# Which jet was better, the Me 262 or the Gloster Meteor?



## BountyHunter15 (Feb 26, 2005)

I can't decide which one is better.[/img]


----------



## mosquitoman (Feb 27, 2005)

I think it's got to be the 262, that was THE jet of WWII


----------



## trackend (Feb 27, 2005)

Question for you guys did any jets or peroxide powered planes make an apperance over the D-Day beaches the reason I ask is my old man said he saw what he took for a unmanned flying bomb but when 2 spitfires swooped it opened up and left them for dead. perhaps a Komet?


----------



## KraziKanuK (Feb 27, 2005)

trackend said:


> Question for you guys did any jets or peroxide powered planes make an apperance over the D-Day beaches the reason I ask is my old man said he saw what he took for a unmanned flying bomb but when 2 spitfires swooped it opened up and left them for dead. perhaps a Komet?



The Ar234 (the V7, T9+MH) did recon but at a high altitude (35,000ft) over the Cherbourg Peninsula on Aug 2. This was the first operational mission of the Ar234. It was flown by Erich Sommer. The photos he took was more than what the LW had taken since June 6 over the area. It took the photo interepters 2 days to produce an initial report.


----------



## trackend (Feb 27, 2005)

Thanks Krazi I wonder what he saw any ideas ?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 27, 2005)

as much as i love the meteor, the Me-262 was better (exept for manouverability and reliability)................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 27, 2005)

Yeah gotta say the 262...In turn to that though, I prefer the Blitz...


----------



## KraziKanuK (Feb 28, 2005)

trackend said:


> Thanks Krazi I wonder what he saw any ideas ?



Lots of ships.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 28, 2005)




----------



## P38 Pilot (Jun 22, 2005)

The Gloster Meteor was hard to look out of the cockpit. It also didnt see action until near the end of the war while me262 was being produced in 1944. So the Me262 wins by a long shot!


----------



## Glider (Jun 23, 2005)

Aerodynamically the Me262 was much better than the Meteor. The one two advantages that the Meteor had were a) the engines were more reliable, Its 4 x 20 were better for a fast jet fighter due to their longer range. 
The 262 weapons were for destroying bombers


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 23, 2005)

The Me-262 was overall a better jet than the Meteor. The Meteors advantage though was that its engines were more reliable. Of the 2 thought I would easily go with a Me-262.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 23, 2005)

P38 Pilot said:


> The Gloster Meteor was hard to look out of the cockpit. It also didnt see action until near the end of the war while me262 was being produced in 1944. So the Me262 wins by a long shot!



The Meteor was being produced the same time as the Me-262. In fact they entered service around the same time. About a month difference. The Meteor though was confined to service of the British Iles at first and then later were brought over to mainland Europe towards the end of the war.


----------



## mosquitoman (Jun 23, 2005)

They were first used by 616 Squadron on "Diver" patrols- shooting down V1s


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 23, 2005)

I think in their early introduction, the -262 was slightly superior. As stated by Alder, the Meteor had more reliable engines, additionally the Meteor had the benefit of an improving airframe. The -262 could of seen the same improvement potential had the war continued of if Germany was victorious, but that's one of those "what ifs."


----------



## Erich (Jun 23, 2005)

has to be the Me 262A-1a Schwalbe.......

due to the combat experience of the a/c and although the engines/fuel was of short duration the bomber crews faced these things on a daily baiss from February 45 onward and always expected a "zoomer" to fly through the formation not being able to track any jet with the standard .50's on the bombers from any position. Several bomber crew vets I have interviewed from the 8th AF have said it was their worst nightmare in spring of 45, even more so than the Flak.........


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 23, 2005)

and guys don't remember the meteor could turn inside a -262........


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 23, 2005)

Erich said:


> has to be the Me 262A-1a Schwalbe.......
> 
> due to the combat experience of the a/c and although the engines/fuel was of short duration the bomber crews faced these things on a daily baiss from February 45 onward and always expected a "zoomer" to fly through the formation not being able to track any jet with the standard .50's on the bombers from any position. Several bomber crew vets I have interviewed from the 8th AF have said it was their worst nightmare in spring of 45, even more so than the Flak.........



While you are quited correct Erich, I have to disagree in as much as from what I've seen and read about the -262, operationally it was a "throwaway" aircraft. As stated, poor engine reliability, dissimilar metals used through out its structure, etc. Although the maintaining of its production was anything but "brilliant," I think it would have been discovered that if you could get 500 hours out of an airframe before it falls apart, it would of been a miracle. I guess my point is the -262s poor maintainability because of the way it was built may have been the potential of an Achilles heel! (I'm thinking like a maintainer)


----------



## lesofprimus (Jun 23, 2005)

Clip I just put together....


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 23, 2005)

Nice Les! 

In Walter Boyne's book "Arrow to the Future" There was a section devoted to the Smithsonian Institute ME-262 restoration. In the text it was mentioned on how the airframe was poorly faired and lots of "bondo" was used during construction. Little or no corrosion control was incorporated in production birds and there was a lot of aluminum and steel co-mingling, very bad for maintenance. The book called the ME-262 a "50 hour airframe."

Innovations included a "tub" cockpit assembly, electric trim which moved the whole horizontal stabilizer (a handy thing to have on a 500 mph jet aircraft, I could attest to this) and the drawn seamless steel tube oleo landing gear struts. While light and easy to make, this construction method marked for a weaker undercarriage.

The questions I would have to ask myself is although the ME-262 is the higher performer, is that higher margin of performance worth a 50 hour airframe and 10 hour engines, while in contrast the Meteor was a lot more reliable (50 hour engines on the conservative end of the scale) and a much more robust construction that will probably last at least 1000 hours?!?


----------



## delcyros (Jun 24, 2005)

It is. A longlasting airframe, from which a smaller number is probable to be produced and which has a considerably lower performance means nothing.
From several points of view, the Meteor-III and moreso the Meteor-I are at best under average jets. They don´t have a better thrust to weight ratio (kkep in mind that the thrust to weight ratio of the Me-262 was also under average), e.g. less acceleartion (thanks to a worse aerodynamic airframe), they suffer a lot in top speed and the Meteor can´t keep it´s energy as well as the Me-262. Beside of this the most important figure of the early jets qwas the critical Mach speed (a considerable advancement in this figure could reason a new design), and the Me-262 is better in this.
The argument with the jet engines is true but not that striking. The Me-262 has jet nacelles, which allow an easy replacement of the jet engines (from which no less than 5000 have been produced in the end) after 10 hours (and there are Werknummern with engines of 30 hours and even more, but this belongs probably to the Jumo-004B-4/-004 D2 and not to the early ones.
What stays is the questionable point that the Meteor could turn inside the Me-262, thanks to a lower wingload and that the Meteor has a better armement for dogfights. On the other side it suffers in a main point for high speed dogfights: Initiative! It couldn´t dictate the terms of engagement, if hit by a MK-108 grenade (except for duds and wingtip hits), the Meteor is in serious problems, and the Meteor is a larger target to hit, too. In the end, that´s what counts, if you are able to replace more hi-performer and have the higher quantities, it doesn´t mean anything that the engines will be out soon. Just replace them in time.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 24, 2005)

delcyros said:


> It is. A longlasting airframe, from which a smaller number is probable to be produced and which has a considerably lower performance means nothing



I disagree Del, what good is it go go into combat with a "hotrod" that has a high probability of failure before ever making it to combat? I'd give up the slight edge on performance for reliability.


----------



## Erich (Jun 24, 2005)

try reading a copy of JG 7's history for starts. The jet was not termed throw away. In fact in the night fighter rold commander Kurt Wleter was very upset and almost uncotrollably according to veteran pilots, when a pilot brought their rig home after dealing with Mossies in 1945 and there was even 1 ding in the body of the jet. They were not expendable. Yes the jet was crudely made and comparing it in the rolde with the RAF jet is what if so lets not even suppose. the Schwalbe had the operative record and performed obviously not as the Luftwaffe really had hoped but for the jet pilots it was a freedom they had longed for even knowing they would be hunteed down flying back to their airfields


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 24, 2005)

Erich said:


> try reading a copy of JG 7's history for starts. The jet was not termed throw away.



I have no access from JG 7s history, but does it differ from the fact that the engines only had a 10 hour life, it that? I know when a turbine engines fails, it usually happens 2 places - on the ramp during start-up and during take off at climb. If I was flying an aircraft that maybe had a 10 hour engine life, the pucker factor would be extremely high for me until I reached my "engine out maneuvering speed and altitude" which I would guess for the -262 was about 1000' AGL and about 160 knots.

I've seen 3 262s, and all 3 of them, although somewhat restored, looked like they were hand built, seams and gaps didn't line up and rivet patterns seemed to have no reasoning. Again, I am not questioning the capability of the aircraft (when it was functioning as advertised) but the over-all reliability which I think would of been a major factor had the aircraft deployed earlier or the war lasted later, especially assembling the aircraft with limited raw materials and resources, I don't see the -262 giving the biggest "bang for the buck."


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 24, 2005)

I will still go with the Me-262. Yeah it was far from perfect but so was the Meteor and the Me-262 would still outfly a Meteor in a dogfight and if it could not he would just simply fly away at full throttle and the Meteor would be left in his exhaust!


----------



## Erich (Jun 24, 2005)

I've been on it around it underneath it and almost in the cockpit. For the time it was revoloutionary and looking back on it in our present day should not even be considered in our thought of te present high tech world. We can all summarize of the what if had the war gone on and the Luftw. been on an even keel with the Allies, the German techs would of overwhlemingly brought forward wing swept designs not even considered by the Allies...........

back to topic the Meteor did not have the combat expereicne as an a/c, the 262 did and talking about the 262's defaults does not really come into the category of the consdieration between the two. had the two fought out multi-pitched battles then we could easily chit-caht, but for present the topic probably ought to be closed............we are only guessing again


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 24, 2005)

I agree it is hard to compare two aircraft when one never even saw air to air combat except with a bomb with wings.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 25, 2005)

Erich said:


> we are only guessing again



Agree!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 25, 2005)

There are other ways we can possibly compare them though, such as performance or handling.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 25, 2005)

the meteor has it on handeling......


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 25, 2005)

Me-262 has it on performance...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 27, 2005)

Agreed to both of you. I really think it would have been interesting to have had a Meteor and a Me-262 battle to go off of. It would have been the battle of the heavy weights.


----------



## delcyros (Jun 28, 2005)

The MK-III would be somwhat outclassed by the Me-262. It has such a low powerload and overall performance. The handling advantage of the Meteor-III is somehow questionable, also. Galland flew a Meteor in Argentinia and he was impressed by it´s acceleration (FMK IV or later) but disappointed by it´s handling compared to the Me-262.
The Meteor MK-IV with Dervent V engines on the other hand is a much better contender: better acceleration, better powerload in the end better level speed. The Me-262 A could still disappear while entering a dive but all in all I see some advance for the Meteor MK-IV. In the timeframe of the MK-IV (introducing in very late 1945) we would also see some advances for the Me-262 but this is going off topic.
To the engines I also want to underline that you have to look closer WHAT engines are meaned in the Me-262.
The Jumo-004A engines for example, build with a higher degree of spare metals has an average lifetime of 50 hours. It´s quantity is neglectable (something between 10 and 15 Me-262 have been equipped with these jet engines).
The Jumo-004B 1/B-2 are prone to be very sensitive against rapid throttle setting changes, they also have only 820, resp. 840 Kp thrust output. Average lifetime is around 10 hours. A majority of the Me-262 till dec. 44 have been produced with these engines. Just to counter some generalizations.
The Jumo-004 B-3 jet engine has a higher thrust setting by some slightly increasing in distribution of additional air to the turbine blades (allowing a higher turbine temp.), resulting in an increase in power output to 890 Kp static thrust. These engine are also sensitive to trhottle setting change and have a average lifetime of 20 hours. After 20 hours the engines are taken back for excamination, if they are okey, they can be operated for additional 10 hours. Most 1945 produced Me-262 have -004B-3/B-4 jet engines. The Jumo-004 B-4 jet engines are more simplified for serial production but based on the B-3 with same performances and shortcomings.
The Jumo-004 D-0/-1 jet engines have an increased air intake and are made by new, more heat resistant alloys, increasing both, lifetime and thrust output. While still sensitive to rapid throttle settings, flame outs by slipping maneuvres are not that common, thrust is increased to 940 Kp and lifetime to + 50 hours. The -004 D was tested by some Ar-234 and Me-262 prototypes and went into serial production at feb. 1945, it is not known if , beside of a few prototypes, serial Me-262 have ever been equipped with -004D jet engines.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 28, 2005)

Do you have any other info on his stay in Argentina. I know it was Kurt Tank that convinced President Peron to bring him over and that the Argentine Airforce was still using his tactics that he tought them in the Falklands War with great sucess dispite the fact that they lost the war. What I would love to see though is a full report on his thoughts of the Meteor. I have not been able to find anything like this.


----------



## plan_D (Jun 28, 2005)

Great success? The Argentinian Air Force were battered in the Falklands, no single Royal Navy aircraft was lost to enemy air action. The only reason the Argentinians achieved some victories over British ships was because of the faulty equipment (Rapiers were bouncing off aircraft) and the distance at which Britain was operating compared to Argentina. 

Argentina got slaughtered in the air, land and sea.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 28, 2005)

I dont know about that they did manage to hit some ships. When I say great success look at what they did against a force like the Royal Navy.


----------



## plan_D (Jun 28, 2005)

Yes, they managed to hit a few ships. That doesn't mean success since their Navy got a kicking, they didn't stop the Royal Navy, their Air force was smashed to pieces and they became bankrupt. 

The Royal Navy was hit due to a few command failures, faulty equipment AND the situation. Those ships had to sit there, in the open while the troops were off loaded on to the islands. Meanwhile, all that was able to defend the ships were Royal Navy Sea Harriers.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 28, 2005)

Actually D, the Argies hit many ships but nothing happened, many of the bombs carried on the A-4s didn't go off. I met an Argie A-4 driver when he was picking up A-4s modified by Lockheed several years ago. He said more than 75% of the free fall bombs used by them were defective.


----------



## plan_D (Jun 28, 2005)

So? That means nothing, one bomb won't blow a ship to pieces. It was the exorcets that did the damage, not bombs. The Argies were no match, and the RAF didn't even have combat aircraft down there, it was all Sea Harriers.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 29, 2005)

I never said they were successful in stopping the British. I said they had quite some success with there tactics. That they lost is true and that they lost badly is true.


----------



## plan_D (Jun 29, 2005)

Sorry, I just don't get it. They could fly planes, I suppose...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 29, 2005)

plan_D said:


> So? That means nothing, one bomb won't blow a ship to pieces. It was the exorcets that did the damage, not bombs. The Argies were no match, and the RAF didn't even have combat aircraft down there, it was all Sea Harriers.



You're right - but had those bombs would of worked, there would of been many more British causalities, but ultimately the Brits would of won, no dispute there.

The Argies got waxed, no questions there, but those guys who flew the A-4s did well and had some major "Huevos."


----------



## plan_D (Jun 29, 2005)

They also had the cheek to kick up a fuss when H.M.S Conqueror sunk their precious Cruiser Belgrano outside of the exclusion zone the Royal Navy had set up! 

That being the last time a Royal Navy vessel sailed into port with the Jolly Roger flying. 8)


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 29, 2005)

plan_D said:


> They also had the cheek to kick up a fuss when H.M.S Conqueror sunk their precious Cruiser Belgrano outside of the exclusion zone the Royal Navy had set up!
> 
> That being the last time a Royal Navy vessel sailed into port with the Jolly Roger flying. 8)



Yep - Formally the USS Phoenix!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 30, 2005)

I did not know it was a former US Navy ship but the Jolly Roger Flag was great! And yes Plan_D there was no dispute that the British was not going to win the conflict, it was a given they would.


----------



## plan_D (Jun 30, 2005)

Actually there's been others coming into port with the Jolly Roger flying after this Iraq war from firing cruise missiles.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 30, 2005)

i can't believe the argies actually thought they could take on not only britian, but if it'd got worse, the UN too........


----------



## plan_D (Jun 30, 2005)

They were relying on inaction. Which was true on the part of the U.N but Britain could handle it.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 1, 2005)

I hate to say it but just about anyone can take on the UN. The UN has not shown me anything to think they can make a stand since Korea and maybe just maybe Desert Storm.


----------



## plan_D (Jul 1, 2005)

Well, the U.N 'military' is a peace keeping force but if the U.N got involved and did think it was viable to kick Argentina out of the Falklands then the worlds militaries would bare down on them. 

Since there's actually no law against war, even though some like to claim there is. How can there be?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 1, 2005)

I dont know I just think the UN has gotten weak.


----------



## plan_D (Jul 1, 2005)

That's because it has.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 1, 2005)

Yeap


----------



## evangilder (Jul 1, 2005)

And corrupt.


----------



## delcyros (Jul 2, 2005)

A little back?
Adler, I searched for an report of Galland, flying a Meteor in Argentinia. I assume that there is a report but probably not in the net. All I found is an old (sept. 1991) article from the jet∝ magazine, where an article is found about these flights. This article quotes on Buenos Aires sources.
The individual plane was the C-057 from III Escuadron, Grupo Aéro 7. 
It was an Meteor F MK-IV (those with clipped wings). 
Evaluation flights with Galland supported his opinion, that the Meteor has both, advantages and disadvantages over The Me-262 A-1 he flew.
Advantages:
-air brake (not included in the MK-III)
-reliable engines (ummm, how reliable are Dervent-I?)
-more poweroutput=better acceleration (not in the MK-III series)
-good turning rate at low speed

Disadvantages:
-particular high take-off and landing speed (due to the clipped wings, which haven´t been in the MK-III series)-low roll rate, particularly at medium to high speeds (even with clipped wings)
-bow snaking at high speeds (common to almost all 1st gen. jets)
-earlier compressability pronblems
-speed loss in turns

His result was that if the Dervent - V had been added to the Me-262 airframe, than the result would have been the best of the 1st gen jet fighters.
(in his mind the 1st gen. jets had no or little sweep)


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 2, 2005)

What you say there is pretty much what I have read in most comparisons of the aircraft in stating that the Meteor would accelerate quicker but once the Me-262 got going she would leave the Meteor behind.


----------



## Erich (Jul 2, 2005)

the concept of slowness for the 262 is relevent in it's taking off and landing as well as trying to turn too quickly ~ tight. It just can't be done without a possible stall and this is where the hordes of P-51's took full advantage. No wonder that 3/4r's of the kills were over German airfields or in the very near vacinity


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 2, 2005)

Exactly once she was at full speed nothing in the skies could catch her but that ofcourse was until one of the engines flamed out and then she was as good as lost.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 2, 2005)

I wonder what the 262 would do in a high attitude stall, engines at idle and have the aircraft "backslide." I would think you would have the quickest double flame out since "Topgun."


----------



## delcyros (Jul 3, 2005)

-
The Junkers Motorenwerke at Dessau had a pressurizing chamber to simulate working conditions in any altitude up to 10.000 m. According to tests with Jumo-004 A0 and -004 B2 the high altitude behavior of the jets was somehow worrisome. This lead to the development of twin jet needles for better high altitude behavior in the Jumo-004 E0, which was bench tested in jan./feb. 1945 (also with afterburner) for repeated 100 hours runs (with and without reheat). Thrust was increased to 1000 Kp dry and slightly over 1200 Kp with reheat. I don´t know if any Me-262 have ever been equipped with -004 E, but I doubt it. (had it been done, the Me-262 A top speed would increase to somwhere around 565-575 mp/h and the trhust to weight ratio would be around 0.37 instead of 0.28 8)) The -004 E was to be entered into serial production in march´45, a few specimen have been captured at the Dessau and Berlin plants by red army forces. The -004 E entered mass production as the RD-10 F in the SU. 
I should add that the Me-262 does accelerate slowly, just as slowly as the P-80 ( a little better) or Meteor MK-III (a little worser) do.
It was the surplus in thrust of the Dervent-V driven MK-IV, which made the difference: more than twice as much thrust gave a considerable acceleration advantage.
Beside of these planes, the Bell P-59, He-280 and (to a lower degree) the He-162 have better acceleration than the Me-262.
A Meteor MK-IV is also faster than a Me-262.
If you compare MK-III with Me-262, the Messerschmidt wins in speed, while acceleration is about the same or slightly superior. I wonder why so many think the Meteor III accelerates better than the Me-262 A, it cannot do with Dervent-I.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 3, 2005)

As for the Mk. III accelerating faster than a 262 I believe it is because that has been the general rule that has been written. Now if it is false then there is a whole lot of false information out there, but you know what that has been a proven thing also about false info.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 4, 2005)

mmm, i can't remember if i'm the guy in this poll that voted for the meteor


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 4, 2005)

Probably because it is British. And if you voted for it then well yeah because there has only been one vote for it.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jul 4, 2005)

And if he voted for it then hes wrong


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 4, 2005)

I concur!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 5, 2005)

thing is, it's so unlike me to vote in a poll.......


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 6, 2005)

Damn you for going against your convictions!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 6, 2005)

but if i did vote in a poll like this i would, out of insticnct, vote for the british plane so it makes sence that i'm the guy that voted meteor..........


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jul 6, 2005)

Yes, the *only* guy...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 6, 2005)

Very true!


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Feb 8, 2006)

Too bad the jets never met. I mean, the Allies were already fighting them anyway with P-51's! Why didn't they let the Glosters take over battling the me's and have a good slug out to decide the better first time jets?  


Thats the one sad thing about modern airwar. Jets can't even engage in dogfights very well because of the fast speeds they go at and all those fancy self-guiding weapons that do the work for them......


----------



## WEISNER (Feb 9, 2006)

8th may, 1945. the top 23 Luftwaffe jet aces had some 187 confirmed kills between them, Unconfirmed? how many victories did the meteor pilots have on this date? in my mind the 262 was a much better bird as it was in combat and shooting down enemy aircraft. The Meteor, What if? What if? By then the war had ended, and we will never know. I'll take the 262 any day as it was shooting down aircraft untill the end....also both planes were honestly outdated at the end or shortly after the war...single or dual fuslage engined jets were the wave of the future.....just trying to hit the nail on the head here.
Kevin


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 10, 2006)

Compared to the Meteor the Me-262 was more superior. Depends on the version of the Meteor aswell.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 10, 2006)

and there's always the risk that the ruskies would get their hands on a meteor and thus more advanced jet technology than their own if one was shot down and fell into their hands, although they got a fair few -262s as it was........


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 10, 2006)

They got more than just the 262's. The basis for all there post war jet technology came from the Germans.


----------



## Henk (Feb 26, 2006)

The Me-262 comes up top here. 

Henk


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Feb 27, 2006)

and the Me-262 would be easier to maintain as the engines are faired into the wing, there wasnt much difference in the reliability of jet engines for both sides


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 27, 2006)

it's generally accepted that the Meteor was more reliable and more manouverable, but, apart from looking better they're the only real advantages over the -262............


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 27, 2006)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> it's generally accepted that the Meteor was more reliable and more manouverable, but, apart from looking better they're the only real advantages over the -262............



Agree, although the -262 was superior the early Meteors had a RR Welland, The Wellands had 180 hours between overhauls. The Jumo 004, entering service only a few weeks earlier, was rated for only 10 hours.


----------



## helmitsmit (Feb 27, 2006)

Wasn't the 262 faster? However, I would prefer a Meteor as the 262 had rubbish turn capability


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 2, 2006)

The Me-262's engines were only good for about 10 hours, but overall I believe it was better than the Meteor. Atleast the early versions of the Meteor. Later on the Meteor probably overtook the Me-262 but by that time the Germans had other aircraft in the works and ready to fly like the Me P.1011 and the Ta-183 which completly would have outclassed the Meteor.

As for which looked better, the 262 clearly looked better. It was more streamlined and shark looking.


----------



## delcyros (Mar 3, 2006)

From what I have seen, the 10 hours belong to the Jumo-004B2 only. The 1945 usually fitted Jumo-004 B3 had 25 hrs. the late Jumo-004B4 and D4 both around 50 hrs. In opposition to this the BMW-003 E had 200 hrs! But it is also a question of numbers. the Jumo-004 was produced in a number of between 5.000 and 7.000 units by wars end (Sources differ). This is a lot of redundance compared to the 600 Wellands and 800 BMW-003...
I do personally not believe that the Meteor ever overtook the Me-262 during ww2 (and even if you enleghten the szenario) in technical development. Both, the MK I and MK III were inferior to the Me-262 in an one on one engagement. The post war MK-IV was great but for a nearly doubled poweroutput. I ask what speed the Me-262 could develop by this thrust potential! The improvements for the Me-262 also included plans for more wingsweep (a 30 degrees swept back winged Me-262 was completed in march 45, a 45 degrees one was planed for mid 45), which never were included for the Meteor program. This is what makes me feel the Meteor wasn´t able to deal with the Messers.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 7, 2006)

I will actually agree with you delcyros, atleast with the points that you made there.


----------



## delcyros (Mar 7, 2006)

Jet propulsion alone doesn´t make a good fighter plane. The Meteor suffered badly from the fascination of it´s designer for thick airfoils (as to be seen in the Typhoon/Tempest). 
This turns her into a poor high speed fighter. Jet propulsion allows faster speeds (and controll at high speeds) but the airfoil and general wing design offsets this partly. The result is a much lower critical Mach number than it´s contemporary opponents (Me-262, Me-162, He-162, even the Ar-234). The Meteor is superior at low speed handling but inferior in high speed handling and those jets aren´t designed for low speed engagements!

This may show the most striking advantage of the Me-262, Messerschmidt did not only introduced jet propulsion but also a sophisticated airfoil and wing layout to the -262 (for the swept wing part accidently), which contributed a lot to it´s superior development potential.


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Mar 11, 2006)

the tempest was a typhoon with a thin wing
Soviet post-war jet technology came from the Germans yeah, the feared MiG-15 came from the Ta 183


----------



## Henk (Mar 11, 2006)

It is realy a fact that the Russian did not have any jet technolagy and thus every captured German jet were used to make their own. If you take the Sukhoi Su-9 were a jazzed up Me-262.

They also used a lot of Jomu 004 engines in their first aircraft. 

Henk


----------



## delcyros (Mar 11, 2006)

> the feared MiG-15 came from the Ta 183


Another urban myth... we already have discussed this in the best jet poll in detail. The MiG-15 benefitted from very general, preliminary design layout. It surely isn´t a descendent of the Ta-183. It is indeed a ingenious soviet design.
The Tempest still had a thick airfoil if you compare it with a spit XIV.


----------



## Henk (Mar 11, 2006)

I have also heard that it is just a urban myth. I do not know so much about that one.

The thing is the russians realy wanted to catch up with the rest of the world when the west got most of the German technolagy and also perfected theirs.

The whole world got ahead thanks to the Germans.

Henk


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Mar 13, 2006)

yeah THANK THEM FOR BETTER MASS DESTRUCTION WOOHOOO!!!!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 13, 2006)

Okay that was dumb loomaluftwaffe.


----------



## Henk (Mar 13, 2006)

loomaluftwaffe said:


> yeah THANK THEM FOR BETTER MASS DESTRUCTION WOOHOOO!!!!





DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Okay that was dumb loomaluftwaffe.



Yes, that was a stupid thing to say loolaluftwaffe. If you think other wise then read up on it and you will see they did, not just for army's around the world but for you and me too.

I think the US were the ones who designed mass destruction, the Atom bomb. Look at the shit that spawned from it.

Henk


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Mar 13, 2006)

V2 missile + Atom bomb = ICBM?


----------



## evangilder (Mar 14, 2006)

Ahem...The US was not the only nation working on atomic weaponry, we were just the first to make it work. Let's think a bit more about this, shall we. Who were the main players in the development? Some of them were Jews that Germany were persecuting, and they got out while the getting was good. 

You also need to remember that while the atomic bomb was the first project, nuclear energy came from that same set of experiments. Also other medical uses for the technology came about. 

Now, should we get this back on topic?


----------



## plan_D (Mar 14, 2006)

The V-2 had no inter-continental capability, the range was not long enough. The A-10 was in development in the dying days of the war which would have been a true ICBM , with a range to hit New York. The system on the A-10 was the same system used on space rockets to this day - after all it was developed by Von Braun, the leading developer in the Saturn 5 project. 

And Britain were the first nation to study nuclear energy as a weapon.


----------



## Henk (Mar 14, 2006)

evangilder said:


> Ahem...The US was not the only nation working on atomic weaponry, we were just the first to make it work. Let's think a bit more about this, shall we. Who were the main players in the development? Some of them were Jews that Germany were persecuting, and they got out while the getting was good.
> 
> You also need to remember that while the atomic bomb was the first project, nuclear energy came from that same set of experiments. Also other medical uses for the technology came about.
> 
> Now, should we get this back on topic?



Yes, the US were the first to make it work. Actually I were a bit stupid. I think there should have been laws that made nukes illegal to everyone, but the US build so many then the USSR build so many etc. The whole nuke thing makes me sick, because there are so many good things to it and bad things, but the US only used it once and they keep it for protection, but other countries does not. 

I wish this bullshit would get end with nukes and I think the world should stop acting like little kids. 

Iran, well I say give them what they want, a nuclear technology up there ass and wipe them off the face of the earth and all of those who want to deal with this type of shit in the bad sense.

So yes the US only got there first and they did it for the greater good, but all those who persuaded the nuke weapons were idiots.

evangilder you are right lets get back on the topic.

Henk


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Mar 15, 2006)

yeah lol me and my stupid comments,
back to topic now


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 20, 2006)

Wow we agree on something....


----------



## Twitch (Mar 28, 2006)

Way back on page 1...what Flyboy said is it.....period.


----------



## Magnon (Jan 5, 2010)

The engines in the Me 262 had a maximum time between overhaul of 25 hours. The Meteor had 150 hours, due to the use of nimonic alloys turbine blades. The Germans used stainless steel blades and claimed that they had a shortage of nickel and chromium, but these are usually around 18% and 8% in stainless steel. This argument doesn't stand up.

The Meteor went on to be used in the Korean war against the Mig 15, where it achieved a respectable number of kills (around 6), despite being outclassed by the second-generation fighter.

In addition:
- the axial flow compressors in the Me 262 engines were highly susceptible to surge, with subsequent loss of power.
- the cannon tended to jam in high G maneuvers.


----------



## beaupower32 (Jan 5, 2010)

Two types of 61-blade turbines are used. Originally both blades and disks were solid, later hollow blades and lighter disks were introduced at a saving of approximately 40 lb. The 12¼-oz. solid blades are forged from an austenitic steel containing 30% nickel, 14% chrome,1.75% titanium, and .12% carbon, corresponding closely to “Tinidur,”a Krupp alloy known before the war,and are attached by three machined lugs drilled to take two 11-mm.rivets each. Maximum centrifugal blade stresses have been estimated at 18,000 psi., and gas bending stressesat 2-4,000 psi. Study of the solid blades indicates that the roots didn't get much above 450 deg. C., due to the cooling air flow up from the disk, but near the center it appearsthe temperatures got up to about 750 deg. C. This applies to service models, not those previouslymentioned as having given the longer flight and test-stand life. Disks for hollow blade turbines are of lighter material than the solid types and have attached, across the front face, a thin sheet flared outnear the center. This picks up the cooling air and, via ridges on the disk, whirls it out toward the blade roots where it goes through two small holes drilled in the disk rim up through the blade and out the tip. Made of the same material as the solid blades, the hollow type are formed by deep drawing a disc through a total of 15 operations. In assembling the turbine, the blade roots are fitted over grooved stubs on the disk rim. Two small holes on each side take locating pins to hold the blades in place during assembly, but they take no stresses.



Taken from Design Analysis of Me-262 Jet Fighter by John Foster Jr. Part II- The Power Plant


----------



## Magnon (Jan 6, 2010)

Not the whole story


----------



## Magnon (Jan 6, 2010)

A relevant reference in this matter is:

Messerschmitt Me 262. - Page 2 - WW2 in Color History Forum

Extract - _This new nickel alloy called "Nimonic 80" allowed the jet engine's turbine parts, particularly the blades, to operate for long periods under tremendous stress, under high heat and corrosive exhaust, without deforming or melting. This new non-ferrite alloy was far superior to all German constructive metal alloys used in the aircraft industry. After the war, Nimonic 80 set the stage for a revolution in jet-propelled aviation._


----------



## Waynos (Jan 7, 2010)

Haven't read all this thread yet, but it looks from the poll as if I'm going to fly in the face of popular opinion on this one.

I would say the Meteor was better.

The 262 was a more advanced design and potentially far better, Gloster basically stuck jet engines onto an airframe that could easiliy have been designed for two Peregrines or Taurus' a year or two earlier, the turboprop Meteor looks perfectly natural for example. But circumstances prevented the 262 from getting anywhere near that potential.

Not its fault of course, but still a fact. within a year of the wars end the Meteor was setting the first 600mph plus speed records. The 262 could have been faster but didn't get the chance.

The potential of the 262 to be one of the greatest fighters in the world is plain to see, but due to factors other than design, by 1945, I think the Meteor was the better aircraft in service.

An extension to the war would have rendered it redundant pretty quickly, but it didn't happen


----------



## riacrato (Jan 7, 2010)

I'm not getting what you are trying to say I'm afraid. If you go by "performance potential realized" then the Me 262 wins by a margin: No Meteor mark that saw service in WW2 was faster then its in-service Me 262 equivalent.

If you go by "actual combat potential realized" ... what did the Meteor really do besides downing some V-1s and some ground strafes late in the war?


----------



## delcyros (Jan 7, 2010)

Waynos said:


> within a year of the wars end the Meteor was setting the first 600mph plus speed records.
> The potential of the 262 to be one of the greatest fighters in the world is plain to see, but due to factors other than design, by 1945, I think the Meteor was the better aircraft in service.



I wonder if recordsetting is a qualifying parameter in this thread. Wartime records are not accounted for nor are they accepted officially. Otherwise the Me-262 was the first jet airplane to hit 600 mp/h in level flight during a controlled and recorded high speed trial* -well in advance of a year before the Meteor could do the same.

*) Me-262V09 high speed trials conducted over a measured distance in mid 1944. Later in 1944, the Me-262C rocket assisted jet fighter was certified to a speed of 970 km/h at optimum altitude (=602 mp/h).


----------



## Messy1 (Jan 7, 2010)

Henk said:


> I have also heard that it is just a urban myth. I do not know so much about that one.
> 
> The thing is the russians realy wanted to catch up with the rest of the world when the west got most of the German technolagy and also perfected theirs.
> 
> ...



And also thanks to the British. At one point, the Russians were so far behind, even in basic areas such as metallurgy. At one point, Russians officials were given a tour of one of the British factories producing jet engines. Unknown to the British, all Russians had been given special soft sole shoes by the Russian government to wear that would pick up metal shavings of the various types of metals that were used and prodcued so the Russians could analyze the alloys and copy them. They had serious issues with material quality.


----------



## Waynos (Jan 7, 2010)

I thought my post would cause a scratching of heads, but that was not its purpose. The citing of the speed record was more by way of showing what opportunity was denied the 262, rather than a qualifier for the Meteor.

I also think a service fighter is judged on more than speed and I feel that a far larger percentage of the Meteors delivered to squadrons over the same period the 262's were delivered to the Luftwaffe were available for operations for longer. It is not the Meteors fault that we did not need to send it out against the Luftwaffe. it did the job that was asked of it with more reliability than its rival. There isn't much more useless than an aeroplane on the ground.

Thats why I think that the Meteor was the better aircraft at that time. I also think that a Derwent-262 would have been better than both of them. Maybe I'm mad?


----------



## Erich (Jan 7, 2010)

although many bomber crews in 45 thought they were safe the threat they felt the most was the 262. every guy tha flew a B-17 and B-24 saw at least one in combat and to say the elast they felt overwhelmed with the speed and firepower many of these guys saw their buddies blown to pieces after a pass.

I really cannot see a rational discussion competing the little M with the 262, developed for different purposes and used for different purposes


----------



## parsifal (Jan 7, 2010)

I tend to think the Me 262 was superior in the context of WWII, but in terms of design stretchability, I am inclined to favour the Meteor.

There is no record of the Me 262 ever meeting a meteor, which is not surprising, considering that 616 squadron, was the only allied jet equipped formation to see service on the continent during the war, and then only with 4 aircraft on special deployment until well into 1945, and operating in the PRU role. It is therefore totally invalid to compare combat results of the Meteor to those of the Me 262 as aa measure of relative performance.

However in the Korean war the Meteor saw service from 1951 with 77 Squadron of the RAAF, and met on a number of occasions with the MIG-15. The MIG was a newerdesign, but piloted by inferior pilots, nevertheless the opinion of the 77 squadron CO prior to entering the battle area was that they were in for a hard time against the MIGs. This was exacerbated by the role they were put into....bomber escort, which tied them to speeds and at altitudes that were less than optimum for the type.

The Royal Australian Air Force acquired 113 Meteors between 1946 and 1952. F.8 Meteors saw extensive service during the Korean War with No. 77 Squadron RAAF. The squadron, which had previously flown P-51 Mustangs in Korea, first flew Meteors on July 30, 1951 and had some success in jet-versus-jet combat, against MiG-15 pilots, shooting down six confirmed kills of the newer and generally superior MiGs in the period of September to November. However, four RAAF Meteors were lost on December 1, 1951 in a dogfight between 12 aircraft from 77 Squadron and 40 MiGs. As a result, 77 Squadron was relegated to ground attack duties, a role in which it performed well. While at least 29 Meteors were lost as a direct result of enemy action in Korea, the vast majority of these were shot down by anti-aircraft fire while serving in a ground attack capacity. The heavy loss rate was due to the type of sight being used with the rockets they were firing, requiring the aircraft to fly straight for a dangerously long time in order to achieve satisfactory accuracy


----------



## red admiral (Jan 8, 2010)

With the Yanks in Korea by Cull and Newton gives a very detailed account of the British and Commonwealth air operations over Korea. Despite the obvious performance advantages between the MiG-15 and the Meteor F8 the actual combat wasn't so bad, with overall exchange rates being around 1:1 (though a slight advantage to the MiG-15). The actual combats themselves are described in the book and usually involved MiGs having both a numerical and position advantage. Pairs of MiGs would swoop down from above and carry out short hit and run attacks on the F8s. The F8s would try to manoeuvre for a shoot after the pass but usually found themselves being engaged by a second pair of MiGs making a similar attack to the first. Usual combat was around 30-40 MiGs against 4-8 F8s. The main problem for the pilots was having sufficient time to manoeuvre for a gun shot and then seeing whether or not any hits occurred. The Meteor proved itself very durable in combat, one aircraft taking 8 37mm cannon shells around the tail. Speed isn't everything when it comes to combat.

Also mentioned are mock dogfights between the the F-86 and the F8 over Japan. The F8 was found to be superior under 25,000ft, especially when it came to a turning and climbing fight. The F-86 had an advantage in critical mach number so could usually disengage when things got too bad.



> but in terms of design stretchability, I am inclined to favour the Meteor



The postwar career of the Meteor is often overlooked but was very successful. Even just as an engine testbed the Meteor was enormously successful. Most bizarre was a scheme with RR Nene engines and thrust vectoring for STOL studies in the 1950s. Immediately postwar Gloster had more time to focus on design rather than production and produced a whole host of Meteor designs with swept and delta wings and Avon or Sapphire engines. These studies directly lead to the Javelin with the change to fuselage mounted engines occurring in 1947.

The Gloster Meteor still flies today as a flying testbed for Martin-Baker.


----------



## riacrato (Jan 8, 2010)

And the reality with regards to operations is:
- only a handful of Meteors saw service in WW2
- until 1945 it was inferior in speed to already in service piston fighters, including the Mustang and the Tempest, it's only benefit: getting experience on jet powered fighters
- are air-to-air victories still important for a fighter?
- impact was nil

and with regards to design:
- inferior drag in about every area except for the nacelles, whbich was more of a design decision than a real drawback
- tendency for snaking that was never really solved
- otherwise solid, conventional but unimpressive

Funny how someone who accused me of being an apologist of German WW2 tank designs argues for, and here I say it, an *obviously inferior airframe.*

The only thing that brought the meteor to comparable speeds was the use of superior engine thrust later on.


----------



## bada (Jan 8, 2010)

nice to read is the evaluation raport from 1946 on the mike william's site

Meteor Performance Trials.

the strange thing, despite all the so called performance and reliability of derwent engines, is found on the page 29 of the raport, the engines having "surging" above 20000ft .

even with a life time of25h, the 262 seems suporior in all aspects comparing to the MkIII.


----------



## parsifal (Jan 8, 2010)

Riacrato are you saying I think you are a German apologist, because I dont think that????


----------



## Kurfürst (Jan 8, 2010)

It doesn't make much sense to compare essentially post-war, up-engined variants of the Meteor to the wartime Schwalbe. Certainly development of the Me 262 did not stop with the first serial production variant, as this February 1945 German paper on further development and performance improvement of the Me 262 shows.

There was indeed a lot potential in the 262. It has to be remembered that the Germans aimed at a very conservative design with both the 262 and the Jumo 004, that would encounter the least amount of development difficulties and could be pressed into service with minimum delay.


----------



## red admiral (Jan 8, 2010)

> It doesn't make much sense to compare essentially post-war, up-engined variants of the Meteor to the wartime Schwalbe.



The initial question is rather vague, after all, what does "best" actually mean. During the war the Meteor gave good service with the RAF in getting used to jet aircraft and operational tactics. Didn't achieve a great deal in visible results due to not being allowed the chance and simple lack of impetus behind the project. More important and useful to flood the skies with P-51s rather than a few hundred new jets. Postwar the Meteor gave good service but was outclassed by 1950 by the new generation of jets with proper swept wings. The Me 262 would be also, both designs running into mach limitations around 0.85. There were redesigns with swept wings to both aircraft to increase this limitation, but neither were built.


----------



## bada (Jan 8, 2010)

red admiral said:


> ....both designs running into mach limitations around 0.85. .



MKIII 0.74
Me262 0.86


----------



## red admiral (Jan 8, 2010)

bada said:


> MKIII 0.74
> Me262 0.86



Thats for the initial Mk IIIs the later Mk IIIs went up to around 0.83 which was later increased a bit again with the F8


----------



## parsifal (Jan 8, 2010)

The reason I brought up the Korean war experiences of the F8 was to demonstrate that the Meteor had some potentialities in the air combat role. It is not a valid sample to look at the experiences of the MkIs and Mk IIIs during the war because of the very limited deployment they were given. However the Meteor was deployed quite extensively in Korea, and went up against an aircraft superior to the me 262 in many ways, although the pilots flying them were not of high quality (on the other hand the MIGs greatly outnumbered the Meteors, and the Meteors were being forced into a mision profile they were not well suited to), and here it held its own quite well, though not outstandingly. By extrapolation, obe could therefore say that contrary to the general feeling in this forum, the Me 262 might not have wiped the floor with the Meteor, though I acknowlwedge the limitation of the approach, and have already conceded that I think the 262 does hold the advantage, purely on the basis of its higher speed


----------



## riacrato (Jan 8, 2010)

parsifal said:


> Riacrato are you saying I think you are a German apologist, because I dont think that????


I thought you said something along those lines, but I might have been overreacting so I apologize.

If we are talking development potential, really all that was realized for the Meteor was more engine thrust.

The only chance the Meteor could've made a real impact is if the F.3 was available right after the invasion. It could then attack Me 262s on their way home or right after take-off. In reality that role fell to the Mustangs and some degree the Tempests. The Meteor will always remain a footnote in history just like the P-59 or the Do 335 some people here have been talking about so enthusiastically. All could've been available in time at least as far as development goes. They simply were not that good and it's time to accept that. Granted, the Meteor at least gave a familiarization platform for future pilot generations.


> purely on the basis of its higher speed


It was also a better gun platform. The Meteor was notorious for snaking at relevant combat speeds, no such thing for the Me 262. The speed advantage (according to British tests) would always be in the vicinity of 20 mph if powered by similar thrust.

Which fighter design of any of the Western powers could wipe the floor with the equivalent design of another Western power during that era (40-45)? I can't think of any of the top off my head.


----------



## Waynos (Jan 8, 2010)

I think the Meteor was more than a footnote in history (what aircraft with a 40 odd year career can be no more important than a prototype, historically speaking?).


----------



## JoeB (Jan 9, 2010)

red admiral said:


> 1. With the Yanks in Korea by Cull and Newton gives a very detailed account of the British and Commonwealth air operations over Korea. Despite the obvious performance advantages between the MiG-15 and the Meteor F8 the actual combat wasn't so bad, with overall exchange rates being around 1:1 (though a slight advantage to the MiG-15).
> 
> 2. Also mentioned are mock dogfights between the the F-86 and the F8 over Japan. The F8 was found to be superior under 25,000ft, especially when it came to a turning and climbing fight. The F-86 had an advantage in critical mach number so could usually disengage when things got too bad.


1. Here are the credits/losses/actual results of Meteor in Korea, decisive combats only (somebody shot down on on side or another per that side's account):

-December 1 1951: 4 Meteors lost to MiG's, 2 MiG's destroyed credited to Meteors. The opponent was the Soviet 176 Guards Fighter Regiment which claimed 12 Meteors without loss.

-May 8, 1952: Meteors were credited with 1 MiG destroyed for no loss. The opponent was the PLAAF 45th Fighter Regiment which actually lost 2 a/c with 2 others damaged, claiming 3 Meteors.

-October 2 1952: Meteor downed without claim, Soviets claimed 1.

2:5, 0:5 v. Soviet AF, v 2:0 v PLAAF. So it was pretty bad, actually, especially the earlier period trying to use the Meteor as air superiority a/c to supplement the F-86. The MiG's generally attacked from altitude advantage, but MiG-15's in Korea usually did against all opponents, F-86 too. The Meteor proved obsolete as air-air machine in these combats, and 77 Sdn's role was switched to fighter-bomber, where the 2 kills v PLAAF and the additional loss to the Soviets occurred in '52. In other sparring before the Dec 1 combat a few Meteors were also hit (and a number claimed by the Soviets) without actual losses on either side. The record of basically later straightwings like F-80C, F-84D, E, G and F9F was considerably better, especially the F9F (5 kills, 1 loss v MiG's). Needless to say I'm speaking in all cases of results verified in opposing records, not claims.

2. This particularly well illustrates the meaninglessness of many mock combat anecdotes. In exactly the same real combat situation at the very same time, F-86 and Meteor alongside one another in summer/fall 1951 over Korea, the F-86 maintained a strong kill ratio advantage v the MiG-15. Against the same units where the Meteor's achieved 0:4, F-86's went around 3:1, though that was the worst period in the war for the F-86 (summer-end of '51), since those Soviet units, 324th and 303th Fighter Divisions (176th Guards Regiment was an element of the 324th) were probably the best to serve in Korea, and the numerical situation was most heavily in favor of the MiG's at that time, with the 2 Soviet divisions augmented by 2 Chinese and 1 NK divisions as the fall progressed, w/ still just one F-86 group, 4th FIG, bearing the main load on the UN side. This was one reason Meteors were tried out supplementing the F-86's in air superiority work at that time, and F-84's used for escort in some cases in that period also.

The Cull/Newton book is generally excellent, and there's no comparable book in English so far. However a weak spot is reporting results from US records. The book generally reports Soviet results from good and fairly recent Russian-language published sources (though not actual records). Commonwealth results are reported from records and personal accounts (this is the focus of the book, afterall). But, US results, losses particularly, are reported pretty spottily mainly from older published sources. This can give the impression that the US results are unclear in many cases, when they are not: the results of almost all the combats reported in that book are clear in US records.

Joe


----------



## Magnon (Jan 11, 2010)

Adolf Galland was perhaps the best person able to compare the two aircraft. He flew the Me 262 for the Luftwaffe and the Meteor for the Argentine air force:

_On November 20th 1952, Kleissen convinced Galland to fly the Gloster Meteor. They went together to the VII Brigada Aérea of Morón and alter a brief side by side coaching, he was ready to soar the Argentinean skies in a jet made in Britain, that had been originally conceived to face the Me-262. Galland was extremely surprised when he observed in the target calibrator the letters Me. The flight lasted about an hour and when it was finished, he said: If the Me-262 had had the Meteor's engines, it would have been the best fighter in the world! He qualified the plane of being very good and of having very refined lines. The I-057 wouldn’t be the only Meteor flown by Galland: On March 24th 1953 he made a forty minute flight in the I-072, as well as in the I-088, all of them were made from the VII Brigada Aérea._​


----------



## Magnon (Jan 11, 2010)

_The Jumo-004B engines were never very satisfactory for operational use. The fact that production engines had been designed to minimize use of precious high-strength metals meant that the blades tended to rapidly lengthen or "creep", and the engines sometimes had to be junked after as little as ten hours of flight operations. 

Over 1,400 Me-262s were built, but only a relatively small portion of them ever saw action. Fuel was scarce, and Allied aircraft strafed and bombed at will. It appears that the Luftwaffe never had more than 200 on strength at any one time. The Me-262 shot down about 150 Allied aircraft, versus the loss of 100 Me-262s in action, an uninspiring war record. _


----------



## Vincenzo (Jan 11, 2010)

Sure a 1952 jet engine it's best of one of 1945


----------



## Erich (Jan 11, 2010)

that's crap about the 262 only knocking down 150 Allied A/C, who the heck came up with the bogus figures anyway when we know that at least 45 Allied a/c were shot down by Welters NF band alone.

JG 7 on the other hand I can say with almost certainty that it did not shoot down 450-500 US/RAF crates, and although the 262 war diary does not list all the confirmed kills of the 262 units as there were at least 10 that scored it is in the neighborhood of 300 plus kills achieved

ah the myths that fly around


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 11, 2010)

Erich said:


> that's crap about the 262 only knocking down 150 Allied A/C, who the heck came up with the bogus figures anyway when we know that at least 45 Allied a/c were shot down by Welters NF band alone.
> 
> JG 7 on the other hand I can say with almost certainty that it did not shoot down 450-500 US/RAF crates, and although the 262 war diary does not list all the confirmed kills of the 262 units as there were at least 10 that scored it is in the neighborhood of 300 plus kills achieved
> 
> ah the myths that fly around



Erich, what is your best guess as to the actual figures for the total allied aircraft shot down by the Me 262?


----------



## Erich (Jan 11, 2010)

good question Chris, I had an overall figure at one time but there is still so much to try and confimr from JG 7. known Us bomber losses do not figure into the LW kills as claimed, they just are not there. US fighter forces claim 100 destroyed 262's alone this not put into effect the ones lost to RAF/TAF and other Allies like the Soviets of which at least two jets were lost in action. and another point the total number of Soviet losses due to 262's is also unknown. for a fact JG 7 did perform airfield runs over Soviet airfields and shot the hell out of any parked targets and motor transport. Many folk find this doubtful but we must realize that the LW was stretched thin doing all sorts of ground and air attacks in defense of Berlin from the Soviets and the western Allies....

side notation JG 301 with Fw 190D-9's were performing ground attacks with anti-personell bomblets on Soviet movements and then turning around and facing US P-47's and RAF fighters like the Spitfire and Tempest all on the same days


----------



## Magnon (Jan 11, 2010)

From Wikipedia:

The Me 262 was difficult for its opponents to counter, but it had weaknesses. By contemporary standards its wing loading was high (295.0 kilograms per square metre) and its rate of turn was correspondingly poor. The 262 pilots were told to avoid dogfights. The Mustangs and the other Allied escort fighters were more maneuverable so they would fly high above the bombers and dive from this height to get extra speed and reduce the speed difference. Trained Allied pilots could catch up to a turning 262 or avoid rather easily its attacks. Oberst Johannes Steinhoff encountered a dozen Russian fighters early in 1945 without managing to shoot down a single one—he started doubting the dog fighting qualities of the Me 262. He recalled:

“I passed one that looked as if it was hanging motionless in the air (I am too fast!). The one above me went into a steep right-hand turn, his pale blue underside standing out against the purple sky. Another banked right in front of the Me’s nose. Violent jolt as I flew through his airscrew eddies. Maybe a wing’s length away. That one in the gentle left-hand curve! Swing her round. I was coming from underneath, eye glued to the sight (pull her tighter!). A throbbing in the wings as my cannon pounded briefly. Missed him. Way behind his tail. It was exasperating. I would never be able to shoot one down like this. They were like a sack of fleas. A prick of doubt: is this really such a good fighter? Could one in fact successfully attack a group of erratically banking fighters with the Me 262?”​The wing loading of the Meteor was 189 kg/m2.

The cannon of the Me 262 was low-velocity, suitable for destroying bombers, but relatively useless for dogfighting: 
“The only drawback to the [Rheinmetall Borsig] Mk108 was the low muzzle velocity of the weapon (1890 km/hr). This meant the shells traveled slower than in similar large caliber weapons. In the Me 262, the pilot had to use careful timing to fire at precisely the right moment.”​The site Düsenjägers - Jet Aces of The Luftwaffe gives the log of claimed kills for the Me 262 as 357. It should be noted that these are claimed kills. If the overall claimed kill rate of the Luftwaffe was correct, the RAF and USAAF would have been wiped out many times over. In fact, they had very substantial air superiority over the Luftwaffe during the vast majority of the war.


----------



## Erich (Jan 11, 2010)

by the way I have helped with Petr's site since he first opened it. you cannot go by the jet aces scores as the only kills as an overall total so that is useless.......... JG 7 claimed over 450 kills themselves of which I already gave explanation. it would do you best as well as others not to quote anything from Wiki, Stein never faced the Soviets in a 262 as he was transferred out and replaced by Weissenb before JG 7 even had contact with the Soviets in March of 45.


----------



## Hawk 75 (Jan 11, 2010)

I know this is a little off topic, but I wonder how well the P80A would have faired against the Me262?


----------



## Magnon (Jan 11, 2010)

The fact remains that the Germans spent big resources on building a fighter for which the engines had to be thrown away after 10 hours. Fourteen hundred built but only 200 could be put into service at any given time. The critical factor which made jet engines viable was the British development of Nimonic 80. 

Similarly, Germany invested heavily in building 4000 V2s which could only deliver a single one tonne warhead. One Allied strategic bomber could deliver 4 - 10 tonnes per mission, and had a liife expectancy of 20 missions. Thousand bomber Allied raids were not uncommon.

Do the maths!


----------



## Soren (Jan 12, 2010)

Wrong again. The Germans had successfully tested their Jumo 004 engine using the intended metals at full throttle for 100 hours without any issues. The problems occured when they were forced to mass produce the engine with other materials than intended, esp. having to do without the special high temperature resistant metals used in the prototype engines.


----------



## Maximowitz (Jan 12, 2010)

Soren said:


> Wrong again. The Germans had successfully tested their Jumo 004 engine using the intended metals at full throttle for 100 hours without any issues. The problems occured when they were forced to mass produce the engine with other materials than intended, esp. having to do without the special high temperature resistant metals used in the prototype engines.



He'll be back later Soren. He's just popped over to Wikipedia to do a bit of research....


----------



## Magnon (Jan 12, 2010)

This is laughable...

Why would they run the prototype with the high creep resistant alloy and then not use it in production?

They had access to the extensive nickel resources of Finland for almost the whole of the war, so it can't be a shortage of nickel.

Raus, raus mit das ratschitten stoff!


----------



## Soren (Jan 12, 2010)

Magnon said:


> This is laughable...



Erm, no, incase you haven't noticed it yet you're the one everyone's laughing at.



> Why would they run the prototype with the high creep resistant alloy and then not use it in production?
> 
> They had access to the extensive nickel resources of Finland for almost the whole of the war, so it can't be a shortage of nickel.



Aah the ignorance is strong in this one!

From Magnon's favorite source:
_The initial 004A engines built to power the Me 262 prototypes had been built without restrictions on materials, and they used scarce raw materials such as nickel, cobalt, and molybdenum in quantities which were unacceptable in production._



> The bottom line is that the Germans are just a nation of losers. *They haven't won a war yet*.
> 
> They copied aircraft from the Americans (Wright brothers). They copied jet engines from the British (Whittle patented it in the early thirties), but didn't manage to copy Nimonic 80 because of wartime security.
> 
> The only thing they have produced of any note was the cuckoo clock, or was that the Swiss?



Why do I have a feeling this will be one of Magnon's last posts on this forum?


----------



## Messy1 (Jan 12, 2010)

Great Info


----------



## Njaco (Jan 12, 2010)

Magnon said:


> This is laughable...
> 
> Why would they run the prototype with the high creep resistant alloy and then not use it in production?
> 
> ...



Magnon, cool it with the name calling. If you want to make a point, please do so without calling another nation "losers". We have some fine members here who are German and, like any other nationality, we won't tolerate blanket accusations.

Fact is, you made a valid point regarding the run-time of the engines but then tossed that in the trash with the comment.

You and Soren are both right in that the engine was developed with proper metals to run but circumstances dictated alternate metals which reduced operation time.


----------



## riacrato (Jan 12, 2010)

Hawk 75 said:


> I know this is a little off topic, but I wonder how well the P80A would have faired against the Me262?


There's a thread here on exactly that topic although I'm not sure if it was a P-80 _A_ they trialled it against. IIRC the tests carried out by USAAF crews showed them both to be rather similar in performance especially regarding parameters speed and climb. One test pilot was quoted as favoring the Me 262.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 12, 2010)

Magnon is not going to last long at all. One more stupid comment out of his mouth like that, and he is gone!

To all Forum Members:

Comments like that about *ANY* nation will not be tolerated! Comments like that are ignorant, worthless and are not constructive to this forum.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Erich (Jan 12, 2010)

the comments and I agree with Chris really had nothing to do with the 262 vs the Meteor comparisons, unfortunate as the simple rebuttal from this member did not work and was called out and was in excuse to turn the tables on my question to ansers with bogus back up statements not even worthy. Once again it appears another member needs to read up on the overal operations privately and then make comment and not just one to two sources for proof.

really sad to have to read further and nearly puke on this thread


----------



## beaupower32 (Jan 12, 2010)

Over all this is a intresting thread. I have really enjoyed reading it, but on the other hand....


The only real losers of any war are the brave young and women who lost their lives. That includes every nation that has ever fought (Germany, England, USA, Ect....).


----------



## Magnon (Jan 12, 2010)

My apologies for slighting the German people.

If anyone had done their research on the development of Nimonic alloy, on which this dispute hangs, they would have seen that the team which developed it ironically was led by Leonard Bessemer Pfeil, who was of anglo-german descent.

A great pity the Brits and the Germans couldn't have been working together on the development of the jet...


In support of my thesis that this alloy was crucial in the development of the jet aircraft, Siemens developed the first German gas turbine after the war and they used Nimonic blades. They are stilll using it in the combustor chambers in the Tornado stationary gas turbine:

Google <Siemens Tornado Nimonic Turbine>


----------



## Kurfürst (Jan 12, 2010)

He strikes me as a permabanned member returning for more trouble...

In any case, the Germans simply made a stratetic choice with those serieal production Jumo 004B engines, and a right one. The pre-series Jumo 004A was built with ample use of alloys, and had a lifespan of 200+ hours. 

The Germans had only limited supplies of these alloys, and the avarage fighter's lifespan was far shorter, 20-40 hours at best. It was a logical decision that for mass production and deployment in combat, an engine that didn't use strategic materials much and would last about 50 hours was sufficient - the avarage fighter was a statistically a loss long before its engines could give trouble, nevermind the fact that huge amounts of the Jumo 004 were produced (ca 8000 iirc) and the worn engine could be readily swapped for a new one in half an hour or so.

People seem to forget these were not airliners designed for decades of operation and with economy in mind, but expandable tools of war with a lifespan measured in a few dozen hours at best...


----------



## beaupower32 (Jan 14, 2010)

Good post Kurfürst.


I am amazed that the Germans considered the planes basically as being lost before they ever were. Do you know anywhere I can find more information on this. I would like to read up on it some.


----------



## Magnon (Jan 15, 2010)

Comparing the Me 262 to a Meteor is like comparing apples to oranges.

The Me 262 was designed as a bomber destroyer, meant to be fast enough to evade escorting fighters. The Meteor was designed primarily as a dogfighter (hence the Me calibration on the gunsights).

It was counterproductive for the Me 262 to try to get into a dog fight, because of the relatively high maneuverabilty of contempory fighters such as the Mustang, the low velocity of the Me 262 cannon, and the relative lack of strategic advantage in destroying a fighter. 

Even Adolf Galland, who was an ace, was shot up by a Mustang and forced to crash land at the end of the war (refer to his book _The First and the Last_).


----------



## riacrato (Jan 16, 2010)

There is no fundamental difference in the specifications for either of the two fighters.

Design began before the war and the 1st prototype flew long before serious strategic bombing campaigns with escort fighters proved the then current LW fighter portfolio to be inadequate. The heavy armament was simply an adaption to air war reality.


----------



## Waynos (Jan 16, 2010)

The Meteor was not designed for dogfighting. It was designed as a bomber interceptor incorporating experience from the BoB and the Blitz, the main advantage of its jet engines were not higher performance per se (as has been pointed out by others) but better and more consistent performance higher up than the average prop fighter. 

To this end, spec F.9/40, called for a speed of 430mph at 30,000ft and an armament of 6 20mm cannon (later amended to four) and Gloster were advised to collaborate with Westland and use the pressure cabin being developed for the Welkin.

following the end of the blitz the requirement for it went away and so priority was reduced as the RAF chased higher performance fighters like the Griffon Spitfire and the Sabre powered Tempest, until the V-1 raids began and it was wanted again.


----------



## Soren (Jan 16, 2010)

The Me262 was designed as a fighter, and featured great maneuverability at high speeds.

Furthermore Galland wasn't shot up in a dogfight, he was bounced.


----------



## Magnon (Jan 16, 2010)

A quote from Adolf Galland's "The First and the Last" regarding the Me 262s proposed use as a "blitz bomber":

"According to its flying properties and its safety conditions it was highly unsuited for an aimed-bomb release; diving or gliding were out of the question because of the unavoidable excess of the permissable top speed. At speeds of over 600 mph the aircraft became uncontrollable. At low altitudes the fuel consumption was so high that the operative range became unprofitably small; therefore low level attacks were out of the question. There remained high-altitude bombing, yet here the target had to be at least the size of a large town to be hit with certainty under the given conditions."​
The Meteor was used in both ground attack and fighter roles in Korea.


----------



## Magnon (Jan 16, 2010)

The Soviets had access to both British and German jet engine technology immediately after WW II. They chose to copy the British: 

“The Soviet Union arrived at the jet age with German JUMO-004 and BMW-003 jet engines, but especially access to English Rolls-Royce Nene I and Derwent V engines in the years 1947 and 1948 meant major progress in Soviet aviation engine technology. Both of the English engines were copied and improved. In series production especially the MiG-15 profited from this new technology. In the Korean War it showed better climb and curve performance ratings than for instance its American opponent Sabre F-86.”​
Ref J Lindberg. Copyright © 1997-2006 Fighter Tactics Academy.

The British had also been working on axial flow compressors at Metropolitan Vickers from 1939. The result was the 3500 lb thrust Armstrong Siddeley Sapphire.


----------



## evangilder (Jan 17, 2010)

Magnon said:


> The Meteor was used in both ground attack and fighter roles in Korea.



That may be so, but the majority of those were F 8 versions, which were 5 years _after _WWII. A lot changed in those 5 years. If the Me 262 had 5 additional years of service and development, it too would have been quite different.


----------



## Magnon (Jan 17, 2010)

It was also used in a ground attack role in the low countries during WW 2.


----------



## Waynos (Jan 17, 2010)

Regarding Soviet jets. They chose the Nene for their short term needs as we were all too willing to give it away freely but based their long term research on German engine designs, all the Soviet axial engines used in the 1950's on types like the MiG 21, Tu-16 etc were rooted in captured German tech that was indegenously developed at leisure, thanks to us allowing them to ("there's no hurry old boy, here, have a few hundred nenes. You can copy it too, if you like).

An interesting footnote regarding the Meteor (because I love things like this) regards the tail of the Meteor F.8.

The F.8 tail was originally no different from every previous Meteor, though its handling and longitudinal stability was adversely affected by the extra fuselage length and the effect of the the fuel tanks emptying moving the cg.

Purely by chance the solution was found. The revised tail of the new E.10/44 single engine fighter was fitted to a development Meteor F.8 for flight trials for that programme and the improvement it brought to the Meteor was so profound it was immediately ordered that all F.8's currently on order would be completed in the same fashion.

Just imagine if turbo-prop powered Lincolns or Jet Viscounts had resulted in the same way


----------



## red admiral (Jan 17, 2010)

Waynos said:


> , all the Soviet axial engines used in the 1950's on types like the MiG 21, Tu-16 etc were rooted in captured German tech that was indegenously developed at leisure, thanks to us allowing them to.



I don't think that is the case. Only the Klimov series of engines seem to be rooted in exterior designs (RD-10 copy of RD-10, RD-20 copy of BMW 003, RD-500 Derwent V, RD-45 Nene) most being produced as simple copies until the VK-1 which was a scaled up version of the Nene. Even so, simply copying the designs didn't work that great at first, producing nickel superalloys like Nimonic 80 took a few years to achieve. Come the early 1950s and things are away for fully developing their own designs.

Most used were the Lyulka series, rooted in Lyulka's own prewar and wartime designs with seemingly little German influence. Same for the Tumansky series of engines. These were the series that were pushed through the 1950s.

The real problems were hot section materials, the research behind which was helped by having Derwent and Nene engines, but their own developments shouldn't be discounted. You can't simply look at a turbine blade and say "it was made from this material, manufactured in this way" and then go away and do the same yourself.


----------



## Waynos (Jan 17, 2010)

Well I certainly cannot argue that point with any confidence as my post was based on a book I read, rather than my own research.

It simply stated that captured German engines were analysed and the results forwarded to the Soviet firms developing new axial engines so that they could benefit from German research and findings. My post may read as if I was calling them copies, which I was not, but the book claimed that the long term programme in the USSR benefitted from German axial research and the use of British centrifugal types bought them the time to do it thoroughly.


----------



## red admiral (Jan 17, 2010)

It would be undeniably useful to read German (or any others) research around the topic. It's always good to see how others approach the same problems. It's difficult to say that this had any large contribution to Soviet turbojet development. At the same time the British help with long term problems shouldn't be overstated. It gave them two engines (RD-500 and RD-45) that immediately worked well without problems (excepting lifetime issues due to Soviet materials) to power a number of prototype jet aircraft. The couple of years afterwards, the engines were studied and improved types emerged that were more suitable for Soviet use. At the same time, materials being developed to give better lifetime as those couldn't be simply copied from the British engines. By 1950 the pieces came together with the VK-1 series.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 17, 2010)

Magnon said:


> It was also used in a ground attack role in the low countries during WW 2.



Besides bouncing some V-1s that is all it was used for...


----------



## parsifal (Jan 17, 2010)

You cannot get a meaningful picture of the Meteors capabilities, during WWII, because of its extremely limited deployment. It seems to me that the British made sure they could build Jet technologies, just in case they were needed, and then more or less left the technology at that experimental state until after the war. To determine the true potentialities of the Meteor one has to look at its postwar applications, but then that raises the tricky question of what might have happened to the me 262 if it had been allowed to develop postwar in the same fashion.

My opinion, based on very little admittedly is that the Me 262 had the advantages of speed, and firepower, it seems likley that the Meteor could outturn the 262. I dont know about dive or climb characteristics. Whilst the Me 262 had a firepower advanatage, the Meteor carried more than enough punch to deliver lethal blows in a short space of time. It seems a lot would depend on the combat situation and the pilots flying the aircraft in that fight.....


----------



## Colin1 (Jan 17, 2010)

If we're venturing into Luft46 territory
the Me262 may well not have survived that long post-war, or rather, might have been replaced quickly by something more generally capable. The Ta183 raises its contentious head once more...

Previous post was pretty much on the button, it's trickier than it looks; the best of the Meteor was post-war but the Me262 (personal opinion) may well have been rapidly supplanted by something else.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 17, 2010)

I have to agree with both parsifal and Colin here. 

I think that if you compare the WW2 variants here, the Me 262 has the edge because of its armament and performance. The Meteor progressed very fine after the war, but you can not really compare those to the Me 262. At the same time the Me 262 in my opinion had more room to progress had the war continued. Now having said that, as Colin said I believe that the 262 would have quickly been replaced by aircraft that were much better such as the Ta 183 and the P.1101. Of course this is purely "What If"...


----------



## Magnon (Jan 17, 2010)

The thrust to weight ratio of the Meteor F4 with Derwent 5 engines was 0.47 as against 0.28 for the Me 262. Ref app-a3

*Hence the acceleration of the Meteor was light years ahead on this fact alone. When you factor in the consideration that with the Jumo 004, if the throttle was opened up rapidly the low-grade turbine blades were liable to catastrophic failure, there is absolutely no comparison betwen the two machines.*

The poor acceleration was not a problem in the role as bomber destroyer, but in dogfighting, would have been absolutely crucial.

The British had already taken out the world speed record of 606 in a Meteor F3 in 1945, admittedly stripped of armament. The successor F4 had 50% more thrust, and was flown in August 1945, thus technically within the WW 2 time period:
“...Rolls-Royce responded by producing a scaled down version, 85.5% of the size of the Nene, which it gave the name Derwent V. This new engine provided 3,500lb of thrust, a 50% increase on the power offered by the Derwent IV used in later Meteor IIIs. The Derwent V ran for the first time on the test bench on 7 June 1945.
This new engine was then fitted to a Meteor Mk.III (serial EE360), to make the F Mk.IV prototype. This made its maiden flight on 15 August 1945...”​ref Gloster Meteor F Mk.IV

It would be a bit rough to penalise the Meteor for the fact that the Allies finished the war somewhat early!


----------



## Magnon (Jan 17, 2010)

Quote re the Me 262 and the Meteor F4:
Performance characteristics shown in table I give a maximum speed for the Gloster Meteor F. Mk. 4 of 570 miles per hour, or a Mach number of 0.81, at 20000 feet. One source (ref. 162) indicates that at high speeds the Meteor experienced large trim changes, high aileron stick forces, and a tendency toward snaking. Snaking may be described as a self-sustained yawing oscillation; it plagued many of the earlier jet fighters. According to reference 188, numerous modifications were tried in an effort to cure the problem on the Meteor - none of them were entirely successful. (Later research indicated that the problem was probably related to incipient flow separation from the relatively thick airfoil sections used in the tail.) Climb performance of the aircraft was outstanding. The sea-level rate of climb was 7500 feet per minute, and an altitude of 30 000 feet could be reached in 5 minutes. Clearly, the performance of the Meteor F. Mk. 4 was much superior to the performance of the Messerschmitt Me 262A for which data are given in table V. To put this comparison in proper perspective, however, the Meteor F. Mk. 4 did not fly until after the end of World War II and had a thrust-to-weight ratio of 0.47 as compared with 0.28 for the earlier German aircraft. The author's analysis of the physical and performance characteristics of the two aircraft suggests that the superior performance of the Meteor was due to the higher thrust of its engines and not to any inherent superiority in aerodynamic design.​Ref: ch11-2

Regarding the control problems at transsonic speeds, the Me 262 was "uncontrollable at speeds over 600 mph" as quoted by Adolf Galand.

_(Now I wouldn't want it to be thought that I'm implying that the German government foresaw this whole debate and cunningly capitulated early in order to deny the F4 the opportunity of being brought into service during WW2.)_


----------



## Njaco (Jan 17, 2010)

Was the Meteor Mk V operational bbetween May 1944 and May 1945 or are we just comparing the last variants available, without concern for further development?


----------



## riacrato (Jan 18, 2010)

We are.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 18, 2010)

Magnon said:


> It would be a bit rough to penalise the Meteor for the fact that the Allies finished the war somewhat early!



But it is okay to penalize the Me 262 because it was not allowed to progress like the Meteor? 



Njaco said:


> Was the Meteor Mk V operational bbetween May 1944 and May 1945 or are we just comparing the last variants available, without concern for further development?



How many times is this going to have to be brought up?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 18, 2010)

Magnon said:


> The thrust to weight ratio of the Meteor F4 with Derwent 5 engines was 0.47 as against 0.28 for the Me 262. Ref app-a3
> 
> *Hence the acceleration of the Meteor was light years ahead on this fact alone. When you factor in the consideration that with the Jumo 004, if the throttle was opened up rapidly the low-grade turbine blades were liable to catastrophic failure, there is absolutely no comparison betwen the two machines.*
> 
> The poor acceleration was not a problem in the role as bomber destroyer, but in dogfighting, would have been absolutely crucial.



I could tell you first hand this argument about acceleration is bogus. Upon take off, your cruise is usually over 90%. Once entering combat you're at the upper end of the power level setting and can only go to 100% for very short periods of time. At worse you're looking at about a 20 second spool up time. This would only come into play if a 262 pilot was "asleep at the wheel" and allowed himself to get jumped at low speeds. The other time this would come into play is at takeoff and landing which is well documented.

Unless entering combat during take off and landing, "acceleration" is hardly going to be noticed, especially if you're already at higher power lever settings at higher airspeeds.


----------



## Njaco (Jan 18, 2010)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> But it is okay to penalize the Me 262 because it was not allowed to progress like the Meteor?
> 
> 
> 
> How many times is this going to have to be brought up?



Exactly. I don't know how you can compare one aircraft that was suddenly stopped in its design evolution to another that was allowed to play it out.

Kinda like comparing a 2004 Mustang to a 1983 Chevy Citation.


----------



## Magnon (Jan 18, 2010)

Germany and Britain destroyed each other in World War 2. At the end, Germany was a pile of rubble and Britain was bankrupt. 
The economic cost of the war has been estimated at US$1500 billion.
Of this, the US spent 21%, Britain 20%, Germany 18% and the USSR 13%.
(Source: The Penguin Atlas of World History ; Hermann Kinder and Werner Hilgemann; Originally published as _Atlas zur Weltgeschichte_)
Relative populations were US 120m, Britain 48m, Germany 90m and USSR 200m.

Germany and Britain were akin to the 20th Century Sparta and Athens. Sparta and Athens essentially fought each other to exhaustion in the Peloponnesian War, allowing the barbaric Macedonians to move in to take over entirely. I'll leave you to guess who the equivalent modern-day barbarians might be (I'm not thinking of any one nation). 

The bottom line is that both aircraft were great machines for their time. A tragedy that they were being developed to fight each other.

Adolf Galland admired his enemy. In a convestation with Hitler, he went out of his way to express this:
"...I expressed great admiration for our enemy across the water. I was embittered by several insidious and false representations and commentaries by rhe press and on radio, which had referred to the RAF in condescending and presumptuous tone. I expected contradiction or anger from Hitler when I gave him a different picture. On the contrary he did not interrupt me, not did he try to change the subject. He nodded repeatedly and said that my description confirmed his beliefs...The decison, he said, had been all the more difficult for him, to wage this life-and-death struggle, which could only end with the total destruction of one or the other... If we won the war, a vacuum would be created by the destruction of Great Britain, which it would be impossible to fill..."

In fact, as I said, there was effectively mutual destruction.

By the way, there is a lot more in this vein, and the whole book is an excellent read.

I should have said I was quoting from _The First and the Last_ in the above


----------



## riacrato (Jan 19, 2010)

Are we still talking about the Me 262 and Gloster Meteor?


----------



## Waynos (Jan 19, 2010)

Yes, I found the excerpt fascinating magnon, but maybe it should be in its own thread? The potentialities of a 'no war' situation in which not only Britian and Germany, but also France, are not shattered by war are intruiging, but not really for this thread.


----------



## Kurfürst (Jan 19, 2010)

Magnon said:


> Germany and Britain were akin to the 20th Century Sparta and Athens. Sparta and Athens essentially fought each other to exhaustion in the Peloponnesian War, allowing the barbaric Macedonians to move in to take over entirely. I'll leave you to guess who the equivalent modern-day barbarians might be (I'm not thinking of any one nation).



