Which jet was better, the Me 262 or the Gloster Meteor?
- Thread starter BountyHunter15
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
What I am doing, is agreeing with you...
?????...
OK if you say so... shut down the thread... Rip it off!!!
That is not what he is saying. Just answer everyone's questions. You keep skirting away from them al, by just saying it was a debacle.
What I am doing, is agreeing with you...
That is not what he is saying. Just answer everyone's questions. You keep skirting away from them al, by just saying it was a debacle.
I've done what I wanted to... the Schwalbe's deficiencies have been documented in one place, rather than across the Web...
This is high in popularity in terms of sites covering the topic... outsiders will be able to judge for themselves whether participants are making "weisenheimer" remarks just for the sake of scoring points...
parsifal
Colonel
Magnon
The discussion so far has been interesting, but you you need to step back and coll off just a little.
The discussion so far has been interesting, but you you need to step back and coll off just a little.
outsiders will be able to judge for themselves whether participants are making "weisenheimer" remarks just for the sake of scoring points...
+1
A wise man...
Here is an interesting little snippet from http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/p...n_kerosene.pdf
This was in post war exercises over Europe around about 1948.
The Banshee had a much higher thrust than the F3 Meteor with two 3250 lb thrust Westinghouse J34-WE-34 engines. Its engines were mounted in the fuselage, so it should have had an excellent roll rate, giving it an important advantage in a dog fight. However, it also had a relatively high wing loading, at around 70 lb/sq.ft., compared to about half that for the Meteor F3. It was also pretty heavy fully loaded 25,214 lb (Wikepedia), which would give it a thrust to weight ratio of 0.26. The Meteor F3 was 12,614 (CFE Report), so the Meteor F3's thrust to weight ratio was better, especially if they had been fitted with Derwent IV engines of 2400 lb thrust (It would then have been 0.37). In common with the Banshee, the Me 262 also had a relatively high wing loading at around 60 lb/ft2, and had a slightly better thrust to weight ratio of 0.28, as against the Meteor F3's 0.32, based on using the Derwent I.
Me 262 data from ch11-2
"...our opponents flew de Havilland Vampire and Gloster Meteor jets from England. The Vampires were pretty little single-engined fighters with twin tail booms. They didn't have the performance of the Banshee. The early Meteor F Mk 3, the ones we faced the most, were about an even match for the Banshees and made the air-to-air maneuvers an interesting challenge. There were a few late-model Meteor F 8 aircraft that had bigger engines and were easily identified in flight by the large nacelles on the wing. We never toyed with those unless we had a good starting advantage because they would eat up a Banshee..."
This was in post war exercises over Europe around about 1948.
The Banshee had a much higher thrust than the F3 Meteor with two 3250 lb thrust Westinghouse J34-WE-34 engines. Its engines were mounted in the fuselage, so it should have had an excellent roll rate, giving it an important advantage in a dog fight. However, it also had a relatively high wing loading, at around 70 lb/sq.ft., compared to about half that for the Meteor F3. It was also pretty heavy fully loaded 25,214 lb (Wikepedia), which would give it a thrust to weight ratio of 0.26. The Meteor F3 was 12,614 (CFE Report), so the Meteor F3's thrust to weight ratio was better, especially if they had been fitted with Derwent IV engines of 2400 lb thrust (It would then have been 0.37). In common with the Banshee, the Me 262 also had a relatively high wing loading at around 60 lb/ft2, and had a slightly better thrust to weight ratio of 0.28, as against the Meteor F3's 0.32, based on using the Derwent I.
Me 262 data from ch11-2
From Design Analysis of Messerschmitt Me 262 Jet Fighter Part 1 - Airframe:
...Every Nazi pilot apparently was his own Führer, for the Germans call the next section the Führerraum, or pilot space. And they must have been little Führers, for the rudder pedals are quite close to the seat and there is no fore-and-aft adjustment either on the pedals or the seat. An average sized American sitting in the cockpit finds his knees sticking well up in the air right in front of some of the instruments...
