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

[Magnon]

"Para 54 gives the structural limitation of 500mph."
(Glider quote from the Meteor Tactical Trials CFE Report)

At the time of writing the evaluation report the Meteor was still very much in a state of flux in terms of its development. The report makes reference to fixes which were then in the pipeline. The problem with limiting speed early on was with the nacelles. New units were retrofitted to all F III's and this had a dramatic effect on the aircraft's performance, which brought late F IIIs up to 490 mph. See below:

AvH_1%_V4/167_GB_Meteor_Mk_III_EE456_Lighted - AvHistory.org

The Meteor F.Mk III, the second and last mark to see operational service during World War II, had increased fuel capacity and a sliding bubble canopy in place of the sideways-opening hood of the Meteor Mk.l. Fifteen F.Mk IIIs were completed with Welland engines and 195 with Derwents, some in lengthened engine nacelles. The Derwent engines in the Mk III produced 2000 lbs of thrust improving the performance over the original Mk I Meteors.


Flight tests demonstrated that the original short nacelles, which extended fore and aft of the wing, contributed heavily to compressibility buffeting at high speed. New, longer nacelles not only cured some of the compressibility problems but added 120 km/h (75 mph) at altitude, even without upgraded powerplants.

The last batch of Meteor F 3s featured the longer nacelles while other F 3s were retrofitted in the field with the new nacelles.​

www.meteorflight.com - The Gloster Meteor F4

Breaking Records

In both the F. Mk 1 III Meteors the Derwent engines were housed in short stubby nacelles, it was discovered though that extending them both in front and behind the wing improved the airflow and greatly reduced drag which increased sea level speed by almost 60 mph. It was this in conjunction with the new and much more powerful Rolls Royce Derwent V that led to thoughts of capturing the world air speed record set by Germany in 1939 in addition to forming the basis of the Meteor F4.

The record attempt was made with two late production F3's, EE454 EE455 which were taken from the production line and brought up to F4 standard less their radio masts and with ballast in place of armament and the cannon ports faired over. Both aircraft were given a special high gloss paint finish with EE454 retaining its day fighter camouflage scheme while EE455 was painted overall yellow.
It was EE454... that raised the record on the 7th November 1945 when Group Capt Hugh Wilson (Formerly of 616 Squadron) flew at a speed of 606.38 mph although Eric Greenwood was only marginally slower in EE455 at 603 mph.​

They both had full 43 ft. length F III wings. So the F III's speed limitations were overcome relatively easily. They got the basic F III airframe up to 606 mph. Then there wasn't a 500 mph structural limitation. .

The prototype F Mk.IV, EE360 first flew on the 17th July 1945 and a total of 535 were built for the RAF including 48 by Armstrong Whitworth. The F4 was exported in significant numbers with 100 going to Argentina fifty of these being refurbished ex RAF machines with the remainder new-built by Gloster.
The first production Meteor F4's were built with the same 43ft wing as the Meteor F3. This proved to be unsatisfactory however as it was not strong enough to absorb the additional stresses of flight at higher speeds and was a factor in some early accidents. To solve this problem the wing of the F4 was clipped to 37ft 2in which reduced the wing area by 6% and improved the rate of role to 80 degrees per second. The disadvantage of the clipping the wings was an increase in take-off and landing speeds and increased wing loading. There are no clear records as to the number of F4's which reached the RAF with the long span wings although it is likely that they would all have been modified in service. As described in the air speed records the aircraft used by the high speed flight did not have clipped wings, although they also would probably been modified later when they were transferred to operational squadrons.​

It's conceded that for combat at high transonic speeds, the wing had to be clipped, but the Me 262 airframe could not even think of going there. See below:

Feedback from the Me 262 Project.
Me 262 PROJECT TECHNICAL DATA

...The Jumo-powered Me 262 was capable of level flight speeds in excess of 540 miles per hour at altitude; a trait that made it all but invulnerable to Allied escort fighters.
Higher airspeeds were recorded under certain circumstances but, in general, compressibility-related aerodynamic factors prevented the airframe from ever pushing into the high transonic range.
Postwar tests in the West confirmed that at very high airspeeds airframe vibration levels and buffeting grow increasingly worse until the jet enters into a shallow dive and becomes all but completely uncontrollable. Recently revealed Soviet documents demonstrate that this was also a major finding in Red Air Force flight testing of the Me 262.​

 

[Glider]

The change to the nacelles was something that I was aware of and the increase in speed to 490mph. However you have made the wrong assumption that the nacelles were the reason behind the structural limitation. The clue is in evidence www.meteorflight.com - The Gloster Meteor F4

You ommitted in your quote to mention the following
The new fighter was strengthened to absorb the increase in engine power, had an armoured pressurised cockpit and lighter controls which allowed the aircraft to take part in aerobatics which had been prevented in the F Mk III by wiring the ailerons heavy to prevent the airframe from being over stressed. It is obvious that the RAF were worried about overstressing the airframe for the Mk III. If they hadn't been then they would have settled for the speed and given the pilots a more agile aircraft.

