No one else on KZfaq is putting out this kind of content, with this level of quality. Keep up the great work Greg!

The ME 262 is just a beautiful aircraft.

Finally... Some one is doing real comparison of WWII Jets! Great job mate!

The unique thing about the 262 design is that the more you sweep the wing back the more area ruled it is, the second generation 262 was going to have the same sweep as the Sabre. That in addition with the v tail which would have greatly reduced frontal area would have made the second generation 262's an aerodynamic masterpiece.

I learn more in an 30 minute episode of your channel than I did in a semester of math in college. Your presentation of what could be a mind boggling topic is very clear, concise, and well thought out. I now know that between 300 and 400 knots I can keep the G-meter at 2.8 G's and not lose any speed in my P80A Shooting Star, good to know if I get into it with a ME 262! :)

Good stuff Greg, and I'll have a look at Aerodynamics for Naval Aviators. Thanks for the recommendation.

I recently stumbled upon the Kommandogërat, a hydrolic-electro-mechanic control unit for the BMW 801 on the Fw190, very complex, very overengineered and very german. It looks like an interesting pre-electronic all-included computing device but can't find good info. This is the channel to ask for a video that goes deep on it. Anyway thanks for your content, Greg!

I have been curious about p80 and me262 performance for years. Your research and presentation is top notch. Well done Sir!

Messerschmitt Me 262 and P-80 Thrust, Drag, and Horsepower - I haven't been so excited in weeks. Thank you!

I really enjoyed this video, right up until my head exploded.

This scholar is so thorough, the viewer won't begin to get to the advertised content until 29:26 . An incredible conucopia of exhaustive background information.

Brilliant video Greg. Always glad to see the finer technical aspects of these great aircraft.

This is a gem of a channel, thanks for so much thoughtful and high effort content!

Please keep posting videos. I get more excited when I see you posted a video than anyone else. You’re a unique voice and your work is extremely informative

With over 3 decades in aviation I'm still learning everyday Thanks to people like you! Great content!!!

Amazing video, the way you explained all these aerodynamics is incredible. Amazing video, hard to find such quality on KZfaq

>log in to youtube to play some music to work to >new Greg video >shut office door and settle in for 48 minutes of putting off work

Never thought anybody would ever put this excellent presentation together. Thank you. Look forward to more !

Wow, great video...so much great information. Enjoyed it a lot. Always happy to see a new video from you. Wow!

Great work as always, Greg! I have been learning so much!

Hi Greg. I designed a little fishing aid which consisted of wings and a body/fuselage so to speak. In trying to describe some of what it does, I came up with a term 'vortectoral drag' which helped others understand what I was on about. That was 26 yrs ago. Seeing this vid has helped me understand and term what it was I was talking about. Thanks for vids Greg.

I have found that Gregg knows more about the Airplane than most people ever. I don't know how you know so much but your videos are very informative and interesting. Thank you.

Thanks for the lesson, great to see how all the factors relate, rather than just facts and figures on aircraft performance. Helps me understand why rather than just know one airplane could out turn another.

Outstanding detail, as always. Thanks for the video.

Greg thank you for all your hard work! It's always a pleasure watching your content.

I see a Greg video, I click and like instantly. This is some really high quality stuff. Keep up the good work!

I calculated the power in KW of the Me 262 from my knowledge of physics and data from books in the early 90s and came up with a number so high I assumed I had made a mistake somewhere. Later I realised it was just due to the nature of gas turbines.

Top notch. Clear and relevant to jet aircraft performance. Kudos!

I'm hooked. Fantastic videos! I'm learning so much by watching them.

Great video as always. Fascinating!

Informative work as always. Learned quite a bit more about stuff I never knew about.

Thanks so much for making these. I learn a lot from it and feel I can trust it because you show your workings and sources. Great job.

Great video with very good and detailed examples explained in a manner that was easy to comprehend.

Another informative video Greg, great stuff.

Your analysis of aircraft is absolutely amazing. Your knowledge of the subject matter and the way you present it makes your channel the best on the internet. You find in depth information on each aircraft, then explain to us amateur armchair critics what it means. Thank you for your hard work and dedication.

