Yeah I thought they did.
Best Jet of WW2?
- Thread starter bronzewhaler82
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
- Status
delcyros
Tech Sergeant
Why not give the title to the Gloster Meteor MK III? Sure, it was not as fast or advanced as a Me-262 or P-80 but it bears a very important advantage over other early jets:
1.) ..it was produced in numbers by wars end
2.) ..it has enough fuel to fullfill different roles:
A) interceptor (against V-1)
B) air cover
C) recon
D) escort
3.) ..it was durable enough and well equipped for succesful ground attacks
4.) ...it was deployed on ETO and while it never encountered enemy jets it flew some ground attack sorties (the closest beeing an attack on an Ar-234 B airfield ).
This is making the Meteor an excellent multi purpose plane. Not the best in anything but able to do all jobs (better ground attacker than Me-262/He-162, better dogfighter than Ar-234 and so on...) Don´t this turn the mediocre Meteor in a good one?
And with the introduction of the MK IV in late 1945 it was one of the best, a hard match for a Me-262 or He-162.
1.) ..it was produced in numbers by wars end
2.) ..it has enough fuel to fullfill different roles:
A) interceptor (against V-1)
B) air cover
C) recon
D) escort
3.) ..it was durable enough and well equipped for succesful ground attacks
4.) ...it was deployed on ETO and while it never encountered enemy jets it flew some ground attack sorties (the closest beeing an attack on an Ar-234 B airfield ).
This is making the Meteor an excellent multi purpose plane. Not the best in anything but able to do all jobs (better ground attacker than Me-262/He-162, better dogfighter than Ar-234 and so on...) Don´t this turn the mediocre Meteor in a good one?
And with the introduction of the MK IV in late 1945 it was one of the best, a hard match for a Me-262 or He-162.
I will agree with you that it was a good multi purpose aircraft but I would not classify it as the best. I still the think the Me-262 could outmatch a Meteor and so could a P-80.
delcyros
Tech Sergeant
Agreed. Both could outmatch a MK III. But the MK IV could outmatch a Me-262 A easily and even a P-80 would have a hard match against the MK IV....
the lancaster kicks ass
Major General
- 19,937
- Dec 20, 2003
agreed again............
I just think the 262 and P-80 were technically more advanced and better aircraft than the Meteor. I think the Meteor was great for its times. Now the Vampire on the other hand I think would have ruled all 3 of them.
cheddar cheese
Major General
And the Re-2007 would have dominated. 8)
delcyros
Tech Sergeant
I think the Re-2007 is very much overrated. It probably lacked both, speed and range compared to other early jets. And it was years away from deployment.
the Vampire would be exceptionally good but it wasn´t deployed in numbers (as was the P-80).
the Vampire would be exceptionally good but it wasn´t deployed in numbers (as was the P-80).
Nope sure wasn't.
delcyros
Tech Sergeant
By the way, what plane do you think would have been the first
to break Mach 1 (when and why)? (...a little off-topic...)
Miles M.52
DFS 346
or X-1
????
to break Mach 1 (when and why)? (...a little off-topic...)
Miles M.52
DFS 346
or X-1
????
I would go with one of the 3 here: Messerschmitt Me-263, Messerschmitt Me P.1101 or the Focke Wulf Ta-183.
delcyros
Tech Sergeant
Umm, I should rather say: "..in level flight.." or not?
Me-263: The soviet I-270 (modified Me-263-copy) was unable to break Mach 1, but it was also a larger, heavier design with less thust and usual wing configuration. The critical Mach figure of the Me-263 is comparably low, the tailles design would be very problematic...
Me-P1101: Lacks thrust to overcome the drag at high subsonic speeds (maybe in a dive?), but still an interesting choice.
Ta-183: Lacks thrust as the Me-P1101, taildesign seems to be critical (not sure in this) in terms of statics.
Me-263: The soviet I-270 (modified Me-263-copy) was unable to break Mach 1, but it was also a larger, heavier design with less thust and usual wing configuration. The critical Mach figure of the Me-263 is comparably low, the tailles design would be very problematic...
Me-P1101: Lacks thrust to overcome the drag at high subsonic speeds (maybe in a dive?), but still an interesting choice.
Ta-183: Lacks thrust as the Me-P1101, taildesign seems to be critical (not sure in this) in terms of statics.
wmaxt
Staff Sergeant
delcyros said:
There is a story in "Planes and Pilots of WWII" That states the F-86 prototype broke the sound barrier several months prior to the X-1 (in a dive ov course. the F-86 was "transsonic" not supersonic.).
delcyros
Tech Sergeant
I read it, too. There were many claims to have broken the sound barrier earlier than 1947:
1945: Highest recorded Me-163 (B) speed during interception (accidently): IAS(recorded): 1130 Km/h (in a dive, far beyond it´s critical Mach speed)
1945: Gerhardt Mutke at an Me-262 A dive, IAS(after Mutke): 1150 Km/h (also beyond it´s critical Mach speed)
late 1945: US pilots notes of the captured Me-262 include the following sentence: "...close to Mach speed you loose controll, the plane pitches down strongly. Once exceeded, you regain controll.."