You did mention the following
The first production Meteor F4's were built with the same 43ft wing as the Meteor F3. This proved to be unsatisfactory however as it was not strong enough to absorb the additional stresses of flight at higher speeds and was a factor in some early accidents. Clearly there were problems with stress at high speeds.

Your comment on the problems with the Me262 I find misleading. Your quote Postwar tests in the West confirmed that at very high airspeeds airframe vibration levels and buffeting grow increasingly worse until the jet enters into a shallow dive and becomes all but completely uncontrollable. Recently revealed Soviet documents demonstrate that this was also a major finding in Red Air Force flight testing of the Me 262 is correct but the problem is that you don't mention the speed.
Luftwaffe Pilots were told not to exceed 596 mph below 8000 meters. Eric Brown in his tests of the Me262 states that when diving the 262 at 620mph buffeting set in and the faster it went the worse it became. So for practical purposes the 262 has a red lline speed of 600mph and the Meteor 500mph which is quite a difference.

 

[Magnon]

Para 73 covers the heaviness of the Ailerons making even moderate turns tiring.
Glider

The heaviness of the controls at medium to high speeds was a safeguard to ensure that the pilot did not overstress the airframe at those speeds. One test pilot was killed while pulling out of a dive. This sort of thing happened with the Schwalbe as you know. The problem was cured in the Meteor F IV by foreshortening the wings. This reduced the wing area by 6%, but the stresses by far more, probably in the region of 20%.

As an indication of the relative problems of the two aircraft in terms of manoeuvring:
• The CFE indicates for the Meteor "aerobatics must not to be performed at an all up weight in excess of 12,300 lb." (The fully loaded all up weight was given in the report as 12,614 lb)
• On the other hand, the Me 262 Handbook says "no acrobatics are to be performed" and "no spins are to be attempted"
• This is backed up by Hans Fey who says that acceptance pilots wouldn't carry out a roll or a dive in a Me 262 unless they were forced to.
• In terms of general airworthiness of the two aircraft, in the context of Fey's warning of the danger inherent with the Schwalbe in terms of diving and rolling, nothing is mentioned about spinning. On the other hand, the CFE report conveys feedback from the Gloster trials: "The Meteor has not been cleared for practice spinning but, if the foregoing instructions are followed, the pilot should have no difficulty in recovering from an accidental spin"

Further, the CFE report compares the dog-fighting capabilities of the Tempest V and the Meteor F III. It notes the unfortunate heaviness of the ailerons, but also, among other advantages:
• "The Meteor is faster than the Tempest at all heights..."
• "The Meteor III, which has a lower wing loading, turns inside the Tempest V under all conditions and can get on its tail in approximately four turns."

The Tempest was apparently recognised as being a dangerous foe of the Schwalbe, in spite of its lower speed:
The Hawker Tempest Page
"The Messerschmitt Me 262's most dangerous opponent was the British Hawker Tempest - extremely fast at low altitudes, highly-manoeuvrable and heavily-armed."(Hubert Lange, Me262 pilot)
The Schwalbe, as far as I know, was never known to out-turn any piston–engined fighter, let alone a Tempest, was it? It always sensibly tried to use its speed for hit-and-run tactics. So the fact that a Meteor could out-turn a Tempest is quite a remarkable thing to come out of the report.
Hans Fey confirms that "Furthermore, the Me 262 is relatively slow in turns and movements. It cannot, for instance, Split-S in less than 9,000 to 12,000 ft."

It would appear that
• With its much more reliable engines
• Better acceleration
• Greater manoeuvrability
• Relative robustness of its centrifugal compressors on ingestion of debris
• Good standard of build
taking out a Schwalbe that was silly enough to indulge in a dogfight would be, as Bigglesworth himself would have put it, "a piece of cake."

