal-flow jet engine, while each Me 262 required two more complicated axial-flow engines. I would still suspect the Me 262 was probably the more advanced, superior aircraft, but as you say production numbers can overcome that. This was probably true of most US versus German designs, the German designs were probably usually superior, but good design couldn't make up for production capacity.
@Dilet Yep, production numbers definitely win out there. Every ramming incident takes down one of each. Who runs out first?
@@johnburns4017 You mean the Jumos? I don't know how they compared with the centrifugal flow engines, but I do get the sense they're more tempramental. All early jets of either type were, the video describing how many P-80s were lost to accidents shows how troublesome they were, and in turn how dangerous aircraft powered by them were.
@@johnburns4017 Also a matter of building what they could, given their lack of alloying metals, which denied them the option of building better/more advanced...
The history of the first jets is very interesting. Spain took a great leap forward when it received the P80 and F86. Thank you for your work.
This is my favorite historical channel for indpth stories of such interesting subjects!
On my way home from the hospital / surgery yesterday. At least I’ve got three unseen Mark Felton waiting on me at home.
i hope you feel better .
@@smokeybear1597 Thank you!
Get well soon.
@@salr362 Thank you!
Get well soon.
My hometown in northern California has a small airport that was quite active in the 1990s. Some T-33s were stationed there at the time, and I remember seeing them perform takeoffs and flyovers as a kid. One of the few surviving planes is now an exhibit at the local air museum.
Ive been reading WW2 history for 30 years and Mark you keep telling me things Ive never heard of. TY Sir!
mark great info confirming my dad story. He was ground safety officer HQ-HQ 1st BAD
Burtonwood 10/1943- 4/1946 and he told the family that we had jets in WWII. no one belived him. you confirmed his story. now i can belive his other comments about his ride along experiences.
I flew this aircraft in Alaska. Had to be careful when landing, as it took 15 seconds for the engine to pool up from zero.
It's very disconcerting to push the throttle forward and wait for a lifetime before the power comes up. Remember the problems with surge? I would think the early carrier jocks all had a death wish!
Engines spool up on this jet. Makes me wonder if you ever flew one.
@@RSPYC Methinks this was simply a typo.
A most enjoyable episode indeed. The Shooting Star was a clean looking 1st generation Jet , I think it was around 50 mph slower in top speed than the Me 262. Would have been most interesting to see it go head to head with the infamous German Horten Ho 229 twin Jet / Pure Flying Wing!
The Horten IX has major aerodynamic issues, it can not be flown safely in hard aerobatics. This means, it can not be used as a fighter without major reconstruction of the overall layout.
There is quite a large number of flying wing enthusiasts in rc modelling. Some of them are aerodynamics engineers with decades of experience in developing flying wings, including high quality calculation and simulation software and the whole theoretic background. The physics are the same, no matter how big the airplane is. The only difference is, that you an not scale the air. The molecules have their size and they allways act the same. When a flying model gets smaller, Reynolds numbers get lower. That's why a bigger plane flys better than a very small plane. What works well in small scale, does work at least as good when you scale it up. This means, what flys well as a modell, usually flys at least as well in full size.
The Horten IX is the only Horten, that has huge stability issues, no matter what they do to improve the design and no matter in which scale the model is built. No matter how the airfoil or the twist in the wing is changed, the problem is never solved well enough for hard aerobatic oder combat style flying. This wing plan view simply does not work very well as a pure flying wing. Every other Horten (except for the Horten X project, that is completely unflyable in its 1945 layout) makes a really great and safe flying model, but not the IX. You have to ad a vertical fin under the tail of the center section to ged rid of the stability issues and make it into a safe flying model. The only way to get stability without a vertical fin is to greatly modify the wing plan view.
With the original wing plan view, aerobatics are extremely dangerous because it stalls and spins without warning, when it is pushed over its limits.
Of course this does not mean, the design is complete rubbish. As long as you are careful with the angle of attack, with stalling in general and with side slipping and never push the limits, it actually is a nice flying airplane and it is quite a fast airplane.
