Dogfight: Me 262 vs. Meteor

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

I've seen a letter from Messerschmitt up on the wall at the Stormbirds hanger in Everett, Washington, where they made the new build Me 262's, that stated the redline was 540 mph and anything faster meant the pilot was a test pilot. The placards on all the new-build aircraft are at that speed, or quite possibly lower for safety reasons. The letter stated taht while faster speeds may be possible, the airframe wasn't designed for the stress of faster speeds.

Again, that came from Messerschmitt ... not from me, and they issued consecutive werknumbers to the new-build aircraft, starting from when official production of the Me 262 ceased at the end of WWII.

If anyone wants to see it and verify the letter, the hangar is located on Paine Field, Everett, Washington, U.S.A. ... or at least if was about 10 years ago.
 
Last edited:
From what I understand, lifespan was maximized by minimal throttle changes and worst when frequent up-throttling was performed (this aside from more violent up-throttling that lead to overheating -combustion chamber running rich- and/or flaming out). Insufficient pilot briefing on the characteristics of the engines may have worsened problems.

Of course, aside from actual burn-out there may have been a high turnaround rate for sheer consistent reliability reasons. If sufficient engines were available, performing engine swaps preemptively might have been the most sensible move to make, particularly as inspection and overhauls would tend to be performed at Junkers depots and not in the field.

I'm not sure if the combustion chambers could be replaced while the engine sat on the wing, but those and the fuel nozzles needed to be replaced fairly frequently and should have been handled in the field. (but if they required removal from the wing, it could give the impression of an engine being 'replaced' when it was really just being serviced ... I suppose technically replaced as it may very well be rotated through maintenance with spare engines)

Had jets been in production earlier in the war, this sort of rotation through overhaul should have been routine. The material cost and man-hours required to build jet engines was substantially less than engines like the DB-601, 605, or Jumo 211, let alone larger designs, so a larger supply flow of spares to keep most airframes operational would be practical. This was also not the case for British jet engines that were not optimized for simple construction techniques and had far more precision machined components. (the compressor rotor in whittle engines in particular was very labor intensive to produce -the Jumo and BMW stamped axial compressor blades were far far simpler and Ohain's centrifugal compressor rotor was made from a steel hub with pressed or forged aluminum vanes fastened to it -the initial protoypes actually being optimized around Heinkel's airframe production facilities with heavy use of sheet metal and bearings and hubs more associated with airframe use than engines)
 
At the Planes of Fame, we have and fly an F-86F. I have seen the guys at Fighter Rebuilders take the engine out and put it back in all in the space of 3 hours. And they aren't a professional F-86 maintenance crew. But after doing it 3 - 4 times in a 2-week period, they got pretty good at it. Once the issue was resolved, the engine hasn't been back out since then. The problem was that it wouldn't get to 100% rpm ... only to 96%. Turned out to be an obscure but easy fix after a lot of head scratching.

I haven't gotten up close and personal with the Me 262 and do not know how difficult it was to change an engine. From talking with people who know WWII German planes, they seem pretty well designed for maintenance, particularly the Bf 109. The Me 262 came out of the same stable, so it could have a relatively easy engine swap.

If anyone knows for sure, please tell us.

We have a Fw 190 Flugwerk replica and it has prettty easy maintenance, not that it has needed much. The one we display belongs to Rudi Frasca and has an R-2800 in it.
 
Last edited:
The Me262, like all the other aircraft Germany fielded, had the engines in nacelles, which made the maintenance of the engine much easier than if it were embedded in the fuselage.

If you look through wartime photos of the Me262, you'll see a recently swapped engine that hasn't had it's intake painted to match the aircraft yet. I also seem to recall that there was a photo showing an engine suspended on a portable gantry being prepared to slip into the port nacelle of an Me262, too.
 
When I originally read that letter, I was under the impression that it was all a conservative safety measure and NOT based on war-time specifications whatsoever. The formal limiting mach figure cited by Messerschmitt during WWII (and per captured documents referenced by the allies in post-war tests) was .86, though in flight trials, excessive buffeting found at speeds beyond .84 mach led British test pilots to not exceed that.