 

[Magnon]

Para 65 gives the Approach speed of 150mph, last turn in at 140mph and a touch down of 115 mph.

I concede that the recommended approach speeds of the two aircraft were not entirely dissimilar. You would know that the approach speed has nothing to do with landing stresses. The big difference is that with:

1. The lack of air brakes on the Schwalbe and hence little ability to shed speed
2. The need to keep the Schwalbe's engine revs and hence power up in case of a go around
3. The requirement of the Schwalbe's pilot to be thinking ahead, knowing that all throttle movements had to be very slow,​

subsequent control of landing speed was infinitely harder.
As an example of this, see Ken Holt's narrative from Me 262 PROJECT TECHNICAL DATA , which I've referenced before. An experienced US pilot came in too fast in an Me 262 but was committed to a landing, (i.e. he couldn't ramp up the power in the time available in order to go around). The result was one plane completely written off, and very nearly the pilot with it.

More from the CFE report re night flying:
Para 113
Approach and Landing:

"A normal approach and landing can be made with ease. With the glide path indicators set on 4.5 degrees and 5.5 degrees the approach can be made at 110 mph from 500/600 ft in the funnels coming in on a green."​

Para 127.

To find out the effect of using dive brakes to slow down preparatory to landing, a number of straight runs were done with and without brakes. At 1000 ft, at a speed of 350 I.A.S. the throttles were closed and the time recorded for the speed to fall to 150 I.A.S. The average of those trials showed that:-
i. Time using brakes - 51 secs
ii. Time without using brakes - 1 min. 57 secs.​

So the Meteor could afford a relatively high approach speed and quickly drop down to a moderate landing speed.

Also, the Meteor stall speed was 105 mph, the Schwalbe 112 – 125 mph. Even with the most experienced pilots, they didn't have the same landing speed. The Schwalbe would be stalled at 115 mph, and that is what is crucial in terms of landing stresses and soft field performance.

 

[Magnon]

Para 76 the lack of stability in [turbulent] weather.
Glider

I concede that with a larger wing area, greater response to turbulent wind conditions will result. That's just one of the trade-offs you make in a design. Greater wing area gives improved manoeuvrability, but more instability in turbulent conditions. That may be another reason why the wing area of the F IV was made 6% lower than the F III.

In terms of relative manoeuvrability of the P 80, Meteor and Schwalbe, the source Me-262: Wunderplane or compromise? indicates:
"Both the Meteor and the P-80 could easily out-turn the Me 262."


On the other hand, the frequency of highly turbulent conditions in a normal combat theatre would be relatively low.

 

[Magnon]

Para 115 covers the impact of directional snaking on accuracy [as a gun platform].
Glider

It was mentioned in the CFE document that measures were in the process of being implemented to address the problem of snaking in terms of weapons aiming accuracy. The fact that the later Meteor F IIIs were used for ground attack and as you said, F IIIs on the continent were looking for air combat would indicate that this may have been done.

Flug Kapitan Wendel in http://www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com/Images/Me262/ME262WendeL.pdf says under the heading Directional Stability:

"When the centre of gravity is far back and the Flettner rudder trimming is not perfect, especially if the Flettner tabs are a little too thick, then the aircraft sways about the vertical axis. This movement must stop when both legs are pushed hard against the rudder pedals. If this does not stop the movement then the tabs must be altered or the trailing edge of the rudder must be bent slightly outwards. A modification is in the process of preparation..."​

The source Me-262: Wunderplane or compromise? indicates that for the Me 262:

"There was some directional instability at large angles of yaw, but this was too marginal [to] impair the performance of the aircraft as a gun platform."​

The bottom line is that I do concede that the Me 262 was probably superior to the F III in this area in most instances.

 

[Magnon]

A similar situation exists with your statement about soft field performance. You have mentioned this before and all I have asked is that you support this with examples of any first generation jet operating from soft fields. I don't believe they did operate without tarmac and cannot find an example. Again you could well be correct and all I am asking you to do is to support your statement, without support the statement doesn't stand.
Glider

Sorry Glider, all I can find is the original statement from Gloster Meteor F8 (WL181), North East Aircraft Museum (Britain), and a few independent references to the effect that the RAF tended to fly from grass strips as they moved along behind the advancing front line. Nothing else directly linked the Meteor with flying from grass strips.
The closest I came was with the airstrip at Nijmegen in the Netherlands where they flew out of an airstrip which had steel plate on sand:

Welcom to my Nijmgen Market Garden Veteran website
Nijmegen Airstrip B-91, Shown on the records as being KLUIS near NIJMEGEN
Airstrip Malden near Nijmegen.