Hm, though a bit offtopic, I actually like this analogue quite a bit! 8)


----------



## Colin1 (Jan 19, 2010)

Magnon said:


> Germany and Britain were akin to the 20th Century Sparta and Athens. Sparta and Athens essentially fought each other to exhaustion in the Peloponnesian War, allowing the barbaric Macedonians to move in to take over entirely.
> 
> I'll leave you to guess who the equivalent modern-day barbarians might be (I'm not thinking of any one nation).
> 
> ...both aircraft were great machines for their time. A tragedy that they were being developed to fight each other.


Didn't the Macedonians give us the phalanx? And Alexander the Great? Can't have been that barbaric then... however, I digress, as do you - how on earth did you make the jump from 1st-generation jets to ancient history?

My guess is lawyers. Estate agents?

Tragedy? Why? War is tragedy, the development of a warplane is not. Surely the sole and unambiguous reason for a warplane's development is war? Should we wail and gnash our teeth when it expedites its role with greatness? Even the greatness of our foe's warplane isn't a tragedy, more like bloody inconvenient.


----------



## Magnon (Feb 8, 2010)

The later F3 Meteors had a speed of 490 mph vs 540 for the ME 262. The Meteor had better maneuverability due to its lower wing loading. It had 862 m/s cannon vs 500 m/s for the ME 262 (72% higher velocity). This was crucial for accurate weapon aiming during dogfighting. 

It had a much more reliable engine: 150 hrs TBO against 10 hrs. The output of both aircrafts' engines would deteriorate with % of allowable maximum TBO expended. Much less critical for the Meteor. The axial flow compressor was prone to surge (i.e. compressor blade stall) causing drastic loss of power during acceleration.

The Meteor had better initial acceleration and climb rate due to its higher temperature turbine blades and the Jumo's surge problems. The Jumo 004 was liable to destroy the turbine blades if acceleration was pushed too far - it needed a very high air/fuel ratio to keep temperatures down to acceptable levels.

The Meteor had a longer range due to its relatively more efficient higher pressure ratio jet engine (Derwent 4 was 3.9:1 as against the Jumo's 3:1, a margin of 30%).

Speed isn't everything. The more maneuverable Mitsubishi Zero was able to run rings around the early Allied fighters in spite of its lower speed. The early Allied fighters were reduced to hit-and-run tactics and two-on-one tactics to take out the Zero. The later Allied fighters had much better acceleration and climb rate and used these to advantage. The high thrust/weight ratio and more maneuverable subsonic Harrier was able to outfight the supersonic Mirage in the Falklands.

The Meteor had superior maneuverability and usable acceleration along with a much higher velocity dogfighting weapon.

A thought experiment: if I was given the first choice of machine in a dogfight between the Me 262 and the Meteor 
- over neutral territory such as the North sea (with no prospect of rescue)
- with time since last overhaul of 5 hrs in both cases,
I would have no hesitation of choosing the latter.


----------



## Kurfürst (Feb 8, 2010)

Magnon said:


> It had 862 m/s cannon vs 500 m/s for the ME 262 (72% higher velocity). This was crucial for accurate weapon aiming during dogfighting.



Hi, both seem to carry the standard anti-bomber armament of 4x20mm Hispano and 4x30mm MK 108. I am not sure there's much to it, given that the armament was choosen for the tactical role the fighter was to be employed - basically it would be no trouble to replace the four MK 108s with say four MG 151/20s. Probably an even better choice would be a pair of ultra-high velocity MK 103s against both fighters and bombers, but that would sacrifice the extreme weight of fire from the quad MK 108 battery, at similar weight...



Magnon said:


> It had a much more reliable engine: 150 hrs TBO against 10 hrs.



Do you have a manual for the RR jet engines perhaps? I am trying to find an accurate TBO time for them. As for the Jumo 004B, the TBO time was given as 50 hours in the manual. 



Magnon said:


> Speed isn't everything. The more maneuverable Mitsubishi Zero was able to run rings around the early Allied fighters in spite of its lower speed. T



But then I have to wonder what other quality made the Me 262 so deadly in face of impossible odds, if it was not massive speed advantage or why was then the more manouverable Hurricane phased out in favour of the faster Spitfire..  The Zero is an odd example - despite its high maneuverability, the Japanese designers considered the Zero to be a compromise, sacrificing maneuverability for speed; the idea was that good pilots (and they had plenty!) can outmaneuver even the more maneuverable planes, but no matter how good they are, they cant catch faster planes.



Magnon said:


> A thought experiment: if I was given the first choice of machine in a dogfight between the Me 262 and the Meteor
> - over neutral territory such as the North sea (with no prospect of rescue)
> - with time since last overhaul of 5 hrs in both cases,
> I would have no hesitation of choosing the latter.



When did the RAF began to operate the Meteor over enemy/neutral territory with no prospect of rescue..? The type was limited to operation over England for essentially its whole combat carrier in World War II..


----------



## Milosh (Feb 8, 2010)

Kurfürst said:


> When did the RAF began to operate the Meteor over enemy/neutral territory with no prospect of rescue..? The type was limited to operation over England for essentially its whole combat carrier in World War II..



Meteor F3s were deployed to Melsbrook Belgium on Jan 20 1945 with 616 Sqd. So ~14 weeks over continental Europe.

The first Meteor, EN219, was delivered to 616 Sqd July12 1944. So ~22 weeks over English soil.


----------



## parsifal (Feb 8, 2010)

Njaco said:


> Exactly. I don't know how you can compare one aircraft that was suddenly stopped in its design evolution to another that was allowed to play it out.
> 
> Kinda like comparing a 2004 Mustang to a 1983 Chevy Citation.



I kinda understand where you are coming from, but the original question posed in the thread, did not place any caveats on timeframes or development times for the respective aircraft. If we were comparing the F-14 to the me 262, these two aircraft are separated by 40 years of development. We would have no alternative othe than to compare the 1945 Me 262, to the 1985 F-14.

Same applies to our comparison of the Me 262 to the Meteor. The meteor was given time to develop and mature, the Me 262 was not. Tough break for the 262, but we are still being relevant to the original question when we compare the meteor of the Korean war, to the 262 of 1945


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 8, 2010)

Magnon said:


> The Meteor had better initial acceleration and climb rate due to its higher temperature turbine blades and the Jumo's surge problems. The Jumo 004 was liable to destroy the turbine blades if acceleration was pushed too far - it needed a very high air/fuel ratio to keep temperatures down to acceptable levels.


I'd like to know your source for such a statement. As stated earlier, for the most part in combat acceleration is just about a nil issue unless a sleeping pilot is cruising at 80%. You're flying these jet aircraft well above 90% and either the -262 or Meteor are not going give you blazing acceleration at speed and altitude.

Please explain this "very high air/fuel ratio to keep temperatures down to acceptable levels." The most critical time for a turbine engine as far as temps are concerned is during start. You're also limited on the time you're running 100% but at the same time you could exceed the specified time for running 100% and never exceed TIT or EGT limits. So tell us - where did you come up with this stuff????


----------



## delcyros (Feb 8, 2010)

Magnon said:


> Sparta and Athens essentially fought each other to exhaustion in the Peloponnesian War, allowing the barbaric Macedonians to move in to take over entirely.



I am afraid but that apears to be factual incorrect if not outright wrong. The fighting between Sparta and Athens through much of the second half of the 5th century BC did not brought Macedonia to any power in ancient Greece. In fact, both city-alliances prolonged combat allowed Thebes to raise in power. Thebes is a city in Thessaly (central Greece), not Macedonia (northern Greece). The Maedonians later won over the Thebans in order to dominate Greece in the 4th century BC. Neither the Thebans nor the Macedonians were "barbaric". In both landscapes Greek was the language spoken by native speakers and both landscapes had close relations to the centers of greek culture in the timeframe in question.

best regards,


----------



## red admiral (Feb 8, 2010)

> The Meteor had better initial acceleration and climb rate due to its higher temperature turbine blades and the Jumo's surge problems.



Actually, the Jumo 004 was operating at higher temperatures than the British period engines (around 775°C as opposed to 750°C) which in part caused the lower life. Still you get more thrust from higher temperatures so it just depends where you want the emphasis. Acceleration and climb rate are relating more to the higher thrust/weight ratio of the Meteor. The increasing thrust ratings were mostly due to increases in mass flow rate rather than efficiency gains or higher temperatures.



> As stated earlier, for the most part in combat acceleration is just about a nil issue



Acceleration isn't a non-issue in combat. It's very useful to regain speed after you've bled it off during manoeuvering, or for simply running away.



> The most critical time for a turbine engine as far as temps are concerned is during start.



I seem to remember your experience is with turboshafts for helicopters? For other aircraft, it's at high altitude at the top of the climb where the engine is working hardest and temperatures are most critical - high thrust needed for climb and large temperature differential.



> The meteor was given time to develop and mature, the Me 262 was not.



It's worth pointing out that the performance of the Meteor didn't really develop much post-WWII. Development was in getting a jet to work in squadron service and then adding bits like AI radar to replace wartime aircraft. There's a pretty solid line of evolution between the Meteor and the Javelin which is where the performance development comes in - it's just that the developed version of the Meteor weren't built, and eventually became the Javelin.



> Do you have a manual for the RR jet engines perhaps? I am trying to find an accurate TBO time for them. As for the Jumo 004B, the TBO time was given as 50 hours in the manual.



I think figures for lifetimes during operational useage would be a more profitable comparison.


----------



## Magnon (Feb 8, 2010)

"...The Jumo 004B-4 reliabillity issue was in part caused by a lack of acceleration control in the primitive centrifugal governor based fuel delivery control system, this allowed the pilot to damage the turbine blades via too fast a throttle movement which would then need to be replaced. The alloy was prone to this and its crystalline structure would be changed so that in the event of mishandling the engine needed to be pulled and the turbine replaced. The acceleration limiter was scheduled for delivery in mid April. (the less mature BMW 003 however got its). Another weakness was problems with the controls of the variable area nozzle which determined backpressure, airflow and temperature through the whole engine as well as the lack of work in developing electronics for the thermocouples to bypass fuel despite provision to do so..."

Re: First USAAF P-51 with a Merlin


----------



## Magnon (Feb 8, 2010)

“One of the longstanding myths surrounding the Me 262 is that it should have been ordered into production sooner. Had the airframes been completed earlier they would merely have had to wait longer to receive engines. Thus, had the Luftwaffe exercised less caution and ordered the Me 262 into mass production at an earlier date, it would not have materially affected the situation.” 
“One of the major problems was that Junkers was producing a state-of-the-art engine without the proper materials. Ideally, nickel and chromium would have been used in the high-temperature areas of the engine. However, these materials were in short supply in Germany, and substitute materials were pressed into service for the production 004B. For example, the combustion chambers were made out of Tiefziehblech Flw 1010, basically a mild steel alloy that was coated with aluminum powder for heat resistance, resulting in frequent failures. The early production 004B engines had a service life of less than 10 hours, compared to almost 50 hours for the pre-production 004A that had used better materials. The flow through the engine had a tendency to break down at moderate speeds and high altitudes, resulting in compressor stalls. The fuel flow was also extremely difficult to regulate, the turbine burning out if the fuel was admitted too quickly, and flaming-out if admitted too slowly. More than any other single factor, the difficulties in getting reliable engines limited the Me 262's effectiveness...” 

“...The general performance of the Meteor Mk I was inferior to the Me 262, but the Mk III closed most of the gap. Top speeds were roughly comparable, but the Meteor had better acceleration. The Derwent engines were more reliable than the Jumos in the Me 262 and had better throttle response...”
Me 262 Wunderplane Or Compromise

It should be noted that there was plenty of nickel available in Germany for armour plate. There would have been ample tied up in the hull of the Tirpitz alone, which never fired on an enemy ship, and spent most of the war hiding in the Norwegian fjords.


----------



## Magnon (Feb 8, 2010)

"> > What about the combustion chamber burnouts? This was caused by fast
> > throttle handling leading to excess fuel supply before engine
> > compressor spool up had diluted the fuel with air sufficiently. The Me
> > 262's Jumo 004B suffered from it, the BMW003 however was far more
> > immune from it because it had throttle limiting; something apparently
> > incorporated in the Jumo 004D which was entering into production as the
> > war closed."
>
>" So the engine which wasn't used was better than the engine which was used?
> That hardly helps the Me 262 as it historically existed."

"...The Jumo 004D engine was built, entering mass production and certainly
used on test aircraft. It was scheduled to reach the troops in the
first week of April 1944. It had two primary modifications: an
'acceleration limiter' that prevented over temperature situation
developing in the engine due to throttle handling and [f]uel injection
nozzles to provide finer atomisation at idling speeds and high
altitudes. Due to this and other modifications thrust went from 900kg
to 1050 and official MTBO went from 25 hours to 60 hours."

"I've seen documentation that looks to me that either whole aircraft
with Jumo 004D were to be sent out in the first week of april 1945 or
that the engines (as replacemements) were sent out. This was a month
before war's end..."

source _The story of German U-864_


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 8, 2010)

Magnon said:


> "...The Jumo 004B-4 reliabillity issue was in part caused by a lack of acceleration control in the primitive centrifugal governor based fuel delivery control system, this allowed the pilot to damage the turbine blades via too fast a throttle movement which would then need to be replaced.



What you described there was typical of just about any early jet engines - now I'd agree more prone to the Jumo.

Your cut and past posts don't say much.


----------



## GrauGeist (Feb 8, 2010)

> It should be noted that there was plenty of nickel available in Germany for armour plate. There would have been ample tied up in the hull of the Tirpitz alone, which never fired on an enemy ship, and spent most of the war hiding in the Norwegian fjords.


The Tirpitz was an asset held in perpetual reserve. The Admiralty had always hoped on an improved situation where they would be able to get her into battle (which never happened). Trying to recover anything on that scale would have meant moving her from her protected position into a drydock capable of a large scale salvage operation and that just wasn't going to happen.

Also, the Nickle itself was worthless to the BMW-003, Jumo 004B and the Hs11 without Chromium.


----------



## Magnon (Feb 8, 2010)

The Jumo had stainless steel blades. Stainless has around 8% chromium...

The bottom line is that Germany had the materials, just misdirected them.


----------



## GrauGeist (Feb 8, 2010)

Actually, the (hollow) blades were made from a material called Cromadur, which is chromium, manganese, and iron...

The compressor components were made from aluminum coated mild steel.

The lack of raw specialty metals needed for the engines was simply not available as Germany's resources were stretched thin, so they had to improvise.


----------



## Magnon (Feb 8, 2010)

Cromadur has over double the chromium content of standard stainless!

"The production Junkers Jumo 004B-1 and the Jumo 004B-4 turbines and
stator blades used an austenitic 'stainless steel' like steel alloy
called tinadur or [a] concurrently used alternative called cromadur.
Tinadur was about 6% titanium 18% nickel 12% chromium with the balance
steel while cromadur substituted super-scarce nickel with manganese to
achieve an alloy of about 18% chromium, 15% manganese with only traces
of nickel with the balance steel. The BMW engines used a similar
alloy series called sicromal. This alloy was also used on gasoline
engined turbo superchargers and its shortage also explains the minimal
use of turbos on German aircraft."​
*The bottom line is that Germany had the materials, just misdirected them. *


----------



## GrauGeist (Feb 9, 2010)

I see that you keep emphasizing that Germany had the materials, but misdirected them.

The fact of the matter was, that when Germany desperately needed the raw materials for these engines, it was too late, and the sources for the materials were no longer available.

Had the RLM taken a bigger interest in Heinkel's He280 and what the combat jet aircraft offered in the late 1930's, then the jet engine would have been developed in a time when Germany's resources were available in larger quantities. Even if they had gotten behind Messerschmitt and his proposals in 1941, there was still time to develope the jet engines with the right materials, but that opportunity was passed over as well.

I also see you make reference to "steel" being a component of the Cromadur and Tinadur. Steel is iron containing carbon to give it strength, which was not present in the custom alloy. It was iron, which came from Sweden combined with the rare and exotic metals which came from various areas within the shrinking Third Reich.

The iron used in the custom alloy was there because of other needed materials not being available, so they had to use iron as a substitute, and in much larger quantities to make up for shortages of the other materials. This resulted in a much heavier composition and prone to heat fatigue and subsequent failure.

Krupp manufactured the Cromadur alloy, and it's composition was as follows: 
12% Chromium
18% Manganese
70% Iron

You'll see references to Tinadur which was used developed and used to some degree in the late production 004B engine, and it's composition is as follows:
6% Titanium
12% Chromium
18% Nickel
64% Iron

And as a side note, Stainless steel is an alloy of Iron and a minimum of 11% Chromium.

The bottom line is, Germany did not have the materials available late-war, and had to improvise...


----------



## Magnon (Feb 9, 2010)

I didn't refer to "steel" as a component in lieu of iron. My source did, and I thought it of so little importance that it was not worth correcting.


----------



## riacrato (Feb 9, 2010)

The bottom line is also that all you are doing is google-copy-paste whatever negative you can find on the plane. Clearly you knew the Me 262 to be inferior and directed your "research" accordingly .


----------



## Magnon (Feb 9, 2010)

Sorry


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 9, 2010)

If the shoe fits wear it...


----------



## parsifal (Feb 9, 2010)

I dont buy the argument about it being impossible to introduce the Me262 earlier than it was either. The argument to support this is basically that the engines were not ready before April '44. Might be true, but if the airframe was pushed forward, then so too would the engine completion....and the desaign and development of the engine had been completed some months or years before that April'44 date.

In other words, if the airframe was pushed forwad, then so too would the other elements of the package


----------



## Magnon (Feb 9, 2010)

"About 1,400 Me 262s were completed, and it is estimated that some 300
actually reached combat."

"April 10, 1945 epitomized the futility of the Luftwaffe’s efforts in
the face of Allied air dominance. On that date, some 60 Me 262s
engaged more than 1,000 Allied bombers and fighters. Twenty-seven
Allied aircraft were shot down, but 31 Me 262s, more than half the
defending force, were lost."

"The slow introduction of both the aircraft and the engine, at a time
when Allied strength was building, meant that Hitler’s decision on the
use of the Me 262 as a fighter-bomber had no effect whatsoever on the
outcome of the war."

"The first Allied jet, Britain’s Gloster Meteor, also entered service
in 1944, and the United States had its own jet fighter under
development. The Me 262 was the first of its kind, and fearsomely
advanced, but for Nazi Germany, it was too little, too late."​http://www.airforce-magazine.com/MagazineArchive/Pages/2008/November%...

© airforce-magazine.com material is under copyright by the Air Force
Association. All rights reserved

*The bottom line is that time was required to research around the problem of suitable materials. It needs time, even when you throw every resource you have at the problem.*


----------



## GrauGeist (Feb 9, 2010)

One of the problems that Heinkel and Messerschmitt faced early on, was Udet's disdain for those type of aircraft. When the He280 demonstrated it's capabilities in 1941, that should have amazed the RLM but instead received a literal yawn. The Luftwaffe leadership knew about the jet technology well before that point, but technically speaking, it wasn't until the demonstration of the He280 in the spring of 1941, that a jet powered combat aircraft proved what it could do.

Had it been recognized for what it was, and additional funding been made available for further developement for Messerschmitt and Heinkel, then the jet engine technology between the three manufacturers (Junkers, BMW and Heinkel-Hirth) would have had quite a head start in the war's timeline.

Unfortunately, there never was any significant backing by the RLM until later in the war.

What a difference 3 years would have made.


----------



## Magnon (Feb 9, 2010)

The British had that same problem... I think Machiavelli referred to something appropriate to this:

There is nothing more difficult to plan, more doubtful of success, more dangerous to manage than the creation of a new system. The innovator has the enmity of all who profit by the preservation of the old system and only lukewarm defenders by those who would gain by the new system.​
And Arthur Koestler: 
“…It all looks beautifully obvious – in the rear view mirror. But there are situations where one needs great imaginative power, combined with disrespect for the traditional current of thought, to discover the obvious...”​


----------



## riacrato (Feb 10, 2010)

parsifal said:


> I dont buy the argument about it being impossible to introduce the Me262 earlier than it was either. The argument to support this is basically that the engines were not ready before April '44. Might be true, but if the airframe was pushed forward, then so too would the engine completion....and the desaign and development of the engine had been completed some months or years before that April'44 date.
> 
> In other words, if the airframe was pushed forwad, then so too would the other elements of the package



The question is what are your variables. If you accept the political situation and the attitude towards / funding for jet engines as is I doubt any significant improvement can be made. And who says the airframe was pushed? It matured fairly normally as development proceeded and based on the results of the evaluation of the prototypes. It's not uncommon for one part of a system to mature faster than another one (see EF Typhoon).


----------



## Magnon (Feb 10, 2010)

With regard to Udet's lack of enthusiasm for jet propulsion in 1941, I have read somewhere that Hitler in about 1941 halted work on any weapon system that had a development timeline of more than six months, as he apparently believed that the Soviet Union would be defeated within that time.

If so, it's a prime example of "underestimating your enemy." The Japanese referred to it as "victory disease." Or from an ancient Greek perspective: 
"Hubris is excessive pride and arrogance, and Nemesis is the Greek goddess of retribution. According to Greek mythology Nemesis would send one calamity after another to any man expressing hubris"​
From a technical viewpoint, with regard to a previous comment about the importance of pressure ratio to jet engine efficiency, I quote:
_The efficiency of a jet engine is strongly dependent upon the Overall Pressure Ratio (Combustor Entry Pressure/Intake Delivery Pressure) and the Turbine Inlet Temperature of the cycle.​_Source: Jet engine - Everything on Jet engine (information, latest news, articles,...)
The Derwent and Jumo engines had very similar maximum cycle temperatures, but the pressure ratio of the Derwent was 30% better than the Jumo...

In terms of the importance of acceleration and "specific excess power,":
A high-powered fighter is also more likely to maintain a crucial overall energy advantage over its opponent. All air combat maneuvers (ACM) require a certain amount of physical energy, most simply thought of as airspeed plus altitude. When fighters perform the high-g maneuvers common in air-to-air combat, they must sacrifice one or both of these qualities, and there are fundamental limits to how much of each can be sacrificed. Altitude can obviously not go below the ground level, and airspeed can not fall below the stall speed of the fighter. If a pilot attempts a maneuver at too low an initial total energy level, he/she
will likely stall the airplane and become an easy target for a missile or gun kill. The fighter's engines add energy at a certain rate; the higher this rate, the greater can be considered the fighter's ability to maneuver. Higher engine power allows the airplane to maintain a high energy level and therefore engage
in more aggressive ACM.​The lower wing loading and quicker response of the Derwent to throttle would be crucial to maneuverability. 

These factors were obviously not important in the Me 262s designated role of bomber destroyer.

I apologise again for the "cutting and sticking."


----------



## kool kitty89 (Jul 12, 2010)

Magnon said:


> "> > What about the combustion chamber burnouts? This was caused by fast
> > > throttle handling leading to excess fuel supply before engine
> > > compressor spool up had diluted the fuel with air sufficiently. The Me
> > > 262's Jumo 004B suffered from it, the BMW003 however was far more
> ...



Another feature of the 004D was that it solved the vibration problems limiting it to 8700 RPM. It could safely go to 10,000 RPM with considerably increased thrust. (that would have been limited to emergency situations I believe, perhaps for take-off as well) The BMW-003E could also overrev iirc, but that was definitely limited to emergency use. (and was supposed to be carefully inspected after any such use)

The 004D also improved fuel economy somewhat.





Magnon said:


> Cromadur has over double the chromium content of standard stainless!
> 
> "The production Junkers Jumo 004B-1 and the Jumo 004B-4 turbines and
> stator blades used an austenitic 'stainless steel' like steel alloy
> ...



What gives you the idea they misused them and had enough early on? 
That quote you site clearly states that turbochargers were also scarce due to limited supply of such materials.

There are other mitigating factors like advanced ceramics in development at the time, but that wasn't introduced before the war ended. (not sure if it could have been accelerated either, but perhaps)


The BMW-003C and D using more advanced reaction type compressors are pretty interesting though, but those were a little further off than the 004D (or slightly modified E).

There are a lot of other interesting designs, but probably most so the HeS 30 (109-006): very compact, powerful, and efficient, seems to have stalled partially due to funding limitations (the RLM seemed to favor Junkers and BMW considerably more), but mainly due to outright cancellation in 1943 when development was moving along fairly smoothly it seems. It was dropped along with the HeS-8 in favor of the HeS-011 which didn't make it before the end of the war.
In hindsight, it certainly seems like the HeS 30 should have been the main priority for the Heinkel-Hirth engineers, that or perhaps had Junkers taken more interest in Adolf Muller's designs before he left for Heinkel opposed to solely favoring the far more conservative 004 design. (that delayed things about a year I think) Granted, the design he'd been working on at Junkers hadn't been the one taken up at Heinkel . (supposedly it was the simplest and most straightforward design, though that would seem the obvious course for Junkers as well if they took more interest -obviously the most practical and quickly implemented design would be desirable)

Dropping the HeS-8 wasn't such a bad idea as it seems relatively wasteful an problematic in development, plus used the rather odd set-up with a radial turbine Ohain had initially used. (not so much problematic for development as cost prohibitive due to the large size requiring far more materials -which were, of course, quite scarce -I think the main problem was the stability of the annular combustion chamber -even the HeS 30 opted for flame cans and the 003 used can-annual chambers iirc -chamber is annular but with a series of cylindrical combustion chambers within) The earlier HeS-6 might have been more worthwhile, at very least for the short term as it at least seemed to be already working fairly well and had a decent amount of thrust (~1300 lbs in 1940), but was bulky so designs would have had to cater to it as the UK and US jets did early on. (probably most practical in the interim, and still with the rather costly radial turbine -unless the more durable nature of such a turbine would have facilitated full mild steel construction or a more dilute steel alloy -air cooling would be necessary, probably non-hollow hub vented cooling as with some 004s -far more suited to radial turbines)

It's rather unfortunate for the German Jet program that something more conservative and straightforward like DeHavilland's Goblin was not among the designs: simple with a single-sided centrifugal compressor, straight-through flame-can type combustion chambers, and a conventional axial flow turbine. (the Goblin had one of the shortest development periods of any jet engines of the war -granted it was also one of the few that had relatively unhindered development- but I think it was initially a privately funded project as well)



Anyway, one comment to the actual main topic:
The Meteor durring the war was a far, far less capable combat aircraft. The improvements made to the Mk.III helped a fair bit, but even then the performance gain was somewhat limited: once the much improved streamlined engine nacelles were introduced that had a major impact though. (the original stubby nacelles were the cause of the majority of the compressability/buffeting issues of earlier meteors -after that the tail surfaces became the biggest issue I think, but at much higher speeds than the nacelle problems)
If the Derwent II or IV engines were introduced before the end of the war (not sure if those actually saw full production though -soon after the war the new Derwent V became standard).

The only other issue was the ailerons being wired heavy to limit roll rate/stress due to concerns about integrity after a failure on one of the prototypes.

The Me 262 is a fundamentally superior arirframe though if you look purely from that aspect. Much cleaner high-speed oriented design. Thinner, higher aspect-ratio wing with slats to address low-speed lift issues. More flexible armament placement (I think 6 20 mm guns could fit reasonably, among other arrangements -the original plan for the meteor, but later found unacceptable).
Longer range as well, much more so with more efficient engines. (even the 004D; 003 more so -also lighter- not to even mention the HeS 30 )




Edit: 
As for Udet, it's my understanding that he was the exception to the RLM's early lack of interest in Jets, particularly in the case of Heinkel and it was he who set the deal to allow Heinkel to merge with Hirth if the He 280 were to fly by April of 1941,
See: http://www.cressnet.ir/Journals/J_E...NEERING_FOR_GAS_TURBINES&POWER_2000_APRIL.pdf pg 196


----------



## Magnon (Jul 13, 2010)

The Germans were rolling out Tiger and Panther tanks until very late in the war, all with around 4.5% nickel in their armour plate. The Russians used about one third of that, but made up for it by inventing sloped armour, which gave them a similar result in terms of protection. The German tanks rolled to a stop in the battle of the Ardennes forest because they ran out of fuel. They ran out of fuel because the USAAF was destroying their synthetic fuel plants quicker than they could be rebuilt. If greater priority was given to the Me262 program, the bombers may not have got through. Instead of putting a couple of hundred very unreliable jets into the air, they should have been able to put a couple of thousand reliable ones. Just imagine two thousand Me262s against less than a thousand bombers! 

With sufficient fuel, the Ardennes offensive may have worked. The Allies would have been in big trouble. Then again there was the A-bomb trundling along down the track...

I know its easy to make judgements with the benefit of hindsight, but I think it's fair to say they didn't get their priorities right in terms of giving nickel to the Me262 program.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 13, 2010)

Udet wasn't all that impressed with the He280 (or anything with jet engines, for that matter)...had Udet or any of the RLM leaders approved of the jet programs that were going on before or during the early stages of the war, much needed funding (and resources) would have been available for engine development.

As it was, Heinkel (along with the other engine developers) were primarily funding these projects out of thier pockets and development suffered terribly.


----------



## Magnon (Jul 13, 2010)

On 7 November 1945, a Meteor F3 powered by Derwent Vs set a world air speed record of 606 mph (975 km/h) TAS. The Me262 was well and truly unstable at this speed. Refer to the *Me 262 A-1 Pilot’s Handbook*:
_“...Speeds of 590 mph are reported to have been obtained in a shallow dive 20 to 30 degrees from the horizontal. At speeds of [590 to 620] the air flow around the aircraft reaches the speed of sound and it is reported that the control surfaces no longer affect the direction of flight. The results vary with different airplanes; some wing over and dive while others dive gradually...”_


----------



## Erich (Jul 13, 2010)

you cannot make any viable comparison to speeds with the Nov. 45 date Magnon. did you know completely revamped engines and redesigned swept back wings and streamlined body were to be fitted to just the night fighter version of the Me 262 in July of 45 had the war lurked onward ? ........ so with that we can only guess what the crate would of attained and also what of the day fighter version had it be re-assesed as it was in the spring of 45.

maybe it would of flown at 600mph plus but we will never know


----------



## Magnon (Jul 13, 2010)

Yes, and other changes were mooted too:
“Since the long nose of the Me-262 led to poor pilot visibility, reconnaissance and bomber variants were proposed with the cockpit moved well forward, giving the aircraft something of the look of the Gloster Meteor.”
The Messerschmitt Me-262 Schwalbe / Sturmvogel


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 13, 2010)

Interesting site, Magnon, but that page has a number of errors. The author also tends to put in speculation where they're lacking info...

As far as the Me262 HG goes, it was the design Willy Messerschmitt wanted for the next step in the Me262's evolution.


----------



## Magnon (Jul 15, 2010)

‘At a conference summoned by Göring two days later, ‘to clarify things once and for all’, Professor Messerschmitt and even Petersen blamed the absent Milch for the misunderstandings which had arisen. Göring announced that he was transferring the project from Galland’s office to that of the General of Bombers, ‘to avoid further errors’. When Petersen admitted that the jet engine had a tendency to ‘flame out’ above twenty-eight thousand feet if throttled back to reduce speed, Göring triumphed, ‘Then I can only say, the Führer was right again, with his brilliant and instinctive touch!’ And when Professor Messerschmitt began to explain how, after releasing its bomb, the Me 262 was just like a fighter again, Göring anxiously interrupted, ‘Not like “a fighter” again, but “super fast” again. Stop calling it a “fighter”!’
(The Rise and Fall of the Luftwaffe)


Lions led by jackasses...


----------



## Magnon (Jul 16, 2010)

_______


----------



## Magnon (Jul 16, 2010)

From the same source:

_...Hitler summoned the seven top aircraft designers to the Obersalzberg and interrogated each in turn. Heinkel now displaced in his own factory by a government ‘Kommissar’ excused his He 177’s tardiness by the ‘hitherto unshakable requirement that it should dive-bomb’ (although Göring had emphatically removed this requirement ten months before). Messerschmitt’s contribution to Hitler’s state of mind was even more remarkable. For an hour he heaped criticism on Milch, and actually warned Hitler and Speer who chanced to come in against the folly of mass producing the Me 262 fighter, since its fuel consumption was, he alleged, higher than that of piston-engined fighters like the Me 209 which Milch in his sublime ignorance had now cancelled. Thus at the very time that Milch was campaigning for priority for the jet fighter, its own designer was sowing the seeds of doubt in Hitler’s mind..._


----------



## Magnon (Jul 17, 2010)

_'...In fact, Hitler had strong doubts whether the Me 262 fighter version would really be of any use against the Allied fighters, which alone were the guarantee of enemy air supremacy. He believed the jets would find it tactically difficult to engage the far slower but more agile piston-engined Mustangs and Thunderbolts; the enemy would only have to curve and the jet would overshoot him. (This fear was to prove well-founded. In combat the Me 262 fighter’s chief success was to force the American long-range escort fighters to jettison their fuel tanks, which obliged them to turn back early; actual combat victories by the jet fighters were disappointingly few.) Göring pledged that every man working on the aircraft would now honourably try to achieve what Hitler ordered. On 27 May he telegraphed Milch emphatically: ‘The Führer has ordered that the Me 262 aircraft is to enter service exclusively as a high-speed bomber. The aircraft is not to be regarded as a fighter until further notice...’_
The British had thought about assassinating Hitler earlier in the war, but thought better of it because they realised he was their greatest asset.


----------



## Magnon (Jul 17, 2010)

The Me 262 Project gives a good opportunity to assess some of the design problems with the Me 262:

_"As the landing gear was known to be another weak area on the original Me 262, a detailed analysis of landing gear stresses was directed. This process revealed that a shock loading was generated by the spin-up forces of the large, heavy main wheels, which had to be reacted into by the wing landing gear attachment structure. This placed a severe demand upon wing spar area and the airframe simply had to absorb these forces. Over time, this would have had a devastating effect upon the aircraft.
In part, this problem can be traced to the history of the aircraft. As originally designed, the Me 262 was equipped with a standard tail wheel (in lieu of the nose wheel).
In the tail-dragger configuration, the main gear was bolted directly onto the wing spar; however, the tricycle modification resulted in the creation of a separate wing torque box to be used as a mounting point. This torque box was susceptible to damage, and very difficult to repair."​_
This is substantiated by the Me 262 A1 Pilots Handbook: 

_“In case of a very short flight in which fuel has not all been used from the auxiliary tanks, use caution in landing as the allowable landing weight is exceeded due to fuel load...”​_


----------



## Magnon (Jul 18, 2010)

From *ME262 Stormbirds at War*

Even this pro Me262 site admits some crucial failings in the Schwalbe:

_One of the many problems the design had to live with was that the materials necessary for proper heat proofing for the Jumo engines were extremely rare in war-torn Germany... _

[That’s a myth. They allocated plenty of nickel to the armour plating of an amazing fifty thousand tanks during the war, averaging around fifty tonnes each, including Tigers, Panzers I to V, and Elefants. If we assume that 40% of the tank mass is armour, that still gives around a million tonnes of armour. The armour plate had around 4.5% nickel content, representing 45,000 tonnes of nickel. A thousand tonnes would have been more than adequate for a Me 262 program of two thousand aircraft. With two thousand reliable and efficient jets (which the Me 262 wasn’t) at the core of the Luftwaffe, it could have been invincible. Air superiority would have been assured and the enemy armies would be going backwards leaving behind abandoned tanks which could be recycled for more nickel. Have I missed something here?] 

_...(as a result) alternate materials had to be used which resulted in engines that were less than reliable. *Many times a brand new engine would suffer catastrophic failure during initial run-up*. *Even the "good engines" might only last for 12 hours of operation.* And as General Galland himself remarked concerning the performance of the 262; "As a negative consequence, the war would most probably have been prolonged, and the Russians allowed more time to conquer further German territory. So let us now be satisfied with Hitler's mistakes towards the legendary Me 262."_
About.com: http://www.stormbirds.com/warbirds/history1.htm


----------



## Magnon (Jul 18, 2010)

[Hans Fey, Messerschmitt test pilot and technical inspector] says that the structural workmanship on the Me 262 is not as good as that on the Me 109. *When testing the Me 262, it was not infrequent for parts to be stripped off in fast, steep dives and Fey has himself lost cockpit covers, bomb racks and the needle valve [read variable area nozzle] of the tail pipe during dives. In fact, because of these uncertainties, the pilots rarely did a roll or similar maneuver during acceptance flights*...

Me262pilotdebrief


----------



## Magnon (Jul 19, 2010)

Approach and Landing:

“​The landing approach is made at 250 km/hr (155 mph). Use flaps as needed and carry 6000 – 7000 rpm so that the throttle can be opened quickly in case of a go-around.”

​“Note: If rpm is less than 6000, any advance must be made slowly to 7000 before opening wide. The airplane stalls at 112 to 125 mph.” 

Me 262 Pilot's Handbook​
This sounds problematical to me! Does anyone know if the pilots who flew this thing got some sort of stress allowance? Maybe they should have just automatically been awarded the Iron Cross when they climbed into the cockpit.

The Schwalbe needed to maintain relatively high thrust when landing because the engine would disintegrate if you had to rapidly accelerate from below 6000 rpm... At 6000 rpm, the engine was still developing about 40% power. Again, the Schwalbe had no air brakes... The Meteor did... 

See Ken Holt's narrative to get a feel for the problems. Arrival: Operations at Newark

Note that, all things being equal, the stress on the landing gear is a function of the square of the landing speed. See how the two aircraft compare in this regard:


Meteor	Stall speed 105 mph Landing speed 125 mph
Schwalbe	Stall speed 112 - 125 mph Landing speed 155 mph

On the basis of the above “rule of thumb,” the Schwalbe landing stresses would have been around 50% higher than that of the Meteor. However, as mentioned in a previous post, due to a change from tail wheel to tricycle undercarriage without adequate design rigour, the effective structural stresses were much higher again. Aluminium is unforgiving in terms of being subjected to heavy repeated loads. With the overload stresses being transmitted up to the wing from the undercarriage, it’s only a matter of time before a wing gives way as you are trying to pull high Gs in a turn. But as someone said in one of the previous posts, the Me 262 service life was accepted as only having to be about ten hours anyway...

“In case of a very short flight in which fuel has not all been used from the auxiliary tanks, use caution in landing as the allowable landing weight is exceeded due to fuel load...”
Me 262 A1 Pilots Handbook

That’s a masterpiece of understatement...

This whole problem is confirmed by another source:
“...The landing gear was also suspect, and many 262s were destroyed or damaged due to landing gear failure.”
http://www.military-art.com/mall/aircr​aftinfo.php?AircraftID=116

Further, because of their problem with the combination of the need for high landing speeds and the badly designed undercarriage, the Schwalbe tended to be limited operationally to concrete runways. Hence the Allies targeted these as being the zones where the Schwalbe was most vulnerable. At such a low level, when an aircraft was taken out, so inevitably was the pilot. There weren’t enough experienced pilots around to be able to afford to lose them as rapidly as they did. And only experienced pilots could hope to handle the Me 262. With a more capable aircraft, the Germans would have been able to disperse to a large number of small grass strips which would be hard to detect and thus target. In this regard, it’s been documented that a Meteor once landed in a ploughed field, refuelled, and took off again.


----------



## Magnon (Jul 19, 2010)

*BRAKE SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS*

*The braking systems of wartime German aircraft usually left something to be desired, and the Me 262 was no exception.* Brake fading and/or complete system failures were a common complaint. (For a brief description of such an incident in American hands, see Ken Holt's narrative on the Watson's Whizzers pages.)
The notoriously ineffective nose wheel brake has been eliminated altogether, although the original brake lines will be duplicated for appearance. Meanwhile, the marginally performing drum brakes on the main gear have been replaced by a cleverly-integrated disc brake system.


----------



## Magnon (Jul 19, 2010)

...Which was best? An axial compressor could achieve a higher efficiency under ideal conditions. It would have a smaller diameter, resulting in lower frontal area, lower blade tip speeds and the opportunity for an annular combustion chamber. Against this, it would be *mechanically less robust *and *aerodynamically much more sensitive to both intake conditions and downstream pressure changes*, such as those induced by rapid throttle movements. Both these could lead to *blade stalling and resulting surges*, which could in turn produce *catastrophic blade failures*. Pressure increase per row of blades was low, requiring at least eight rows with intermediate stator blades. A centrifugal compressor would be *simpler and cheaper to produce*, would be *more rugged *and *much more tolerant of the varying intake conditions and throttle changes encountered by a flight engine*. It would need to run at higher speeds but there was the extensive experience of small centrifugal compressors developed as aero-engine superchargers, whilst there was little prior art on axials...
...what would be the choice now, with all that is known of both axial and centrifugal compressors, if one was designing an engine to produce around 2,000lbs thrust, as those early designers were? An example is the Rolls-Royce Williams FJ44-2, an engine of 2,300lbs thrust currently produced for business jets. A fan engine (an idea also first patented by Whittle) it has a 3 stage axial (including the fan) driving a centrifugal compressor. Without the fan, this corresponds to Whittle’s original turbo-jet patent of 1930. The axial/centrifugal arrangement (or a centrifugal on its own) is still the most common configuration in small engines, the blades of an axial becoming too small for the later stages.
Welcome to the Frank Whittle Website


----------



## Magnon (Jul 19, 2010)

JUMO Engine
“In aircraft applications, engine power is characteristically measured in terms of thrust versus weight. The Jumo 004 was typical of early jet engines in that it was rather heavy, and not especially efficient.”

*[The thrust to weight ratio was much inferior to that of the British engines; just over half]*

“Production models produced 1,980 lbs. of thrust, and weighed in at about 1,800 lbs. Because of this, the engines were not extraordinarily effective at low airspeeds or altitudes or at reduced power settings.”
*“Long takeoff rolls (>3,000') were evidence of this phenomenon and, once aloft, power management became critical. Abrupt throttle changes or rapid maneuvering often resulted in a flameout, or worse, a complete compressor failure.”*“...*The [use] of inferior metals compounded an already problematic situation with the turbine blade design. These blades were rigidly mounted, contributing to severe root stress relief problems. The weaker metals simply could not withstand this kind of abuse and regular compressor failures were an inevitable consequence...”*
Me 262 PROJECT TECHNICAL DATA


----------



## Glider (Jul 19, 2010)

Magnon 
You seem to be ignoring the one indisputable fact that the Me262 was a whole generation ahead of the Meteor in aerodynamics. 
Also the Meteor was going through a considerable number of developments to resolve issues with lack of power and aerodynamics.


----------



## Magnon (Jul 20, 2010)

The "swept wing" was adopted to allow for a centre of gravity problem:
See ch11-2 - 
"According to reference 141, the wing was swept back slightly to position the wing aerodynamic center in the correct relation to the airplane center of gravity..."

Ref 141 is Boyne, Walterj.: Messerschmitt Me 262, Arrow to the Future (Washington: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1980).

Further from the NASA publication:
"...Although a strictly subsonic aircraft, the Meteor did have high performance for a straight-wing fighter; it was rugged, versatile, and capable of being readily adapted to various missions. An interesting account of the development and operational history of the Meteor may be found in reference 188."

Ref 188 is Shacklady, Edward: The Gloster meteor (MacDonald Aircraft Monographs, Doubleday Co., 1963). 

_If the Schwalbe was so advanced, why did it then have a lower limiting Mach number than the Meteor?_


----------



## Magnon (Jul 20, 2010)

The Jumo 004 had a maximum shaft rpm of 8700 for five minutes duration for takeoff or a maximum ten minutes at “military” [read emergency], with a maximum continuous rpm of 8400 (refer to the Me 262 A-1 Pilot’s Handbook). Note that the Schwalbe only reached its maximum rated speed of 515 mph under the emergency rating; hence they had only ten minutes endurance at that speed. Once the military rating had been utilised for the allowed length of time, the engines were required to be taken out of service as soon as possible to undergo rigorous inspection of the rotating components. 

The Derwent had a maximum rating of 16,500 rpm for takeoff with 15,000 for cruise. It idled at 6000 rpm! The stress in the turbine blades, assuming they’re the same diameter, is a function of the square of the rotational speed. On this basis the relative stress in the Derwent blading was around 360% that of the Jumo. 

In spite of this far higher stress in the jet engine’s most critical component, the endurance of the Derwent in service was over ten times that of the Jumo. The use of Nimonic 80 made the crucial difference. The Germans didn’t have it, and without it, going down the track of developing a reliable and rugged centrifugal compressor was never an option for them. The centrifugal compressor was much less prone to “surge” or blade stall than the axial flow type. When surge occurs, the airflow delivered by the compressor drops drastically while the same fuel flow continues. The result is overheating and catastrophic failure of the turbine blades. Refer to the Me 262 Project feedback:
*“Abrupt throttle changes or rapid maneuvering often resulted in a flameout, or worse, a complete compressor failure.”*
Me 262 PROJECT TECHNICAL DATA
The British developed the axial flow Metrovick engine (first bench tested in 1941) in parallel with the centrifugal Derwent and Goblin types, and this engine was actually trialled in the Meteor. However, as with the German axial flow engines, they were found to be inferior in terms of reliability at the time and hence didn’t find application until after the War as the Bristol Siddeley Sapphire. Armstrong Siddeley took over Metrovick’s jet business at the end of the war.

The jet engine needs a very high air/fuel ratio of up to 200:1 in order to keep the combustion temperatures down and not destroy the turbine blades (this is around ten times as high as that for a reciprocating engine). So in fact it’s essentially “air-cooled” by its own combustion air. On the other hand, in combat, you sometimes need to accelerate in a hurry. That means a big temptation to pour in the fuel, with a consequent high risk of damage to the engine. Hence the Meteor with its high temperature componentry had a crucial advantage here.

Any military man worth his salt will say: “don’t give me equipment which is so-called ‘state-of-the-art’ but liable to fall apart in the heat of battle. I want simple, well-proven, rugged technology which I can rely on to work.” Of course this is true for both the airframe and the engines. For the engines, it was certainly a crucial difference between the British and German technology at the time. Apart from this, however, there were other advantages in terms of things like efficiency, lower vulnerability to gunfire and much higher thrust to weight ratio.
Derwent I vs. Jumo 004

Overall pressure ratio: Derwent 3.9:1 
JUMO	3.14:1	

Engine Thrust	Weight *Thrust/weight *Max. Eng. Speed (rpm) 
JUMO 004B : 1980 lb.f:	1800 lb:	1.1:1 : 8,700	
JUMO 004D : 2315 lb.f:	1800 lb:	1.3:1 : 10,000	
Derwent IV : 2400 lb.f :	975 lb :	*2.4:1 *: 16,500	

*Specific Fuel Consumption:*
Derwent I *1.17 *lb/lbt/hr
JUMO 004B 1.39 lb/lbt/hr
(The Derwent IV specific fuel consumption was similar to the Derwent I. The efficiency was thus around *19%* better than that of the JUMO, principally due to the higher pressure ratio.)

The specific fuel consumption figures for the two engines were obtained from 
http://www.havovwo.nl/vwo/vna/bestanden/vnaskpwsstraalm.pdf


----------



## Glider (Jul 20, 2010)

Magnon said:


> The "swept wing" was adopted to allow for a centre of gravity problem:
> See ch11-2 -
> "According to reference 141, the wing was swept back slightly to position the wing aerodynamic center in the correct relation to the airplane center of gravity..."
> 
> ...



You seem to be a little selective in the quotes you are posting. Oother quotes from ch11-2 includ

i) Some increase in critical Mach number, however, probably resulted from the 18.5 leading-edge sweepback.
ii) In addition to improving takeoff and landing performance, the slats improved the high-g turning capability in maneuvering flight.
iii) The Me 262 seems to have been a carefully designed aircraft in which great attention was given to the details of aerodynamic design. Such attention frequently spells the difference between a great aircraft and a mediocre one. 
iv) As compared with the German fighter, the Meteor was characterized by both higher wing area and drag area. 
v) The paper compares the Me262 woth the Meteor IV a post war development of the Meteor.

Last but by no means least, the test pilot Eric Brown who was in the unique position of having flown all the war time jet aircraft, Meteor, Me 262, He 162, Arado 234 and P59 definately preferred the Me262 to the Meteor.


----------



## Magnon (Jul 20, 2010)

Admittedly if you have put nimonic hot end components in you have improved the Schwalbe considerably (the Americans did that, of necessity). 

Then, there are all the other myriad of problems such as 
- bad design rigour in terms of the undercarriage - liable to catastrophic failure If not the undercarriage, then watch our for the wings failing catastrophically
- poor rough field capability leading to inflexible deployment and susceptibility to allied targeting of concrete airstrips
- likelihood of flameouts due to surge
- very poor thrust to weight ratio (around half)
- poor thermal efficiency (around 20% difference)
- poor braking
- lack of air brakes
- poor integrity of construction - admittedly, this may be because they were using slave labour, but that was their problem - it fell to bits - they werent even game to do a roll in it!
- the axial flow engine was more susceptible to damage by gunfire, both because of its relatively large size (much longer) and being more flimsily built 

Apart from that it was not all that bad, really.


----------



## Glider (Jul 20, 2010)

Magnon said:


> Admittedly if you have put nimonic hot end components in you have improved the Schwalbe considerably (the Americans did that, of necessity).
> 
> Then, there are all the other myriad of problems such as
> - bad design rigour in terms of the undercarriage - liable to catastrophic failure If not the undercarriage, then watch our for the wings failing catastrophically


 I was not aware of signficant problems with the wings and would appreciate where you got that from. 


> - poor rough field capability leading to inflexible deployment and susceptibility to allied targeting of concrete airstrips


Show me any WW2 jet that operated from grass strips. In fact, show me any jet that operated from grass strips before the Jaguar which is the first I can think of. 


> - likelihood of flameouts due to surge


Again show me any early jet that wasn't suseptable to flame outs. Note, even the Hunter a plane I am very fond of in its first version, flamed out every time the guns were fired.


> - very poor thrust to weight ratio (around half)


And the Meteor was how much better? Show me any early jet that was much better.


> - poor thermal efficiency (around 20% difference)


On this you might have a point if you can tell me what your comparing things with.


> - poor braking


Somethng a lot of german aircraft had a problem with


> - lack of air brakes


True but it had other features used for many years and the lack of which didn't stop it being a success.


> - poor integrity of construction - admittedly, this may be because they were using slave labour, but that was their problem - it fell to bits - they werent even game to do a roll in it!


Where on earth did you get that from


> - the axial flow engine was more susceptible to damage by gunfire, both because of its relatively large size (much longer) and being more flimsily built


I don't know how much you know about jet engines but I promise you that it was no more vulnerable than any other jet of its time. All jets are wide open to damage from anything hitting them be it a bullet or a stone. Even modern ones have to be careful and they are far stronger than early engines.



> Apart from that it was not all that bad, really.


Wrong again, it was exceptional. Immune to interception when up to speed and able to pick its time and place to attack despite vast odd, I would say it was better than OK. Show me another plane in history of any time period that could do that. The F15 would be the only contender I could think of, another not bad aircraft.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 20, 2010)

Magnon said:


> Admittedly if you have put nimonic hot end components in you have improved the Schwalbe considerably (the Americans did that, of necessity).
> 
> Then, there are all the other myriad of problems such as
> - bad design rigour in terms of the undercarriage - liable to catastrophic failure If not the undercarriage, then watch our for the wings failing catastrophically
> ...



For the most part, all this could have been applied to just about any early jet in one capacity or another.



Glider said:


> Show me any WW2 jet that operated from grass strips. In fact, show me any jet that operated from grass strips before the Jaguar which is the first I can think of.


I seen L-29s operate from grass strips. I know the MiG-23 can as well.


----------



## Magnon (Jul 20, 2010)

i) Some increase in critical Mach number, however, probably resulted from the 18.5 leading-edge sweepback.
*OK. Some. But if so, why was its critical Mach number less than that of the Meteor? It means it was pretty insignificant, or that the Me262 was worse to start off with. This is borne out by the source Design for Air Combat: (DESIGN FOR AIR COMBAT) 
In terms of sweepback, the Me 163 Komet is discussed briefly and its reasons being given primarily for aerodynamic balance and to increase the moment arm on the control surfaces of the wing’s trailing edge... In terms of the Me 262, it says:
“The more conventional Me 262 was originally designed with straight wings. But, because it was one of the world’s first high speed aircraft not to have the forward weight concentration of piston engines, it turned out to be tail heavy. In order to restore the balance between the lift and mass centres, the wing outboard of the engine nacelles was swept back, as it had been on the DC3 airliner for similar reasons. Eventually the Me 262 was given a leading edge sweepback of 18.5 degrees across the span, a modest sweep which had little effect on drag...”*

ii) In addition to improving takeoff and landing performance, the slats improved the high-g turning capability in maneuvering flight.
*If it improved take-off and landing performance, I dread to think what it would have been without them. The take-off and landing performance was abysmal, as is confirmed by the statement in Me262PilotDebrief that they were developing assisted take-off systems. They needed between 2700 to 3300 feet on a concrete runway for take-off and landing with an experienced pilot. Fey recommended adding another 1050 feet for an inexperienced pilot. The landing speed of 155 mph made it not much better than Concorde’s 170 mph. You can’t land in a dirt field at that speed.
As I mentioned with regard to maneuvering, the structural integrity of the aircraft was appalling, as is indicated by the ME 262 Projects feedback:
“...a detailed analysis of landing gear stresses was directed. This process revealed that a shock loading was generated by the spin-up forces of the large, heavy main wheels, which had to be reacted into by the wing landing gear attachment structure. This placed a severe demand upon wing spar area and the airframe simply had to absorb these forces. Over time, this would have had a devastating effect upon the aircraft...” That means it’s going to fail, Glider.*

iii) The Me 262 seems to have been a carefully designed aircraft in which great attention was given to the details of aerodynamic design. Such attention frequently spells the difference between a great aircraft and a mediocre one.
*Well, now with the Me 262 Project implemented and the necessary rigorous design review being carried out, the chickens are coming home to roost on the Schwalbe’s design. * 
iv) As compared with the German fighter, the Meteor was characterized by both higher wing area and drag area. 
*The small wing area and high wing loading is usually regarded as a liability in terms of dogfighting. Aerodynamically it has some plusses, but also a lot of minuses. This is borne out by the fact that the Meteor was more stable at high speed, more stable in a dive, could out-turn the Schwalbe. The low wing loading of the Lockheed P80 is usually pointed to as a point of superiority versus the Me 262. You can’t have your cake and eat it too.*
v) The paper compares the Me262 with the Meteor IV a post war development of the Meteor.
*I didn’t comment on what the paper said about the Meteor F IV. If I did, I would have quoted:
“...Clearly, the performance of the Meteor F. Mk. 4 was much superior to the performance of the Messerschmitt Me 262A ... To put this comparison in proper perspective, however, the Meteor F. Mk. 4 did not fly until after the end of World War II and had a thrust-to-weight ratio of 0.47 as compared with 0.28 for the earlier German aircraft...” *


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 20, 2010)

Magnon said:


> The paper compares the Me262 with the Meteor IV a post war development of the Meteor.



It should have compared the 262 to the F.1. The Meteor IV didn't fly till the spring of 45.

Without going back on this thread, where did you come up with the 155 mph landing speed?

EDIT - I think your "155 mph landing speed" should have been "155 mph approach speed." Depending who you spoke to the Me-262 landed between 112-125 mph. From Zeno. page 4...

http://www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com/Images/Me262/ME262WendeL.pdf

Again from Zeno, this flight manual was prepared by the AAF.

http://www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com/Images/Me262/262PilotHandbook.pdf

Page 13 gives a stall speed "between 112 - 125 mph." I'd go with the 125 MPH if landing heavy.


----------



## red admiral (Jul 20, 2010)

Glider said:


> Magnon
> You seem to be ignoring the one indisputable fact that the Me262 was a whole generation ahead of the Meteor in aerodynamics.
> Also the Meteor was going through a considerable number of developments to resolve issues with lack of power and aerodynamics.



It's a bit optimistic to say that the Me 262 was particularly ahead in aerodynamics. It might look it, but in practice it's not. There's a nice report on ww2aircraftperformance.org which gives the drag for the various parts of both Meteor and Me 262. The lower drag of the Me 262 is pretty much all down to the smaller wing (itself having a knock on effect on takeoff/landing and turn performance)

I'm not sure what power issues you are referring to about the Meteor. There was a pretty well laid out plan for being able to adopt a variety of engines with increasing power. In 1943 alone you've got Welland, F2 and Goblin flying. Then various marks of Derwent as more power was got out of the engine (and eventually Sapphire and Avon engines mounted in the nacelles for some time to climb records postwar).


----------



## Kurfürst (Jul 20, 2010)

Magnon said:


> In spite of this far higher stress in the jet engine’s most critical component, the endurance of the Derwent in service was over ten times that of the Jumo.



I'd like to see a wartime Derwent engine manual listing the presrcibed TBOs for the jet, and the actual values achieved in service - which were typically half or third that of the nominal values. People keep throwing around such statements 99% of the time without any idea whatsoever what were the actual TBO times for these engines...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 20, 2010)

Kurfürst said:


> I'd like to see a wartime Derwent engine manual listing the presrcibed TBOs for the jet, and the actual values achieved in service - which were typically half or third that of the nominal values.


Agree. We had a lengthy discussion about this several months ago, mainly centered around the Welland, but I would say that although the Derwent had higher TBOs than the very first turbines, I doubt they ever made them, either attributed to operator error or teething pains.


----------



## Glider (Jul 20, 2010)

To help with the reading I have amended your replies but have tried to retain the essence.


Magnon said:


> i) Some increase in critical Mach number, however, probably resulted from the 18.5 leading-edge sweepback.
> *OK. Some. But if so, why was its critical Mach number less than that of the Meteor?...”*


I don't know which is the honest reply. However neither do you. I do know that the Me262 had a 50 mph advantage over the Meteor III which was operational so does it matter. A different question is why did the Meteor snake so much at high speed making it a poor gun platform at operational speeds. Again I don't know the reply but I do know the 262 is a hell of a lot faster and a better gun platform. 



> ii) In addition to improving takeoff and landing performance, the slats improved the high-g turning capability in maneuvering flight.
> If it improved take-off and landing performance, I dread to think what it would have been without them. The take-off and landing performance was abysmal, as is confirmed by the statement in Me262PilotDebrief that they were developing assisted take-off systems. They needed between 2700 to 3300 feet on a concrete runway for take-off and landing with an experienced pilot. Fey recommended adding another 1050 feet for an inexperienced pilot. The landing speed of 155 mph made it not much better than Concorde’s 170 mph. You can’t land in a dirt field at that speed.


The Meteor III had a take off distance to 50 ft of 1,000 yards, not so different to the 262. As for the dirt road non concrete operating jets. I am still waiting for your examples. The Meteor also hadan approach speed of 150mph and a touchdown speed of 115mph which seems similar to the 262.
FJ gave the Mig 23 which is a similar timeline to the Jaguar and the L28 which was around 1960. Your imput would be appreciated


> As I mentioned with regard to maneuvering, the structural integrity of the aircraft was appalling, as is indicated by the ME 262 Projects feedback:
> “...a detailed analysis of landing gear stresses was directed. This process revealed that a shock loading was generated by the spin-up forces of the large, heavy main wheels, which had to be reacted into by the wing landing gear attachment structure. This placed a severe demand upon wing spar area and the airframe simply had to absorb these forces. Over time, this would have had a devastating effect upon the aircraft...” That means it’s going to fail, Glider.[/B]


Correct but the difference is OVER TIME. A peace time development built to the standards of the year 2000, are very different to those built in late 1944 when the life expectancy of a warplane was measured in months, we have all heard about war weary aircraft. If you have examples of any failing during the war in any numbers please support your statement, if not it doesn't stand.



> iii) The Me 262 seems to have been a carefully designed aircraft in which great attention was given to the details of aerodynamic design. Such attention frequently spells the difference between a great aircraft and a mediocre one.
> *Well, now with the Me 262 Project implemented and the necessary rigorous design review being carried out, the chickens are coming home to roost on the Schwalbe’s design. *


See previous statement.



> iv) As compared with the German fighter, the Meteor was characterized by both higher wing area and drag area.
> *The small wing area and high wing loading is usually regarded as a liability in terms of dogfighting. Aerodynamically it has some plusses, but also a lot of minuses. This is borne out by the fact that the Meteor was more stable at high speed, more stable in a dive, could out-turn the Schwalbe. The low wing loading of the Lockheed P80 is usually pointed to as a point of superiority versus the Me 262. You can’t have your cake and eat it too.*


A few points here. 
i) If you have a 50 mph speed advantage why dogfight?.
ii) The Meteor wasn't more stable at speed. It yawed making it unsuitable as a gun platform. It was also very tiring to turn even at moderate speeds.
iii) Are you saying that high drag area is a good thing on a high speed jet?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 20, 2010)

I can not contribute to this discussion at the moment, with me being 11,000+ km from home and no sources available (and the fact that I don't have the time while on vacation over here...), *but I would just like to thank all of the forum members involved in this discussion.* Very good and interesting debate and discussion going on. I enjoy reading it the few hours a week that I have the time to do so at the moment.

So again thanks guys.


----------



## Magnon (Jul 20, 2010)

For a good account of what is being done in recreating a version of the Me 262 with General Electric J 85 engines, see Me 262 PROJECT TECHNICAL DATA


----------



## Magnon (Jul 20, 2010)

From INCO site - Inco?s Sudbury Nickel Mines were Critical During World War Two (Part 6 of 7) ? by Stan Sudol Republic of Mining

"One of the most noted contributions during the war was the invention of a new alloy for jet-propelled aircraft engines by International Nickel metallurgists from the Henry Wiggin Company Ltd. facilities in Birmingham.

This new alloy called “Nimonic 80” allowed the jet engine’s turbine parts, particularly the blades, to operate for long periods under tremendous stress, high heat and corrosive exhaust without deforming or melting. This new alloy was superior to German aircraft technology. The first British airplane outfitted with the new engine was the Meteor which first flew in 1943 and was finally approved for the air force in July, 1944.

The RAF Meteor squadrons were mostly used to counter the threat from the 7,000 V1 flying bombs that Germany fired across the English Channel at Britian. The Meteors could achieve a top speed of 480 m.p.h. This speed was fast enough to allow the Meteors to fly alongside the V1s and ‘knock’ them out of the sky by using their wing tips to flip the rockets on their backs.

After the war, the “Nimonic 80” nickel alloy set the stage for a revolution in jet propelled aviation. Inco research scientists would go on to be responsible with the development of about 80 per cent of the specialized nickel-based super-alloys that are used in jet engines today..."

From CHAPTER VI: Soviets in the Air

*MIG Fighters with Rolls-Royce Turbojets*

In 1946 the Soviets bought fifty-five Rolls-Royce centrifugal compressor type turbojets — twenty-five Nenes and thirty Derwents. These Rolls-Royce engines, the most advanced in the world for the time, were well suited to Soviet production methods and introduced the Soviets to the use of a centrifugal turbojet. Up to 1947 Russian jets were all of the axial-flow type based on German designs. These Rolls-Royce turbines proved to be the best possible equipment for the MiG-15, which was designed by Siegfried Gunther and put into serial production under the name of the Soviet designers Mikoyan and Gurevich. Gunther was brought to Moscow and appointed chief designer in the construction office in Podberezhye.

Two versions of the Rolls-Royce engines were produced at Engine Plant No. 45 near Moscow from 1948 to the late 1950s. The plant was toured in 1956 by U.S. Air Force General Nathan Twining, who noted that it contained machine tools from the United States and Germany, and had 3,000 workers engaged in producing the Rolls-Royce Nene.

In 1951 the American counterpart to this Rolls-Royce engine was the Pratt Whitney J-42 Turbo-Wasp, based on the Nene, but not then in quantity production. When the Korean War broke out in 1950, therefore, the Russians had thousands of improved Rolls-Royce Nene engines in service powering MiG-15s, whereas the U.S. Air Force had only a few hundred F-86A Sabres with comparable engines. Several engines from MiG-15s captured in Korea were evaluated by the United States Air Force. Reports were prepared by engineers of Pratt Whitney Aircraft Division of United Aircraft Corporation, the Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, and Cornell Aeronautical Laboratory. We know from these analyses that by 1951 the Soviets had two versions of the original Rolls-Royce Nene in production quantities. The first version, the RD-45 that powered an early MiG-15, was a direct copy of the original Rolls-Royce Nene and delivered 5,000 pounds of thrust. The second version of the RD-45 delivered 6,000 pounds of static thrust at sea level and 6,750 pounds of thrust with water injection. *The turbine blades in the Soviet RD-45 engines were made of a stainless steel alloy of the Nimonic-80 type, while the burner liner and swirl vanes were made of Nimonic-75. Parts of the Nene sold to Russia in 1948 were fabricated from Nimonic alloys — "Nimonic" being the registered trademark of Henry Wiggin and Company of Birmingham, England. Both Nimonic-75 and Nimonic-80 were developed by Mond Nickel about 1940, and the specifications had previously been published by the Ministry of Supply in the United Kingdom on the grounds that it was nonstrategic information.*

The RD-45 (Nene) was produced in Moscow and also at Magadan from 1951 onwards, at Khabarovsk, at Ufa Plant No. 21, and at the Kiev Plant No. 43 from 1951 until sometime after 1958.

In 1967 the Soviet Strategic Air Force operated about 120 Tu-14 Bison bombers, 70 Tu-20 Bear bombers, and 1,000 Tu-16 Badger bombers. The Soviet Navy also operated these three types of aircraft.

From the information in Table 6-1 we can trace the operational jet engines of the 1960s from the Junkers and BMW prototypes taken from Germany at the end of World War II or from those sold by the Rolls-Royce Company as "peaceful trade" in 1946. *Both groups of prototypes were developed by German engineers transferred to Russia as forced labor, with equipment and instruments imported as "peaceful trade." *When the K-series and the AM-series turbojets were well along the development road the Germans were returned home. The Soviets have had no difficulty since in making design improvements to the original German and British concepts and technologies. These are the engines that power operational Soviet military aircraft.
*
So were German engineers responsible for the Russians dropping the axials and copying the British centrifugal designs?*


----------



## Magnon (Jul 21, 2010)

An American source writes of a comparison of the Schwalbe and the Meteor:
...After the end of the war the Me 262 as well as other advanced German technology was quickly swept up by the Americans (as part of the USAAF's Operation Lusty), British and Soviets. Many Me 262s were found in readily-repairable condition and were confiscated. The Me 262 was found during testing to have advantages over the early models of Gloster Meteor. It was faster, had better cockpit visibility to the sides and rear (mostly due to the canopy frame and the discoloration caused by the plastics used in the Meteor's construction), and was a superior gun platform as ...early Meteors had a tendency to snake at high speed and exhibited "weak" aileron response. 
The Messerschmitt ME 262
Note that in order to rigorously test the Schwalbe for a satisfactory period, the Americans had to replace the original turbine hot end components with Nimonic. There was an element of sour grapes from some in the American camp to the British achievements in jet engine technology because it reflected badly on them that a nation with just 40% of their population had managed to beat them to it. At least the Germans had a more comparable population (75% that of the US).

In terms of visibility, the Meteor F III had a much improved bubble canopy. Against the charge of instability, Galland says in his book “The First and the Last” that the Schwalbe was also unstable at high speed and was hopeless as a low level bomber for this reason and also for its short range:
"...According to its flying properties and its safety conditions it was highly unsuited for an aimed-bomb release; diving or gliding were out of the question because of the unavoidable excess of the permissible top speed (*i.e. unlike the Meteor, it had no air brakes*). At speeds of over 600 mph the aircraft became uncontrollable...”
Also the NASA article (ch11-2) concurs that “snaking... plagued many of the earlier jet fighters.”The fact that an up-engined Meteor F III set the world speed record in November of 1945 indicates that, if anything, the shoe was rather on the other foot in this regard. In the early 50s Adolf Galland flew Meteors in the Argentinean Air Force, which had obtained a hundred of the aircraft in 1946. Fifty were true F IVs, but the other fifty were refurbished war surplus ex RAF Meteor F III aircraft which had been re-engined with Derwent Vs. The Argentinean witnesses reported: 
...The flight lasted about an hour and when it was finished, he said: If the Me-262 had had the Meteor’s engines, it would have been the best fighter in the world! He qualified the plane of being very good and of having very refined lines...

Although the Meteors did not engage with Schwalbes and vice versa, the later Meteor F IIIs did encounter and engage with Fw 190s over the low countries. 
"...The biggest frustration for the pilots of 616 Squadron was that they never clashed with the Me 262, or indeed with any German fighter aircraft. They came close towards the end of the war when a flight of Meteors encountered a force of Fw 190s, but they were forced to abandon their attack when other RAF fighters mistook them for Me 262s..."
It would be an absolutely futile exercise for them to engage with Fw 190s if they then had poor aileron response. The British pilots were forbidden to fly behind enemy lines because if they were to come down, the secret of Nimonic would be out. If it was too late for the Germans by that time, it certainly was not for the Soviets. (By the way, the Meteors on the continent had to be painted white to stop "friendly" fire from people who mistook them for Me 262s. They were still fired on...)

Back to the original source again: 
...The Me 262 did have a shorter combat range than the Meteor...

*...Messerschmitt also conducted a series of flight tests with the series production Me 262. In these dive tests, it was established that the Me 262 was out of control in a dive at Mach 0.86, and that higher Mach numbers would lead to a nose-down trim that could not be countered by the pilot. The resulting steeping [sic] of the dive would lead to even higher speeds and disintegration of the airframe due to excessive negative g loads...*

The Messerschmitt ME 262

A Schwalbe would have to throttle right back if it found itself in a dive with the Meteor, running a risk of flame-out if it was done too quickly. As mentioned, the Meteor had air brakes, the Schwalbe didn’t. With its low wing loading and better acceleration and deceleration, the Meteor could maintain relatively high thrust and have several strategies to take the Schwalbe out before it was able to respond.

Extract from the Me 262 A1 Pilots Handbook -

Changing Power in Flight: *Move the throttles slowly forward or aft...*

Specific instruction for take-off:
Note:* By opening up the throttles too fast up to 7000 rpm there is a danger of causing cavitation [read surge] in one of the compressor stages. That is, by running up too quickly the compressor is overloaded and the smooth air flow breaks up just as it does over a stalled wing. If the take-off is continued, insufficient air flows through but the same amount of fuel is injected, resulting in insufficient power... *

Without sufficient power, the plane was likely to destroy itself on take-off anyway. But if it managed to struggle into the air, it should also have been added here that there was a high likelihood of destroying the compressor or alternatively burning out the turbine blades and hence destroying the engine as the air flow dropped and the air-fuel ratio plummeted. But on the other hand, this contingency is also covered later in the Handbook:
*Broken Vanes in Jet Unit:
Indicated by - vibration in the unit
Action - turn off the jet to prevent fuel lines from breaking and causing a fire.*


----------



## Glider (Jul 21, 2010)

Some interesting stuff in the previous posting. If I may comment on the following.


Magnon said:


> Although the Meteors did not engage with Schwalbes and vice versa, the later Meteor F IIIs did encounter and engage with Fw 190s over the low countries.
> "...The biggest frustration for the pilots of 616 Squadron was that they never clashed with the Me 262, or indeed with any German fighter aircraft. They came close towards the end of the war when a flight of Meteors encountered a force of Fw 190s, but they were forced to abandon their attack when other RAF fighters mistook them for Me 262s..."
> It would be an absolutely futile exercise for them to engage with Fw 190s if they then had poor aileron response. The British pilots were forbidden to fly behind enemy lines because if they were to come down, the secret of Nimonic would be out. If it was too late for the Germans by that time, it certainly was not for the Soviets. (By the way, the Meteors on the continent had to be painted white to stop "friendly" fire from people who mistook them for Me 262s. They were still fired on...)



I don't think that the Meteor ever engaged Fw190 fighters in the air or any other german aircraft but I will come back to that in a moment. It has been reported but I don't remember seeing this in the squadron records but it was a whjile ago and my memory could well be wrong. It is also untrue to say that all Meteors were painted white only the first four EE239, EE235, EE240 and EE241 sent to europe on detatchment to Melbroek were painted white. Before combat operations started these were replaced by more up to date versions of the Meteor.
It also wrong to say that Meteors were banned from operating behind enemy lines, its an often repeated statment but incorrect.
Meteors made a number of attacks behind german lines often attacking transport and other targets as well as airfields and on the 24th April two were damaged attacking Nordholtz. It was on one of these attacks where Meteors almost made their first air to air kill on 3rd May. Of all aircraft it was a Fi 156 Storch but when checking the gun footage it was deemed that the Storch had just landed with its wheels on the ground and therefore it didn't count. 
They did try to use Meteors against German fighters keeping two manned aircraft on the runway for long periods near Brussels but the only interceptions were of friendly aircraft. On the one occaision where a German Jet was plotted (9th April) the runway was blocked by 149 wing aircraft preparing for a mission. An nterception was attempted but by the time they reached 30,000ft they were unable to close.

Re friendly fire concerns. The 2TAF were quite used to being attacked by the USAAF, there was a phrase going around 
_When we fire, the Germans duck
When the Germans fire, we duck
When the Americans fire, everyone ducks._
At least the Meteor could simply outrun the threat. Above quote from 2nd Tactical Airforce by Christopher Shores.


----------



## Magnon (Jul 21, 2010)

Thanks for the correction, Glider. There is a lot of information there which must have come from a log of Meteor operations at the time... is it published in a book?

I know this is strictly off-topic, but there is some interesting information on Austrlian F8 Meteors in Korea, and their encounters with MIGs:

It seems to have been often outnumbered, and the opposing pilots were quite often experienced Russian fighter aces ex WWII. The Australian pilots protested that they had been trained for ground attack (see below). Also note that the MIG was a pure fighter, the Meteor was pretty handy at ground attack and could give a good account of itself in a dogfight too.

Australian War Memorial - Out in the Cold: Australia's involvement in the Korean War

Meteor Operations in Korea


Jan J. Safarik: Air Aces Home Page

"Another important change in the F.8 was, of course, still further uprated engines in the form of Derwent 8 engines with 1,633 kilograms (3,600 pounds) thrust each. Other changes included structural strengthening, a Martin-Baker ejection seat as evaluated earlier on the F.4, and a revised "blown" cockpit canopy that provided improved pilot visibility.* The F.8 could carry two 450 kilogram (1,000 pound) bombs or sixteen rocket projectiles.*"

"Although the Meteor may have been obsolescent in the 1950s, it served with distinction with the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) during the Korean War in the ground-attack role. The RAF began receiving Meteor F.8s at the end of 1949, most of which were modified to carry a radio compass, with the antenna in a small dome on the aircraft's spine. The RAAF received 93 ex-RAF Meteor F.8s for combat service in Korea from 1951 through 1953."

"The Meteor was used for escort duties at first, with the aircraft's initial combat mission taking place on 29 July. A month later, the Meteors mixed it up with MiG-15s and got the worst of it, with one Meteor lost and the pilot taken prisoner, and two others badly damaged. *The Meteor seemed to be no match for the MiG-15, though Australian pilots protested that they might have done much better had they been trained for air-to-air combat rather than ground support, but by the end of 1951 the Meteor had been relegated to the ground-support role.*
This was dangerous work, all the more so because a Meteor had to be held smooth and level on its firing run for its gyro-stabilized gunsight to operate accurately, making the aircraft vulnerable to ground fire. 32 were lost in action. *Despite the aircraft's general inferiority to the MiG-15, the Australians were able to score at least three "kills" against the Soviet fighter with the Meteor.* After the war, the F.8s were sent home to Australia, to be replaced by Commonwealth CA-27 Sabres in the mid-1950s.
Keith Meggs : The Gloster Meteor


----------



## Glider (Jul 21, 2010)

My info came from 2nd Tactical Airforce Volume 3 pages 540 to 543. Next time I go to the National Archives I will try to look at the squadron diary which is always a good place to check for this type of information.

