Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Multhopp has always maintained that he would have made modifications to the P.183 design along the way as development would have played out if the project had reached fruition.
Use of these engines on the Meteor, along with new nacelles should have allowed top-speed, and climb performance to match the 262's and turning should be better with lower wing loadin,.
But above 450 mph (depending on altitude) the Meteor starst to get unstable, particularly at altitude, due to airflow separation over the tail. And crit mach was low untill the new nacelles were added, but even then only ~.79 mach.
Of course it's lift loading that realy affects turning ability and climb, and this would depend on wing efficiency,
Wing loading = 147.6 kg/m^2
Now let us ignore the increase in CL the higher AR causes and alone consider that the Me-262 benefits from a increase in lift critical AoA by 25% because of its automatic LE slats:
175.11 * 0.75 = 131.33 kg/m^2
So as you can see the slats alone more than makes sure that the Me-262 always will out-turn the Gloster Meteor.
Lets compare weight with no fuel as the fuel consumption was about the same for both a/c.
Delcyros,
You apparently do not understand the function of the slats very well. The slats start to deploy at a very low AoA, and then gradually (Or immediately depending on the ferocity in the increase of the AoA) extend until they can no more. In a maximum performance turn the critical AoA has been increased by 25%, and so has lift, giving the Me-262 the edge. The Me-262 can easily pull critical AoA even at high speed, however depending on how fast it's going the G forces might be to great for the airframe - something like 8.5 - 9 G's, plus at those loads the pilot is no longer concious.
Also that the Meteor reaches its CLmax earlier in the AoA range is no advantage. Because of the slats the Me-262 can pull steeper turns at all speeds and because of this is helped more by its available thrust as the vector has been increased.
Also AFAIK the Me-262's wing thickness ratio stayed very close over the entire span, something like 10 to 9 or 8.5. The main reason for the full span slats was however that there was no additional thrust over inner parts of the wing.
Seriously, Soren, slats do not deploy at low or moderate AoA´s. They do pop out close to the point where the airflow does change to turbulent or seperated, which is typically only valid for high angles of attack. At low or medium angle´s of attack, LE-slats do not add to the lift coefficiant.
So You need a condition of flight were such extreme aoa-conditions apply. This is only at low speeds possible due to g-issues.
Deployed slats greatly increase the drag
and any Me-262 driver is better advised to keep his "e" as high as possible, esspeccially since the energy retention (=acceleration) of this A/C is pretty low.
either, but it is true that the Me 262 accelerated poorly compared to most prop-driven fighters (particularly at low speeds), but I certainly agree that the Me 262's energy retention is excelent compared to piston-engined fighters and the Meteor. (and probably the He 280 and Vampire, but probably similar to the P-80A and He 162) It performed best when used as an "energy fighter".and any Me-262 driver is better advised to keep his "e" as high as possible, esspeccially since the energy retention (=acceleration) of this A/C is pretty low.