Don't remember this one, so I must have missed it when you first posted it. Once again, for a non-engineer audience, you managed to make most of the relevant information understandable, an accomplishment in itself (my math abilities are strictly upper-elementary school - arithmetic, fine, algebra and above, near-zero). Nicely done.

As always, your video answers a great number of "why" questions. Super!

Three quarters of an hour full with interesting, comprehensible content, in a way my lecturers would be jealous of if they could fit it into one week of readings; ends the video with "thats all for this video". Thanks alot for your efforts.

Ahhh Greg, I can see you love this stuff. Me too, now too old to remember stuff, in order. But you give me delightful insights in the stuff I have always loved. Thank you so much.

Your channels is my favorite, I’m a Pilot, and a A&P and can’t tell you how much I enjoy watching your well done videos. Also agree with your ranking of the P-47. The Spitfire and Mustang are indeed elegant, but the P-47 hits my buttons in most categories. Obviously range is the Mustangs domaine. I appreciate what you do, and know your videos will be watched as long as this society survives. Best Regards

Great video Greg, it's always nice to see material from you. I'm afraid I'll have re-read it a couple more times to get my head all the way around it, but thanks for your work.

You do a phenomenally good job of teaching flight principles and improving the understanding of competitive fighting envelopes in combat aircraft.

First off i glad i found this channel its full of interesting information. For instance this video i watched several times as each time i gained useful knowledge.. . Thanks for the videos they will give me a better understanding of this field ..i use to work for a power generation company..i spent some time in the engineering office having the fellow in there show me on paper the math behind why thing certain things do what they do . Interesting to me . Thanks

I love these videos so much!! It is this kind of stuff that keeps me going :)

Very well done. Outstanding specificity.

Amazing work! Now we need a similar analysis for the 262 and the (early) Gloster Meteor, as these were operational and could have met in combat.

I learned something today, thanks Greg!

Not only a great video but some good and intelligent comments. Also very nice that Greg addresses many of the comments .

I didn't understand all those words, but i found the video very interesting! Thanks Greg!

GREG IS BACK! Praise the lord of airplanes and automobiles!

Great work, keep it up!

As a former fighter pilot (F-16), I can say this is pretty awesome stuff. Only thing I would say is max G limit typically is not a factor based on the pilot, but on aircraft structural limits above which you'll start stressing the airframe at least to the point of shortening its useful life, and perhaps even to warp or break the structure. Typically, post-WW II USAF jets were stressed to 7.33 Gs (though not always) and as mentioned in the video, the Navy tended to use 7.5 (F-14 was designed that way but eventually limited in practice to 6.5 to save airframe life). The F-16 was the first jet that increased that to 9Gs over the entire flight envelope (the F-15 has a weird G limit that varies within the flight envelope, initially limiting it to 7.33 until the addition of an aural G Overload Warning System which allowed 9Gs in some portions of the envelope). We see this philosophy continuing with the F-35, with the A model rated to 9Gs and the C (Navy) version to 7.5Gs only (USMC B models are 7Gs, but that's because the lift fan increases weight and reduces structural strength quite a bit). Anyway, really excellent material, keep up the good work!

Impressive reconstructive effort. There isn’t a whole lot of data on these planes, and it’s really awesome to see the effort that you put into this.

My favorite youtube channel!

This channel is where the term "my brain is full" applies best. Thanks for an excellent video that makes me think.

Thx for this piece of hard work

Great presentations ,, I subscribed just now. One detail, however -> the sound quality of the couple vids of yours I watched... is like you are in a tin can. Not sure how other people get great sound.. just a detail. Thanks for making these presentations.

Take heed guys. This is a free performance course. Even today's pilots can benefit from this. Thanks Capt very well done.

Thank you Greg, you make perfect sense

Great art at 11:26. I enjoy your outstanding explanations of aircraft and auto performance.

Hi Greg! I would love to see you do a video comparing characteristics of early Jet fighters with late "Superprop" fighters. For example, why do early jets have such horrible acceleration at low speeds?