Re the meteor as a GA aircraft, GA is always, has always and no doubt will always, be a risky business. At least the Meteor had two engines giving it a fighting chance of getting home.


----------



## Magnon (Jul 22, 2010)

I don't know why people have a problem with MTBOs of around 150 hours for the Derwent. The hot end materials used were Nimonic 75 and Nimonic 80. These were substantially the same as those used in the Conway, which was the first jet engine to achieve a MTBO of 10,000 hrs.

For a history of the man who led the team which developed Nimonic, see Leonard Bessemer Pfeil 1898-1969, a PDF document which can be downloaded from the royal society on rsbm.royalsocietypublishing.org . Their design life was aimed at 300 hrs, which was regarded as being "the nominal life of an aircraft in wartime." The criterion provided by Whittle was 0.1% elongation at 12 tonnes/sq.in. at 650 C.

He was a descendent of a Frankfurt banker who migrated to England in the 19th Century, I think. He was no relation to Henry Bessemer.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 22, 2010)

Magnon said:


> I don't know why people have a problem with MTBOs of around 150 hours for the Derwent. The hot end materials used were Nimonic 75 and Nimonic 80. These were substantially the same as those used in the Conway, which was the first jet engine to achieve a MTBO of 10,000 hrs.



Because in actual operation, early turbine engines were "hit or miss" in actually making TBO. Some of this was attributed to operator error as some former recip converts had to get used to watching EGT on start while controlling fuel to the engine. Hot starts and over temps can cut a TBO in half, if not cause the engine to self destruct at a moments notice. Other problems were with fuel controllers which were constructed with rubber bellows and seals that would fail prematurely due to their operational environment. You also had common quality problems encountered during manufacture from improper heat treat to assembly errors. Remember, this was a new technology that was rushed into service during WW2 and many of its inherent manufacturing bugs were not quickly worked out for years to come. As late as the Korean War you were seeing 2nd generation turbines like the J-35 and J-47 being changed out after 50 hours of operation and reached a 1200 hour TBO by the mid/ late 50s.


----------



## Kurfürst (Jul 24, 2010)

Magnon said:


> I don't know why people have a problem with MTBOs of around 150 hours for the Derwent.



My only problem is that it is undocumented, and we have no real idea what was the manufacturer's specs for TBO in wartime for the engine, nor what was the practical TBO that could be achieved in actual service (as this quite typically waay lower in practice than the paper numbers in all engines, due to hasty maintaince, pilot abuse etc.).


----------



## Magnon (Jul 25, 2010)

The other aspect to look at here is that if the Derwent had an achilles heel in terms of reliability, it might have been more the bearings rather than the turbine blades or the compressor. At 16,500 rpm they were pushing the envelope of the then state of the art for rolling element bearings.

The factor which is critical, I would think, is that bearings tend to fail fairly slowly compared to turbine blades. At the end of a sortie, the engine might be checked and found to have a noisy bearing, which would be a damned nuisance, but not catastrophic. A failure in a turbine blade is likely to be much more than just a damned nuisance.


----------



## Magnon (Jul 25, 2010)

LETTER TO OWNERS/OPERATORS NO 2420
ROLLS-ROYCE DERWENT MK 8 AND MK 9 ENGINES FITTED TO GLOSTER METEOR AIRCRAFT
ENGINE CRITICAL PARTS CYCLIC LIFE

Ref http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/1594/LTO2420.pdf

"...Derwent engines do not have formally defined critical parts as modern engines would. Those parts that are considered to be critical are the impeller, the turbine disc and the turbine shaft. It is known nowadays that failure of these parts is caused by metal fatigue, which is driven by cyclic usage. A failure of these parts could lead to uncontained engine debris with high release energy. There was no cyclic life control applied to these critical parts as the inspection of these components for evidence of cracks were carried out frequently at overhaul or during hot end change. Thus, the inspection interval for these critical parts would have been up to *450 hours for the turbine disc and up to 900 hours for the impeller and shaft sections*, the number of cycles accumulated would have been very small..."

OK. I know this proves nothing as to the *early* (ie WW II TBO figures, but it gives some indication).


----------



## Magnon (Jul 25, 2010)

From Me-262: Wunderplane or compromise?

_After the war, "Watson's Whizzers," led by Colonel Harold E. Watson from USAAF Air Technical Intelligence, shipped several intact Me 262s to the United States for further evaluation. The tests, conducted by Albert Boyd (the head of flight test for the USAAF) and a soon-to-be-legendary Chuck Yeager, determined that the performance of the Me 262 was essentially equal to the P-80A. The Me 262 had a slightly higher critical Mach number-0.83 Mach versus the handbook limit of 0.80 Mach for the P-80A--but the difference was of little value in the real world since the Me 262 could only reach that velocity in a dive, whereas the P-80A could do it in level flight. However, despite the fact that the Me 262 was almost 2,000 pounds heavier than the P-80A, the German aircraft accelerated quicker and had approximately the same climb performance.
[That would have been acceleration with the nimonic hot end components... a big difference to the wartime Me 262]

*During the tests it was found that the slightly swept wing of the Me 262 provided no useful reduction in drag, mainly because the triangular cross-section of the fuselage created so much base drag that nothing could really help much. The swept wing did not change the critical Mach number by a measurable amount, and certainly did not help performance in the low transonic region where the Me 262 was particularly unstable. The P-80A had much better handling characteristics than the Me 262, largely because it was more refined aerodynamically and had its thrust vector on the centerline of the aircraft instead of at the quarter-span of each wing.*

*Summary*

Was the Me 262 a Wunderplane? As always, it depends on the situation. The Me 262 was clearly the best interceptor used during the war. It was extremely fast by the standards of the day, was equipped with a powerful set of cannon, and had the ability to carry rockets as supplemental weapons. The radar-equipped versions added versatility to the mix.

As a tactical fighter, the Me 262 was not nearly as successful. It had relatively poor maneuverability, and the heavy cannon armament was not particularly effective against maneuvering fighters or ground targets. The jet engines spooled up slowly, severely limiting acceleration, placing a premium on the emerging concept of energy management. As an escort fighter, as with all early jets, the Me 262 was hopeless because of its short operating range.

Nevertheless, the Me 262 had excellent performance compared of other early jet fighters. It was clearly superior to the Meteor Mk I, its closest contemporary, and was essentially equal to the later Meteor Mk III. It is possible that at certain altitudes the Me 262 could out-climb a Meteor, albeit only by a slight margin. *The most telling difference was the reliability of the British engines and their relatively benign response to throttle movements.*_


----------



## Magnon (Jul 26, 2010)

...Another limitation of the F4 that I recall was a totally inadequate compass system that collapsed when any aerobatic manoeuvre was performed, quite a disadvantage in an aircraft designed as a day fighter. Again this was rectified on later marks of Meteor with the introduction of the G4B compass, an instrument that has seldom been surpassed, in my opinion, for accuracy and reliability. The engines of course being Rolls Royce were magnificent, you could literally throw a brick into the intake and the Derwent would spit it out the back end in small pieces with just the faintest of nicks on the centrifugal compressor and turbine blades. It had very few moving parts and in all my hours on Meteors I only had one engine failure, and that successfully relit at the first attempt.

The Meteor’s handling qualities were truly excellent; it was the most forgiving of aeroplanes and was a joy to fly. It performed quite happily at Mach 0.74 with only marked control stiffening causing any great problems above that speed. A favourite trick in the Meteor was to point it straight up until the airspeed indicator read zero, then leave everything to see what happened. Usually the aircraft would simply fall into a vertical dive back towards mother earth and sort itself out quite happily. Only the Meteor’s single engine performance was perhaps questionable, the engines were, of course, mounted on the wings, heaven knows why as they could just as easily have been positioned against the fuselage. The result was that at low speeds and high power, the rudder was only just man enough for the job; later marks of Meteor, with the straight fin and rudder, improved the asymmetric handling. *The approach was flown at 110 knots and was straightforward with the view over the nose being completely uninterrupted. This took a while to get used to as the absence of a nice fat engine cowling was initially disconcerting, resulting in a feeling of sitting out in a void...*
Free Site Template put your page title here

*...The approach was made at 125 – 130 mph with flaps and air brakes down. Full lateral and fore-and-aft control was maintained right down to stall at about 105 mph...*
Aircraft Profile 078 - Gloster Meteor F IV


----------



## Glider (Jul 26, 2010)

And the point is?


----------



## Rocketeer (Jul 26, 2010)

How amusing are the poll results!!! Like all these polls, it is difficult not to be subjective....the Me262 is 'prettier', however, as we all know, that is never the full answer. The basic engine design (axial flow) of the Me262 was better than the centrifugal compressor of the Meteor, but material engineering was not as advanced to make best use of it (witness the very low MTBFs and MTBSs).
The ultimate measure is longevity.....Meteors are still working for a living (and have been since inception)...i.e the Chalgrove Ejection seat test beds and recently retired drones. Me262s (apart from a few licence built post war aircraft) died with the 3rd reich. The new builds use modern axial flow engines...so do you STILL stand by the Me262?!!!!!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 26, 2010)

Rocketeer said:


> The ultimate measure is longevity.....Meteors are still working for a living (and have been since inception)...i.e the Chalgrove Ejection seat test beds and recently retired drones. Me262s (apart from a few licence built post war aircraft) died with the 3rd reich. The new builds use modern axial flow engines...so do you STILL stand by the Me262?!!!!!



No that is not the ultimate measure. It is not the fault of the Me 262 production ended when the 3rd Reich died. The Me 262 would have evolved and had a much longer service life. You can't give points to an aircraft that was able to be further developed because it was on the winning side.


----------



## Magnon (Jul 26, 2010)

Glider said:


> And the point is?



*Lower approach speed... all things being equal, better soft field performance. But it wasn't equal; the Me 262 was often overloaded with subsequent undercarriage failure in landing on concrete strips. *

Also, I neglected to say that the quoted speeds were for the F IV, which had a shorter wing than the F III. Again all things being equal, the latter F IIIs would have had lower corresponding speeds.


----------



## Magnon (Jul 27, 2010)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> No that is not the ultimate measure. It is not the fault of the Me 262 production ended when the 3rd Reich died. The Me 262 would have evolved and had a much longer service life. You can't give points to an aircraft that was able to be further developed because it was on the winning side.



That's not entirely true. Ten were constructed in Czechoslovakia after the war. See:
Warbird Alley: Messerschmitt Me 262

*"Using equipment and components manufactured during the occupation of Czechoslovakia, some Me 262s were produced by Avia, in Czechoslovakia after the war, under the designation S.92."*

The bottom line is that despite all their manufacturing capability and access to German tooling, the Czechs only built ten. It was a dead end as an individual aircraft because its engines were dreadful and the airframe was badly designed. The proposed Jumo 109-004H engine only had a thrust to weight ratio of 1.5:1 as against 2.8:1 for the Derwent V. The Jumo weighed 1.2 tonnes as against 568 kg for the Derwent V. That's a big handicap to overcome. The new German jets in the pipeline weren't going to be the answer to their problems.

On the other hand, as a _concept_, it had some features that were to be influential in the immediate post war years.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 27, 2010)

Magnon said:


> That's not entirely true. Ten were constructed in Czechoslovakia after the war. See:
> Warbird Alley: Messerschmitt Me 262
> 
> *"Using equipment and components manufactured during the occupation of Czechoslovakia, some Me 262s were produced by Avia, in Czechoslovakia after the war, under the designation S.92."*
> ...



The point is the war ended in 1945. We can only speculate what would happen post 1945. Therefore post war longevity is not a factor.


----------



## Magnon (Jul 27, 2010)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> The point is the war ended in 1945. We can only speculate what would happen post 1945. Therefore post war longevity is not a factor.




OK. But longevity and general reliability during the war is a *VERY* big factor. That's more than enough in its own right to damn the Schwalbe as a fighter.


----------



## Glider (Jul 27, 2010)

Magnon said:


> *Lower approach speed... all things being equal, better soft field performance. But it wasn't equal; the Me 262 was often overloaded with subsequent undercarriage failure in landing on concrete strips. *
> 
> Also, I neglected to say that the quoted speeds were for the F IV, which had a shorter wing than the F III. Again all things being equal, the latter F IIIs would have had lower corresponding speeds.



I thought that might be the case but you were quoting the Mk IV post war version, I think you will find this interesting


http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/meteor/Meteor-CFE.pdf

Para 54 gives the structural limitation of 500mph. 

Para 65 gives the Approach spead of 150mph, last turn in at 140mph and a touch down of 115 mph. 

Para 73 covers the heaviness of the Ailerons making even moderate turns tiring

Para 76 the lack of stability in bad weather

Para 115 covers the impact of directional snaking on accuracy.

Apendix D covers surging and how this happens if the throttle is opened or closed too quickly. 

The second part of your comment re the overloading of the Me262 on landing and failures. We did cover this earlier and I asked if you could find any references to this actually happening. Without that the comment doesn't stand. 
I do not claim to be an expert on the problems with the Me 262 but failure on landing isn't one of the ones that I can remember reading about and you certainly could be correct, all I ask is that you support that statement with examples that happened during the war.

A similar situation exists with your statement about soft field performance. You have mentioned this before and all I have asked is that you support this with examples of any first generation jet operating from soft fields. I don't believe they did operate without tarmac and cannot find an example. Again you could well be correct and all I am asking you to do is to support your statement, without support the statement doesn't stand. 

Its worth remembering that peacetime rules and standards do not apply during war time, let alone modern standards. An example one that supports this comment is the P51D. If you look at the wartime pilots notes for the P51D the dive speed is red lined at 505mph, look at the pilots notes printed after the war and the red line dive speed is 450mph.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 27, 2010)

Magnon said:


> That's more than enough in its own right to damn the Schwalbe as a fighter.



If you say so...


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 28, 2010)

Rocketeer said:


> ...... The basic engine design (axial flow) of the Me262 was better than the centrifugal compressor of the Meteor, but material engineering was not as advanced to make best use of it (witness the very low MTBFs and MTBSs).



Something to remember is that while the basic IDEA of the engine design (axial flow) was better it took several more years for it to show much advantage in practice, and, no, it wasn't just due to material engineering.
It took several years for axial compressor design to equal centrifugal design on a pressure ratio basis and several more for axial compressors to equal or surpass centrifugal designs on an airflow to weight ratio and for pressure ratio. The Axial compressor did wind up exceeding the centrifugal compressor on both counts and sometimes by a very hefty margin but that was not the case in 1944-45-46.


----------



## Magnon (Jul 28, 2010)

Thanks for the Meteor source, Glider. Networking like this is what we should be all about. 

There are so many points here I am going to have to address them one by one.

Quote: *I do not claim to be an expert on the problems with the Me 262 but failure on landing isn't one of the ones that I can remember reading about and you certainly could be correct, all I ask is that you support that statement with examples that happened during the war.*
Glider

Well, I think when we have: 
1.	The ME262 Handbook indicating the machine exceeded its permissible landing weight when it had a full fuel tank - “In case of a very short flight in which fuel has not all been used from the auxiliary tanks, use caution in landing as the allowable landing weight is exceeded due to fuel load...”
Me 262 A1 Pilots Handbook
2.	We have also - “...The landing gear was also suspect, and many 262s were destroyed or damaged due to landing gear failure.”
Me262 - Aircraft Profile - Messerschmitt : Me262
3.	From _Me 262 Pilot Debriefing_: A “Preliminary Flight Permission” (Vorlaeufige Fluggen Schimung) brought along by this pilot states that the maximum weight for starting is 7100 kg. This includes the basic weight of the aircraft, 3870 kg plus 3230 kg allowance for fuel and bombs. If the weight when landing was more than 5700 kg, special caution must be taken.
4.	And feedback from _the Me 262 Project_: “As the landing gear was known to be another weak area on the original Me 262, a detailed analysis of landing gear stresses was directed. This process revealed that a shock loading was generated by the spin-up forces of the large, heavy main wheels, which had to be reacted into by the wing landing gear attachment structure. This placed a severe demand upon wing spar area and the airframe simply had to absorb these forces. Over time, this would have had a devastating effect upon the aircraft.”
“In part, this problem can be traced to the history of the aircraft. As originally designed, the Me 262 was equipped with a standard tail wheel (in lieu of the nose wheel).”
“In the tail-dragger configuration, the main gear was bolted directly onto the wing spar; however, the tricycle modification resulted in the creation of a separate wing torque box to be used as a mounting point. This torque box was susceptible to damage, and very difficult to repair.”
“On the new Me 262s, this area has been reinforced with additional structural features, and the project is considering additional design changes that may further enhance the safety and longevity of the landing gear. In addition to the wing box reinforcement, the nose gear mounting point and strut assemblies have been greatly improved. In short, the entire system has been strengthened by a significant margin above what it was originally.” 
These guys would have access to pretty much state of the art CAD stress analysis software. They are not anti the Me 262. They are also trying to build some replicas, which indicates that they have some positive regard for it surely? Or at least they did when they started out.

I think that a reasonably objective person would find this adequate evidence. If you don't, well that's fine, but then we will just have to agree to disagree.


----------



## Magnon (Jul 28, 2010)

Shortround6 said:


> Something to remember is that while the basic IDEA of the engine design (axial flow) was better it took several more years for it to show much advantage in practice, and, no, it wasn't just due to material engineering.
> It took several years for axial compressor design to equal centrifugal design on a pressure ratio basis and several more for axial compressors to equal or surpass centrifugal designs on an airflow to weight ratio and for pressure ratio. The Axial compressor did wind up exceeding the centrifugal compressor on both counts and sometimes by a very hefty margin but that was not the case in 1944-45-46.



The other thing is that Britain was running two jet development strategies in parallel. Both axial and centrifugal compressor based systems were being developed in competition with each other. If one failed, the other might work. It was the right strategy, proven by the superiority of overall performance of the centrifugal in the short term, which pragmatically was all that counted.

In fact, some in Germany realised the shortcomings of the axial. They had a hybrid centrifugal/axial under development. See Origins of German jet power . And also:
*Helmut Schelp:*
"Schelp also used his influence to force Heinkel to develop one of his pet projects, the "diagonal compressor", a sort of combination of the centrifugal and axial designs. At the time the pure axial compressors were having problems with surging and air intake turbulence, while the centrifugal designs proved fairly immune to these problems. Although it was mechanically possible to arrange a centrifugal stage in front of axial ones, this arrangement would require a large frontal area, and a small frontal area was the only real reason to use an axial arrangement. Schelp's diagonal stage appeared to offer the best of both worlds, only slightly larger than an axial stage of the same air flow, but with much wider-chord blades that should be more resistant to airflow problems. Schelp demanded that the HeS 011 use this design, which proved to be much more difficult to build than originally thought, and led to lengthy delays in that project.
_After the war, Schelp was taken to London where he was on 24-hour call if anyone in the Air Ministry wanted to talk to him. This was rarely done, and Schelp found himself able to wander London at will. On one such trip he came across the Gloster E.28/39, bearing a plaque that stated it was the first turbojet powered aircraft to fly. It had actually been beaten into the air by over a year by the Heinkel He 178, and when Schelp pointed this out it was wryly suggested there may be some inaccuracy with the plaque. The correct lineage now appears on the E.28 display at the Science Museum._"

I have seen reports that Rolls Royce were having minor trouble with surge on a design as late as the Conway, which with the Avon, was in the first generation of their axials. Design to minimize surge has only been mastered now with the advent of powerful computational fluid dynamics (CFD), which was out of the question in the 1940s.


----------



## dennis420b (Jul 28, 2010)

I went with the 262, but I never was happy with the armament. the 4, 30mm mk 108 cannons are great for destroying bombers, but if the war would have gone on longer, and dog fighting between jets had become common, then high velocity 20mm's would have been needed, something the Meteor already had.


----------



## johnbr (Jul 28, 2010)

The Mauser 213c 20mm had a velocity of 1200 m/s with rate of fire of 1200.


----------



## Magnon (Jul 29, 2010)

johnbr said:


> The Mauser 213c 20mm had a velocity of 1200 m/s with rate of fire of 1200.



A very good weapon but it was never put into service.


----------



## dennis420b (Jul 29, 2010)

johnbr said:


> The Mauser 213c 20mm had a velocity of 1200 m/s with rate of fire of 1200.



That would be perfect for dog fighting the Meteor, but not the Mk 108's is the point I was making.


----------



## Magnon (Jul 29, 2010)

dennis420b said:


> That would be perfect for dog fighting the Meteor, but not the Mk 108's is the point I was making.



Absolutely... I have argued that we are not really comparing two fighters here. The Me 262 was actually a specialist bomber destroyer. The low velocity 30 mm weapons were adequate for that role only.


----------



## Magnon (Jul 29, 2010)

*"Para 54 gives the structural limitation of 500mph."*
(Glider quote from the Meteor Tactical Trials CFE Report)

At the time of writing the evaluation report the Meteor was still very much in a state of flux in terms of its development. The report makes reference to fixes which were then in the pipeline. The problem with limiting speed early on was with the nacelles. New units were retrofitted to all F III's and this had a dramatic effect on the aircraft’s performance, which brought late F IIIs up to 490 mph. See below:

AvH_1%_V4/167_GB_Meteor_Mk_III_EE456_Lighted - AvHistory.org

The Meteor F.Mk III, the second and last mark to see operational service during World War II, had increased fuel capacity and a sliding bubble canopy in place of the sideways-opening hood of the Meteor Mk.l. Fifteen F.Mk IIIs were completed with Welland engines and 195 with Derwents, some in lengthened engine nacelles. The Derwent engines in the Mk III produced 2000 lbs of thrust improving the performance over the original Mk I Meteors.


Flight tests demonstrated that the original short nacelles, which extended fore and aft of the wing, contributed heavily to compressibility buffeting at high speed. New, longer nacelles not only cured some of the compressibility problems but added 120 km/h (75 mph) at altitude, even without upgraded powerplants. 

The last batch of Meteor F 3s featured the longer nacelles while other F 3s were retrofitted in the field with the new nacelles.​

www.meteorflight.com - The Gloster Meteor F4


_Breaking Records

In both the F. Mk 1 III Meteors the Derwent engines were housed in short stubby nacelles, it was discovered though that extending them both in front and behind the wing improved the airflow and greatly reduced drag which increased sea level speed by almost 60 mph. It was this in conjunction with the new and much more powerful Rolls Royce Derwent V that led to thoughts of capturing the world air speed record set by Germany in 1939 in addition to forming the basis of the Meteor F4.

*The record attempt was made with two late production F3's, EE454 EE455 which were taken from the production line and brought up to F4 standard less their radio masts and with ballast in place of armament and the cannon ports faired over. Both aircraft were given a special high gloss paint finish with EE454 retaining its day fighter camouflage scheme while EE455 was painted overall yellow.
It was EE454... that raised the record on the 7th November 1945 when Group Capt Hugh Wilson (Formerly of 616 Squadron) flew at a speed of 606.38 mph although Eric Greenwood was only marginally slower in EE455 at 603 mph.*​_They both had full 43 ft. length F III wings. So the F III's speed limitations were overcome relatively easily. *They got the basic F III airframe up to 606 mph. Then there wasn't a 500 mph structural limitation. *.

_The prototype F Mk.IV, EE360 first flew on the 17th July 1945 and a total of 535 were built for the RAF including 48 by Armstrong Whitworth. The F4 was exported in significant numbers with 100 going to Argentina fifty of these being refurbished ex RAF machines with the remainder new-built by Gloster.
The first production Meteor F4's were built with the same 43ft wing as the Meteor F3. This proved to be unsatisfactory however as it was not strong enough to absorb the additional stresses of flight at higher speeds and was a factor in some early accidents. To solve this problem the wing of the F4 was clipped to 37ft 2in which reduced the wing area by 6% and improved the rate of role to 80 degrees per second. The disadvantage of the clipping the wings was an increase in take-off and landing speeds and increased wing loading. There are no clear records as to the number of F4's which reached the RAF with the long span wings although it is likely that they would all have been modified in service. *As described in the air speed records the aircraft used by the high speed flight did not have clipped wings, although they also would probably been modified later when they were transferred to operational squadrons.*​_It's conceded that for combat at high transonic speeds, the wing had to be clipped, but the Me 262 airframe could not even think of going there. See below:

Feedback from the Me 262 Project.
Me 262 PROJECT TECHNICAL DATA
_...The Jumo-powered Me 262 was capable of level flight speeds in excess of 540 miles per hour at altitude; a trait that made it all but invulnerable to Allied escort fighters.
Higher airspeeds were recorded under certain circumstances but, in general, compressibility-related aerodynamic factors prevented the airframe from ever pushing into the high transonic range.
*Postwar tests in the West confirmed that at very high airspeeds airframe vibration levels and buffeting grow increasingly worse until the jet enters into a shallow dive and becomes all but completely uncontrollable. Recently revealed Soviet documents demonstrate that this was also a major finding in Red Air Force flight testing of the Me 262*.​_


----------



## Glider (Jul 29, 2010)

The change to the nacelles was something that I was aware of and the increase in speed to 490mph. However you have made the wrong assumption that the nacelles were the reason behind the structural limitation. The clue is in evidence www.meteorflight.com - The Gloster Meteor F4

You ommitted in your quote to mention the following 
_The new fighter was strengthened to absorb the increase in engine power, had an armoured pressurised cockpit and lighter controls which allowed the aircraft to take part in aerobatics which had been prevented in the F Mk III by wiring the ailerons heavy to prevent the airframe from being over stressed._ It is obvious that the RAF were worried about overstressing the airframe for the Mk III. If they hadn't been then they would have settled for the speed and given the pilots a more agile aircraft.

You did mention the following 
_The first production Meteor F4's were built with the same 43ft wing as the Meteor F3. This proved to be unsatisfactory however as it was not strong enough to absorb the additional stresses of flight at higher speeds and was a factor in some early accidents_. Clearly there were problems with stress at high speeds.

Your comment on the problems with the Me262 I find misleading. Your quote* Postwar tests in the West confirmed that at very high airspeeds airframe vibration levels and buffeting grow increasingly worse until the jet enters into a shallow dive and becomes all but completely uncontrollable. Recently revealed Soviet documents demonstrate that this was also a major finding in Red Air Force flight testing of the Me 262* is correct but the problem is that you don't mention the speed. 
Luftwaffe Pilots were told not to exceed 596 mph below 8000 meters. Eric Brown in his tests of the Me262 states that when diving the 262 at 620mph buffeting set in and the faster it went the worse it became. So for practical purposes the 262 has a red lline speed of 600mph and the Meteor 500mph which is quite a difference.


----------



## Magnon (Jul 29, 2010)

*Para 73 covers the heaviness of the Ailerons making even moderate turns tiring.*
Glider

The heaviness of the controls at medium to high speeds was a safeguard to ensure that the pilot did not overstress the airframe at those speeds. One test pilot was killed while pulling out of a dive. This sort of thing happened with the Schwalbe as you know. The problem was cured in the Meteor F IV by foreshortening the wings. This reduced the wing area by 6%, but the stresses by far more, probably in the region of 20%. 

As an indication of the relative problems of the two aircraft in terms of manoeuvring: 
•	The CFE indicates for the Meteor *“aerobatics must not to be performed at an all up weight in excess of 12,300 lb.” *(The fully loaded all up weight was given in the report as 12,614 lb)
•	On the other hand, the Me 262 Handbook says *“no acrobatics are to be performed”* and *“no spins are to be attempted”*
•	This is backed up by Hans Fey who says that acceptance pilots wouldn’t carry out a roll or a dive in a Me 262 unless they were forced to.
•	In terms of general airworthiness of the two aircraft, in the context of Fey’s warning of the danger inherent with the Schwalbe in terms of diving and rolling, nothing is mentioned about spinning. On the other hand, the CFE report conveys feedback from the Gloster trials: *“The Meteor has not been cleared for practice spinning but, if the foregoing instructions are followed, the pilot should have no difficulty in recovering from an accidental spin” * 

Further, the CFE report compares the dog-fighting capabilities of the Tempest V and the Meteor F III. It notes the unfortunate heaviness of the ailerons, but also, among other advantages:
•	*“The Meteor is faster than the Tempest at all heights...”*
•	*“The Meteor III, which has a lower wing loading, turns inside the Tempest V under all conditions and can get on its tail in approximately four turns.”*

The Tempest was apparently recognised as being a dangerous foe of the Schwalbe, in spite of its lower speed: 
The Hawker Tempest Page
*"The Messerschmitt Me 262's most dangerous opponent was the British Hawker Tempest - extremely fast at low altitudes, highly-manoeuvrable and heavily-armed."*(Hubert Lange, Me262 pilot)
The Schwalbe, as far as I know, was never known to out-turn any piston–engined fighter, let alone a Tempest, was it? It always sensibly tried to use its speed for hit-and-run tactics. So the fact that a Meteor could out-turn a Tempest is quite a remarkable thing to come out of the report. 
Hans Fey confirms that *"Furthermore, the Me 262 is relatively slow in turns and movements. It cannot, for instance, Split-S in less than 9,000 to 12,000 ft."*

It would appear that 
•	With its much more reliable engines
•	Better acceleration
•	Greater manoeuvrability
•	Relative robustness of its centrifugal compressors on ingestion of debris 
•	Good standard of build
taking out a Schwalbe that was silly enough to indulge in a dogfight would be, as Bigglesworth himself would have put it, “a piece of cake.”


----------



## Magnon (Jul 29, 2010)

*Para 65 gives the Approach speed of 150mph, last turn in at 140mph and a touch down of 115 mph. *

I concede that the recommended *approach* speeds of the two aircraft were not entirely dissimilar. You would know that the approach speed has nothing to do with landing stresses. The big difference is that with: 
1.	The lack of air brakes on the Schwalbe and hence little ability to shed speed
2.	The need to keep the Schwalbe’s engine revs and hence power up in case of a go around
3.	The requirement of the Schwalbe’s pilot to be thinking ahead, knowing that all throttle movements had to be very slow,​subsequent *control* of landing speed was infinitely harder. 
As an example of this, see *Ken Holt's narrative *from Me 262 PROJECT TECHNICAL DATA , which I've referenced before. An experienced US pilot came in too fast in an Me 262 but was committed to a landing, (i.e. he couldn’t ramp up the power in the time available in order to go around). The result was one plane completely written off, and very nearly the pilot with it. 

More from the CFE report re night flying:
*Para 113*
*Approach and Landing:*
"A normal approach and landing can be made with ease. With the glide path indicators set on 4.5 degrees and 5.5 degrees the approach can be made at *110 mph *from 500/600 ft in the funnels coming in on a green."​
*Para 127.*
To find out the effect of using dive brakes to slow down preparatory to landing, a number of straight runs were done with and without brakes. At 1000 ft, at a speed of 350 I.A.S. the throttles were closed and the time recorded for the speed to fall to 150 I.A.S. The average of those trials showed that:-
i.	Time using brakes - 51 secs
ii.	Time without using brakes -	1 min. 57 secs.​So the Meteor could afford a relatively high approach speed and quickly drop down to a moderate landing speed.

Also, the Meteor stall speed was 105 mph, the Schwalbe 112 – 125 mph. Even with the most experienced pilots, they didn’t have the same landing speed. The Schwalbe would be stalled at 115 mph, and that is what is crucial in terms of landing stresses and soft field performance.


----------



## Magnon (Jul 29, 2010)

*Para 76 the lack of stability in [turbulent] weather.*
Glider

I concede that with a larger wing area, greater response to turbulent wind conditions will result. That’s just one of the trade-offs you make in a design. Greater wing area gives improved manoeuvrability, but more instability in turbulent conditions. That may be another reason why the wing area of the F IV was made 6% lower than the F III.

In terms of relative manoeuvrability of the P 80, Meteor and Schwalbe, the source Me-262: Wunderplane or compromise? indicates: 
*“Both the Meteor and the P-80 could easily out-turn the Me 262.” *


On the other hand, the frequency of highly turbulent conditions in a normal combat theatre would be relatively low.


----------



## Magnon (Jul 30, 2010)

*Para 115 covers the impact of directional snaking on accuracy [as a gun platform].*
Glider

It was mentioned in the CFE document that measures were in the process of being implemented to address the problem of snaking in terms of weapons aiming accuracy. The fact that the later Meteor F IIIs were used for ground attack and as you said, F IIIs on the continent were looking for air combat would indicate that this may have been done. 

Flug Kapitan Wendel in http://www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com/Images/Me262/ME262WendeL.pdf says under the heading *Directional Stability*:
“When the centre of gravity is far back and the Flettner rudder trimming is not perfect, especially if the Flettner tabs are a little too thick, then the aircraft sways about the vertical axis. This movement must stop when both legs are pushed hard against the rudder pedals. If this does not stop the movement then the tabs must be altered or the trailing edge of the rudder must be bent slightly outwards. A modification is in the process of preparation...”​The source Me-262: Wunderplane or compromise? indicates that for the Me 262:
“There was some directional instability at large angles of yaw, but this was too marginal [to] impair the performance of the aircraft as a gun platform.”​The bottom line is that I do concede that the Me 262 was probably superior to the F III in this area in most instances.


----------



## Magnon (Jul 30, 2010)

*A similar situation exists with your statement about soft field performance. You have mentioned this before and all I have asked is that you support this with examples of any first generation jet operating from soft fields. I don't believe they did operate without tarmac and cannot find an example. Again you could well be correct and all I am asking you to do is to support your statement, without support the statement doesn't stand. *
Glider

Sorry Glider, all I can find is the original statement from Gloster Meteor F8 (WL181), North East Aircraft Museum (Britain), and a few independent references to the effect that the RAF tended to fly from grass strips as they moved along behind the advancing front line. Nothing else directly linked the Meteor with flying from grass strips.
The closest I came was with the airstrip at Nijmegen in the Netherlands where they flew out of an airstrip which had steel plate on sand:

Welcom to my Nijmgen Market Garden Veteran website
Nijmegen Airstrip B-91, Shown on the records as being KLUIS near NIJMEGEN
Airstrip Malden near Nijmegen.

Location: North of Malden and east of the road Nijmegen-Gennep

Area: about 160 hectares

Airstrip: one, 1400 meters long, 40 meters broad

Material: steel plate

Character of the soil: sand

Construction: The Allied Forces

Buildings: None
(There are some photos of the operations quarters there, which are literally tents, there are puddles and the soil in the area looks very churned up and boggy. It would likely have been constructed and in operation in the latter part of the winter.) 
The fact that it is a single runway is notable. The CFE report says:
“*Landings have been made in cross winds without difficulty, the maximum being a wind of 30 mph at right angles to the runway. The Meteor is considered suitable for single runway operation*.”​Again, in the CFE report, I did find the take-off distance for a Meteor:
“*Using one-third flap with no wind the aircraft becomes airborne in about 650 yards at approximately 105 mph*.”​The corresponding figures given by Hans Fey for the an experienced pilot in the Me 262 is *900 – 1100 *yards and lift off is given for the fighter version (6700 kg) by Flug Kapitan Wendel as 190 - 200 kph *(119 mph). *That also would give some indication of the relative acceleration of the two aircraft on take-off. This would not be due to the limitations on the rate of movement of the throttles, because they would both be starting their take off run with brakes on holding against an already relatively high throttle setting.


----------



## Kurfürst (Jul 30, 2010)

Shortround6 said:


> Something to remember is that while the basic IDEA of the engine design (axial flow) was better it took several more years for it to show much advantage in practice, and, no, it wasn't just due to material engineering.
> It took several years for axial compressor design to equal centrifugal design on a pressure ratio basis and several more for axial compressors to equal or surpass centrifugal designs on an airflow to weight ratio and for pressure ratio. The Axial compressor did wind up exceeding the centrifugal compressor on both counts and sometimes by a very hefty margin but that was not the case in 1944-45-46.



There were some very practical advantages of an axial jet engine, and in many aspects they are the same as the old argument between inline and radial engines - 18 cylinder radials generally produced a lot more horsepower than V-12s, but that advantage melts away in practice when you add the much greater diameter and drag associated with radial engines. 

Its the same with sleek axial jet engines and relatively bulky centrifugal jets, ie. just compare the frontal area of the Jumo 004 and the Derwent. As early jet engines were relatively weak and unreliable, a pair were mounted on the wings, and jet cross section did matter a lot in drag.


----------



## red admiral (Jul 30, 2010)

Kurfürst said:


> Its the same with sleek axial jet engines and relatively bulky centrifugal jets, ie. just compare the frontal area of the Jumo 004 and the Derwent. As early jet engines were relatively weak and unreliable, a pair were mounted on the wings, and jet cross section did matter a lot in drag.



Your logic is fairly sound but not reflect the reality of the situation. The nacelles on the Meteor, even though of increased diameter actually gave less drag than the underslung nacelles on the Me262. Why, it's a matter of location. The underslung arrangement gives strange flow patterns around the nacelle/wing combination and leads to higher drag. Mounting the nacelle centrally in the wing makes the flow more uniform and gives lower drag, even if you're putting a larger and blunter nacelle there.

So, why not mount the axial jets in the mid wing position? The problem there is structural as there has to be a break in the wing spar in order to fit the compressor. It's not a realistic solution for aircraft this size. Move up to Canberra size with a larger wing and you're able to adopt the mid wing nacelle by bending the main spar around the compressor.


----------



## Glider (Jul 30, 2010)

Magnon
Stress
You seem to be stuck with the Mk IV when it comes to stressing the aircraft. Find anything that says the Mk III could fly faster than 500mph and the point is yours. The problem is that it didn't. It really doesn't matter what the Mk IV did to solve the problem, we are talking about the Mk III not the Mk IV.
Agility
No one denies that the Meteor could turn inside the 262 the question is with a speed difference of 40 - 100mph, why dogfight? 
Soft Ground performance.
I know that they used metal matting which was standard in the 2TAF. Totally soft I don't know about but seriously doubt.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 30, 2010)

Kurfürst said:


> There were some very practical advantages of an axial jet engine, and in many aspects they are the same as the old argument between inline and radial engines -
> 
> Its the same with sleek axial jet engines and relatively bulky centrifugal jets, ie. just compare the frontal area of the Jumo 004 and the Derwent. As early jet engines were relatively weak and unreliable, a pair were mounted on the wings, and jet cross section did matter a lot in drag.




You are correct as far as engine size diameter goes, although Armstrong Siddeley managed to build an incredibly fat and heavy 14 stage axial compressor engine at the time. 

while the Sleek Axial Jumo has just about 1/2 the frontal area of a Derwent series I it is 655lb heavier according to one book, has a 3 to pressure ratio for it's 8 stage compressor and has a fuel consumption of 1.4lb/lb.t./hr compared to the Derwent's 3.9 pressure ratio and 1.17 lb/lb.t./hr fuel consumption (granted under a somewhat different condition).

There is no question that the axial wound up being the superior design for high performance engines and there is also no question that it only took a few years for the axial to show it's superiority.
Unfortunately for the Me 262 1944-45 was just a little too early for the superiority to show up in a practical fashion. 
On Nov 13 1943 a Gloster Meteor was flown with a pair of Metropolitan-Vickers F2 axial compressor engines in rather reduced size nacelles (in fact a picture from the left front of the aircraft shows a rather strange similarity to the 262 except the cockpit is to far forward). While the F2 engine was fatter than the Jumo it can hardly be said that the British were unaware of the potential advantages of the axial compressor.


----------



## Magnon (Jul 30, 2010)

*Appendix D covers surging and how this happens if the throttle is opened or closed too quickly.*
Glider

You don’t have to be Einstein to recognise that all things are relative, nothing is absolute. As someone interested in World War 2 military engine development, you would know that both the centrifugal and the axial jets experienced surge to some extent. It’s just that the axial had a much greater problem. 

According to the CFE report, in the worst case, the Derwent was limited by surge to 15,200 rpm at 30,000 ft. This would still produce a resultant thrust of around 1700 lb, which would be well above that achieved by the JUMOs, which tended to be susceptible to flame out at altitude. The fact that the Meteor had a 2100 metre advantage in service ceiling against the Schwalbe (13,100 vs. 11,000) would tend to bear this out.

See also -

*Measurement and Unsteady Flow Modelling of Centrifugal Compressor Surge*

http://alexandria.tue.nl/extra2/200213364.pdf

“...Besides the gas turbine a large market exists for the internal combustion engine turbocharger, which is used in diesel and gasoline engines. The internal combustion engine turbocharger compresses the gas entering the manifold of the engine and is driven by a turbine running on the engine exhaust gases. In turbocharging a wide range of stable operation is necessary. This is an advantage of a centrifugal compressor with its generally wider operational area...”​
*In war, the fact that your enemy has more problems to deal with than you do at any given time is what matters. 
Well, the Schwalbe had bucketloads of problems to deal with.*


----------



## Magnon (Jul 30, 2010)

*You ommitted in your quote to mention the following 
The new fighter was strengthened to absorb the increase in engine power, had an armoured pressurised cockpit and lighter controls which allowed the aircraft to take part in aerobatics which had been prevented in the F Mk III by wiring the ailerons heavy to prevent the airframe from being over stressed. It is obvious that the RAF were worried about overstressing the airframe for the Mk III. If they hadn't been then they would have settled for the speed and given the pilots a more agile aircraft.*Glider

I was referring to the production F IIIs which were taken out and modified for the first World Record attempts. I can't see any record that they were specially strengthened. 

Quote: "The record attempt was made with two late production F3's, EE454 EE455 which were taken from the production line and brought up to F4 standard less their radio masts and with ballast in place of armament and the cannon ports faired over."

Does the *"brought up to F 4 standard"* imply that the wings were strengthened?..

Can you clarify?


----------



## Glider (Jul 30, 2010)

The Phrase Brought up to F 4 Standard as far as you and I know, can only mean that they were brought up to F4 Standard, no more no less. Whatever changes that were made to the F 4 that removed the problem of the stress and allowed the F4 to exceed 500 mph were presumably made to those aircraft.

I don't know what the changes are and am not going to guess. As far as you or I know the Meteor F III that went to war didn't have those changes made and couldn't go faster than 500 mph.

What happened post war to the F 4 or the resord attempt modified F III doesn't count or apply to what happened during the war. 

No one has said that the 262 was the perfect plane. Its problems seem to boil down to:-
a) The engines needed to be handled with more care than the Meteor.
b) The aircraft was stressed to land at an unusually low weight
c) The 262 could be out turned by the Meteor

The Meters problems seem to be:-
a) It was 40+ miles an hour slower in a straight line
b) It was 100 mph slower in a dive
c) It was a lousy gun platform
d) It was very tiring to throw around the sky

Both were very well armed, had a similar ground performance and approach speeds.

Both the wartime FIII and wartime 262 were what I would call interim production aircraft. The problems in the FIII were sorted in the F4 and there were developments in hand for the 262 to make more use of the swept wing and other issues.

As an aside with luck I might be going to the National Archives tomorrow as my wife is looking into her past relations and I will try and get anything they have on the Meteor and 262. If I find anything I will let you know over the weekend.


----------



## Magnon (Jul 30, 2010)

That'd be appreciated...

Your contribution of the CFE report to the debate is already a significant step forward.


----------



## Magnon (Jul 31, 2010)

OK, this confirms the airframe was strengthened, although it apparently did retain the original long wings:

*F.4*
*In 1945 two much modified Mk IIIs were fitted with the Rolls-Royce Derwent 5 engines in new long-chord nacelles, a pressurized cockpit, extensive airframe strengthening and a gloss finish, ready for an attempt at the world speed record. This was done on the 7/11/1945 with EE454 making 606 mph and EE455 making 603 mph. These aircraft would serve as prototypes for the Mk IV [which made its] maiden flight on the 12/4/1946.*​
Meteor

My apologies Glider


----------



## Magnon (Jul 31, 2010)

Glider said:


> No one has said that the 262 was the perfect plane. Its problems seem to boil down to:-
> a) The engines needed to be handled with more care than the Meteor.
> *Much much more. There was no comparison in terms of reliability*
> 
> ...



*As well as that 
- the Schwalbe's brakes were badly designed (see Me 262 Project Technical Report).*
*- the Schwalbe's service ceiling was 17% lower*
*- the Schwalbe's build quality was shocking, probably because of the use of slave labour*

*I think maybe we should just agree that the Me 262 was the best interceptor of the war, the Meteor the best fighter*


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 31, 2010)

Magnon said:


> I think maybe we should just agree that the Me 262 was the best interceptor of the war, the Meteor the best fighter



I am not going to say the Me 262 was the best anything, but I certainly would never say the Meteor was the best fighter.

Why?

How was it used as a fighter during WW2? Other than dropping V-1s by wing tipping (which piston engined fighters could do as well), it was not used as a fighter during WW2. It never engaged any enemy aircraft during WW2. To say it is the best, is speculation at best. We can speculate all day long on what could have been, but we simply do not know. 

No trying to argue with you or anything though. Seriously, this is a great discussion with lots of valuable information. I thank you for that.


----------



## Magnon (Jul 31, 2010)

Trying to find a Me 262 Schwalbe to dogfight over Germany in early 1945 would be the rough equivalent of finding a needle in a haystack.

Although 1400 Schwalbes were built, only 300 were said to have seen combat and only an average of around 30 - 40 made it into the air on any given day. I believe that that was not the result of a lack of fuel, but unreliability and the high demands put on the pilot in terms of experience and ability. With its demanding flying characteristics, there weren't 1400 pilots in Germany who were good enough to handle it. The fuel it required was not high grade and could come raw straight from the German synthetic fuel plants.

"Apparently, according to Hans, this German jet fuel was terribly noxious. You simply threw away any clothes that came in contact with it. Interestingly, Hans stated that there was NEVER a shortage of jet fuel, just a shortage of aircraft and pilots. Whatever hydrocarbon fuel cracking process being used by the Germans in late war (whether synthetic, coal-derived fuels or conventional), the process or processes yielded an abundant quantity of jet-suitable fuel."
Microsoft's Paul Allen's Me-262 Landmark Restoration - Key Publishing Ltd Aviation Forums​
This makes sense. It was by far the least demanding fuel for the German industry to produce, and the Me 262 squadrons SHOULD have been given priority over anything else in terms of fuel supply. Only they could hope to smash the Allied bombers that were destroying the synthetic fuel plants. Just as the Me 262 SHOULD have been given priority over the King Tigers in terms of nickel supply. 

If just half of them were in the air, they had the power to break the vicious circle of lack of fuel causing the ground forces to pull back. They would also release relatively large numbers of conventional fighters to try to break the Allied air superiority over the battlefields. Again, with fewer bombers around, there would have been more German fighters produced. 

What happened?

Maybe the legendary Me 262 was not so legendary, more mythical.


----------



## Glider (Jul 31, 2010)

Magnon said:


> Much much more. There was no comparison in terms of reliability[/B]


I was thinking of the impact of being rough with the engine. When surged the 262 had a tendancy to flame out, the Meteor would give you a rough ride but was less likely to quit on you.



> b) The aircraft was stressed to land at an unusually low weight
> *In other words the undercarriage was badly overstressed*


But it wasn't a major problem during the war. They had to take care if landing with full tanks but normally it wasn't a huge problem. 



> c) The 262 could be out turned by the Meteor
> *By a big margin*


Do we know by how much? 



> The Meteor's problems seem to be:-
> a) It was 40+ miles an hour slower in a straight line
> On the level, agreed






> b) It was 100 mph slower in a dive
> *The Me 262 was out of control in a dive...No air brakes. Test pilots wouldn't dive*!


I am sorry but this is rubbish. The pilots were told not to exceed 600mph and the serious buffeting seemed to start at around 620 mph. You don't get to 600 from 540 without diving. 
Also recovery was easy, Eric Brown explains that all you had to do was hold the airspeed and as height reduced the mach no fell. As the mach no fell the plane became controllable. Quoting from Air Enthusiast Nov 1972 Gerd Lindell a test pilot on the 262 reported that at mach 0.83 the nose started to drop and 30 lb of pressure was required. At 0.86 this increased to 100lb of pressure. Recovery was effected by holding the dive angle steady until the mach reduced automatically with the reduced altitude. Eric Brown reported that he duplicated the tests and confirmed them in all respects but he found that 620mph was the limit not the 600mph Luftwaffe pilots were warned about.



> c) It was a lousy gun platform
> Not as good as the Me 262, agreed, but then again, the Mig 15 was regarded as being a poor gun platform
> 
> d) It was very tiring to throw around the sky
> But it could still do aerobatics, which the Me 262 was forbidden to do






> Both were very well armed, had a similar ground performance and approach speeds.
> -* The Meteor had high velocity (70% higher) cannon, absolutely essential for dogfighting*


On the other hand one hit from a 30mm was certain to ruin anyones day. I don't see any point in getting into a detailed debate and deliberately left it as both are well armed. You wouldn't want to be in front of either plane.



> - Takeoff roll for the Meteor was at least 30% better (i.e. shorter) than the Schwalbe.


Take off distance for a Meteor to 50ft is 1000 yards which is similar.



> - Approach speeds are pretty much irrelevant, surely.


Its the approach speed that spooks most pilots not used to these speeds, and that why I mentioned it



> Both the wartime FIII and wartime 262 were what I would call interim production aircraft. The problems in the FIII were sorted in the F4 and there were developments in hand for the 262 to make more use of the swept wing and other issues.* But the engines in the pipeline were so heavy that the wings would have to be swept back just to rectify the CG. (I'm being a little facetious here.) *


Yep, you are



> They all had thrust/weight ratios of less than 1.5:1. The projected German craft's acceleration would be abysmal. The F IV was years ahead of its time in terms of acceleration. It wasn't going to be equalled in terms of thrust to weight ratio until the arrival of the North American Super Sabre.


We don't know what the final result would have been and I suggest thats a topic for a different thread as its a complex subject.


----------



## Magnon (Jul 31, 2010)

The German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche was a good observer of human nature. One of his aphorisms is apposite to the debacle of the Me 262:

...*INSANITY IN INDIVIDUALS IS SOMETHING RARE 
- BUT IN GROUPS, PARTIES, NATIONS AND EPOCHS, IT IS 
THE RULE!*..​


----------



## Glider (Jul 31, 2010)

Just a thought. If you consider the 262 to be a debacle, what aircraft would you consider to be a success?


----------



## red admiral (Aug 2, 2010)

Glider said:


> Magnon
> Find anything that says the Mk III could fly faster than 500mph and the point is yours. The problem is that it didn't.



See report here especially para 3. The limitation to 500kcas isn't structural but rather aerodynamic due to Mach effects. 500kcas at 6500ft corresponds to 630mph or Mach 0.85, so there is plenty of scope for the Meteor to dive to higher speeds from level flight. Given that the limiting Mach for the Me 262 is ~0.86, there isn't any great difference.

On the structural side of things the RAF was more worried about the progression to higher speeds giving the ability to pull higher g loads, so they adopted a fairly stiff control format which limited agility a bit but helped the aircraft not to fall apart. Too conservative? Maybe, but quite a few other period had habits of falling apart at high speeds.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 2, 2010)

Glider said:


> Just a thought. If you consider the 262 to be a debacle, what aircraft would you consider to be a success?



I think calling it a debacle is unfair. Sure it was not perfect and had problems, but what early jet aircraft did not?


----------



## Glider (Aug 2, 2010)

red admiral said:


> See report here especially para 3. The limitation to 500kcas isn't structural but rather aerodynamic due to Mach effects. 500kcas at 6500ft corresponds to 630mph or Mach 0.85, so there is plenty of scope for the Meteor to dive to higher speeds from level flight. Given that the limiting Mach for the Me 262 is ~0.86, there isn't any great difference.
> 
> On the structural side of things the RAF was more worried about the progression to higher speeds giving the ability to pull higher g loads, so they adopted a fairly stiff control format which limited agility a bit but helped the aircraft not to fall apart. Too conservative? Maybe, but quite a few other period had habits of falling apart at high speeds.



Good find, just what I was hoping to find at the NA. One point though, all the speeds I have been quoted are indicated air speeds and the fact remains that the Meteor was limited to 500mph until the new nacelles are installed. It also clearly states that the new nacelles are not expected before August 1945 but unfortunately doesnt say when they arrived at the front line. It is probable that the limit of 500mph was in place during the conflict.

I don't know the Mach limitation on the Meteor III but I do know that it was Mach 0.8 on the Meteor I.


----------



## Glider (Aug 2, 2010)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I think calling it a debacle is unfair. Sure it was not perfect and had problems, but what early jet aircraft did not?



I wasn't the one calling the 262 a debacle, far from it.


----------



## Magnon (Aug 2, 2010)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I think calling it a debacle is unfair. Sure it was not perfect and had problems, but what early jet aircraft did not?



Of 1440 aircraft that were built, only around 300 ever saw service. That was due not to fuel shortages, but 
1	A shortage of pilots who were of the calibre needed to fly it.
2	Its abysmal reliability.​"Apparently, according to Hans, this German jet fuel was terribly noxious. You simply threw away any clothes that came in contact with it. *Interestingly, Hans stated that there was NEVER a shortage of jet fuel, just a shortage of aircraft and pilots.* Whatever hydrocarbon fuel cracking process being used by the Germans in late war (whether synthetic, coal-derived fuels or conventional), the process or processes yielded an abundant quantity of jet-suitable fuel."
Microsoft's Paul Allen's Me-262 Landmark Restoration - Key Publishing Ltd Aviation Forums​The two factors were obviously interrelated. The lack of reliability was due to the very poor engine design and to a lesser extent, the poor standard of build and general design.

The engine need not have been unreliable. The Germans allocated many times the nickel requirement to their tank program. The jets SHOULD have been given far higher priority than the tanks. This looks to be an example of a Wehrmacht-centric mindset by the Germans. Nobody seems to question this.

In terms of pilot calibre, Erich Hartmann the top German Ace qualified but chose not to participate:

Asisbiz Messerschmitt Bf 109G-6 'Red 1' flown by Leutnant Erich Hartmann, Staffelkapitan 9./JG52, October 1943
Q:	Adolf Galland told me of how he tried to get you into his JV-44 in 1945. Why did you not take him up on the offer, like Krupi and Barkhorn?
A:	I did qualify in the Me-262, but my heart and friends were in JG-52, and I felt that was where I belonged. Unit loyalty to me was important. Plus I had many new pilots who needed guidance and instruction. They were getting younger all the time and had fewer and fewer hours of flight instruction before they were thrown into battle. I was needed and that was where I stayed. Rall, Krupinski, Steinhoff and others were transferred to the Reich Defense, where they ended their war. I was torn between these facts, but I felt that I made the right decision at the time. In later years I realized that my life would have been very different if I had stayed with JV-44.​So 300 out of 1400 aircraft (i.e. 22%) ever to see service, with a maximum of about 60 (4%) at any given time, has to be a fiasco or a debacle or whatever you want to call it. It *was* that. 

Or maybe it was just a complete and utter stuff-up.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 3, 2010)

Glider said:


> I wasn't the one calling the 262 a debacle, far from it.



Oh I know, I was just responding to what you said.



Magnon said:


> So 300 out of 1400 aircraft ever to see service, with a maximum of about 60 at any given time, has to be a fiasco or a debacle or whatever you want to call it. It was that.



No, it is not a debacle. You are describing early jet technology. And technology from a country that is on a losing side of a war.


----------



## bada (Aug 3, 2010)

red admiral said:


> See report here especially para 3. The limitation to 500kcas isn't structural but rather aerodynamic due to Mach effects. 500kcas at 6500ft corresponds to 630mph or Mach 0.85, so there is plenty of scope for the Meteor to dive to higher speeds from level flight. Given that the limiting Mach for the Me 262 is ~0.86, there isn't any great difference.



Please, re-read 
page 6 paragraph 54
(i) :The maximum permissible speed on the meteor MKIII imposed for structural considerations is 500mph.
(ii) : The critical mach on the Meteor MKIII is *.74 *(this is additionnal to the 500mph IAS restriction mentioned 
above). Therefor it can be seen that at low alt the structural limitation is the deciding maximum and at 
altitude it is the Mach. number limitation.

page11 , paragraphs 90->93>limitation speeds are showed and also, the effects on the plane.
exemples: 20000ft :max 400 IAS
30000ft :max 325 IAS
35000ft :max 290 IAS





red admiral said:


> On the structural side of things the RAF was more worried about the progression to higher speeds giving the ability to pull higher g loads, so they adopted a fairly stiff control format which limited agility a bit but helped the aircraft not to fall apart. Too conservative? Maybe, but quite a few other period had habits of falling apart at high speeds.



Why kept them the elevator LIGHT then and the HIGH Seating position ? it's the best combination to black out the pilot and break the wings.


----------



## Magnon (Aug 3, 2010)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> No, it is not a debacle. You are describing early jet technology. And technology from a country that is on a losing side of a war.



*Maybe if they hadn't stuffed up the Schwalbe project they wouldn't have been losing so rapidly...*


----------



## Glider (Aug 3, 2010)

Magnon said:


> *Maybe if they hadn't stuffed up the Schwalbe project they wouldn't have been losing so rapidly...*



Clearly you consider the development of the Me 262 using a new technology, the design and development of an aircraft that is when used correctly immune to interception from fighters, that could pick and choose when to attack, whilst having a one pass one kill potential against heavy bombers, that was used as a fighter bomber and developed as a night fighter was a 'stuffed up project'.

I have asked before, what aircraft development you would condiser to be a success?


----------



## Magnon (Aug 3, 2010)

With 4% availability, it was a pretty damned dreadful in terms of its effectiveness... it was only able to perhaps very slightly delay the inevitable... if that.

I guess a good definition would be a successful aircraft is one that can contribute strongly in terms of saving its country from defeat or guaranteeing that it wouldn't happen when you are on the defensive... or winning a war if you are on the offensive ...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 3, 2010)

Magnon said:


> *Maybe if they hadn't stuffed up the Schwalbe project they wouldn't have been losing so rapidly...*



Seriously, the 262 would not have changed anything. There was no way it was going to be a serious factor in time. There were too many factors to keep it from becoming so. Too many things that Germany had control over and too many things that it did not have control over. Either way the Germany was not going to win the war no matter what, does not matter what your agenda is.



Glider said:


> Clearly you consider the development of the Me 262 using a new technology, the design and development of an aircraft that is when used correctly immune to interception from fighters, that could pick and choose when to attack, whilst having a one pass one kill potential against heavy bombers, that was used as a fighter bomber and developed as a night fighter was a 'stuffed up project'.
> 
> I have asked before, what aircraft development you would condiser to be a success?



+1

Like I said, I do not believe the 262 was perfect or anything, but lets be realistic and objective.



Magnon said:


> With 4% availability, it was a pretty damned dreadful in terms of its effectiveness... it was only able to perhaps very slightly delay the inevitable... if that.
> 
> I guess a good definition would be a successful aircraft is one that can contribute strongly in terms of saving its country from defeat or guaranteeing that it wouldn't happen when you are on the defensive... or winning a war if you are on the offensive ...



So lets say the 262 would have been developed by England or the USA. What would your opinion be then (well I guess you would consider it facts...). Just curious...


----------



## Glider (Aug 3, 2010)

Magnon said:


> I guess a good definition would be a successful aircraft is one that can contribute strongly in terms of saving its country from defeat or guaranteeing that it wouldn't happen when you are on the defensive... or winning a war if you are on the offensive ...



And your nomination is?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 3, 2010)

Glider said:


> And your nomination is?



What jet aircraft during WW2 did that?


----------



## Glider (Aug 3, 2010)

I am after his nomination for a fighter development during the war that was in his opinion a success.


----------



## Magnon (Aug 3, 2010)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> What jet aircraft during WW2 did that?





That's a good topic for a further discussion ... why don't you start it...?


----------



## Erich (Aug 3, 2010)

the 262 was very effective for the numbers given history shows this. go ask a US 4-engine bomber crewman if you can find one, he will tell you the chaos it reigned and the fear it brought into the crewmens hearts ; thank God Almighty for the US P-51 Mustang..............


----------



## Magnon (Aug 3, 2010)

Erich said:


> the 262 was very effective for the numbers given history shows this. go ask a US 4-engine bomber crewman if you can find one, he will tell you the chaos it reigned and the fear it brought into the crewmens hearts ; thank God Almighty for the US P-51 Mustang..............



Right, Erich...

And if there had ever been 1400 Me 262s put in the air, the USAAF wouldn't have come back the next day.

What is *your* explanation for the lack of pilots and the lack of planes?


----------



## Erich (Aug 3, 2010)

plenty of pilots and plenty of planes, no fuel........end of story and this prolonged thread


----------



## Magnon (Aug 4, 2010)

Erich said:


> plenty of pilots and plenty of planes, no fuel........end of story and this prolonged thread



?????... 

OK if you say so... shut down the thread... Rip it off!!!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 4, 2010)

Glider said:


> I am after his nomination for a fighter development during the war that was in his opinion a success.



What I am doing, is agreeing with you...



Magnon said:


> ?????...
> 
> OK if you say so... shut down the thread... Rip it off!!!



That is not what he is saying. Just answer everyone's questions. You keep skirting away from them al, by just saying it was a debacle.


----------



## Magnon (Aug 4, 2010)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> What I am doing, is agreeing with you...
> 
> 
> 
> That is not what he is saying. Just answer everyone's questions. You keep skirting away from them al, by just saying it was a debacle.



I've done what I wanted to... *the Schwalbe's deficiencies have been documented in one place, rather than across the Web... *
This is high in popularity in terms of sites covering the topic... outsiders will be able to judge for themselves whether participants are making "weisenheimer" remarks just for the sake of scoring points...


----------



## parsifal (Aug 4, 2010)

Magnon

The discussion so far has been interesting, but you you need to step back and coll off just a little.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 4, 2010)

Magnon said:


> outsiders will be able to judge for themselves whether participants are making "weisenheimer" remarks just for the sake of scoring points...







parsifal said:


> Magnon
> 
> The discussion so far has been interesting, but you you need to step back and coll off just a little.



+1

A wise man...


----------



## Magnon (Aug 19, 2010)

Here is an interesting little snippet from http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/p...n_kerosene.pdf

_“...our opponents flew de Havilland Vampire and Gloster Meteor jets from England. The Vampires were pretty little single-engined fighters with twin tail booms. They didn’t have the performance of the Banshee. The early Meteor F Mk 3, the ones we faced the most, were about an even match for the Banshees and made the air-to-air maneuvers an interesting challenge. There were a few late-model Meteor F 8 aircraft that had bigger engines and were easily identified in flight by the large nacelles on the wing. We never toyed with those unless we had a good starting advantage because they would eat up a Banshee...”_​
This was in post war exercises over Europe around about 1948.

The Banshee had a much higher thrust than the F3 Meteor with two 3250 lb thrust Westinghouse J34-WE-34 engines. Its engines were mounted in the fuselage, so it should have had an excellent roll rate, giving it an important advantage in a dog fight. However, it also had a relatively high wing loading, at around 70 lb/sq.ft., compared to about half that for the Meteor F3. It was also pretty heavy fully loaded 25,214 lb (Wikepedia), which would give it a thrust to weight ratio of 0.26. The Meteor F3 was 12,614 (CFE Report), so the Meteor F3's thrust to weight ratio was better, especially if they had been fitted with Derwent IV engines of 2400 lb thrust (It would then have been 0.37). In common with the Banshee, the Me 262 also had a relatively high wing loading at around 60 lb/ft2, and had a slightly better thrust to weight ratio of 0.28, as against the Meteor F3’s 0.32, based on using the Derwent I.

Me 262 data from ch11-2


----------



## Magnon (Aug 22, 2010)

From _*Design Analysis of Messerschmitt Me 262 Jet Fighter Part 1 - Airframe:*_

_...Every Nazi pilot apparently was his own Führer, for the Germans call the next section the Führerraum, or pilot space. And they must have been little Führers, for the rudder pedals are quite close to the seat and there is no fore-and-aft adjustment either on the pedals or the seat. An average sized American sitting in the cockpit finds his knees sticking well up in the air right in front of some of the instruments...​_


----------



## Kurfürst (Aug 22, 2010)

Quite common design technique in WW2 German fighter aircraft, actually, the seating position being designed to resist G-loads better with the legs situated high...


----------



## Magnon (Aug 22, 2010)

Kurfürst said:


> Quite common design technique in WW2 German fighter aircraft, actually, the seating position being designed to resist G-loads better with the legs situated high...



Some adjustment would have been very handy... 

And in any case the Me 262 with its high wing loading wasn't designed for high G-loads. In its role as an interceptor it certainly didn't need to pull high Gs and it would be well advised to use speed to disengage with Allied fighters rather than to get into a turning duel with them. That would be extremely unwise...


----------



## bada (Aug 23, 2010)

Magnon said:


> Some adjustment would have been very handy...
> 
> And in any case the Me 262 with its high wing loading wasn't designed for high G-loads. In its role as an interceptor it certainly didn't need to pull high Gs and it would be well advised to use speed to disengage with Allied fighters rather than to get into a turning duel with them. That would be extremely unwise...



And since when High load means no G's? so, the 190 wasn't build for high G loads if you follow this "logic", but the 190 could take (pilot and frame) more G's than any allied fighter.

Other flaw at you" high load" logic: bank a plane 30° at 700kmh to make turn and pull the stick 1inch and then try the same at 350kmh... now, when will you get the high G's? ...

off course, in the Me262 at full speed you need 1 hand to make a 30°bank with a small amount of force needed, but in the meteor, you need the 2 hands and you're tired after few ailerons mouvements.... 

i'd prefear to have a cockpit like the one of the 262 (slightly copied on the 190 question ergonomics) than 
a can full of rubish badly placed indicators and levers like the one on the meteor.

And please stop comparing airplanes from 48' to one from 44 , it's like apples and oranges.


----------



## Magnon (Aug 23, 2010)

The Me 262 cockpit was placed over the wing, exactly where the fuel tank needed to be. As a result, fuel stowage took place all around the cockpit. There has never been another jet to follow that example. The comparison between the design of the Me 262 Schwalbe and that of the Meteor in this regard is enlightening. 

The Meteor’s fuel system was a model of simplicity, and the Schwalbe’s system could only be described as ‘byzantine,’ to put it kindly. Let’s look at the facts: 

From Me262Wendell
...The highest permissible rearward point for the centre of gravity is 30 per cent of the mean aerodynamic wing chord. *If this position is exceeded, then the aircraft becomes unstable about the lateral axis, that is, it does not remain trimmed, but will automatically stall in a turn. Under normal conditions of fuel stowage this position is not exceeded, but it is necessary to watch most carefully the transfer pumping instructions... Watch particularly that the main tanks do not overflow as the J2 fuel will run out into the fuselage and get on the radio equipment which interferes with radio traffic*...​[To say the least...]

OK. Let’s check the fuel management out -

From ME262PilotDebrief
...There are two main fuel tanks, one forward and one behind the cockpit, each with a capacity of 900 litres... Beneath the seat of the pilot is a reserve tank of 200 litres capacity. Total fuel capacity is therefore close to 2000 litres... *The concentration of all tanks near the pilot makes his position extremely vulnerable*...​Putting it bluntly, the pilot is placed right in the middle of the fuel stowage zone, and the plane itself is more at risk because the fuel is significantly more spread out and hence makes a bigger target than that in the Meteor. In order to get greater range, later versions added a second (600 litre) auxiliary tank at the rear, and reduced the size of the rear main tank to 775 litres – making a grand total of 2500 litres fuel capacity.

From Me262PilotHandbook
Fuel System Controls: ...Fuel transfer is accomplished by operation of the push button switch located in the main switch panel... Fuel is transferred from the main auxiliary tank to the main fuel tanks only. Transfer from the auxiliary fuel tank located beneath the pilot’s compartment is accomplished by pumping into the rear auxiliary tank and then into the main fuel tanks. Fuel transfer is automatic upon operation of the fuel transfer switch. Fuel is transferred at unequal rates into the forward fuel tank...​Center of Gravity position: ...With the three forward fuel tanks full and the rear one empty, the best center of gravity will be maintained...​[Now just keep that in mind]

Fuel System management: Fuel selector switches – the fuel valve controls... have three positions; rear position fuel shut off; center position rear main fuel tank; and forward position front main fuel tank. In order to maintain a suitable center of gravity, the following selector valve positions have been found to be practical –
1.	When starting the jet units and taxiing – both fuel selector valves at “rear main fuel tank.”
2.	During take-off and in flight – left hand unit at “front main fuel tank” and right hand unit at “rear main fuel tank.”
After about ten min of flying time, switch on the fuel transfer system. [Turn?] off the transfer system when the fuel gage shows 900 litres... *as there may be a danger of the fuel running over*.​Fuel transfer – fuel transfer switches are located in the right side of the cockpit, main switch panel... Fuel is pumped from the 200 liter tank to the 600 liter tank and then to the front and rear main tanks. The fuel is pumped into the rear main tank at a faster rate than into the front main tank. The ratio is 3:1...​
To put it mildly, there are some very real problems here. It’s not the sort of complex system you want to be dealing with at any time, let alone in a combat situation. As the well-known Murphy’s Law points out, “If something *can* go wrong, it *will*...”

From Design Analysis of Me 262 Jet Fighter
...The fuel system consists of two 238-gal. main tanks plus a 53-gal. reserve and, at least in design plans, an auxiliary tank of about 170 gal. capacity. Both self-sealing main tanks have plywood coverings and are suspended by two straps on the ends of which are bolts that go up through pressed fittings riveted to the inside of the fuselage skin about two-thirds of the way up the side. Nuts are put on the bolts through access holes in the fuselage skin, with the holes covered by doped fabric patches. Each of the main fuel cells has two booster pumps and the reserve tank has one, the system being so arranged that fuel can be pumped from any tank to either engine, or fuel from the rear tank can be pumped to the front. The reserve tank (at least some of these have not been self sealing) goes just in front of the main spar. It is trapped to a single-skin panel, 19-3/4 in. deep by 66¼ in. wide, that is reinforced by six hat-shaped stiffeners and is attached to the fuselage by flat screws placed approximately 1¾ in. apart. Evidence of the Nazis’ attempts to get more range out of the Me-262 is shown by plans for installation of the 170-gal. auxiliary tank aft of the rear main cell. It is not known how extensively, if at all, this plan was carried out, for the craft studied was the latest model produced and it had no such installation...​Apparently it was installed, as it’s mentioned in the Me262 Pilot’s Handbook as a 158 gallon tank. As it was located well to the rear, it must have exacerbated the fuel CG problem which Wendell had already flagged up for the three tank system. 

*The inclusion of non-self-sealing tanks into the mix would just compound the pilot’s paranoia with regard to sitting in the middle of the fuel stowage which was already prone to leakage. I don’t know the characteristics of the brown coal-based J2 fuel, but I suspect it included some volatile fractions. Cheap and nasty will do just fine when you’ve got your backs to the wall. The Germans also used aviation gasoline as backup fuel for the Me 262. Looking on the bright side, it would undoubtedly have been a quick death.* 

On the other hand, the Meteor’s system was relatively a model of simplicity. It had one main tank with two compartments, and one ventral drop tank. There were no fuel transfer operations required to be carried out by the pilot during the flight. All the fuel was located right where it needed to be in terms of CG, and gravity acted to distribute it between the two compartments of the main fuel tank. 

From the Meteor-CFE Report No 68:
Fuel Capacity:
15. The fuel capacity is 330 gallons [1485 litres] internally carried in one main fuselage tank which is divided into two compartments; [the] front one feeding the port engine and the rear one the starboard engine.
16. The ventral drop tank of 180 gallons [810 litres] can also be carried, the fuel being transferred to the main tanks by air pressure from the blower on the engine.​[So no need for a mechanical pump, and the fuel was automatically transferred into the compartments of the main tank as the fuel there was used up. The design was such that there was no risk of overfilling and spillage as there apparently was in the Schwalbe transfer operations.]
17. The two compartments of the main tank can be interconnected by a balance [line] when the fuel will settle to the same level in the two [compartments]. This does not allow the two engines to be run off one [compartment]...​...The design range of the centre of gravity is from 27.9% of the standard mean chord to 34.1% standard mean chord. *In all cases the centre of gravity lies within this range.* The most extreme position reached is for an aircraft with no ventral tank with all its ammunition expended when the centre of gravity is at 33% standard mean chord. The effect of the ventral tank is to move the centre of gravity forward...0.4% when full...​
Obviously the other advantage with a drop tank is that when it comes to combat, the pilot can choose to ditch it, hence lightening his craft ready for dog-fighting.

Regards,

Magnon


----------



## tail end charlie (Aug 24, 2010)

Magnon said:


> The Me 262 cockpit was placed over the wing, exactly where the fuel tank needed to be. As a result, fuel stowage took place all around the cockpit. There has never been another jet to follow that example. The comparison between the design of the Me 262 Schwalbe and that of the Meteor in this regard is enlightening.
> 
> Magnon



I dont know much about aerodynamics but I read that the 262 originally (as a prototype) had a propellor at the front "just in case" could that be why the cockpit and fuel were in the centre?

Was there a reason for the meteor and 262 having the engines in the wings, easy to change in the actual plane and change the type of engine or safer if they exploded?

Were these two planes, being the first on each side sort of test bed prototypes that ended up going into service for a pressing need?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 24, 2010)

tail end charlie said:


> I dont know much about aerodynamics but I read that the 262 originally (as a prototype) had a propellor at the front "just in case" could that be why the cockpit and fuel were in the centre?



Actually the main reason the Me 262 had a piston engine at first was because the jet engines were not ready in time to start flight testing. The piston engine remained for safety purposes for the first few flights with jet engines.


----------



## tail end charlie (Aug 24, 2010)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Actually the main reason the Me 262 had a piston engine at first was because the jet engines were not ready in time to start flight testing. The piston engine remained for safety purposes for the first few flights with jet engines.



Thanks, thats what I read (admittedly on wiki) but it with regard to cockpit position and fuel they must have had the idea to put an engine on the front from the start (i would have thought) putting the pilot and fuel behind.

having read how much fuel the 262 pilot had in front behind and underneath ...I take the meteor thanks


----------



## Glider (Aug 24, 2010)

tail end charlie said:


> Thanks, thats what I read (admittedly on wiki) but it with regard to cockpit position and fuel they must have had the idea to put an engine on the front from the start (i would have thought) putting the pilot and fuel behind.


They did not plan to put the engine in the front it was a stop gap method to get over the delay of the engine. The piston engine replaced the guns so it wasn't a major problem.



> having read how much fuel the 262 pilot had in front behind and underneath ...I take the meteor thanks


It wasn't unusual to put fuel in front and behind the pilot, the Spitfire was a prime example. At the end of the day the Me 262 was a lot faster than the Meteor III as operational during the war. Both aircraft were well armed and likely to inflict fatal damage to the other so the important factor is which was most likely to get their guns onto target.
I would choose the one thats approx 40-50mph in level flight and 100mph faster in a dive.


----------



## tail end charlie (Aug 24, 2010)

Glider said:


> They did not plan to put the engine in the front it was a stop gap method to get over the delay of the engine. The piston engine replaced the guns so it wasn't a major problem.
> I would choose the one thats approx 40-50mph in level flight and 100mph faster in a dive.



I thought that putting an engine to pull a plane that wasn't originally designed to be there would overstress everything around it....thanks anyway

From what the article on wiki said it doesnt seem like the meteor was rushed at all it refers to things like "waiting for engine type approval" then after the V1 threat disappeared they (seemingly) couldnt decide what to do with it since they didnt want to use it over Germany itself. Again from the wiki article (sorry) it says the aerodynamics were "not advanced" which from the same article refering to various engine changes led me to think it was just a sort of test bed that ended up in service.


----------



## tail end charlie (Aug 24, 2010)

Magnon said:


> The engine need not have been unreliable. The Germans allocated many times the nickel requirement to their tank program. The jets SHOULD have been given far higher priority than the tanks. This looks to be an example of a Wehrmacht-centric mindset by the Germans. Nobody seems to question this.
> 
> Or maybe it was just a complete and utter stuff-up.