It can not be used as a fighter, but most probably it is usable as a fast high altitude recce plane with higher speed, greater range and, due to its lower wing loading, higher service ceiling than the Ar 234.
The shooting star is one of my favorite early jets. Not sure why but I just love the way that thing looks.
there is just something about that 40's aesthetic. Its the reason I love the B-36.
The truth was that everybody had a jet fighter towards the end of WW2. The only reason the German's fielded the Me262 so early was out of desperation and while their introduction was shocking to the allies, that shock faded as Germany was unable to conduct basic maintenance of the complex aircraft. The introduction of the P-80 pretty much made the Me262 obsolete as the P-80 was nearly 100mph faster than the Me262 and did it with only a single engine.
Thank you, Mark Felton. Job well done. I flew RF-80A's, 15th TRS, 363rd TRG, 67th Tac Recon Wing, out of Kimpo in 1953. None of our A's had ejection seats. We had 4 that had not been upgraded to hot canopies. Try to crank it open, set full nose-down trim, unfasten the set belt and let go of the stick. Flying fighters at this stage of development was a very high risk activity.
It's not always the most advanced plane that wins. Pilots applying their skills are the ones who succeed.
ME-262 vs.P-80=1 toasted P-80. The ME-262 with TWO Jumo engines had a much superior climb rate, superior agility, superior dive rate, and top-end speed, and more experienced pilots with actual JET combat experience.
Yes, but having a better plane helps
That's what I think too...see my comment..⬆️⬆️
@@R.U.1.2. Nope, the US has way too many veteran pilots while the Germans don’t.
@@R.U.1.2.
P-80 Performance
Maximum speed: 594 mph (956 km/h, 516 kn) at sea level
Range: 825 mi (1,328 km, 717 nmi)
Service ceiling: 46,800 ft (14,300 m)
Rate of climb: 6,870 ft/min (34.9 m/s)
Thrust/weight: 0.364
ME-262 Performance
Maximum speed: 900 km/h (560 mph, 490 kn)
Range: 1,050 km (650 mi, 570 nmi)
Service ceiling: 11,450 m (37,570 ft)
Rate of climb: 20 m/s (3,900 ft/min) at max weight of 7,130 kg (15,720 lb)
Thrust/weight: 0.28
P-80>ME-262
The Germans used axial flow engines, the British used centrifugal flow engines. German design was superior and is still used. Early jets had a very slow throttle response causing a very high accident rate for new pilots and even experienced piston engine pilots. This was main reason German jets were attacked on take off and landing. Interestingly, the British sold the plans for the Rolls Royce Nene engine which powered the Soviet Mig 15. Congratulations to you and bigger congratulations to the over one million subscribers who get to enjoy your content!
The British knew about axial jet engine designs, but went with the centrifugal design because it was less demanding to build and run. The German axial engines had a very short service life and many breakdowns due to fan blades fracturing. The materials technology of the time had not caught up with the demands of the axial engine, so the British approach was the way to go at the time.
@@buttyboy100 Agreed! metallurgy lagged behind the needs of engine technology. From what I've read the Jumo 004 lasted about 10 hours before it needed to be replaced. Within the limits of the technology of the time, the British design was a better choice.
@@johnburns4017 thank you for taking the time to provide so much information in your comment. Very informative.
@@johnburns4017 Thanks! very detailed and informative. Good company here at MFP👍
@@johnburns4017 Interesting reading. Thanks 👍
I flew one of these once. It was a trainer version--the T-33 but, same aircraft.
What was it like?
Thanks again. The relevant historical film footage is very welcome. Even more so: your superb research and presentation.
Thanks for all your awesome work mr felton by far the best second world war channel in my opinion
Some Shooting Star's use to come to Jamaica ofter the war mainly at Vernam Field on training missions.