Location: North of Malden and east of the road Nijmegen-Gennep

Area: about 160 hectares

Airstrip: one, 1400 meters long, 40 meters broad

Material: steel plate

Character of the soil: sand

Construction: The Allied Forces

Buildings: None
(There are some photos of the operations quarters there, which are literally tents, there are puddles and the soil in the area looks very churned up and boggy. It would likely have been constructed and in operation in the latter part of the winter.)
The fact that it is a single runway is notable. The CFE report says:

"Landings have been made in cross winds without difficulty, the maximum being a wind of 30 mph at right angles to the runway. The Meteor is considered suitable for single runway operation."​

Again, in the CFE report, I did find the take-off distance for a Meteor:

"Using one-third flap with no wind the aircraft becomes airborne in about 650 yards at approximately 105 mph."​

The corresponding figures given by Hans Fey for the an experienced pilot in the Me 262 is 900 – 1100 yards and lift off is given for the fighter version (6700 kg) by Flug Kapitan Wendel as 190 - 200 kph (119 mph). That also would give some indication of the relative acceleration of the two aircraft on take-off. This would not be due to the limitations on the rate of movement of the throttles, because they would both be starting their take off run with brakes on holding against an already relatively high throttle setting.

 

[Kurfürst]

Something to remember is that while the basic IDEA of the engine design (axial flow) was better it took several more years for it to show much advantage in practice, and, no, it wasn't just due to material engineering.
It took several years for axial compressor design to equal centrifugal design on a pressure ratio basis and several more for axial compressors to equal or surpass centrifugal designs on an airflow to weight ratio and for pressure ratio. The Axial compressor did wind up exceeding the centrifugal compressor on both counts and sometimes by a very hefty margin but that was not the case in 1944-45-46.

There were some very practical advantages of an axial jet engine, and in many aspects they are the same as the old argument between inline and radial engines - 18 cylinder radials generally produced a lot more horsepower than V-12s, but that advantage melts away in practice when you add the much greater diameter and drag associated with radial engines.

Its the same with sleek axial jet engines and relatively bulky centrifugal jets, ie. just compare the frontal area of the Jumo 004 and the Derwent. As early jet engines were relatively weak and unreliable, a pair were mounted on the wings, and jet cross section did matter a lot in drag.

 

[red admiral]

Its the same with sleek axial jet engines and relatively bulky centrifugal jets, ie. just compare the frontal area of the Jumo 004 and the Derwent. As early jet engines were relatively weak and unreliable, a pair were mounted on the wings, and jet cross section did matter a lot in drag.

Your logic is fairly sound but not reflect the reality of the situation. The nacelles on the Meteor, even though of increased diameter actually gave less drag than the underslung nacelles on the Me262. Why, it's a matter of location. The underslung arrangement gives strange flow patterns around the nacelle/wing combination and leads to higher drag. Mounting the nacelle centrally in the wing makes the flow more uniform and gives lower drag, even if you're putting a larger and blunter nacelle there.

So, why not mount the axial jets in the mid wing position? The problem there is structural as there has to be a break in the wing spar in order to fit the compressor. It's not a realistic solution for aircraft this size. Move up to Canberra size with a larger wing and you're able to adopt the mid wing nacelle by bending the main spar around the compressor.

 

[Glider]

Magnon
Stress
You seem to be stuck with the Mk IV when it comes to stressing the aircraft. Find anything that says the Mk III could fly faster than 500mph and the point is yours. The problem is that it didn't. It really doesn't matter what the Mk IV did to solve the problem, we are talking about the Mk III not the Mk IV.
Agility
No one denies that the Meteor could turn inside the 262 the question is with a speed difference of 40 - 100mph, why dogfight?
Soft Ground performance.
I know that they used metal matting which was standard in the 2TAF. Totally soft I don't know about but seriously doubt.

 

[Shortround6]

There were some very practical advantages of an axial jet engine, and in many aspects they are the same as the old argument between inline and radial engines -

Its the same with sleek axial jet engines and relatively bulky centrifugal jets, ie. just compare the frontal area of the Jumo 004 and the Derwent. As early jet engines were relatively weak and unreliable, a pair were mounted on the wings, and jet cross section did matter a lot in drag.