I dont know how exactly this forum system works but I think it was MAGNON who posted the above

Magnon. I read a few articles years ago about development of turbines. Basically it stated that the problems with the 262 engines (and all early jets) was (amongst many other things) getting alloys to withstand the temperature. This is not just the amount of nickel involved but the exact percentage of each element and subsequent treatment.

Whereas Germany was for years at the forefront of metallurgy (I work in the steel industry and my job is littered with words like Bauschinger effect and Luders plateau) in these particular alloys the british had stolen a march (so to speak) which made the british engines more reliable. 
I dont go into things in the detail that you guys do but from what I have read the british were adopting a safety first attitude. There was no need for the British to operate a plane whose engines only lasted 10-50 hrs (those figures I have read here). This advance in metallurgy they wanted to protect and so they wouldnt allow Meteors to fly over German territory, they didnt need to, because the allies were winning. The Americans had Jets in theatre late in Europe but never deployed them for the same reason. I dont think it was a shortage of Nickel that was the problem (if it was then I appologise) but knowing exacly how much nickel chromium molybdenum or whatever other alloying elements were required. 

Similarly the Americans had the shooting star available in 1945 but didnt deploy it for whatever reason protection of technology or safety because one crashed on a demonstration in England (see below). Reading 
about the early days of jet engines the guys involved were brave to take off evenm without an enemy to fight!!!!!

from wiki
The Shooting Star began to enter service in late 1944 with 12 pre-production YP-80As one of which was destroyed in the accident that killed Burcham. A thirteenth YP-80A was modified to the sole F-14 photo reconnaissance model and lost in a December crash. Four were sent to Europe for operational testing (two to England and two to the 1st Fighter Group at Lesina Airfield, Italy) but when test pilot Major Frederic Borsodi was killed in a crash caused by an engine fire on 28 January 1945, demonstrating YP-80A 44-83026 at RAF Burtonwood, the YP-80A was temporarily grounded. Because of the delay the Shooting Star saw no combat in World War II.


----------



## Colin1 (Aug 25, 2010)

tail end charlie said:


> I dont think it was a shortage of nickel that was the problem (if it was then I apologise) but knowing exacly how much nickel chromium molybdenum or whatever other alloying elements were required


So
a bit like doping in silicon manufacture, there is one ratio and one ratio only that will work in the alloying process for critical components in jets/turbines?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 25, 2010)

tail end charlie said:


> I dont think it was a shortage of Nickel that was the problem (if it was then I appologise) but knowing exacly how much nickel chromium molybdenum or whatever other alloying elements were required.


It was a matter of both - they did need nickel during the alloying process and also had to determine the right composistion that would provide the required heat resistance.



Colin1 said:


> So
> a bit like doping in silicon manufacture, there is one ratio and one ratio only that will work in the alloying process for critical components in jets/turbines?



A bit like that but you can have several different alloys that would provide the same heat resistance. They may exhibit different properties and may have advanatges and disadvantages in their use (brittleness, corrosion resistance, stress failure)

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tail end charlie (Aug 25, 2010)

Colin1 said:


> So
> a bit like doping in silicon manufacture, there is one ratio and one ratio only that will work in the alloying process for critical components in jets/turbines?



I dont know about turbine metallurgy but for steels in furnaces there is a phenomenon called "creep" which means they deform slowly under quite small loads even their own weight this means they need a special analysis. I presume its the same only more so for turbines bearing in mind the temperature changes, gases, pressures and speeds involved. Most furnaces run continually at one temperature.

On my last job I was told that adding 2% Indium transformed the performance of aluminium, I had never heard of "Indium" until then.


----------



## tail end charlie (Aug 25, 2010)

FLYBOYJ said:


> It was a matter of both - they did need nickel during the alloying process and also had to determine the right composistion that would provide the required heat resistance.
> 
> 
> 
> A bit like that but you can have several different alloys that would provide the same heat resistance. They may exhibit different properties and may have advanatges and disadvantages in their use (brittleness, corrosion resistance, stress failure)



The links below show the difficulties of copying an engine even when you can take it apart and analyse everything, the actual chemical analysis is only part of the story, there arte also things like rolling conditions subsequent heat treatment and surface treatments like pickling/passivation.

Klimov RD-500 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Klimov VK-1 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Magnon (Aug 26, 2010)

tail end charlie said:


> I dont know about turbine metallurgy but for steels in furnaces there is a phenomenon called "creep" which means they deform slowly under quite small loads even their own weight this means they need a special analysis. I presume its the same only more so for turbines bearing in mind the temperature changes, gases, pressures and speeds involved. Most furnaces run continually at one temperature.
> 
> On my last job I was told that adding 2% Indium transformed the performance of aluminium, I had never heard of "Indium" until then.





The Americans, at least those in the know, acknowledged the excellent work done in Britain in terms of jet engine development. The British were the first to develop a really creep resistant alloy material ( i.e nimonic). The study and knowledge of the mechanism of creep was then in its infancy. It is much more than having just high temperature corrosion resistance and strength. The turbine blades had to have very low end tip clearances to minimize leakage, which then dictated of course that creep be negligible or at least very low:

Extract from ch7 [history.nasa.gov/SP-4306/ch7.htm]

WHY ARE BRITISH ENGINES SUPERIOR?
The focus on the Nene raised the question, why did the British produce superior engines when their facilities were markedly inferior to those of the United States? Not only did the United States have better facilities, but American engines were made of better alloys developed to withstand the higher temperatures of the combustor and turbine. A consensus emerged that the superiority of British engines was the result of meticulous engineering and closer cooperation between members of the propulsion community. For example, John Collins, Chief of the Engine Performance and Materials Division, believed that British superiority could be "attributed to a large extent to refinements in the details of the engine design and construction."
Dryden was more blunt. He observed after a trip to England at the height of the proprietary rights debate that the "lack of money for facilities has forced them to make the best use of their brains." In addition, the British had been able to foster "a much closer collaboration between the engine companies in technical matters." Dryden called the attitude of Rolls Royce executives on the release of information, "in refreshing contrast to those of Pratt and Whitney, for example"...​I'll submit a bit more later on the subject.

Regards,

Magnon


----------



## tail end charlie (Aug 26, 2010)

Magnon said:


> The Americans, at least those in the know, acknowledged the excellent work done in Britain in terms of jet engine development. The British were the first to develop a really creep resistant alloy material ( i.e nimonic). The study and knowledge of the mechanism of creep was then in its infancy. It is much more than having just high temperature corrosion resistance and strength. The turbine blades had to have very low end tip clearances to minimize leakage, which then dictated of course that creep be negligible or at least very low:
> 
> [/INDENT]
> I'll submit a bit more later on the subject.
> ...



Thanks Magnon, I am not a metallurgist but it is a part of my job, I just looked up nimonic on Wiki which gave an analysis of alloy 90 in percentages. In my job the analysis of steels goes down to 4 or even 6 decimal places on some elements and I bet the actual alloys used in turbines are the same or even more stringent especially for detrimental elements (S,P,N in steel). I also bet if you contact RR or P&W they will smile sweetly and change the subject. That does not even mention heat treatments and surface finishes which are another technology themselves.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 26, 2010)

tail end charlie said:


> The links below show the difficulties of copying an engine even when you can take it apart and analyse everything, the actual chemical analysis is only part of the story, there arte also things like rolling conditions subsequent heat treatment and surface treatments like pickling/passivation.
> 
> Klimov RD-500 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> Klimov VK-1 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Thanks Charlie, and well aware of the other processing involved in high strength alloys. I used certify special controlled processors for Lockheed back in the 1980s. That was a situation of actually copying a alloy from scratch and the Soviets did a great job in pulling that off. Germany several years later not only had a shortage of material (nickel) but also lacked the right "recipe" for the material.


----------



## tail end charlie (Aug 26, 2010)

Colin1 said:


> So
> a bit like doping in silicon manufacture, there is one ratio and one ratio only that will work in the alloying process for critical components in jets/turbines?



Colin 

I found the spec for nimonic alloy 90 here 

http://www.specialmetals.com/documents/Nimonic alloy 90.pdf

It takes a lot of research and brains to come up with parameters like those and even more to mass produce things to it. For example as far as heat treatment goes there are various means to measure temperature with thermocouples infra red and surface pyrometers but they all give slightly different results. The research into these effects takes huge effort even on steel, every failure means back to the drawing board propose another solution find out how to make it and try again. Although the progress on turbines seems slow at first sight when you see what the people did in a short space of time it is astonishing.

As far as analysis is concerned in my industry generally we test to 2 decimal places beyond the spec.
For example where Boron is 0.02% max ....0.021 is acceptable the 1 is rounded down but 0.025 is rejectable as the 5 is rounded up and hence 0.245 is also rejectable Alternatively the client may specify 0.020 or even 0.0200 if they dont accept rounding which is obviously more severe. 

I dont work to nimonic specs but in my industry we sometimes use monel and incoloy which were developed by the same group.


----------



## Magnon (Aug 27, 2010)

Extract from Leonard Bessemer Pfeil. 1898-1969 ? Biographical Memoirs relating to the development of Nimonic 75 and 80:

“...the situation was changed by news of interest in the Whittle engine. At that time the scientific staff at the laboratory, following the practice that Dr Pfeil had appreciated so much in Professor Edward’s laboratory in Swansea, used to meet every morning for coffee and discussion. When the isdea of driving an aircraft with its own exhaust gases was first introduced to the coffee party it was greeted with derision. Nevertheless the theory was looked at, and the idea judged to be practicable if the speed of the aircraft was high enough. The turbine blades of the Whittle engine were then failing with discouraging regularity. The temperature of the turbine blade was between 600 and 650 degrees C, much lower than in alternative gas turbines, but the blade stresses were high, around [27,000 lb/ sq inch]. When tested under these conditions Nimonic 75 failed dismally, but Nimonic 80 was adequate, and, indeed could endure stresses so high as to ensure that the Whittle engine could not only be practicable as designed but would be capable of considerable development.

The problem was now to produce sufficient quantities of Nimonic 80 blading to equip some experimental Whittle engines. This was not easy, since the alloy was awkward in the foundry and the mill, and, until the methods of handling it were mastered, difficult to machine. Nevertheless the difficulties were overcome in time for Nimonic 80 blades to be adopted in the Whittle engine after an experimental E28 jet plane powered with a W2B engine had outpaced conventional fighter aircraft with impressive ease in the presence of Winston Churchill in April 1942. By 1943 it was possible to consider seriously the design of aircraft to fly at 1000 miles per hour. An enormous amount of detailed development work followed. The effects of of every step in the production process on the creep resistance of the alloy were examined and more advanced alloys were systematically developed.

The work required the installation of great numbers of creep testing machines. Engineers visiting Great Britain after the war were impressed by the many batteries of creep testing machines to be seen throughout the country, for by that time it had been established that high temperature materials for gas turbines should be supplied on the basis of the determined rate of deformation under stress at the working tremperature.

Before the end of the war, development ceased to be entirely dominated by the requirements of fighter aircraft. The use of jet-propelled civil aircraft with long service lives was foreseen, and the testing periods were appropriately extended. The possibilities of gas turbines in ship propulsion and electricity generation were also considered. The long task of measuring the tolerable stresses for new alloys up to 100,000 hours, and for service temperatures between 600 and 1000 degrees C was undertaken..."​


----------



## tail end charlie (Aug 27, 2010)

Magnon said:


> Extract from Leonard Bessemer Pfeil. 1898-1969 ? Biographical Memoirs relating to the development of Nimonic 75 and 80:
> 
> “...the situation was changed by news of interest in the Whittle engine. At that time the scientific staff at the laboratory, following the practice that Dr Pfeil had appreciated so much in Professor Edward’s laboratory in Swansea, used to meet every morning for coffee and discussion. When the isdea of driving an aircraft with its own exhaust gases was first introduced to the coffee party it was greeted with derision. Nevertheless the theory was looked at, and the idea judged to be practicable if the speed of the aircraft was high enough. The turbine blades of the Whittle engine were then failing with discouraging regularity. The temperature of the turbine blade was between 600 and 650 degrees C, much lower than in alternative gas turbines, but the blade stresses were high, around [27,000 lb/ sq inch]. When tested under these conditions Nimonic 75 failed dismally, but Nimonic 80 was adequate, and, indeed could endure stresses so high as to ensure that the Whittle engine could not only be practicable as designed but would be capable of considerable development.
> 
> ...



It must have been a huge undertaking, imagine waiting a few thousand hours for a test result and finding things were no better. When I worked on an investigation it took three weeks to do all the tests and then a further week to make sense of the results, even the top metallurgists were undecided whether a variance in results was caused by the original steel, the effects of the process or the natural variance on the test. Without computers, databases and spreadsheets it must have been a real challenge.


----------



## Magnon (Aug 27, 2010)

I think it's ironic that the leader of the team which developed Nimonic had a German surname* Pfeil* (or Arrow). An arrow is an icon of war, especially for the English, who revere the tradition of the longbow.


----------



## Magnon (Aug 27, 2010)

In my opinion an important part of any duel would be to start on the same airstrip and have both pilots race for their planes in a "scramble":

Me 262 Scrambling

“...Always accelerate the engines slowly. The gas temperature must never rise above the permitted value and the engine must not “roar” (bullern)... In view of this, only take corners by using the brakes, never by using the engines. Always taxi gently and never make sharp turns, otherwise control of the aircraft will be lost...”

"...After releasing the brakes, push the throttle lever right forward and check over the engine... the check is done by eye and ear, the engines must not "roar" and the instruments must show the same values as they did during running up or during previous take-offs. The gas pressure must be especially watched, and if it is more than 5% lower than previously, do not take off. in such a case, it is most likely that cavitation has taken place within one of the compressor stages...
Pilot Notes on Me262 by Flug Kapitan Wendell

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtop...2d38f&start=15​“...Another Me-262 story from Hans Busch, original Me-262 pilot:

As with most all WWII tricycle landing gear aircraft, the nose wheel on the Me-262 was not at all steerable, but rather was just castoring... 

If the nose wheel on the Me-262 got cocked too much during ground maneuvering, the nose wheel had to be straightened out first or damage could occur from further taxiing.

This apparently occurred frequently in the Me-262. Hans related that he occasionally encountered this problem and had to climb out of the cockpit, engines running, and manually pull and pry the nose wheel back into alignment himself before proceeding!..”​Meteor Scrambling:

From http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...Meteor-CFE.pdf

56. The starting up is extremely easy and can be completed in approximately 56 secs. This, coupled with the fact that no warming up is necessary is of considerable advantage for a rapid “scramble”, and a formation of Meteors could get off the ground nearly as quickly as a formation of any conventional single engine fighters, and more rapidly than a formation of twin-engined fighters.

57. A number of test scrambles have been carried out, with the pilot strapped in the cockpit, helmet on, R/T plugged in, starter control plugged in, and one airman standing by, brakes on, and no chocks. The time was taken from the moment the high pressure c_o_c_k was turned on, till the aircraft became airborne, and included starting up both motors, taxiing 75 yards, turning on to the runway, and taking off.

58. Two types of scrambles were used. First, the jet engine procedure of turning on to the runway and opening up the throttles fully on the brakes to check the max rpm and jet pipe temperatures. This type of scramble takes 2 min 40 sec. Secondly, the conventional take-off was done, which can be used for an emergency where no checks of rpm or jet pipe temperatures were done on the runway, and this takes 2 min 5 sec.​
After take-off, the Meteor would have time to come around to attack the Me 262 on lift-off. That's if an engine surge hadn't occurred, or the pilot wasn't still straightening out his nose wheel. Would the rules allow the Meteor to strafe the Me 262 on the gound?

The diagrams attached give an indication that the Me 262 nosewheel was relatively weakly castoring.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 27, 2010)

Magnon said:


> In my opinion an important part of any duel would be to start on the same airstrip and have both pilots race for their planes in a "scramble":
> 
> Me 262 Scrambling
> 
> ...



This is not a good comparison - what was described for the 262 start up was similar if not the same for many early turbine engine aircraft. The cocking of the 262s nose wheel would happen if someone tried to turn the aircraft too tightly and this could have been prevented by training.

What was described on the scrambling procedure for the Meteor was similar to what was done in Korea.


----------



## tail end charlie (Aug 27, 2010)

Magnon said:


> I think it's ironic that the leader of the team which developed Nimonic had a German surname* Pfeil* (or Arrow). An arrow is an icon of war, especially for the English, who revere the tradition of the longbow.




From an obituary his Grandfather was German, also ironic and a bit strange is his middle name "Bessemer" after the inventor of the Bessemer steel making process, as if he was fated to become a metallurgist.


----------



## Magnon (Aug 27, 2010)

In terms of endurance at maximum power the Jumo 004 had a maximum shaft rpm of 8700 for five minutes duration for takeoff and a maximum ten minutes at “military” [read emergency], with a maximum continuous rpm of 8400 (90% power; refer to the Me 262 A-1 Pilot’s Handbook). 

Note that the Schwalbe only reached its maximum rated speed of 540 mph under the emergency rating; hence they had only ten minutes endurance at that speed. Or if maximum power had been utilised in a climb, correspondingly less would be available for actual combat. Once the military rating had been utilised for the allowed length of time, the engines had to be taken out of service as soon as possible to undergo a full inspection of the hot end components. This was no trivial matter.

*From Design Analysis of Messerschmitt Me 262 Jet Fighter:*

*Maintenance*​
...Maintenance crews really take a beating as the result of the final design, for it is a major operation to get at the combustion chambers. First, the variable-area nozzle operating shaft must be removed so that the complete exhaust system assembly can be taken off. Then, unless special equipment is available, the engine must be placed upright on the turbine disk and burner pipes and ignition leads disconnected from the combustion chambers. Then the compressor casing-main casting joint can be broken and the whole front end lifted off. Next the rear compressor bearing assembly, torque tube, and locking ring can be removed and the main casting assembly removed – when the nut on the front end of the turbine shaft is unscrewed. The rear diaphragm plates can then be removed and the turbine inlet ducting and combustion chamber assembly lifted off. Then the front diaphragm plate is removed and the turbine inlet ducting, with the combustion chamber assembly, lifted out of the casing. At this point, as one sweating engineer who did the job declared, “Now, Bub, y'can take out the individual combustion chambers”...​

The operation limitations for the Derwent I of the Meteor F3 were given in the CFE Report No 68 as: 
Take-off----------	16,400/16,600----time limit----------5 min
Climbing-----------16,000-------------------------------------30 minutes
Combat------------16,400------------------------------------	5 min
Cruise---------------15,400---------------------------(1650 lb thrust)

Hence the operational limitation on the Derwent at 16,000 rpm or above was a total of 40 minutes, the corresponding maximum power figure for the Jumo was 15 minutes. Of course these limits could be, and were, exceeded by the pilot at his own risk. Because of the extreme fragility of the hot end components, that risk would be far higher for the Jumo.

Regards,

Magnon


----------



## Magnon (Aug 29, 2010)

With the higher *sustainable* climb rate, higher velocity and more reliable cannon, better engine reliability, better acceleration, better manoeuvrability and more robust construction (both airframe and engine) the Meteor would arguably have a very significant edge over the Schwalbe. The Schwalbe would have had an advantage in top speed and perhaps in roll rate, but that was not crucial in the Meteor's competition with the Banshee.

Hans Fey advised how the Allied fighters should counter the Me 262: 

(1) AIM AT THE JET PROPULSION UNITS, 
as they catch fire even more easily than the conventional engine.

(2) OVERCOME THE ADVANTAGE IN SPEED BY AN ADVANTAGE IN ALTITUDE. 
By flying the fighter cover in a stacked-up formation with as much as 3,000 feet between flights, the high flight could reach a speed in dive similar to that of the Me 262, and exploit this in attacking. Furthermore, the Me 262 is relatively slow in turns and movements. It cannot, for instance, Split-S in less than 9000 - 12000 feet. 

The ideal situation would be a combination of two factors: first, speed gained through superior altitude, thereby making straight escape risky to the jet aircraft, and second, exploiting its lesser maneuverability when it goes through an evasive maneuver.​
He didn't mention the fuel tank problem, probably because he was thinking of the Mustang with its 0.5" machine guns, which would do much more damage to the engines.

As mentioned, the nominal climb rate of the two jets were about the same, but the sustained climb rate was very different. If the Schwalbe could be lured into a climbing duel, it would drastically increase the likelihood of an engine failure. If it allowed the Meteor to gain a height advantage, it would again be looking for trouble.

Regards,

Magnon


----------



## bada (Aug 30, 2010)

magnon, 

please, stop, it becomes ridiculous. next post will be what? the switch for the electricals was badly placed on the 262? (to an english pilot opinion off course, those who didn't liked the lean position in german planes).
You always come back with the meteor turn, but there is someting you don't seem to understand: to initiate a turn, you apply stick on the ailerons! if the ailerons are HARD and low responsive at medium and high speed, how will you start the turn? 

simply admit the meteor was a bad plane without maneuvrability, with a bad cockpit layout (in1946!) and tiring to fly( in combat, where each maneuvre starts with AILERONS), yes it had a "reliable" engine but that's all.

and forgot: those plane(262)s werent' build to last, they were tools. the airframe of a 109 in 45 has something like a 10h life from factory fresh to the end of life moment, sowhat if the 004 engines were able to be used 20h max? who cares?


----------



## Kurfürst (Aug 30, 2010)

Magnon said:


> In terms of endurance at maximum power the Jumo 004 had a maximum shaft rpm of 8700 for five minutes duration for takeoff and a maximum ten minutes at “military” [read emergency], with a maximum continuous rpm of 8400 (90% power; refer to the Me 262 A-1 Pilot’s Handbook).
> 
> Note that the Schwalbe only reached its maximum rated speed of 540 mph under the emergency rating; hence they had only ten minutes endurance at that speed. Or if maximum power had been utilised in a climb, correspondingly less would be available for actual combat. Once the military rating had been utilised for the allowed length of time, the engines had to be taken out of service as soon as possible to undergo a full inspection of the hot end components. This was no trivial matter.



Which is exactly the same as any other aircraft of the war, including the Meteor; each had time limitation set out for all out powers, though unlike you say it was not set in stone, nor there was a count-down mechanism preventing the pilot using it for more than 5 or 10 minutes. These were generic time limitations, ie. "Combat" rating for every British aircraft was set as 5 minutes, and for late war German aircraft, max. output was usually defined as the rating permissable for 10 minutes.

For example, the limitations laid out for the Meteor III were 5 mins at 16,400 rpm for take off or combat, with engine exhaust temperature not exceeding 680 Celisus, and 30 mins/650 Celsius for 16,000 rpm for climb. "Cruising" rating at 15,400 rpm could be maintained indefinietaly.

On the Me 262, engine limitations were, on 8700 rpm +/- 200 rpm 5 minutes for take off and 10 minutes for Combat rating at the same output, 8700 rpm. Max. continous rating (90% thrust) could be maintained indefinietely at 8400 rpm.



> Hence the operational limitation on the Derwent at 16,000 rpm or above was a total of 40 minutes, the corresponding maximum power figure for the Jumo was 15 minutes.



That's simply utter nonsense...


----------



## Magnon (Aug 30, 2010)

The Jumo engines had mild steel flame tubes running red hot. Around 700C if they were lucky. In a panic, it would be a lot more. Surge would lead to catastrophic failure of all the hot end components.

Quote: "A big error in the handling of the Me 262 is to increase the throttle too rapidly. Messerschmitt is therefore trying to develop a regulator which will automatically guarantee a smooth injection of fuel."
Me262PilotDebriefing

Quote: "The Jumo 004B-4 reliabillity issue was in part caused by a lack of acceleration control in the primitive centrifugal governor based fuel delivery control system; this allowed the pilot to damage the turbine blades via too fast a throttle movement which would then need to be replaced. The alloy was prone to this and its crystalline structure would be changed so that in the event of mishandling the engine needed to be pulled and the turbine replaced. The acceleration limiter was scheduled for delivery in mid April. (the less mature BMW 003 however got its). Another weakness was problems with the controls of the variable area nozzle which determined backpressure, airflow and temperature through the whole engine as well as the lack of work in developing electronics for the thermocouples to bypass fuel despite provision to do so."
Re: First USAAF P-51 with a Merlin

Quote: "Production model 004s produced 1,980 lbs. of thrust, and weighed in at about 1,800 lbs. Because of this, the engines were not extraordinarily effective at low airspeeds or altitudes or at reduced power settings.
Long takeoff rolls (>3,000') were evidence of this phenomenon and, once aloft, power management became critical. *Abrupt throttle changes or rapid maneuvering often resulted in a flameout, or worse, a complete compressor failure*.
*...The [use] of inferior metals compounded an already problematic situation with the turbine blade design. These blades were rigidly mounted, contributing to severe root stress relief problems. The weaker metals simply could not withstand this kind of abuse and regular compressor failures were an inevitable consequence*..."
Me 262 PROJECT TECHNICAL DATA​
Regards,

Magnon


----------



## tail end charlie (Aug 30, 2010)

Magnon said:


> The Jumo engines had mild steel flame tubes running red hot. Around 700C if they were lucky. In a panic, it would be a lot more. Surge would lead to catastrophic failure of all the hot *...The [use] of inferior metals compounded an already problematic situation with the turbine blade design. These blades were rigidly mounted, contributing to s
> Regards,
> 
> Magnon*


*

The simple question is if the Meteor was inferior to the 262 why didnt the Brits (and Americans) just copy the 262 and put it into service?

As I understand it everyone knew the 262 was good but the best of a bad job and subsequently both sides (allies and Soviets) borrowed heavilily on German high speed research which resulted in the Mig 21 and the EE lightening looking embarrasingly close to each other.*


----------



## Magnon (Aug 30, 2010)

To confirm Hans Fey's advice regarding the countering of the Me 262's speed advantage:

The Messerschmitt ME 262

Tactics against the Me 262 developed quickly to find ways of defeating it despite its great speed advantage. Allied bomber escort fighters would fly high above the bombers — diving from this height gave them extra speed thus reducing the speed advantage of the Me 262. *The Me 262 was less maneuverable than the P-51 and trained Allied pilots could catch up to a turning Me 262 *though the only reliable way of dealing with the jets, as with the even faster Komet rocket fighters, was to attack them on the ground and during take off and landing. Luftwaffe airfields that were recognized as jet bases were frequently bombed by medium bombers, and Allied fighters patrolled over the fields to attack jets trying to land on their bases. The Luftwaffe countered by installing flak alleys along the approach lines in order to protect the Me 262s from the ground and providing top cover with conventional fighters during takeoff and landing. Nevertheless in March and April 1945 Allied fighter patrol patterns over Me 262 airfields resulted in numerous losses of the jets and serious attrition of the force.

Another experimental tactic was installing nitrous oxide injection, much like the Germans' own GM-1 system, into Mustangs. When chasing an Me 262, the pilot could press a button injecting the nitrous oxide into the engine, producing a quick burst of speed.

Other Allied fighters that encountered the Me 262 included the British Supermarine Spitfire, Hawker Tempest and the Soviet Lavochkin La-7. The first recorded Allied destruction of a Me 262, belonging to the unit known as Kommando Schenk, was on 28 August 1944, claimed as destroyed by 78th FG pilots Major Joseph Myers and 2nd Lt. Manford O. Croy flying P-47s. Oberfeldwebel Hieronymus "Ronny" Lauer of I KG(J) 51, on a landing pattern crash landed his 262 to get away from the Allied fighters, which then destroyed the Me 262 in strafing attacks.[14] [15] The first Me 262 shot down in combat, belonging to 3. Staffel/Kampfgeschwader 51, with unit code letters "9K+BL", was on 5 October 1944 by Spitfire IXs of 401 RCAF. The 262 pilot was H.C. Butmann in WNr 170093 of 3./KG51. The Lavochkin was the only Soviet fighter to shoot down a German jet, with La-7 ace Ivan Nikitovich Kozhedub, downing an Me 262 on 15 February 1945 over eastern Germany. *Kozhedub apparently later said that his success was mainly due to the Me 262 pilot attempting to out-turn his more maneuverable plane*.​
Similarly:
Messerschmitt Me 262

Although faster than Allied propeller aircraft, *the Me 262 lacked maneuverability*, *its engines were relatively unreliable*, *its cannons tended to jam during high-g turns*, and *its gear collapsed on hard landings*.​
Regards,

Magnon


----------



## tail end charlie (Aug 30, 2010)

Magnon said:


> To confirm Hans Fey's advice regarding the countering of the Me 262's speed advantage:
> 
> The Messerschmitt ME 262
> 
> ...




I am not an expert in these things but I think the major tactic was just being there as an escort, this meant the 262s must keep their speed near the maximum which restricted them to high speed staffing passes, if they slowed down to make an easy kill they were sitting ducks themselves.​


----------



## Magnon (Aug 30, 2010)

tail end charlie said:


> The simple question is if the Meteor was inferior to the 262 why didnt the Brits (and Americans) just copy the 262 and put it into service?
> 
> As I understand it everyone knew the 262 was good but the best of a bad job and subsequently both sides (Allies and Soviets) borrowed heavilily on German high speed research which resulted in the Mig 21 and the EE lightening looking embarrasingly close to each other.



That is another question - after the war, German engineers went off to the Soviet Union and the US. The result was the MiG 15 and the North American Sabre. If British engines had been coupled with the German swept-wing concept in 1941, no nation could have competed. There is some credible evidence that Britain went within an ace of joining with Germany after Dunkirk. Lord Halifax was claimed to be an influential leader who wanted that. Hence the fact that Rudolph Hess, the deputy Chancellor of Germany was confident enough to go over to carry out negotiations. The truth has been suppressed until 2016. It will be fascinating to see then what actually happened at the time.

See Rudolf Hess - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 

It's a bit like the allegory of the _*The Lord of the Rings *_, where the possessor of the Ring can have stupendous power, just as long as he is prepared to sell his soul...


----------



## Magnon (Aug 30, 2010)

tail end charlie said:


> I am not an expert in these things but I think the major tactic was just being there as an escort, this meant the 262s must keep their speed near the maximum which restricted them to high speed staffing passes, if they slowed down to make an easy kill they were sitting ducks themselves.



Right...*the 262 would or should employ its speed in a single pass at an enemy fighter and never try to turn with one. The Me-262 was an interceptor of bombers, not a jet "fighter*."


----------



## Magnon (Aug 31, 2010)

With regard to the Jumo 004 engines, it is reported in _Design Analysis of Me 262 Jet Fighter Part II _that the wall thickness of the mild steel flame tubes was 0.91 mm. The engines operated at a pressure of about 300 kPa and a temperature of 775 degrees C. At that temperature steel has only about 15% of its normal strength. That's what I call "sailing close to the wind."

It's no wonder they had a limitation of 10 minutes at full power imposed on them.

Suggesting otherwise is something out of cloud cuckoo land.


----------



## Kurfürst (Aug 31, 2010)

With all respect, I would rather trust the engineers the engineers who designed it for that thickness... perhaps they knew better. 

And that silly comment on "10 minutes imposed on its used".... begs for the question why the Meteor has to be "limited" to 5 minutes only..? 

(Of course the answer is that 5/10 minutes were the design practice in both countries for max power, for every combat plane... rather than some non-existent connection between cover sheet thickness, and possible periods of operation)


----------



## drgondog (Aug 31, 2010)

Magnon said:


> That is another question - after the war, German engineers went off to the Soviet Union and the US. The result was the MiG 15 and the North American Sabre. If British engines had been coupled with the German swept-wing concept in 1941, no nation could have competed. There is some credible evidence that Britain went within an ace of joining with Germany after Dunkirk. Lord Halifax was claimed to be an influential leader who wanted that. Hence the fact that Rudolph Hess, the deputy Chancellor of Germany was confident enough to go over to carry out negotiations. The truth has been suppressed until 2016. It will be fascinating to see then what actually happened at the time.
> 
> See Rudolf Hess - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> It's a bit like the allegory of the _*The Lord of the Rings *_, where the possessor of the Ring can have stupendous power, just as long as he is prepared to sell his soul...



Edger Schmeud - the designer for the Mustang was also the head of design for the F-86.. which 'German' engineers did you have in mind as the F-86 major contributor?

If you revise your statement to say Schmeud was influenced by 262 design sweep and leading edge slats you be closer to the facts.


----------



## tail end charlie (Aug 31, 2010)

drgondog said:


> Edger Schmeud - the designer for the Mustang was also the head of design for the F-86.. which 'German' engineers did you have in mind as the F-86 major contributor?
> 
> If you revise your statement to say Schmeud was influenced by 262 design sweep and leading edge slats you be closer to the facts.



The 262 wing sweep makes it as advanced as a douglas dakota, the sweep was to adjust the CofG not to reduce drag at high speed


----------



## Magnon (Sep 1, 2010)

drgondog said:


> Edger Schmeud - the designer for the Mustang was also the head of design for the F-86.. which 'German' engineers did you have in mind as the F-86 major contributor?
> 
> If you revise your statement to say Schmeud was influenced by 262 design sweep and leading edge slats you be closer to the facts.



OK. Conceded, but German *engineering* including swept-wing research data went off to the US. The name Edger Schmued (German-born US citizen) may have misled me in this regard.

Regards,

Magnon


----------



## drgondog (Sep 1, 2010)

tail end charlie said:


> The 262 wing sweep makes it as advanced as a douglas dakota, the sweep was to adjust the CofG not to reduce drag at high speed



That has nothing to do with my comment. Having said that if the only reason was to adjust the center of LIFT to accomodate the cg, they could have adjusted the cg in different ways.

The wing wind tunnel data was extensively reviewed by Edgar Schmeud and the resultant wing design on the F-86 was both to delay transonic drag rise (sweep) as well as improve low speed and turning qualities (leading edge slats).


----------



## tail end charlie (Sep 1, 2010)

drgondog said:


> That has nothing to do with my comment. Having said that if the only reason was to adjust the center of LIFT to accomodate the cg, they could have adjusted the cg in different ways.
> 
> The wing wind tunnel data was extensively reviewed by Edgar Schmeud and the resultant wing design on the F-86 was both to delay transonic drag rise (sweep) as well as improve low speed and turning qualities (leading edge slats).



Everything I have read on the 262 says the wing sweep was to adjust for heavier than expected engines and that the wing sweep on a 262 would have little effect. The DC3 Dakota has swept wings


----------



## drgondog (Sep 1, 2010)

tail end charlie said:


> Everything I have read on the 262 says the wing sweep was to adjust for heavier than expected engines and that the wing sweep on a 262 would have little effect. The DC3 Dakota has swept wings



I don't really understand what your point of view is regarding 'wing sweep on a 262 would have little effect'.

1. it would move the center of lift (aerodynamic center of the wing) aft from a straight wing design. This would change the static margin (the relationship between cg and ac), change the necessary relationship of the horizontal stabilzer on pitch effectiveness. Do you consider these effects negligible? 

2. it would increase the aircraft speed capability before experiencing transonic drag by effectively reducing the t/c ratio (and the velocity component chordwise). It would have the effect of raising the Mcr. Is this not important in your mind?

3. both of those effects were 'significant' not 'little'.

as for the C-47 it was 'little' not significant - but it (sweep) also had the effect of moving the aerodynamic center of the wing a little bit aft in comparison with a zero sweep wing.


----------



## tail end charlie (Sep 1, 2010)

drgondog said:


> I don't really understand what your point of view is regarding 'wing sweep on a 262 would have little effect'.
> 
> 1. it would move the center of lift (aerodynamic center of the wing) aft from a straight wing design. This would change the static margin (the relationship between cg and ac), change the necessary relationship of the horizontal stabilzer on pitch effectiveness. Do you consider these effects negligible?
> 
> ...



Hi Magnon

probably my bad wording, the wing sweep was for your point no 1 (obviouslly important) but the actual sweep used was not sufficient to make a substantial difference to the transonic performance (your point 2) as below.

from Messerschmitt Me 262 Schwalbe / Sturmvogel
quote 
Swept wings had been proposed as early as 1935 by Adolph Busemann, and Willy Messerschmitt had researched the topic from 1940. In April 1941, he actually proposed to fit a 35° swept wing (Pfeilflügel II) to the Me 262. Though this suggestion was not implemented, he continued with the projected HG II and HG III high-speed derivatives of the Me 262 in 1944, which were designed with a 35° and 45° wing sweep respectively. The production Me 262 had a leading edge sweep of 18.5° primarily to properly position the center of lift relative to the center of mass and not for the aerodynamic benefit of increasing the critical Mach number of the wing (the sweep was too slight to achieve any significant advantage). The aircraft was originally designed as a tail-dragger which it was built as in the first (Me 262 V1) through fourth (-V4) prototypes, but it was discovered on an early test run that the engines and wings "blanked" the stabilizers, giving almost no control on the ground. Changing to a tricycle landing gear arrangement, firstly as a fixed undercarriage on the fifth prototype aircraft, then a fully retractable one on the sixth and succeeding prototypes, corrected all of these problems immediately. 
unquote

It seems that the 262 was used for tests with higher sweep which certainly would have improved the transonic performance.

I mentioned the Dakota as its wings were swept for similar reasons, to adjust CofG/Cof Lift


----------



## drgondog (Sep 1, 2010)

tail end charlie said:


> Hi Magnon
> 
> probably my bad wording, the wing sweep was for your point no 1 (obviouslly important) but the actual sweep used was not sufficient to make a substantial difference to the transonic performance (your point 2) as below.
> 
> ...



The effective chordwise flow component for an 18 degree sweep is .951057 Vfreestream - 

V=Vfs x cosine 18%. This says that the velocity over the wing, parallel to the aircraft CL axis, in a wing chord wise direction - is .95% of the same flow for a straight wing of same airfoil, as a function of freestream velocity.

Further what it means that as the Me 262 was enetering Critical Mach for a straight wing, it was only at 95% of the velocity required for critical mach with the 18 degree sweep.

Hence ~ 5% increase in Mach crit over the swept Me 262 wing. Not insignificant


----------



## tail end charlie (Sep 1, 2010)

drgondog said:


> The effective chordwise flow component for an 18 degree sweep is .951057 Vfreestream -
> 
> V=Vfs x cosine 18%. This says that the velocity over the wing, parallel to the aircraft CL axis, in a wing chord wise direction - is .95% of the same flow for a straight wing of same airfoil, as a function of freestream velocity.
> 
> ...



From the figures I have seen the 262 had a critical mach number of about 0.84 to 0.86 with its swept wings similar to a spitfire where I have seen 0.86 to 0.89 mentioned. Whether the sweep is significant depends on the eventual aim since the 262 never had enough power to reach its critical mach number in level flight. 
A 5% reduction in drag is useful, but as I said everything I have read the sweep wasnt introduced for aerodynamic reasons . If the original design (with straight wings) had 5% more drag then it was not as aerodynamic as many prop designs but it probably wasnt intended to be. The 262 was the "first off" to prove jet engines the next generation were proposed to have the jets in the fuselage and 35-45 degree swept wings.


----------



## drgondog (Sep 1, 2010)

tail end charlie said:


> From the figures I have seen the 262 had a critical mach number of about 0.84 to 0.86 with its swept wings similar to a spitfire where I have seen 0.86 to 0.89 mentioned. Whether the sweep is significant depends on the eventual aim since the 262 never had enough power to reach its critical mach number in level flight.
> A 5% reduction in drag is useful, but as I said everything I have read the sweep wasnt introduced for aerodynamic reasons . If the original design (with straight wings) had 5% more drag then it was not as aerodynamic as many prop designs but it probably wasnt intended to be. The 262 was the "first off" to prove jet engines the next generation were proposed to have the jets in the fuselage and 35-45 degree swept wings.



TEC - It wasn't a 5% reduction in drag, it was a 5% increase in speed (or delay to effect) before Mcr was reached - and it definitely was reached in a dive in the .82M-.87M range.

As to everything you have read - is that the same as 'read everything written'? particularly by the Me 262 designers - versus the author that wrote Stormbirds? I can almost (but not quite as I have not read everything that was written about the design choices made) that the sweep was selected for more than just shifting the aeordynamic center of lift movement slightly aft. 

The Me 262 was cleaner than the Mustang and the Mustang was the cleanest of the conventional aircraft of WWII. It was definitely intended to be extremely clean. 

BTW aeros would kill their mothers for a decrease of 5% in drag - it is that 'useful'!


----------



## tail end charlie (Sep 1, 2010)

drgondog said:


> TEC - It wasn't a 5% reduction in drag, it was a 5% increase in speed (or delay to effect) before Mcr was reached - and it definitely was reached in a dive in the .82M-.87M range.
> As to everything you have read - is that the same as 'read everything written'? particularly by the Me 262 designers - versus the author that wrote Stormbirds? I can almost (but not quite as I have not read everything that was written about the design choices made) that the sweep was selected for more than just shifting the aeordynamic center of lift movement slightly aft.
> The Me 262 was cleaner than the Mustang and the Mustang was the cleanest of the conventional aircraft of WWII. It was definitely intended to be extremely clean.
> BTW aeros would kill their mothers for a decrease of 5% in drag - it is that 'useful'!



Just looking at the 262 it is clear it was clean, and of course a 5% increase in speed is more than useful and significant however in term of aircraft (like the sabre) capable of breaking the sound barrier which is how this conversation started, the sweep on the operational 262 wasnt significant however the sweep on the proposed modifications was very much like a sabre, but this wasnt built.

from The Messerschmitt Me-262 Schwalbe / Sturmvogel
quote
* Several other variants were considered but not built. The "Me-262 HG" featured wings with greater sweepback for high-speed performance and a "vee" or "butterfly" tail.
unquote
I am not a pilot but I would imagine if an engine stops on a 262 it would pull to one side, unless the pilot can correct this immediately with a swept wing there would be a huge reduction in airflow and lift from the side with no engine running.


----------



## tail end charlie (Sep 1, 2010)

parsifal said:


> You cannot get a meaningful picture of the Meteors capabilities, during WWII, because of its extremely limited deployment. It seems to me that the British made sure they could build Jet technologies, just in case they were needed, and then more or less left the technology at that experimental state until after the war. To determine the true potentialities of the Meteor one has to look at its postwar applications, but then that raises the tricky question of what might have happened to the me 262 if it had been allowed to develop postwar in the same fashion.
> 
> My opinion, based on very little admittedly is that the Me 262 had the advantages of speed, and firepower, it seems likley that the Meteor could outturn the 262. I dont know about dive or climb characteristics. Whilst the Me 262 had a firepower advanatage, the Meteor carried more than enough punch to deliver lethal blows in a short space of time. It seems a lot would depend on the combat situation and the pilots flying the aircraft in that fight.....



Parsifal sorry its an old post but I didnt see it

I think a major part of thinking on the allies side was developing technology safely, I read that of the first 12 shooting stars made, at least 2 crashed killing the pilot (2 from 12 is like a combat situation), and both British and German jet programmes suffered losses to engine problems too. Aeroplanes which kill such a large number of top class pilots must have been regarded as suspect and so wherever possible British and Americans would be conservative while the Germans facing defeat would take the risk.


----------



## Magnon (Sep 1, 2010)

From DESIGN FOR AIR COMBAT

“The more conventional Me 262 was originally designed with straight wings. But, because it was one of the world’s first high speed aircraft not to have the forward weight concentration of piston engines, it turned out to be tail heavy. In order to restore the balance between the lift and mass centres, the wing outboard of the engine nacelles was swept back, as it had been on the DC3 airliner for similar reasons. Eventually the Me 262 was given a leading edge sweepback of 18.5 degrees across the span, a modest sweep which had little effect on drag...”​
Also there are stuctural implications for swept wings. All things being equal, the deflection of a uniformly loaded cantilever (which the wing approximates) is a function of the fourth power of the length. A swept wing of a given span is necessarliy longer than a straight wing. For a 18.5 degrees sweep, assuming constant cross-section, that would result in over 20% greater deflection, not taking into account the greater (around 50%) wing loading of the Me 262.

There are other factors: see *The Penalties of Sweepback *in DESIGN FOR AIR COMBAT
Overall, it seems the gains were minimal and the penalties were significant.

The Messerschmitt ME 262
With Allied aircraft operating in ever-increasing numbers over the Reich, operational evaluation of the Me-262 had been difficult, to say the least. *Trying to work the bugs out of an aircraft while dodging enemy fighters was far from an ideal situation for flight test. *
*The evaluation did show that the Me-262 was not only fast but was responsive and docile. However, it did tend to "snake" at high speeds, reducing its accuracy as a gun platform, and it was underpowered, with a long take-off run.* Losing an engine was very dangerous, since the Me-262 could barely stay in the air on one engine. If an engine was lost below 290 KPH (180 MPH), the aircraft would usually be lost as well. *The engines were also not very reliable, being prone to flameouts and burnouts*.​


----------



## Magnon (Sep 2, 2010)

With respect to the last post, I haven't come across any figure relating to the G-force that the Me 262 Schwalbewas designed to withstand. 

Does anyone have it?

Regards,

Magnon


----------



## Magnon (Sep 2, 2010)

The Me-262 was highly vulnerable on takeoff and landing since the Jumo engines took a long time to throttle up, and* since the engines tended to set asphalt runways on fire, the Me-262 was restricted to operations at airfields with concrete runways.* On 7 October two were shot down on takeoff by Lieutenant Urban L. Drew of the USAAF, flying a P-51 Mustang. The Luftwaffe eventually assigned FW-190s, when they were available and had fuel, to fly air patrols around the air bases to protect the Me-262s, and the airfields were ringed by heavy flak defenses. The flak installations were a mixed blessing, however, since they were often staffed by poorly-trained and nervous troops who were just as likely to fire on friends as foes.

*Many of the Me-262 pilots were also inexperienced, and flying an aircraft with performance greater than any operated before would have been a challenge to more professional aviators. Hitting Allied bombers while streaking through a formation at high speed was difficult, and if an Me-262 pilot slowed down to take more careful aim, he became a good target for the bombers' defensive fire and escorting Allied fighters.*

The Messerschmitt ME 262
THE 456th FIGHTER INTERCEPTOR SQUADRON

It seems that the Me 262 may have been less than ideal as a gun platform. I would have thought that hitting relatively slow moving and unmanoeuvrable bombers should have been relatively straightforward.


----------



## drgondog (Sep 2, 2010)

Magnon said:


> From DESIGN FOR AIR COMBAT
> 
> “The more conventional Me 262 was originally designed with straight wings. But, because it was one of the world’s first high speed aircraft not to have the forward weight concentration of piston engines, it turned out to be tail heavy. In order to restore the balance between the lift and mass centres, the wing outboard of the engine nacelles was swept back, as it had been on the DC3 airliner for similar reasons. Eventually the Me 262 was given a leading edge sweepback of 18.5 degrees across the span, a modest sweep which had little effect on drag...”​
> *It had a significant effect on delaying Mcr - 5% for ideal (infinite wingspan), less for 3D but significant nevertheless. It would have no material affect in the lower velocity ranges except to possibly increase wing drag due to a longer relative lifting line due to the sweep and drag associated with surface area *
> ...



The Mcr for that airfoil in straight wing plan form with same tip/root ratio should be less than a Mustang, but it was at least 2-3% greater with two drag buckets strapped under the wing.


----------



## Magnon (Sep 2, 2010)

Quote: *"Define 'minimal' gains, and 'significant' penalties - those terms in this discussion are minimally objective to debate in a significant manner." *

The record-breaking Meteor F4 with 41' wing span flew at 616 mph. The Me 262 was certainly not going to do any more. It was reported to be out of control at that speed when put into a dive. So the gain would have to be defined as minimal in terms of maximum speed. 

...*Messerschmitt also conducted a series of flight tests with the series production Me 262. In these dive tests, it was established that the Me 262 was out of control in a dive at Mach 0.86*, and that higher Mach numbers would lead to a nose-down trim that could not be countered by the pilot. The resulting steeping [sic] of the dive would lead to even higher speeds and disintegration of the airframe due to excessive negative g loads...​
The Messerschmitt ME 262


After the war, "Watson's Whizzers," led by Colonel Harold E. Watson from USAAF Air Technical Intelligence, shipped several intact Me 262s to the United States for further evaluation. The tests, conducted by Albert Boyd (the head of flight test for the USAAF) and a soon-to-be-legendary Chuck Yeager, determined that the performance of the Me 262 was essentially equal to the P-80A. *The Me 262 had a slightly higher critical Mach number-0.83 Mach versus the handbook limit of 0.80 Mach for the P-80A--but the difference was of little value in the real world since the Me 262 could only reach that velocity in a dive, whereas the P-80A could do it in level flight.* However, despite the fact that the Me 262 was almost 2,000 pounds heavier than the P-80A, the German aircraft accelerated quicker and had approximately the same climb performance.

*During the tests it was found that the slightly swept wing of the Me 262 provided no useful reduction in drag, mainly because the triangular cross-section of the fuselage created so much base drag that nothing could really help much. The swept wing did not change the critical Mach number by a measurable amount, and certainly did not help performance in the low transonic region where the Me 262 was particularly unstable.* The P-80A had much better handling characteristics than the Me 262, largely because it was more refined aerodynamically and had its thrust vector on the centerline of the aircraft instead of at the quarter-span of each wing.​From Me-262: Wunderplane or compromise?

The triangular fuselage was a dead-end experiment. Nobody has bothered to emulate it since. From the picture, it is not hard to see why.
Google Image Result for https://www.fiddlersgreen.net/aircraft/Messerschmitt-Me262/IMAGES/3-view-messerschmitt-me262.jpg


----------



## Magnon (Sep 2, 2010)

Magnon said:


> *Many of the Me-262 pilots were also inexperienced, and flying an aircraft with performance greater than any operated before would have been a challenge to more professional aviators. Hitting Allied bombers while streaking through a formation at high speed was difficult, and if an Me-262 pilot slowed down to take more careful aim, he became a good target for the bombers' defensive fire and escorting Allied fighters.*
> 
> The Messerschmitt ME 262
> THE 456th FIGHTER INTERCEPTOR SQUADRON
> ...


----------



## Magnon (Sep 3, 2010)

bada said:


> magnon,
> 
> please, stop, it becomes ridiculous. next post will be what? the switch for the electricals was badly placed on the 262? (to an english pilot opinion off course, those who didn't liked the lean position in german planes).
> You always come back with the meteor turn, but there is someting you don't seem to understand: to initiate a turn, you apply stick on the ailerons! if the ailerons are HARD and low responsive at medium and high speed, how will you start the turn?
> ...



The Me 262 controls became very stiff at speed:
...This balance is in addition to those already noted as being set in the elevators themselves, and may be a late modification.* Reports from abroad have indicated that at speeds over 500 mph. the ailerons and elevators of the 262 become extremely hard to move and that an extendable control stick designed to give increased leverage had been developed. However, no such stick, or provisions for its installation could be found on the craft studied, and it is held possible the mass balance just discussed has been utilized in its stead.*..​www.enginehistory.org/German/Me-262/Me262_Airframe_2.pdf


Regards,

Magnon


----------



## Magnon (Sep 3, 2010)

bada said:


> magnon,
> 
> and forgot: those plane(262)s werent' build to last, they were tools. the airframe of a 109 in 45 has something like a 10h life from factory fresh to the end of life moment, sowhat if the 004 engines were able to be used 20h max? who cares?



Sorry Bada,

This looks to me a bit like trying to make a virtue of necessity.

Ten hours design life? That is frankly pathetic. A good designer should have made an aircraft that could outfly and outfight the Allied fighters with at least a 300 hour combat design life. If you read the article on Pfeil, you will see the design parameter given to the metallurgists for the British metal turbine blades was 0.1% elongation over 300 hours "...the nominal life of a fighter aircraft in wartime..."

Regards,

Magnon


----------



## Glider (Sep 3, 2010)

Bada
Don't worry. It doesn't matter what is posted, even if the Meteor had plush carpets, touch screen controls, air conditioning, a drinks cabinet, soothing music, in flight food with Cuban cigars with a built in lighter. It still went 40-50 mph slower than the 262, was 100 - 120 mph slower in a dive, was a hard work to throw around the sky and a dreadful gun platform.

Nothing that can be posted can get away from those basic truths.


----------



## Magnon (Sep 3, 2010)

bada said:


> magnon,
> 
> simply admit the meteor was a bad plane without maneuvrability, with a bad cockpit layout (in1946!) and tiring to fly( in combat, where each maneuvre starts with AILERONS), yes it had a "reliable" engine but that's all.



Some people think the Me 262 was not manoeuvrable, Bada. Check out this comment regarding the night fighter version, benchmarked off the day-fighter:
Study of the plans for this change does not indicate that much, if anything, had been done to compensate for the added weight aft of CG and, since the craft had to be trimmed nose heavy for take-off as originally designed, it is believed that even more trim had to be applied for the night fighter version. Too, *since the 262 was not the most maneuverable to begin with, it is believed that the radarloaded version was not as good a combat craft as the original day fighter version*.​
www.enginehistory.org/German/Me-262/Me262_Airframe_2.pdf

As I have pointed out before, the Meteor F3 was able to hold its own in a dogfight with a Banshee, a second generation US fighter. Personally, I think the Banshee would have eaten the Me 262 for breakfast.


----------



## bada (Sep 3, 2010)

Glider:  

magnon: the germans didn't build their planes to last, they bild to fight, with thus a high risk of beeing self destroyed, even if the plane is called wonderweapon by some stupid small "moustachu" with a bad haircut
And yes, the lifetime of a 109 was somethin like 10hours, even the engines weren't build as in the begin of even the half period of the war, a DB was build to last 20h in 45!

Now, fo the radar version of the 262: who cares about maneuvrability? will a fully loaded lancaster outturn a fighter, even an overloaded fighter? will this big viermot make fast and short evasive maneuvres? The first question to ask ourself about that would be: will the viermot crew even notice the presence of the overloaded nightfighteron it's A*s untill the moment they receive a salvo of 30mm shells?... my answer to that is simply: NO.

now, let's back to the perfect fighting machine that the meteor was( in 1946, more than a year after the end of WWII, with thus more than a year of devloppement on the aircraft, also more than a year after the complete stop was done on the devloppement of the 262):




















































Edit: forgot the source: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/ ....voilà


----------



## Magnon (Sep 3, 2010)

Hi Bada,

You've been busy. But I've seen all that. I have been quoting from it for several months.

The British were being conservative in terms of the airframe. Limitations were there to be broken in wartime as you've admitted yourself.

The F4 airframe served for over two decades in Argentinean and Brazilian service, retiring in 1968 and 1970 respectively. Much more than ten hours...

The snaking was a problem in the Me 262 as well, so don't raise it as a Meteor-only issue: 
The evaluation did show that the Me-262 was not only fast but was responsive and docile. *However, it did tend to "snake" at high speeds, reducing its accuracy as a gun platform, and it was underpowered, with a long take-off run*​
According to the Me 262 pilot's handbook, Me 262 pilots were forbidden to do aerobatics, the Meteor not.

Do you know what G loading the Me 262 airframe was designed to withstand?

Regards,

Magnon


----------



## bada (Sep 3, 2010)

the first gen JET were all underpowered, even the meteor, they all needed a long way to get to speed before taking off or even start to climb. the 262 was not the only one in this scenario.

About the G-loads, have to look in books.Got a good one on the bird, but the book is in german and my german is very basic, it would be more like a fishing for a word in the entire book.
the only person that could give a direct answer was banned few months ago. he has a large amount of technical info about the 262.


----------



## drgondog (Sep 3, 2010)

Bada - I suspect you mean Soren - but I doubt that he had actual data on the g limits as we went round and round on that for some time re: Documented vs anecdotal. Allied design engineers (Britain/US-not sure about USSR) for high performance a/c were typically 8g limit/12 G ultimate for a specific gross weight (NOT max gw). Soren stated that German doctrine was 13 G ultimate, implying 8.5 Limit but no documentation was submitted for that claim. Nevertheless, there is no reason to suspect the 262 would be designed to lower structural standards at Messerschmidt unless some definitive is presented.

Bada - one note on your comparison of Meteor vs Fw 190 speed limit at 20,000 ft. The table showed 400 IAS which is Indicated Air Speed not True Air Speed. The Fw would do 400mph TAS but closer to 280-300 (a guess - I don't have my books unpacked to do the math) IAS at 20,000 feet.

Magnon - IIRC the high speed snaking was pronounced with full fuel in aft fuselage tank (extreme limit aft cg) but I will have to look up the Wright Pat reports from 1946. At any rate as a gun platform it was just fine in a speed range of 90% (50+ mph faster) than any Allied conventional fighter.

As to comments on Me 262 'triangular' fuselage cross sections being a dead end - look to blended fuselage/wing combinations for the future extension - such as the SR-71. Anecdotal discussions about the drag components of the Me 262 are somewhat worthless - as much as any similar discussion regarding any other aircraft... regardless of the source.. unless the data and the assumptions build up is presented in its entirety.


----------



## Magnon (Sep 5, 2010)

Dragondog:
I don't think the design of the SR 71 fuselage is particularly relevant to the Me 262... that is unless the German aircraft designers had some strange priorities or were prescient about hypersonic flight?

*Lockheed F-12/SR-71 *Wing/body blending on this aircraft consists of the use of a fuselage chine (Fig 154) which extends from the extreme nose. Operating as a very-low-aspect-ratio wing, it produces lift as a function of the square of the angle of attack which acts well ahead of the CG (i.e. as a destabiliser). This helps to offset the large rearward movement of aerodynamic centre with Mach number, which is particularly large for a delta wing. It thereby reduces what would otherwise be a very large static margin at Mach 3, together with the trim drag that this would generate. The influence of the chine on the neutral point is shown in Fig 155. To further reduce trim drag the nose of the aircraft just forward of the canopy is cranked up 2° so that it operates at a higher AOA than the wings. This produces a further positive increment in Cm0 which collectively halves the bending moment on the very long forebody.

The chine also has a strong influence on directional stability, and Fig 154 shows how the side-force was reduced by the addition of the chine. In elongating the forebody's cross-section, the chine allows an ordered crossflow instead of the separated region that exists behind a circular cross-section. Without the chine, the long, slender forebody displays a marked decrease in directional stability with increasing AOA. With forebody side-force reduced, however, directional stability increases with AOA. The chine's impact on directional stability is discussed further in Chapter 5.​

Regards,

Magnon


----------



## drgondog (Sep 5, 2010)

Magnon said:


> Dragondog:
> I don't think the design of the SR 71 fuselage is particularly relevant to the Me 262... that is unless the German aircraft designers had some strange priorities or were prescient about hypersonic flight?
> 
> *Lockheed F-12/SR-71 *Wing/body blending on this aircraft consists of the use of a fuselage chine (Fig 154) which extends from the extreme nose. Operating as a very-low-aspect-ratio wing, it produces lift as a function of the square of the angle of attack which acts well ahead of the CG (i.e. as a destabiliser). This helps to offset the large rearward movement of aerodynamic centre with Mach number, which is particularly large for a delta wing. It thereby reduces what would otherwise be a very large static margin at Mach 3, together with the trim drag that this would generate. The influence of the chine on the neutral point is shown in Fig 155. To further reduce trim drag the nose of the aircraft just forward of the canopy is cranked up 2° so that it operates at a higher AOA than the wings. This produces a further positive increment in Cm0 which collectively halves the bending moment on the very long forebody.
> ...



Only relevant in that the cross section of the Me 262 wasn't strictly 'triangular', that the blended fuse of the SR-71 without the chine still provided less wing/fuselage interference drag than 'classic rectangular or circular' fuselage cross section. 

Magnon - I was part of a team at the Skunk works that pioneered the application of finite element modelling to both aerodynamics and structures. The SR-71 was NOT designed with NASTRAN (structures) or the aero model (I can't recall the name of the in house model) but we applied both to the original analyses and wind tunnel data to determine the applicability. We also looked at the U-2 and the F-104. One of the engineers (not me) also explored several past designs including the Me 262 and one other t/e (can't remember that one either but it might have been the B-57) wing/engine/fuse approaches to twin engine vortex drag interference. One of the outcomes was the 262 fuselage/wing design was remarkably clean wrt to vortex drag for the low wing design.

I didn't see the data (on the Me 262) and my comments are strictly anecdotal...as are all of the google research presented on the 262 so far in this thread.


----------



## Juha (Sep 5, 2010)

Hello Bada
thanks a lot for the scans!
BTW, as Drgondog wrote, at 20'000ft IAS and TAS are very different figures, 400mph IAS means c. 550mph TAS, 190, any version, didn't reach that speed, even max for 262 was 540mph at altitude.

Juha


----------



## Magnon (Sep 7, 2010)

drgondog said:


> I didn't see the data (on the Me 262) and my comments are strictly anecdotal...as are all of the google research presented on the 262 so far in this thread.



If we can't quote anecdotal material, things are going to be very quiet here. As far as I am concerned the material from sources such as Meteor-CFE, the Me 262 Project, NASA, Kerosene in the Blood, Design for Air Combat, AeroNotes, Spiritus Tempus, ME262 PIlotDebrief, ME262 Wendell, RAE German Jets, ME262 Airframe, ME262 Engine, Me262 Pilot Handbook etc., is extremely worthwhile. 

On the other hand, if you have access to first-hand analytical design and test data, particularly aerodynamic and structural for the airframes, and thermodynamic design and testing of the engines, all the better. With your background in Computer Aided Design of advanced aircraft, I will be very interested to see the material along with your analysis as it comes through.

I will try to contribute some very modest effort from this end. 

Regards,

Magnon


----------



## drgondog (Sep 7, 2010)

Magnon said:


> On the other hand, if you have access to first-hand analytical design and test data, particularly aerodynamic and structural for the airframes, and thermodynamic design and testing of the engines, all the better. With your background in Computer Aided Design of advanced aircraft, I will be very interested to see the material along with your analysis as it comes through.
> 
> I will try to contribute some very modest effort from this end.
> 
> ...



Everything I did at Lockheed and Bell was classified secret for all military programs.. 

On the other hand - if you wish to discuss the background math and techniques of Rod, Beams, Panels and Plates behind finite element structural modellling or distribution of source/sinks over a fine mesh as it relates to potential flow/pressure distribution - we can talk.


----------



## drgondog (Sep 7, 2010)

Magnon said:


> If we can't quote anecdotal material, things are going to be very quiet here. As far as I am concerned the material from sources such as Meteor-CFE, the Me 262 Project, NASA, Kerosene in the Blood, Design for Air Combat, AeroNotes, Spiritus Tempus, ME262 PIlotDebrief, ME262 Wendell, RAE German Jets, ME262 Airframe, ME262 Engine, Me262 Pilot Handbook etc., is extremely worthwhile.
> 
> *At no time did I say they weren't worthwhile - I did say what you presented here is anecdotal and you haven't made clear why you accept anecdotal references to such quantifiable topics as Drag. Wind tunnel results are useful in these discussions as well as accepted computer models with reasonable boundary conditions. The latter are available today - presumably the former are available from German sources but they haven't been entered into this discussion as Exhibit A.
> 
> ...



What I am saying is that for me, I remain agnostic on your representations from the sources you have quoted, for the above reasons - and ask you why you accept the same anecdotal claims if the data from wind tunnel results are in existance or computer models are in existance.


----------



## Magnon (Sep 7, 2010)

There is a good analysis of some available data on post #34 on http://warbirdsforum.com/showthread.php?t=451&page=4

It is well worth checking out.

Regards,

Magnon


----------



## Magnon (Sep 7, 2010)

Quote:
*If you care to go back into the threads re: Me 262 you will find references to recent computer modelling and results on the Me 262 - check them out. They may not change your mind but they will offer more insight to your deliberations.*

Sorry DragonDog,

I've been back through the posts in the thread and haven't seen any results of recent computer modelling posted. Can you point me to the post number?

Regards,

Magnon


----------



## drgondog (Sep 8, 2010)

Magnon said:


> Quote:
> *If you care to go back into the threads re: Me 262 you will find references to recent computer modelling and results on the Me 262 - check them out. They may not change your mind but they will offer more insight to your deliberations.*
> 
> Sorry DragonDog,
> ...



i'll see what I can find - IIRC it was a debate about whether the 262 ever exceeded Mach 1 in a dive and a recent computer modelling exercise. Juha and I had a pretty spirited argument with Soren on the subject and others may remember the thread location also. Here is a reference to the aforementioned study whil I look for the thread.

http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Sound_barrier

Bill


----------



## Magnon (Sep 8, 2010)

drgondog said:


> Magnon - IIRC the high speed snaking was pronounced with full fuel in aft fuselage tank (extreme limit aft cg) but I will have to look up the Wright Pat reports from 1946. At any rate as a gun platform it was just fine in a speed range of 90% (50+ mph faster) than any Allied conventional fighter.



The snaking - it wasn't specified as just occurring at high speed - was raised by Wendell apparently for an early condition where the aircraft had only two main tanks and an auxilliary tank. (For a total capacity of 529 US gallon). 

The Me 262 Pilots Handbook indicates that a further 158 gallon rear auxilliary tank had been added and the rear main tank slightly reduced in capacity (total capacity 655 US gallon). One would have to assume that the CG problem had been exacerbated. The last page of the Handbook also indicates that there was going to be provision for two jettisonable tanks of 158 gallon. One would surmise that these would be wing tanks, which would raise the mass moment of inertia of the aircraft again and probably compound the snaking problem. 

Wendell states that the aircraft would automatically stall in a turn if the CG was too far aft. The CFE report on the Meteor states that the CG remained within its design envelope at all times. Your feedback on the Me 262 would be appreciated, especially if you have access to other sources (e.g Wright Pat?). It seems to me to be an intriguing and critical aspect of the aspect of the viability of the aircraft as a dogfighting machine. 

It would seem to me to be extremely naive to expect that in all cases of air combat you could have consumed enough fuel to keep the CG within its design envelope, particularly as Allied aircraft were lurking around the German airfields.

For viable gunnery, not only does the aircraft have to be controllable, but the gun should not be liable to jamming during high-G manoeuvres. The Schwalbe cannon was notorious in this regard. It would seem that the strategy was going to have to always be hit-and-run tactics at high speed. That's very narrow and suited only to a specialist interceptor. But that's exactly what the Shwalbe was designed for.

Regards,

Magnon


----------



## Magnon (Sep 8, 2010)

drgondog said:


> What I am saying is that for me, I remain agnostic on your representations from the sources you have quoted, for the above reasons - and ask you why you accept the same anecdotal claims if the data from wind tunnel results are in existance or computer models are in existance.



*Extrapolated further, if Mcr for the Me-262 was only .8M in a dive, it was within the envelope of a pursuing Mustang - and that would not be 'insignificant'.*

The Spitfire was said to have had an Mcr of 0.89, the Tempest 0.83, the Mustang 0.8, the Meteor 0.83 and the Schwalbe 0.86. Any advantage to the Schwalbe over the Meteor would be at least partly due to the higher aspect ratio of the wing, surely. And that advantage is bought at the expense of lower wing second moment of area and hence structural strength, *a tradeoff which only makes sense for a specialist interceptor*.

Regards,

Magnon


----------



## drgondog (Sep 9, 2010)

Magnon said:


> *Extrapolated further, if Mcr for the Me-262 was only .8M in a dive, it was within the envelope of a pursuing Mustang - and that would not be 'insignificant'.*
> 
> The Spitfire was said to have had an Mcr of 0.89, the Tempest 0.83, the Mustang 0.8, the Meteor 0.83 and the Schwalbe 0.86. Any advantage to the Schwalbe over the Meteor would be at least partly due to the higher aspect ratio of the wing, surely. And that advantage is bought at the expense of lower wing second moment of area and hence structural strength, *a tradeoff which only makes sense for a specialist interceptor*.
> 
> ...



The Spit Mcr probably was lower than .89 as the speed it attained during the documented dive trials was well into Mcr. The max speed recorded for a Mustang dive (that returned intact) was .84-.85 and there were visible signs of structural damage. I don't know about the Tempest. My comment above was to illustrate that a couple of percentage points delay in Mcr would be significant - not that the 262 was limited (ultimate limit) to .8

As to 'advantages' one way or the other, one needs a full set of data to make valid statements regarding structural integrity, static margin limits, total Cg travel, trim drag at extreme AoA, etc.

When you pose that 'any advantage to the Schwalbe over the Meteor would be partly due to the AR of the wing, surely" - what are you thinking about specifically?

AR would have an effect on Induced drag, but by itself leaves much to be discovered relative to structural considerations. The wing design on the 262 would be influenced by three primary factors - L/D obviously, Structural integrity, and low speed stability. The leading edge slats would have been added to improve manueverability at high AoA as well as add to the low speed handling characteristics. I am not overlooking fuel capacity or the aero interference drag brough about by the nacelles but those would have been in the trade offs while trying to maximize the mission specs.

The sweep, as noted in the historical accounts was designed to move the aerodynamic center at the MAC aft to improve the stability throughout the cg range. It should have, despite repeated opinions, also influenced the drag rise favorably by a couple of percentage points, particularly with later models that sewpt from the root to the tip, rather that straight leading edge from root to engine.

The planform taper/tip would be further refinement to minimize induced drag for that airfoil and also structural considerations

Far more importantly is the root chord geometry and the taper to the wing tip. The depth of the spar at the root and the main beam/torque box geometry will have much to say about both stresses due to the lift distribution effect on bending loads and the tosion applied by aerodynamic loads and vortex which must be distributed spanwise to the root.

Mc/I is of course a classic equation for stress on a homogeneous body due to a bending load - but in airframe design back in those days a 'normal' spar design was top and lower caps (usually extrusions), augmented by wing skin to take out the axial loads resulting from bending and a shear panel to transfer the axial loads from one cap to the other...what did you have in mind with the 'lower wing second moment of area and hence lower strength"??

I can get all the 'strength' one needs to take out bending in say a 9% t/c by either lengthening the chord (Spitfire approach) to deepen the spar (local 'thickness') for a beam cap/shear panel design of certain area and web shear panel thickness, or maintain 9% with shorter chord (Me 262) by a variety of ways but all would increase wing weight. (i.e. increase cap area, same cap area/thicker surface skin)


----------



## drgondog (Sep 9, 2010)

Magnon said:


> The snaking - it wasn't specified as just occurring at high speed - was raised by Wendell apparently for an early condition where the aircraft had only two main tanks and an auxilliary tank. (For a total capacity of 529 US gallon).
> 
> *I don't recall the USAAF report at Wright Pat discussion yaw/dutch roll for any condition except high speed and/or manuever with aft fuel in fuselage. I'll be able to comment more when I unpack my books.*
> 
> ...



Many Allied fighters were very succesful engaging much more manuevrable Axis fighters, particularly Japan, with the primary advantage of just much greater speed. The smart 262 pilot kept his speed up and decided whether to fly away and come back or simply continue on. A P-38 or a Mustang (or F4U or F6F) against a George had best keep the same advice at hand and turn only a limited degree for a brief deflection on such aircraft already pulling high G's.


----------



## Magnon (Sep 10, 2010)

drgondog said:


> Many Allied fighters were very succesful engaging much more manuevrable Axis fighters, particularly Japan, with the primary advantage of just much greater speed. The smart 262 pilot kept his speed up and decided whether to fly away and come back or simply continue on. A P-38 or a Mustang (or F4U or F6F) against a George had best keep the same advice at hand and turn only a limited degree for a brief deflection on such aircraft already pulling high G's.



That's what I have been saying all along...


----------



## Magnon (Sep 12, 2010)

Magnon: "It would seem to me to be extremely naive to expect that in all cases of air combat you could have consumed enough fuel to keep the CG within its design envelope, particularly as Allied aircraft were lurking around the German airfields."

Drgndog: "True - if Fw 190s were attacking Mustang bases all the time, they would have an advantage against a Mustang with full aft tank in most ACM at low level. OTOH fuel was such a shortage that Me 262s didn't have full tanks at all times anyway."​
If you can't fill your fuel tanks, you can't carry out very meaningful operations. Taking this to it's ultimate conclusion, the whole problem could be fixed by having no fuel at all. Maybe this was why 1432 were built, most sitting on the ground and only around 300 were ever used in combat. (Sorry, I'm just being facetious here.)

The evidence that fuel storage was critical is the fact that they started with three fuel tanks, added another auxilliary tank and according to the Me262 Handbook, were looking to add two extra drop tanks. Were the Germans perhaps looking to base the aircraft remotely from Allied attack, hence the need for the extra range?

Regards,

Magnon


----------



## Magnon (Sep 12, 2010)

I have attached some data for critical temperatures in the JUMO engine which indicate why it was very prone to damage when overheated on opening the throttle too quickly.

The BMW temperature profile was as close as I could get to the JUMO. It had the same problem, in any case.

Regards,

Magnon


----------



## drgondog (Sep 12, 2010)

Magnon said:


> If you can't fill your fuel tanks, you can't carry out very meaningful operations. Taking this to it's ultimate conclusion, the whole problem could be fixed by having no fuel at all. Maybe this was why 1432 were built, most sitting on the ground and only around 300 were ever used in combat. (Sorry, I'm just being facetious here.)
> 
> The evidence that fuel storage was critical is the fact that they started with three fuel tanks, added another auxilliary tank and according to the Me262 Handbook, were looking to add two extra drop tanks. Were the Germans perhaps looking to base the aircraft remotely from Allied attack, hence the need for the extra range?
> 
> ...



Yes - most Me 262 bases were roughly east of a line from munich through Leipzig and Berlin in the last couple of months of the war. The 8th AF specifically attacked airfields like Leipheim and Landsburg, etc to go after 262s.

Like the Mustang the Me 262 mission flexibility was greater with additional fuel, but far from useless with the internal fuel capability (and mostly Not fully tanked up simply because of shortages of fuel). Having said this the Me 262 fuel situration per se was probably better than recips which required refined gasoline rather than Diesel/Kerosene at that time of the war.


----------



## Magnon (Sep 12, 2010)

drgondog said:


> When you pose that 'any advantage to the Schwalbe over the Meteor would be partly due to the AR of the wing, surely" - what are you thinking about specifically?
> 
> AR would have an effect on Induced drag, but by itself leaves much to be discovered relative to structural considerations. The wing design on the 262 would be influenced by three primary factors - L/D obviously, Structural integrity, and low speed stability. The leading edge slats would have been added to improve manueverability at high AoA as well as add to the low speed handling characteristics. I am not overlooking fuel capacity or the aero interference drag brough about by the nacelles but those would have been in the trade offs while trying to maximize the mission specs.
> 
> ...



I was thinking along the lines of what was expressed by A.C Kermode in "Mechanics of Flight - Introduction to Aeronautical Engineering." I don't have anything like your background in this area. Here he was talking about the benefits of aspect ratio in terms of reducing induced drag:
"the best we can do in practical design is to make the aspect ratio as large as possible. Unfortunately a limit is soon reached - *from the structural point of view*. The greater the span, the greater must be the wing strength, the heavier must be the structure, and so eventually the greater weight of the structure more than counterbalances the advantages gained. Again it is a matter of *compromise*...​
If I were designing a specialist interceptor, I would compromise towards the low end of manoeuvrability, hence G-forces and hence structural strength. 

The Meteor was accepted as having a rugged airframe, and this was proven in around 25 years in Argentinean and Brazilian service. The F 8 airframe was proven to be able to survive quite heavy damage from 37 mm MiG cannon in Korea: 
"...Although a strictly subsonic aircraft, the Meteor did have a high performance for a straight-wing fighter; it was rugged, versatile, and capable of being adapted to various missions..."​ 
The Evolution Of Modern Aircraft NASA

The Meteor had a much more robust wing as per -

Meteor; Wing aspect ratio;	4.94
Me 262;	Wing aspect ratio;	7.32
Meteor;	Wing Thickness;	12% root; 10.4% tip
Me 262; Wing Thickness;	11% root; 9% tip
Meteor F3;	Wingspan; 13.1 m 
Me 262;	Wingspan; 12.53 m​
Note that the wing drag of the Meteor was higher, but because the nacelles were integrated with the wing, the Meteor nacelle drag was less than the Me 262 (see attachment), despite the centrifugal compressor forcing a larger engine diameter.

