One of the things I've learned while contributing to Sarge's blog is the importance of carefully proof reading your story. I've also learned that it's a lot more difficult than it sounds. Your brain tends to read what your brain told you to type. Which is not always what is actually written. I had a case of this with my "Juvats" posting recently. My intention for the subject was the progression of aircraft that the 80th TFS had flown since WWII. I mistakenly posted a picture of a P80 and captioned it as the first jet fighter. Which should have said first jet fighter for the Juvats as both the British and Germans had jet fighters before that. Thanks for pointing that out, Mea Culpa!. But... On the upside of that mistake, it produced a subject I found interesting for this posting.
So…Here we go with first jet fighters.
ME-262
According to the Military Aviation Museum (where I got the photo above) the first operational jet fighter was the ME-262 built by Messerschmidt. Much like any new technology it had its good points and its not so good points. First, it was much (much, much) faster than any of the Allied propeller driven fighters. Thus, the ME-262 could attack the Bomber fleet and run away before the Allied escort could bring sights to bear. However, as in any war, tactics are developed to maximize your strengths and minimize the enemy's. The Allies started positioning P-52 Mustangs over the ME-262 airfields as bombing attacks were being conducted in the vicinity. If a ME-262 took off, they would attack it while it was still accelerating. Since the engine’s spool up in the jet took a bit of time, the P-51 diving from altitude had a significant airspeed advantage. Since there weren't a lot of ME-262's in operation, loss of any was a big victory for the Allies. But, for purposes of this posting, they were the first operational jet fighter.
Gloster Meteor
.jpg)
The Gloster Meteor was the first Allied jet fighter and the only Allied jet to see combat. It was faster than the Messerschmidt, but a bit less maneuverable. Not a good characteristic for a Fighter. Interestingly, it was still flying, albeit as a test bed, in 2023.
The P-59 Airacomet was the first US built jet fighter . Planning for the jet began in 1941 and flights began in July 1943. Unfortunately, it's capabilities did not match the capabilities of the P-51, P47, or P-38, so it never reached production.
Which brings me to my oops. The P-80 on first commissioning later renamed as the F-80 . This site explains a lot about the P-80 as a jet fighter. As most of you know the king of the air in Korea was the F-86 which took over the air to air role there. 277 P/F-80s were lost there. 1 loss is bad, 277 is terrible. They were soon remodeled and turned in to the T-33 which were still flying missions when I came on active duty and pilot training.
No, Beans, I never flew one, they were just for flying stuff and people around at the time. The T-37 and T-38 were in service by then.
MIG-9 Fargo
 |
| Source |
The first Russian jet was the Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-9, NATO code named "Fargo". Production started in 1946 and ended in 1948. Obviously, it did not fly in WWII. 610 were built. As I read this article I came to realize that the Soviets were not able to produce this "jet" before the war ended. Lots (Lots and Lots) of problems.
The Nakajima Kikka (橘花 for those of you who read Japanese)
‘As one can see, it bears quite a similar look as the ME-262. I don't know, but it wouldn't surprise me if there wasn't a bit of cooperation going on. It had zero influence on the war as it flew only once, and that was in August 1945.
And Finally!
Caproni Campini N.1
 |
| Source |
The aircraft pictured above was Italy's entry into the "first" jet fighter competition. Design and testing was started in 1940 and flown in 1941. 2 models were built and flown. One was either destroyed by Allied bombing or by the Italians to avoid it's capture. The one above was discovered by the Allies after they defeated the Italian Army.
So. There are the first jet fighters and fighter prototypes from WWII.
And, even though I like all of them, this is my favorite Fighter.
 |
| Source |
No surprise there!
Thanks for the idea Dearieme! Peace out y'all.
* to air, Sturmvogel if it was Air to Ground
Once again knowledge is gained from this blog, didn't know the Italians made an effort into jet tech juvat. Pilot visibility doesn't seem to be very good.
ReplyDeleteNylon, no the visibility looks pretty crappy. That might have something to do with only two being made and none seeing combat. I wouldn’t want to fly it with somebody shooting at mr.
Deletejuvat
My father was a B-26 pilot in the ETO. He said he first saw a jet when it came straight up through their formation and then came straight back down firing all the way. I suspect it was not a Me262 but an Me 163 which was not a jet but a rocket plane and used that type of tactic. He said he looked at his co-pilot and said "what the hell was that?!"
ReplyDeleteYeah, that's an interesting tactic and would probably take some serious airmanship. You've got to point at your target in order to shoot and hit it. Yet, you are climbing or diving straight at it in the tactic. This would be especially interesting in the downward attack. Get in range with an exceptional closure rate, shoot, then maneuver to avoid a mid-air. Takes a bit of courage and exceptional hands, I would think.
Deletejuvat
I think I read somewhere that the 163s did not have much fuel and used this tactic sometimes.
DeleteCould be!
