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

[BountyHunter15]

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

 

[mosquitoman]

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

 

[trackend]

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]

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]

Thanks Krazi I wonder what he saw any ideas ?

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

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

 

[cheddar cheese]

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

 

[KraziKanuK]

Thanks Krazi I wonder what he saw any ideas ?

Lots of ships.

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

 

[P38 Pilot]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[FLYBOYJ]

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]

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]

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

 

[FLYBOYJ]

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]

Clip I just put together....

 

[FLYBOYJ]

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?!?