LOVE your presentations every time! Thanks! From a USAF Gulf War vet......
was a T-33 pilot in the 80s in the ANG. we had four. tasked to fly one to Kelly where it was turned over to the Uraguay Air Force. a few years afterward at Peterson Field encountered the Skyfox. It was the T-33 with two twin turbo fans, faired over intakes (fuel cells) a Martin Baker seat and new avionics. the test pilot told me there was only one limitation. The T=33 listed 3, 505K, ,9M ond aileron buzz. These were max limiting airspeeds. After Lockheed had made that beauty in 50 years they could not overcome the aileron buzz.
For those of you wondering if a P-80 (or F-80 as I call it) and a Me262 fought, the most likely winner would actually be the P-80 due to its higher maneuverability thanks to its straight wings. I know this because Combat Flight Simulators are a passion of mine and this exact scenario is one I run alot in IL2 1946. Yes the Me262 wins every now and then but only because it had the altitude advantage or it got a lucky shot off, its slower acceleration and somewhat sluggish nature especially at lower speeds means that if a P-80s pilot is vigilant they can dance all around the Me262. Also I should mention another factor hurting the Me262 in these scenarios is the fact that unlike most other sims IL2 1946 also models engine reliability and vulnerability to pilot error (at least for Jets), and half the time the reason the P-80s win is because the Me262's engines catch fire and explode due to poor quality.
Yay Il-2s best! I expect it's true that the P-80 would be better in a dogfight, but if you want to chew through a formation of B-17s it's the '262 every time for me
8:58 wouldve been a fantastic time for a sponsored ad for War Thunder
Yeah
A line of P-80s sits in an impact area in Ft. Irwin, California near Goldstone and China Lake. They sit like a squadron on a runway and have been shot up in air to ground gunnery practice. I saw them while touring the back ranges with my friend who was on staff there in the late 1980s.
I have neighbor who has one mounted in his front yard(along with several other aircraft), I always love to stop and gander at a piece of history.
Chuck Yeager flew both the P-80 and the 262 and stated that they handled almost identically.
Well that's concerning. A P-80 with such a streamline body vs the Me-262 which has two fat engines dangling off its wings handle almost identically explodes my brain.
It would of come down to pilot skill and at that point of the war the Luftwaffe had been decimated of the most skilled and experienced pilots so the P-80 would most likely have won any encounters with the ME-262.
I’m with Ben..Although Chuck was an excellent pilot, the P-80 has an all around spec advantage and better(more) pilots. It had faster climb rate, speed, and turning rate.
@@troy369 Maybe it was compared to prop aircrafts.
@@edclark5682 I think the Me-262 would have won since the Me-262 were operated only by the most experienced pilots. The P-80 was armed with four 50 caliber machine guns. While the Me-262 was armed with four 30mm cannons.
This just reinforces my belief that the US just got by with the weapons it used in WWII. Like the M-26 Pershing (1944) was taken out by a Tiger (1942) and a Nashorn (1943). The confidence so evident that they fielded the Super Pershing just months after the regular Pershing.
In Korea, both the Pershing and the (now designated F-80) Shooting Star were taken out of frontline service. The Pershing then being used as mobile artillery and the F-80 due to poor performance against the MIG-15.
Kelly Johnson was a MF genius!
Designed SR 71 with a slide rule.
He was. An engineer that worked with him said that Kelly could "see air".
Kelly don't need no stinkin' swept wings.
You forgot the de havilland vampire. The vampire had the engine within its fuselage.
Tsk tsk..so much for superlatives!
Vampire wasn't in WWII.
@@kdrapertruckerit first flew in 1943,
@@kdrapertrucker facts are not too accurate
@@kdrapertrucker Didn't enter service during WW2.
My USAF Flight School class (66-G) flying out of Craig AFB, Selma, AL, flew the T-33 version. Craig AFB was the last school to have T-33s, the others had T-38s. Our tip tanks did not hang under the wingtip, they were mounted on the tip. The limiting airspeed included airspeed, Mach and "aileron buzz or disintegration whichever occurs first". I got to aileron buzz while descending from 40,000 feet (where I was passed by an airliner). 12 seconds from idle to full power and 30 seconds from ignition to full power. I really enjoyed the T-33.