You are correct as far as engine size diameter goes, although Armstrong Siddeley managed to build an incredibly fat and heavy 14 stage axial compressor engine at the time.

while the Sleek Axial Jumo has just about 1/2 the frontal area of a Derwent series I it is 655lb heavier according to one book, has a 3 to pressure ratio for it's 8 stage compressor and has a fuel consumption of 1.4lb/lb.t./hr compared to the Derwent's 3.9 pressure ratio and 1.17 lb/lb.t./hr fuel consumption (granted under a somewhat different condition).

There is no question that the axial wound up being the superior design for high performance engines and there is also no question that it only took a few years for the axial to show it's superiority.
Unfortunately for the Me 262 1944-45 was just a little too early for the superiority to show up in a practical fashion.
On Nov 13 1943 a Gloster Meteor was flown with a pair of Metropolitan-Vickers F2 axial compressor engines in rather reduced size nacelles (in fact a picture from the left front of the aircraft shows a rather strange similarity to the 262 except the cockpit is to far forward). While the F2 engine was fatter than the Jumo it can hardly be said that the British were unaware of the potential advantages of the axial compressor.

 

[Magnon]

Appendix D covers surging and how this happens if the throttle is opened or closed too quickly.
Glider

You don't have to be Einstein to recognise that all things are relative, nothing is absolute. As someone interested in World War 2 military engine development, you would know that both the centrifugal and the axial jets experienced surge to some extent. It's just that the axial had a much greater problem.

According to the CFE report, in the worst case, the Derwent was limited by surge to 15,200 rpm at 30,000 ft. This would still produce a resultant thrust of around 1700 lb, which would be well above that achieved by the JUMOs, which tended to be susceptible to flame out at altitude. The fact that the Meteor had a 2100 metre advantage in service ceiling against the Schwalbe (13,100 vs. 11,000) would tend to bear this out.

See also -

Measurement and Unsteady Flow Modelling of Centrifugal Compressor Surge

http://alexandria.tue.nl/extra2/200213364.pdf

"...Besides the gas turbine a large market exists for the internal combustion engine turbocharger, which is used in diesel and gasoline engines. The internal combustion engine turbocharger compresses the gas entering the manifold of the engine and is driven by a turbine running on the engine exhaust gases. In turbocharging a wide range of stable operation is necessary. This is an advantage of a centrifugal compressor with its generally wider operational area..."​

In war, the fact that your enemy has more problems to deal with than you do at any given time is what matters.
Well, the Schwalbe had bucketloads of problems to deal with.

 

[Magnon]

You ommitted in your quote to mention the following
The new fighter was strengthened to absorb the increase in engine power, had an armoured pressurised cockpit and lighter controls which allowed the aircraft to take part in aerobatics which had been prevented in the F Mk III by wiring the ailerons heavy to prevent the airframe from being over stressed. It is obvious that the RAF were worried about overstressing the airframe for the Mk III. If they hadn't been then they would have settled for the speed and given the pilots a more agile aircraft.Glider

I was referring to the production F IIIs which were taken out and modified for the first World Record attempts. I can't see any record that they were specially strengthened.

Quote: "The record attempt was made with two late production F3's, EE454 EE455 which were taken from the production line and brought up to F4 standard less their radio masts and with ballast in place of armament and the cannon ports faired over."

Does the "brought up to F 4 standard" imply that the wings were strengthened?..

Can you clarify?

 

[Glider]

The Phrase Brought up to F 4 Standard as far as you and I know, can only mean that they were brought up to F4 Standard, no more no less. Whatever changes that were made to the F 4 that removed the problem of the stress and allowed the F4 to exceed 500 mph were presumably made to those aircraft.

I don't know what the changes are and am not going to guess. As far as you or I know the Meteor F III that went to war didn't have those changes made and couldn't go faster than 500 mph.

What happened post war to the F 4 or the resord attempt modified F III doesn't count or apply to what happened during the war.

No one has said that the 262 was the perfect plane. Its problems seem to boil down to:-
a) The engines needed to be handled with more care than the Meteor.
b) The aircraft was stressed to land at an unusually low weight
c) The 262 could be out turned by the Meteor

The Meters problems seem to be:-
a) It was 40+ miles an hour slower in a straight line
b) It was 100 mph slower in a dive
c) It was a lousy gun platform
d) It was very tiring to throw around the sky

Both were very well armed, had a similar ground performance and approach speeds.