Its overall performance envelope limits are actually strikingly similar to the later De Havilland Venom. At high altitude it would be unwise to exceed 560 mph, but down at sea level, speeds in excess of 630 mph should be possible without control issues, likely a fair bit higher in particularly warm weather. (USAAF testing at Muroc was ideal for that given the very low altitude and typical hot temperatures forcing the speed of sound up -those world record P-80 flights probably got a fair bit of an easier time managing that than their British contemporaries setting records in Meteors, though it might have been even better tested at a place with weather trends up at Castle Air Force Base has with the ridiculously high summer heat in the central valley)


It would have been interesting to have seen the results of Howard Hughes' re-engined Me 262 racer had it been allowed to actually be tested to its limits. (I'm not positive, but I'd always assumed Hughes used some model of Westinghouse J34 as the alternate powerplants, given the size weight, and timing, they're the only ones that really make sense)
 
it dose look like the Meteor was using the 2200lb thrust engines in March 45 http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...meteor3ads.jpg
And one thing the Meteor got over the 262,It has air brakes
Click to expand...
Those are estimates for ranges, performance etc, for different fuel loads, (a,b,c,d) with an aircraft equipped with 2200 ibs thrust engines, if you look below cruising speed and time to 30000 ft, it states that the 1st few engines will give 2000 ibs of thrust, deliveries to front line units of the 2000 ibs thrust jets began around the time this was written(this is where the 492 mph and higher speeds plus giving the impression the Meteor mk3 had a descent range comes from in large part) the letter goes on to state that more powerful engines would be coming, this of course never happened until a meteor mk3 was fitted with 3400/3500 ibs thrust jets, some time in 45, dates differ, the one most often cited was august 45, this was the prototype for the mk4, which entered service in 1947, remember that it was around april 46, that the mk3 three from the factory, was tested against the tempest V these were equipped with 2000 ibs thrust engines and short nacelles of course.

The 1st service mk3s got the long nacelles in early 47 or so, oh, and about the 540 mph or slower limit was decided as they say, there is no reason to go any faster, these new 262s have much more powerful engines and could easily slip past its mach limit, of over 600 mph, depending on altitude of course. remember that T-2-711 and T-2-4012 (captured me 262s)achieved very high speeds(568 mph) and over 550 mph at 30000 ft, so did the British( and late war german test pilots (ave 565 mph)

If you go to youtube and look up Bob Strobell and wings of the Luftwaffe, he says you can change an engine on an me 262 in 30 minutes, if that's correct or not, I don't know.
 
Once the Me262 gets into the .85 region and beyond, the control surfaces start to become non-responsive and the nose will "tuck". This condition proved fatal on several occasions and there's a few recountings by Pilots who managed to get out of that condition alive.

Doesn't matter who's flying or what engines it has, the aircraft's design will not allow you to stray beyond .86 - therefore: Messerschmitt's warning.
 
Hi Kool Kitty,

Not sure what "under the impression" means, but the people there said Messerschmitt had set the redline speed there and that's what the leter said.

There is a redline in any aircraft, even a Cessna 172. That Vne is 10% below Vd (demonstrated dive speed) or the calculated max speed, whichever is less. There is nothing in the FARs that says you can't exceed the redline. But if you do, you are a test pilot and should fit the aircraft with a drag chute and wear a parachute. Unless the door is fitted to be jettisoned, I don't think you could get out of it at anywhere NEAR redline.

If I am not mistaken, if you are comtemplating test flying, it is incumbent on YOU to ensure you are over a safe area for test flying. If you buy a Stormbirds Me 262 and go faster than the placarded redline over a city and break up or manage to crash then, if you survive, the feds as well as the civil authorities will be after you with blood in their eyes.

At our airshow this year, we had a guy land a Cessna DURING Sean D. Tucker's aerobatic act, while our airspace waiver was in effect. The cops were nice to him while they handcuffed him and drove him away. I believe the feds and civil authorities have a stanglehold on his bank account at this time and he is STILL in jail. Our airshow was in early May. And he didn't exceed a flight limitation and crash in a populated area causing damage. All he did was cause Sean Tucker to do a rapid turn and abort the show while this idiot landed and tried to taxi away to the toehr side of the airport.

He didn't make it. His plane was confiscated, as was his license.
 
the bit you want is to the left, which says, ENGINE(S) DERWENT then it give the thrust,which is 2200lb S/T.

the Meteor F4 used Derwent 5s which was a scaled down version of the Nene,which had 4000lb of thrust
 
Sorry Greg, I mistook the context of the line of discussion on the Stormbird reproductions, you'd be right on all accounts as far as I can see.



On the issue of the Meteor Mk.3's performance, the more powerful engines really aren't going to be worth too much until the nacelles get replaced. The late Mk.3s got 2400 lbf Derwent IV engines which, coupled with the long nacelles might have pushed it into a more competitive situation with the Me 262 (perhaps not if using 004D-4 engines) but also remember the Meteor III still suffered from structural weaknesses that necessitated weighting the controls heavy to prevent overstressing and thus limiting roll-rate. The Vampire Mk.I and P-80A were both operational before the Mk.III was corrected and both were significantly faster. (the P-80A had a higher critical mach number, air break, better thrust to weight ratio and better range, but the Vampire had lower wing loading and a more potent armament)


Had the ministry ordered the Metrovick F.2/3 into mass production, it might have been another story given the nacelle design should have avoided the transonic aerodynamic issues and the engines were putting out 2700 lbf. (ramping up production of the 2700 lbf Goblin Mk.I -somehow- might have worked too but would still require redesigned nacelles -the proposed Goblin powered Meteor Mk.II would have used similar, but slightly larger diameter nacelles to the Meteor I and 3) The superior fuel economy of the F.2/3 along with reduced drag should have increased the Meteor's range a good bit as well, though the higher weight likely would have further compromised roll rate.