Flew the T-33 as well. Canada was still flying them until just after I retired. (1992) My avatar is a selfie taken in a T-Bird.
I ran into a boneyard P-80 out behind the American Heritage Museum. It was in poor shape, with the .50's used over and the engines removed, but it was still cool nonetheless.
Felton: I’ll let you argue that in the comments. You know your audience well! And we are.
Mid-1990's the N.Dakota ANG at Fargo, were still flying their T-33
With parts THEY bought from Canada.
Cousin Sgt. Russ Watts of Lisbon, ND, gave us a tour of the facility
The plane was in immaculate condition
Flown for flight hours....
They had a nice looking P-51D on a pylon...
J.C.
I recently read this nice WWII book called The Tin Can Runner. It's a military history fiction novel, but very well researched. I recall that some of the things there are what Mark told us about in a few of his videos.
Love the period accurate opening photo with 2 storms troopers
Thank you for this episode. The Shooting Star is close to my family. My great uncle flew a P-80 with the Acrojets after WWII and my dad spent a good deal of time in the back seat of the T-33 while with the 48th FIS in Langley in the late 60's.
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.
R.I.P Dick Bong, he he died in one of these
Surprised it wasn't mentioned.
Also the same day Hiroshima had little boy drop on it, hence why most Newspapers at the time had it either in small print or page 2 or 3 about his crash.
As I heard from my father, a F86 pilot, Bong was long on “seat of the pants” and short on “procedures”. The jet he was flying used fuel so fast that around the time you were retracting the gear on take-off, you needed to switch tanks. Bong didn’t and he flamed out. He was way too low for an air restart and with no ejection seat and too low to bail, he plowed it in. A tragic loss.
Very detailed...
A dick bong, not sure I would want to smoke out of that
Never knew Mark was famous. Just loved his voice and knowledge.
The RCAF used the trainer version (T-33) designated CT-133 Silver star. I flew in one and they were used at AETE as a ejection seat and parachute test frame (airframe 133648) until it's 46 yrs service on its retirement on 25th April 2005.
It served 2.5 times it's expected lifespan of service. These birds were unbelievable reliable and amazing to fly in.
I got to fly in a silver star. And tutor and an F18 and the silver star was WAY more enjoyable than the F18.
It's amazing to know that truly these planes were for the most part a WWII designed airframe.
Underrated aircraft, especially her appearance. I think she’s beautiful. Clean lines, smooth, and ‘fast-looking.’
Would’ve loved to have seen a swept-wing 80 with a more powerful engine.
Great video! Though i heard a mistake, you accidently called the origin builder of the komet "heinkels" other than that, great job!
What if? I would say, depends on the pilot.
I would think if both jets had equally skilled pilots it would come down to aircraft performance. Now I will have to hit my referance material to find that answer.
@@jamessotherden5909 probably. And on circumstances. Who sights the other first, at what altitude, etc. etc.
Say one is faster but the other turns better, who has the advantage and when?
It's not as simple as "this aircraft is superior", it's highly situational.
@@jwenting That is true, Also who has the better armament. It was found during the Korean war that the .50 cal was not hard hitting enough to bring down a jet reliably . One reason why it was replaced by the 20 MM canon on the F-86.
The Germans had way more experience in jet fighter tactics.
@@jamessotherden5909 The M2 50 cals had little trouble bringing down 262s, the P-80s M3s with their significant fire rate increase would have less trouble.
As a kid in 1950, I played with toy models of this thing. Imagine my surprise, 75 years later, when one flew over my apartment balcony. It was from the War Heritage Airplane museum in Hamilton Ontario and was one its way back there after visiting our local airport. Looked just as cool now as it did to me as a kid.
According to Chuck Yeager, who flew both the ME 262 and the P-80 after the war, the planes had nearly identical flight characteristics. A dogfight between the two planes would have been determined by the skill of the pilots.