I'd be interested to know how you would interpret the "miscellaneous" item?

Regards,

Magnon


----------



## drgondog (Sep 13, 2010)

Magnon said:


> I was thinking along the lines of what was expressed by A.C Kermode in "Mechanics of Flight - Introduction to Aeronautical Engineering." I don't have anything like your background in this area. Here he was talking about the benefits of aspect ratio in terms of reducing induced drag:
> 
> *Remember Induced Drag is but one component of drag - and it dominates at low speed with high angles of attack when compared with vortex and parasite drag. At high speeds the drag due to compressibility and parasite drag dominates and induced drag is low by comparison.*
> 
> ...



*What micellaneous item? From inspection of data above it is clear that the mean chord for the Meteor is quite a bit longer than the 262 (i.e greater wing span but lower Aspect ratio). This data also implies a thicker (Deeper) airfoil than the wing thickness % imply. This further implies the wing drag of the Meteor is higher (independent of induced drag).*


----------



## Magnon (Sep 13, 2010)

drgondog said:


> *What micellaneous item? From inspection of data above it is clear that the mean chord for the Meteor is quite a bit longer than the 262 (i.e greater wing span but lower Aspect ratio). This data also implies a thicker (Deeper) airfoil than the wing thickness % imply. This further implies the wing drag of the Meteor is higher (independent of induced drag).*



The miscellaneous item at the bottom of the table was noted as including interference etc. It gave a figure of 3 lb for the Meteor and 8 lb for the Me 262.


----------



## Magnon (Sep 13, 2010)

drgondog said:


> *What micellaneous item? From inspection of data above it is clear that the mean chord for the Meteor is quite a bit longer than the 262 (i.e greater wing span but lower Aspect ratio). This data also implies a thicker (Deeper) airfoil than the wing thickness % imply. This further implies the wing drag of the Meteor is higher (independent of induced drag).*



That's arguably an understatement... The wing area of the Me 262 was less than two thirds that of the Meteor. The wing spans were similar. That makes the mean chord of the Me 262 wing around two thirds that of the Meteor. With the average ~10% higher t/c ratio of the Meteor wing, the resulting average wing thickness is also less than two thirds that of the Meteor. As the second moment of area is a function of Ay^2, I would have thought that that leaves a lot to make make up in terms of thickening of wing members and skin. Of course this would be important not only for bending, but also torsion, particularly if as you say they were intending to install wing drop tanks. 
DragonDog: Mc/I is of course a classic equation for stress on a homogeneous body due to a bending load - but in airframe design back in those days a 'normal' spar design was top and lower caps (usually extrusions), augmented by wing skin to take out the axial loads resulting from bending and a shear panel to transfer the axial loads from one cap to the other...what did you have in mind with the 'lower wing second moment of area and hence lower strength"??​
The Republic Thunderjet had these sorts of problems in the early fifties:
Extract from Wikipedia
"The structural improvements were factory-implemented in the F-84D, which entered service in 1949. *Wings were covered with thicker aluminum skin*, the fuel system was winterized and capable of using JP-4 fuel, and a more powerful J35-A-17 engine with 5,000 lbf (22.2 kN) was fitted. *It was discovered that the untested wingtip fuel tanks contributed to wing structural failures by inducing excessive twisting during high-g maneuvers.* To correct this, small triangular fins were added to the outside of the tanks. The F-84D was phased out of USAF service in 1952 and left Air National Guard service in 1957."​"The first effective and fully-capable Thunderjet was the F-84E model which entered service in 1949. The aircraft featured the J35-A-17 engine, *further wing reinforcement*, a 12 in (305 mm) fuselage extension in front of the wings and 3 in (76 mm) extension aft of the wings to enlarge the cockpit and the avionics bay, an A-1C gunsight with APG-30 radar, and *provision for an additional pair of 230 gal (870 L) fuel tanks to be carried on underwing pylons*."​
By the way, Republic converted the F 84 from straight wing to 38.5 degree swept wing and reportedly found little benefit:
Air, Land and Sea: 2008-08-10
Design and development
In 1949, Republic created a swept wing version of the F-84 hoping to bring performance to the F-86 level. The last production F-84E was fitted with a swept tail, a new wing with 38.5 degrees of leading edge sweep and 3.5 degrees of anhedral, and a J35-A-25 engine producing 5,300 pound-force (23.58 kN) of thrust. The aircraft was designated XF-96A. It flew on 3 June 1950 with Otto P. Haas at the controls. *Although the airplane was capable of 602 knots (693 mph, 1,115 km/h), the performance gain over the F-84E was considered minor.* Nonetheless, it was ordered into production in July 1950 as the F-84F Thunderstreak. The F-84 designation was retained because the fighter was expected to be a low-cost improvement of the straight-wing Thunderjet with over 55 percent commonality in tooling.

In the meantime, the USAF, hoping for improved high-altitude performance from a more powerful engine, arranged for the British Armstrong Siddeley Sapphire turbojet engine to be built in the United States as the Wright J65. To accommodate the larger engine, YF-84Fs with a British-built Sapphire as well as production F-84Fs with the J65 had a vertically stretched fuselage, with the air intake attaining an oval cross-section. Production delays with the F-84F forced USAF to order a number of straight-wing F-84Gs as an interim measure.​The Thunderjet wing had a relatively moderate aspect ratio at around 5:1. Your feedback would be appreciated.

In terms of drag, the Meteor could well afford to trade off increased wing drag in return for improved ruggedness and manoeuvrability due to the possession of more powerful and efficient engines (20% lower specific fuel consumption). 

By the way, I would still like to see your feedback on the hot end temperature analysis re the JUMO and the Derwent.


----------



## riacrato (Sep 14, 2010)

Who said the drop tanks were to be installed under the wings anyways. AFAIK they were installed underneath the fuselage where the A-2 had the bomb racks. See also Me 262 B-1a:


----------



## drgondog (Sep 14, 2010)

Magnon said:


> That's arguably an understatement... The wing area of the Me 262 was less than two thirds that of the Meteor. The wing spans were similar. That makes the mean chord of the Me 262 wing around two thirds that of the Meteor. With the average ~10% higher t/c ratio of the Meteor wing, the resulting average wing thickness is also less than two thirds that of the Meteor. As the second moment of area is a function of Ay^2, I would have thought that that leaves a lot to make make up in terms of thickening of wing members and skin. Of course this would be important not only for bending, but also torsion, particularly if as you say they were intending to install wing drop tanks.
> 
> *I am still curious regarding your application of 'second moment of inertia'? to any extrapolated comparison between the two ships. I would have to have the actual cross sections from the wing tip to the root chord as well as the aero load distribution and twist to begin to start on any structural/stress analysis.
> 
> ...



Thermodynamic efficiency is enhanced with greater delta between intake and exhaust temps - the rest is trade offs and compromises based on metallurgy..

As to the question regarding 'miscellaneous' in which you were pointing to the interference drag comparisons? Interference drag is a complicated 'catch all' which collects viscous components of drag related to lift. That would include pressure drag associated with changes in angle of attack such as fuselage vortex drag, nacelle and nacelle/pylon interference drag, changes in trim drag and 'simply' changes in drag due to engine power effects (inlet or exhaust).

As the tables a.) do not elucidate further, and b.) there is not a corresponding Reynolds number presentation for 800 feet per second (it is not linear), I have no basis for comment


----------



## Magnon (Sep 15, 2010)

drgondog said:


> *Thermodynamic efficiency is enhanced with greater delta between intake and exhaust temps - the rest is trade offs and compromises based on metallurgy...*



I will take that as - "As an airframe specialist, I don't give a stuff about powerplants."

It seems to me that that's the sort of thinking that led to all the problems with the Schwalbe. *"Design the airframe first and then the rest can just be improvised along the way."*

I have attached a copy of bench testing on the JUMO over a period of 7.5 hours. It is generally accepted that three hours on a test banch were equivalent to around one in combat. (That's assuming the engine wasn't "cooked" in a panic opening of the throttle or due to a surge event in combat).

From the graph, I'd estimate a 2.5% drop in thrust and 4.5% increase in specific fuel consumption. It would be reasonable to surmise that over the usual ten hour JUMO engine life in combat, a very much more dramatic drop in performance of the aircraft would result.

The other thing I'd like some feedback on, one way or the other, is the analysis on on post #34 on http://warbirdsforum.com/showthread.php?t=451&page=4

The bottom line here was:

Summarizing, the speed margin of the 262 versus the wartime Meteor III *equipped with the 2000lb S/T engines* would be
Sea level 4mph (0.82%)
5K 12mph (2.45%)
10K 20mph (4.04%)
15K 24mph (4.81%)
20K 34mph (6.83%)
25K 38mph (7.72%)
30K 24mph (4.94%)

Two factors limited the Meteor III’s speed, i.e. a structural limit of 500mph and a critical mach of 0.74, whichever was met first.​
Regards,

Magnon


----------



## drgondog (Sep 15, 2010)

Magnon said:


> I will take that as - "As an airframe specialist, I don't give a stuff about powerplants."
> 
> *Somewhat true - engine design is a deep and complex discipline. I took two propulsion curses and discuss aspects of the theory (after 45 years) but never designed an engine per se. Have been involved in inlets however but even those were all either very low speed helicopter or very high speed multi mach supersonic.*
> 
> ...



Comment with respect to what specifically?

Dynamic Pressure loads (1/2 rho V>>2) at the upper limit of the aircraft's capability often resulted in structural failure, say, during manuever and asymmetic force input. Yaw in a dive or a roll or sideslip would be flight conditions difficult to analyze in preliminary design. Even more difficult would be the prediction of onset of flutter and aeroelastic loads at such thresholds... a high frequency reversible load under such conditions would be extremely dangerous.

Neither design team was particularly knowledgable about increase in interference drag due to compressibility and were perhaps just past being 'vaguely aware' of the shock wave phoenomena moving the center of aerodynamic pressure aft or the pressure gradient change in the transonic ranges. These variables contributed to a.) increased flow separation and immersion of flight controls aft in highly turbulent flow, b.) pitch trim changes due to cahnges in CMac contributing to pitch down forces beyong human strength to overcome, and c.) increased dynamic pressure loads beyond predicted levels from early analysis.

I am not able to comment on the nacelle design for either a/c other than the 'miscellaneous' drag in the table you showed - at 100 feet per second - which should Not extrapolate to any form of compressibility effects at .74 (or above) at the inlet of the meteor..


----------



## Magnon (Sep 15, 2010)

Originally Posted by Magnon 
I was thinking along the lines of what was expressed by A.C Kermode in "Mechanics of Flight - Introduction to Aeronautical Engineering." I don't have anything like your background in this area. Here he was talking about the benefits of aspect ratio in terms of reducing induced drag:

_Remember Induced Drag is but one component of drag - and it dominates at low speed with high angles of attack when compared with vortex and parasite drag. At high speeds the drag due to compressibility and parasite drag dominates and induced drag is low by comparison_.

"the best we can do in practical design is to make the aspect ratio as large as possible. Unfortunately a limit is soon reached - from the structural point of view. The greater the span, the greater must be the wing strength, the heavier must be the structure, and so eventually the greater weight of the structure more than counterbalances the advantages gained. Again it is a matter of compromise...
True - for same root chord to tip chord geometry - refer back to my conversation a couple of posts back 

*If I were designing a specialist interceptor, I would compromise towards the low end of manoeuvrability, hence G-forces and hence structural strength. *

The Meteor was accepted as having a rugged airframe, and this was proven in around 25 years in Argentinean and Brazilian service. The F 8 airframe was proven to be able to survive quite heavy damage from 37 mm MiG cannon in Korea: 
"...Although a strictly subsonic aircraft, the Meteor did have a high performance for a straight-wing fighter; it was rugged, versatile, and capable of being adapted to various missions..."
*The post WWII Meteor also experienced growth in capability due to enhanced design features*.​
With regard to the Sabre, which was designed in light of knowledge of the German swept-wing research and inspection of captured ME 262s:
...In August of 1945, project aerodynamicist L. P. Greene proposed to Raymond Rice that a swept-wing configuration for the P-86 be adopted. Wind tunnel tests carried out in September of 1945 confirmed the reduction in drag at high subsonic speeds as well as the beneficial effect of the slats on low speed stability. The limiting Mach number was raised to 0.875. 
Based on these wind-tunnel studies, a new design for a swept-wing P-86 was submitted to the USAAF in the fall of 1945. The USAAF was impressed, and on November 1, 1945 it readily approved the proposal. This was one of the most important decisions ever made by the USAAF--had they not agreed to this change, the history of the next forty years would undoubtedly have been quite different.

*North American's next step was to choose the aspect ratio of the swept wing. A larger aspect ratio would give better range, a narrower one better stability, and the correct choice would obviously have to be a tradeoff between the two. Further tests carried out between late October and mid November indicated that a wing aspect ratio of 6 would be satisfactory, and such an aspect ratio had been planned for in the proposal accepted on November 1. However, early in 1946 additional wind tunnel tests indicated that stability with such a narrow wing would be too great a problem, and in March the design reverted to a shorter wingform. An aspect ratio of 4.79, a sweep-back of 35 degrees, and a thickness/chord ratio of 11% at the root and 10% at the tip was finally chosen... *​North American XP-86 Sabre

This seems to me to confirm what I believe we have agreed, that the Schwalbe wing design was optimised for a relatively narrow high speed interceptor role.

At this point, DragonDog, I'd like to pay tribute to your patience in explaining esoteric aerodynamic theory to complete amateurs such as myself. I think that with open-minded research it is possible to winkle out some truth with regard to this subject, which is all too often clouded in myth. Keep up the good work!

Regards,

Magnon


----------



## Magnon (Sep 16, 2010)

riacrato said:


> Who said the drop tanks were to be installed under the wings anyways. AFAIK they were installed underneath the fuselage where the A-2 had the bomb racks. See also Me 262 B-1a:



Thanks for that information Riacrato.


----------



## Magnon (Sep 16, 2010)

I will take that as - "As an airframe specialist, I don't give a stuff about powerplants."

DragonDog quote:
"*Somewhat true - engine design is a deep and complex discipline. I took two propulsion curses and discuss aspects of the theory (after 45 years) but never designed an engine per se. Have been involved in inlets however but even those were all either very low speed helicopter or very high speed multi mach supersonic*."​
Now was that just a Freudian slip - propulsion *curses*?


----------



## drgondog (Sep 16, 2010)

Magnon said:


> I will take that as - "As an airframe specialist, I don't give a stuff about powerplants."
> 
> DragonDog quote:
> "*Somewhat true - engine design is a deep and complex discipline. I took two propulsion curses and discuss aspects of the theory (after 45 years) but never designed an engine per se. Have been involved in inlets however but even those were all either very low speed helicopter or very high speed multi mach supersonic*."​
> Now was that just a Freudian slip - propulsion *curses*?



simply poor proofreading - I did well in the courses but also serene in the knowledge that I wouldn't be interested in working up north central/east US where GE and Pratt are located..


----------



## drgondog (Sep 16, 2010)

Magnon said:


> This seems to me to confirm what I believe we have agreed, that the Schwalbe wing design was optimised for a relatively narrow high speed interceptor role.
> 
> 
> Regards,
> ...




I am not so sure that such statement has enough data to support the conclusion.. The aspect ratio of the 262 wasn't particularly remarkable for interceptors of the day - 

In addition, the Me 262 wasn't following traditional rules for such per se, nor was the meteor.

The imbedded/low mount twin engine designs necessitated by low thrust engines dictated much of the wing design. Had the 262 provided for a much larger internal fuel capability, there would have been more options for wing planform and t/c ratios to reduce drag more.​


----------



## delcyros (Sep 16, 2010)

Magnon said:


> I have attached a copy of bench testing on the JUMO over a period of 7.5 hours. It is generally accepted that three hours on a test banch were equivalent to around one in combat. (That's assuming the engine wasn't "cooked" in a panic opening of the throttle or due to a surge event in combat).
> 
> From the graph, I'd estimate a 2.5% drop in thrust and 4.5% increase in specific fuel consumption. It would be reasonable to surmise that over the usual ten hour JUMO engine life in combat, a very much more dramatic drop in performance of the aircraft would result.
> 
> ...



Magnon, You have to be more careful with selecting Your sources and jumping from individual samples (ONE TEST on ONE engine at ONE given day) to general conclusions. Put them in a meaningful statistic in the first place would be my primary advise. This may allow the interested reader to judge whether or not the sample has significance for the whole Jumo-series or not. You may find the relevant primary sources in the Freiburg Archive (but it may be possible that some of the material relating to Jumo benchtest moved to Berlin since 2002) and I know that a roughly 2in thick agglomeration of single benchtests is there. That beeing said, I greatly appreciate Your input here.

The speed margin of wartime Me-262 (with all the plane to plane variation) and Meteor is significantly different from what You suggest. It´s not a single value but a spread of discrete points. For the Me-262 You may find the Rechlin mass tests on 142 serial Me-262A1 intersting. Tests were conducted late in 1944 with top speed measured in different altitudes and clacluclated back to standart atmosphere, but the paper dates to early 1945 (I think it was RG-Lunatic who digged out this source first in another -262 relevant post). It would be highly interesting to see a comparable convolution of serial Meteor-III tests before jumping to general statements.

Best regards,
delc


----------



## Magnon (Sep 16, 2010)

It seems to me that there is arguably a parallel between the Shwalbe and the Starfighter, in that both
- were specialist interceptors
- lacked manoeuvrability
- had high wing loadings (the Starfighter much higher)
- suffered from instability in flight, particularly in high-G manouevres 
- had relatively high stall speeds (the Starfighter was far worse)
- had very high attrition rates (the Starfighter's was in peacetime)​
... *[Interceptors] sacrifice performance in the air superiority fighter role (i.e., fighting enemy fighter aircraft) by tuning their performance for either fast climbs or high speeds, respectively. The result is that interceptors often look very impressive on paper, typically outrunning, outclimbing and outgunning less specialized fighter designs. Yet they tend to fare poorly in combat against those same "less capable" designs due to limited maneuverability*... Interceptor aircraft - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia​
Where the analogy breaks down is that the Me 262 was built for speed, and was expected to have a clear superiority over its opposition in this area and hence be able to outrun them.

Interestingly, the Starfighter was designed in Kelly Johnson's "Skunkworks."

Do you know anything about it DragonDog?

Regards,

Magnon


----------



## Magnon (Sep 17, 2010)

delcyros said:


> Magnon, You have to be more careful with selecting Your sources and jumping from individual samples (ONE TEST on ONE engine at ONE given day) to general conclusions. Put them in a meaningful statistic in the first place would be my primary advise. This may allow the interested reader to judge whether or not the sample has significance for the whole Jumo-series or not. You may find the relevant primary sources in the Freiburg Archive (but it may be possible that some of the material relating to Jumo benchtest moved to Berlin since 2002) and I know that a roughly 2in thick agglomeration of single benchtests is there. That beeing said, I greatly appreciate Your input here.
> 
> The speed margin of wartime Me-262 (with all the plane to plane variation) and Meteor is significantly different from what You suggest. It´s not a single value but a spread of discrete points. For the Me-262 You may find the Rechlin mass tests on 142 serial Me-262A1 intersting. Tests were conducted late in 1944 with top speed measured in different altitudes and clacluclated back to standart atmosphere, but the paper dates to early 1945 (I think it was RG-Lunatic who digged out this source first in another -262 relevant post). It would be highly interesting to see a comparable convolution of serial Meteor-III tests before jumping to general statements.
> 
> ...



Where I am coming from is that:
- It is undeniable that there were problems in durability of the JUMO engines. The graphs of temperature distribution show how "close to the wind" the operation of the engine was. There was absolutely no room for error in terms of the rate of throttle opening. The aluminium coating on the flame tubes was going to melt at 660C, allowing much increased rates of scaling corrosion. Even on a test rig, very significant rates of thrust deterioration and SFC increase were measured, mainly due to the turbine elements.
- Whereas the published figures for speed and climb rate were obtained for a new engine, an operational fighter would have to be operating with less-than-ideal output.
- This is born out by results of evaluation by the Allies after the war, in which generally less than the nominal 540 mph were reported.
- Hans Fey indicates that 515 mph was the lower limit of acceptability for their performance assessment.​
Best regards,

Magnon


----------



## pbfoot (Sep 17, 2010)

The 104 was also uses as a maritime srike aircraft by the German Navy and the Canadians used it solely as a lo level strike aircraft a task at which it excelled


----------



## drgondog (Sep 17, 2010)

Magnon said:


> It seems to me that there is arguably a parallel between the Shwalbe and the Starfighter, in that both
> - were specialist interceptors
> - lacked manoeuvrability
> - had high wing loadings (the Starfighter much higher)
> ...



Yes, although the 104 and U-2 were designed before my period with Lockheed. I did some aero/structural modelling work on theF-104 and SR-71/A-12 to compare against the test data results as well as some engagement on the Q-12 and D-21 ramjet powered drones for the SR-71

The analogy between F-104 and Me 262 is a very thin one. Both were interceptor/air superiority fighters powered by jet engines, both had internal cannon. That about sums it up. 

As to obvious differences - T tail Stabilator, fuselage mounted landing gear, AR ~ 2.4, t/c ratio (~3.4%) and leading edge so sharp as to require gloves for ground crew, anhedral wing, imbedded fuselage engine, conical inlet, Whitcomb fuselage, downward ejection seats, EXTREMELY low drag - in fact the 104 top speed was limited by aluminum heat properties - not thrust

Note - The 'instability' issue you refer to are very common for all supersonic fighters at high AoA - the extemely low aspect ratios for something like F-104 also necessitate creative thinking to achieve acceptable landing speeds. IIRC the 104 had one of the first blown jets though slots in wing to improve boundary layer 'attachment' over the trailing flaps as an example. 

The 104 sucked in a turn - far more than the Me 262.. but it would roll nearly 2x turns per sec... faster than a pilot could really utilize.


----------



## Magnon (Sep 17, 2010)

The Starfighter had big problems:

The Lockheed F-104 "Star Fighter"
...In June of 1958, English Electric test pilot Roland Beaumont test flew an F-104A. He was quite critical of the Starfighter. He found the aircraft to have inadequate directional damping, evidenced by a persistent low-amplitude short-period oscillation throughout most of the flight regime. The use of a thin, highly-loaded wing had a severe adverse effect on the turning maneuverability. There were excessive break-out forces of the power-controlled ailerons. At high angles of attack, the high-set stabilator would tend to stall in the wing downwash, and a departure into a flat spin was often the result. Recovery from such a flat spin was usually possible only if there was sufficient height so that increased engine power could be applied to accelerate the aircraft back into controlled flight. Beaumont found that subsonic handling properties were unpleasant and particularly dangerous in take-off and landing configuration and were not compatible with bad weather operation. He predicted that the F-104 was likely to suffer a high accident rate in operation...​
*Attrition Rate*

Starfighter with Luftwaffe
...In Luftwaffe service, the F-104G got a bad reputation because of the large number of accidents, many of them resulting in fatalities. Intensive flying operations with the Starfighter did not start in Germany until 1961, when only two crashes took place. There were seven crashes in 1962, 12 in 1964, and 28 in 1965, or more than two a month. By mid-1966, 61 German Starfighters had crashed, with a loss of 35 pilots. At the height of the crisis, the Starfighter accident rate peaked at 139 per 100,000 flying hours. As a result, the German press went into a feeding frenzy and the F-104G was given derogatory nicknames such as the "Flying Coffin" or the "Widowmaker", which brings to mind all of the flak that surrounded the Martin B-26 Marauder during World War 2. One running joke at the time was that if you waited long enough, just about every square mile of Germany would have a Starfighter crash onto it...​
...During its period of service with the German armed forces, about 270 German Starfighters were lost in accidents, just under 30 percent of the total force. About 110 pilots were killed. However, the attrition rate in German service was not all that much greater than that of the F-104 in service with several other air forces, including the United States Air Force. Canada had the unenviable record of losing over 50 percent of its 200 single-seat CF-104s in flying accidents. The loss rate of Luftwaffe Starfighters was not all that extraordinary, since the Luftwaffe had suffered a 36 percent attrition rate with the Republic F-84F Thunderstreak, the Starfighter's immediate predecessor...​
It just goes to show. I felt sure that 30% would have had to have been an all-time attrition rate for an aircraft in peacetime...

http://www.airplanedriver.net/study/f104.htm
...Try not to fall on your head when exiting the aircraft. Adrenaline does funny things to a person, and you should have plenty of it after flying this airplane. So much for the F-104, the ultimate: 
"*Bad Ass Airplane*".​
Now how does this tie up with the Me 262? Well, it's just that they were both specialist interceptors, and the Me 262 exhibited a lot of the negative properties of the Starfighter, but admittedly to nowhere near the same extent...

After getting caught with their pants down twice with the F 84 and F 104, the Germans since then seem to be keen on joint Anglo-German projects.

Regards,

Magnon


----------



## Magnon (Sep 17, 2010)

The Lockheed F-104 "Star Fighter"
The Indian – Pakistan War of 1965:
...The first encounter in history between Mach 2 fighters took place on September 11, 1965. A single PAF F-104A encountered four IAF MiG-21s from Halwara. The F-104 managed to escape by exiting the combat at tree-top height and Mach 1.1, which the MiG-21s were unable to match. No blood was drawn during this encounter. 
*When it found itself confronted with the Indian Air Force's diminutive Folland Gnats, the Pakistani F-104As often found themselves outmaneuvered. This was especially true if the Starfighter pilot chose not to use his Mach 2 speed advantage and decided instead to engage in low-speed dogfights with his opponents. In addition, since most of the air-to-air fighting occurred at low altitudes, the Starfighter's Sidewinder air-to-air missiles were often unable to distinguish between target aircraft and ground clutter and a lot of missiles missed their targets. However, the Starfighter's afterburner enabled it to break off combat at will and get out of trouble in a hurry...*

... War between Pakistan and India broke out again on December 7, 1971. By this time the Indian MiG force was formidable, with eight squadrons operationally ready. During the 1971 war with India, No 9 Squadron of the Royal Jordanian Air Force with about 10 F-104As was transferred to Pakistan to help out. It is not certain if the Jordanian F-104As were actually used in combat and if they were, whether they were flown by Pakistani or Jordanian pilots.​
Both sides have published wildly differing figures for air victories and losses during this war, although it appears that the F-104 came off second-best in the few encounters that occurred with IAF MiG-21s--with the F-104s scoring no confirmed victories and suffering at least two losses. Indian air historians claim that five PAF Starfighters were lost in combat, and they also claim that two Jordanian Starfighters were shot down by MiG-21s on the last day (December 17) of the 1971 war. The PAF has admitted that two PAF Starfighters were lost in combat with IAF MiG-21s during the 1971 war, plus another one lost to ground fire. According to Pakistani sources, nine IAF MiG-21s were shot down on the Western front, with two of them being shot down by PAF fighters (one by an Chinese-built F-6 and another by a F-86 Sabre).* The PAF has admitted that the maneuverability of the F-104 was poor during close-in combat and that the F-6 and F-86 were far better in a dogfight. *​*If a subsonic Folland Gnat, designed on a shoestring for sale to third-world countries, could whip a Starfighter in a dogfight, it goes to show that in general an interceptor should not try to mix it up with a less specialised fighter.*

As a dogfighter, the Starfighter was not so much a "star," more like a "dog," actually.

Regards,

Magnon


----------



## pbfoot (Sep 18, 2010)

I won't change the topic except to say your knowledge of the 104 is IMHO sorely lacking , it was a rare aircraft in the fact it had a 40 service career as a 1st line fighter,


----------



## drgondog (Sep 18, 2010)

Magnon - The articles you presented were basically accurate with respect to issues the F-104 had during its lifetime. Having said that, the airplane was designed as the fastest interceptor in the world - It had by far the highest thrust to weight ration and the first one able to climb to 100,000 feet.

My father's last three high performance aircraft before retirement were the F-105, the F-101 and the F-104 and he liked each of them and respected the strengths and weaknesses of all of them. At the time he flew the airplane it was the only operational Mach 2+ fighter in ther world and the fastest time to climb. The only derogatory comment I recall is the it was not a dogfighter and should never be employed as such in manuever fights. 

That would be obvious based on wing loading and AR as all HoA manuevers would be stretching the stability envelope.

Tony Lanphier also seemed to like the F-104 and as a test pilot he didn't get paid to be a politician - so he called them as he saw them.

Net - it was the fastest, was the first to use the M-61 in operations, was nearly 70% faster than the F-100, could climb far above any bomber or fighter in existance and for some time after it was introduced. IIRC it was the first (by far) to attain 100,000 feet largely due to the exceptional performance of the J-79 and the 104's extremely low drag.. god knows it wasn't lift due to the wing.

From my perspective, it was over sold and represented a dead end in fighter evolution until the advent of truly reliable missiles which could negate better manuever fighter aircraft like the MiG 21.

But back to the topic of Me 262. As you agreed there are few valid comparisons between the two fighters?


----------



## Kurfürst (Sep 18, 2010)

Magnon said:


> Maybe this was why 1432 were built, most sitting on the ground and only around 300 were ever used in combat. (Sorry, I'm just being facetious here.)
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Magnon



Spitfire XIV. 900-odd built, 120 were ever present in service. Tempest ditto..
Bf 109K. 1700-odd built, highest number I know to be in service at time was 300-odd.
P-47D Thunderbolt... what, 15 000 built...? I willing to be there was never more than 1500-2000 in service at a time.

It's a typical ratio.


----------



## Magnon (Sep 18, 2010)

pbfoot said:


> I won't change the topic except to say your knowledge of the 104 is IMHO sorely lacking , it was a rare aircraft in the fact it had a 40 service career as a 1st line fighter,



I'm sure it put the fear of God into any bomber commander who had to face it, but it wasn't a dogfighter, it was *a specialist interceptor*...

Regards,

Magnon


----------



## Magnon (Sep 18, 2010)

[/INDENT]


Kurfürst said:


> Spitfire XIV. 900-odd built, 120 were ever present in service. Tempest ditto..
> Bf 109K. 1700-odd built, highest number I know to be in service at time was 300-odd.
> P-47D Thunderbolt... what, 15 000 built...? I willing to be there was never more than 1500-2000 in service at a time.
> 
> It's a typical ratio.



To my knowledge, the highest number of sorties on a single day was recorded as 44. 

That would be around 3%...

JV44 had been formed by Adolf Galland as a last-ditch effort to keep the cream of the Luftwaffe pilots together, flying the best available aircraft. Formed from 12 / JG54 on 10 February 1945 at Brandenburg-Briest, JV44 began operations on 31 March 1945 from Munich-Riem with twenty-five Me262s and fifty pilots. A month later, every remaining Me262 was being flown to the JV44 base from disintegrating units, ending up with over 100 Me262s. After transferring to Salzburg-Maxglam, the unit was forced to surrender on 3 May 1945. In its month of operations, the unit showed what the Me262 was capable of, shooting down around forty-five Allied aircraft while having an average of only six aircraft operational at any time.​Messerschmitt Me 262 Schwalbe

That's around 6%.

Regards,

Magnon


----------



## Magnon (Sep 18, 2010)

drgondog said:


> But back to the topic of Me 262. As you agreed there are few valid comparisons between the two fighters?





Erich said:


> *the unit was designed to kill US/RAF bombers not engage in a hand to hand struggle in the air with opposing fighters..............look how wide the turns were of the 262 allowing Allied fighters to close within and deal the lethal blows*



What Erich the Old Sage is saying, DragonDog, is that the Me 262 was a specialist interceptor. That's what it was designed to do... *That's what it had to do*. 

There is nothing shameful about that, surely?

Regards,

Magnon


----------



## drgondog (Sep 19, 2010)

Magnon said:


> What Erich the Old Sage is saying, DragonDog, is that the Me 262 was a specialist interceptor. That's what it was designed to do... *That's what it had to do*.
> 
> There is nothing shameful about that, surely?
> 
> ...



So, how is the 'specialist interceptor' Me 262 different from the initial design purpose and mission of the Spitfire, the Me 109, the Me 163, the Meteor, the P-80, the Yak 3?


----------



## bada (Sep 19, 2010)

drgondog said:


> Bada - one note on your comparison of Meteor vs Fw 190 speed limit at 20,000 ft. The table showed 400 IAS which is Indicated Air Speed not True Air Speed. The Fw would do 400mph TAS but closer to 280-300 (a guess - I don't have my books unpacked to do the math) IAS at 20,000 feet.



oupsie, my mistake you're right. 

Magnon:
the 3-6% or whatever procents, are they calculated on the total number of airframes build?
otherwise, you have to know the total aiframes build till that day of 44 sorties, substract the airframes not delivered yet , the ones in maintenance ,the one destroyed and the ones in flight schools (not that there were a lot of them at the end of the war and specially for the 262 ). If we take the example of the spit14, so, let's take the date of 10jan44, there was only 1.65% availibility of the spit14.
BUT if you take in acccount the airframes awaiting for delivrey , the proto used for testing, you'll find that there was 100% assignation for the MK14, what means 8 airframes, and if we apply the 75% availibity rule, we end with 6 airframes capable of combat.
Now you see what i mean? 

Men can tell the stats what men wants if you don't have a valid and comprehensive protocol to use.

Edit: the ME262 was drawn in 1940 and build in 1941...can you explain how thye could know that a bomber interceptor will be needed 3years after that?
Willy has certainly a magical time warp glass-ball


----------



## drgondog (Sep 19, 2010)

Magnon said:


> I'm sure it put the fear of God into any bomber commander who had to face it, but it wasn't a dogfighter, it was *a specialist interceptor*...
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Magnon



The F-104 was not conceived as a 'specialist interceptor' - it was only an interim solution in Air Defense Command until the disappointing F-102 was replced by the F-106.

It was intended as an air superiority fighter and evolved its role over time. While it was the 'fastest', future combat with slower aircraft in Pakistan/India wars and Vietnametc, demonstrated the range and agility (ditto F-4 and F-105 to a degree) issues that laid the groundwork to push the F-16 and F-15 concepts forward.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## drgondog (Sep 19, 2010)

bada said:


> oupsie, my mistake you're right.
> 
> Magnon:
> the 3-6% or whatever procents, are they calculated on the total number of airframes build?
> ...



Not to mention the other 262's ready to launch but far away from the bomber stream at the time..

The failure to put more 262's in the air in one day was amplified by a.) lack of fuel, b.) placed out of range from the battles of the day - and c.) possibly too few pilots checked out in the airframe.


----------



## pbfoot (Sep 19, 2010)

Magnon said:


> I'm sure it put the fear of God into any bomber commander who had to face it, but it wasn't a dogfighter, it was *a specialist interceptor*...
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Magnon


it was never an interceptor in CAF livery in fact it was a very good strike fighter/including nukes, flying very lo its hard to hit what you can't see . I'll let you get back to your Quixote quest to validate the Meteors existence


----------



## Magnon (Sep 19, 2010)

pbfoot said:


> it was never an interceptor in CAF livery in fact it was a very good strike fighter/including nukes, flying very lo its hard to hit what you can't see . I'll let you get back to your Quixote quest to validate the Meteors existence



A 50% attrition rate in peacetime, pbf.... is that some sort of record? 

Finds it hard going in a dogfight against a Folland Gnat...

The "CAF" doesn't have nukes, surely?

As long as you're happy, pbf...


----------



## Magnon (Sep 19, 2010)

OK then guys... The important thing is in bold type:

Originally Posted by Erich 
the unit was designed to kill US/RAF bombers not engage in a hand to hand struggle in the air with opposing fighters..............*look how wide the turns were of the 262 allowing Allied fighters to close within and deal the lethal blows*

I will admit that I am not going to change your minds, but when people fail to learn from mistakes, they usually run a big risk of losing wars. 

But that's OK...

Regards,

Magnon


----------



## drgondog (Sep 20, 2010)

Magnon said:


> OK then guys... The important thing is in bold type:
> 
> Originally Posted by Erich
> the unit was designed to kill US/RAF bombers not engage in a hand to hand struggle in the air with opposing fighters..............*look how wide the turns were of the 262 allowing Allied fighters to close within and deal the lethal blows*
> ...



Magnon - you are hanging your thesis that the Me 262 was a.) 'specialist interceptor' and b.) a failure at that because it had 'wide turns'? 

The Me 163 was a succcess because it didn't have wide turns? The F-4 was a failure because it couldn't fight a MiG 21 in the horizontal? The Spit was a failure because it couldn't out turn a Zero?

Who are referring to relative to 'fail to learn from their mistakes'?? The only 'mistake' I see so far is that the people debating you keep doing so when it is clearly a waste of time.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 20, 2010)

Magnon said:


> The "CAF" doesn't have nukes, surely?



No but surely you are aware, that all NATO aircraft are "Nuke" capable. They would use the stockpiles of the Nuke carrying countries. Even the German Luftwaffe aircraft are equiped to carry Nukes. They train for the mission and are capable of it. Same thing for the Canadians.



drgondog said:


> Magnon - you are hanging your thesis that the Me 262 was a.) 'specialist interceptor' and b.) a failure at that because it had 'wide turns'?
> 
> The Me 163 was a succcess because it didn't have wide turns? The F-4 was a failure because it couldn't fight a MiG 21 in the horizontal? The Spit was a failure because it couldn't out turn a Zero?
> 
> Who are referring to relative to 'fail to learn from their mistakes'?? The only 'mistake' I see so far is that the people debating you keep doing so when it is clearly a waste of time.



And that Magnon, is why you will not change anyones mind. Nothing is as black and white as you make it out as your agenda makes it out to be.


----------



## riacrato (Sep 20, 2010)

It is to me rather simple: Does the specification to which both the He 280 and the Me 262 were designed ask for an interceptor? I'd have to check again but I'm pretty sure it asked for a multirole fighter. And considering the Me 262 A-1a is apart from the swept wing very similar to the very first drawings I doubt they re-designed it as an interceptor either. That it ended up a lot in that role, well which German '45 fighter didn't?

Rather they were very aware of the fact that any twin engined jetfighter would never be competitive with the single-engine prop jobs when it comes to maneuverability or acceleration thus they emphasized its strengths, which are cruise and top speed and dive.


----------



## Magnon (Sep 20, 2010)

drgondog said:


> Magnon - you are hanging your thesis that the Me 262 was a.) 'specialist interceptor' and b.) a failure at that because it had 'wide turns'?
> 
> The Me 163 was a succcess because it didn't have wide turns? The F-4 was a failure because it couldn't fight a MiG 21 in the horizontal? The Spit was a failure because it couldn't out turn a Zero?
> 
> Who are referring to relative to 'fail to learn from their mistakes'?? The only 'mistake' I see so far is that the people debating you keep doing so when it is clearly a waste of time.



DragonDog, I'm not at all criticising the Me 262 for its lack of manoeuvrability in the interceptor role. On the contrary. If you are optimising an aircraft for a role, you often have to trade off one quality which is good to have, but not absolutely necessary for the role.

The Mosquito was an excellent aircraft in the fighter bomber role, able to trade off manoeuvrability because it had speed. In this it is a little like the Me 262. The obvious difference being that the Me 262 was a "bomber destroyer," or interceptor.

*The Me 262 was a success as far as it went, but my argument has always been that the strategists starved it of strategic materials, such as nickel, which it absolutely needed to make it a truly great aircraft*.

If you go back through my posts you can see where I criticised the "Wehrmacht centric" attitude of the German High Command where nickel was allocated primarily to uses such as tank armour. The Me 262 should have come first, the U boats second, and the tanks third. Adolf Galland does the same in "The First and the Last", where he decries the utilisation of the aircraft as a blitz-bomber supporting the Wehrmacht ground troops: 
"...during the few weeks until the opening of the invasion while town after town, armaments factories, transport installations, and synthetic fuel plants were destroyed in the unprotected homeland, the General of the Combat Fighters tried to make a bomber of the Me 262..."​"...At last, in August, 1944, the first Blitz bombers went into action against the Allied invasion army, but the chances of success had now become meagre because of the Allied advance. *During these actions a few bombs were dropped daily somewhere on enemy territory. Very rarely was one able to say what, if anything, they had hit, or with what result*..."​
Regards,

Magnon


----------



## Magnon (Sep 21, 2010)

riacrato said:


> It is to me rather simple: Does the specification to which both the He 280 and the Me 262 were designed ask for an interceptor? I'd have to check again but I'm pretty sure it asked for a multirole fighter. And considering the Me 262 A-1a is apart from the swept wing very similar to the very first drawings I doubt they re-designed it as an interceptor either. That it ended up a lot in that role, well which German '45 fighter didn't?
> 
> Rather they were very aware of the fact that any twin engined jetfighter would never be competitive with the single-engine prop jobs when it comes to maneuverability or acceleration thus they emphasized its strengths, which are cruise and top speed and dive.



I would argue that whatever the strict specification stipulated, the Lufwaffe's priority must have been as a bomber destroyer. I have been using the term interceptor, but this is not strictly correct:
...A bomber destroyer is a former type of fighter aircraft dedicated to destroying enemy bomber aircraft. It is similar in purpose to the interceptor, and differs primarily in form. Most bomber destroyers are heavy fighter or light bomber designs carrying heavy armament, interceptors include much lighter designs as well. They also differ from night fighters, although often based on the same airframe, as they lack radar and are intended only for day use...​
...Later German designs concentrated on dedicated high-speed fighter planes for this role, notably the Dornier Do 335 Pfeil. Its speed would allow it to remain out of danger from the Mustangs, while still carrying a massive gunload. The Messerschmitt Me 262 also saw widespread use in the destroyer role, where its huge load of four 30 mm cannons and the R4M rocket, the first truly effective air-to-air rocket, proved to be highly capable...​
Bomber destroyer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Regards,

Magnon


----------



## riacrato (Sep 21, 2010)

Wikipedia is wikipedia, nice for a quick search to get a general understanding but not for some in-depth research? Rather not.

In your very quote they mention the Do 335, again a plane originally conceived as an intruder/fast bomber... _not_ a dedicated bomber destroyer.


----------



## Magnon (Sep 21, 2010)

riacrato said:


> Wikipedia is wikipedia, nice for a quick search to get a general understanding but not for some in-depth research? Rather not.
> 
> In your very quote they mention the Do 335, again a plane originally conceived as an intruder/fast bomber... _not_ a dedicated bomber destroyer.



Hmmm... OK, conceded. 

The word *dedicated *was not justified, but strategically, it should have been pretty well dedicated unless lots of resources were available to knock out the bombers -

Dornier Do 335 Pfeil

After development of fighter-bomber, reconnaissance, trainer and night-fighter variants, the role of heavy Zerstörer was next to be developed, as a direct result of the worsening war situation. During the winter of 1944/45, the Do 335 V13 (RP+UP) emerged from the Oberpfaffenhofen factory as the Do 335B-1. This aircraft featured the replacement of the weapons bay by a fuel tank, and the replacement of the 15 mm cannon by 20 mm MG 151 cannon. More heavily armed was the Do 335 V14 (RP+UQ) which, intended for service as the Do 335B-2, featured the same armament and an added MK 103 30-mm cannon mounted in the wings.​
But I would have to agree with Erich the old sage that the primary role of the Me 262 should have been as a "zerstörer."

Regards,

Magnon


----------



## Colin1 (Sep 21, 2010)

The Do335 was hugely impressive from a technology point of view but eventually it only proved to be a waste of time and resources. It would have been easily supplanted in the ground attack bomber role by the Ar234 and again in the bomber destroyer role by the Me262.

Had the war continued for any length of time the Mustangs would have recovered their performance deficit over the Do335 with the H model anyway.

Extremely impressive performance at 478mph though and remember it was a BIG aeroplane for a single-seater.


----------



## riacrato (Sep 21, 2010)

We are sidetracking but iirc the Do 335s that flew did not have the latest DB603 engines installed, neither did they have MW-50 or GM-1. So it's fair to say there was still room for some performance increase left.

But I agree it was overall superseded by the development of the two jets you mentioned.


----------



## Colin1 (Sep 21, 2010)

I thought we were sidetracking too
I was hoping that my post had killed it as an avenue of debate


----------



## drgondog (Sep 21, 2010)

I wonder - aside from a slight advantage in speed, did the Meteor have any advantages over the D0 335?


----------



## tail end charlie (Sep 21, 2010)

drgondog said:


> I wonder - aside from a slight advantage in speed, did the Meteor have any advantages over the D0 335?



sure....it was on the winning side

I dont see the meteor as anything other than an engine test bed that eventually got into service. Its aerodynamics were conservative, possible because jets were radical and they wanted to concentrate on their development. The meteor was prohibited to fly over enemy territory for a long time so they wernt exactly pulling all the stops out. The Venom you could say was designed as a true jet fighter.

All the early jets were almost as dangerous to their pilots as they were to the enemy. Probably best that the 262 was more advanced, has anyone done a study on the number of accidents against each type?


----------



## Magnon (Sep 21, 2010)

drgondog said:


> Comment with respect to what specifically?
> 
> I am not able to comment on the nacelle design for either a/c other than the 'miscellaneous' drag in the table you showed - at 100 feet per second - which should Not extrapolate to any form of compressibility effects at .74 (or above) at the inlet of the meteor..



The Meteor F 3 had a speed of around 490 mph with a thrust of 2000 lb.t. With the Derwent Vs of 3500 lb.t installed, the same basic (strengthened) airframe had a speed of 606 mph. Hence a 75% thrust increase gave a 24% increase in speed. As the drag is a function of the square of velocity, for a given drag coefficient, the expected required increase in thrust would be 53%. On this basis, it would seem that the drag coefficient had increased by something in the region of 14% between the two speeds. Looking at the attached graph, it would seem that this was relatively modest, and I can't imagine that the Me 262 would be appreciably better. 

I'm certainly no aerodynamicist, and there's sure to be something I'm missing here. I would very much appreciate your feedback on this one.

Regards,

Magnon


----------



## Magnon (Sep 21, 2010)

drgondog said:


> I wonder - aside from a slight advantage in speed, did the Meteor have any advantages over the D0 335?



What about manoeuvrability? When the Meteor could out-turn the Tempest, I think it would run rings around the Dornier...


----------



## Magnon (Sep 22, 2010)

tail end charlie said:


> sure....it was on the winning side
> 
> I dont see the meteor as anything other than an engine test bed that eventually got into service. Its aerodynamics were conservative, possible because jets were radical and they wanted to concentrate on their development. The meteor was prohibited to fly over enemy territory for a long time so they wernt exactly pulling all the stops out. The Venom you could say was designed as a true jet fighter.
> 
> All the early jets were almost as dangerous to their pilots as they were to the enemy. Probably best that the 262 was more advanced, has anyone done a study on the number of accidents against each type?



A quote from DragonDog; it looks as though he will have all the statistics to hand in this regard, at least for the Me 262:

"...*The 262s experienced the same type exhaust failure [as] the XP-80 , had failures of Turbine blade separations causing fires and crashed, had control failures of horiz Stab (PC+UB), Structural failure (VI+AA), causes unknown (VI+AB, VI+AJ, VI+AI, VI+AS)), Stator Ring failure(VI+AK)...
During ops Herman Buchner Kommando Nowatny said in an interview w/Steven Snyder in 1992 "Although the jet was not supersonic, it is true that we had many crashes at high speed. At high speed it would go in a dive, down and down, and the stick could not be corrected - it would not move. There was no chance to get out of the dive" pg 95 "Me262 Stormbird Rising*"

...*If you wish to consider these (including the Me262) 'design flaws ' or 'manufacturing' issues - go for it. I call them exceeding design specs and running into issues that were borderline science... trying to get max performance in wartime conditions!*..."​
Regards,

Magnon


----------



## Magnon (Sep 22, 2010)

tail end charlie said:


> sure....it was on the winning side
> 
> I dont see the meteor as anything other than an engine test bed that eventually got into service. Its aerodynamics were conservative, possible because jets were radical and they wanted to concentrate on their development. The meteor was prohibited to fly over enemy territory for a long time so they wernt exactly pulling all the stops out. The Venom you could say was designed as a true jet fighter.



This is apparently untrue- quote from Glider:
*...It also wrong to say that Meteors were banned from operating behind enemy lines, its an often repeated statment but incorrect.
Meteors made a number of attacks behind german lines often attacking transport and other targets as well as airfields and on the 24th April two were damaged attacking Nordholtz. It was on one of these attacks where Meteors almost made their first air to air kill on 3rd May. Of all aircraft it was a Fi 156 Storch but when checking the gun footage it was deemed that the Storch had just landed with its wheels on the ground and therefore it didn't count. 
They did try to use Meteors against German fighters keeping two manned aircraft on the runway for long periods near Brussels but the only interceptions were of friendly aircraft. On the one occaision where a German Jet was plotted (9th April) the runway was blocked by 149 wing aircraft preparing for a mission. An interception was attempted but by the time they reached 30,000ft they were unable to close...*.​
So they were looking for Me 262s, but with only a handfull of either aircraft in the air at any given time and a whole lot of other aircraft in the way, it was a bit like finding a needle in a haystack...

Regards,

Magnon


----------



## drgondog (Sep 22, 2010)

Magnon - the chart you presented is the 'conceptual' description of the onset and effect of compressibility effects to drag rise. Nothing more can be said other than the general acceptance of approximately .55M is where most WWII a/c were observed to enter this 'vague' increase not accounted for in incompressible flow.

The plot to the left of the steep gradient would be all the terms in sub critical profile drag and the 'stuff' in the gradient is the wave drag (combined compressibility effects due to thickness and lift) for the wing.

What can be said is that the wing of the Meteor due to higher lift Coefficient and higher t/c should experience the effects sooner than the Me 262 (gross assumption).


----------



## tail end charlie (Sep 22, 2010)

Magnon said:


> This is apparently untrue- quote from Glider:
> *...It also wrong to say that Meteors were banned from operating behind enemy lines, its an often repeated statment but incorrect.
> Meteors made a number of attacks behind german lines often attacking transport and other targets as well as airfields and on the 24th April two were damaged attacking Nordholtz. It was on one of these attacks where Meteors almost made their first air to air kill on 3rd May. Of all aircraft it was a Fi 156 Storch but when checking the gun footage it was deemed that the Storch had just landed with its wheels on the ground and therefore it didn't count.
> They did try to use Meteors against German fighters keeping two manned aircraft on the runway for long periods near Brussels but the only interceptions were of friendly aircraft. On the one occaision where a German Jet was plotted (9th April) the runway was blocked by 149 wing aircraft preparing for a mission. An interception was attempted but by the time they reached 30,000ft they were unable to close...*.​
> ...



Magnon/Glider

I said they were banned for a long time not completely. April May was right at the end. The pilots themselves may have been itching to go up against the 262 but who else was? how many 262s were even in
the air in May 1945?

regards

TEC


----------



## Magnon (Sep 22, 2010)

I was looking at item 125 in the CFE report in which it discusses use of the air brakes in a "half roll and pull out."

I got to thinking that it might be possible to work backwards to determine the G-force that was generated in that manoeuvre. I assumed that it was another term for a "split S," but when I did the sums, the G-force which resulted would indicate the pilot was spread out in a puddle in the bottom of the cockpit! 

To save having to go to the original document, the relevant paragraph is:
"...from 15,000 ft, a half-roll and pull-out is completed by 10,000 ft without using brakes, from a starting speed of 200 I.A.S. The speed on reaching level flight is 380 I.A.S..."
At 15,000 ft, by my calculation, 200 I.A.S is 251 T.A.S (129 m/s) and at 10,000 ft, 380 I.A.S. is 441 T.A.S (227 m/s).

Can anyone assist on this one?

Regards,

Magnon


----------



## drgondog (Sep 23, 2010)

Magnon said:


> I was looking at item 125 in the CFE report in which it discusses use of the air brakes in a "half roll and pull out."
> 
> I got to thinking that it might be possible to work backwards to determine the G-force that was generated in that manoeuvre. I assumed that it was another term for a "split S," but when I did the sums, the G-force which resulted would indicate the pilot was spread out in a puddle in the bottom of the cockpit!
> 
> ...



No. not near enogh data regarding the manuever flight path, stick forces recorded during the manuever, whether the aircraft was in a yaw condition at any time, etc, etc..


----------



## Magnon (Sep 25, 2010)

Some articles from the "*Flight*" archive may be of interest in terms of the assessment of jet engine reliability.

Regards,

Magnon


----------



## Magnon (Sep 25, 2010)

Some background material on the centrifugal vs axial compressor advantages as at the late forties is attached for information. Surge caused flameout on changing throttle settings and when manoeuvring. Novotny was to lose his life on one such an occasion.

The original source was "Flight" archives http://www.flightglobal.com/FlightPDFArchive/1950/1950 - 2126.PDF

Regards,

Magnon


----------



## Colin1 (Sep 25, 2010)

Magnon said:


> Some background material...


I don't suppose you could rub that crap off the graph?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 25, 2010)

Magnon said:


> Some background material on the centrifugal vs axial compressor advantages as at the late forties is attached for information. Surge caused flameout on changing throttle settings and when manoeuvring. Novotny was to lose his life on one such an occasion.
> 
> The original source was "Flight" archives http://www.flightglobal.com/FlightPDFArchive/1950/1950 - 2126.PDF
> 
> ...



Good information but totally outdated.


----------



## Magnon (Sep 26, 2010)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Good information but totally outdated.



Great to hear you have access to later data which contradicts it, Flyboy ... Can you post it, or just point us to where we can get it?

Regards,

Magnon


----------



## Magnon (Sep 26, 2010)

US Air Force Museum - WWII - Messerschmitt Me-262 Swallow
Me 262
The Messerschmitt Me 262 Swallow (or Stormbird) has got to be one of the hottest looking aircraft ever designed. That shark-like fuselage not only looks menacing, it's also an aerodynamically well designed lifting body. Fortunately due to lack of high temperature resistant alloys and quality control problems arising from the Nazi's use of slave labor, the Me 262 had a lot of mechanical problems. Its Junkers Jumo 004 Turbojet engine had a time between overhaul interval of less than 50 hours. Mostly this was due to the wartime shortage of nickel alloys which would have enabled them to manufacture turbine blades that were more heat resistant. *The materials used were not much better than common steel and were prone to stretching and cracking. In today's turbine aviation engines if you lose a compressor blade it might take out one or more blades behind it and keep running, although with a good deal of vibration and lessened power. If a Junkers Jumo 004 turbojet lost a compressor blade, it almost invariably led to a catastrophic cascading failure with the turbine shedding more and more blades in a domino effect until the engine literally blew apart. Interestingly enough the Arado 234 bomber which used the same engines had much fewer problems. The difference with the Arado 234 was that after takeoff the throttles were set to a cruise position and generally left there until landing. This made for less variations in operating temperatures and RPMs resulting in fewer compressor blade cracks and failures.*

*When the Junkers Jumo 004 turbojets were operating properly they were unbeatable and uncatchable. They were most vulnerable at takeoff and landing. The Me 262 did not have the complicated fuel management that today's gas turbine engines have. If the pilot advanced or retarded the throttles too quickly he risked over or underfuelling the engine causing a flame out and total power loss. The engines were also sensitive to angle of attack changes. If the airflow deviated much from coming straight into the intake, such as in abrupt maneuvering, the airflow could be disturbed enough [to] stall the compressor, flaming out the engine*.​
Problems with regard to flameout if any aerobatics were tried... maybe that's why they were forbidden in the Me 262 Handbook? There were big problems with restarting the engines after flameout, but that's another story...

Regards,

Magnon


----------



## Magnon (Sep 26, 2010)

A quote from Stormbirds.com website:

...*The Me 262, although a great fighter, had one glaring weakness - it's engines, which remained an early development prototype practically throughout their use. The Jumo 004 was never intended by its designers for front-line service, as it was not yet fully developed. It was pressed into service because of the war situation. *That, coupled with the fact that inferior materials were used, at least in the later production, made the engines unreliable. Therefore the Me 262s takeoff and landing was an extremely vulnerable time for the fighter. If a pilot was attacked while the engines weren't yet at full power and attempted to suddenly increase power to maneuver, the engines would flame out and leave the plane a sitting duck. That is, if it didn't crash right away, being so close to the ground...​
Wurger! The piston engine protectors of the Luftwaffes finest.

This is pretty much up to date, and confirms the inferiority of the JUMO as at the time it was pressed into service...

Regards,

Magnon


----------



## Magnon (Sep 26, 2010)

American raiders: the race to ... - Google Books

Check out: 

...*The JUMO 004 didn't like radical air intake changes. Doing a maneuver like that could have it flame out. The Me 262 was not a dogfighting airplane like the F86 was later on*...​
But it was a good bomber destroyer.

Regards,

Magnon


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 26, 2010)

I don't think anyone is arguing that the Me 262 was a dog fighter. I also don't see how that makes it inferior to the Meteor.


----------



## Magnon (Sep 26, 2010)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I don't think anyone is arguing that the Me 262 was a dog fighter. I also don't see how that makes it inferior to the Meteor.



I agree...


----------



## Magnon (Sep 26, 2010)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I don't think anyone is arguing that the Me 262 was a dog fighter. I also don't see how that makes it inferior to the Meteor.



I agree... The uncontestable fact is that the Me 262 was the prototype of the modern fighter. But as Voltaire once said: 

Le mieux est l'ennemi du bien​
The perfect is the enemy of the good​


Regards,

Magnon


----------



## Magnon (Sep 26, 2010)

Colin1 said:


> I don't suppose you could rub that crap off the graph?



Sorry, it was a PDF file. Pretty hard to change electronically. 

WYSIWYG.

Regards,

Magnon


----------



## drgondog (Sep 26, 2010)

Magnon said:


> US Air Force Museum - WWII - Messerschmitt Me-262 Swallow
> Me 262
> The engines were also sensitive to angle of attack changes. If the airflow deviated much from coming straight into the intake, such as in abrupt maneuvering, the airflow could be disturbed enough [to] stall the compressor, flaming out the engine[/B].​
> Problems with regard to flameout if any aerobatics were tried... maybe that's why they were forbidden in the Me 262 Handbook? There were big problems with restarting the engines after flameout, but that's another story...
> ...



Magnon - ALL jet engines are sensitive to AoA changes - some moreso than others... restart not always fun either.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## riacrato (Sep 26, 2010)

This still going? Magnon you must be at least on page 300+ of the "why the Me 262 sucks" google results page now


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 26, 2010)

Magnon said:


> Great to hear you have access to later data which contradicts it, Flyboy ... Can you post it, or just point us to where we can get it?
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Magnon



Jet engine 101 - Axial flow engines are going to produce more power and be more efficient than centrifugal flow engines for high speed applications. I've worked on Turbomeccas, J-33s, M701s, T-56s, and more recently RR Vipers and I can tell you with 33 years working on aircraft this is a fact. Centrifigual engines are good for helicopters or for applications where space is at a minimum and where there will be a lot of load on the turbine (PT-6 for example). I can list about a dozen text books that go into this, probably the most prominent being FAA Advisory 65-12A and Aircraft Gas Turbine Engine Technology by Treager. It was evident after the first generation of jet fighter aircraft what was going to be the standard jet propulsion configuration.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Magnon (Sep 26, 2010)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Jet engine 101 - Axial flow engines are going to produce more power and be more efficient than centrifugal flow engines for high speed applications. I've worked on Turbomeccas, J-33s, M701s, T-56s, and more recently RR Vipers and I can tell you with 33 years working on aircraft this is a fact. Centrifigual engines are good for helicopters or for applications where space is at a minimum and where there will be a lot of load on the turbine (PT-6 for example). I can list about a dozen text books that go into this, probably the most prominent being FAA Advisory 65-12A and Aircraft Gas Turbine Engine Technology by Treager. It was evident after the first generation of jet fighter aircraft what was going to be the standard jet propulsion configuration.



You might have missed that I put the caveat "best for the late forties." The big advantages of the axial jets are low frotal area and a much higher potential pressure ratio. However, at the time, for development during wartime, the centrifugals got to 3.9:1 pressure ratio vs 3.12 for the axials. The high frontal area of the Derwent was negated by embedding the engine in the wing. The Meteor nacelles had lower drag than the Me 262s.

There's no dispute that the axial was better in the long term, but the Allies were developing them in parallel with centrifugals.

Regards,

Magnon


----------



## Magnon (Sep 26, 2010)

riacrato said:


> This still going? Magnon you must be at least on page 300+ of the "why the Me 262 sucks" google results page now



Thanks for the reality check, Riacrato... three or four pages would have been enough...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 26, 2010)

Magnon said:


> You might have missed that I put the caveat "best for the late forties." The big advantages of the axial jets are low frotal area and a much higher potential pressure ratio. However, at the time, for development during wartime, the centrifugals got to 3.9:1 pressure ratio vs 3.12 for the axials. The high frontal area of the Derwent was negated by embedding the engine in the wing. The Meteor nacelles had lower drag than the Me 262s.


No I didn't miss the caveat, and my original quote "Good information but totally outdated


Magnon said:


> There's no dispute that the axial was better in the long term, but the Allies were developing them in parallel with centrifugals.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Magnon



Agree....


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 27, 2010)

Magnon said:


> Thanks for the reality check, Riacrato... three or four pages would have been enough...



Yeah most people would have given up after 3 or 4 pages of not proving their point...


----------



## Messy1 (Sep 27, 2010)

Kind of like this?


----------



## Civettone (Sep 27, 2010)

Good point on the centrifugal jet engines: they were indeed the better choice that early on.



Magnon said:


> A quote from Stormbirds.com website:
> 
> ...*The Me 262, although a great fighter, had one glaring weakness - it's engines, which remained an early development prototype practically throughout their use. The Jumo 004 was never intended by its designers for front-line service, as it was not yet fully developed. It was pressed into service because of the war situation. *​


I wonder what this is based on. Never intended for front-line service?? They were working on it for 4 years straight and they knew it would be the main engine of the Me 262 since 1942. 

Let me also add that the Jumo 004 was improved at the end of 1944 reaching an overhaul time of 25 hours which was not all that bad. Also it would get a regulator like on the BMW 003 which would take care of most of the accidental flame outs. 
So we should also take this into account when judging the Me 262: the 1944 or the 1945 version?

Kris


----------



## Magnon (Sep 28, 2010)

Civettone said:


> Good point on the centrifugal jet engines: they were indeed the better choice that early on.
> 
> I wonder what this is based on. Never intended for front-line service?? They were working on it for 4 years straight and they knew it would be the main engine of the Me 262 since 1942.
> 
> ...



I think that the engineers did a great job within the constraints of the resources they were allocated. They were starved of nickel required to produce a durable engine.

Aluminium-coated mild steel for the flame tubes was very innovative, but also very limited in terms of the conditions which were necessarily thrown at it.

The statement "never intended for front line service" was based on the fact that the engineers would have wanted better materials and more time to sort out the engine, but time was running out.


----------



## Civettone (Sep 28, 2010)

Agreed. I am however talking about the hollow blades in the turbine. Many believe these were standard for the 004B but they were only introduced for the B-3 (or B-4 in Anglosax sources). 

I also forgot to mention that most of the flame outs were caused by the Riedel starter which was too weak. As such it has nothing to do with the turbojet engine itself.

Kris


----------



## Magnon (Sep 28, 2010)

drgondog said:


> Magnon - ALL jet engines are sensitive to AoA changes - some moreso than others... restart not always fun either.



Further to this topic:
American raiders: the race to ... - Google Books

"...then I did something stupid. After I went across the airfield on the last pass, I pulled the damn jet up and rolled it. The reason I said it was stupid, it just didn't add a damn thing to the demonstration and I was risking an airplane on top of that."
"The Jumo 004 engine didn't like radical air-intake changes. Doing a maneuver like that could upset the air flow and have it flame out. The Me 262 was not a dogfighting airplane like the F 86 was later on. So Holt and I landed after that last pass. No one ever said anything to me about my impromptu maneuver. But you know how it is - you remember your mistakes in life for ever and ever..."​


Kutscha said:


> How can a fighter type a/c not perform aerobatics?


Pulling the jet up and rolling it was likely to cause a flame out? It would seem like a fairly mild manoeuvre to me...


On the other hand, the Meteor could perform some fancy tricks at air shows:

...Another "claim to fame" was the Meteor's ability to perform the "Żurabatic Cartwheel", a new aerobatics manoeuvre, named after the Gloster acting Chief Test Pilot, first accomplished in the Gloster Meteor G-7-1 prototype at the 1951 Farnborough Air Show where the Meteor, due to its unique location of widely-set engines could have individual engines throttled back and forward to achieve a seemingly stationary vertical cartwheel. Many Meteor pilots would go on to "prove their mettle" by attempting the same feat...[11]​Gloster Meteor - eNotes.com Reference

...While test flying the Meteor, Jan [Zurakowski] also developed the first new aerobatic manoeuvre in about 20 years termed the "Zurabatic Cartwheel". The story goes that sometimes during exceedingly tedious "lectures" and wrangling meetings with the engineers, his mind would drift to aerobatics. A new test of the Meteor ground-attack version involved carrying four bombs far out on wings of the Meteor. Jan realized that with the weight of the engines so far out from centre on the Meteor, that this would cause some interesting effects if one engine was cut while the other was at full power. Taking his slide rule from his pocket, he spun up some numbers and concluded that something unheard of might be accomplished. 
He soon put his theory to the test in the air. With a late model Meteor, loaded with these bombs, Jan put the nose down at full power, then pulled to the vertical. Nearing zero airspeed he simultaneously cut one engine, and kicked full rudder into the dead one, leaving the other at full howling power. The asymmetric thrust, coupled with the inertia provided by the bomb weight so far out on the wings, made the Meteor rotate on its side through a complete one and one-half turns, ending up doing a cartwheel laterally and pointing down at the ground. Needless to say this was a real crowd-pleaser and gained “Zura” real fame...​ADA-Arrow Pilots:Jan Zurakowski

It would seem to me to involve some quite significant variations in angle of attack, no? Hardly the sort of time you'd want to have a flame out.. 

Regards,

Magnon

Attachment: Google Image Result for http://www.mysliwcy.pl/ksiega/cartwheel.jpg


----------



## Magnon (Sep 28, 2010)

There is a parallel thread which some might be interested in:

http://warbirdsforum.com/showthread.php?t=451&page=4

I'm a BIG believer that the Me-262 was the forerunner of several generations of great jet fighters. It had swept wings, was fast, and hit very hard when everything worked.

However, the engines were a roll of the dice, the guns jammed, and it was anything but a dogfighter against the best of the piston fighter generation that was fielded about the time the Me-262 was fielded.

All the piston people had to do was fly around the Me-262 base and wait for it to run out of fuel ... and shoot it down on approach. 

If it slowed down to dogfight, it was shot down. If it jammed, it was ineffective. When [it] ran out of fuel it was vulnerable.

These are all characteristics of many early jets, but the 262 had them all.

Nevertheless, it was a wonder. A flawed wonder, but a wonder when it worked well and was flown well.

I consider it as a footnote in WWII effectiveness, but a pioneer in jet fighter development that was apparent into the 4th generation of jet fighters.

Imagine an Me 262 with reliable turbojets and non-jamming armament and 1.5 hours of fuel! 

Didn't happen, but COULD have. Even as it DID exist, it was a game changer, but that was not sharply apparent at the time due to limited numbers, fuel shortages, gun jamming, engine shortages, and inability to take battle damage.​
GregP​
http://warbirdsforum.com/showthread.php?t=451&page=7

I’d like to add that the very subject of the development and operational use of the early jet aircraft is still controversial and not so easy to research.

There are long standing myths that, despite several debunking efforts, find scores of supporters – a good number of them in not so good faith – who seem to be bent on keeping the whole matter confused, for reasons only the Almighty knows…

Unfortunately, the Me-262 seems to be on the receiving end of quite a few of these myths so much so that one gets the feeling that the 262 has become the Holy Grail of aviation and questioning any aspect of its performance envelope, operational record or – worst of all – its missed opportunity to ensure Nazi Germany’s victory is tantamount to an attempt on the historical accuracy’s life!

It is worth remembering that the aircraft was never supersonic, (unless in a terminal, perhaps wingless dive) and its wing sweep was never designed with a critical-mach reduction in mind, but as a quick-fix to restore the cg, following the switch from the BMW 109-003 turbojets to the heavier Junkers Jumo 109-004’s.

The 262 was designed as a zerstörer, i.e. a ‘destroyer’, which was the German idea of the heavy fighter/interceptor, whose main purpose was to keep as may enemy bombers as possible from reaching their target.
This also explains why speed and heavy armament were paramount factors while maneuverability was not. The aircraft had not been designed to ‘mix it up’ with the escort and the fact that many a German “ol’ hand” managed to shoot down enemy single-engine fighters, only testifies to their skills.

The aircraft proved also to be a decent reconnoiter and even the operational results of the fighter/bomber (JaBo) conversion, as well as Hitler’s staunch support for such a conversion, are lately being more benignantly reconsidered by some revisionist historians.

The 262’s place in aviation history and aeronautical development should not be dismissed or, even worse, pooh-poohed, but at the same time, the writing was on the wall so far as its superiority and invincibility were concerned!

Had the conflict continued into late 1945 and 1946, the appearance of the British D.H. Vampire and especially the US Lockheed P-80 Shooting Star would have redressed the balance, spelling the end of the 262’s supremacy, hopelessly outclassed in terms of maneuverability, ceiling and climb rate by the Allied machines and now unable to exploit its greater speed to escape.

The performance charts testify to this and yet many a website, magazine or book is quick to point out a purported superiority of the German machine by taking out of context the results of ONE of the tests conducted by the AAF right after the end of the conflict (an often used piece of ‘evidence’): "Despite a difference in gross weight of nearly 907 kg (2,000 lb), the Me 262 was superior to the P-80 in acceleration, speed and approximately the same in climb performance. The Me 262 apparently has a higher critical Mach number, from a drag standpoint, than any current Army Air Force fighter." (from wiki).
The fact that the flight envelope of the P-80A had, by then, not yet completely been explored by NACA and, most of all, the fact that at the time, in the period of economic austerity that followed the end of the conflict, the military establishment had to fight for every cent of the budget allotted and, showing an alleged technological inferiority would have, no doubt, ensured better funding, is systematically and conveniently neglected. Further evidence is that this, same tactic was later used throughout the Cold War to ensure the Department of Defense the R&D funds to develop better aircraft than the allegedly superior Soviet aircraft.

Regards, 
__________________
Pete57​
Just something to think about.

Regards,

Magnon


----------



## tail end charlie (Sep 28, 2010)

Magnon said:


> I have quoted the only part I have issue with, I dont think the 262 was designed with anything in mind apart from being a jet aeroplane and a stepping stone to something better(and same for the meteor BTW) fleets of B 17s and B24s changed things on one side while the V1 (and the 262) changed things on the other.


----------



## Magnon (Sep 29, 2010)

tail end charlie said:


> I have quoted the only part I have issue with, I dont think the 262 was designed with anything in mind apart from being a jet aeroplane and a stepping stone to something better(and same for the meteor BTW) fleets of B 17s and B24s changed things on one side while the V1 (and the 262) changed things on the other.



OK. I concede you may be right on this. On the other hand, I don't think it's absolutely critical to the whole discussion.

It was certainly aimed at the zerstörer role late in the War, and necessarily so.

Regards,

Magnon


----------



## Civettone (Oct 1, 2010)

Magnon said:


> There is a parallel thread which some might be interested in:
> 
> http://warbirdsforum.com/showthread.php?t=451&page=4
> 
> ...


This is the reason I am not part of the Warbirdsforum ...

Some great people there but overall the level is not that of this forum. I think it's also where T.A. Gardner resides who distinguishes himself in advocating American superiority in every field. 

In short, these comments suffer from hindsight reasoning. "The Me 262 was intended as ..." Who can say that? And at what point? Clearly the prospects of a jet fighter were different in 1941 than in 1944. 
But just the same, they see the Me 262 as a fixed technology which does not evolve after April/May 1945. If the war had continued the Me 262 of mid 1945 would have been faster, stronger and more reliable. At the end of 1945 it would have been able to defeat any allied jet fighter opposing it. Able to ...

Kris


----------



## Magnon (Oct 1, 2010)

Civettone said:


> This is the reason I am not part of the Warbirdsforum ...
> 
> Some great people there but overall the level is not that of this forum. I think it's also where T.A. Gardner resides who distinguishes himself in advocating American superiority in every field.
> 
> ...



Hi Kris,

If you are wanting to go down this track, I would recommend you read the Flight archive 1946 | 1485 | Flight Archive and the following pages (use the scroll arrows at the top of the page).

In reading through this myself, I noted that the following extract gives some very interesting figures for the Meteor F4 (admittedly *not* the F3):
...While the gas turbine has been making its spectacular debut aircraft designers have studied aerodynamic and structural problems to permit its safe and most effective utilization in fighters. The aerodynamic difficulties have been analysed and described by various authorities and are largely concerned with the effects of compressibility as the speed of sound is approached. Thus the most meticulous study of airflow is demanded of the jet-fighter designer. Aerodynamic factors inevitably affect the design of the structure, particularly of the wing, while flight at speeds of the order of 600 m.p.h. imposes severe demands on strength. Wings, fuselage, fin and tailplane must be subjected to tests simulating the most exacting conditions to be expected in flight, while horizontal surfaces, fixed and movable, must show exceptional torsional stiffness. An ultimate strength pull-out factor for the Meteor IV is 10 at 500 m.p.h., 8.5 at 550 m.p.h. and 7 at 600 m.p.h. indicated...​Quoting from "Mechanics of Flight":
...When we reach 9 or 10 G - *if we can reach 9 or 10 G* - the loading on the aeroplane has become such that *the structure itself is in a critical condition *and may begin to show signs of breaking up. The designer has made it a *little* stronger than the pilot, but there would be no point in making it *much* stronger...​
Can we get some comparable figures for the Me 262? That would be very interesting.

Regards,

Magnon


----------



## Civettone (Oct 2, 2010)

think this is not meant for me?


Kris


----------



## Magnon (Oct 2, 2010)

Civettone said:


> think this is not meant for me?
> 
> 
> Kris



For anyone in general... a figure of what G forces were factored into the Me 262 structure design would be very interesting


----------



## Magnon (Oct 4, 2010)

The following account of an encounter between an Me 262 and a Mosquito is interesting. The Mosquito could apparently out-turn the Schwalbe, at least in this instance...

Luftwaffe: the allied intelligence files - Google Books

Regards,

Magnon


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 4, 2010)

Magnon said:


> The following account of an encounter between an Me 262 and a Mosquito is interesting. The Mosquito could apparently out-turn the Schwalbe, at least in this instance...
> 
> 
> Regards,
> ...



If the 262 was flying at high speed, this is meaningless.

"The radius of turn is proportional to the square of the aircraft’s true airspeed. With a higher airspeed the radius of turn is larger, and with a lower airspeed the radius is smaller."

Stick and rudder 101.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 4, 2010)

FLYBOYJ said:


> If the 262 was flying at high speed, this is meaningless.
> 
> "The radius of turn is proportional to the square of the aircraft’s true airspeed. With a higher airspeed the radius of turn is larger, and with a lower airspeed the radius is smaller."
> 
> Stick and rudder 101.



If I have not forgotten how to read the document even states the Me 262 was flying 100 to 120 mph faster. Shocking huh?


----------



## tail end charlie (Oct 4, 2010)

If the 262 got on the mosquitos tail several times why didnt it reduce its speed?


----------



## Civettone (Oct 4, 2010)

TEC, in the case of this unarmed Mosquito that would indeed have made sense. But the Me 262 pilot used standard Luftwaffe tactics based on optimal use superior speed. Also, higher speed means that the Mossie would have had less time to react. Nevertheless the Mossie pilot was able to turn every time his plane got into firing range of the Me 262.

Fact is that the Mossie was flown by a damn good pilot AND got lucky. 
Kris


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 4, 2010)

tail end charlie said:


> If the 262 got on the mosquitos tail several times why didnt it reduce its speed?


