Dogfight: Me 262 vs. Meteor

[JoeB]

I'm thinking of the Meteor F8 versus the F-86A, the F8 seems to have had a noticeably better thrust to weight ratio. The F-86 went through many, quite radical in engineering terms, modifications that eliminated this T/W ratio inferiority.

RAAF F8's did engage MiG 15's. The RAAF was significantly outnumbered and the losses were 4:2 in favour of the MiG's

Meteor and even early F-86A were not comparable in the high altitude air superiority role in Korea. Thrust to weight is only one factor. The low Mach limit of the straight wing jets (Meteor, US straight wing jets as well) made them completely non-competitive with the MiG-15 at altitude. But even the F-86A was quite competitive; and even the F-86F still had lower T/W than the MiG-15bis. The F-86's key advantage over the MiG-15 (besides pilot factors, just considering plane factors) was in high speed handling, an advantage which expanded with the later F-86's, though they also closed *part* (not all) of the gap with the MiG in climb and service ceiling.

75 sdn RAAF Meteors were used relatively briefly in the air superiority role in Korea in summer/fall 1951. They were a failure for the reason mentioned. The actual result was 4 Meteors downed by MiG's; all the engagements are known from the Soviet side and they lost no MiG's. Later the Meteors were shifted to the ground attack role (like the US straight wings) were they downed 2 intercepting MiG's of the PLAAF in a low altitude combat in 1952 per PLAAF account; another Meteor was picked off on a ground strike mission by a Soviet MiG same year, so 2:5 overall.

But the F-86A was quite successful in the high altitude air superiority role, and the variation in success among F-86 versions also depended on the varying quality of MiG opposition. Through spring 1951 for example the MiG's had only downed a single F-86A in combat. Later in 1951 the MiG opposition was strongest, F-86 air combat losses rose significantly and the kill ratio was lowest, though still distinctly in F-86's favor based on losses reported in each side's records. The F-86E was being introduced at that time. At the end of the war F-86F's had the highest kill ratio, but the quality of the opposition was lowest, having shifting away from the Soviets toward more PLAAF and KPAAF MiG units. I don't think we can determine the relative effectiveness of F-86 versions by calculating each version's kill ratio, but there is no comparison in the air combat effectiveness of the F-86 and Meteor in Korea.

Joe

 

[davparlr]

@ davparlr
I don't think to take 1946/47 data for the P-80 to make comparison is nor fair.

Generally you are correct. However, in these test, the P-80A tested had the same engines, the J-33-9/11, as the YP-80A sent to Europe for combat eval. Y stands for preproduction prototype. Only minor changes were made for the P-80A. I think these test accurately reflect performance of 1945 P-80A fighters.

At this time the Me262HG series would be available or at least the Jumo004D engines.

I think it is reasonable to believe that the Jumo004D powered Me-262 would start appearing toward the end of 1945. However, the powerful 5000 lb thrust Nene was already running in fall of '44 which represent what was available to the allies if needed. It would probably fit in the P-80. Even without the pressure of wartime demand and expenditures, the P-80B with the -21 engine producing 4500 lb thrust was being tested in late '46 and could probably been pressed forward had the war continued. This was pretty similar to the double Jumo 004D performance.

In 1945 Howard Hughes wanted to race a Me262 against a P-80 but was not allowed by the authorities, why?

In general, there was nothing to be proved. The AAF was busy testing the Me-262 so they knew what it would do. By this time no military would approve a race between its aircraft and a civilian aircraft/pilot, the legal risks would be massive.

...

Fact is neither P-80 nor Meteor were really combat ready during WWII and they were put in service only for propaganda reasons.

While I agree with you regarding the P-80, I think you are being unfair to the Meteor in that it had flown military operations.

Just for remember the 13 YP-80A were delivered from october '44 to april '45, the delivery of P-80A-1 started in april '45 (3 planes). In april '45 the German was over

The P-80A was the same as the YP-80A with a few minor modifications.

The XP-80 was no combat plane. I found this definition:
("X" from eXperimental design and developmental pure research programs, with no operational mission intended or feasible)

The XP-80 was a smaller aircraft with a Goblin H-1b engine of 2460 lbs thrust. The XP-80A introduced the P-80A size and used the same engine, J-33. Its performance would closer represent the P-80A. The YP-80A was a preproduction designation which closely predicted the P-80A design.