On another note, given the sheer amount of work put into making the Meteor into a competitive combat aircraft and given the shortcomings of the Mk.I, I suspect Bell could have made similar progress redesigning the P-59 had there been real interest. (the nacelles seem to have been the limiting factor on the P-59 as well, though the canopy could have used redesigning too -the Meteor I had its own canopy design problems too) The USAAF refocusing on the XP-80 project probably would have been as rational as the RAE refocusing on the Vampire and Goblin over the Meteor and W.2B. (expanding development/production of the Goblin to Rolls Royce may have made sense too, and/or second sourcing that engine while Rolls Royce worked on their own Whittle derived projects -the Derwent V SHOULD have been a good replacement for the Goblin being smaller, lighter and more powerful while the Nene was a less good fit -the Australian Vampires probably would have been a lot easier to convert satisfactorily to the Vampire than the Nene they actually used)

The Vampire started development and flew well before the XP-80, let alone XP-80A, and flew not too long after the Meteor. Had development emphasis shifted as drastically as had been done with the XP-80, it seems a reasonable guess to me that the Vampire could have been in trial service at least by the time the Meteor Mk.I was historically.
 
Well considering this subject In regard to the opening question I would think the dogfight would end pretty rapidly for the 262 as it's guns are about as inappropriate for dogfighting as you can get and it could not manoeuvre to any degree, for making slashing attacks I would suggest it would come down to who bounced the other, the fight going either way dependant on who saw who, but a dogfight in the conventional term would be a serious risk for a 262!
 
Unless you're conducting a planned flight test, if you purposely exceed aircraft flight limitations (with the exception of an inflight emergency) you're in violation of FAR 91.13. I've seen the FEDs take action against people for this...

§91.13 Careless or reckless operation.

(a) Aircraft operations for the purpose of air navigation. No person may operate an aircraft in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another.

(b) Aircraft operations other than for the purpose of air navigation. No person may operate an aircraft, other than for the purpose of air navigation, on any part of the surface of an airport used by aircraft for air commerce (including areas used by those aircraft for receiving or discharging persons or cargo), in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another.


I'd like to know more about this - unless he committed a major felony against a state or local statue or committed some other major federal offense, he cannot be held without due process for a FEDERAL Aviation Regulation under CFR Title 14 (especially by a state or local law enforcement official), even if he grossly violated an airspace waiver. Even the guy who flew the gyrocopter on to the White house was arrested and then released and he too was given due process, all this under the airman's bill of rights. There's also due process about confiscation of aircraft at the federal level. There's an FAA blotter somewhere that shows airspace violations, where and when they were committed and the final outcome.

http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Order/2150.3 B W-Chg 4.pdf
 

The meteor also suffered chronic problems with its armament when taking on V1s
from wiki
All other types combined added 158. The still-experimental jet-powered Gloster Meteor, which was rushed half-ready into service in July 1944 to fight the V-1s, had ample speed but suffered from unreliable armament and accounted for only 13.
 
GrauGeist said:
(Re: Greg's post)

You would think that pilot would have spotted the TFR in the NOTAM (assuming they read the current NOTAMs for their planned route)...
Click to expand...

Agree - at the same time immediately arresting him and then confiscating his aircraft sounds like a bit much. I've seen airspace busted during an airshow and during a performance (I think some knuckle head did this during the Reno Air races a few years ago) and never seen someone immediately hauled off to jail unless there was something else involved. After that glider incident (and a few others where LE overstepped their authority with regards to FARs) AOPA and other organizations been on full alert.
 
Last edited:
But on that same note, people are on edge because of recent incidents at airshows and some clown blowing into the middle of an active display probably earned him a serious amount of trouble.

One thing to stray into shared airspace but another to fully penetrate the declared zone. Either this guy was completely stupid, or just a few beers short of "Drunk Level: Pro"...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

Spitfire vs Me-109
Replies
3
Views
1K
PAT303
P
Sakai Saburo Vs Sugita Sho-ichi
2 3 4
Replies
70
Views
4K
GrauGeist
Supercharging & stuff - losses, improvements, good vs. bad. vs. excellent etc
2 3
Replies
44
Views
3K
Bretoal2
B
Me 163 vs. Ta 154: wooden wings
Replies
16
Views
2K
Snautzer01
A
Best WW2 Seafire vs. best A6M Zero
Replies
9
Views
1K
Shortround6
S
Menu
Log in
Register