In a jet, you just don't "slow down" easily. Jets (early jets) take a while to speed up and slow down, and this coupled with first generation pilots and the fact that the 262 didnt have speed brakes is easily explained.


----------



## tail end charlie (Oct 4, 2010)

Much as I like the mossie I dont think being in one with a 262 on your case is the best place to be.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 4, 2010)

tail end charlie said:


> Much as I like the mossie I dont think being in one with a 262 on your case is the best place to be.



The 262 "could have" possibly countered the tighter turning radius by either slipping or skidding the aircraft or pulling up into the vertical and entering a high "yo-yo." This would have enabled him to gain a firing solution when he came down from the top of the maneuver.


----------



## drgondog (Oct 4, 2010)

Civettone said:


> In short, these comments suffer from hindsight reasoning. "The Me 262 was intended as ..." Who can say that? And at what point? Clearly the prospects of a jet fighter were different in 1941 than in 1944.
> But just the same, they see the Me 262 as a fixed technology which does not evolve after April/May 1945. If the war had continued the Me 262 of mid 1945 would have been faster, stronger and more reliable. At the end of 1945 it would have been able to defeat any allied jet fighter opposing it. Able to ...
> 
> Kris



Kris - I agree.

What was in the mind of the designers was go faster and hit harder - the Me 262 fulfilled that superbly. What the LW achieved was up to leadership and pilot skill.


----------



## drgondog (Oct 4, 2010)

Magnon said:


> For anyone in general... a figure of what G forces were factored into the Me 262 structure design would be very interesting



There is no reason to speculate that the Me 262 design parameters wandered too much from 8G limit/12G ultimate without factoring Q loads due to drag rise in compressibility..


----------



## drgondog (Oct 4, 2010)

Magnon said:


> The following account of an encounter between an Me 262 and a Mosquito is interesting. The Mosquito could apparently out-turn the Schwalbe, at least in this instance...
> 
> Luftwaffe: the allied intelligence files - Google Books
> 
> ...



Magnon - a Spad could out turn an Me 262 - so what? think a Spad could survive repeated fast attacks, climb and dive back in? if you don't need to turn and you have a 150kt speed advantage you are an idiot to slow down and engage in the other aircraft comfort zone.


----------



## Magnon (Oct 4, 2010)

drgondog said:


> There is no reason to speculate that the Me 262 design parameters wandered too much from 8G limit/12G ultimate without factoring Q loads due to drag rise in compressibility..



Maybe there is a plausible reason... Some feedback from people who were engaged in analysis of the Me 262 wing using the then new technique of finite elements:
Finite element analysis for ... - Google Books

Quote:
*"...The Me 262 had good aerodynamic performance, but suffered many failures due to the poor structural design of its swept back wings; this was a problem which the manufacturers could not overcome at that time..."*​
The need to carry out stress analysis on swept back wings forced the development of finite element methodology. This didn't really get under way until the digital computer became generally available after the war.

Was the rate of turn of the Me 262 limited by structural considerations, engine operational stability (tendency to flame out), or a combination of both? 

I rather suspect the latter... 

Regards,

Magnon


----------



## Magnon (Oct 5, 2010)

drgondog said:


> Magnon - a Spad could out turn an Me 262 - so what? think a Spad could survive repeated fast attacks, climb and dive back in? if you don't need to turn and you have a 150kt speed advantage you are an idiot to slow down and engage in the other aircraft comfort zone.



The Mosquito was an unarmed reconnaissance aircraft! A good fighter with a speed advantage should have eaten it for breakfast.

The Meteor F3 could get on a Tempest's tail within four turns (see CFE report). The Tempest would eat a Mosquito in a dogfight. The Me 262 could not get onto the Mosquito's tail... Where does that leave the contest between the Meteor and the Me 262?

In US trials of the Me 262 after the War, Chuck Yeager writes:

The Me 163 with its HWK 509C engine was credited with a top speed of 600mph. *(The Me 262 with two engines, was clocked at 527 mph)*...​
“Breaking the Sound Barrier” Chuck Yeager; Popular Mechanics November 1987. 
Page 92

Hans Fey says the bottom limit of acceptance in his trials was 525 mph. That was with the engines new and performing at their best. I've already shown how the thrust dropped off with just 7.5 hours bench testing. 

The Meteor F3 had a limit of 493 mph. It could go faster if necessity dictated it in wartime. There was not much in it as far as speed was concerned...

But there were light years in terms of agility and engine reliability. It also had an edge in acceleration, with a 14% higher thrust to weight ratio. 

Regards,

Magnon


----------



## Magnon (Oct 5, 2010)

Civettone said:


> TEC, in the case of this unarmed Mosquito that would indeed have made sense. But the Me 262 pilot used standard Luftwaffe tactics based on optimal use superior speed. Also, higher speed means that the Mossie would have had less time to react. Nevertheless the Mossie pilot was able to turn every time his plane got into firing range of the Me 262.
> 
> Fact is that the Mossie was flown by a damn good pilot AND got lucky.
> Kris




Another source looks at it from a slightly different perspective:

Here is a case in point, on 25 July ... a 544 squadron Mosquito PR XVI, one of eight sorties the squadron flew that day, MM273 was attacked by an Me262 which made some six firing passes. The Mosquito lost its attacker in 16,000 foot cloud over the Tyrol. It landed at Fermo in Italy. MM273 was lost when it crashed onto the sea off Malta in October 1950.
Re: Me 262 Mythology​
You would think that if the Me 262 missed a couple of times, he would wise up and slow down...

Maybe he was feeling sorry for the Mozzy?

Regards,

Magnon


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 5, 2010)

Magnon said:


> The Mosquito was an unarmed reconnaissance aircraft! A good fighter with a speed advantage should have eaten it for breakfast.


WRONG - this has nothing to do with the fighter and everything to do with the pilot and his ability to gain a firing solution during the pursuit. I suggest you research fighter tactics.


Magnon said:


> The Meteor F3 could get on a Tempest's tail within four turns (see CFE report). The Tempest would eat a Mosquito in a dogfight. The Me 262 could not get onto the Mosquito's tail... Where does that leave the contest between the Meteor and the Me 262?



Again this is meaningless. At what speeds are we talking about in a dogfight between a tempest and a Mosquito or Meteor?!?! And you keep comparing the 262 with the F.3. The F.1 is a fairer comparison.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 5, 2010)

Magnon said:


> You would think that if the Me 262 missed a couple of times, he would wise up and slow down...



And this shows the lack of skill and tactics being used by early 262 drivers.


----------



## Civettone (Oct 5, 2010)

Magnon, you provide great pieces of information. But you puzzle them together in a way they were not meant to.

What were these "many structural failures" of the swept wings? Many Me 262s were lost due to non-combat causes but I can't remember wing failure being among them. And if it was, who is to say it was not because of construction errors, quite common for the last months of German production. 

I have also never read that the Me 262 pilot was told to hold back and not push the Me 262 over certain forces. The only thing is that the plans started shaking and snailing at high speeds. 

And about the Me 262 vs Mosquito. People often believe that slower bombers/recon aircraft intercepted by a faster and/or nimbler fighter would have no chance. I also tend to think that way. But the figures show that interception does not always lead to destruction. I even think it is more exception than rule.
And in WW2 history there are several aircraft escapes against crazier odds than this Mosquito facing a Me 262.

Kris


----------



## drgondog (Oct 5, 2010)

Magnon said:


> Maybe there is a plausible reason... Some feedback from people who were engaged in analysis of the Me 262 wing using the then new technique of finite elements:
> Finite element analysis for ... - Google Books
> 
> Quote:
> ...




Magnon - why are you dabbling in a field in which you have a.) no theoretical knowledge and b.) try to apply this lack of knowledge to resolve questions you do not understand.

First - look at the cutaway drawing of the Me 262 that you presented. The wing was built up of orthoganally placed structure perpendicular to the spar. In the future, the wings had more sweepback and had a more drastic taper in chord depth in attempts to reduce drag and shift the aerodynamic load distribution inboard to reduce the structural loads on the wing due to both torsion and bending. In such wings the ribs were first designed at an acute angle to the spar. later the airframe design approach varied from orthogaonal to angular depending on other factors.

NASTRAN, curiously developed in part by Larry Ellison IIRC, (computer modelling aspects of relaxation methods between 'elements' to achieve the equillibrium aspired to in your article) was a finite element modelling tool in which Trianglular Plates, rectangular plates, shear panels, beams and Rods were the tools of the structural modeller. This application was the first successful computer model for complex structures and first used in the US Space Program, then shortly afterwards in the Aerospace industry. 

IIRC NASTRAN used a combination of Displacement/Node Relaxation methods to iterate to the solution.

The structural failures of the Me 262 were dominantly at >.85 M when the jet was in a dive and in the transonic range which caused the aft movement of the aerodynamic center and a nose down pitch moment requiring enormous stick forces to pull out. In this mode the eppenage was the first failure mode - similar to P-38s and P-47s in a similar dive... and had NOTHING to do with primary failures in the wing spar. The required forces applied to the aft section of the airframe by the elevator to counteract the pitch down moment simple exceeded the design ultimate stress... if the pilot was strong enough.

Similarly, any high speed 'snaking' would introduce asymmetric loads on the eppenage - another hard to predict failure mode in pre-design and very hard to correct in production. That would not have anything to do with the design philosphy regarding Limit and Ultimate Loads - it would simply introduce them in an unexpected (and unanalyzed) flight condition.

Nothing about the article has anything to do with Messerschmidt design philosopy and actually seems to demonstrate some ignorance regarding the actual layout of the Me 262 wing structure.

A competent structures engineer would not model the Me 262 wing with triangular elements if he wished a close approximation of the actuasl to predicted stress levels for the assumed loads. The more difficult problem is the analysis for the applied loads with greater magnitude of spanwise components of lift than a 'straight wing'. This would also result in greater induced drag than predicted by simply applying the equation and using the geometric AR, rather than a 'fudge factor' to compensate for sweep.

Further, the nature of the triangular 'elements' are not clarified. If the model presumed triangular plates and beams as the primary structure - the results would be to create a significantly 'stiifer' (i.e. less displacement) model than real life and yield results that were treading dangerously with respect to underestimating stresses at the joints.

The article didn't specify which side of the "9%" approximation, or I overlooked it ... was it high or low?


----------



## Magnon (Oct 5, 2010)

drgondog said:


> I am not so sure that such statement has enough data to support the conclusion.. The aspect ratio of the 262 wasn't particularly remarkable for interceptors of the day -



Check out the attached table of aspect ratios... *The Me 262 was atypically high*.



drgondog said:


> Magnon - why are you dabbling in a field in which you have a.) no theoretical knowledge and b.) try to apply this lack of knowledge to resolve questions you do not understand.
> 
> First - look at the cutaway drawing of the Me 262 that you presented. The wing was built up of orthoganally placed structure perpendicular to the spar. In the future, the wings had more sweepback and had a more drastic taper in chord depth in attempts to reduce drag and shift the aerodynamic load distribution inboard to reduce the structural loads on the wing due to both torsion and bending. In such wings the ribs were first designed at an acute angle to the spar. later the airframe design approach varied from orthogaonal to angular depending on other factors.
> 
> ...



From what I have read, the Me 262 had up to 3 mm thick skin on the wings. I would have thought it was plausible that a large percentage of the wing strength was invested in this. Without being an expert in finite element analysis, I would also have thought that using triangular elements would be appropriate in analysing this.

*Whatever, the bottom line is that all aircraft designers were having trouble with wing structural design at that time (even with straight wings). Torsional deflection was a big problem. Throwing in sweepback into the equation makes design far more complex. It was was just asking for trouble. Then for good measure throw in high aspect ratio combined with low t/c ratio, and the dynamics associated with buffeting in transonic flight regimes... *

But then again, you are the expert. More so than the guys who wrote the book, it would appear... 

Regards,

Magnon


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 5, 2010)

Magnon said:


> But then again, you are the expert. More so than the guys who wrote the book, it would appear...



In actuality he probably taught the guys who wrote the book.


----------



## Magnon (Oct 5, 2010)

FLYBOYJ said:


> In actuality he probably taught the guys who wrote the book.



Ha Ha... you betya...

The curriculum Vitae of John Argyris
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 
John Hadji Argyris (Greek: Ιωάννης Αργύρης; 19 August 1913 in Volos, Greece – 2 April 2004 in Stuttgart) was among the creators of the Finite Element Method (FEM) and lately Professor at the University of Stuttgart and Director of the Institute for Statics and Dynamics of Aerospace Structures. His uncle, Constantin Carathéodory, was a Greek mathematician of the Modern Era. [1]

Curriculum
He was born in Volos, Greece but the family moved to Athens where he was educated in the Classical Gymnasium.

He studied civil engineering for four years in the National Technical University of Athens and then in the Technical University Munich, receiving his Engineering Diploma in 1936. His first job was at the Gollnow company in Stettin, where he was involved among other things in high radio transmitter masts. He was imprisoned by the Nazis for some time but with the help of Admiral Canaris he escaped to Switzerland where he continued his studies in ETH Zurich. In 1943, he joined the research department of the Royal Aeronautical Society in England. Starting from 1949 he was lecturer in aeronautical engineering at the Imperial College London of the University of London, where he assumed a chair in 1955.

In 1959, Argyris was appointed a professor at the Technical University of Stuttgart (today University of Stuttgart) and director of the Institute for Statics and Dynamics of Aerospace Structures. He created the Aeronautical and Astronautical Campus of the University of Stuttgart as focal point for applications of digital computers and electronics.

He died in Stuttgart and is buried in the Sankt Jörgens Cemetery in the city of Varberg, Sweden.

Scientific work
*Argyris was involved in and developed to a large extent the Finite Element Method along with Ray W. Clough and Olgierd Zienkiewicz after an early mathematical pre-working of Richard Courant.*
He was elected a Fellow of the Royal Society in March 1986.[2]​Regards,

Magnon


----------



## Njaco (Oct 5, 2010)

Can I ask a question? Why didn't the authors of that aspect ratio graph include th 262 in the quote at the bottom? if it was true?


----------



## Magnon (Oct 6, 2010)

Njaco said:


> Can I ask a question? Why didn't the authors of that aspect ratio graph include th 262 in the quote at the bottom? if it was true?



Hi Najco

I'm the one who prepared the table. I appended it because it's the only way of including a table in the post.

Regards,

Magnon


----------



## Magnon (Oct 6, 2010)

Magnon said:


> Ha Ha... you betya...
> 
> The curriculum Vitae of John Argyris
> From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> ...



Come to think of it, DragonDog, you've questioned the competence of John Argyris. We have his CV. If we had yours, we could compare them and see who was the more credible.

What about it, then?

Regards,

Magnon


----------



## drgondog (Oct 6, 2010)

Magnon said:


> Ha Ha... you betya...
> 
> The curriculum Vitae of John Argyris
> From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> ...




Magnon - simply stated you are an ass. 

I did not question credentials but offered a professional opinion regarding the inadequacy of using triangular plates to yield close approximations to calculated stresses using conventional structural analysis methods. If Argyris was around to debate this question with me, we could debate intelligently. You on the other hand do not have a clue!

Attached is my resume - Moderators please delete after this idiot gets a chance to read it and post his own resume to confound us with his yet undiscovered brilliance and wherewithal to engage in airframe structures and aerodynamics.

Her 'tis.


----------



## Messy1 (Oct 6, 2010)

Pretty impressive resume Bill. Congrats on all your achievements!
I am always amazed at the depth of the knowledge of the members on this forum. Thanks to all, I have learned lot.


----------



## drgondog (Oct 6, 2010)

Magnon said:


> Check out the attached table of aspect ratios...The Me 262 was atypically high.
> 
> *So what?*
> 
> ...



I am absolutely and unequivocally qualified by education and applied experience to be considered an expert. There are more qualified 'experts' but YOU have no credentials to discern what metrics should apply to make that judgment. I do have such capability and can in fact quickly acknowledge superior knowledge.

Now please produce YOUR CV. We have a quaint expression which loosely translates to "put up or shut up".


----------



## drgondog (Oct 6, 2010)

Messy1 said:


> Pretty impressive resume Bill. Congrats on all your achievements!
> I am always amazed at the depth of the knowledge of the members on this forum. Thanks to all, I have learned lot.



Thank you Messy - I have been out of the airframe biz for nearly 40 years so much of the materials science and some of the computer tools have evolved past my experience - but I haven't forgotten any of the requisites for analysis and judgment.

I have a long and early exposure to computer modelling. Even as an undergrad I was a co-op at NASA and helped develop the IBM 620 and 7090 Fortran models for low earth orbit degradation predictions for satellites before getting my degree... it was this fascination which drove me into Information Services as an industry.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 6, 2010)

drgondog said:


> I am absolutely and unequivocally qualified by education and applied experience to be considered an expert. There are more qualified 'experts' but YOU have no credentials to discern what metrics should apply to make that judgment. I do have such capability and can in fact quickly acknowledge superior knowledge.
> 
> Now please produce YOUR CV. We have a quaint expression which loosely translates to "put up or shut up".



BOOM HEADSHOT!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 6, 2010)

drgondog said:


> Magnon - simply stated you are an ass.
> 
> I did not question credentials but offered a professional opinion regarding the inadequacy of using triangular plates to yield close approximations to calculated stresses using conventional structural analysis methods. If Argyris was around to debate this question with me, we could debate intelligently. You on the other hand do not have a clue!
> 
> ...



BOOM HEADSHOT!


----------



## Civettone (Oct 6, 2010)

For me this is like reading Chinese .... but I'm loving it 


Kris

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Messy1 (Oct 6, 2010)

Civettone said:


> For me this is like reading Chinese .... but I'm loving it
> 
> 
> Kris



+1 Totally over my head, but worth every second!!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 6, 2010)

Magnon, Bill posted his resume. If you are such a genius, you better post yours. Put your money where your mouth is!

Bill, I would not have posted that resume. It is nobodies business here, especially not that of Magnon's. I do commend you though.


----------



## drgondog (Oct 6, 2010)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Magnon, Bill posted his resume. If you are such a genius, you better post yours. Put your money where your mouth is!
> 
> Bill, I would not have posted that resume. It is nobodies business here, especially not that of Magnon's. I do commend you though.



Ordinarily I wouldn't - but it is on Linkedin and several professional sites, Chris. 

Have to confess that magnom is such an odious toad that I chose not to be passive. Kinda like Soren in the early days when he challenged my background.

Oh well - made another 'friend' on the forum..


----------



## Magnon (Oct 6, 2010)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Magnon, Bill posted his resume. If you are such a genius, you better post yours. Put your money where your mouth is!
> 
> Bill, I would not have posted that resume. It is nobodies business here, especially not that of Magnon's. I do commend you though.



*Magnon's CV:*

1 Is very humble (Admittedly has a great deal to be humble about).
2 Has never even swept the floor of the 'skunkworks.'
3 Tries to back up any thesis with some data. Doesn't argue from a position of 'skunkworks' authority.​
Regards,

Magnon

_PS. I have to commend you too, Bill. I wouldn't have posted that CV of yours...

By the way, I got the impression somewhere that you had worked in aerospace development for 45 years. In fact only two years as a graduate at the skunkworks, then helicopters, then it seems other miscellaneous. 

Thanks for clearing that up..._


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 6, 2010)

Magnon - I commend you for your response.

Bill -


----------



## Magnon (Oct 6, 2010)

DragonDog QUOTE: The 104 sucked in a turn - far more than the Me 262... but it would roll nearly 2x turns per sec... faster than a pilot could really utilize. UNQUOTE

I have to admit I'm a complete amateur here, Bill, but why did the Me 262 suck in a turn? In your considered opinion was it a structural problem, or did it just have too high a wing loading, or a combination of the two?

Regards,

Magnon


----------



## drgondog (Oct 6, 2010)

Magnon said:


> *Magnon's CV:*
> 
> 1 Is very humble (Admittedly has a great deal to be humble about).
> 2 Has never even swept the floor of the 'skunkworks.'
> ...



Thank you for the parting shot - I worked in co-op apprenticeship for two years - developing low earth orbit models applying Bessel Functions to predict non linear atmospheric effects on satellite orbit degradation, hands on aeorspace engineering applying finite element modelling techniques to structural engineering for six years, have a Co-Patent on a Nodal pylon suspension system for Helicopters, have developed applied distribution of source/sink combinations for potential flow pressure distributions using navier stokes equations as well as management roles in the development or preliminary designs for airframes - in six plus years.

I didn't come to this discussion on a boatlod of tunips.

If I "developed an impression that I have been in aerospace development for 45 years' that is your impression - not what I communicated in this forum. Please refer me to a thread where I immplied such lengthy experience in the airframe biz?

I soloed at 15, I have about 56 solo hours in a P-51D, I have twin engine, and IFR qualifications and wish a heart condition had not grounded me. I am not 'all theory'.

If you wish to denigrate the background compared to yours or any person you seek to use as a comparison - have at it. If you think my MS in Aero engineering and my hands on experiences as an airframe structures engineer at Lockheed and Bell from 1967 to 1972 does not meet your standards of compentency - have at it.

What separates us, respect wise, is that you challenged my academic and industry credentials with zero qualifications of your own - screw whatever 'impressions' you developed - and ditto for your public challenge when you have zero basis other than the gall to shoot your mouth off in these discussions about subjects you have only a Google's worth of expertise in.

I was ok with your peace offering until the 45 years comment..


----------



## Magnon (Oct 6, 2010)

Some details of the Me 262 wing for your information:

The best of Wings magazine - Google Books

Here's where I got the information on skin thickness.

It's also noteworthy that steel was used in conjunction with aluminium. In conjunction with condensation, this generated a galvanic cell and a consequent high tendency for corrosion to occur. Airframes left out in the weather were soon fit only for landfill (sadly). See the full article.

Regards,

Magnon


----------



## Magnon (Oct 6, 2010)

drgondog said:


> I was ok with your peace offering until the 45 years comment..



OK, sorry about that. That's just the impression I got, rightly or wrongly. I admit that you did not explicitly claim that.

I do have a high regard for your background knowledge. That doesn't mean that I'm going to always agree with you. On the other hand, I think it's most productive for everyone's purposes if we keep personalities to a minimum, and concentrate on the facts.

Regards,

Magnon


----------



## Magnon (Oct 6, 2010)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Magnon - I commend you for your response.



Thanks. But as the Good Book says: "A soft answer turneth away wrath..."

Regards,

Magnon


----------



## Magnon (Oct 7, 2010)

FLYBOYJ said:


> WRONG - this has nothing to do with the fighter and everything to do with the pilot and his ability to gain a firing solution during the pursuit. I suggest you research fighter tactics.
> 
> Again this is meaningless. At what speeds are we talking about in a dogfight between a tempest and a Mosquito or Meteor?!?! And you keep comparing the 262 with the F.3. The F.1 is a fairer comparison.



Well, I'm a complete amateur in terms of fighter tactics, but Hans Fey writes that the Me 262 was relatively poor in terms of manoeuvrability and needed nine to twelve thousand feet for a split-S. To my understanding this was the standard manoeuver used to escape if you were jumped from altitude while cruising. If you do the sums, and limit the Gs to eight at the bottom of the pull out, the speed of the aircraft would have to be very moderate. That would indicate that the Me 262 was capable of manoeuvring at relatively low speed when it had to. 

In terms of slowing down to get a bead on the Mozzie, some airbrakes would have been handy. It could be argued that the Me 262 was the first aircraft to have sweepback. It was also probably the last fighter *not* to have airbrakes.

Regards,

Magnon


----------



## Magnon (Oct 7, 2010)

More on dogfighting the Me 262 for those who are interested. First the Mozzie:

The first actual encounter had taken place about a month earlier, on 25 July, when the crew of an RAF photo recon Mosquito managed to survive a lengthy encounter with a 262 by using the Mosquito's *superior maneuverability*.​
Then some anecdotes of US encounters:
There had been, however, earlier encounters with the rocket-powered Me163, and one, in fact, had been shot down on the 16th of August. On that date, an Me163 pilot made the mistake of trying several relatively tight turns, allowing Lt. Col. John Murphy of the 359th Fighter Group to close in and clobber the unfortunate 163, for Murphy's 9th and final victory of WWII. 

Although Murphy's accomplishment was the first jet aircraft in history to be shot down by another fighter, the 163 was, with its rocket engine, a developmental dead end in the fighter field. Of more significance was Myers' and Croy's destruction of the 262 12 days later, as this was the first victory over a turbine-powered aircraft- the real wave of the future. This is also the airplane that was to cause the biggest headaches for the Allied Air Forces and was also the only jet type which the YOXFORD BOYS were to encounter. For these reasons, it is worthwhile quoting portions of Joe Myers' encounter report: 

"I was leading Surtax Blue flight and, in conjunction with Yellow flight, was providing top covet for the rest of the Group, who were engaged in dive bombing and strafing. 

"While stooging around west of Brussels at 11,000 feet, I caught sight of what appeared to be a B-26, flying at about 500 feet and heading in a southerly direction and going very fast. I immediately started down to investigate and although diving at 45 degrees at 450 IAS, I was no more than holding my own in regard to the unknown aircraft. When approximately, 5,000 feet above and very nearly directly over the aircraft, I could see that it was not a B-26, although it had the general overall plan of the B-26. It was painted slate blue in color, with a long rounded nose, but I did not see any guns at this time, because at this point he started evasive action, which consisted of small changes in direction not exceeding 90 degrees of turn. *The radius of turn was very great and, although I was diving at around 450 IAS, I had very little difficulty cutting him off and causing him to change directions. He made no effort to climb or turn more than 90 degrees at any time.* I closed to within 2,000 feet above him and directly astern and had full power on in a 45-degree dive in an effort to close. At this distance I could readily see the similarity between the aircraft and the recognition plates of the Me262. With full power on and the advantage of altitude I gradually started closing on the enemy aircraft and drew up to within 500 yards astern and was about to open fire when the enemy aircraft cut his throttle and crash-landed in a plowed field. He hit the ground just as I fired, so I continued to fire until within 100 yards of him, observing many strikes around the cockpit and jet units. It skidded over several fields and came to rest and caught fire. The pilot hopped out and started to run. The rest of my flight came over and strafed the plane and No. 4 man hit the pilot running away from the plane. The enemy aircraft was burning brightly, giving off great clouds of black smoke. There were no propellers on the plane or on the ground near it. I claim one Me262 destroyed, shared with Lt. M.D. Croy, Jr., my No. 4 man. 

"As compared to the drawings of the Me262 I noticed the following differences. Wings: The wings were tapered on all both edges and the tips were rounded. The chord of the wing is greater than that as shown in the drawing, especially at the wing roots. Fuselage: Fuselage including the cockpit is very similar to the drawings; also the placement of the cockpit. The nose is not quite so pointed, being about as long: as a P-38 nose. Tail: Almost exactly as illustrated. Nacelles: The engine nacelles stick forward as shown by the drawing, but they don't extend beyond the trailing edge of the wing quite as far as those in the pictures. The overall size of the plane appeared to be about the same as a P-38, and when viewed directly from above, similar to the B-26."​
See the full article on theyoxfordboysandtheme262

A pity they continued firing at the pilot after he had left the aircraft... 

Regards,

Magnon


----------



## riacrato (Oct 7, 2010)

What is you point, the Mosquito has a smaller turning circle than the Me 262? That with an altitude advantage of 1500m and in a 45° dive a P-47 D could intercept an Me 262 if the inexperienced pilot started maneuvering?

What you will then bring up is an anecdote of how a Meteor got on the tail of a Tempest. Then by combining anecdotes, random sources on the internet with varying degrees of credibility and of course using informations out of context and in a way they were never meant to be used, you arrive at the conclusion that the Meteor is superior to the oh-so flawed Me 262 which, if it even got off the ground, either broke apart or never got close to the specified performances. A conclusion btw, that you had form the start and that you tailored your "research" to, now what does that tell about your academic sills? 

People here with ten times the knowledge and infinite times the experience counter your arguments with a patience you clearly don't deserve and what do you issue: an "apology" that is basically nothing more than another try at discrediting them. Real class at work.

Btw. does anyone with actual experience on both types think that the Meteor was the better of the two. I guess Eric Brown is the only one who might have that experience?


----------



## Magnon (Oct 7, 2010)

riacrato said:


> Btw. does anyone with actual experience on both types think that the Meteor was the better of the two. I guess Eric Brown is the only one who might have that experience?



Adolf Galland did:
The flight lasted about an hour and when it was finished, he said: If the Me-262 had had the Meteor's engines, it would have been the best fighter in the world! He qualified the plane of being very good and of having very refined lines.​Lt. Gen. Adolf Galland in Argentina 1948-1955: The German ACE Adolf Galland and the Argentinian Air Force 

That begs the question. What *did* he think was the best fighter in World War II?

Despite the fact that it was obsolescent by the time of the Korean war, the Meteor went on to score three certain kills, two probables and five damaged against MiG 15s there, for the loss of five of its own. It was also usually heavily outnumbered. 

By that war’s end it had also been credited with the destruction of 3700 buildings, 1408 vehicles, 16 bridges and 98 railway carriages in the ground attack role. Its squadron was given a presidential citation. Does anyone think the Me 262 would have been able to achieve the same?

Regards,

Magnon


----------



## Colin1 (Oct 7, 2010)

Magnon said:


> Does anyone think the Me 262 would have been able to achieve the same?


It's an outlandishly naive question
we're assuming a Luftwaffe presence in Korea implies their survival of WWII, so for whatever reason the Germans have decided they have business in the Korean peninsular, we can make the far more modest assumption that they now have access to the specialist metals that they require for reliable jet powerplant construction. If Meteor F8s saw service in that war, then we're probably looking at something along the lines of the Me262F/G/K-1A, with all the inherent improvements in the original design that were afforded the Meteor in the same time frame.

So with more adventurous airframe aerodynamics and powerplants that would by now be coming on-song, the harder-hitting Me262 would more than likely be faring at least as well as the Meteor.


----------



## bada (Oct 7, 2010)

Colin1 said:


> It's an outlandishly naive question
> we're assuming a Luftwaffe presence in Korea implies their survival of WWII, so for whatever reason the Germans have decided they have business in the Korean peninsular, we can make the far more modest assumption that they now have access to the specialist metals that they require for reliable jet powerplant construction. If Meteor F8s saw service in that war, then we're probably looking at something along the lines of the Me262F/G/K-1A, with all the inherent improvements in the original design that were afforded the Meteor in the same time frame.
> 
> So with more adventurous airframe aerodynamics and powerplants that would by now be coming on-song, the harder-hitting Me262 would more than likely be faring at least as well as the Meteor.



i'd like to add simply that Messerschmitt would have build the successor to the 262 HG3, not the P1101 as everyone would think, but the P1112.
The P1101 was considered by willly as a testbed (from messerschmit secret projects) 8).


----------



## tail end charlie (Oct 7, 2010)

Colin1 said:


> So with more adventurous airframe aerodynamics and powerplants that would by now be coming on-song, the harder-hitting Me262 would more than likely be faring at least as well as the Meteor.



Colin it seems from that post that the only thing worth keeping from the 262 is its guns.

I think the biggest concern for the designers of both planes was 

To be able to change the engines quickly, 
To be able to put different bigger engines in if required
To have lots of room for fuel
To find out what problems occurred in a jet plane


I cant think of any combat plane that followed the 262s lead and very few followed the meteor. Most post war jets followed the arrangement of the Gloster E.28/39 and I am sure that is coincedence


----------



## Colin1 (Oct 7, 2010)

tail end charlie said:


> Colin it seems from that post that the only thing worth keeping from the 262 is its guns


You possibly misunderstood me
the Me262 had from the outset more radical aerodynamics than the more conservative approach adopted by Glosters, the existing airframe coupled with powerplants that were

getting access to the specialist metals
were a few more years down the line

would have made the most of the Me262s hard-hitting armament.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 7, 2010)

Magnon said:


> Well, I'm a complete amateur in terms of fighter tactics, but Hans Fey writes that the Me 262 was relatively poor in terms of manoeuvrability and needed nine to twelve thousand feet for a split-S. To my understanding this was the standard manoeuver used to escape if you were jumped from altitude while cruising. If you do the sums, and limit the Gs to eight at the bottom of the pull out, the speed of the aircraft would have to be very moderate. That would indicate that the Me 262 was capable of manoeuvring at relatively low speed when it had to.
> 
> In terms of slowing down to get a bead on the Mozzie, some airbrakes would have been handy. It could be argued that the Me 262 was the first aircraft to have sweepback. It was also probably the last fighter *not* to have airbrakes.
> 
> ...



Again, to accurately judge an aircraft's turning ability, you have to factor in speed and bank angle as both are part of the equation. Airbrakes "would have" been handy but considering this was the first operational jet fighter, speed brakes became eventually became the norm. Tactics could have enabled the aircraft to overcome this.



Magnon said:


> Adolf Galland did:
> The flight lasted about an hour and when it was finished, he said: If the Me-262 had had the Meteor's engines, it would have been the best fighter in the world! He qualified the plane of being very good and of having very refined lines.​Lt. Gen. Adolf Galland in Argentina 1948-1955: The German ACE Adolf Galland and the Argentinian Air Force
> 
> That begs the question. What *did* he think was the best fighter in World War II?
> ...


*
The Meteor that Galland flew and the models used during the Korean War should not be compared to the Me 262 and you keep doing this. Compare the aircraft with the F.1 Meteor as they were developed at the same time. *


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 7, 2010)

Magnon said:


> It's also noteworthy that steel was used in conjunction with aluminium. In conjunction with condensation, this generated a galvanic cell and a consequent high tendency for corrosion to occur. Airframes left out in the weather were soon fit only for landfill (sadly). See the full article.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Magnon



While the 262 made use of both steel and aluminum in conjunction with one another, so did many aircraft of WW2. Again your argument has no real world basis. Situations where dissimilar metals are placed next to each other can be dealt with and many of todays aircraft still use dissimilar metals in their construction. WW2 fighters were not designed for longevity and 500 hours on an airframe would have been considered remarkable.


----------



## drgondog (Oct 7, 2010)

Magnon said:


> DragonDog QUOTE: The 104 sucked in a turn - far more than the Me 262... but it would roll nearly 2x turns per sec... faster than a pilot could really utilize. UNQUOTE
> 
> I have to admit I'm a complete amateur here, Bill, but why did the Me 262 suck in a turn? In your considered opinion was it a structural problem, or did it just have too high a wing loading, or a combination of the two?
> 
> ...



It didn't suck against contemporary jets, just against a lower Lift loaded conventional fighter. At a speed of 100mph > than a Mustang in a rat race trying to maintain the same turn radius would have a.) blacked the pilot out and b.) put the airplane in an Angle of Attack which it could not sustain - cause a stall - but the engines probably stall before the wing.

Had nothing to do with structural integrity


----------



## drgondog (Oct 7, 2010)

Magnon said:


> Some details of the Me 262 wing for your information:
> 
> The best of Wings magazine - Google Books
> 
> ...


You are dabbling again. Steel was used because they a.) needed the smaller dimensions in the structural member to take the calculated loads - and acceptable stress levels or b.) greater strength with same cross section. 4130 Steel has a tensile strength nearly 2x 2024 Aluminum but it is denser.

It would take a long time for a steel/aluminum corrosion issue to occur - certainly time that the Luftwaffe didn't have. There are several surface treatments to alleviate the problem.

As to .125 (or similar) skin thickness on surface of the wing, that is all about a.) creating stiffer shear panels, and b.) augmenting cap area for spars to reduce stress levels due to bending/torsion.

Why do you keep heading down a path to look at airframe structures to try for points on the Meteor. Stop - it is past the silly point in the debate...


----------



## tail end charlie (Oct 7, 2010)

Why wasnt the 262 copied if it was so good?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 7, 2010)

tail end charlie said:


> Why wasnt the 262 copied if it was so good?


It was, well kind of


Avia S-92 Turbina

Remember, turbine aircraft technology advanced quickly during the post war period. The F-80 and Meteor were basically obsolete within 5 years.


----------



## tail end charlie (Oct 7, 2010)

FLYBOYJ said:


> It was, well kind of
> 
> 
> Avia S-92 Turbina
> ...




That was just continuing production and only 12 were made. 

I think all were obsolete before they went into service, they were just test beds that got produced. The germans were advanced in swept wing research but that isnt esential for supersonic flight, the bell x1 didnt have swept wings. Even swept wings needed a huge amount of research before they were safe. Miles tested the stabilator in 1944 and provided data to bell for the X1. All sides could have put in much more advanced aerodynamic features into their planes but each feature puts in a new variable, many pilots crashed in the early days just because they went familiar with a new way of flying. In my region alone there were over 25 meteors lost in accidents, it was the same with the 262 and F-80. Turbine technology advanced very quickly in both power and reliability but it was a long time before swept wings for supersonic flight was relevant and swept wings were only a part of the issue.

I dont think you could develop the 262 much further because a bigger engine would make it more unstable even if it didnt reach the ground.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 7, 2010)

tail end charlie said:


> That was just continuing production and only 12 were made.
> 
> I think all were obsolete before they went into service, they were just test beds that got produced. The germans were advanced in swept wing research but that isnt esential for supersonic flight, the bell x1 didnt have swept wings. Even swept wings needed a huge amount of research before they were safe. Miles tested the stabilator in 1944 and provided data to bell for the X1. All sides could have put in much more advanced aerodynamic features into their planes but each feature puts in a new variable, many pilots crashed in the early days just because they went familiar with a new way of flying. In my region alone there were over 25 meteors lost in accidents, it was the same with the 262 and F-80. Turbine technology advanced very quickly in both power and reliability but it was a long time before swept wings for supersonic flight was relevant and swept wings were only a part of the issue.
> 
> I dont think you could develop the 262 much further because a bigger engine would make it more unstable even if it didnt reach the ground.



All good points made, however if we were to freeze time and look at the fall of 1944, there is no doubt that the 262 was the better jet in terms of performance. The Meteor evolved to be a better aircraft in its late WW2 and post war variants but the clock stopped for the 262 and Germany. Could the Me 262 been improved to match or exceed aircraft like the Meteor or P-80? Absolutely, but probably not much more better than its contemporaries, but to continue to compare later variants of th Meteor to the 262 is just nonsense, it's like comparing a Spitfire Mk I to an Fw 190D.


----------



## tail end charlie (Oct 7, 2010)

FLYBOYJ said:


> The Meteor evolved to be a better aircraft in its late WW2 and post war variants but the clock stopped for the 262 and Germany. Could the Me 262 been improved to match or exceed aircraft like the Meteor or P-80? Absolutely, but probably not much more better than its contemporaries, but to continue to compare later variants of th Meteor to the 262 is just nonsense, it's like comparing a Spitfire Mk I to an Fw 190D.



I agree but the two planes builders were in a different situation. The allies were winning the war and didnt want to give the technology to germany with a lost aircraft, to me it was a research programme with no defined "enemy". No one in the west especially the UK had the thought energy or money for a continuation of war. I would agree that in 1944/45 the 262 was marginally the better plane but the UK wasnt being bombed by 1000 bomber formations. If the UK was under the same pressure the performance of the engine would have been ramped up without regard to engine or pilot life and afterburners tried out. 

The fuselage of the 262 is above the wing and the engines are below, to me it is fundamentally unbalanced like a motorcycle with a side car. The faster it goes the more unstable it would be. And like a M/C with a side car it has problems with corners/dives. Just my opinion not based on any data apart from it used to go inverted in a dive, the engines drag being greater than the fuselage (as I see it).

BTW there are another 10 meteors lost in the North Sea along with a similar number of Lightnings, Tornados, 2 of the F111 and a single F15. That is 35 meteors crashed in a small region in peacetime with conservative aerodynamics and reliable (for the time ) engines. Post war jets may have been better than piston engined planes but a huge amount more dangerous.

Some of the lightnings and Phantoms may have been lost running out of fuel intercepting "Bears"


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 7, 2010)

tail end charlie said:


> I agree but the two planes builders were in a different situation. The allies were winning the war and didnt want to give the technology to germany with a lost aircraft, to me it was a research programme with no defined "enemy". No one in the west especially the UK had the thought energy or money for a continuation of war. I would agree that in 1944/45 the 262 was marginally the better plane but the UK wasnt being bombed by 1000 bomber formations. If the UK was under the same pressure the performance of the engine would have been ramped up without regard to engine or pilot life and afterburners tried out.


 Agree, but compared to the F.1 the 262 wasn't "marginally" better, it was a lot better...


tail end charlie said:


> The fuselage of the 262 is above the wing and the engines are below, to me it is fundamentally unbalanced like a motorcycle with a side car. The faster it goes the more unstable it would be. And like a M/C with a side car it has problems with corners/dives. Just my opinion not based on any data apart from it used to go inverted in a dive, the engines drag being greater than the fuselage (as I see it).


Do you have any type of engineering basis for this assumption? Just because an aircraft "looks" unstable, doesn't mean it is. I mean, let's take what you just described.







These series of YAK fighters were highly successful.


tail end charlie said:


> BTW there are another 10 meteors lost in the North Sea along with a similar number of Lightnings, Tornados, 2 of the F111 and a single F15. That is 35 meteors crashed in a small region in peacetime with conservative aerodynamics and reliable (for the time ) engines. Post war jets may have been better than piston engined planes but a huge amount more dangerous.
> 
> Some of the lightnings and Phantoms may have been lost running out of fuel intercepting "Bears"



This all depends on the mission and pilot. Overall I'll bet dollars to donuts that the accident rate for the RAF is one 1/5 of what is was in the post war era (if not more).


----------



## tail end charlie (Oct 7, 2010)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Agree, but compared to the F.1 the 262 wasn't "marginally" better, it was a lot better...
> Do you have any type of engineering basis for this assumption? Just because an aircraft "looks" unstable, doesn't mean it is. I mean, let's take what you just described.
> 
> 
> ...



The first meteors were deployed in advance of the deployment of V1, I dont think anyone would have formed a squadron otherwise, once you have formed the squadron you have a load of pilots wanting action.
As I said the two planes were in a different situation, no urgency was placed on the meteor because during the BoB it wasnt ready and later it didnt have an enemy it could reach. "Better" is a general term in speed, manouverability reliability serviceability. The 262 could probably been more effective if it was slower and more flyable/reliable, personally I wouldnt like to fly either.

That yak fighter has wings in the middle of the fuselage the 262 is low wing, like I said its just the look of the plane it looks un balanced to me.

For accidents its difficult to say because the web site doesnt give exact details post war (undersatndable some of the planes are/were still in service but post war most operations are training while in the war its a mix of operational and training. There are a much larger number of meteors than vampires lost but that may be the local deployment.

The site is below

WWW.YORKSHIRE-AIRCRAFT.CO.UK


----------



## Magnon (Oct 7, 2010)

FLYBOYJ said:


> All good points made, however if we were to freeze time and look at the fall of 1944, there is no doubt that the 262 was the better jet in terms of performance. The Meteor evolved to be a better aircraft in its late WW2 and post war variants but the clock stopped for the 262 and Germany. Could the Me 262 been improved to match or exceed aircraft like the Meteor or P-80? Absolutely, but probably not much more better than its contemporaries, but to continue to compare later variants of th Meteor to the 262 is just nonsense, it's like comparing a Spitfire Mk I to an Fw 190D.



An interesting post-war development was Kurt Tank's design for Argentina, the Pulqui II. This may be an indication of where German jet fighter development was going. It was highly swept, had a Rolls-Royce Nene engine and four Hispano Suiza 20mm cannon. It also had significant problems, including a wing failure and stability problems:

Regards,

Magnon


----------



## riacrato (Oct 8, 2010)

I think we are all aware of that design and its problems. There were others that were much more advanced in terms of design progress. I wonder why you chose to provide that one 

TEC, I am pretty sure there's a lot more to why accident rates with jet planes got progressively better as time went along: safety regulations, PILOT TRAINING and of course technical advancements in many fields. It would make a lot more sense to e. g. compare the Meteor accident rate to that of a Tempest. I have no doubt the Meteor lost more and surely it has to do with new technology but that is the way it is. No pain no gain.

As to copying the Me 262: There were quite a few Russian designs copying the general layout. But as with many weapon developments: as the war was over, most intermediate designs saw no or limited service and by the time Korea started there were newer and better designs like the MiG 15. Who copied the Meteor? Who copied the P-59? Who copied the P-80?


----------



## Colin1 (Oct 8, 2010)

tail end charlie said:


> Why wasnt the 262 copied if it was so good?


Only some thoughts on the subject
there was no paradigm shift from recip design to jet design, it didn't happen overnight.
It would be a generation on from the Me262/Meteor before they accommodated the fact that there was no need to hang the jet powerplants from mid-wing with no prop disc to consider.

On the subject of swept-wing design, I'm not clear on the intent behind the sweep adopted by Messerschmitt for the 262, I have always understood it was to correct a CoG issue otherwise they would have stuck with a straight-wing design too.

The Meteor stuck with even more conservative design principles that could be found in advanced recip design twins of the period. The Meteor's ace (for me) was the pilot's command view of his personal battlespace from right at the front of the fuselage.

The Me262 and the Meteor rolled out all the new ideas for propulsion, on platforms of more familiar, tried and trusted design, the Me262's aerodynamic profile was pretty radical for the time but it didn't really depart from accepted principles of what got bolted to where. 

Joe put it well, the clock stopped for Germany but for everyone else involved in aero programs for better jets, the lessons were learned from these two 'test vehicles', from now on, airframe technologies would better accommodate and exploit the new propulsion systems. I would say that that is the reason why nobody really copied them in the simplest interpretation of the word.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 8, 2010)

tail end charlie said:


> The first meteors were deployed in advance of the deployment of V1, I dont think anyone would have formed a squadron otherwise, *once you have formed the squadron you have a load of pilots wanting action*.



Actually that's somewhat incoorect. the first Meteor Squadron was 616 squadron who gave up their Spitfires for the new jet. Operating the F.1, they had a lot of issues the first few months of operations and it took them about a month to get their first V1 kill. Several F.1 s were lost during this time (I believe 5 to either engine failures or pilot error during landings, it seems thre is little record of the F.1's MC and attricion rate but depending on sources about 1/4 of the squadron was lost. things got better with the F 3 which was deplyed in late 1944 but it still had a lot of bugs.


tail end charlie said:


> As I said the two planes were in a different situation, no urgency was placed on the meteor because during the BoB it wasnt ready and later it didnt have an enemy it could reach. "Better" is a general term in speed, manouverability reliability serviceability. The 262 could probably been more effective if it was slower and more flyable/reliable, personally I wouldnt like to fly either.


Agree


tail end charlie said:


> That yak fighter has wings in the middle of the fuselage the 262 is low wing, like I said its just the look of the plane it looks un balanced to me.


It has a very similar layout - again, just because it looks unstable doesn't mean it is and beside a good fighter should have some inherent instability built into it.


tail end charlie said:


> For accidents its difficult to say because the web site doesnt give exact details post war (undersatndable some of the planes are/were still in service but post war most operations are training while in the war its a mix of operational and training. * There are a much larger number of meteors than vampires lost but that may be the local deployment.*
> The site is below
> 
> WWW.YORKSHIRE-AIRCRAFT.CO.UK



I also believe that meteors were used more in night and IMC operations.


----------



## tail end charlie (Oct 8, 2010)

FLYBOYJ said:


> 1Actually that's somewhat incoorect. the first Meteor Squadron was 616 squadron who gave up their Spitfires for the new jet. Operating the F.1, they had a lot of issues the first few months of operations and it took them about a month to get their first V1 kill. Several F.1 s were lost during this time (I believe 5 to either engine failures or pilot error during landings, it seems thre is little record of the F.1's MC and attricion rate but depending on sources about 1/4 of the squadron was lost. things got better with the F 3 which was deplyed in late 1944 but it still had a lot of bugs.
> Agree
> It has a very similar layout - again, just because it looks unstable doesn't mean it is and beside a good fighter should have some inherent instability built into it.
> 
> I also believe that meteors were used more in night and IMC operations.



That basically was the point I was making, the V1 gave a chance to see what operational problems there were.

The yak looks more balanced to me, take the undercart away and the engines and fuselage are on the ground. From what you say a combat plane is like a racing motorcycle which are on the edge of stability in a straight line so they change direction and corner more quickly.

Most meteors where I live were lost in training accidents my local airfield was an . Personally I am not a big fan of the meteor, when talking about fighters in 1945 I think the Vampire was a better plane than both of them, but being a private venture took longer to get sorted. The ghost engine which went in the vampires successor the Venom was being tested in 1944 which shows what could have been done if the pressure was on.


----------



## DonL (Oct 8, 2010)

Sorry gents,

but I have some problems with the suggestive statements in this thread and the latent argumentation from some guys, that the german developments of Jet planes in WW II, were outclased from the allied development.
If there is any weapon technology, where the germans were constant equal with the allieds then it is the aviation industry 

If you want to compare then please compare the whole circumstances. Raw materials to manufactor, time of development, fuel, and industry resources that were functioning and not rebuilt after bombardments. 

The first german jet fighter was the He 280, a true jet dog and turn fighter. (Year 1941)
It's main problems were the engines because the german aviation industry had not the raw material (enough for mass production) to built the small HeS 8A engines.

But Heinkel had built a development center for jet planes and engines (especially for the He 280) and all results had huge influences of the later jet planes and jet planes in development.
At 1945 the germans had three jet engines. The Jumo 004, BMW 003 and the Heinkel HeS 011.
Also the Me 262 as the first jet fighter in mass production and combat.
The Ta 183 and the Me P.1101were in development.
I ask which other country had this designs and engines combat ready or in development at 1944/45? 
Apart from the Arado 234 as the first jet bomber.

And this with very very little raw materials and an industry production that was under bombardment on a daily basis.

And if the german aviation industry was that poor, why on earth they could produce, one of the best piston engine fighters of WW II with an industry in the last breaths from raw materials to manufactor and sub systems that perhaps are functioning on a daily basis?

If you want to compare then please compare designs and engines and the potentials of these under the same requirements.

Edit:

To through the Pulqui II in the the discussion is like to compare apples with beans.
Or do you want to compare the whole aviation industry from germany with argentina from the possibility to manufactor and the whole sub system of a truly functional avation industry? That's very funny because a design is important but most important is the possibility to manufactor the design with all potentials. And to my opinion the argentina avation industry was in the beginning and miles away from the potential of the german avation industry in 1945!


----------



## johnbr (Oct 8, 2010)

Don't forget the Bv 212 and 215 that were under consruction at the end of the war.


----------



## Civettone (Oct 9, 2010)

Many of the German 1945 designs - like the BV P 212 or 215, or other designs by Lippisch, Junkers, Heinkel, ... - were indeed advanced but I have never ever seen any serious research about the viability of these designs. So it is all really nice to fantasise about how "cool" it would have been if those fighters had seen service but fact is that we are clueless. Take the applauded Ta 183. At least there we have the Pulqui II as an indication of the aerodynamical problems the Ta 183 would have seen. Maybe German scientists would have come up with a solution, like wing fences, on their own but maybe another design would have been chosen. 

So as to the B&V designs, they were so radical I have serious doubts about them.

Kris


----------



## Civettone (Oct 9, 2010)

I would also want to point out that the Me 262 HG project was well underway. The Me 262 of 1946 would have been a very different bird, much more advanced.





Kris


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 10, 2010)

DonL said:


> If you want to compare then please compare the whole circumstances. Raw materials to manufactor, time of development, fuel, and industry resources that were functioning and not rebuilt after bombardments.



I think that's been done several times on this thread.


----------



## zoomar (Oct 28, 2010)

What ifs are fascinating, but as Civettone says, the vast majority of German late war projects (such as those featured on the wpnderful Luft-46 site) were little more than paper planes of unknown potential or even feasibility. 

Hypothetically (very hypothetically), had Germany and its aircraft industry somehow survived WW2, the best gauge of what they might have developed probably are the various designs Tank, Messerchmitt, and others offered to clients such as Argentina, Egypt, and others - plus the German influenced Soviet designs of the late 1940's up to and including the Mig-15 series. I also expect that the twin-engined Me-262 concept with its underwing nacelles would go by the wayside fairly quickly as more powerful jet engines came available, although like the Meteor it might lhave found a niche in its HG forms. 

However, it must be admitted that visions of a 1950 Luftwaffe patrolling the skies and near space with giant Horten flying wing bombers, Sanger space planes, tailless supersonic fighters, and assymetrical superplanes is more fun than Germans in planes that look a lot like Mig-15s, La-15s, F-86s, B-29s, and Valiants.


----------



## bada (Oct 29, 2010)

Magnon said:


> An interesting post-war development was Kurt Tank's design for Argentina, the Pulqui II.Regards,
> 
> Magnon



As interesting as it is, the tA183 was studied AND drawn by Multhropp and not by Kurt, Mister Tank only apposed his stamp with his name on it.

If the pulqui descends from the ta183, than the mig15, the La15 and the saab29 do also, as all of them have the same shape...but also, maybe, they descend from the P.1101 that has the same shape too???

The fuselage structure of the pulqui has nothing to do with the one drawn by multhropp...and this last was easier to build than the solution adopted by Tank on the pulqui, especialy, the center section holding the wings.

The shape found on all 50' planes is simply the result of the knowledge of aerodynamics build through the WW2.


----------



## Magnon (Nov 23, 2010)

The following chart may be of interest in assessing the Me 262's turning performance. Hans Fey reported that was a weakness of the Me 262:

"The Me 262 is relatively slow in turns and movements. It cannot, for instance, Split -S in less than 9000 - 12000 feet."​
See http://www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com/Images/Me262/ME262PILOTDEBRIEF.pdf

From what he said, it would seem reasonable to infer that at a flat out 500 knots, the turn radius was 6,000 ft, which would approximate to less than 5 Gs maximum allowing for adding 1 G on pull-out. This would explain why the Me 262was not able to out-turn a Mosquito (in six passes). 

For the lower value, the corresponding average G is 5.8, giving 6.8 maximum on the bottom of the pull-out, still not great for a dogfighter.

Regards 

Magnon


----------



## bada (Nov 24, 2010)

at that speed, the meteor's MK3 pilot couldn't even move the ailerons, thus the 262 was still turning faster


----------



## Magnon (Nov 28, 2010)

Something is interesting regarding the comparison of the F 86 and the MiG 15":

Turning circles for each aircraft were very similar, with the F-86 gaining advantage at low speed because of its leading edge slats. The MiG's higher thrust to weight ratio allowed it to power through turns a little better than the Sabre. Rate of roll/pitch was a problem for the MiG as they did not have boosted controls. *At high speeds (400kts+) stick forces would become so high that the aircraft was very difficult to roll or pull into turns/climbs etc.* The F-86 on the contrary, was very easy to fly and control and was responsive throughout the flight envelope. With the introduction of the "6-3" slat-less wing in Sept. 1952, on the F-86F-25 (and later refitted to older aircraft.), the Sabre was able to turn inside the MiG all the way up to its combat ceiling of 50,000 ft (15,250 m) and increased its max speed to 695 mph (1118 km/h), giving the "F" a 30 mph (48.3 km) top speed advantage over the MiG (Albeit at the loss of low speed handling and a higher landing speed.)​The MiG-15

It's surprising that removal of the slats from the F-86 _improved_ manouevrability.

The F-80 had power boosted controls but they were apparently a mixed blessing:

The first major issue with the Shooting Star involved the power boosted aileron controls. (Controls in previous aircraft were unboosted, but the jets' higher speeds required greater control forces which meant that pilots needed additional help.) When operating normally the F-80's system permitted a roll rate of 135 degrees per second, however, when inoperative the fighter's roll rate was reduced to less than 12 degrees a second; put another way, without aileron boost stick forces increased fifteen fold. In September 1947 the service attributed four major accidents to loss of lateral control and suspected this as the cause in five other accidents. Three of the first 29 fatal F-80 accidents were caused by loss of control. The problem was that the F-80's hydraulic system could not provide adequate pressure for aileron boost when other hydraulic systems were operating (such as the landing gear or speed brakes). Lockheed's design was flawed and the USAF response was worse. When a crew chief in one RF-80 unit found that a larger hydraulic accumulator from an RB-26 would fit nicely on the Shooting Star and solve the problem, the responsible Air Force agency, Air Materiel Command, would not authorize the "fix." Instead it told the unit to "proceed at their own risk" and did not circulate the information to other F-80 outfits. Only belatedly did the Air Force begin modifying the system in 1948 by substituting a larger accumulator to provide more hydraulic pressure, but this modification took some time.​
The F-86 (and Meteor) also had speed brakes, something the Mig (and Me 262) lacked:
...the F–86 had excellent speed brakes located aft of the wing on the sides of the lower fuselage. The airplane was so slick that it was hard to slow down, but you need to slow down when you maneuver in combat, for combat is fought at all the edges of an airplane’s envelope, as fast as you can go and as slow as you can go. These brakes caused very little pitch change, deployed and retracted quickly, and gave us a tremendous advantage in trying to hold position and track a hard-maneuvering MiG.​from _Silver Wings, Golden Valor: The USAF Remembers Korea_

It was a transitional time for aircraft controls, in that a completely new system was required:
The introduction of power-operated controls has in itself caused a new problem in that the pilot no longer "feels" the pressure resisting the movement of the controls; this feel was always a safety factor in that it made the pilot conscious of the forces he was applying, and in fact there was some advantage in that there was a limit to what he could do to the aeroplane owing to the sheer limitation of his strength. So important is this matter of feel that when power-operated controls are used it has been necessary to incorporate artificial or synthetic "feel"...​from _The Mechanics of Flight_; Kermode.

If the Me 262 had lower stick forces, it would have done it by higher leverage, which means higher movement for a given output, i.e. - the stick forces are relatively light but the stick requires a lot of movement to get the desired response. Nothing is had for nothing.

See WW2 Warbirds: the Messerschmitt Me 262 Schwalbe (Swallow) - Frans Bonn

The Me 262 V10 introduced the 'gear change' control column that reduced stick forces at high airspeeds​
Regards,

Magnon


----------



## Magnon (Nov 28, 2010)

Magnon said:


> The Me 262 controls became very stiff at speed:
> ...This balance is in addition to those already noted as being set in the elevators themselves, and may be a late modification.* Reports from abroad have indicated that at speeds over 500 mph. the ailerons and elevators of the 262 become extremely hard to move and that an extendable control stick designed to give increased leverage had been developed. However, no such stick, or provisions for its installation could be found on the craft studied, and it is held possible the mass balance just discussed has been utilized in its stead.*..​www.enginehistory.org/German/Me-262/Me262_Airframe_2.pdf
> 
> 
> ...



This verifies the previous post...


----------



## drgondog (Nov 28, 2010)

Magnon - neither post proves anything. It is easy for controls to be boosted to overcome 'slow roll', 'slow pull out' etc. It is not so easy to keep wings, tails, etc from deprating when those 'boost' devices are installed. 

The Mustang had rudder reverse 'boost' to make rudder forces greater during high q manuevers to make it harder for the pilot to destroy the airplane during high asymmetric manuevers (slow rolls, turns during a dive, etc.)

BTW, the slats have only two possible values - 1.) low speed speed wing tip control and 2.) slightly reduced drag over a twisted wing leading edge.

The MiG had a sevre pitch up moment in Mcr causing stress leading to possible tructural failure. 

Like the 109 it was stiff in high G turns, but like the 109, could be overcome by a strong pilot - BTW the airplane doesn't 'stay' in 400-450 kts envelope very long with that T/W ratio - ditto the F-86 - or the Me 262 - or the original Meteor - for the same reasons


----------



## Magnon (Nov 28, 2010)

drgondog said:


> Magnon - neither post proves anything. It is easy for controls to be boosted to overcome 'slow roll', 'slow pull out' etc. It is not so easy to keep wings, tails, etc from deprating when those 'boost' devices are installed.
> 
> The Mustang had rudder reverse 'boost' to make rudder forces greater during high q manuevers to make it harder for the pilot to destroy the airplane during high asymmetric manuevers (slow rolls, turns during a dive, etc.)
> 
> ...



Thanks Drgndog,

What I was trying to say was that it is not black and white. If I understand your post correctly, you're saying much the same thing. 

It seems the problem wasn't really satisfactorily resolved until several years after the war with the introduction of powered controls with feedback.

Regards,

Magnon


----------



## drgondog (Nov 29, 2010)

Magnon said:


> Thanks Drgndog,
> 
> What I was trying to say was that it is not black and white. If I understand your post correctly, you're saying much the same thing.
> 
> ...



Magnon - Electonic feedback control systems were (are) far more useful to manage stability and control, particularly in the area of unsteady and unstable flight.

Boosted control surfaces were used in WWII (P-38 a prime example), with mixed results. The aileron boost truly improved roll performance for the P-38L while boosting the elevator to attempt earlier compressibility dive pullout just yanked the tail off sooner.

Reverse rudder tab boost was deployed to later model P-51D and retofitted to increase rudder forces in high Q (like a dive) flight to make it harder to slow roll or attempt a rudder turn in a dive.

So, power boost was used and usually with good results but usually structural limit considerations made the deployment a cautious exercise by the engineers.


----------



## Magnon (Mar 7, 2011)

Magnon said:


> The following chart may be of interest in assessing the Me 262's turning performance. Hans Fey reported that was a weakness of the Me 262:
> 
> "The Me 262 is relatively slow in turns and movements. It cannot, for instance, Split -S in less than 9000 - 12000 feet."​
> See http://www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com/Images/Me262/ME262PILOTDEBRIEF.pdf
> ...


 
I can't find figures giving a direct comparison between the Meteor F3 and the Me 262, but the following gives the F4 comparison:

Meteor F4:
"Wings, fuselage, fin and tailplane must be subjected to tests simulating the most exacting conditions to be expected in flight, while horizontal surfaces, fixed and movable, must show exceptional torsional stiffness. *An ultimate strength pull-out factor for the Meteor IV is 10 at 500 m.p.h., 8.5 at 550 m.p.h. and 7 at 600 m.p.h. indicated*".
flight archive 1946

Me 262 Structural airframe G limits

*+7g @ 440mph 
-5g @ 410mph*
worldaccessnet

So, admittedly the figures are for the more robust F4, but this is a very high margin.

Regards,

Magnon


----------



## bada (Mar 8, 2011)

Magnon said:


> I can't find figures giving a direct comparison between the Meteor F3 and the Me 262, but the following gives the F4 comparison:
> 
> 
> Me 262 Structural airframe G limits
> ...





taking Data from IL2-1946 flight sim as true numbers, funny

maybe got some from willie's factory, or even from stormbirds.com?

ps: at-5G , the pilot is dead!


You still didn't answer my question yet: 
how could a MK3 turn faster as the 262 if the MK3's ailerons couldn't be moved at speeds above 400mph? (see operationnal repport on the mk3) or maybe you don't understand my question ,what could be possible because English is my fourth language and i have difficulties to write what i mean, and then i will paraphrase the question : how much time does it take in the mk3 if a pilot want to make a 180° tunr from the moment he start to move his stick on the Y-axis?...i bet it would be very long if the pilot isn't able tu push the stick enough to bank the plane for the turn....


----------



## Magnon (Mar 8, 2011)

bada said:


> taking Data from IL2-1946 flight sim as true numbers, funny
> 
> maybe got some from willie's factory, or even from stormbirds.com?
> 
> ...


 
The quoted figures come from Me-262

It also indicates:_ 'The entire aircraft has a giant sticker on it that reads *"Caution: FRAGILE"*.' _

The writer of this has done his research well.

If you want confirmation of this, it is well and truly borne out by the Messerschmit test pilot Hans Fey's comments on http://www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com/Images/Me262/ME262PILOTDEBRIEF.pdf

In terms of what an aircraft should be designed for, see:

_What can be dangerous are high accelerations; expressed as multiples of gravity, or g's.* In pulling out of a dive, for example, a pilot may be subjected to an acceleration as high as 9 g.* If a force of 4 to 6 g is sustained for more than a few seconds, the resulting symptoms range from visual impairment to total blackout... While facing backward in a seated position, properly supported human test subjects have been able to tolerate a deceleration force of 50 g without severe injury. 

The acceleration that causes blackouts in fighter pilots is called the maximum g-force. Fighter pilots experience this force when accelerating or decelerating quickly. At high g's the pilots blood pressure changes and the flow of oxygen to the brain rapidly decreases. This happens because the pressure outside of the pilot's body is so much greater than the pressure a human is normally accustomed to.* One human body handles g's different then another. *​_Acceleration of Blackout in Fighter Pilots

Regards,

Magnon


----------



## Magnon (Mar 8, 2011)

bada said:


> taking Data from IL2-1946 flight sim as true numbers, funny
> 
> maybe got some from willie's factory, or even from stormbirds.com?
> 
> ...



What is the roll rate of the Me 262? I haven't been able to find the statistics for the Me 262.

It seems the F3 Meteor was about 40 degrees per second at 300-400 mph, the F4 about 85 degrees per second, and the Lockheed F80 about 135.

The controls were limited to prevent the pilot from overstressing the structure. *The Meteor structure was much more robust than the Me 262.*
As an indication of the relative problems of the two aircraft in terms of manoeuvring: 
• The CFE indicates for the Meteor *“aerobatics must not to be performed at an all up weight in excess of 12,300 lb.” *(The fully loaded all up weight was given in the report as 12,614 lb)
• On the other hand, the *Me 262 Handbook *says categorically *“no acrobatics are to be performed”* and *“no spins are to be attempted*”
• This is backed up by Messerschmit pilot Hans Fey who says that acceptance pilots wouldn’t carry out a roll or a dive in a Me 262 unless they were forced to.
• In terms of general airworthiness of the two aircraft, in the context of Fey’s warning of the danger inherent with the Schwalbe in terms of diving and rolling, nothing is mentioned about spinning. On the other hand, the CFE report conveys feedback from the Gloster trials: *“The Meteor has not been cleared for practice spinning but, if the foregoing instructions are followed, the pilot should have no difficulty in recovering from an accidental spin”* 

I'll go into this further down the track.

Regards,

Magnon


----------



## bada (Mar 9, 2011)

Magnon said:


> The quoted figures come from Me-262
> 
> It also indicates:_ 'The entire aircraft has a giant sticker on it that reads *"Caution: FRAGILE"*.' _
> 
> ...



-Yes, that's what i mean, it's even worse as this is a kind of manual from "acces high" game, even worse than il2 in this case 

-I wrote -5G not +50G's, there is a big difference, and i do know the differencies between individuals and G's. nothing new here.




Magnon said:


> What is the roll rate of the Me 262? I haven't been able to find the statistics for the Me 262.



-Rollrate 262: me neither, lol. Maybe more luck at stormbirds.com?



Magnon said:


> It seems the F3 Meteor was about 40 degrees per second at 300-400 mph, the F4 about 85 degrees per second, and the Lockheed F80 about 135.



If you say so, my question was: the time needed for the pilot at 400mph to move the ailerons into position to get the roll of 40°/sec (your numbers)
If you can answer that, you'll know the real time needed for the roll.But that points cerntainly depends of the pilot's arms size...Hasta la Vista Ailerons!



Magnon said:


> The controls were limited to prevent the pilot from overstressing the structure. *The Meteor structure was much more robust than the Me 262.*



Nothing in the RAF evaluation repport about that.



Magnon said:


> As an indication of the relative problems of the two aircraft in terms of manoeuvring:
> • The CFE indicates for the Meteor *“aerobatics must not to be performed at an all up weight in excess of 12,300 lb.” *(The fully loaded all up weight was given in the report as 12,614 lb)
> • On the other hand, the *Me 262 Handbook *says categorically *“no acrobatics are to be performed”* and *“no spins are to be attempted*”
> • This is backed up by Messerschmit pilot Hans Fey who says that acceptance pilots wouldn’t carry out a roll or a dive in a Me 262 unless they were forced to.
> • In terms of general airworthiness of the two aircraft, in the context of Fey’s warning of the danger inherent with the Schwalbe in terms of diving and rolling, nothing is mentioned about spinning. On the other hand, the CFE report conveys feedback from the Gloster trials: *“The Meteor has not been cleared for practice spinning but, if the foregoing instructions are followed, the pilot should have no difficulty in recovering from an accidental spin”*



If yo have an airplane flying 150mph faster than any other airplane, as pilot, do you really want to start a dogfight like in 14-18? You don't need it, you speed is a bigger advantage. Why would you spin the plane? that would only mean you're a bad pilot and you loose all your energy and what also means you're already dead if ennemy fighters are next to you...

Please read again the repport http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/meteor/Meteor-CFE.pdf and check points 68-73-74-76-79!!!!-90(table)-93-115 and conclusions 137-139-140

The MK3 was a bad plane , at least bad enough for aerial combat and for it's pilot comfort. Take a look at the 262's cockpit and the meteors Cockpit, just the same as the comparaison between a spitfire's cockpit and the wurger. (i could even use the exemple between the spit and the p51 that also had a nice done cockpit)
A lot of garbage badly placed in the meteor and everything ergonomicaly and logicaly placed in the 262. If you're a pilot and the airforce gives you bird where the workload to fly the plane is nihil (almost) and another where you have to look in crazy ways to check the instruments, because a lot of them is invisible, in what plane will you fly better?


----------



## Magnon (Mar 9, 2011)

bada said:


> -Yes, that's what i mean, it's even worse as this is a kind of manual from "acces high" game, even worse than il2 in this case
> 
> -I wrote -5G not +50G's, there is a big difference, and i do know the differencies between individuals and G's. nothing new here.
> 
> ...



The evaluation was quite critical in some areas, but overall said the fighter was very capable; read the conclusion.

Also:
*Nose Wheel Shimmy*
192 ATI-61 C
Nose wheel shimmy on the Me 262 turbojet fighter bomber (in German). Me-262-970, May 1944 = ATI no. 32631
Short report on nose wheel shimmy tests of the German Me 262 (V-9). Report concludes that a definite amplitude (initial deflection), a certain amount of pivotal friction, and a certain taxiing speed must be produced in order to cause shimmy. Theoretically, this means that the nose wheel should be locked completely to prevent shimmy. The maximum wheel deflection during taxiing is 13 to 15 degrees when the critical shimmy speed (about 31 mph) is reached. It is proposed to install a hydraulic damper on the V-9 model.

*Landing Gear Weakness*197 DC-27 C
Fend, Contributions to eliminate the difficulties encountered with the landing gear of the Me 262 (in German). ME-262-148, Oct. 1944 = CADO no. 45 2138-1 = ATI no. 19072
This is a report on measures for prevention of damage to the landing gear of the German Me 262. Results of investigations during flight and on the test field indicated that the shock absorbing qualities of the hydraulic strut heretofore used in the Me 262 are unsatisfactory because of the effect of lateral forces. The latter effects increase the loads above the amount previously expected. As a consequence, damage results due to overloading of the tires, the strut and mounting plates. This overloading can be eliminated by modification of the landing gear (hydraulic pressure, quantities of oil, damping return stroke, fork linkage, wheel drive, etc.). The various types of damage are thoroughly discussed and the probable causes analyzed.

ALERT 


The CFE pilot's report was nothing like as critical as Hans Fey. Read http://www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com/Images/Me262/ME262PILOTDEBRIEF.pdf .... Shocking...

Regards,

Magnon


----------



## Magnon (Mar 10, 2011)

Magnon said:


> The evaluation was quite critical in some areas, but overall said the fighter was very capable; read the conclusion.
> 
> Also:
> *Nose Wheel Shimmy*
> ...



The above URL for the Me 262 defect has been changed.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 10, 2011)

bada said:


> The MK3 was a bad plane , at least bad enough for aerial combat and for it's pilot comfort. Take a look at the 262's cockpit and the meteors Cockpit, just the same as the comparaison between a spitfire's cockpit and the wurger. (i could even use the exemple between the spit and the p51 that also had a nice done cockpit)
> 
> A lot of garbage badly placed in the meteor and everything ergonomicaly and logicaly placed in the 262. If you're a pilot and the airforce gives you bird where the workload to fly the plane is nihil (almost) and another where you have to look in crazy ways to check the instruments, because a lot of them is invisible, in what plane will you fly better?



The Meteor's cockpit was small and cramped but I can assure you that after a few hours flying the aircraft a typical fighter pilot of the day would eventually familiarize himself with the instruments and their locations. In actuality the placement of the instruments were in a "usual location." Engine instruments on the right of the center panel, primary flight instruments in the center, and airspeed and VSI to the left. Center below the main instrument panel is the fuel panel. Power level, fuel control and starting to the left, electrical and radios to the right.

This link has several shots of the cockpit of a MK V which I know did not differ much from the III. Very cramped but there is nothing really misplaced or placed out of the ordinary.

Google Image Result for http://futurshox.net/stamp/planes3/cp-0102-meteor5.jpg




Magnon said:


> The evaluation was quite critical in some areas, but overall said the fighter was very capable; read the conclusion.
> 
> Also:
> *Nose Wheel Shimmy*
> ...


 
A vast majority of aircraft with a NLG experience nose shimmy and even with shimmy dampners installed weight needs to be kept off the nose during high speeds at take off and landing.


----------



## Magnon (Mar 10, 2011)

bada said:


> -The MK3 was a bad plane , at least bad enough for aerial combat and for it's pilot comfort. Take a look at the 262's cockpit and the meteors Cockpit, just the same as the comparaison between a spitfire's cockpit and the wurger. (i could even use the exemple between the spit and the p51 that also had a nice done cockpit)
> A lot of garbage badly placed in the meteor and everything ergonomicaly and logicaly placed in the 262. If you're a pilot and the airforce gives you bird where the workload to fly the plane is nihil (almost) and another where you have to look in crazy ways to check the instruments, because a lot of them is invisible, in what plane will you fly better?


 
You may have forgotten one of my previous posts on flyability, Bada:



Magnon said:


> There couldn’t be a starker example of the contrast between the design of the Me 262 Schwalbe and that of the Meteor than that which existed in the fuel systems. The Meteor’s fuel system was a model of simplicity, and the Schwalbe’s system could only be described as ‘Byzantine,’ to put it kindly. Let’s look at the facts:
> 
> From Me262Wendell
> ...The highest permissible rearward point for the centre of gravity is 30 per cent of the mean aerodynamic wing chord. *If this position is exceeded, then the aircraft becomes unstable about the lateral axis, that is, it does not remain trimmed, but will automatically stall in a turn. Under normal conditions of fuel stowage this position is not exceeded, but it is necessary to watch most carefully the transfer pumping instructions... Watch particularly that the main tanks do not overflow as the J2 fuel will run out into the fuselage and get on the radio equipment which interferes with radio traffic*...​[To say the least...]
> ...




The Me 262 pilot was stuck with what he had on board. The Wendell report was apparently written fairly early on in the development of the aircraft (ca 1944?). Later, as mentioned, to get more range they added an extra tank aft of the rear main tank, making the centre of gravity problem worse.

Well, if you still want to go for the Me 262, you're welcome... but there's more to come, Bada... You may be able to work out where I'm going with regard to spinning and stability (and manoeuvrability).

Regards,

Magnon


----------



## Magnon (Mar 11, 2011)

FLYBOYJ said:


> A vast majority of aircraft with a NLG experience nose shimmy and even with shimmy dampners installed weight needs to be kept off the nose during high speeds at take off and landing.


 
Quote. OK, not necessarily shimmy, but nosewheel nonetheless:
The goal of the Me 262 Project was not to make an identical copy of the original aircraft; some concessions have been inevitable... *The Me 262’s nose gear was notoriously fragile, with the Germans losing many aircraft to nose wheel collapses. Hammer fashioned a brace for the gear that eliminated the problem*.​Stormbird | Military Aviation | Air Space Magazine

Regards,

Magnon


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 11, 2011)

Magnon said:


> Quote. OK, not necessarily shimmy, but nosewheel nonetheless:
> The goal of the Me 262 Project was not to make an identical copy of the original aircraft; some concessions have been inevitable... *The Me 262’s nose gear was notoriously fragile, with the Germans losing many aircraft to nose wheel collapses. Hammer fashioned a brace for the gear that eliminated the problem*.​Stormbird | Military Aviation | Air Space Magazine
> 
> Regards,
> ...