 

[Vincenzo]

the yp-80 were sent to europe for operational evalutation not combat evalutation. just for see technical trouble on real field airport

 

[Jack_Hill]

262 was designed as a pulk-zerstörer, not as a dogfighter. Speed and firepower were the masterkey of this effective and beautiful design.
262 pilots were trained and told to stricly avoid any dogfight.
Only rookies accepted to enter slow to medium speed engagements, thus killing most of the a/c superiority, though at such speed, 262 was pretty maneuverable.
But not enough to turn into almost all pistons of his time.
In the mentionned case, a skilled and cold-blooded 262 pilot would enter a steep dive, thus evading quickly from the meteor and pull before 900 km/h.
And asta la vista, baby

 

[bada]

From the report by the RAE from april1946 found here, the meteor (at least the Mk3) was simply not fitted to combat.
engine surge above 20000ft, snaking before critical mach, ailerons heaviness (something very important in combat to induce maneuvres ), no power generator in case of engine failure, bad cockpit layout(switches, indicators), no cockpit heat, no cockpit ventilation, no G-sustaintable pilot position...and also throttle sensitive engines, just like the german-ones with also a slow spool-time (? the right english word?). I do not say that, it's the RAE in 46

Read the repport, there are only 33pages

so what in a fictive combat against a 262? a german rookie with 20h or an experienced KG pilot with hundreds missions on bombers? or an Expert? i'd say with the 2last options, not much luck for the meteor,the expert using the full potential of the plane, the Kg pilot using the much greater mach speed to evade,even with the 2 babies under the nose. With the rookie option, it'd be like 50/50, depending if the rookie is a brainer or not.

the P80 was something different, but between the yp-80 and the P-80 there was still a lot of modifications if i remember correctly (even the size,not?) i'd like to know the stats about the j-33 built into the P80 in 45, and generally, i'd like to know if there is a really good book, with tons of details, factory reports and other intersting data about the p-80. (thanks)

 

[Jack_Hill]

Hi Bada.
Nice questioning.
But do you really think anyone flying a Sturmvogel would really try to make evasive maneuvre keeping his babies on ?
I really guess, even if "verboten" that even a rookie will try as much as possible to lighten his aircraft as soon as possible while opening throttle.

 

[Friendly Fire]

Just a quick slightly unrelated question. If the Meteor pilot (the variation used frequently shortly before Battle of Bulge) was to pull up and accelerate vertically, and the 262 pilot also did the same to give a chase, who would lose?

 

[tyrodtom]

No jet of that period had the power to accelerate vertically.
You didn't get jets with that much excess power till 15-20 years later.

 

[davparlr]

the P80 was something different, but between the yp-80 and the P-80 there was still a lot of modifications if i remember correctly (even the size,not?) i'd like to know the stats about the j-33 built into the P80 in 45, and generally, i'd like to know if there is a really good book, with tons of details, factory reports and other intersting data about the p-80. (thanks)

The initial XP-80 (Lulu-belle) was a smaller aircraft. The XP-80A and the more mature YP-80A were larger and had much more powerful engines. These actually represented production configuration is size and engine. A couple of changes in the YP-80A was the addition of boundary layer removal in inlets and speed brakes.

Engine thrust on the I-40/J-33-9/J-33-11 seem to vary from around 3700 to 4000 lbs of thrust. According to my source book, "American Combat Planes" by Wagner, the dash 21 engine used on the P-80B had about 4500 lbs thrust and the dash 23 engine used on the p-80C had about 4600 lbs thrust but with 5400 lbs thrust available with War Emergency.

The only book I have on the P-80 is "The P-80 Shooting Star, evolution of a jet fighter", by E.T. Wooldridge, Jr. of the National Air and Space Museum. It is a bit disappointing to me in lack of data and seems to stress the XP-80, which, I would bet is at the Smithsonian.

I do think the Meteor in WW2 was not up to par with the Me-262. The Vampire seems to have been more competitive.

 

[war eagle]

To give a short answer the 262 with its higher speed,better manouverability and 4 cannon would hammer the meteor and rookies were never let near a 262 only top aces (EXPERTEN) were considered for jet fighter training as the plane was basically a deathtrap in inexperienced hands.

 

[Glider]

The Meteor isn't quite getting a fair shout here, it was slower than the 262 without question and its ailerons were its biggest problems but it was easy to fly and probably matched the agility (it did turn inside the Tempest).
However it was the best the Allies had against the 262 and could catch the 234.

The FIII was a temnporary mark while the F4 was developed and entered production in 1946.

 

[fastmongrel]

How much effort did the RAF put into the Meteor. It seems to have been considered as a necessary but not particulary useful project. More of a the Germans have one we need one as well.

The Vampire was given even less resources and seemed to get flying depite everyones best efforts to screw it up.

 

[Glider]

Not nearly as much effort as could have been put into development. The main roblem was the engine. Whittle set up a company to develop jet engines, the Government took it off him and gave it to Rover, they were out of there depth and wasted a couple of years when Rolls Royce took it over and had the resources to really develop it.