1947: F-86 exceeds Mach 1 in a dive
1947: X-1 with civilian test pilot is said to have broken Mach 1
-None of these claims are confirmed by an independend source, but they remain very interestingly...-
1947: X-1, piloted by Chuck Yeager breaks Mach 1
1945: Highest recorded Me-163 (B) speed during interception (accidently): IAS(recorded): 1130 Km/h (in a dive, far beyond it´s critical Mach speed)
1945: Gerhardt Mutke at an Me-262 A dive, IAS(after Mutke): 1150 Km/h (also beyond it´s critical Mach speed)
late 1945: US pilots notes of the captured Me-262 include the following sentence: "...close to Mach speed you loose controll, the plane pitches down strongly. Once exceeded, you regain controll.."
1947: F-86 exceeds Mach 1 in a dive
1947: X-1 with civilian test pilot is said to have broken Mach 1
-None of these claims are confirmed by an independend source, but they remain very interestingly...-
1947: X-1, piloted by Chuck Yeager breaks Mach 1
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
George "Wheaties" Welch was the guy who broke the sound barrier the days before Yeager did it. I've heard stories that "Wheaties" was always bitter about his Air Force career and kind of had a chip on his shoulder. Put him together with the outspoken Yeager and you had a set-up for an argument. When I lived close to Edwards AFB a few years ago I heard from some old timers who worked at Edwards (Muroc) during that time that Yeager and Welch couldn't stand each other! The legend has it the Welch knew about the X-1 and record attempt and he went out over Edwards in an XF-86 and purposely broke the sound barrier, just to show Yeager up. It is rumored that the air force altered XF-86 test records by 7 months! Welch died a few years later testing the F-100. Check out this link: http://home.att.net/~historyzone/Welch2.html
A
Anonymous
Guest
delcyros said:
Airspeed indicators of the time were not capable of giving accurate readings at high fractions of mach. Also, when diving, the delay in the mechanism which adjusts for pressure will give a falsly high reading, since it is applying the airflow at the actual pressure to the equlibriums of a lower pressure from a higher altitude.
So these claims of high airspeeds are probably false. The pilots were not lying, the instruments were!
=S=
Lunatic
A
Anonymous
Guest
FLYBOYJ said:
Breaking the sound barrier in a dive would not really count anyway. Anyone could have done it. Just build a bullet shaped metal basket and drop it from 30,000 feet and walla - you will break the sound barrier - then release part of the basket at the nose with the weight in it, let the cockpit area slow down, and then deploy a parachute. But what would that prove?
Also, because of the airspeed indicator issues I listed above, readings in excess of mach 1 on the airspeed indicator were unreliable anyway.
=S=
Lunatic
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
RG_Lunatic said:
I disagree with your statement about those early airspeed indicators. I worked on privately owned F-86s and Hawker Hunters and the pitot static systems were very similar and although they did produce errors close to mach, the errors were usually too slow of an airspeed while getting close to trans-sonic numbers. When we flew the Hunter, we really had to watch it because once it became trans sonic, it really wanted to "pop through." The owner of the aircraft would of gotten into big trouble for exceeding mach 1 in civilian airspace. But as far as Welch, I believe his feat was still noteworthy because...
1. There were witnesses to the fact. (Sonic Booms heard across the Antelope Valley).
2. Even though it was in a dive, it was still in an aircraft that took off and landed with a human pilot manipulating the controls, under its own power.
3. When pulling out of the dive, he was super sonic straight and level. Weather it's felt this feat is diminished because Welch did it in a dive is of ones opinion, but he must of hit a nerve with the Air Force as they were willing to at least temporarily cover the whole thing up!
Later in the same month, Welch repeated the same flight profile while being tracked from the ground using ground telemetry equipment. Although this equipment by today's standards is quite primitive, it was still pretty accurate and showed that the XF-86 did exceed mach 1. Additionally, it also showed only small errors within the airspeed indicator installed on the aircraft.
delcyros
Tech Sergeant
I do not question the inaccuracy of the airspeed indicators (that´s why IAS and not TAS). But I believe these flights came really close to Mach speed or even break Mach 1 (IAS wasn´t the only evidence) if it could be confirmed from independent sources. And I agree with RG that level flight should be very important for this question (otherwise we should count some Me-262 dives which ended fatal for their pilots, too). With this in mind we are back on M.52, DFS 346 and X-1. What do you think? Estimate normal (war time) development time. My choice would be the M.52 (with more powerful engines) or maybe the DFS-346 in mid 1946.
cheddar cheese
Major General
www.luftarchiv.de quotes the estimated speed for the DFS-346 at over 2200kmh
- Status
![](data:image/svg+xml;charset=utf-8,<svg height="1px" width="1px" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" version="1.1"/>)
![](data:image/svg+xml;charset=utf-8,<svg height="16px" width="16px" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" version="1.1"/>)