Two thing about power: 1. Power (which animal lovers call horsepower) is rate of energy transfer. There is a law about energy conservation, but there is no law about power conservation. Shaft power is rate of transfer from fuel to crankstaft. Flight power is rate of energy transfer from fuel to airplane. They are not the same or generally equal. 2. As speed increases energy transfer from fuel to plane (or fuel to crankshaft or whatever) becomes more efficient. Why? Because we transfer energy by doing work. While things are constant, work = thrust X distance_over_which_we_apply_thrust When a thing goes faster distance_over_which_we_apply_thrust increases, so work increases and power increases. I like your videos. They appeal to both the WW2 buff in me and the engineer in me. Good job!

In a word, amazing, thank you.

Thanks, that was illuminating.

Once again I have learned a lot thanks very much keep it up.

Your dissertation on the L/D, induced drag, parasite drag and total drag reminds me of primary flight training. A good visual example of 'getting behind the power curve' can be seen in videos of the 'Sabre Dance"{F-100} and the F-16 crashes when dropping below the minimum speed on landing approach. Even an above-1-1 power to weight ratio can not assure recovery from this attitude. Love your videos, and the fine details brought forth. A refreshing break from mainstream, myth-ridden history of all these fine aircraft.

Fascinating - Im not a great fan of theortetical maths but when it becomes applied like this I seem to reach for my pencil and a spreadsheet!

Great Content!

Good to see u back Greg!

Awesome video

Superbe. This is a primer for me. I am studying this. I will also download the aviation book. Love this stuff.

Having just read Galland's memoir "The First and Last" I'm amazed at how close the Allies came to facing this machine in numbers up to two years earlier than they did. Amazed and relieved that it didn't happen!

Interesting comparison

Very interesting, as a mere life sciences grad, the non intuitive maths is very enlightening and obvious when you think about it which of course I didn’t initially 🙈 Thanks for a mathematical workout - I always learn lots from your videos Greg!

I had heard the 263 was originally to have a straight plan form wing. However the Jumo engines were front heavy, so they returned the centre of balance by sweeping the wing, thus moving its CG to an ideal, just to the pilots rear as intended.

YEAAAHHH KEEP UP GREG THANK YOU MASTER.

Another great book is Introduction to Flight by John Anderson. We use it in my university aerodynamics class. It’s very understandable and breaks down these similar concepts. However it costs money. Great video as usual!

I absolutely love your videos. Please please make more!

I geeked out so much with this video my head exploded a bit

I've learned allot. Thank you.

To clear up the correct spelling of the ME262‘s name... I‘m german and very old 😂. In all older german documentaries, wochenschauen or pilot interviews it was always the „MEH zweizweiundsechzig“, means „MEH twosixtytwo“. Not „M.E. Two six two“. I also noticed that in modern english or even german documentaries the BF109 is mostly called „B.F. One O Nine“ while german pilots called it the „B.F. Hundred Nine“ or some the „MEH Hundred Nine“ or simply the „Hundred Nine“. I‘m not saying this is the official correct spelling but i noticed this has changed since the rise of the internet.

Awesome video as always, thanks a lot! Im a car mechanics and have absolutly no clue about aerodynamics and all the involved forces so i really enjoy watching these and learning some new things! Have a good week mate!

Here's the man! Top stuff....

Excellent, as usual, Greg - and one more demonstration of why, when I was young enough for it to be a possibility, I would have washed out of flight training before ever reaching the flight line. I understand the general ideas, but the actual math might as well be in Martian. Right after WWII, my dad went into flight testing for what was then McDonnell Aircraft, so these early jets are quite relevant to his experience. He never flew a 262, to my knowledge, but he did fly a P-80, F1H and F2H Navy fighters as they were being developed, as well as the XF-85 and XF-88 prototypes for the Air Force.

Only 8 minutes in, but my god do you make it easy to understand, wow!

26:40 If you using excel or pretty much any other spreeadsheet software, you can change a setting in the graph making them interpolate any value between giving a really good estimation if intermediate values.