Both the wartime FIII and wartime 262 were what I would call interim production aircraft. The problems in the FIII were sorted in the F4 and there were developments in hand for the 262 to make more use of the swept wing and other issues.

As an aside with luck I might be going to the National Archives tomorrow as my wife is looking into her past relations and I will try and get anything they have on the Meteor and 262. If I find anything I will let you know over the weekend.

 

[Magnon]

That'd be appreciated...

Your contribution of the CFE report to the debate is already a significant step forward.

 

[Magnon]

OK, this confirms the airframe was strengthened, although it apparently did retain the original long wings:

F.4
In 1945 two much modified Mk IIIs were fitted with the Rolls-Royce Derwent 5 engines in new long-chord nacelles, a pressurized cockpit, extensive airframe strengthening and a gloss finish, ready for an attempt at the world speed record. This was done on the 7/11/1945 with EE454 making 606 mph and EE455 making 603 mph. These aircraft would serve as prototypes for the Mk IV [which made its] maiden flight on the 12/4/1946.​

Meteor

My apologies Glider

 

[Magnon]

No one has said that the 262 was the perfect plane. Its problems seem to boil down to:-
a) The engines needed to be handled with more care than the Meteor.
Much much more. There was no comparison in terms of reliability

b) The aircraft was stressed to land at an unusually low weight
In other words the undercarriage was badly overstressed

c) The 262 could be out turned by the Meteor
By a big margin

The Meteor's problems seem to be:-
a) It was 40+ miles an hour slower in a straight line
On the level, agreed

b) It was 100 mph slower in a dive
The Me 262 was out of control in a dive...No air brakes. Test pilots wouldn't dive!
I suspect that the Allies could see the light at the end of the tunnel, and were not into taking unnecessary risks in terms of pushing the airframe. On the other hand, Germany could see a black hole at the end of the tunnel. It was desperate at the time and would take just about any risk to make the Schwalbe work.

c) It was a lousy gun platform
Not as good as the Me 262, agreed, but then again, the Mig 15 was regarded as being a poor gun platform

d) It was very tiring to throw around the sky
But it could still do aerobatics, which the Me 262 was forbidden to do

Both were very well armed, had a similar ground performance and approach speeds.
- The Meteor had high velocity (70% higher) cannon, absolutely essential for dogfighting

- Takeoff roll for the Meteor was at least 30% better (i.e. shorter) than the Schwalbe.

- Approach speeds are pretty much irrelevant, surely.

Both the wartime FIII and wartime 262 were what I would call interim production aircraft. The problems in the FIII were sorted in the F4 and there were developments in hand for the 262 to make more use of the swept wing and other issues. But the engines in the pipeline were so heavy that the wings would have to be swept back just to rectify the CG. (I'm being a little facetious here.)
They all had thrust/weight ratios of less than 1.5:1. The projected German craft's acceleration would be abysmal. The F IV was years ahead of its time in terms of acceleration. It wasn't going to be equalled in terms of thrust to weight ratio until the arrival of the North American Super Sabre.

As well as that
- the Schwalbe's brakes were badly designed (see Me 262 Project Technical Report).
- the Schwalbe's service ceiling was 17% lower
- the Schwalbe's build quality was shocking, probably because of the use of slave labour

I think maybe we should just agree that the Me 262 was the best interceptor of the war, the Meteor the best fighter

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I think maybe we should just agree that the Me 262 was the best interceptor of the war, the Meteor the best fighter

I am not going to say the Me 262 was the best anything, but I certainly would never say the Meteor was the best fighter.

Why?

How was it used as a fighter during WW2? Other than dropping V-1s by wing tipping (which piston engined fighters could do as well), it was not used as a fighter during WW2. It never engaged any enemy aircraft during WW2. To say it is the best, is speculation at best. We can speculate all day long on what could have been, but we simply do not know.

No trying to argue with you or anything though. Seriously, this is a great discussion with lots of valuable information. I thank you for that.

 

[Magnon]

Trying to find a Me 262 Schwalbe to dogfight over Germany in early 1945 would be the rough equivalent of finding a needle in a haystack.

Although 1400 Schwalbes were built, only 300 were said to have seen combat and only an average of around 30 - 40 made it into the air on any given day. I believe that that was not the result of a lack of fuel, but unreliability and the high demands put on the pilot in terms of experience and ability. With its demanding flying characteristics, there weren't 1400 pilots in Germany who were good enough to handle it. The fuel it required was not high grade and could come raw straight from the German synthetic fuel plants.