So here’s this amazing history guy posing with storm troopers. You owe us the history of them now
Eric "Winkle" Brown, the most accomplished test pilot in history, flew almost every WWII warbird (even the Me 163...yikes!), and decisively held the 262 above the rest.
If the Germans had been able to get the right materials for the engines and enough fuel it would have been an even worse menace.
Too many people enamored with the ME-262 don't realize that it's advantages were small. The Jumo 004 engines were notoriously unreliable and required frequent downtime for service. The Germans couldn't keep more than 200-300 airworthy at anyone time and with major overhauls required every 30-50 hours (the Jumo 004 engines themselves required combustion chamber maintenance every 20 hours or so), and each downtime requiring upwards of 20 hours to complete, it would have been impossible to keep a fleet of 262s in the air. Yes they were fast but not particularly maneuverable when compared with the P-51. They had a much higher rate of climb than the P-51 and could easily outrun the P-51 but with horrible throttle response they couldn't always gather speed fast enough to get away. They couldn't use their speed to attack bomber formations which the P-51 pilots quickly learned to take advantage of. The P-51 pilots simply stayed above the bombers until the 262s had made their "reduced speed" attack run. The P-51 pilots would then dive on the 262s which couldn't always accelerate fast enough to get away. The 262 was also a gas hog. The P-51 had easily twice the range and so could stay in the air a lot longer. Since the 262s could only use certain airfields the P-51s would remain and loiter around them until the 262s came home. As soon as the 262s slowed for their approach the P-51s would pounce on them for an easy kill. The ME-262 was certainly fast with deadly firepower and served to make an incredible psychological weapon but in such small numbers was essentially useless.
Konck knock ta152
Knock knock FW 190 D13
Knock knock Bf109 K4
The geeman wouldnt have needed an jet even without fancy high octane fuel
And stll the me262 could runn on any fue so fuel hog for that performance is a major + for the me262 the kill ratio says all
@@Snobiker13 Perhaps, but their real problem was that they were also running out of trained and experienced pilots. That and allied ground forces closing in from both east and west.
@@Tron-Jockey True. The Brits had much better engines.
It was a perilous time for test pilots - so many died in crashes of these early jets. Even the ME-262 had its share of mishaps. Kudos to those who died and men like Chuck Yeager who made it all a success.
I won't name the other channel, but I recently saw a video on WWII war planes which was so full of errors and inconsistencies that it's main effect on me has been that I gained even more respect for Dr Felton. It shows that if you want to learn something ask an expert.
That's why theres War Thunder. As close as we ll get to p80 vs me 262. Good work mr Felton always learning something new.👍
The P-80 is a beautiful classic first generation jet !! Along with the F9F Panther my favorite !
Mark Felton is a genius who used correct English language which defies and regional inflection or class pretention .
I was a subscriber from about 200k congratulations on 1M ! Thats was also one of the fastest channels to get to 1M I've ever seen.
The P-80 had a beautiful transitional design, with a clear P-38 heritage and straight wing design. Still a clean looking aircraft. It would serve a long career through its derivatives.
Dr. Felton: You mistakenly call the Me 163 comet a Heinkel during the intro.
@robotorch He was no doubt reading ahead to the He-162 Volksjaeger and just had a verbal slip.
Imagine what kind of verbal oops he might've made if he had also included the Ba-349 Natter in that list of examples! 🙂
@@pauld6967 neither Natter nor Komet were jets, but rocket interceptors.
The He 162 was a jet, like the other aircraft in this comparison.
@@Getoffmycloud53 You are correct. I was offering my supposition as to why the mistake of referring to a Messerschmitt and a Heinkel was made.
I hope you have a happy Fourth of July. 🇺🇸
"...but I'll let you argue that one in the comments section below."
You definitely know your audience, my friend.
god I love Kelly Johnson, he doesn't get enough recognition for his work
Splendid informative and very interesting little aviation video for the aircraft enthusiast.
In spite of the losses of test pilots, once developed it was a really great plane and stayed around for many years after the end of it's fighter career as the T-33 Training Jet. I remember those constantly flying around the base as a kid growing up on Air Force installations.