From the perspective of pure physics (or mechanics, rather), the concept of "propulsive power" goes as follows: The definition of mechanical work is W = F s (force applied over a certain distance). The definition of power is P = W/t (work done in a certain time). The definition of velocity is v = s/t (distance crossed in a certain time). Substituting the above to the equation of power, you get P = F s / t ...and since s/t equals velocity, the equation for power can be written as P = F v or, "power is the product of force and velocity". In aircraft context, the force is the thrust, and velocity is the true airspeed. In other words, the "power" is the rate at which the aircraft is doing work (moving through air) against the drag force (which at steady state flight is equal to thrust). By the way, the units in this formula should be SI-units: Newtons for force and metres per second for velocity, which will result in power in watts. Using other units requires corrective factors, as was shown in the video. All of the formulas in the video were correct, though in my opinion unnecessarily complicated because of US Navy... ;) This concept of "propulsive power" is physically very real thing, but I find it a bit of an esoteric concept. At sea level where true airspeed is practically equal to calibrated airspeed, it makes some sense and can be a reasonably useful tool for calculations. Otherwise, its usefulness is limited and in almost all situations it's more sensible to just refer to the jet engine's performance with its thrust. The thrust of a jet engine varies with airspeed, so using values from static thrust measurements doesn't necessarily give correct results at higher airspeeds. In fact, treating thrust as a constant value is almost bound to produce incorrect results, especially when you're trying to calculate sustainable top speed or maximum sustainable rate of turn (which is the same as calculating the top speed but with increased load factor). It can give you a ballpark figure for sure, but in practice you would have to look at how much actual thrust the engine is producing at a particular airspeed. If the difference between static thrust and thrust at particular airspeed is significant, then it could obviously affect the estimated sustained G-force in turn as well. A typical thrust/airspeed curve shows a high value at zero airspeed (static thrust), then it starts to decrease due to drag losses, then it starts to go back up due to ram air effect assisting in the compression of air. Some jet engines actually produce more than static thrust at very high airspeeds (though I don't think any of the WW2 era jets did that). The design of the intake and the engine itself obviously affects this a lot, and considering the P-80 and Me 262 used very different engines (centrifugal flow vs. axial flow compressors) and different intake ducting, I would expect a big difference in the thrust curves of these two aircraft. The P-80 would probably have more channel losses simply due to the length of the intake ducting and the amount of turns the airflow has to make, while the Me 262 would not be affected quite as much. On the other hand, the P-80 had the engine concealed in a fairly streamlined fuselage, while on the Me 262 the engine nacelles were out there in the wind, so the difference in parasitic drag would also make a difference.

Presentation is excellent, clear, not overloading the viewers ("students") w facts all at once but building up lvl of complexity at just the right rate as well as non-biased - just factual & objective. Continue... Also, waiting for Parts #3/4 of the FW190 lectures..whenever the Muse strikes ***** 5 Stars: would watch again

Spectacular job, Greg. Much of it is over this mathematically challenged guys head, but I get the results just fine. Thanks!

I had a unique opportunity about 12 years ago to sit in a REAL ME262. My Dad worked as a volunteer at the US Air Force Museum in Dayton, Ohio. Once a year they had an employee appreciation dinner & also opened up several planes that you can climb into. I noticed they actually had the ME262 canopy open so I climbed in, I was amazed at how few instruments were in it. That same night I sat in a P-38J Lighting, an SR71, a P-47 & the B-29 "Bocks Car" that dropped the A-bomb on Nagasaki. Quite the evening! (They don't do this anymore by the way).

Last time I had this much fun is when I discovered "Aircraft Design: A Conceptual Approach" by Daniel P. Raymer. Keep up the good work, Mr. Greg.

Horsepower is defined as 1 hp = 550 lbs of force being applied at the rate of 1 foot per second. A knot is 1.688 feet per second so to convert from fps to knots, divide 550 by 1.688 and you get approximately 325.

Awesome greg ,thanks again, i hoping to find a Pitts biplane under Christmas tree this yr,,,,green &white 50s color

Every bit of this is fascinating. I don't know if you do requests. If you do, I would love to see a bit of a breakdown of the flight/performance characteristics of the F-104 Starfighter. How that teeny wing does was it does, is magic.

love this channel keep it up love your work greg

I just listened through 48 minutes of aerodynamics and aircraft flying theory while working from home, guess this is a new level of quarantine life

Love this channel: thank you so much!

*Greetings...Plane Whisperer....you have 100% of our attention*

That put the P51 versus ME262 Hollywood dogfights into perspective. There is just no possible way that a piston engine fighter can sustain a dogfight at reasonable speed with a Jet. On the lower speed range it appears that the Sopwith Camel can easily out-turn the P80 and ME 262. The future belongs to the Sopwith Camel!

awesome, thank you