"Apparently, according to Hans, this German jet fuel was terribly noxious. You simply threw away any clothes that came in contact with it. Interestingly, Hans stated that there was NEVER a shortage of jet fuel, just a shortage of aircraft and pilots. Whatever hydrocarbon fuel cracking process being used by the Germans in late war (whether synthetic, coal-derived fuels or conventional), the process or processes yielded an abundant quantity of jet-suitable fuel."
Microsoft's Paul Allen's Me-262 Landmark Restoration - Key Publishing Ltd Aviation Forums​

This makes sense. It was by far the least demanding fuel for the German industry to produce, and the Me 262 squadrons SHOULD have been given priority over anything else in terms of fuel supply. Only they could hope to smash the Allied bombers that were destroying the synthetic fuel plants. Just as the Me 262 SHOULD have been given priority over the King Tigers in terms of nickel supply.

If just half of them were in the air, they had the power to break the vicious circle of lack of fuel causing the ground forces to pull back. They would also release relatively large numbers of conventional fighters to try to break the Allied air superiority over the battlefields. Again, with fewer bombers around, there would have been more German fighters produced.

What happened?

Maybe the legendary Me 262 was not so legendary, more mythical.

 

[Glider]

Much much more. There was no comparison in terms of reliability[/B]

I was thinking of the impact of being rough with the engine. When surged the 262 had a tendancy to flame out, the Meteor would give you a rough ride but was less likely to quit on you.

b) The aircraft was stressed to land at an unusually low weight
In other words the undercarriage was badly overstressed

But it wasn't a major problem during the war. They had to take care if landing with full tanks but normally it wasn't a huge problem.

c) The 262 could be out turned by the Meteor
By a big margin

Do we know by how much?

The Meteor's problems seem to be:-
a) It was 40+ miles an hour slower in a straight line
On the level, agreed

b) It was 100 mph slower in a dive
The Me 262 was out of control in a dive...No air brakes. Test pilots wouldn't dive!

I am sorry but this is rubbish. The pilots were told not to exceed 600mph and the serious buffeting seemed to start at around 620 mph. You don't get to 600 from 540 without diving.
Also recovery was easy, Eric Brown explains that all you had to do was hold the airspeed and as height reduced the mach no fell. As the mach no fell the plane became controllable. Quoting from Air Enthusiast Nov 1972 Gerd Lindell a test pilot on the 262 reported that at mach 0.83 the nose started to drop and 30 lb of pressure was required. At 0.86 this increased to 100lb of pressure. Recovery was effected by holding the dive angle steady until the mach reduced automatically with the reduced altitude. Eric Brown reported that he duplicated the tests and confirmed them in all respects but he found that 620mph was the limit not the 600mph Luftwaffe pilots were warned about.

c) It was a lousy gun platform
Not as good as the Me 262, agreed, but then again, the Mig 15 was regarded as being a poor gun platform

d) It was very tiring to throw around the sky
But it could still do aerobatics, which the Me 262 was forbidden to do

Both were very well armed, had a similar ground performance and approach speeds.
- The Meteor had high velocity (70% higher) cannon, absolutely essential for dogfighting

On the other hand one hit from a 30mm was certain to ruin anyones day. I don't see any point in getting into a detailed debate and deliberately left it as both are well armed. You wouldn't want to be in front of either plane.

- Takeoff roll for the Meteor was at least 30% better (i.e. shorter) than the Schwalbe.

Take off distance for a Meteor to 50ft is 1000 yards which is similar.

- Approach speeds are pretty much irrelevant, surely.

Its the approach speed that spooks most pilots not used to these speeds, and that why I mentioned it

Both the wartime FIII and wartime 262 were what I would call interim production aircraft. The problems in the FIII were sorted in the F4 and there were developments in hand for the 262 to make more use of the swept wing and other issues. But the engines in the pipeline were so heavy that the wings would have to be swept back just to rectify the CG. (I'm being a little facetious here.)

Yep, you are

They all had thrust/weight ratios of less than 1.5:1. The projected German craft's acceleration would be abysmal. The F IV was years ahead of its time in terms of acceleration. It wasn't going to be equalled in terms of thrust to weight ratio until the arrival of the North American Super Sabre.

We don't know what the final result would have been and I suggest thats a topic for a different thread as its a complex subject.