Deletejuvat
The ME-262 Schwalbe/Sturmvogel shot down upwards of 300 allied aircraft.
ReplyDeleteRob, Imagine what would change if they'd come out a year or so earlier. Things could be a bit different nowadays.
Deletejuvat
Didn't the Gloster Pioneer come before the Meteor? Not as a production model, but a sort of proof of concept test?
ReplyDeleteJoe,
DeleteYou are correct! (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gloster_E.28/39) Mea Culpa!
juvat
That's what I get for reading Harry Turtledove's alternative history fiction. :-)
Delete😉
DeleteI once spoke to a retired Navy pilot that flew F-8's. He described it as a controlled rocket, fantastic to fly, and got him into trouble when he, and another pilot, buzzed a sailboat below 100 feet near supersonic speed. He said the rooster-tail they created doused the sailboat. His commanding officer grounded them for their fun.
ReplyDeleteYes, well...That low and that fast, I would think they wouldn't have seen the sailboat in time to avoid an accidental pass. So, did they plan the pass after seeing the boat earlier?
DeleteIf it's a mission, your low altitude cross check is the water, the adversary and the weapons. Not much opportunity to look out for sailboats. If not and it's a reattack on the sailboat, well that's no bueno!
juvat
It was planned. He buzzed a friend once. He throttled back, headed for his house, and lit the afterburner when he pulled up. His friend was under a trailer, and required stitches after he bumped his head. His wife was startled, and reported the livestock wasn't the same for days. His time in the Navy was during the late fifties, and early sixties. He never had combat, and eventually flew commercial transports until he retired. After I showed him a photo of the Oriskany as it was towed down the local ship channel for its final disposition as a wreck, he recounted how he landed on it a few times.
DeleteAhh well buzzing friends is slightly less career ending than buzzing strangers. Unless they’re importing contraband or something, then…well the gloves come off.
Deletejuvat
Thanks for the history lesson Juvat! I had known of some of these, but not all of them.
ReplyDeleteMy vote for most stylish is the Italian Caproni Campini.
THBB,
DeleteYes, it does look pretty stylish, but Italians like that sort of stuff. As mentioned above, visibility out of the cockpit looks poor to me. It also doesn't look like it could turn and fight very well, so a fast pass through the target formation and exit stage right.
juvat
The Campini was more of a ducted fan than a true jet, but very cool nonetheless !
ReplyDeleteJeff,
DeleteDidn't know that, Did a little research on the difference. Interesting.
juvat
Thanks for the excellent history lesson. "I had no ideer!"
ReplyDeleteJohn Blackshoe
It was P-51s, not P-52s, along with P-47s that camped over Luftwaffe airfields and shot the German jets as they took off or landed (not a great flight time for the 262.)
ReplyDeleteThe Germans also fielded the HE-162 fighter, a single engine plane that was made of a lot of wood. It did go operational with some squadrons. Potentially a better, more maneuverable than the 262, but issues with lamination of the wood held it back.
And, of course, the Ho-229, the Horton flying wing. Though experimental flights only, supposedly.
The Germans were a clever bunch.
Also, the F-84 Thunderjet was designed in 1944 and built in late 44 to 45, with the first flight in December 45. Missed it by that much.
The FJ-1 Fury, which begat the F-86 Sabre, also started in 1944 but didn't fly till 46, while it's USAAF brother didn't fly till 47.
There was a British WW2 pilot who could give an opinion on the first three planes on the list, that was Capt (RN) Eric 'Winkle' Brown who ended the war as the British chief test pilot of enemy aircraft. He was, I believe, the only allied pilot to have taken off in an Me 163. He only did it once as the procedure was deemed too risky. If you are interested look up his career and achievements, he had a very interesting life and career and set records that are not likely to be equaled any time soon.
ReplyDeleteRetired
Anon. Thanks, I will look into it
Deletejuvat
The jet was also responsible for the angled decks on US carriers... :-)
ReplyDeleteYou don’t need a longer runway until you need a longer runway. Then you need it BAD!
DeleteApplies to carriers also
juvat
(Don McCollor) If I remember correctly, the ME262 had an oddity used for remote field operations. In the empty space behind the air deflector at the front of each engine was a little diesel engine to spool up the jet turbine before start-up, with a pull cord to start it at the front of the deflector. Think of it, starting a jet engine like a lawnmower!
ReplyDeleteDon,
DeleteInteresting...and a bit humorous.
juvat
Juvat, I saw this funny reel (short video) with tanker crews describing the pros and cons of various USAF aircraft pilots wrt tanking. I sent it to Sarge through social media (Instagram), but not sure if you have that. If so, let me know and I'll send it along. The Eagle drivers were well regarded. - Tuna
ReplyDeleteOhka if you say so but it seems unfair to narrow the aperture to just jets but exclude man guided rocket planes that actually got used up in actual combat ops. Just sayin. 😎
ReplyDelete