 

[Jack_Hill]

I try to imagine a 2/3/4 or even five years war experienced pilot, switching from single or twin piston engined a/c to jet. will he lose most of his basics in fighting conditions for a while?
Isn't it there a need for an almost complete relearning of combat tactics ? Can an expert, mean thousand hours flying Hs-129 or Bf-110 or Fw-190 etc..Roughly trained on the new model, not being confident with powerplants, be still called an expert ?
Further, thinking many medium experienced pilots being involved in switching to jets.
Mean, it would be hard for me to switch from middle age to science fiction within few weeks...
Statistics and datas are usefull and fascinating.
"Pilots, in their strengths and weakness are much more fascinating"
"Not everyone can pretend being A.Galland"
(Confucius or tino rossi, on the Dordogne shores, Corsica, 2012)

 

[Jack_Hill]

Getting back to thread : as a 262 pilot, i would never engage any allied fighter a/c of this time knowing all of them fast, hard hitters, jockeyed by trained, courageous and aggressive pilots without any height/speed/sun advantage and real fire solution.
"Is it glorious to die as a stupid heroe ?"
Confucius again, same place, same time.
Hi all, good night, best regards.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

I try to imagine a 2/3/4 or even five years war experienced pilot, switching from single or twin piston engined a/c to jet. will he lose most of his basics in fighting conditions for a while?Isn't it there a need for an almost complete relearning of combat tactics ? Can an expert, mean thousand hours flying Hs-123 or Bf-110 or Fw-190 etc..Roughly trained on the new model, not being confident with powerplants, be still called an expert ?Further, thinking many medium experienced pilots being involved in switching to jets.
Mean, it would be hard for me to switch from middle age to science fiction within few weeks...
Statistics and datas are usefull and fascinating.
"Pilots, in their strengths and weakness are much more fascinating"
"Not everyone can pretend being A.Galland"
(Confucius or tino rossi, on the Dordogne shores, Corsica, 2012)

The transition into jets from recips is not a difficult process and for the most part is almost transparent. The biggest challenge faced by newly minted jet pilots were understanding how their new propulsion system works and what can happen if they abuse controls. The most difficult thing to worry about is the reliability of this new technology during this period.

Because of higher speeds, firing solutions had to be adjusted as well as certain maneuvers (you don't want to put prolonged negative Gs on early turbine engines). Tactics that involved slower, turning dogfights would become a thing of the past. Compared to the bigger picture, the difference between flying a jet and a recip boils down to "no right rudder."

 

[davparlr]

I would have to agree with FLYBOYJ. While I have never flown a powerful recip, I would imagine changing to a jet would be relatively easy, certainly in today's world. No dealing with torque or manifold pressure or propeller pitch. In the days of old, when jet engines were young, pilots did have to learn to caress a jet engine instead of manhandling a recip. Of importance then was throttle management, don't cause rapid movements, thrust management, it comes slowly, and the fact jet aircraft are much cleaner than prop jobs, it will accelerate quicker in a dive. In a jet, high RPMs are your friends, idle RPMs are not (except in a dive) and may kill you on approach (you don't want to be low and slow with idle rpm). In modern jets none of this except the cleanliness applies.

 

[jim]

I try to imagine a 2/3/4 or even five years war experienced pilot, switching from single or twin piston engined a/c to jet. will he lose most of his basics in fighting conditions for a while?
Isn't it there a need for an almost complete relearning of combat tactics ? Can an expert, mean thousand hours flying Hs-129 or Bf-110 or Fw-190 etc..Roughly trained on the new model, not being confident with powerplants, be still called an expert ?
Further, thinking many medium experienced pilots being involved in switching to jets.
Mean, it would be hard for me to switch from middle age to science fiction within few weeks...
Statistics and datas are usefull and fascinating.
"Pilots, in their strengths and weakness are much more fascinating"
"Not everyone can pretend being A.Galland"
(Confucius or tino rossi, on the Dordogne shores, Corsica, 2012)

Norbert Hanning, a Fw 190 , Jg54 ace gives the answer. His convertion to Me 262 consisted of 2 hours of theoritical lesson by an enginnering offricer and then an immediately solo flight. In his first flight found absolutely no dificulties with the Me 262. It had very good handling, good manouverability ( his opinion on this is in contrast with several members of this forum) and he was enthousiastic with the take off/landing/taxi view offered by the tricycle landing gear. Later , he even used take off rockets without any training. The only restriction that he mentions is the throttle movement. As for the combat tactics reports no problem, in fact he was satisfeid even with the 30mm cannons because of the effectivenes against ground targets. Of course Hanning was a very experienced pilot accustomed to high speed manouvering and air to air gunnery.
My personally opinion from varius memories that i have read is that Me 262 actually was easier to fly than late war high power piston engine fighters. However fighting effectively in a ME262 required discipline, tactician skills, and good gunnery skills. It would be a major improvement replacing the 30mm cannons with 20mm MG151 cannons ,especially after the availability of R4M rockets as the main anti bomber weapon.And wide use of gyroscopic sight.

 

[Jack_Hill]

Wow !
I love being here.
Never heard anyone daring to say : mg151/20 would be much better than mk108 for downing viermots following a 24 r4m salva.
Light weighted cannon, high rof, accurate, straight trajectory, high explosive shells.
Multipled by 4, with lots of place for very much shells...
What do you think about mk103.
Never anyone will find me saying me-262 was an anvil.
Never.
Hf, regards all !

 

[Njaco]

Another factor to consider is that since you mention the 129 and 110, the general thinking in the LW at the time is that those with TE experience would also be easier to adapt to the TE 262. That is why many bomber units attempted switching. What they didn't account for were tactics - flying a bomber straight and level for years sometimes didn't translate to the dogfighting (such as it were for 262s) in a fighter.