 
The weakness of the NLG is a whole other story. The shimmy, if not dealt with by keeping weight off the nose can potentially cause the strut to fail.


----------



## Magnon (Mar 11, 2011)

He-162

...The call for a Volksjager(people’s ﬁghter) is an astonishing late- war accomplishment that went from drawing board to ﬂight in only three months. This very hurried project (code-named “Salamander”) managed to produce the Heinkel 162, “unique in the history of aviation as the only aircraft in which development, pre-production prototypes and main production lines were started almost simultaneously and proceeded in parallel.” Curious in the design is the location of the jet engine, mounted on top of the fuselage directly above and behind the cockpit; this motivated the installation of a simple ejection seat, reﬂecting that the pilots were more highly valued than the aircraft itself. 

*The aircraft itself was very effective as a ﬁghter interceptor, equalling the Me-262. In some ways it was superior: “The BMW engine proved to be far less sensitive to throttle movments than those of the Me 262, though still prone to ﬂameouts. This allowed the He 162 to be ﬂown up to the limits of the pilot’s conﬁdence in the aircraft, unlike the Me 262 whose engines restricted much in the way of maneuvers.” It was very fast and well armed. However, it had a problem of having a very short ﬂight time of 30 minutes, and many operational losses were due to running out of fuel. *

Despite its rapid development and excellent qualities, it was another case of too little too late for the Luftwaffe. The production program was planned to put out 4,000 aircraft per month, but only a few hundred were in fact produced because of the success of the Allied bombing campaign. Although a very few He-162s did see action over Germany in April 1944, the ﬁghter essentially had no impact on the war. 

il2guide

Galland didn't share in the above regard for the viability of the 162 as an interceptor.

Regards,

Magnon


----------



## Magnon (Mar 13, 2011)

From Galland's "The First and the Last":
...From the beginning I had strongly opposed the Volksjaeger project. In contrast to the creators of this idea, my objections were based on factual reasons such as insufficient performance, range, armament, bad visibilty, and dubious airworthiness. Furthermore I was convinced that this aircraft could not be brought into worthwhile operation before the end of the war..

...The project had one advantage: It was technically quite impossible to hang a bomb under the tiny aircraft and to declare it a Blitz bomber. Compared with the Me 262, the He 162 meant a step _*back*_ward in every way...​
Regards,

Magnon


----------



## drgondog (Mar 14, 2011)

Absent a Vne diagram for both ships, stating velocity vs G load for a specific weight, all discussion about manuever limits are essentially useless. Anecdotal hearsay at best


----------



## Magnon (Mar 14, 2011)

Quote from *Mechanics of Flight *by Kermode:
...Before leaving the subject of manoeuvres we ought to mention that the inertia of an aeroplane - or to be more correct, the moment of inertia of the various parts - will largely determine the ease or otherwise of handling the machine during manoeuvres... Any heavy masses which are a long way from a particular axis of rotation will make it more difficult to cause any rapid movement around the axis; thus engines far out on the wings result in a resistance to rolling about the longitudinal axis; and a long fuselage with large masses well forward or back will mean a resistance in pitching and yawing...​
Or from *Inertia and Maneuverability *

... the time required to go from 1g to 9g may be affected by weight, or more importantly, pitch axis moment of inertia. To go from 1g to 9g requires a change in angle of attack and pitch acceleration, so in general a lighter airplane can reach 9g quicker than a heavy one...

...Also consider that a heavier aircraft with subsequent higher mass moments of inertia will resist maneuvering. Therefore, to get to the 9g level more control forces will be required. This equates to either larger control surfaces or higher control surface deflection. Either produces higher drag. Therefore more thrust is required to maintain energy. Vicious circle...

Lighter is always better, everything else being equal (e.g. the Zero was lighter, but no armor made it highly vulnerable)..​
http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-14686.html

Or from *Fighter Combat*

...Pitch acceleration is dependent on control power and on the aircraft's pitch stability and its inertia. The moment of inertia about the pitch axis is a function of the fighter's weight and its distribution fore and aft about the CG. Increasing total aircraft weight or moving some of this weight farther from the CG either forward or aft tends to increase pitch inertia and reduce pitch acceleration. The position of the CG also has an effect. Aft CG positions usually increase pitch performance by reducing aircraft stability...​
Shaw R. Fighter Combat

Or the same principle applies to sports cars. The purists typically aim for a mid- engined layout. See Porsche will reveal new mid-engine sports car in LA — Autoblog

The ME 262 is obviously inferior to the Meteor in terms of mass distribution (See attachments). The Meteor fuel tanks are located on the normal and lateral axes. The Me 262 well forward and aft of those axes. The light grey tank was added late in the War to extend range. The bottom line here is that the ME 262 pilot was forbidden to carry out aerobatics. 

(OK, it was also partly due to the JUMO tending to flameout or surge during manoeuvres)

Again, quoting from Kermode:

*Aerobatics*

...There are many reasons why aerobatics should be performed in those types of aircraft which are suitable for them. They provide excellent training for accuracy and precision in manoeuvre, and give a feeling of complete mastery of the aircraft, which is invaluable for all combat flying...​
Regards,

Magnon


----------



## Magnon (Mar 17, 2011)

At 850 - 880 m/s the 20 mm Hispano/Oerlikon had much (around 70%) higher muzzle velocity than the 30 mm Mk 108: 
The MK 108's shells dropped a long way compared to a normal 20mm shell at the same range, up to 135 feet in the first 3,300ft of range...a British HS.404 20mm only dropped 24.7 feet in the same distance, and so the Me 262 had to fire from very close or it would miss the target.​http://warbirdsforum.com/showthread.php?t=3702&page=3

It also had a significantly higher rate of fire at 700 rpm as against 650 for the Mk 108.

The Mk 108 was optimised for destroying slow-moving non-manoeuvrable bombers, and it was good at doing that:
The Me-262A-1a was armed with four short-barrelled MK-108 30 millimetre cannon in the nose. The MK-108 was a low-velocity weapon, only a step above an automatic grenade launcher, and in fact its explosive shells were referred to as "mines". However, although they didn't have long range, they had terrific killing power. The top pair of cannon had 100 rounds per gun, while the lower pair had 80 rounds per gun.​The Messerschmitt Me-262 Schwalbe / Sturmvogel

At about 190 shells per cannon, the Meteor's Hispano had around twice the firing time of the Mk 108 of the Me 262 (90 shells per cannon).

Regards,

Magnon


----------



## drgondog (Mar 19, 2011)

Magnon - you are dabbling in aero and energy again. Unless you have the respective moments of Inertia in particularly the roll axis you have no basis of comparison regarding rolling intertia which must be overcome by ailerons.

As to ballistics - the circular error of probability for both guns is absurd at 1000m. I have no idea what your experience is regarding hitting a non-moving target at 1000m but it is a lot easier than shooting down something flying stubbonly in a bouncing environment at 175 -400mph.

Whale away for 300m or less because that is where a/c were shot down.


----------



## Magnon (Mar 19, 2011)

drgondog said:


> Magnon - you are dabbling in aero and energy again. Unless you have the respective moments of Inertia in particularly the roll axis you have no basis of comparison regarding rolling intertia which must be overcome by ailerons.
> 
> As to ballistics - the circular error of probability for both guns is absurd at 1000m. I have no idea what your experience is regarding hitting a non-moving target at 1000m but it is a lot easier than shooting down something flying stubbonly in a bouncing environment at 175 -400mph.
> 
> Whale away for 300m or less because that is where a/c were shot down.



Item 1 - the acid test was Me 262: no aerobatics; Meteor F3: aerobatics OK. That beats all the figures you want to throw at it. And neither you nor I have any figures anyway.

Item 2 - the figure of 1000 m was just to indicate relative fall. Agreed neither was going to be firing at that range if they were smart. 

Regards,

Magnon


----------



## drgondog (Mar 20, 2011)

Magnon said:


> Item 1 - the acid test was Me 262: no aerobatics; Meteor F3: aerobatics OK. That beats all the figures you want to throw at it. And neither you nor I have any figures anyway.
> 
> *All that says is 'no aerobatics', doesn't say 'don't roll because xx yy or zz' . What you don't know is whether the 262 had a decent roll but the airframe experienced intertial coupling because af adverse yaw characteristics at high speeds (as a possible example)..*
> 
> ...


 
And my point is that you have a proclivity to throw 'stuff' on the wall, pose as a knowledgable expert based on other's observations without having the full context of your refwerence quoter or the underlying knowledge to question or caveat what you regurgitate here.

If you are attempting to explain why one ship out rolls another from an engineering standpoint you should understand inertial moments about the symmetric axis of an airplane, have some data to offer lines of possibilities, explore aileron surface, boosted designs, initial aileron resonse and the full effect.

If you want to compare based on flight tests, that's ok, present the comparisons. If you want to illustrate a placard that says 'no aerobatics', explain why the instruction was issued by the manufacturer. If you have evidence of structural failures for all non level flight conditions - tell us what they were and why Messerschmidt couldn't solve it in time.


----------



## Magnon (Mar 20, 2011)

The Me 262 was forbidden from doing deliberate spins. This may have been partly due to the problem of the instability of the engines in terms of flameout and surge, but also due to mass distribution, as discussed above.
“In order to get out of a spin [the pilot] must get it out of the stalled state by putting the nose down, and... stop it rotating by applying “opposite rudder.” (Mechanics of Flight)​In other words, the pilot has to reduce the angle of attack, and hence exit the stall. As Kermode points out, badly designed aircraft don’t have the ability to do that:
“The farther back the centre of gravity, and the more masses that are distributed along the length of the fuselage, the flatter and faster does the spin tend to become and the more difficult it is to recover. This flattening of the spin is due to the centrifugal forces that act on the masses at the various parts of the aircraft.”​(See attachment)
What Happens in a Spin 
...The amount of rotational energy accumulated is critically dependent upon the mass distribution of the aircraft, more mass further from the CoG results in more rotational energy, an aft CoG condition is a typical instance, full wingtip tanks, or a long nose and engine well forward of the CoG are others... Some WW2 fighter aircraft were typical instances and unrecoverable once a spin fully developed...
What Can Go Wrong 
...The sensitivity of the spin to the aerodynamic and mass distribution characteristics of each and every type of aircraft, and the idiosyncrasies of type specific recoveries make the spin a potentially lethal manoeuvre in the hands of the unfamiliar. There are two common ways in which spins and recoveries can go badly wrong. 
The first instance is where the recovery cannot be effected and the aircraft continues spinning until it impacts the ground. Failure to recover a spin may result both from improper technique or pilot disorientation as to the direction of the spin, or from inappropriate choice of aircraft or configuration for the manoeuvre. 
Some aircraft will be reluctant to exit a spin as the effectiveness of their controls will be inadequate to arrest the rotation, as discussed above. This condition may also result from inappropriate loading or filling of tanks, both of which can change the mass distribution to a configuration where more rotational energy (ie having increased the moment of inertia) can be stored in the aircraft, than what the controls can overcome. Some types may not be recoverable, others may take a lot of altitude to recover. This means that several rotations may pass before the rate of rotation is lowered to the point where recovery can be effected, and this must be accounted for in the height budget for the manoeuvre...​Aerobatics - Spinning 
The Me 262 was unstable with full fuel load. See Wendel:
...The highest permissible rearward point for the centre of gravity is 30 per cent of the mean aerodynamic wing chord. If this position is exceeded, then the aircraft becomes unstable about the lateral axis, that is, it does not remain trimmed, but will automatically stall in a turn. Under normal conditions of fuel stowage this position is not exceeded, but it is necessary to watch most carefully the transfer pumping instructions... Watch particularly that the main tanks do not overflow as the J2 fuel will run out into the fuselage and get on the radio equipment which interferes with radio traffic...​http://www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com/Im...E262WendeL.pdf
It has been claimed that this was written relatively early in the war, and the problems had been addressed by the end. On the contrary, in order to get extra range, the Germans added an extra fuel tank aft, which would have exacerbated the CG problem.

When *was* it written?

Regards,

Magnon


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 20, 2011)

There were many WW2 fighters that were prohibited from intentional spins. The P-38 and P-39 are two I know off the top of my head.


----------



## Magnon (Mar 20, 2011)

drgondog said:


> And my point is that you have a proclivity to throw 'stuff' on the wall, pose as a knowledgable expert based on other's observations without having the full context of your refwerence quoter or the underlying knowledge to question or caveat what you regurgitate here.
> 
> If you are attempting to explain why one ship out rolls another from an engineering standpoint you should understand inertial moments about the symmetric axis of an airplane, have some data to offer lines of possibilities, explore aileron surface, boosted designs, initial aileron resonse and the full effect.
> 
> If you want to compare based on flight tests, that's ok, present the comparisons. If you want to illustrate a placard that says 'no aerobatics', explain why the instruction was issued by the manufacturer. If you have evidence of structural failures for all non level flight conditions - tell us what they were and why Messerschmidt couldn't solve it in time.



Nobody's going to be able to put test figures up. But wait, maybe you could... You said you were going to dig out your old test reports that you had filed away...? Any luck?

Until then, I return to Kermode... 
...*There are many reasons why aerobatics should be performed in those types of aircraft which are suitable for them.* *They provide excellent training for accuracy and precision in manoeuvre, and give a feeling of complete mastery of the aircraft, which is invaluable for all combat flying*...

Have you any problems with that?

By the way, I have never posed as a knowledgeable expert on anything... As I recall, I said I was not qualified to sweep the floors of the Skunkworks...

Regards,

Magnon


----------



## Magnon (Mar 20, 2011)

FLYBOYJ said:


> There were many WW2 fighters that were prohibited from intentional spins. The P-38 and P-39 are two I know off the top of my head.



Neither were considered great dogfighters, surely...?

Regards,

Magnon


----------



## Shortround6 (Mar 21, 2011)

Actually the Russians liked the P-39 for air to air combat and Chuck Yeager said he would take on anybody in anything with a P-39 as long as it was 100ft or so (or words to that effect?) A spin at low altitude usually being fatal.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 21, 2011)

Magnon said:


> Neither were considered great dogfighters, surely...?
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Magnon


 
They weren't - but having flown in simulated air to air combat I can tell you that the ability to spin is useless in most if not all scenarios.


----------



## drgondog (Mar 21, 2011)

Magnon said:


> Nobody's going to be able to put test figures up. But wait, maybe you could... You said you were going to dig out your old test reports that you had filed away...? Any luck?
> 
> *I posted most of the USAAF 1946 test at Dayton on this forum but it was a hand typed reprint of the test report. I'll see if I can locate it here, then dig into my unpacked files if I can't find it. *
> 
> ...


 
Posing or expounding - there is a difference?


----------



## drgondog (Mar 21, 2011)

Magnon said:


> Neither were considered great dogfighters, surely...?
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Magnon


 
The P-39 and P-38 (and P-51) were far greater 'dogfighters' than either the Meteor or the Me 262 - did that make them superior fighters? No.

The I-16 was extremely maueverable - did this make it superior to the Me 262 with manuever placard? No.

The MiG 17 and 19 could outroll, out turn an F4 and F8U . Better fighters?


----------



## Magnon (Mar 22, 2011)

drgondog said:


> The P-39 and P-38 (and P-51) were far greater 'dogfighters' than either the Meteor or the Me 262 - did that make them superior fighters? No.
> 
> The I-16 was extremely maueverable - did this make it superior to the Me 262 with manuever placard? No.
> 
> The MiG 17 and 19 could outroll, out turn an F4 and F8U . Better fighters?



The Me 262 as a fighter:
QUOTE: *“The unit was designed to kill US/RAF bombers not engage in a hand to hand struggle in the air with opposing fighters............. look how wide the turns were of the 262 allowing Allied fighters to close within and deal the lethal blows.*”​Erich the Old Sage

Me 262 as a bomber:
Galland says that due to lousy visibilty and lack of airbrakes, the Me 262 was lucky to drop a bomb within the right zip code (or on a small town):

*"...At last, in August, 1944, the first Blitz bombers went into action against the Allied invasion army, but the chances of success had now become meagre because of the Allied advance. During these actions a few bombs were dropped daily somewhere on enemy territory. Very rarely was one able to say what, if anything, they had hit, or with what result*..."​
The Meteor had a good multi-role capability, far better reliabilty, and was much more rugged.

Regards,

Magnon


----------



## Glider (Mar 22, 2011)

Magnon said:


> The Meteor had a good multi-role capability, far better reliabilty, and was much more rugged.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Magnon


 
Plus of course the Meteor was 100mph slower in a dive and about 60mph slower in a straight line. A small but important point that hasn't been mentioned in a while.


----------



## parsifal (Mar 22, 2011)

oh my....there is a saying that seems very appropriate at this point....there are none so blind as those that will not listen.....


----------



## Magnon (Mar 22, 2011)

Glider said:


> Plus of course the Meteor was 100mph slower in a dive and about 60mph slower in a straight line. A small but important point that hasn't been mentioned in a while.



The Me 262 was rated for 540 mph. The RAE and US got well-maintained aircraft up to 525 - 529 mph after the war. The minimum acceptance criteria was 515 mph (ref Hans Fey). There was more like a 40 mph margin, *at best*. 

Getting the aircraft to fly was a real lottery:
The Jumo 004 would prove to be the source of the Me 262's greatest weakness. The turbojet was at this time still in it's infancy and many technological hurdles had to be overcome... In some cases, a brand new engine would suffer catastrophic failure during initial run-up. Even engines that worked right had a very short operational life. Most would only last for 12 hours of operation. On many occasions, pilots were forced to land with one or both engines out.​Messerschmitt Me 262 Schwalbe "Swallow"

In terms of diving:
[Hans Fey, Messerschmitt test pilot and technical inspector] says that the structural workmanship on the Me 262 is not as good as that on the Me 109. When testing the Me 262, it was not infrequent for parts to be stripped off in fast, steep dives and Fey has himself lost cockpit covers, bomb racks and the needle valve [read variable area nozzle] of the tail pipe during dives. In fact, because of these uncertainties, the pilots rarely did a roll or similar maneuver during acceptance flights...​Me262pilotdebrief

Go right ahead and dive...

Regards,

Magnon


----------



## Magnon (Mar 23, 2011)

Magnon said:


> The Me 262 was rated for 540 mph. The RAE and US got well-maintained aircraft up to 525 - 529 mph after the war. The minimum acceptance criteria was 515 mph (ref Hans Fey). There was more like a 40 mph margin, *at best*.



The Me 262 Pilot's Handbook gives maximum level flight speed as 830 km/hr *(515 mph).*
Source: (1946) No. F-SU-1111-ND ME-262 A-1 Pilot's Handbook

This brings the speed differential down to practically zero, after other factors such as the Meteor's much superior acceleration and reliability are factored in.

Regards,

Magnon


----------



## drgondog (Mar 23, 2011)

Magnon - the 'handbook' was developed by USAAF test pilots Post War. I suspect that the handbook limitations were solely incorporated to ensure a safe margin to make sure the captured 262 was available for sustained test purposes at Wright Pat.

As long as you are quoting Fey, recall that 515mph was Minimum acceptance limit level flight from factory... and that the test pilots were not interested in finding the airframe limits for very scarce, non-replacable, aircraft.


----------



## renrich (Mar 23, 2011)

For what it is worth, one of the "great" fighters of WW2, indeed one of the great piston engined fighters of all time was prohibited from intentional spinning. The F4U Corsair!


----------



## drgondog (Mar 23, 2011)

Ditto the Mustang


----------



## parsifal (Mar 23, 2011)

for what its worth, which isnt much, my opinion remains that both these aircraft were pioneers and achieved greatness because of that. But I remain unconvinced that the meteor was superior to the 262. RAAF Meteors had a great deal of trouble dealing with MiG-15s in Korea, which i think conceptually was derived from the 262. It perhaps symbolises what the German design might have been capable of, if it had been allowed to progress beyond surrender


----------



## Magnon (Mar 23, 2011)

parsifal said:


> for what its worth, which isnt much, my opinion remains that both these aircraft were pioneers and achieved greatness because of that. But I remain unconvinced that the meteor was superior to the 262. RAAF Meteors had a great deal of trouble dealing with MiG-15s in Korea, which i think conceptually was derived from the 262. It perhaps symbolises what the German design might have been capable of, if it had been allowed to progress beyond surrender



I think it's drawing a rather long bow, Parsifal, to say that the Mig 15 was conceptually derived from the Me 262. They had very little in common, surely: 
Single engine vs two on the wings
Slatless vs slats
Cockpit well forward vs cockpit well back in the middle of the fuselage
Airbrakes vs no airbrakes​
The Meteor lost five vs. three confirmed and two probable Migs. The rules for the Meteor pilots were that the claimant had to watch the enemy actually impact the ground. Hardly practical when the odds were sometimes thirty Migs to eight Meteors.

In addition to that, the Migs had British Nene jet engines, a more powerful version of the Derwent. 

Regards,

Magnon


----------



## Magnon (Mar 24, 2011)

parsifal said:


> for what its worth, which isnt much, my opinion remains that both these aircraft were pioneers and achieved greatness because of that. But I remain unconvinced that the meteor was superior to the 262. RAAF Meteors had a great deal of trouble dealing with MiG-15s in Korea, which i think conceptually was derived from the 262. It perhaps symbolises what the German design might have been capable of, if it had been allowed to progress beyond surrender



I would concede (and have done) that the Me 262 was the better bomber destroyer. That was what it was needed for. 

The Meteor was a better multi-role aircraft.

Regards,

Magnon


----------



## parsifal (Mar 24, 2011)

Hi magnon

With regard to meteor combats in Korea, No. 77 sqn re-equipped with the type at the end of May 1951. The combats that i know of were as follows. 29 august 1951, eight meteors tangled with just six migs, losing A77-721. There were no losses to the Migs. on 12 December 1951, 12 meteors were bounced by 45 Migs claimimg two migs downed, but losing three meteors in the process. According to Parnell Lynch (Australian Air Force since 1911) , "having been outclassed by the Migs as afighter, the squadron converted to the ground attack role". That hardly supports what you are trying to say that it was comparable to the MiG as a fighter. The history goes on to say "by 27 July 1953, after no 77 sqn had been on active service for 3 years, it had flown 4836 missions (18872 individual sorties) destroying 3700 buildings 1500 vehicles 3 Mig 15s, and three propeller driven aircraft for the loss of forty two pilots, thirty two pilots in the meteor".

this is hardly a ringing endorsement of the meteor as a fighter, and in fact helps to explain why, having just received the meteor into service in 1951, the australian government almost immedialtey thereafter took steps to manufacture the Avon Sabre> it was our lack of success in the designed role of the meteor that led to its relatively early replacement. as for your comment that the 262 was a bomber destroyer, where on earth do you get that from. thats like saying the phantom was primarily a bomber destroyer because it wasnt so good at dogfighting. it was in fact a superior fighter versus fighter aircraft, as its experiences over a 25 year frontline service record attests. the same can be said about the me 262. Just because it might not be so good at a horizontal dogfight, does not mean it did not have a lot of potential as a fighter. ill bet the house that if the WWII jockeys that had to fight this bird were around, they would completely disagree with you. I will bet they would say something like 'the 262 was a helluva fighter', instead of blathering on about all its weaknesses.

im about as pr-allied as they come, but i really dont like allied propaganda anymore than the pro-german stuff


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 24, 2011)

Magnon said:


> The Meteor was a better multi-role aircraft.



I have not really posted in this thread, but I have been reading it with much enthusiasm, but I have not seen how this has been shown.



parsifal said:


> instead of blathering on about all its weaknesses.



It is very easy to prove ones point when one only shows the strengths of "Aircraft A" and the weaknesses of "Aircraft B".


----------



## Magnon (Mar 25, 2011)

parsifal said:


> Hi magnon
> 
> With regard to meteor combats in Korea, No. 77 sqn re-equipped with the type at the end of May 1951. The combats that i know of were as follows. 29 august 1951, eight meteors tangled with just six migs, losing A77-721. There were no losses to the Migs. on 12 December 1951, 12 meteors were bounced by 45 Migs claimimg two migs downed, but losing three meteors in the process. According to Parnell Lynch (Australian Air Force since 1911) , "having been outclassed by the Migs as afighter, the squadron converted to the ground attack role". That hardly supports what you are trying to say that it was comparable to the MiG as a fighter. The history goes on to say "by 27 July 1953, after no 77 sqn had been on active service for 3 years, it had flown 4836 missions (18872 individual sorties) destroying 3700 buildings 1500 vehicles 3 Mig 15s, and three propeller driven aircraft for the loss of forty two pilots, thirty two pilots in the meteor".
> 
> ...



I didn't say it was comparable as a fighter to the MiG. I just said it got similar results in the dogfights. There is a subtle difference.

It was 100 mph slower after all and had much higher moment of inertia around the roll axis. That's a lot of disadvantage to make up. 

Its advantages were better acceleration and smaller turn radius.

Regards,

Magnon


----------



## pbfoot (Mar 26, 2011)

The only reason the Meteor had such a long lifespan as a 1st line fighter is the Brits had nothing to replace it with ,it wasn't until the Hunter that they had a reasonable aircraft. It had rubbish range and a very poor safety record


----------



## Magnon (Mar 26, 2011)

"...Skepticism is a virtue in history as well as in philosophy..."

Napoleon Bonaparte​
Read more: Virtue Quotes Page 2 - BrainyQuote


----------



## Maximowitz (Mar 27, 2011)

A virtue? 100% essential.


----------



## Rivet (Mar 28, 2011)

The Messerschmitt's Junkers engines were the limiting factor in flight parameter, not the airframe, unless one is referring to the night fighter conversion of a few.


----------



## pbfoot (Mar 28, 2011)

has one ever seen a affluent or employed philosopher . The Meteor was junk , but as stated before they had nothing to replace it


----------



## parsifal (Mar 28, 2011)

I dont kow that it was junk PB, buts its a real stretch to say that the Meteor was superior to the Me 262, or that the Me-262 was somehow not effective in fighter vesrus fighter combat. I'll concede that the me 262 showed great promise, but in the context of the war failed to deliver. This as hardly a fault of the design, it was the product of the circumstances that the type was pushed into at the end of the war


----------



## Magnon (Apr 3, 2011)

Will Rogers said: “It’s not what we don’t know that gives us trouble; it’s what we know that ain’t so.”


----------



## pattern14 (Jul 15, 2013)

After reading this very extensive thread, it seems that everything that could have been said, has been. And lots of stuff rehashed and rephrased as well. Facts are usually more important than "what if" scenarios, so thought I would throw a few in. The Germans achieved lots of early milestones; first officially recognised jet flight, first twin jet aircraft, first jet fighter, first manned rocket interceptor, first single engined jet fighter, fastest fighter, first jet bomber etc etc etc. The Me 262 was the worlds first operational Jet fighter ( interceptor for the purists), produced the first jet aces, and achieved far more combat kills than any other first generation Jet. The first jet bomber with a jet fighter escort ( Ar234's with 262's covering). The P80 achieved nothing operationally during WW2, and the meteor only claimed V1's, hardly a combat situation. They were made from poor quality materials by semi skilled workers, under the most appalling conditions. Pilot training and development of tactics were crisis management at best, and maintainence and field communication were little better. You can argue thrust versus roll rate until you are blue in the face, but the Me 262 shot down hundreds of allied aircraft while being totally out numbered by better built and better maintained aircraft, flown by better trained pilots. This fact, regardless of comparison and interpretation, remains.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 15, 2013)

AFAIK the 262 "claimed" just over 700 aircraft of all types. It did operate in a target rich environment. Your points taken but it was still too little too late (preaching to the choir).


----------



## pattern14 (Jul 15, 2013)

All too true.....no amount of 262's could have changed the outcome, as there was too much else that was lost. As for kill claims and tallies, it really varies quite wildly, from between @180 "confirmed", to over 700 claimed. Still a lot more than either the P80, Vampire, or Meteor put together. First Jet V jet damage recorded was a squadron of Meteors that had a couple of planes damaged when their Belgian airbase was bombed by Arado Ar234's....if you want to be really pedantic.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 15, 2013)

You could also claim the first "jet on jet" action was the Meteor intercepting the V1...


----------



## pattle (Jul 21, 2013)

I haven't read all this thread because I don't think we will ever know what was the better out of the Me262 or Meteor, as with most of these kind of comparisons there are too many factors to weigh up. The one thing I will say is that the Me262 does look more like a modern jet fighter but I'm not sure how much that counts for, perhaps I'm thinking the Me262 had more development potential than the Meteor. As the Me262 wasn't allowed to carry on in development for as long as the Meteor then maybe it is easier compare the Meteor to the Shooting Star? I know the Shooting Star is looked upon as a post war aircraft but it was of the same generation having been developed during the war. Also I have heard that the Americans rushed some Shooting Stars over to Italy to deal with a Arado 234 recon plane that their Mustangs couldn't catch but I don't know the facts behind this.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 21, 2013)

The Me262 was produced after the war by Avia (Czech) as the S-92 and CS-92 and served with them until about 1950-1951, while the existing Me262s were grabbed up by the Allies for testing and evaluation. Willy Messerschmitt intended to upgrade the Me262 and was in the process of doing so at war's end. If the war had drug on, it would have seen a much cleaner design produced though performance would still rely heavily on the quality of the engines.

The P-80 never saw combat in WWII despite rumors of "chasing" Ar234s and such. The first Shooting Stars in the ETO were actually grounded for a while because of problems.
The first ones arrived in England (and Italy) in January of 1945 and eventually a total of 83 were stationed in Europe by war's end.

Personally, I like the P-59 better than the P-80, but that's based more on looks than performance


----------



## Erich (Jul 21, 2013)

Ar 234's in Italia under Sommer : see here on this site

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/ar-234-losses-5230.html


----------



## Erich (Jul 21, 2013)

speaking if Italy there was even a small band of ar 234's flying missions at night so don't expect any Allied NF to catch these, bad enough that the Widows of the 422 and 425th nfs couldn't in the ETO // 262's and mis-Iding them in the fall of 44 when Kommando Welter was not even an existing unit let alone in the 9th AF sector of operations ............


----------



## awack (Jul 26, 2013)

Average speed of me 262.. 542 mph average speed of meteor 3.. 472 mph.

Me 262 being a much better diver having the best tact mach number of any operational ww2 fighter, if I remember correctly, the me 262 was faster in horizontal flight at some altitudes than the Meteor3 could dive safely.

The Meteor 3 from every thing ive read had a very poor roll at medium and high speeds, The me 262 could roll at 400 mph at 5000 ft in 3.8 secs, which was faster than the fw 190.

Equal climb but the me 262 should have much better zoom climb.

No direct comparison was made that im aware of but I would put my money on the me 262 maintaining its speed in turns, one pilot said that the me 262 held its speed better than the p80a in turns which itself maintained its speed better that piston engine fighters.

me 262 had a range of 652 miles at 30.000 ft the meteor 3 had a range of just under 600 miles with the addition of an external 180 gallon tank.

Me 262 had devastating firepower especially when it came to twin engine and four engine aircraft with its 4x30mm cannons with mine shells and 24 r4m air to air rockets, but the meteor had an excellent package with its 4x 20mm cannons.

I believe from what ive read that the Meteor had worse snaking at speed than the me 262

The meteor had a higher ceiling and had much lighter wing loading

Of course there are other things such as engine reliability, cockpit layout and view etc, but from what I have written the me 262 in a whole other league from the Meteor.


----------



## parsifal (Jul 31, 2013)

Not sure where all those figures are from, and some details i simply dont have the data for, but the account or analysis looks dodgy to me

Average speed of the meteor was not 472mph. In fact I dont even understand what is being implied here.

The most numerous subtype of the meteor was the F8, which had the following characteristics

Performance
Maximum speed: 600 mph (522 knots, 965 km/h, Mach 0.82) at 10,000 ft (3,050 m)
Range: 600 mi (522 nmi, 965 km)
Service ceiling: 43,000 ft (13,100 m)
Rate of climb: 7,000 ft/min (35.6 m/s)
Wing loading: 44.9 lb/ft² (149 kg/m²)
Thrust/weight: 0.45

Time to altitude: 5.0 min to 30,000 ft (9,145 m)

Armament

Guns: 4 × 20 mm British Hispano cannons
Rockets: Provision for up to sixteen "60lb" 3 in rockets or eight 5 in HVAR rockets. under outer wings
Bombs: two 1000 lb (454 kg) bombs


Performance
Maximum speed: 900 km/h (559 mph)
Range: 1,050 km (652 mi)
Service ceiling: 11,450 m (37,565 ft)
Rate of climb: 1,200 m/min (At max weight of 7,130 kg) (3,900 ft/min)
Thrust/weight: 0.28

Armament

Guns: 4 × 30 mm MK 108 cannons (A-2a: two cannons)
Rockets: 24 × 55 mm (2.2 in) R4M rockets
Bombs: 2 × 250 kg (550 lb) bombs or 2 × 500 kg (1,100 lb) bombs (A-2a only)


Service record

Me 262 1400 produced. shot down about 150 enemy aircraft. maximum force on operations about 200

Meteor, about 3900 produced. Operational deployment about 45 aircraft during the war. Shot down about 40 V1s, never really engaged in air combat role.
During Korea, 77 sqn of the RAAF had mixed success with its F-8s. Destroyed at least 15 MIG-15s, but lost about 4 or 5 in return. Also shot up about 60 other aircraft, including a anumber on the ground. My opinion, Meteor was a more effective FB with heavier bombload and more effective ordinance, carrying napalm equipped HVAR but that is a little unfair, as the meteor had another 5 years to develop its apability


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 31, 2013)

parsifal said:


> My opinion, Meteor was a more effective FB with heavier bombload and more effective ordinance, carrying napalm equipped HVAR but that is a little unfair, as the meteor had another 5 years to develop its apability


Be interesting to see how the Avia S-92 developed after the war, since the Czechs built and operated it until the early 50's, though I'm pretty sure it never fired a shot in anger. There should be some service data regarding it's use during those 12 years.


----------



## Jabberwocky (Aug 1, 2013)

Some selected Me 262 information from the 1947 US handling tests:



> Cruise speed: 465 mph
> Stall speed: 112-125 mph
> Flight duration: 45-50 minutes at low altitude, 60-90 minutes at high altitude
> Thrust: 1980 lb per engine
> ...


----------



## cimmex (Aug 1, 2013)

parsifal said:


> Not sure where all those figures are from, and some details i simply dont have the data for, but the account or analysis looks dodgy to me
> 
> Average speed of the meteor was not 472mph. In fact I dont even understand what is being implied here.
> 
> ...


The Meteor F-8 is a 1950 onwards plane. No clue, why you compare such data against a plane from 1944/45. The plane in the same timeframe was the Meteor MkIII and the data presented by “awack” looks reasonable.
cimmex


----------



## parsifal (Aug 1, 2013)

cimmex said:


> The Meteor F-8 is a 1950 onwards plane. No clue, why you compare such data against a plane from 1944/45. The plane in the same timeframe was the Meteor MkIII and the data presented by “awack” looks reasonable.
> cimmex



nope. the topicdoesnt say any of what you are claiming. Its meteor v me 262. not meteor (1944) vs me 262(anytime). i can say Me 262 9anytime) becaause even in 1950 the czechs were still building (or using) their version of the 262, the s-92


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 1, 2013)

If it were the other way around though (comparing a 1950 Axis plane to a 1944 Allied plane), people would be rioting.

Pointing out the forum norm. Just saying...


----------



## cimmex (Aug 1, 2013)

No comment to parcifal’s statement, this is simply ridiculous.
cimmex


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 1, 2013)

What's ridiculous, is comparing a post war airframe to one that ceased production before the war ended. Wouldn't you suppose that creates an imbalanced evaluation?

How about if I compared the Meteor to a MiG-21 and concluded that the Meteor was a pile of crap because it simply could not perform nearly as well as the MiG?


----------



## parsifal (Aug 1, 2013)

But the Meteor did perform against the mig. not the mig-21, but it did fly against the mig 15 (and possibly the Mig-17, and shot down, from one squadron, 15 of them. The MiG 15 was, in my opinion a superior aircraft to the Me 262. If the Meteor can better the Mig, it can better the 262.

If you were to say this is an illdefined topic, to the point of it being silly, I would agree. thats whats ridiculous. But what Im debating is the topic, nothing more, nothing less. On the basis of the topic parameters alone, not trying to introduce my own biases, or what I think the topic should be, the Meteor was a superior aircraft, with the runs on the board to prove it

Next time, more thought might go into the topic parameters........and people wont make spurious claims


----------



## Juha (Aug 1, 2013)

parsifal said:


> But the Meteor did perform against the mig. not the mig-21, but it did fly against the mig 15 (and possibly the Mig-17, and shot down, from one squadron, 15 of them. The MiG 15 was, in my opinion a superior aircraft to the Me 262. If the Meteor can better the Mig, it can better the 262...



Hello Parsifal!
Where? Not in Korea, there Mig-15s won 5 to 2.

Juha


----------



## awack (Aug 1, 2013)

Im only comparing aircraft that would have fought against each other, I used the best version of the Meteor that would have done so, the Meteor Mk III which I believe entered service in early 45, the Meteor 1 being slower than the best piston engine fighters of the time which entered service around the same time as the me 262.

Any way the data I posted like speed are from actual testing of production fighters and not estimates.


----------



## parsifal (Aug 2, 2013)

awack said:


> Im only comparing aircraft that would have fought against each other, I used the best version of the Meteor that would have done so, the Meteor Mk III which I believe entered service in early 45, the Meteor 1 being slower than the best piston engine fighters of the time which entered service around the same time as the me 262.
> 
> Any way the data I posted like speed are from actual testing of production fighters and not estimates.



Where in the thread topic does it say we absolutely have to pick wartime figures and be selective as to dates. I can only repeat what i have already pointed out. its Meteor versus Me 262, not Meteor MkIII vs Me 262, (the best figures I can find). We cant even say the me 262 was not contemporary to the F8. It was being built at the same time.

Much of what is being touted around here as fact is simply the post war hype that the Germans managed to manufacture after the surrender which also suited their American captors. The Me 262 was junk in my opinion, whereas the meteor was a much more sober, measured, and ultimately successful type that deserves far more credit than it ever gets recognition for. Thems the breaks I guess.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## parsifal (Aug 2, 2013)

Juha said:


> Hello Parsifal!
> Where? Not in Korea, there Mig-15s won 5 to 2.
> 
> Juha



Im quoting 77 sqn combat results

http://aces.safarikovi.org/victories/victories-united.nations-korean.war.air.to.air.victories.pdf

and

Jan J. Safarik: Air Aces Home Page


----------



## Juha (Aug 2, 2013)

It seems they in reality got only 3, of which only one was flown by a Soviet pilot.

Juha


----------



## renegate326 (Nov 17, 2013)

No contest here M262 was designed for a jet engine, and the Gloster Meteor was pretty much a jet engine on a propeller body.


----------



## Airframes (Nov 17, 2013)

Eh?
It's obvious from your other, seemingly biased posts, that you have a preference fro anything not British, which is your priviledge - each to their own choice. But to say the Meteor was a 'propeller body', when it was the first British aircraft designed for production and service, to accept Whittle's developed engine is ridiculous!


----------



## Njaco (Nov 17, 2013)

No worries Parsifal - he makes up his own 'facts' to fit his bias.


----------



## GrauGeist (Nov 17, 2013)

Perhaps I might point out here, that the Me262 first flew with a nose-mounted piston engine and...yes, that's right, a propellor attached to that piston engine...

So now what?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Nov 18, 2013)

renegate326 said:


> No contest here M262 was designed for a jet engine, and the Gloster Meteor was pretty much a jet engine on a propeller body.



Strangely enough, when the Meteor was modified to test the Trent turbo prop its landing gear had to be lengthened, even though the props were quite small 97ft 7in diameter).


----------



## Njaco (Nov 19, 2013)



Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## parsifal (Nov 20, 2013)

I got as bit excited in this thread. Ive had some time to reconsider this debate. Truth is, both aircraft were impressive results of aircraft engineering. Both aircraft were effective, or could have been effective designs, and both aircraft had a profound effect on aircraft design and development

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Nov 20, 2013)

What I found fascinating, was how the early jets were developed when powered flight was literally only several decades old.

Today's designs look similiar because of modern aerodynamic applications but those early jets were as unique and individual as an aircraft can get.

High wing, low wing, elliptical wing, inadvertant swept wing, straight wing...only thing better than looking at these jet pioneers would be visiting an antique automobile museum!


----------



## GrauGeist (Nov 20, 2013)

What I found fascinating, was how the early jets were developed when powered flight was literally only several decades old.

Today's designs look similiar because of modern aerodynamic applications but those early jets were as unique and individual as an aircraft can get.

High wing, low wing, elliptical wing, inadvertant swept wing, straight wing...only thing better than looking at these jet pioneers would be visiting an antique automobile museum!


----------



## pattern14 (Nov 26, 2013)

After reading this thread from start to finish, the Me 262 gets my vote easily over the meteor. Even the off topics were interesting. I still maintain the Arado Ar234 was the most underated jet aircraft produced though.


----------



## Njaco (Nov 26, 2013)

I agree. MY OPINION has always been that the 234 was just slightly better than the 262. I have no facts or source material - just my opinion.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Nov 26, 2013)

Over on Sunny's thread he has a longish video on the Bell Airacomet and GE turbine that took to the skies in 1942. Well worth watching ..


----------



## pattern14 (Nov 27, 2013)

Njaco said:


> I agree. MY OPINION has always been that the 234 was just slightly better than the 262. I have no facts or source material - just my opinion.


 There a number of good publications on this aircraft, as well as the usual urban myth and misinformation stuff. The Ar234 was always overshadowed by the other WW2 jets, particularly the 262. Be good to start a thread on it so we could gather as much accurate data as possible.....maybe someone else out there has good resources to offer ( hint, hint).


----------



## pattern14 (Nov 27, 2013)

Airframes said:


> Eh?
> It's obvious from your other, seemingly biased posts, that you have a preference fro anything not British, which is your priviledge - each to their own choice. But to say the Meteor was a 'propeller body', when it was the first British aircraft designed for production and service, to accept Whittle's developed engine is ridiculous!


 I've actually read that before, but so far it remains unsubstantiated. The well known Military Historical/aviation author, Christopher Chant , says as much in his book, "The Nazi War Machine". In the section on the Luftwaffe, Chant says that the Meteor was merely a prop driven aircraft re-designed for jet turbines, and "wholly inferior" to the Me 262, which he states was "a generation ahead ". I don't know his source of information, or where he would have any historical data on that. Interesting note on the 262 being prop powered in the V1 for flight testing though. The heinkel He 280, the worlds first jet fighter, was making pure jet flights BEFORE the much vaunted 262 was even airborne on its prop motor. It also flew before the experimental Gloster Whittle, and had the nose armament mock up completed, the ejector seat had already been used in flight ( saving the pilot), and was only really hampered by the delay in turbine readiness. Of course, it was shelved for political and technical reasons in favour of the 262, and the rest is history. If the Nazi's had had the foresight to steal Sir Franks Derwent engines in 1941, things may have been different. I just thought of a great plot for a movie......Gestapo agents infiltrating the secret British laboratories, smuggling the plans and scientists aboard a U-boat, beautiful blonde German spy etc.etc.....


----------



## parsifal (Nov 27, 2013)

I lost the plot at the mention of the blonde

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## parsifal (Nov 27, 2013)

Its a non-sequita argument. Presumably the criticsm relating to the Meteor relates to its unswept wing geometry. Does that mean also aircraft like the F 104, A-10, SU25, Canberra, Venom, Sea Venom, Vampire are also not aircraft designed for jet engines, simply because they dont have swept wings. Come on, think about how ridiculous that line of argument actually is. Fair enough the 262 was a better design, but really, the meteor was not a significant design as well??? come on....


----------



## wuzak (Nov 27, 2013)

pattern14 said:


> I've actually read that before, but so far it remains unsubstantiated. The well known Military Historical/aviation author, Christopher Chant , says as much in his book, "The Nazi War Machine". In the section on the Luftwaffe, Chant says that the Meteor was merely a prop driven aircraft re-designed for jet turbines, and "wholly inferior" to the Me 262, which he states was "a generation ahead ". I don't know his source of information, or where he would have any historical data on that. Interesting note on the 262 being prop powered in the V1 for flight testing though. The heinkel He 280, the worlds first jet fighter, was making pure jet flights BEFORE the much vaunted 262 was even airborne on its prop motor. It also flew before the experimental Gloster Whittle, and had the nose armament mock up completed, the ejector seat had already been used in flight ( saving the pilot), and was only really hampered by the delay in turbine readiness. Of course, it was shelved for political and technical reasons in favour of the 262, and the rest is history. If the Nazi's had had the foresight to steal Sir Franks Derwent engines in 1941, things may have been different. I just thought of a great plot for a movie......Gestapo agents infiltrating the secret British laboratories, smuggling the plans and scientists aboard a U-boat, beautiful blonde German spy etc.etc.....



I had to check a couple of claims. The He 280 did, indeed, fly before the Gloster E.28/39. The He 280 fly as a glider in 1940, and powered flight in March 1941. The E.28/39 flew in May 1941. 

A couple of problems with your espionage plan. First is that if they looked for drawings of an engine with the name Derwent in 1941 they would have not found any - they were a couple of years too early, and would be looking in the wrong company's drawing cabinet. The second is that German spies didn't get very far in England during WW2, mostly being captured on, or shortly after, arrival.


----------



## cimmex (Nov 28, 2013)

IMO the E28/39 should be compared to the He178 which already flew in august 1939.
cimmex


----------



## FalkeEins (Nov 28, 2013)

parsifal said:


> for what its worth, which isnt much, my opinion remains that both these aircraft were pioneers and achieved greatness because of that. But I remain unconvinced that the meteor was superior to the 262. RAAF Meteors had a great deal of trouble dealing with MiG-15s in Korea, which i think conceptually was derived from the 262. It perhaps symbolises what the German design might have been capable of, if it had been allowed to progress beyond surrender



you're thinking of Kurt Tank's Ta 183 (for the MiG 15) ..but not according to Yefim Gordon.
As to 'progress beyond surrender', the French tested the Me 262 and the BMW engines extensively through 46-47 when trying to re-establish their own aero industries. They could easily have put the Me 262 back into service - but of course neither the design nor the engines were 'mature' enough. ( the 003s did though lead to the ATAR - 'R' for Richenbach - a BMW facility) But the pilots at the CEV (Centre d'essais en Vol - flight test centre) didn't like the Me 262 and the French chose not to take the Me 262 any further - like the Russians they bought the RR Nene...


----------



## pattern14 (Nov 28, 2013)

wuzak said:


> I had to check a couple of claims. The He 280 did, indeed, fly before the Gloster E.28/39. The He 280 fly as a glider in 1940, and powered flight in March 1941. The E.28/39 flew in May 1941.
> 
> A couple of problems with your espionage plan. First is that if they looked for drawings of an engine with the name Derwent in 1941 they would have not found any - they were a couple of years too early, and would be looking in the wrong company's drawing cabinet. The second is that German spies didn't get very far in England during WW2, mostly being captured on, or shortly after, arrival.


 The Gestapo agents were already in place, and the Blonde would have romanced the information out of the be-spectacled and bumbling scientist ( therefore looking in the right drawer). How can anyone argue with logic like that????


----------



## pattern14 (Nov 28, 2013)

FalkeEins said:


> you're thinking of Kurt Tank's Ta 183 (for the MiG 15) ..but not according to Yefim Gordon.
> As to 'progress beyond surrender', the French tested the Me 262 and the BMW engines extensively through 46-47 when trying to re-establish their own aero industries. They could easily have put the Me 262 back into service - but of course neither the design nor the engines were 'mature' enough. ( the 003s did though lead to the ATAR - 'R' for Richenbach - a BMW facility) But the pilots at the CEV (Centre d'essais en Vol - flight test centre) didn't like the Me 262 and the French chose not to take the Me 262 any further - like the Russians they bought the RR Nene...


Although it has been often suggested ( and stated) that the Mig 15 is a further development of the Ta 183, it is more of a superficial resemblance. The F-86 Sabre owes more to the Me 262 ( with some original me 262 parts actually fitted to the prototype), than does the Mig. The Argentinian "Pulqui" was the direct descendant of Kurt Tanks' design, and was something of a flop. It actually got to fire a couple of shots in anger, but with little other claim to fame. It was overlooked in favour of battle proven second hand Sabres. There is a resemblance to the Mk 3 version of the Ta 183, but that is about it, and the Russians have always claimed that it was an indigenous design. On the other hand, the Russians claim a lot of things that are dubious. I have always believed that the bulk of nations will take the positive aspects of a design, change a couple of things, and then claim it as original, for the sake of national pride.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 28, 2013)

pattern14 said:


> The F-86 Sabre owes more to the Me 262 ( with some original me 262 parts actually fitted to the prototype), than does the Mig.


NOT TRUE!! If you're talking about some of the flap carriage assemblies, these were made by NA and were copied from the German examples, 262 parts were not used on F-86 prototypes. There was an old thread about this and the original source of this information was misquoted. No manufacturer in their right mind would ever use components of an enemy combatant aircraft on a brand new aircraft!!!!


----------



## pattern14 (Nov 28, 2013)

FLYBOYJ said:


> NOT TRUE!! If you're talking about some of the flap carriage assemblies, these were made by NA and were copied from the German examples, 262 parts were not used on F-86 prototypes. There was an old thread about this and the original source of this information was misquoted. No manufacturer in their right mind would ever use components of an enemy combatant aircraft on a brand new aircraft!!!!


 Thanks for clearing that up. I have read that the leading slats from the Me 262 were used on the forerunner of the F86, although they did not stipulate whether these were unused factory items, or parts stripped from existing aircraft. I seem to remember it was on a static mock up, and not a true flying prototype. It was some years back, and I can't give you a reference on it, but I distinctly remember reading about it. The video documentary from "Scorched Earth " titled "German Jet fighters" also mentions it . In the reference book, "Luftwaffe secret projects; 1939-1945:Fighters" the authors made the claim that the F86 had Messerschmitt influence, while the Mig followed Focke- wulf development. In fact, I'll dig it out and see if any more interesting bits are there. Once again, it proves you need to dig deep sometimes to get the correct information or data.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 28, 2013)

pattern14 said:


> Thanks for clearing that up. I have read that the leading slats from the Me 262 were used on the forerunner of the F86, although they did not stipulate whether these were unused factory items, or parts stripped from existing aircraft. I seem to remember it was on a static mock up, and not a true flying prototype. It was some years back, and I can't give you a reference on it, but I distinctly remember reading about it. The video documentary from "Scorched Earth " titled "German Jet fighters" also mentions it . In the reference book, "Luftwaffe secret projects; 1939-1945:Fighters" the authors made the claim that the F86 had Messerschmitt influence, while the Mig followed Focke- wulf development. In fact, I'll dig it out and see if any more interesting bits are there. Once again, it proves you need to dig deep sometimes to get the correct information or data.



Well I'll call the BS flag on many so-called authors who either make up this stuff or speculate on the basis on armchair aviation experience. It is well documented NA came up with the 35 degree sweep on the F-86's wings and tail feathers based on captured German data, the MiG-15 designers followed suit. Construction wise these aircraft have little if not nothing at all in common with German aircraft. I've worked on both aircraft and the MiG-15 actually has more in common with the F-80 in the way the engine is mounted and the way it's removed from the aircraft!!!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pattern14 (Nov 29, 2013)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Well I'll call the BS flag on many so-called authors who either make up this stuff or speculate on the basis on armchair aviation experience. It is well documented NA came up with the 35 degree sweep on the F-86's wings and tail feathers based on captured German data, the MiG-15 designers followed suit. Construction wise these aircraft have little if not nothing at all in common with German aircraft. I've worked on both aircraft and the MiG-15 actually has more in common with the F-80 in the way the engine is mounted and the way it's removed from the aircraft!!!


 Maybe you should!!! The bulk of people who use these forums are in the "arm chair " expert league, as they don't have the opportunity, like yourself, to actually be physically involved with the aircraft discussed. Don't take this the wrong way, as I am not intending to be critical, either personally or technically. To satisfy my own curiosity, I just looked up the point in context i.e, the use of Me 262 parts on the prototypes, and found 3 websites ( "airpower" being one of them) that say as much. I could not find the book that I was looking for, but I'll keep searching. From what I know of the post war arms race between the victors, much has been made of German (Nazi?) advanced technology, particularly that of swept wings. I don't remember mentioning construction methods or engine fitment, just influences from WW2 designers from several different companies. Just like Von Braun and his rockets, they gave the rest of the world a technical leg up, so to speak. The XP86 was redesigned to swept wing configuration, influenced ( like the B47) by captured technology. If there is some urban myth that is going around that original Me 262 leading edge slats were used on this plane, maybe it could be investigated properly. I originally joined this forum a few months back, for the very purpose of getting the facts, instead of the folklore. It seems that there is a something of an "Us and Them " attitude at times when it come to who has access to what data/information. I don't have a problem in being wrong, as long as the truth comes out.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 29, 2013)

pattern14 said:


> The bulk of people who use these forums are in the "arm chair " expert league, as they don't have the opportunity, like yourself, to actually be physically involved with the aircraft discussed.



I was just lucky and blessed to be able to have some great opportunities. It irks me however when you have so-called experts writing about things they have never seen up close and personal, let alone flown or maintained them! At least you have the sense to listen (and learn) from those who experienced some of this stuff. Personally, if there's something I don't know or haven't had the experience with, I just don't comment.


----------



## GrauGeist (Nov 29, 2013)

pattern14 said:


> Maybe you should!!! The bulk of people who use these forums are in the "arm chair " expert league, as they don't have the opportunity, like yourself, to actually be physically involved with the aircraft discussed. Don't take this the wrong way, as I am not intending to be critical, either personally or technically. To satisfy my own curiosity, I just looked up the point in context i.e, the use of Me 262 parts on the prototypes, and found 3 websites ( "airpower" being one of them) that say as much. I could not find the book that I was looking for, but I'll keep searching. From what I know of the post war arms race between the victors, much has been made of German (Nazi?) advanced technology, particularly that of swept wings. I don't remember mentioning construction methods or engine fitment, just influences from WW2 designers from several different companies. Just like Von Braun and his rockets, they gave the rest of the world a technical leg up, so to speak. The XP86 was redesigned to swept wing configuration, influenced ( like the B47) by captured technology. If there is some urban myth that is going around that original Me 262 leading edge slats were used on this plane, maybe it could be investigated properly. I originally joined this forum a few months back, for the very purpose of getting the facts, instead of the folklore. It seems that there is a something of an "Us and Them " attitude at times when it come to who has access to what data/information. I don't have a problem in being wrong, as long as the truth comes out.


There will be some people who see incorrect information and repeat it not knowing if it's factual or not. The advantage of these forums are the ability to learn and discuss the facts and figures involved.

As far as the F-86 is concerned, the leading edge slats were developed from German research and physical flight data, as were the swept wings research data that had been gathered from 1940 through 1945.

German flight data was gathered on various aircraft, including flight characteristics of the Me163 Komet, which did have a sweep angle of 28 degrees unlike the incidental swept wings of the Me262, which were swept for CoG adjustments, not mach flight. Messershmitt was aware of the nessecity of swept wings for near-mach flight and this was to be addressed in the next generation Me262 in the HG series. Dr. Lippisch was also aware of the design contributions and used that formula in his delta wing designs.

All of this data was valuable as it allowed the next generation of jet aircraft to increase thier speed without dangers, such as the F-84 suffered as it approached critical speeds, even though it's engine was more than capable of pushing it over 700 miles an hour.

So while there was never anything physically applied to U.S. aircraft from German aircraft, the flight/test data was.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pattern14 (Nov 30, 2013)

FLYBOYJ said:


> I was just lucky and blessed to be able to have some great opportunities. It irks me however when you have so-called experts writing about things they have never seen up close and personal, let alone flown or maintained them! At least you have the sense to listen (and learn) from those who experienced some of this stuff. Personally, if there's something I don't know or haven't had the experience with, I just don't comment.


 I'm really glad you took my comments positively. It's really easy to get off on the wrong foot with someone when you don't come across as intended.


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 30, 2013)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Personally, if there's something I don't know or haven't had the experience with, I just don't comment.



I personally don't think there is anything wrong with making an educated guess, based on reading and experience as long as it is presented as a _guess_ and not an irrefutable fact. Now I may be guilty of not stating the "guess" word as often as it might be warranted.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 30, 2013)

pattern14 said:


> I'm really glad you took my comments positively. It's really easy to get off on the wrong foot with someone when you don't come across as intended.



No worries



Shortround6 said:


> I personally don't think there is anything wrong with making an educated guess, based on reading and experience as long as it is presented as a _guess_ and not an irrefutable fact. Now I may be guilty of not stating the "guess" word as often as it might be warranted.


I agree 100%. Where I get tweaked is when you have folks with no aviation experience what so ever attempting to peddle their "guesses and assumptions" as facts - the example of the 262 LE flap carriage installed on an F-86 is a perfect example. Regardless where this myth came from, those of us who worked in a production aircraft facility knows this could never happen.


----------



## swampyankee (Nov 30, 2013)

As an aircraft or as a combat aircraft? They're not quite the same thing. I think that one can argue that the Meteor was a better aircraft than the Me262, but the Me262 was a better combat aircraft.


----------



## pattern14 (Nov 30, 2013)

cimmex said:


> IMO the E28/39 should be compared to the He178 which already flew in august 1939.
> cimmex


 As flying testbeds, they were both instrumental in proving that jet powered flight was a practical proposition. I don't have airspeed figures for the he178, rate of climb etc, so comparisons from my part would be guess work. Either way, they were both valuable pioneering aircraft.


----------



## GrauGeist (Nov 30, 2013)

Of course the 262 was better than the Meteor in combat, the 262 was used in the role of fighter, heavy interceptor, ground attack and bomber. The closest the Meteor came to combat was intercepting the inbound V-1s and scoring ground kills in strafing missions. It never squared off against the Me262 but did get bombed (616 squadron) by a flight of Ar234s.

As far as "better aircraft", that was marginal. In comparing the two, the early Meteor had an advantage of being faster, yes, but the Meteor at full speed also had a tendancy to start "snaking" which was remedied by reducing the throttle. The Me262 was about 40 miles an hour slower when comparing top speeds, but it was stable at it's max cruising speed.


----------



## cimmex (Dec 1, 2013)

> the early Meteor had an advantage of being faster, yes, but the Meteor at full speed also had a tendancy to start "snaking" which was remedied by reducing the throttle. The Me262 was about 40 miles an hour slower when comparing top speeds, but it was stable at it's max cruising speed.



which Meteor version was 40mph faster than the Me262 and when? 
cimmex


----------



## GrauGeist (Dec 1, 2013)

Gloster Meteor F.8 @ 600mph (965kph)

Me262A-1/a @ 559mph (900kph)

My apologies, *41* miles an hour faster, I was "rounding" the numbers.


----------



## cimmex (Dec 1, 2013)

F-8 was an early Meteor, interesting...


----------



## stona (Dec 1, 2013)

cimmex said:


> F-8 was an early Meteor, interesting...



Which arrived in time for the Korean "war" not WW2. The first to enter service were delivered on 10 December 1949, to No.1 Squadron at Tangmere. It's hardly a fair comparison to the Me 262 as it benefited from a further four years of development, most crucially in engines. The F.3 was about as good as it got in 1945.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## GrauGeist (Dec 1, 2013)

I was giving the Meteor an "edge" in comparison...

The fact remains that all first generation jets were comparable in thier performance. While one type may have been a little faster, the other was a bit more manouverable and yet another may have climbed faster and so on.

If, and this is a huge *if*, they had ever squared off in battle (Meteor, Me262, P-80, etc), it would have come down to pilot skill over thier adversary and the ability for these early machines to hold up during the fight. The Meteor was not without it's problems, the high-speed snaking, the occasional engine failure and troublesome ejection seat, guns jamming, etc. The Me262 had difficulties and so did the P-80. All the early jets had advantages as well as short-comings that would have pretty much levelled the playing field.


----------



## stona (Dec 1, 2013)

I agree with you above, all those early jets had some serious problems. The Me 262 was hardly service ready when introduced.

I still don't think that a Meteor F.8 is a fair comparison with a war time Me 262. It was a considerable development. The Derwent powered F.3, with the more powerful Derwent IV engines, didn't make 500mph (officially 493mph at 30,000ft) and was therefore somewhat slower than the Me 262.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 1, 2013)

If we compared a Luftwaffe jet to an earlier model Allied jet, this forum would go nuts...

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 1, 2013)

Still post-war but no need to go to the MK 8. the MK IV would have done just fine. First flew 15th Aug 1945. Of course there were still some problems and it took (such was the pace of _post-war_ development) until 1947-48 to sort some of them out. But clipped wing MK IVs were flying earlier than that. The MK IV makes a decent RAF '46 what if


----------



## stona (Dec 1, 2013)

Shortround6 said:


> Still post-war but no need to go to the MK 8. the MK IV would have done just fine. First flew 15th Aug 1945. Of course there were still some problems and it took (such was the pace of _post-war_ development) until 1947-48 to sort some of them out. But clipped wing MK IVs were flying earlier than that. The MK IV makes a decent RAF '46 what if



I don't disagree, but a Derwent I powered F.3 is still the only valid comparison with the Me 262. We'll draw a discreet veil over the Welland powered version 
Cheers
Steve


----------



## buffnut453 (Dec 1, 2013)

Agree...totally unfair to compare the Meatbox F.8 with the Me262. 

In terms of comparing the 2 in wartime comparative fit, I think the Me262 was easily the more advanced design aerodynamically speaking. That said, the Me262's outright performance advantage wasn't that marked, indeed the slow acceleration of its engines may have been a significant handicap had it met the Meteor in combat. I suspect a dogfight between the Me262 and Meteor would see the former maintaining energy at all costs while the latter sought to use lower-speed manoeuverability and faster acceleration. In the end a toss-up as to which would win, largely based on the competency of the pilots.

The one area where the Meteor held a clear advantage was in engine reliability. I've made this observation in other threads discussing these 2 types but, IMHO, the performance advantage of the Me262 wasn't sufficient to offset the reliability problems with its engines. Thus as an operational combat aircraft, I'd have to put the Meteor ahead of the Me262...only just ahead but most pilots would rather fly an aircraft with lower performance that they could trust than a better performing aircraft that might let them down at just the wrong time.


----------



## GrauGeist (Dec 1, 2013)

Technically speaking, the first Meteors to be deployed in a forward area were the F.1 models equipped with the Welland engines (616 squadron, July 1944) giving it a top speed of 417mph (670kph) but as I mentioned before, it was prone to "snaking" at top speeds, requiring the pilot to throttle back until the condition stabilized. This in essence, is robbing the Meteor of it's max speed, which would be critical if a Me262 were bearing down it. Another condition the F.1 suffered, was a compressor stall if the engines were throttled up to quickly. This is a hard habit to break for a piston-powered fighter pilot and this reflex even wreaked havoc among the Me262 pilots.

The F.3 with the Derwent replaced the F.1 models in 616 squadron service late in 1944. But the fact remains that the early Meteors may have been at a slight disadvantage against the Me262.

It is my experience, however, then when the discussion of "Me262 versus Meteor" or Me262 versus P-80" or "Me262 versus the world", people will fight to the death defending the potential adversary of the Me262. Not sure why this is, but it happens. But the truth is, like I mentioned above, they were all closely matched and it wouldn't be until the next generation of jets, that they would start seperating themselves. Even then, you saw performance parellels between types, such as the MiG-15/F-86, but that's just an example and better left to another thread.

So my tossing the F.8 out there, giving it an edge was in jest and I see a few caught that


----------



## buffnut453 (Dec 1, 2013)

Don't disagree with any of your comments GrauGeist. The Me262 did have a performance advantage against the Meteor, particularly the MkI variant. By the time of the MkIII, I think the gap had closed and the Me262's advantages were largely offset by lack of engine reliability. Overall, the performance of both aircraft types was sufficiently similar for pilot proficiency to be the deciding factor in the event of a dogfight.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Dec 1, 2013)

The Meteor's closing the gap on the Me262 shows two things:
First, just how quickly the British's jet technology was being refined at the time and the other, just how slowly the Me262 was being developed/revised due to wartime shortages and disruptions.


----------



## stona (Dec 2, 2013)

GrauGeist said:


> The Meteor's closing the gap on the Me262 shows two things:
> First, just how quickly the British's jet technology was being refined at the time and the other, just how slowly the Me262 was being developed/revised due to wartime shortages and disruptions.



Exactly, and therein lies the problem for the Me 262. In early 1946 the Me 262 still held a marginal _performance_ advantage, despite also having several disadvantages, not least of which was unreliable engines. We should not forget that the major killer of Me 262 pilots was the Me 262 itself.
That performance advantage would have been very quickly eroded by development of the British jet and the Me 262's disadvantages were not likely to be improved much, if at all, given the parlous state of supply of important materials to the German aviation industry.

A snapshot in January 1945 would reveal the Me 262 to be the 'better' aircraft at that time. A longer view would I suggest show that the Meteor was a 'better' aircraft overall.

If someone had asked a hypothetical me which one I'd like to fly in 1945, not necessarily in combat, I would choose the Meteor, simply because it was very much less likely to kill me. It's an important consideration 

Cheers

Steve


----------



## cimmex (Dec 2, 2013)

stona said:


> We should not forget that the major killer of Me 262 pilots was the Me 262 itself.


Do you have a source of that claim? The faith of every Me262 W-Nr is well known by serious researchers and the numbers tells a different story. This statement is a common myth like “the Me163 killed more own pilots than enemies”.
cimmex


----------



## stona (Dec 2, 2013)

cimmex said:


> Do you have a source of that claim? The faith of every Me262 W-Nr is well known by serious researchers and the numbers tells a different story. This statement is a common myth like “the Me163 killed more own pilots than enemies”.
> cimmex



I could ask you the same.
I've been through the best sources for the fate of Me 262s that I know. The most complete, and I think the best, is 'Me 262 - The Production Log 1941-1945' by Dan O'Connell which is the fruit of many years of research aided by a veritable who's who of eminent Luftwaffe historians (Brown, Eger, Boehme, Rentschler, Wadman, Smith, Creek, Forsyth and so on, a very long list indeed). If you want one book on the fate of the Me 262s produced this should be it.

The numbers would suggest that the Me 262 was a major killer of it's pilots. Certainly more were killed in accidents than by the allied air forces. Somewhere around 100-120 Me 262s were shot down by the allies, about 100 can be matched to known work numbers. Many more were lost in accidents. I don't see how that can be a myth.

If you want an entertaining day or two you can crunch the numbers for yourself 

Cheers

Steve

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## cimmex (Dec 3, 2013)

I’m aware that the accident rate was high in the last year of the war, but:
not every accident was caused by the plane.
not every accident killed the pilot.
accidents were not limited to the Me262.
So I cannot follow your statement: “We should not forget that the major killer of Me 262 pilots was the Me 262 itself.”
cimmex


----------



## stona (Dec 3, 2013)

cimmex said:


> I’m aware that the accident rate was high in the last year of the war, but:
> not every accident was caused by the plane.
> not every accident killed the pilot.
> accidents were not limited to the Me262.
> ...




You'll have to go through the numbers. Accidents related to engine problems were common and often fatal. The cause is often known because pilots had time to report the problem before their demise or were observed by someone else. A burning or smoking engine is quite obvious. 
The next largest group of fatal accidents were due to unknown causes, often because the evidence consisted of a smoking crater. It is reasonable to assume that most of these were caused by engine failures or catastrophic failure of the air frame.
Many non-fatal accidents were caused by undercarriage failures, particularly the nose wheel, or forced landings following engine problems or in a few cases airframe failures (bits flying off non-catastrophically). 
Accidents in all categories, from fatal to minor, were of course caused by pilot error.
Several pilots were killed attempting to abandon the Me 262, though I've never seen it said that it was any more difficult to abandon than any other type.
Cheers
Steve


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 3, 2013)

The Me 262's accident rate has been well documented in many publications. "Arrow to the Future," (which I own and read) "The Me 262 Stormbird: From the Pilots Who Flew, Fought, and Survived It," and "American Raiders, The Race to Capture the Luftwaffe's Secrets," all address the 262's accident rate from both German and allied sources. I read somewhere that Kommando Nowotny had a 2% loss rate per day when they were operating the 262, a third of all 262 accidents were attributed to some kind of engine failure.

With that said this shouldn't be surprising or unexpected (and shouldn't be looked upon as a detractor of the Me 262s operational history) as most if not all twin engine fighters of WW2 had a higher accident rate than many single engine aircraft, this due to lack of training in engine out procedures, especially early in the war. Combine this with a state of the art aircraft with engines that had had to be changed as little as every 10 hours under combat conditions, it's amazing the accident rate wasn't higher.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pattern14 (Dec 3, 2013)

cimmex said:


> Do you have a source of that claim?


The faith of every Me262 W-Nr is well known by serious researchers and the numbers tells a different story. This statement is a common myth like “the Me163 killed more own pilots than enemies”. It is definitely no myth that the Me 163 was more dangerous to its own side. While it may have claimed 10 kills, many more pilots ( and ground crew) were killed during refuelling, take off or landing. Some exploded in mid air, others doused their pilot with the corrosive fuel mix, which literally dissolved the hapless fellow. Around 80% of all Komet losses were from accidents, compared to about 30% for the 262. Dr Lippisch had designed the fastest manned fighter of ww2, and probably the most aerodynamically efficient, but it was an act of desperation operationally. At least they actually shot down some bombers, which is more than can be said about the He162. The only single engined Jet powered aircraft to see combat, it failed to bring down a single enemy aircraft, although it did engage them on a few occasions. The only claim was disputed, being credited to an AA battery. It killed more of it own pilots proportionally than the Me 262 as well. The Meteor failed to bring down a single manned opponent as well, and killed its share of pilots, particularly after the war during training. The tag "Meatbox" is not complimentary. The 262 on the other hand, was called the "Stormbird", "Swallow', or "Turbo", which, to me, speaks for itself( although I read somewhere that Chuck Yeager called them "Blowjobs"......) We can point and counter point until we are blue in the face, but the 262, for all its shortcomings and problems, was the most successful jet powered fighter of WW2. The Arado Ar 234 is still my favourite though!


----------



## GrauGeist (Dec 3, 2013)

In all fairness, the Ar234 was a bomber, so lives outside the "best fighter" box...it dwells in the shadow of the "zoomies" so never really gets the accolades it deserves.

As far as the Me262's operational losses are concerned, here is a quick listing of several incidents I have on hand:
19May44 - WkNmr 130002, training incident; Ufz. Flachs, killed
16June44 - WkNmr 130008, training incident; Fw. Becker, injured
30July44 - WkNmr 170058, engine fire; Fhr. Kaiser, bailed out 
23August44 - WkNmr unk, crash on T/O - I./Kg51 (first incident)
23August44 - WkNmr unk, crash on T/O - I./Kg51 (second incident)
17September44 - WkNmr 170298, landing incident; Fw. Bertelsbeck, killed
28October44 - WkNmr 110479, nose gear collapsed; Oblt. Schall
2November44 - WkNmr 110368, crash on T/O; Uffz. Zollner, injured
6November44 - WkNmr 170045, engine failure; Ofw. Baudach
20November44 - WkNmr 170107, crash on T/O; Ofhr. Schope, killed
26November44 - WkNmr 110373, test flight crash; Ofw. Alt, killed
2December44 - WkNmr 110551, training crash; Ogfr. Mentzel, killed
9December44 - WkNmr unk, wing seperation; Hpt. Kornagel bailed out
10January45 - WkNmr 17098, landing incident; Ofw. Weise, killed

I could keep going, the list of these incidents is a long one, but this gives an idea of the hazards of flying the Me262.

And none of the listed above are related to battle damage or combat...


----------



## meatloaf109 (Dec 4, 2013)

FLYBOYJ said:


> The Me 262's accident rate has been well documented in many publications. "Arrow to the Future," (which I own and read) "The Me 262 Stormbird: From the Pilots Who Flew, Fought, and Survived It," and "American Raiders, The Race to Capture the Luftwaffe's Secrets," all address the 262's accident rate from both German and allied sources. I read somewhere that Kommando Nowotny had a 2% loss rate per day when they were operating the 262, a third of all 262 accidents were attributed to some kind of engine failure.
> 
> With that said this shouldn't be surprising or unexpected (and shouldn't be looked upon as a detractor of the Me 262s operational history) as most if not all twin engine fighters of WW2 had a higher accident rate than many single engine aircraft, this due to lack of training in engine out procedures, especially early in the war. Combine this with a state of the art aircraft with engines that had had to be changed as little as every 10 hours under combat conditions, it's amazing the accident rate wasn't higher.



And here is where I show my ignorance.
Is it that the 262 (and others), could not fly on one engine, or was it that on take-off (262 only) an engine faliure caused a situation that could not be quickly remedied by the pilot? I have read that the 262 pilots were the best that Germany had.


----------



## stona (Dec 4, 2013)

The Me 262 could fly on one engine, post war US test pilots were taught the routine for doing so by the Germans. It was not a terribly good glider, but unpowered landing was theoretically possible.
The problem with engine failures was that they very often led to fires. The problem with catastrophic air frame failures is self evident. There were serious issues with the tail plane, particularly the elevators.

An engine failure on take off, or before a safe speed and/or altitude had been reached was always a dangerous and often fatal event, not just for the Me 262.

The Me 262 was a very unreliable aircraft. The number of problems encountered on the simplest test, ferry and training flights would certainly alarm anybody interested in flight safety. These varied from the mundane (failure of U/C to retract, leaky compressed air cylinders, loose fuel tanks, switches failing, instrument and throttle problems ,fuel pump failures, brake failure and other so called 'minor' issues, all listed in the first few reports I have just read) to the fatal.

By no means all Me 262 pilots were the 'best Germany had' and even the best had very limited experience on the type. Reading accounts of some very experienced pilots would indicate that old habits died hard. For example, instinctive and rapid opening of the throttles was something that the Me 262's engines could not cope with and yet many pilots did it anyway. Not all lived to tell the tale.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 4, 2013)

meatloaf109 said:


> And here is where I show my ignorance.
> Is it that the 262 (and others), could not fly on one engine, or was it that on take-off (262 only) an engine faliure caused a situation that could not be quickly remedied by the pilot? I have read that the 262 pilots were the best that Germany had.






stona said:


> The Me 262 could fly on one engine, post war US test pilots were taught the routine for doing so by the Germans. It was not a terribly good glider, but unpowered landing was theoretically possible.


 Any airplane could land unpowered with enough pixie dust - also known as "airspeed."

The 262 could most certainly fly on one engine (at altitude I think it could hold over 300 mph) as like most twin engine aircraft, the problem is with a twin engine aircraft the sequence of configuring the aircraft for single engine operation varied from aircraft to aircraft. Although this process is easily taught, it is something that must be practiced and the pilot must stay proficient with. It sounds easier than is actually is but if could be very difficult at times especially for a low time pilot or during combat situations and during takeoff and landing.

The hardest thing is to first recognize the engine out, adding opposite rudder to avoid adverse yawing and then going through emergency procedures to prevent other unwanted situations (fire). If the aircraft is not equipped with rudder trim the pilot will have to continue to add opposite rudder while maneuvering. At slower speeds and while taking evasive action this could be difficult.

As the first combat units operating the 262 were basically "bomber" squadrons, many of the first 262 pilots came from the bomber ranks and may have had good twin engine training. As single engine pilots converted to the 262 when it officially went to JG units is when there might have been higher accident rates during engine out operations - this is just speculation on my part, if anyone has information confirming or busting this, please post!
Here’s a document about flying the 262, read page 5 concerning single engine operations;

http://www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com/Images/Me262/ME262WendeL.pdf

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Dec 4, 2013)

Similar single engine advice to that I have read elsewhere. It was not a simple procedure.

