Looking for assembly manuals and missing parts for the JUMO 004 as part of a restoration project at the New England Air Museum in Windsor Locks CT, Can any one help me out?

Possibly the best , as with the addition of an all moving tailplane , it could also have been the first supersonic fighter . [ Something the germans were working on ]
To bad the Nazis were such NUT jobs hu !!! and so short sighted .

P-80 first prototype flew Jan 1944. The first operational P-80A's reached units Dec 1945. Vampire reached prototype stage Sept 1943, put into production Mar 1944, in service from 1946. My reference does not go into why the Vampire went into service so slowly. It suggests that the British limited themselves to perfecting their first jet (Meteor)so that the RAF would have an effective and continually updated weapon.

Forget the P-80 ,at the time in question it was just a prototype relying on a supply of British engines. If the allies had felt the need for a high speed jet the De-Haviland Vampire was already well developed and on paper at least more than a match for the 262. The Vampire was only 3/4 the weight of the 262, larger wing area more heavily armed and reliable. The P-80s time would come ,but by the end of the European war the Vampire was the most advanced fighter in existance. I wonder why it was never used in anger?

The Me-262 WAS built in greater numbers. The throttle problems precluded their use in formations greater than the loose deuce. Fuel, or lack of it, also prevented large formations. Broken engines prevented large availability. Operating from airfields where swarms of Allied fighters held air superiority was another problem. It is a fact that had the Germans not been losing the war, they might have won. Of course, had the British listened to Sir Frank in 1929, we might be all speaking English today! And poor Pavel Sukhoi thought the configuration had merit. Uncle Joe didn't agree.

I think if it was built in numbers it would change the tide of the war

The P-80 had the edge on the 262 because the engine of the P-80 did not blow up ever 5 minutes and kill more pilots and destroy more aircraft than it shot down.

The 50mm bk cannon was mounted in the nose on a bomber destroyer variant. The high speed of closure made firing time very short, and so rockets and the big guns. Speed range of the P-80 was comparable and throttle control superior. It was easier for an air superiority fighter to shoot down a heavily armed and armored bomber destroyer.

I believe the 262 had the edge on the p80 in speed and weight of armament

Have read an article on the cannon equiped prototype stating it was 50mm - all in all look at the recoil of an 88 - 50mm would be bad enough in an aircraft that was'nt designed for it.The Henschel HS129 was a ground support aircraft and one version mounted a 75mm anti-tank gun - the barrel length almost looks like a PAK 40 Now thats impressive,but it was an aircraft designed for ground support,and the weapon was actually in a 'pod' underneath the fuselage.

I have seen a photo of the 262 with one large cannon in the nose. looks like an 88. Does anyoone have any info on this?

Thanks to the COLLINGS FOUNDATION the ME-262 lives on with a ME-262 called White 1 that is flying with a National Tour called the Wings of Freedom Tour call 800.568.6924 for more info.

I think you can compare the P80 with the Me262 if you consider the P59 as the technology demonstrator that it became. The P80 was a remarkable plane, and cetrifugal compressors were certainly more reliable during the days when metallurgical technology was in it`s infancy. So how does the new me262 compare to F5-T38

What about the five "new" 262's built in Washington state? The aircraft builder got all the license requirements from MBB (the successor company to Messerschmidt) to build four single-seat and one two-seat trainer aircraft. The single seaters are officially designated as Me-262A-1c (the "c" suffix indicating the third engine type, the GE J85-CJ610. The 262A-1a had Junkers Jumo engines, the 262A-1b was powered by BMW jet engines).
The first 262A-1c was given the German civil registration number D-IMTT; the two-seater makes appearances at air shows in the US (and yes, you can go for a ride - for something like $9,000 for a half-hour flight). I understand the last three single-seaters are available for sale (if they haven't already been purchased).

Compare the design with the Airbus 380. Almost the same
solutions, 60 years later

Your information on the armament of the "schnellbomber" version is incorrect. Having read a great deal about the Me 262, I have discovered that the Sturmvogel (bomber) version only had TWO MK108 30mm cannon in the nose instead of the four mounted MK108 cannon mounted in the Schwalbe (fighter) version. The reason for this had to do with CG (centre of gravity) issues and the added weight of bombs carried in the nose area; bombs were carried immediately behind the nosewheel under the front end of the fuselage.

Russel - you can not compare Me-262 with P-80, it's not the same level of jets evolution, you can compare P-80 with MiG-15, or Me-262 with Gloster Meteor. All at all, the Me-262 fought in the WW2, P-80 didn't. So there is one conclusion - at the same time Me-262 was more advanced than P-80.

regards

How did the performance of the ME262 compare with the Lockheed P-80?