Unpowered landings were obviously very difficult. Many pilots who survived failure of both engines did so by abandoning the aircraft, there must be a reason why they chose that option. All the pilots that I've spoken to do not consider themselves parachutists and entrusting their lives to some 'silk' and a few cords is definitely the last resort. I don't see why WW2 pilots would be different.
It's not just a question of airspeed. I don't know what the ideal airspeed/glide angle/rate of descent was for the Me 262 in unpowered flight is, but it might have discouraged pilots with sufficient altitude from embarking on such a course. I can't remember reading instructions for an unpowered landing, neither can I recall an account by anyone who succeeded in pulling one off. That doesn't mean it didn't happen, I'd be happy to hear that someone did it and survived.

In the Me 262 handbook the section following "Einmotorenflug und Einmotorenlandung" (one engine flight and one engine landing) is "Fallschirm-Ausstieg" (parachute-exit).........which may be self explanatory ! 

An awful lot of Me 262s crashed when attempting emergency landings, though this was not always related to engine failures and I have never categorised the reasons. Someone with a few days to waste could fairly easily do so from available records.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 4, 2013)

stona said:


> Similar single engine advice to that I have read elsewhere. It was not a simple procedure.


Actually a bit simplier in a single, the big difference is in the end you're either going to crash or bail out!



stona said:


> It's not just a question of airspeed. I don't know what the ideal airspeed/glide angle/rate of descent was for the Me 262 in unpowered flight is, but it might have discouraged pilots with sufficient altitude from embarking on such a course. I can't remember reading instructions for an unpowered landing, neither can I recall an account by anyone who succeeded in pulling one off. That doesn't mean it didn't happen, I'd be happy to hear that someone did it and survived.


Even without power, if you're able to put the nose down (and have altitude) you will gain enough airspeed to maintain a best glide (Vbg) in almost any airplane including the 262. If you're in the pattern and operating at approach speeds, good luck!


----------



## GrauGeist (Dec 4, 2013)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Even without power, if you're able to put the nose down (and have altitude altitude) you will gain enough airspeed to maintain a best glide (Vbg) in almost any airplane including the 262. If you're in the pattern and operating at approach speeds, good luck!


All bets are off if there's any Allied fighters in the area, though!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 4, 2013)

GrauGeist said:


> All bets are off if there's any Allied fighters in the area, though!



Yup! "Fallschirm-Ausstieg"

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## fastmongrel (Dec 4, 2013)

pattern14 said:


> others doused their pilot with the corrosive fuel mix, which literally dissolved the hapless fellow.



Not true the C Stoff and T Stoff could burn, bleach, boil, blind, poison and eventually give the pilot cancer but he wouldnt dissolve. Its very hard to dissolve a human being.


----------



## meatloaf109 (Dec 4, 2013)

Mano Ziegler thought otherwise. I wasn't there, so I rely on his book. 
My memory is probably faulty, but I am sure that he mentioned a pilot that may not have been "dissolved" but surely was partially eaten away by the corrosive stuff.


----------



## GrauGeist (Dec 4, 2013)

There was mention of one pilot who suffered mortal wounds from exposure of C-stoff when his Komet had a rough landing and it inverted, spilling un-used C-Stoff into the cockpit. To what extent he was "dissovled", I don't know. But C-Stoff in it's own right, is very caustic, being a mixture of hydrazine hydrate, methyl alcohol and water. 

Grievous burns were inflicted on crew members who weren't careful to keep small amount of T-Stoff from mixing with C-Stoff (splashed on their hands, clothing, containers, etc). This was also a hazard with the V-1 and V-2 programs, as they used T-Stoff and Z-Stoff to drive the V-1's catapault and the same mixture to drive the turbo pump aboard the V-2.

Nasty stuff...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 4, 2013)

Either way, that stuff $UCKS!


----------



## stona (Dec 5, 2013)

fastmongrel said:


> Its very hard to dissolve a human being.



It is unless you have plenty of time and some decent concentrated acid. Even then some bits take some getting rid of as John George Haigh, the so called 'acid bath murderer', discovered.
Cheers
Steve

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## parsifal (Dec 5, 2013)

shock is the biggest killer fropm an acid attack. If the corrosive is strong enough to remove your skin, you wont survive


----------



## pattern14 (Dec 5, 2013)

parsifal said:


> Where in the thread topic does it say we absolutely have to pick wartime figures and be selective as to dates. I can only repeat what i have already pointed out. its Meteor versus Me 262, not Meteor MkIII vs Me 262, (the best figures I can find). We cant even say the me 262 was not contemporary to the F8. It was being built at the same time.
> 
> Much of what is being touted around here as fact is simply the post war hype that the Germans managed to manufacture after the surrender which also suited their American captors. The Me 262 was junk in my opinion, whereas the meteor was a much more sober, measured, and ultimately successful type that deserves far more credit than it ever gets recognition for. Thems the breaks I guess.


 It's only fair to compare contemporary aircraft within a given period. Comparing anything else than the Meteor that was operational up until april 1945 against the Me 262 is illogical. You would not compare cars or motorcylces made years apart, as it it would be an uneven playing field. And you would not compare a wartime production plane with one made in peacetime. The Me 262 was not "junk" by any means, and was the only jet fighter to achieve success against a manned opponent. The Me 262 was made from poor quality materials, assembled in forest factories, or under the worst possible conditions, and flew and fought aginst totally overwhelming odds. Reverse the roles, and the Meteor Mk1 or 3, would have hardly done anywhere near as well. Had they met in combat, in Eric Browns words, it would have been "cats meat".


----------



## pattern14 (Dec 5, 2013)

fastmongrel said:


> Not true the C Stoff and T Stoff could burn, bleach, boil, blind, poison and eventually give the pilot cancer but he wouldnt dissolve. Its very hard to dissolve a human being.


 You will have to excuse my para-phrasing from literature read. It is more acurrate to state that the the fuel mix was fatally corrosive if the pilot became doused in enough of it. There are a number of incidents where the Komet simply exploded due to fuel leakage problems, and more pilots were killed by the aircrafts inherant faults than fell to enemy action.


----------



## fastmongrel (Dec 6, 2013)

pattern14 said:


> You will have to excuse my para-phrasing from literature read. It is more acurrate to state that the the fuel mix was fatally corrosive if the pilot became doused in enough of it. There are a number of incidents where the Komet simply exploded due to fuel leakage problems, and more pilots were killed by the aircrafts inherant faults than fell to enemy action.



Very true it just worries me that the most common fact and often the only fact a lot of people "know" about the Komet is just so wrong. I worked briefly at a wood pulp paper works which used tons of Hydrogen Peroxide as a bleaching agent and before we were allowed on site we had a safety film showing the effects of chemical burns. Most of us just about kept our breakfast down with a fair bit of effort so I know its nasty stuff but no way will it dissolve a body just bleach it brilliant white or burn everything.


----------



## stona (Dec 6, 2013)

Neither mixture was good for you. Both contained some unpleasant chemicals.

It was as a defence to the hydrogen peroxide (T-Stoff) that the special PVC suits were worn by the pilots. T-Stoff was 80% hydrogen peroxide, 20% water by weight with traces of stabilisers added. It was extremely reactive and would burn the skin on contact. It had to be stored and handled very carefully. I've read somewhere that the Germans used special vessels lined with a ceramic. Contact with organic materials could cause spontaneous combustion. _It's not going to dissolve you_

C-Stoff was 57% methyl alcohol, 30% hydrazine hydrate, 13% water by weight. A catalyst was added to promote decomposition of the peroxide in T-Stoff. This was tripotassium copper tetracyanide (whatever you may have seen it written as elsewhere!) K3Cu(CN)4, known as catalyst 431, which is hardly an enigma code given that formula.
This is an unpleasant mixture and contact with the skin should definitely be avoided, hydrazine hydrate is a corrosive irritant which can cause burns. Severe exposure, if you got soaked in the mixture, might well be fatal. _It's not going to dissolve you._

Mix them together and they will definitely go bang.

The ideal ratio of the two ( C-Stoff : T-Stoff) was 0.36 : 1. This gave a complete reaction of the fuel and oxidant, the exhaust gases were comparatively safe and inert, although the temperature of the jet efflux was in excess of 1800 degrees centigrade. You wouldn't want to stand behind the motor. Nitrogen, carbon dioxide and water (as very hot steam) are the only things that came out the back. In reality a little excess of T-Stoff was injected into the motor.

The hydrazine hydrate and peroxide react to give nitrogen and very hot steam.

2H2O2 + N2H4H2O = N2 + 5H2O

The methanol reacts with the peroxide to give carbon dioxide and more steam.

3H2O2 + CH3OH = CO2 + 5H2O

That plume of jet efflux visible as the Me 163 literally rockets into the air is just steam, you can't see the other gases.

Here endeth the chemistry lesson  I knew all that work would be useful one day 

Cheers

Steve

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## fastmongrel (Dec 6, 2013)

So it wasnt a Rocket plane it was a Steam plane


----------



## stona (Dec 6, 2013)

Well it was mostly very, very hot steam shooting out the arse end!

The C-Stoff was a fuel which combusted, causing the motor to run at such a high temperature. The combustion chamber of one of these motors would reach at about 1700 degrees centigrade. It would have been even hotter were it not for the water in the mixtures. It's actually the methyl alcohol component of C-Stoff which is the fuel. I think that the hydrazine hydrate must have been some kind of regulator to ensure a smoother reaction, but I'm not quite sure how it worked as I was an organic chemist, not a rocket scientist 

A hydrogen peroxide motor, as used in some torpedoes for example, does not add the fuel but depends entirely on the decomposition of hydrogen peroxide (into steam and oxygen) in the presence of a catalyst. This is the principle of so called 'cold' motors, running at around 500 degrees centigrade.
Early 'cold' motors didn't use the 'catalyst 431' but a permanganate salt which gave the efflux a nice purple colour 

Cheers

Steve


----------



## pattern14 (Dec 6, 2013)

Getting back to the Me 262/Meteor debate, I just read in one of Chris Chants' Luftwaffe books that the initial encounter between the Me 262 and the Mosquito took place two days before 616 Sqadron was made operational. While popular belief still puts the Me 262 as the FIRST operational Jet fighter, the threads found on this site state that the Meteor was operational first. I know I am splitting hairs here, but are we talking about individual aircraft getting the first shot off, or a whole Sqadron being officially made operational? Some specific dates would be great if someone has them.


----------



## GrauGeist (Dec 6, 2013)

First Meteor was delivered to 616 Squadron at Culmhead on 12 July 1944 followed by a move to Manston on 21 July 1944 with a total of 7 Meteors.

On 19 April 1944, Ekdo 262 was formed as a test unit for training and testing, but flew sorties as well. On 26 July 1944, a Me262 from that unit encountered a recon Mosquito, resulting in the Mosquito being damaged.

So the timeline is very close and while some say that Ekdo 262 was a training unit, it _did_ fly combat missions. Technically speaking, the 616 Squadron was also conducting training during this time as well.


----------



## pattern14 (Dec 6, 2013)

GrauGeist said:


> First Meteor was delivered to 616 Squadron at Culmhead on 12 July 1944 followed by a move to Manston on 21 July 1944 with a total of 7 Meteors.
> 
> On 19 April 1944, Ekdo 262 was formed as a test unit for training and testing, but flew sorties as well. On 26 July 1944, a Me262 from that unit encountered a recon Mosquito, resulting in the Mosquito being damaged.
> 
> So the timeline is very close and while some say that Ekdo 262 was a training unit, it _did_ fly combat missions. Technically speaking, the 616 Squadron was also conducting training during this time as well.


 Thanks for that. Did the 262 damage the Mosquito before the Meteor downed the first V1? I recall the 262 hit the Mosquito with cannon fire, while the Meteor s guns jammed and had to flip the V1 off balance to claim it. The dates are pretty close, and it all seemed to happen about the same time. Does anyone know when the Meteor was christened the "Meatbox"? I've read it was after hundreds of pilots were killed during immediate postwar training, but this info only comes from periodicals, and not substantiated texts. I'm also unsure if it was the Mk 3 that bore the brunt of accidents as well. It does appear that far more Meteor pilots were killed in non combat situations ( ie accidents), albeit for a variety of reasons. Come to think of it, are there any figures for YP80-A pilot fatalities during and immediately after WW2?


----------



## pattern14 (Dec 6, 2013)

Magnon said:


> He-162
> 
> ...The call for a Volksjager(people’s ﬁghter) is an astonishing late- war accomplishment that went from drawing board to ﬂight in only three months. This very hurried project (code-named “Salamander”) managed to produce the Heinkel 162, “unique in the history of aviation as the only aircraft in which development, pre-production prototypes and main production lines were started almost simultaneously and proceeded in parallel.” Curious in the design is the location of the jet engine, mounted on top of the fuselage directly above and behind the cockpit; this motivated the installation of a simple ejection seat, reﬂecting that the pilots were more highly valued than the aircraft itself.
> 
> ...


 Just found this and had to reply briefly, as it is some way back. The He 162 was a total waste of time, and amounted to nothing but a drain on resources , pilots and the final defence of the Reich. It achieved absolutely nothing operationally, killed more pilots than were lost to enemy action, and was nothing more than an act of desperation. No way would they have been able to achieve the limited success the 262 did. Galland and Messerschmitt were right.


----------



## stona (Dec 7, 2013)

pattern14 said:


> Does anyone know when the Meteor was christened the "Meatbox"? I've read it was after hundreds of pilots were killed during immediate postwar training, but this info only comes from periodicals, and not substantiated texts.



These were the days when sex was safe and flying was dangerous.

In 1953 two Meteor pilots were killed flying displays on BoB day . It didn't cause the furore it would today. In 1953 total RAF casualties world wide were 483 aircraft lost with 333 fatalities. These figures are difficult to comprehend today.
In the years leading up to this the figures for aircraft written off and fatalities look like this.

cat3 fatalities
1946 1014 677
1947 420 176
1948 424 224
1950 380 238
1951 490 280
1952 507 318
1953 483 333 

'Meatbox' is just a reflection of a macabre humour in the face of figures like these.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## Wildcat (Dec 7, 2013)

Fascinating figures Steve! I just had a look at our Meteors on ADF-serials.com and see ours fared no better, mind you enemy MiG's and ground fire destroyed many! Have a browse if your interested.
Welcome to ADF Serials go to RAAF series two aircraft and scroll down to A77 meteors.


----------



## pattern14 (Dec 8, 2013)

stona said:


> These were the days when sex was safe and flying was dangerous.
> 
> In 1953 two Meteor pilots were killed flying displays on BoB day . It didn't cause the furore it would today. In 1953 total RAF casualties world wide were 483 aircraft lost with 333 fatalities. These figures are difficult to comprehend today.
> In the years leading up to this the figures for aircraft written off and fatalities look like this.
> ...


 Those figures are a bit depressing for peacetime . The 677 fatalities in 1946 are the same as quoted in the periodical that I read, and in a previous post it was remarked that this high number was due to "engine out" training that the RAF insisted on doing with the Meteor. That's a lot more planes and crew lost in "accidents" than the Me 262, but to be fair, there were a lot more Meteors flying as well, so it has to be taken subjectively.


----------



## pattern14 (Dec 8, 2013)

if you are going to compare these two, some variants need to be looked at. The initial use as a fighter bomber threw a spanner in the works, as the Me 262 was never originally designed for this role, unlike the Mk 1 Meteor, which was designed and operated as fighter. retraining bomber pilots had its drawbacks as well. The other is the night fighter role, which saw the 262 as a fairly competent two seat interceptor. Even with all the extra weight, it was still easily faster than the opposition, and was used to effect against the Mosquito. I am not aware that Meteor ever operated in this role during WW2, but I am keen to hear of any other variants that were made up until April 1945.


----------



## parsifal (Dec 8, 2013)

stona said:


> These were the days when sex was safe and flying was dangerous.
> 
> In 1953 two Meteor pilots were killed flying displays on BoB day . It didn't cause the furore it would today. In 1953 total RAF casualties world wide were 483 aircraft lost with 333 fatalities. These figures are difficult to comprehend today.
> In the years leading up to this the figures for aircraft written off and fatalities look like this.
> ...



Thats an astonishing attrition rate. Just over 3900 Meteors produced. about 500 in 1946 IIRC....3714 crashed according to that list, and more than twice the number produced in 1946 lost to accidents. that means that most of the 1946 production crashed at least twice in one year.

Why would they keep flying such piece of junk if those figures are true.....


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 8, 2013)

parsifal said:


> Thats an astonishing attrition rate. Just over 3900 Meteors produced. about 500 in 1946 IIRC....3714 crashed according to that list, and more than twice the number produced in 1946 lost to accidents. that means that most of the 1946 production crashed at least twice in one year.
> 
> Why would they keep flying such piece of junk if those figures are true.....



I think you'll find very high accident rates for all post war jet operators. USN carrier operations during the 1950s were horrible.


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 8, 2013)

I think we may have a bit of confusion here. The numbers so kindly given by Stona _may_ be ALL the aircraft crashed by the RAF in a given year and NOT just Meteors. 

Also "written off" in the immediate post war years may have a different meaning than "crashed".

Written off can happen when an aircraft is damaged beyond economic repair. How bad do you have to "damage" a 1943 built Halifax in 1946 or 47 to have the engineering section decide it is beyond economic repair? 

One book on the Meteor claims 490 pilots lost in Peace time in the Meteor. A number of pages on the reminisces of one pilot who logged almost 500 hours in 155 different Meteors ( did one tour as a gunnery instructor and in a third tour as a staff officer caged rides in various Meteors to get his time in). He was lucky to start jet flying in 1949 as by that time they had come up with the two seat T 7 Trainer. Up until that time some pilots went from Harvards to Meteors with an instructor standing on the wing for a bit and then "off you go, solo". It is no wonder they crashed a bunch. Even with the two seater on the fourth flight they were doing single engine flying ( and in the Meteor practice was ALWAYS done with the same engine shut down as only one engine had the auxiliary pumps, loose that engine and the plane was dead.) Even with the two seater aircraft the "training" was 5 hours flying time before "solo".

Blaming the aircraft for the resulting accidents doesn't seem quite fair.


----------



## parsifal (Dec 8, 2013)

That makes a LOT more sense. Attrition rates by the end of the war, flying in overload conditions (often) and in a wartime environment were about 15% per year for BC. If the attrition rates posted by Steve related only to Meteors, it means, effectively that the Meteors had an attrition rate of around 200% under peacetime conditions, as oposed to to 15% for other types under wartime conditions. 

So, we need a figure for Meteor losses versus numbers on the books. by the end of 1946, the RAF had 16 squadrons of Meteors, so they werent mucking around, and given the production rates, werent losing them at the rate of 1014 in 1946. 

They may have lost 100, which is still pretty diabolical .......

Just to give some perspective to this, during the Korean war, 77 Squadron, flying under combat conditions flew just under 19000 sorties, and lost 32 pilots. I think they lost 40 or so Meteors in that period. How many of them were lost in combat I would have to check, but it will be at least 20 aircraft. 

20 aircraft lost to non-combat causes is an attrition rate of about 30% per year....more than double the loss rates of piston engined aircraft


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 9, 2013)

Losses per year is a crude way of measuring the attrition rate. Losses per hour ( or thousand hours) flown is closer and losses per sortie is even closer (but not perfect). No. 77 squadron by that measure was loosing a Meteor every 475 sorties which may not be too bad for combat conditions. A _lot_ more landings and take-offs than the WW II bomber aircraft. 
No. 77 squadron flew P-51s for the first year and Meteors for the last two years of the war. A crude average is 19 sorties a day by the Squadron which is a higher sortie rate than bomber command did with piston engine planes.


----------



## stona (Dec 9, 2013)

Shortround6 said:


> I think we may have a bit of confusion here. The numbers so kindly given by Stona _may_ be ALL the aircraft crashed by the RAF in a given year and NOT just Meteors.
> 
> Also "written off" in the immediate post war years may have a different meaning than "crashed".



YES!!!!

The figures are for all aircraft deemed write offs and fatalities for all aircraft in the RAF worldwide.

Category 3 is not a good heading in retrospect as this was introduced in 1952, with various sub-divisions, for aircraft that were repairable. I pasted it from another document and Category E would have been better as this was for an aircraft written off, again with various sub divisions, from 1941 until 1952.

Cat E Write-off
Cat. E1	Write-off, but considered suitable for component recovery
Cat. E2	Write-off and suitable only for scrap
Cat. E3	Burnt out
Cat. Em	Missing from an operational sortie (Missing aircraft were categorised ‘Em’ after 28 days)


Anecdotal evidence for the dangers of early jets. In the early fifties my father transferred from fixed wing naval aviation to helicopters. He told me that eight of his colleagues, many presumably ex 801 Squadron, were killed flying jets by 1960. He reckoned he had made the right choice and always argued that helicopters were intrinsically safer than fixed wing aircraft, something I never entirely agreed with 

Cheers

Steve


----------



## pattern14 (Dec 28, 2013)

Just checking in on this poll, and it looks as though 75% of us still think the 262 was better. Of course, being in the majority does not make something right. With the amount of folklore and urban myths, the Me 262 will always remain legendary, and the Meteor will always be the "also ran".


----------



## fastmongrel (Dec 28, 2013)

I havent voted because I think theres too many other things to consider other than pure performance. If a 1,000 Meteors had met a 1,000 Me262s over west Germany in 1945 a 262 might have been the last plane flying but the next day another 1,000 Meteors will appear wheres the 1,000 262s (and the pilots) going to come from.

I know there werent a 1,000 of any jet available its just a number.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Dec 28, 2013)

pattern14 said:


> Just checking in on this poll, and it looks as though 75% of us still think the 262 was better. Of course, being in the majority does not make something right. With the amount of folklore and urban myths, the Me 262 will always remain legendary, and the Meteor will always be the "also ran".


If the Meteor (or the P-80) had been able to get into combat sooner, we might have been able to form a better opinion of "which was better", but as we know, that didn't happen so the best we can do is look at the Me262's combat record versus the Metoer's potential and judge from there.

For example, it's much easier to draw a conclusion between the F-86 and MiG-15 because the two actually made contact over the Korean skies. The P-80 and Meteor would have certainly made a showing, especially if the early production bugs were worked out and had experienced pilots. But in the end, as it's mentioned, the 262 would have been out-matched by the simple fact that Britain and the U.S. were able to replace losses at a rate that Germany simply could not.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## delcyros (Dec 28, 2013)

By the way, does anybody know the achievements in aerial combat of the METEOR through it´s service life? I know it downed twelve V1 flying bombs in ww2 (and one half V1 shared) for 260 sortied flown against V1 bombs. I also know of 4 MiG15 claimed by No.77 sqdn at Korea, anything else missed? 

I hope that nobody mistakes this question as an argument pro or con, as I am convinced that there is not sufficient data for a direct Me-262 / Meteor comparison, I ask in hope that people know better and more data.


----------



## fastmongrel (Dec 28, 2013)

An Israeli NF13 night fighter shot down an Egyptian Dakota in 1956. An Argentian F4 shot down an aircraft during an abortive coup. A Syrian NF13 claimed an RAF Canberra recon flight but I have never seen any confirming RAF info.


----------



## GingahNinja (Dec 30, 2013)

trackend said:


> Question for you guys did any jets or peroxide powered planes make an apperance over the D-Day beaches the reason I ask is my old man said he saw what he took for a unmanned flying bomb but when 2 spitfires swooped it opened up and left them for dead. perhaps a Komet?



I would immediately assume it to be a V1 buzz bomb but I honestly don't know. 

(Sorry if this has been previously answered as well)


----------



## delcyros (Dec 31, 2013)

Thanks Fastmongrel for the informative reply.



> Question for you guys did any jets or peroxide powered planes make an apperance over the D-Day beaches the reason I ask is my old man said he saw what he took for a unmanned flying bomb but when 2 spitfires swooped it opened up and left them for dead. perhaps a Komet?



No Me-163b KOMET for sure. They were never deployed in France. Two Ar-234 AV prototypees went over the beachheads taking aerial photographies starting with july 27th, I guess and returned without beeing engaged by enemy aircraft. It repeated the procedure but I had always the impression that the allies were unaware of it.


----------



## fastmongrel (Dec 31, 2013)

With the very short radius of the Komet and the bulky refuelling rig I cant see the LW being able to get close enough to the beach head to be able to launch without attracting a horde of Jabos


----------



## stona (Dec 31, 2013)

fastmongrel said:


> With the very short radius of the Komet and the bulky refuelling rig I cant see the LW being able to get close enough to the beach head to be able to launch without attracting a horde of Jabos



Aside from no Komets being anywhere near the beached the Komet was hardly liken to 'open up' and leave the Spitfires for dead. The motor really served to blast the aircraft to the altitude of the bombers after which it became a very fast glider. 
The motor ran for a very short time at full power (estimates vary) but to give an idea _it was hoped to increase the full throttle time to 6 minutes_ on the proposed Me 163 C sub type, so it was definitely less than that. Walterwerke were working on a motor with an additional, lower thrust combustion chamber slung below the main (take-off) combustion chamber which would operate for cruising at height. This arrangement never flew.
Cheers
Steve


----------



## GrauGeist (Dec 31, 2013)

Ar234s flew recon sorties over the landing areas, but no V1 or Komets.

Only serious Luftwaffe contact during the landings was a pass by Priller and his wingman making a low strafing pass.


----------



## pattern14 (Dec 31, 2013)

delcyros said:


> Thanks Fastmongrel for the informative reply.
> 
> 
> 
> No Me-163b KOMET for sure. They were never deployed in France. Two Ar-234 AV prototypees went over the beachheads taking aerial photographies starting with july 27th, I guess and returned without beeing engaged by enemy aircraft. It repeated the procedure but I had always the impression that the allies were unaware of it.


 I'm fairly certain that the Ar234 flown by Erich Sommer first flew a recon mission over Normandy on August 2nd, 1944, and a further 13 sorties with a second Ar234 over the rest of August. As far as I am aware, they were never detected. The Arado did pretty well for itself in the recon role, and actually overflew the UK without detection either. I still consider them to be the most underrated first generation Jet.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Njaco (Dec 31, 2013)

pattern14 said:


> I'm fairly certain that the Ar234 flown by Erich Sommer first flew a recon mission over Normandy on August 2nd, 1944, and a further 13 sorties with a second Ar234 over the rest of August. As far as I am aware, they were never detected. The Arado did pretty well for itself in the recon role, and actually overflew the UK without detection either. I still consider them to be the most underrated first generation Jet.



Yes, this was the only instance of any jet/rocket aircraft flying anywhere near the beaches and it was 2 months after the invasion but..... I thought there was a glide/guided bomb that was used and hit several ships. Or am I confusing Operation Husky with D-Day?


----------



## parsifal (Jan 1, 2014)

Salerno and Anzio were pretty heavily attacked by german glide bombs. i think it was at Salerno that Warspite was hit and had her aft turret destroyed (and never repaired). Cruiser Scylla was hit and sunik there as well. I also think the USS Savannah was hit and heavily damaged

There were no serious effective attacks on the Overlord invasion fleet by German aircraft. There were several near suicide attacks by the KM as Uboats, torpedo and light units attempted to disrupt the invasion. The main disruption that was achieved came from several coastal batteries manned mainly by KM personnel. IIRC one was located at Le Havre


----------



## stona (Jan 2, 2014)

parsifal said:


> i think it was at Salerno that Warspite was hit



It was. She was never fully repaired but still tipped up of Normandy to bombard German positions with her reduced armament before being placed in reserve (category C which is often one tow from the scrap yard)) in February 1945. 

Cheers

Steve


----------



## Readie (Jan 15, 2014)

Great planes but, I would still rather have a Spitfire


----------



## thedab (Apr 15, 2014)

To me the 262 look a bit like a 1930s racer






but bit mind you


----------



## Zyzygie (Oct 7, 2015)

Quote from The Gloster Meteor :
The Meteor I was an all-metal aircraft of conventional construction, with low-mounted straight wings with two spars, turbojets mid-mounted in the wings, and a high-mounted tailplane to keep it out of the way of the jet exhaust. *It had "fence"-style air brakes above and below the wings inboard of the engines to keep the aircraft controllable in a high-speed dive.*
The point is that the Me 262 didn't have air brakes...

Quote from Harkins, Hugh . *RAF Meteor Jet Fighters in World War II, An Operational Log*; Centurion.

_Although they never met in combat, it is inevitable that the Meteor III is compared to its wartime rival, the Me. 262. The Meteor III had a higher profile drag compared with that of the Me. 262. This was principally caused by the Meteors higher wing drag, in turn caused by the Meteors lower wing loading, which corresponded to lower maximum speeds compared to the Me. 262. After a series of trials with the Me. 262 at RAE Farnborough in 1945, it was determined that with engines of equal thrust the Meteor III would be 20 mph slower than the Me. 262. On the plus side for the Meteor III, the lower wing loading gave it better take off performance, including a shorter take off run, and better manoeuvrability compared with the Me. 262._


----------



## GrauGeist (Oct 7, 2015)

Zyzygie said:


> Quote from The Gloster Meteor :
> The Meteor I was an all-metal aircraft of conventional construction, with low-mounted straight wings with two spars, turbojets mid-mounted in the wings, and a high-mounted tailplane to keep it out of the way of the jet exhaust. *It had "fence"-style air brakes above and below the wings inboard of the engines to keep the aircraft controllable in a high-speed dive.*
> The point is that the Me 262 didn't have air brakes...
> 
> ...


The airbrakes were installed to keep the Meteor controllable in a dive.

This has been hashed out over and over again, on a first generation jet: engine RPM and subsequent speed was slow to build...you did NOT bleed off airspeed in a first generation jet.

Repeat after me: you do NOT bleed off speed in a first generation jet.

The Luftwaffe pilots that were successful in fighting Allied piston powered fighters in the Me262 maintained thier speed, the Luftwaffe pilots who ended up in the Allied gun cameras did not.

I know it's an awesome fantasy to think about "what if", had the Meteor met the Me262 in a showdown, but the Me262 pilots had actual jet combat experience over the Meteor pilots and that would have given them the edge.

You may want to read a little about the Me262 pilots who actually fought with their jets, because in spite of a lack of airbrakes, they were able to maneuver the Me262 well enough to make it an extremely dangerous adversary. 

And for the record, the closest WWII came to jet-on-jet encounter, was an attack on 616 Squadron's base at Fassberg, when it was bombed by Ar234s.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Nov 8, 2015)

The question has to be asked, better at what? Me 262 better looking in my opinion, but Meteor better engines, certainly more reliable and longer lasting. Combat discussions leave little real answer when comparing aircraft to aircraft, simply because the guy in the cockpit is inevitably going be the deciding factor. You put Bob Stanford Tuck in a Meatbox and some tyro Luftwaffe pilot in an Me 262 and Tuck would win, however, you put Galland in the 262 and some newbie RAF pilot in the Meatbox and guess what happens. I also think the RAF pilots certainly would not have felt their aircraft was inferior to the Me 262, not that they had the chance to find out, but I'm sure they would have been itching to do so.


----------



## parsifal (Nov 9, 2015)

Probably should ask which might be superior in a hypothetical 1946 context. This would give both a/c some time to mature. The me 262's most pressing demands were to improve serviceability rates, whilst the Meteor had a pressing need to improve its performance really, relative to the competition. 

it would not be a level playing field, so there needs to be an element of speculation here. the assumption is that somehow the Russian steamroller has been halted or delayed and the cross channel invasion postponed, but not defeated. Germany is in the ring, but battered, Britain is in the ring, but with limited resources. extrapolate the available resources and technologies....which a/c is likely to be superior?


----------



## parsifal (Nov 13, 2015)

A few comments I managed to scrounge from various places;

"Specially prepared Meteors cleared 600 mph routinely. The Meteor, of course, held the World Speed Record in 1946/1947, with F.4 EE549, flown by E.M. Donaldson, setting a record of 615.65 mph on September 7, 1946. The same aircraft, flown by Bill Waterton, flew from London to Paris at an average speed of 618.4 mph on January 19, 1947. Although not an official record attempt, D.V. Coates-Preedy flew Gloster's demonstration Meteor F.4 G-AIDC from Brussels to Copenhagen on April 22, 1947 at an average speed of 630 mph.

I still maintain that the Me 262 was put into service at the earliest possible moment. As William Green said in Warplanes of the Third Reich:

"...the simple fact remains that Junkers failed to resolve the problems poised by series manufacture of the turbojet powering the Me 262 until mid-1944, and thus could not commence volume deliveries to Messerschmitt until the following September/October. Furthermore, the consensus of opinion of those actually engaged in the design development and testing of the Me 262 was to be that the fighter was introduced to service at the earliest practicable stage in its evolution; that any earlier deployment of the warplane on a large scale would have been entirely premature."

One can always play "what if", but then one must also consider the impact of a fully funded RAF jet program backing Frank Whittle in 1936, and Meteors being ready for the Battle of Britain..."

"The Me262 is the favourite romantics' plane. Yes it is pretty, yes it is (in theory) wildly ahead of the opposition. Yes it was an irrelevance.

After WW II only the Czechs produced 'new' Me262s ... none of the major powers bothered. Which should tell us something as both the UK and the US had reliable engines that could have powered the airframe.

If it could have bounced a Meteor (1, 3 or 4) it would likely have succeeded in destroying it. If it was bounced it in turn would have been destroyed. It wasn't a dogfighter, so in a dogfight it could have gone either way ... except that the 262's 30mm cannon jammed if fired under even moderate g forces, and the Meteor (3, 4) had a tighter turning circle at dogfight speeds than the 262 would have been harder to outrun than the piston engined fighters that did kill 262s that were foolish enough dogfight - remember early jets didn't accelerate well.

From maintenance records - day 1: 262?, day 2: 262?, day 3 and forever after: Meteor ... the 262s would never have got off the canvas.

BTW (off topic) RAAF Meteor ground attack aircraft had success(es) and few losses against MiG 15s in Korea"


----------



## fastmongrel (Nov 13, 2015)

The design team at Glosters after the takeover by Hawker Siddeley was tiny compared to other factories a lot of the talent had gone to other parts of the conglomerate. Glosters only got the Jet design because they had nothing else to do and I would be surprised if the design team ever exceeded a 100 or so. DeHavilland were the same with the Vampire at one point in late 1943 only two senior designers were working on it part time, more were doing sketches for the future Jetliner that became the Comet. 

I dont know if the massive (in comparison to the British effort) German jet programme could have been hurried along but certainly if the 262 got going in late 43 then the British Jets could have had more money and men thrown at it and got at least a serviceable Vampire or Meteor for early to mid 44.


----------



## Zyzygie (Dec 28, 2016)

GrauGeist said:


> The airbrakes were installed to keep the Meteor controllable in a dive.
> 
> This has been hashed out over and over again, on a first generation jet: engine RPM and subsequent speed was slow to build...you did NOT bleed off airspeed in a first generation jet.
> 
> ...


_...Johannes Steinhoff explained his learning curve on attacking fighters: "what I had to learn was that , unlike the Me 109, I could not easily reduce power or flaps to tighten a turn, getting in behind an enemy fighter. It would not work; You could flame out the engines, or go into an unrecoverable stall, usually a flat spin... Bleeding off airspeed by pulling up into the enemy was also not as effective due to the higher speeds... dogfighting against the fighters was sheer suicide..."_
from* The Me 262 Stormbird: From the Pilots Who Flew, Fought, and Survived It*

See attachment for more detail on the above​


----------



## GrauGeist (Dec 28, 2016)

Zyzygie said:


> _...Johannes Steinhoff explained his learning curve on attacking fighters: "what I had to learn was that , unlike the Me 109, I could not easily reduce power or flaps to tighten a turn, getting in behind an enemy fighter. It would not work; You could flame out the engines, or go into an unrecoverable stall, usually a flat spin... Bleeding off airspeed by pulling up into the enemy was also not as effective due to the higher speeds... dogfighting against the fighters was sheer suicide..."_
> from* The Me 262 Stormbird: From the Pilots Who Flew, Fought, and Survived It*
> 
> See attachment for more detail on the above​


Now while your at it, find the other Me262 pilot's comments regarding airbrakes and post those, too.


----------



## BLine22 (Dec 28, 2016)

GrauGeist said:


> This has been hashed out over and over again, on a first generation jet: engine RPM and subsequent speed was slow to build...you did NOT bleed off airspeed in a first generation jet.
> 
> Repeat after me: you do NOT bleed off speed in a first generation jet.




One of the purposes of speed brakes on jets is so you can slow down without reducing engine rpm to the point where spool up time becomes a problem. F-80/T-33s land with their speed brakes deployed so that they can make their approach with a higher power setting. Many carrier jets did the same thing. I would speculate that every jet designed after the 262 had speed brakes including transports and airliners. To say that the 262 would not have benefited if it had them is silly.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 28, 2016)

Grau, you took the words right out of my mouth;

Some comments - Zyzygie, you posted some good information here but it still seems you're trying to build justification to show that the Meteor was a better aircraft than the Me 262. It's obvious in the post war years the Meteor evolved into the superior aircraft but in mid 1944 the Meteor had a long way to go before it was a world class fighter.

First you attempted to show that the Me 262 was "difficult" to fly, there's been plenty of evidence posted to show just the opposite. There were things on the 262 that were "different" (just like other early jets) but through training, one learns these things. Like all early jets, it had its teething problems but when it functioned well there's no doubt it was deadly.

Now let's talk dog fighting - there is no doubt the Me 262 WAS NOT a dog fighter, it's obvious it couldn't rapidly slow down or accelerate and it was indicated that rapid pitch up attitude changes could induce a compressor stall. So with that said, why would one even considering dog fighting??? The use of its speed was the 262's best asset in taking on other aircraft, and that to include fighters. Why would anyone consider throwing away a major tactical asset just to get into a twisting/ turning fight that IMO would just be an extension of male testosterone!

Once again it seems we are too hung up on "dog fighting" rather then hit and run tactics that are not only more effective but also provide a level of survive-ability especially when out numbered. I'm willing to bet dollars to donuts that most of the fighter claims by the 262 posted earlier were achieved during a "boom and zoom" attack.

Biff - any comment would be welcomed!

"Find the enemy and shoot him down. Anything else is nonsense."
Manfred Von Richthofen

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Dec 28, 2016)

Joe, we could even take the speed issue one step further.

What was the best way for U.S. pilots to engage the A6M? It was speed not a turning fight. To get into a turning fight with the A6M meant certain trouble so the "boom and zoom" tactic was the best option.

At no time did a Hellcat pilot lament that he wished he had airbrakes so he could dogfight the Zero...

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Dec 28, 2016)

BLine22 said:


> One of the purposes of speed brakes on jets is so you can slow down without reducing engine rpm to the point where spool up time becomes a problem. F-80/T-33s land with their speed deployed so that they can make their approach with a higher power setting. Many carrier jets did the same thing. I would speculate that every jet designed after the 262 had speed brakes including transports and airliners. To say that the 262 would not have benefited if it had them is silly.


You're comparing two different aircraft: P-80 and Me262.

The Me262 had a high stall speed (between 115 and 125 mph), so at what point would the Me262 benefit from air-brakes? On the roll-out perhaps, but certainly not on final.

As far as using dive brakes in battle, it's speed was it's strong point. When the 262 dove in for the attack on bombers, the turret gunners simply could not get their turret to turn fast enough to engage. The manned gunners even had a difficult time. This was a salvation as a single .50 round hitting one of the Jumos would result in a catastrophic failure. And the Allied escorts were fristrated as they tried to catch the Me262s as they tore through a formation and they would often times be helpless to intervene. This is proof that speed was their best offense/defense. So again, at what point would air-brakes have been a benefit? The 004s were not producing tremendous thrust, so keeping the engine's RPMs up while bleeding off speed to engage would not have produced results like a modern jet. The 262 would have bled off speed and then needed time for the engine's to get the ship back up to speed.

Proof of this is by the length of real-estate the Me262 needed to get airborn on T/O - it made a fully loaded P-47 look like a STOL bird. The average length of runway needed to get airborn was about 1,200 yards for concrete and over 1,500 yards for grass.

When trying to understand the Me262's flight profile, a person has to throw out everything they know about modern (2nd generation onward) jet aircraft and start with a clean slate.


----------



## fastmongrel (Dec 28, 2016)

GrauGeist said:


> Joe, we could even take the speed issue one step further.
> 
> What was the best way for U.S. pilots to engage the A6M? It was speed not a turning fight. To get into a turning fight with the A6M meant certain trouble so the "boom and zoom" tactic was the best option.
> 
> At no time did a Hellcat pilot lament that he wished he had airbrakes so he could dogfight the Zero...



If you get into a Dogfight with any aircraft your doing it wrong. Dogfighting gives the other guy a chance.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zyzygie (Dec 28, 2016)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Grau, you took the words right out of my mouth;
> 
> Some comments - Zyzygie, you posted some good information here but it still seems you're trying to build justification to show that the Meteor was a better aircraft than the Me 262. It's obvious in the post war years the Meteor evolved into the superior aircraft but in mid 1944 the Meteor had a long way to go before it was a world class fighter.
> 
> ...



I can pretty much agree with a lot of that. The Me262 was a good aircraft overall for bomber destroying.
But I think you'll agree that it wasn't fully ready for service:

*Evaluation of the Me 262*

*(Project number NAD-29)*

*http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA800524*

*Me 262 FLIGHT CHARACTERISTICS:*

_ Two airplanes, Nos. T-2-711 and T-2-4012 were used in this test program. General maintenance was very difficult on both airplanes. Number T-2-711 was flown 12 flights for a total of 10 hr and 40 min, and No. T-2-4012 was flown eight times for a total of 4 hr and 40 min. Four engine changes were necessary on No. T-2-4012 and five on No. T-2-711. Power failure in flight resulted in abandonment of the airplane and complete destruction of No. T-2-711. _​
_Tests were discontinued on No. T-2-4012 after two single-engine landings resulting from engine failure in flight, because the value of further flights was not believed to be worth the risk and trouble of maintaining the airplane..._

*Handling and control at various speeds:*

_The handling characteristics were poor at all speeds above 350 mph. The airplane would not make a very satisfactory gun platform because of a tendency to hunt directionally, which resulted in snaking at speeds above 400 mph IAS._​
*CONCLUSIONS:*

_The handling characteristics of the Me-262 airplanes tested were very poor. However, it is believed that, with the exception of the directional hunting or yawing, they would have been considerably improved if the aileron and elevator servo tabs had been connected._

_The pilots concluded that the Me-262 would not make a satisfactory gun platform because of its tendency to hunt directionally which turned into actual snaking the faster the plane went._​
_*Which should make one take pause and consider the irony here... That one of the Me-262 strengths, i.e. its superior speed is also a weakness when it comes to stability and its usefulness as a gun platform.*_

*FLIGHT CHARACTERISTICS:*

*Cockpit Layout:*​
T_he cockpit is somewhat cramped and it is difficult to turn in the seat to obtain vision to the rear. The location of the instruments and controls is satisfactory except that the throttles and starting controls are located too far aft for easy manipulation._

*Brakes and ground handling:*

_The brakes were very poor, which made ground handling difficult._

*Take-off and initial climb:*​
_All take-offs were running take-offs, due to the poor brakes. The ground roll was slightly longer than ordinarily required. The nose wheel could be lifted off at about 100 mph IAS, and the take-off was made at about 120 mph in a nose-high attitude._

*Vision:*
_
Vision was rather poor, due to the design of the canopy; many braces obstructed the line of vision and distortion was apparent when looking upward. Vision to the rear was poor because of the difficulty of turning in the seat to look aft._​
But arguably the Meteor air brakes were pretty handy to have, either for dogfighting or ground attack...

_"On 27 March 1953 Flight Sergeant George Hale and Flight Sergeant David Irlam were part of a flight of four Meteor F8s - led by Squadron Leader John Hubble - attacking ground traffic between Pyongyang, capital of Communist North Korea, and Sinmak with under-wing rockets.

Upon reaching Pyongyang the formation split with Hale and Irlam heading south in line astern at low level. Hale sighted three transonic swept-wing MiG 15 fighters preparing to attack two USAF RF-80 Shooting Stars. As he jettisoned the ventral tank on his Meteor - A77-851- and turned to intercept the MiGs, Hale fired off the last two of his underwing rockets in an attempt to distract the enemy pilots. This forced the two MiGs to turn away from each other.

As he turned to follow the enemy, Irlam reported that he was under fire and Hale turned into the new threat, which turned out to be two MiGs on Irlam's tail. *While Irlam headed for cloud cover in his damaged Meteor, Hale's opponent extended his air brakes and turned in behind Irlam, but overshot. Hale extended his air brakes and slotted in behind the MiG. He opened fire and hit the enemy fighter squarely behind the cockpit. The MiG rolled on its back and fell away, spewing smoke. *Just as Hale was about to follow his victim, two more MiGs dived on him. However, he managed to pull into them and fired but their speed carried them away. A third pair of Communist jets turned in on his tail but Hale turned back on them and opened fire on the second MiG, which left a trail of white smoke. Out of ammunition, Hale had to let the MiGs get away. Back at Kimpo, Hale and his wingman counted no fewer than 112 shrapnel holes in Irlam's Meteor. However, the two MiG silhouettes painted on Hale's cockpit by his crew chief lasted only a few days before Squadron Leader John Hubble ordered them to be painted out as they broke RAAF regulations. By the end of hostilities four months later though, 77 squadron had lost 32 Meteor pilots in 18,872 sorties but had deprived the Communists of 3,700 buildings. 1,500 vehicles and six MiG 15s."_
_JetAgeRMC_Korea_​

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Dec 28, 2016)

Two things to point out here.

First of all, the Me262s evaluated by the U.S. were not in top shape and were not capable of top performance. On the other hand, Eric Brown's assesment of the Me262 he evaluated was just short of glowing. His Me262 was also maintained by German ground crews that were experienced in Me262 operations...the U.S. Me262s were ground crewed by Americans that were not familiar with the aircraft.

Secondly, you're comparing the performance of a post-war meteor against a peer type, not a piston-powered type. And the MiG-15 was also equipped with air-brakes, too.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 28, 2016)

Zyzygie said:


> I can pretty much agree with a lot of that. The Me262 was a good aircraft overall for bomber destroying.
> 
> *But I think you'll agree that it wasn't fully ready for service*:



No jet flying during WW2 was fully ready for service!

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zyzygie (Dec 28, 2016)

GrauGeist said:


> ...you're comparing the performance of a post-war meteor against a peer type...



Hmm. A definition of peer - _"something of equal worth or quality."_ Are you saying the Meteor was equal worth to the MiG 15?
As a fighter bomber compared to a fighter, maybe, but not as a pure fighter, surely?

Again we're comparing apples with oranges, as applies also in trying to compare the Me 262 and the Meteor. 

As a bomber destroyer, yes, it was effective. As a fighter bomber, no:
_“I’ll never change an opinion I’ve expressed often, that with just 300 Messerschmitt Me 262 jet fighters we could have on any day shot down a minimum of 200 bombers,” said Galland. “If this could have continued for even a fortnight, then the day bombing would have had to be halted.” Galland called the “blitz bomber” idea “a typical Hitler error.” _
_The Messerschmitt Me 262 Jet Fighter | Defense Media Network_​


----------



## GrauGeist (Dec 29, 2016)

Why is this becoming so truncated?

What do you mean "fighter bomber" Are you referring to the Me262A-2/a?

The Meteor F.8 was nothing like it's WWII predecessor. Perhaps in appearance only, but it's airframe was enhances, it received a newer, more powerful engine and so on.

When the Meteor F.8 went head to head against the MiG-15, it was meeting it's peer in battle. Their performance was comparable (although the F.8 had better performance in some aspects) and they were both used as front line fighters. Therefore: Peer.

The Me262 would have been at home fighting any early jet types as they had similar or comparable profiles. But the core of the discussion was could the Me262 "dogfight" propellor types (although this was not it's mission).
The answer is no. And the pilots of the Me262, in their own words, said they would engage fighters only on their terms or else they would leave.

This would be like a P-51 trying to dogfight a Fokker D.VII - which it simply would not be able to do. The P-51 is much too fast to be able to get inside of the D.VII's turn (sound familiar?) so it's best option would be to zoom in on it and try and get in a burst before it turned away and got out of the gunsights.

In WWII, the F.3 of 616 squadron would have been the platform that the Me262 would have met historically had they ever caught sight of one another. They would have been able to get into a fight on equal terms much like the later Meteor types did against Soviet jets in Korea.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## BLine22 (Dec 29, 2016)

GrauGeist said:


> When the Meteor F.8 went head to head against the MiG-15, it was meeting it's peer in battle. Their performance was comparable (although the F.8 had better performance in some aspects) and they were both used as front line fighters. Therefore: Peer.



In what way was F.8 comparable or better than the MIG 15? The Mig was 50 Mph faster, its ceiling was 7000ft higher, it climbed better and had more range.


----------



## GrauGeist (Dec 29, 2016)

BLine22 said:


> In what way was F.8 comparable or better than the MIG 15? The Mig was 50 Mph faster, its ceiling was 7000ft higher, it climbed better and had more range.


So...what do you you think would qualify as "comparable"?
1 to 5 miles an hour as performance separation? Perhaps 10 mph - 20mph? 

So then the F-86 was not comparable to the MiG-15 either?

The F-86 had a lower max. ceiling by 1,000 feet, it's RoC was a little less...does this make it not comparable, then?


----------



## BLine22 (Dec 29, 2016)

GrauGeist said:


> So...what do you you think would qualify as "comparable"?
> 1 to 5 miles an hour as performance separation? Perhaps 10 mph - 20mph?
> 
> So then the F-86 was not comparable to the MiG-15 either?
> ...




No, I would say that the F-86 and Mig-15 were definitely comparable. I would consider the Meteor F-8 more in a class with the F-80C, F84G, F9f, and F2H.


----------



## Zyzygie (Dec 29, 2016)

GrauGeist said:


> What do you mean "fighter bomber" Are you referring to the Me262A-2/a?
> 
> .



No... I was referring to the Meteor as a fighter bomber and the Me 262 as a bomber destroyer. The Meteor was able to carry bombs and in Korea, eight napalm-tipped rockets, and was competitive with the Sabre and MiG 15 in dogfighting at low to medium altitudes, but overall was outclassed as a specialist fighter. It was arguably analogous to the Hawker Typhoon:
_"The Typhoon disappointed as a fighter, especially at altitude but found its true niche as a fighter bomber from September 1942. It was fitted with racks to carry two 500lb and then two 1,000lb bombs. By September 1943 it was fitted with eight RP-3 rockets each with a 60lb warhead, equivalent to the power of a naval destroyer`s broadside." (Wikipedia)_​


----------



## Juha2 (Dec 29, 2016)

Hello Zyzygie
Thanks for the US evaluation report!
Yes, also Germans had noted the hunting and had tried to solve it but had not succeeded in that before the end of the war. Meteor suffered from the same problem. The view problem is interesting, while not as good as the Allied late war bubble canopies, Me 262 canopy didn’t look that bad but the distortion problem might well be real. And the real vision, look like that at the RLM there were kindred souls to those at the Air Ministry who thought that the fast fighters didn’t need a good rearward vision (very early Typhoons and the original canopy of Meteor F.8). The rearward vision from the cockpit of He 162 wasn’t that good either.

Juha


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 29, 2016)

Zyzygie said:


> and was competitive with the Sabre and MiG 15 in dogfighting at low to medium altitudes,



Total hogwash (especially when comparing the MiG-15) unless you're talking about some post WW2 war games or the driver of the MiG/ Saber was asleep at the stick.

I believe both MiG-15 and F-86 were close to 80 mph faster than the F.8 at sea level


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 29, 2016)

The Meteor was NOT in the same class as the F-86 and Mig-15 as evidenced by the day fighters squadrons in Germany being issued Candair built Sabre jets to replace their Meteor MK 8s and 2 Squadrons in UK using Candair Sabres. Total of 11 squadrons in RAF using MK 4 Sabre jets.
Granted Sabre's changed during the Korean war But even an F-86A was superior to a MK 8 Meteor. 
Meteor was much closer in performance to P-80C, and F-84 (various) and the Navy straight wing jets.


----------



## fastmongrel (Dec 29, 2016)

Juha2 said:


> Hello Zyzygie
> And the real vision, look like that at the RLM there were kindred souls to those at the Air Ministry who thought that the fast fighters didn’t need a good rearward vision (very early Typhoons and the original canopy of Meteor F.8). The rearward vision from the cockpit of He 162 wasn’t that good either.
> 
> Juha



To be fair to the Air Ministry they didnt design the Typhoon or early Meteor canopies. The Typhoons bloody awful original canopy was solely the responsibility of Sidney Camm the designer. The early Meteor canopies werent great but 1st gen jets were a leap into the dark I think the canopy wasnt high on the designers list of priorities. 

The F8 early metal rear canopy was so that the cannons could be loaded the ammo tank hatches were under the metal portion which on early marks flipped up or in the F8 the whole canopy slid back to allow access.


----------



## Juha2 (Dec 29, 2016)

Yes, I know but IIRC at that time there was a mock-up phase during which the authorities accepted the manufacturers’ choices, also the cockpit solutions.


Juha


----------



## tyrodtom (Dec 29, 2016)

Zyzygie i would like to hear a little more about these " napalm tipped rockets" you mention in post #745.


----------



## Zyzygie (Dec 29, 2016)

Shortround6 said:


> The Meteor was NOT in the same class as the F-86 and Mig-15 as evidenced by the day fighters squadrons in Germany being issued Candair built Sabre jets to replace their Meteor MK 8s and 2 Squadrons in UK using Candair Sabres. Total of 11 squadrons in RAF using MK 4 Sabre jets.
> Granted Sabre's changed during the Korean war But even an F-86A was superior to a MK 8 Meteor.
> Meteor was much closer in performance to P-80C, and F-84 (various) and the Navy straight wing jets.



_"…above 25,000 ft the Sabre was totally superior because all it had to do was take advantage of its greater speed range and dive away. If the Sabres were above you to start with, your only defence was to execute a hard break towards the attack. Each time you carried out such a defensive manoeuvre at height you lost energy and became progressively slower and more vulnerable, while the Sabres (if they knew what they were about) zoom-climbed back above you for another attack. On the other hand, if you managed to find F-86s below you and they were tempted to try and ‘mix it’, the Meteor could give them a very nasty fright. At 20,000 ft or below, the Meteor could out-turn, out-accelerate and out-climb a Sabre. It also had much more effective airbrakes, which, used at the right time, could cause a high-speed attacker to overshoot his target and become a sitting duck! This was particularly so against the F-86A, which was relatively underpowered and had automatic wing leading-edge slats. In a very hard turn the slats often operated asymmetrically, which caused the Sabre to flick out of the turn. At such a moment spectacular camera gun footage was possible, especially if you had your nose almost up his jet-pipe!" 
"The Derwent was probably the most flexible and rugged jet engine of its day. In the Meteor it suffered terrible abuse but was incredibly reliable. Unlike many other early jet engines, particularly axial engines, it had good surge resistance, and with some care and understanding it could be accelerated to full throttle very quickly. It was possible to get it to surge on occasion – usually when above 25,000 ft – by banging the throttle open from a low power setting when the aircraft was at a very slow forward speed and a high angle of attack. The surge was announced by a series of muffled pops, accompanied by vibration, and the jet-pipe temperature needle jammed at the high end of the scale. Recovery was obtained by completely closing the throttle, then opening up progressively, all the time watching the JPT gauge. I do not remember a Derwent actually flaming out as a result of in-flight abuse, and they never seemed to have been damaged by the disgraceful hammering we gave them…"_

Caygill, Peter *Meteor from the Cockpit: Britain’s First Jet Fighter* Casemate Publishers​
The Meteor F 8 had a much higher thrust to weight ratio 0.47 vs 0.35 for the Sabre, and therefore better acceleration and initial climb rate, and the engines were much more robust than the J47. The Meteor also had a lower wing loading 43 vs 51.3. See attachment 1.

The later F86 variants had the leading edge slats removed to give the so called "6-3" wing :
_"... In the case of the solid leading edge and increased internal fuel capacity, the design change produced increased combat performance..." _​See attachment 2.

Later Sabres also replaced their inadequate 6 x 0.5" machine guns with 4 x 20mm cannon:
_The F-86H-5-NH, which appeared in January of 1955, introduced an armament of four 20-mm M-39 cannon. The M-39 was formerly known as the T-160, which was first tested in Korea. These guns weighed 286 pounds more than previous Sabre gun installations, but packed a lot more punch. Ammunition supply was limited to only 600 rounds, which was only about six seconds of firing time. _
_North American F-86H Sabre_​
On the other hand it's not much good having superior maneuverability below 20,000 ft as the excerpt above indicates:
_*"the Sabres (if they knew what they were about) zoom-climbed back above you for another attack"
*_
​


----------



## Zyzygie (Dec 29, 2016)

tyrodtom said:


> Zyzygie i would like to hear a little more about these " napalm tipped rockets" you mention in post #745.



See Korean strike No. 77 Sqn RAAF

You have to get a couple of minutes in to see the rockets in action.

See also attachment.


----------



## tyrodtom (Dec 29, 2016)

I'm surprised , the warheads couldn't much more than 2 gallons of napalm. But it looks to be effective,

I'm so used to the way the USAF did it. No napalm bombs smaller than 33 gallons, and they very seldom used that. Usually the 66 and 100 gallon napalm bombs were what we loaded when I was working with such things in the late 60s.


----------



## Glider (Dec 30, 2016)

Maybe its worth considering the views of the Australian pilots of the Meteor in Korea who had a Christmas song which went

'All I want for Christmas is my wings swept back,
My wings swept back, my wings swept back'

A refrain that has no technical stats behind it I agree, but equally, says it all


----------



## Zyzygie (Dec 30, 2016)

tyrodtom said:


> I'm surprised , the warheads couldn't much more than 2 gallons of napalm. But it looks to be effective,
> 
> I'm so used to the way the USAF did it. No napalm bombs smaller than 33 gallons, and they very seldom used that. Usually the 66 and 100 gallon napalm bombs were what we loaded when I was working with such things in the late 60s.



The warheads were 60 lb. That's about 27 kg. Based on RD of roughly 0.8, that's about 33 litres, or about 9 US gallons.


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 30, 2016)

Rockets in the photo in the attachment appear to be standard HE rockets.
Napalm rockets _may_ look like








Still doubtful if they held 9 gallons

Source for photos is: Do we have a napalm rockets mod? - Thirdwire: Strike Fighters 2 Series - Mods & Skinning Discussion

One newspaper clippings attached say 5 gallons (Australian newspapers and RAAF aircraft so imperial gallons would be a very good guess = 6 1/2 US gallons?).

Edit: warhead weight is not filling weight. Warhead weight would include the walls of the warhead, the filling and the fuse/s.


----------



## Zyzygie (Dec 30, 2016)

Shortround6 said:


> Rockets in the photo in the attachment appear to be standard HE rockets.
> Napalm rockets _may_ look like
> 
> 
> ...


OK. That explains that... but I still wouldn't like to get hit with 6.5 U.S. gallons of napalm.


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 30, 2016)

Sabre's in Korea had pretty much six .50 cal guns, the 20mm cannon don't show up until until late and then in limited numbers for test. Cannon armed Sabres , eight in number arrived in Korea in Jan 1953. They managed 282 combat sorties before the armistice in July 1953. No F-86Hs were issued to active squadrons, even in the US, until 1954.
However the six .50 cal guns in the Sabre's were not WW II guns. They were the M3 model that fired at around 1100-1200rpm or almost 50% faster than WW II guns. They also fired different ammo. The M23 incendiary round was a large part of the ammo load. I am not sure if it reached 100%. The M23 had about 500fpm more velocity but was essentially an incendiary round with NO armor piercing ability. It did carry 5.8 grams of incendiary material though. 
The Meteor used MK V Hispanos which fired at about 720rpm which is better than most of the WW II Hispanos ( Tempests got the MK V) and at some point after WW II the British switched to aluminum fuses instead of brass for the 20mm HE rounds which made them lighter and improved velocity a bit. 

Difference in climb was probably marginal. Yes the Meteor had better power to weight but climb is not _just _power to weight. It is power to weight _AFTER _you take out the power needed to maintain climb speed _AND _the power needed to _overcome the extra drag_ of the aircraft flying at what ever incidence (angle of attack) was needed to get the climb rate desired. 
The Meteor, being a much higher drag aircraft, was using a lot of it's extra power to fight the extra drag. Both planes, according to published specifications, had a very similar initial climb rate. I sure wouldn't bet much on a 3-5% difference in published figures as individual production planes could vary around 3% from each other when new. 
However climb rate was very dependent on weight. 1954 Jane's gives the following figures for 3 different Meteors. 
T. MK 7 at .......14,140lbs......8,000fpm at sea level
F. MK 8 at....... 15,675lbs......7,000fpm at sea level
PR, MK 10 at.. 17,345lbs......6,050fpm at sea level. This version reverted to the full span wings of the early MK III. which added 3-4,000ft to the ceiling. 

Performance for F-86 versions can be found here: Sabre vs MiG

I would take the service ceiling numbers with a grain of salt (or more) and would note that the higher powered -27 engine didn't make into service in Korea until June of 1952 and then in increasing numbers until the armistice the next summer.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 30, 2016)

Zyzygie said:


> _"…above 25,000 ft the Sabre was totally superior because all it had to do was take advantage of its greater speed range and dive away. If the Sabres were above you to start with, your only defence was to execute a hard break towards the attack. Each time you carried out such a defensive manoeuvre at height you lost energy and became progressively slower and more vulnerable, while the Sabres (if they knew what they were about) zoom-climbed back above you for another attack. On the other hand, if you managed to find F-86s below you and they were tempted to try and ‘mix it’, the Meteor could give them a very nasty fright. At 20,000 ft or below, the Meteor could out-turn, out-accelerate and out-climb a Sabre. It also had much more effective airbrakes, which, used at the right time, could cause a high-speed attacker to overshoot his target and become a sitting duck! This was particularly so against the F-86A, which was relatively underpowered and had automatic wing leading-edge slats. In a very hard turn the slats often operated asymmetrically, which caused the Sabre to flick out of the turn. At such a moment spectacular camera gun footage was possible, especially if you had your nose almost up his jet-pipe!"
> "The Derwent was probably the most flexible and rugged jet engine of its day. In the Meteor it suffered terrible abuse but was incredibly reliable. Unlike many other early jet engines, particularly axial engines, it had good surge resistance, and with some care and understanding it could be accelerated to full throttle very quickly. It was possible to get it to surge on occasion – usually when above 25,000 ft – by banging the throttle open from a low power setting when the aircraft was at a very slow forward speed and a high angle of attack. The surge was announced by a series of muffled pops, accompanied by vibration, and the jet-pipe temperature needle jammed at the high end of the scale. Recovery was obtained by completely closing the throttle, then opening up progressively, all the time watching the JPT gauge. I do not remember a Derwent actually flaming out as a result of in-flight abuse, and they never seemed to have been damaged by the disgraceful hammering we gave them…"_
> 
> Caygill, Peter *Meteor from the Cockpit: Britain’s First Jet Fighter* Casemate Publishers​
> ...



And you're using this comparison against the F-86A, make the same paper comparisons with the F-86F. Even with the limitations with the F-86A below 20K, if you keep your speed up it still outclassed the F.8. Again, you'd have to be asleep at the stick to get suckered in to throw away your tactical advantage.

"_On the other hand, *if* you managed to find F-86s below you and they were tempted to try and ‘mix it’, the Meteor could give them a very nasty fright."
_
*If* the queen had slightly different anatomy, she'd be the king!


----------



## Zyzygie (Dec 30, 2016)

_“In any practice engagement I have had in the last 20 years where I have turned with another aeroplane in a bigger picture environment – rather than the static one by ones, two by twos or four by fours – every time I have tried to do that I have ended up being shot by somebody else who actually is not in the fight. As soon as you enter a turning fight, your situational awareness actually shrinks down because the only thing you can be operating with is the aeroplane you are turning with. The person who has the advantage is the person who can stand off, watch the engagement and just pick you off at the time. So you got to be really careful about how you use those KPIs.”_​The F-35s Air-to-Air Capability Controversy​
In view of the disparity between the Meteor and MiG numbers in their Korean War engagements, it's remarkable that the kill ratio between the two was so close. Then there's the Meteor's ground attack record which arguably no other aircraft at the time could match, no?:
_
"The communist ground forces soon began to feel the effects of the continuous attacks on their supply lines, and by early May, began to send their MiGs south in the hope of intercepting the raiders before they could reach their targets. Once more, the Meteors were to clash with the MiGs. On 4 May 1952 a patrol of two Meteors sighted a flight of nine MiG-15s south west of Pyongyang. The MiGs immediately launched an attack, but on this occasion the odds lay with the Meteors. The MiGs were forced to fight the Meteors at low altitude, thus relinquishing the MiG's high latitude performance advantage. A MiG latched itself onto Sergeant E. Myer's tail but was quickly shaken off, enabling his number two, Pilot Officer J. Surman, to fire two bursts of cannon fire into the MiG. The starboard tail plane and the starboard side of the MGg's exhaust port were seen to disintegrate in a flash of flame, and Surman was credited with probably having destroyed the aircraft as neither Australian saw the MiG impact the ground. Four days later, in the same area, a flight of four Meteors were intercepted by two MiGs. Once again, the Meteors had a height advantage and Pilot Officer Bill Simonds (A77-385) was able to make a firing pass on one of the enemy jets. The MiG entered an uncontrollable spin, and the pilot was seen to bail out over friendly territory, resulting in the Squadron's ninth MiG claim since the beginning of the war."

"The MiG pilots gained their revenge on the 2 October 1952 when Flying Officer O. Cruickshank, a RAF exchange pilot with the Squadron, was shot down in a surprise attack. A flight of four Meteors had carried out a successful rocket strike and were returning to Kimpo when two MiGs jumped them from the 8 o'clock position. Sergeant K. Murray received a 37 mm hit in the port tail pipe during the MiG's first pass and observed Cruickshank bailing out of A77-436 over Cho'do."_
_Meteor Operations in Korea_​

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zyzygie (Dec 31, 2016)

FLYBOYJ said:


> And you're using this comparison against the F-86A, make the same paper comparisons with the F-86F. Even with the limitations with the F-86A below 20K, if you keep your speed up it still outclassed the F.8. Again, you'd have to be asleep at the stick to get suckered in to throw away your tactical advantage.
> 
> "_On the other hand, *if* you managed to find F-86s below you and they were tempted to try and ‘mix it’, the Meteor could give them a very nasty fright."
> _
> *If* the queen had slightly different anatomy, she'd be the king!



Agreed. But arguably the fighter bomber was king in Korea:
_The contribution made by 77 Squadron during the three years of the Korean War is totally out of proportion to its size. During the war the Squadron flew a total of 18,872 sorties, comprising of 3,872 Mustang sorties and 15,000 Meteor sorties. The effect this had on the enemy was devastating; 3,700 buildings, 1,500 vehicles, 16 bridges, 20 locomotives and 65 railway carriages destroyed. The outstanding results achieved by 77 Squadron, evidently much higher than usual for a single squadron, would not have been possible without the support of 391 (Base) and 491 (Maintenance) Squadrons. The level of technical support was outstanding, resulting in close to 100% serviceability for the Mustangs and Meteors. To achieve this, maintenance crews often worked up to sixteen hours per day under extremely harsh, and often wet, conditions.

It must not be forgotten though, that 38 personnel lost their lives and seven pilots were captured serving their country. _
_Meteor Operations in Korea_​See also attached.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zyzygie (Dec 31, 2016)

Shortround6 said:


> Sabre's in Korea had pretty much six .50 cal guns, the 20mm cannon don't show up until until late and then in limited numbers for test. Cannon armed Sabres , eight in number arrived in Korea in Jan 1953. They managed 282 combat sorties before the armistice in July 1953. No F-86Hs were issued to active squadrons, even in the US, until 1954.
> However the six .50 cal guns in the Sabre's were not WW II guns. They were the M3 model that fired at around 1100-1200rpm or almost 50% faster than WW II guns. They also fired different ammo. The M23 incendiary round was a large part of the ammo load. I am not sure if it reached 100%. The M23 had about 500fpm more velocity but was essentially an incendiary round with NO armor piercing ability. It did carry 5.8 grams of incendiary material though.
> The Meteor used MK V Hispanos which fired at about 720rpm which is better than most of the WW II Hispanos ( Tempests got the MK V) and at some point after WW II the British switched to aluminum fuses instead of brass for the 20mm HE rounds which made them lighter and improved velocity a bit.
> 
> ...


The time to 30,000 ft for the F86A was 8 minutes. The same for the Meteor F8 was 5.8 minutes... This is surely a significant margin.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 31, 2016)

Zyzygie said:


> The time to 30,000 ft for the F86A was 8 minutes. The same for the Meteor F8 was 5.8 minutes... This is surely a significant margin.



The Saber was never a great climber when compared to the MiG-15 which climbed to 30K at under 5 minutes. This still doesn't negate the fact that the MiG-15 and F-86 (even the F-86A) outclassed the Meteor F.9. There were certain parameters where the Meteor had a slight performance advantage, but it suffered in other areas to the point that it was not going to effectively compete with either MiG or Saber.

From Joe Baugher's site - I disagree with his F-86 kill numbers, 

Sabre vs MiG


----------



## Zyzygie (Dec 31, 2016)

FLYBOYJ said:


> The Saber was never a great climber when compared to the MiG-15 which climbed to 30K at under 5 minutes. This still doesn't negate the fact that the MiG-15 and F-86 (even the F-86A) outclassed the Meteor F.9. There were certain parameters where the Meteor had a slight performance advantage, but it suffered in other areas to the point that it was not going to effectively compete with either MiG or Saber.
> 
> From Joe Baugher's site - I disagree with his F-86 kill numbers,
> 
> Sabre vs MiG


Agreed. There is absolutely no dispute that the Meteor was not competitive with the second generation jets as a specialist fighter. 
Just check out my previous posts.


----------



## Magnon (Jan 1, 2017)

BLine22 said:


> No, I would say that the F-86 and Mig-15 were definitely comparable. I would consider the Meteor F-8 more in a class with the F-80C, F84G, F9f, and F2H.


See my previous post:
Here is an interesting little snippet from http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/p...n_kerosene.pdf
_“...our opponents flew de Havilland Vampire and Gloster Meteor jets from England. The Vampires were pretty little single-engined fighters with twin tail booms. They didn’t have the performance of the Banshee. The early Meteor F Mk 3, the ones we faced the most, were about an even match for the Banshees and made the air-to-air maneuvers an interesting challenge. There were a few late-model Meteor F 8 aircraft that had bigger engines and were easily identified in flight by the large nacelles on the wing. We never toyed with those unless we had a good starting advantage because they would eat up a Banshee...”_​This was in post war exercises over Europe around about 1948.
The Banshee had a much higher thrust than the F3 Meteor with two 3250 lb thrust Westinghouse J34-WE-34 engines. Its engines were mounted in the fuselage, so it should have had an excellent roll rate, giving it an important advantage in a dog fight. However, it also had a relatively high wing loading, at around 70 lb/sq.ft., compared to about half that for the Meteor F3. It was also pretty heavy fully loaded 25,214 lb (Wikepedia), which would give it a *thrust to weight ratio of 0.26.* The Meteor F3 was 12,614 (CFE Report), so the Meteor F3's thrust to weight ratio was better, especially if they had been fitted with Derwent IV engines of 2400 lb thrust (It would then have been 0.37). In common with the Banshee, the Me 262 also had a relatively high wing loading at around 60 lb/ft2, and had a slightly better thrust to weight ratio of 0.28, as against the Meteor F3’s 0.32, based on using the Derwent I. *The Meteor F8 had a thrust to weight ratio of 0.47.*
Me 262 data from ch11-2​

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 1, 2017)

Folks, we're getting too wrapped up on thrust to weight ratio. AFAIK thrust to weight ratio needs to be examined at several times during operation. There could be a static measurement of when the aircraft is first accelerated and then one taken at various stages of flight. One must consider if the same thrust to weight ratio is continual during the entire speed range, I do not believe it is linear and once an aircraft is at speed one would have to consider the mass in motion and excessive thrust available. I believe that when comparing these second generation jet aircraft, you'll find in some speed ranges the F-86 could easily accelerate away from the MiG-15. I'm sure Bill (Dragondog) could add to this or correct my comments....

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 1, 2017)

I would also note that the F2H was a rather variable airplane and the WIki figures are not only for the last version but the "_loaded 25,214 lb " _includes under wing stores or drop tanks. 
The -1 version had 3,000lb thrust engines.
The -2 version had 3150lb thrust engines but had 12in of extra fuselage length to accommodate 177 US gallons of fuel plus wing tip tanks of 200US gallons each could be added. 
The -3 version got 3600lb engines but got an even longer fuselage to accommodate not only search radar in the nose but two additional fuel tanks inside the fuselage. 

The quoted passage _probably _refers to the F2H-2 version but _might _refer to the F2H-3
The quoted passage refers to exercises conducted in late 1953 (or possibly 1954) The pilot writing the passage (and the book it is from) didn't get his wings until 5th of March 1952.


----------



## Zyzygie (Jan 3, 2017)

Shortround6 said:


> I would also note that the F2H was a rather variable airplane and the WIki figures are not only for the last version but the "_loaded 25,214 lb " _includes under wing stores or drop tanks.
> The -1 version had 3,000lb thrust engines.
> The -2 version had 3150lb thrust engines but had 12in of extra fuselage length to accommodate 177 US gallons of fuel plus wing tip tanks of 200US gallons each could be added.
> The -3 version got 3600lb engines but got an even longer fuselage to accommodate not only search radar in the nose but two additional fuel tanks inside the fuselage.
> ...



Thanks for that information.

See http://history.nasa.gov/SP-468/app-a3.htm and attached excerpt for more.


----------



## Zyzygie (Apr 29, 2017)

tyrodtom said:


> Zyzygie i would like to hear a little more about these " napalm tipped rockets" you mention in post #745.


Trying to attack a well-entrenched enemy with free-falling bombs was pretty dangerous, and getting more so:

_Accurate enemy anti-aircraft fire was becoming a major problem for the Australian pilots, and on 6 February 1952, it claimed yet another Meteor; A77-616 flown by Flight Lieutenant J. Hannan. A large search was launched for Hannan who had been seen to parachute safely, but on landing in white snow, became invisible to the pilots overhead. Hannan was captured by the North Koreans and spent the rest of the war in a POW camp. One of the searching pilots, Flying Officer R. Wittman (A77-774) had a lucky escape, when an enemy .25 calibre slug passed through the aircraft's seat without touching him. The RAAF pilots found the accuracy of the conventional bombing in the mountainous Korean terrain left something to be desired and had a definite preference for the air-to-ground rocket. Late in 1951, the RAAF developed a new type of rocket containing napalm, known as the 'Flaming Onion', and after trials at Williamtown and preliminary testing in Korea, the first examples arrived at 77 Squadron early in February 1952._







_The Americans showed considerable interest in the new weapon, and on 8 February 1952, when the napalm rocket was first used in combat, the USAF provided an RF-80 reconnaissance aircraft to record the results on film for later analysis. The Squadron's new CO, Wing Commander Ron Susans led four Meteors armed with the new rockets in an attack on several buildings with 75% of the rockets scoring hits on the targets, resulting in numerous fires. The new weapon was to prove extremely useful against the enemy vehicle convoys and troop concentrations and soon became the standard under-wing weapon carried by RAAF Meteors, with each aircraft capable of carrying eight rockets._
_Meteor Operations in Korea_​


----------