Kurfürst
Staff Sergeant
Quite common design technique in WW2 German fighter aircraft, actually, the seating position being designed to resist G-loads better with the legs situated high...
Some adjustment would have been very handy...
And in any case the Me 262 with its high wing loading wasn't designed for high G-loads. In its role as an interceptor it certainly didn't need to pull high Gs and it would be well advised to use speed to disengage with Allied fighters rather than to get into a turning duel with them. That would be extremely unwise...
Some adjustment would have been very handy...
And in any case the Me 262 with its high wing loading wasn't designed for high G-loads. In its role as an interceptor it certainly didn't need to pull high Gs and it would be well advised to use speed to disengage with Allied fighters rather than to get into a turning duel with them. That would be extremely unwise...
And since when High load means no G's? so, the 190 wasn't build for high G loads if you follow this "logic", but the 190 could take (pilot and frame) more G's than any allied fighter.
Other flaw at you" high load" logic: bank a plane 30° at 700kmh to make turn and pull the stick 1inch and then try the same at 350kmh... now, when will you get the high G's?
...off course, in the Me262 at full speed you need 1 hand to make a 30°bank with a small amount of force needed, but in the meteor, you need the 2 hands and you're tired after few ailerons mouvements....
i'd prefear to have a cockpit like the one of the 262 (slightly copied on the 190 question ergonomics) than
a can full of rubish badly placed indicators and levers like the one on the meteor.
And please stop comparing airplanes from 48' to one from 44 , it's like apples and oranges.
The Me 262 cockpit was placed over the wing, exactly where the fuel tank needed to be. As a result, fuel stowage took place all around the cockpit. There has never been another jet to follow that example. The comparison between the design of the Me 262 Schwalbe and that of the Meteor in this regard is enlightening.
The Meteor's fuel system was a model of simplicity, and the Schwalbe's system could only be described as 'byzantine,' to put it kindly. Let's look at the facts:
From Me262Wendell
OK. Let's check the fuel management out -
From ME262PilotDebrief
From Me262PilotHandbook
To put it mildly, there are some very real problems here. It's not the sort of complex system you want to be dealing with at any time, let alone in a combat situation. As the well-known Murphy's Law points out, "If something can go wrong, it will..."
From Design Analysis of Me 262 Jet Fighter
Apparently it was installed, as it's mentioned in the Me262 Pilot's Handbook as a 158 gallon tank. As it was located well to the rear, it must have exacerbated the fuel CG problem which Wendell had already flagged up for the three tank system.
The inclusion of non-self-sealing tanks into the mix would just compound the pilot's paranoia with regard to sitting in the middle of the fuel stowage which was already prone to leakage. I don't know the characteristics of the brown coal-based J2 fuel, but I suspect it included some volatile fractions. Cheap and nasty will do just fine when you've got your backs to the wall. The Germans also used aviation gasoline as backup fuel for the Me 262. Looking on the bright side, it would undoubtedly have been a quick death.
On the other hand, the Meteor's system was relatively a model of simplicity. It had one main tank with two compartments, and one ventral drop tank. There were no fuel transfer operations required to be carried out by the pilot during the flight. All the fuel was located right where it needed to be in terms of CG, and gravity acted to distribute it between the two compartments of the main fuel tank.
From the Meteor-CFE Report No 68:
Obviously the other advantage with a drop tank is that when it comes to combat, the pilot can choose to ditch it, hence lightening his craft ready for dog-fighting.
Regards,
Magnon
The Meteor's fuel system was a model of simplicity, and the Schwalbe's system could only be described as 'byzantine,' to put it kindly. Let's look at the facts:
From Me262Wendell
...The highest permissible rearward point for the centre of gravity is 30 per cent of the mean aerodynamic wing chord. If this position is exceeded, then the aircraft becomes unstable about the lateral axis, that is, it does not remain trimmed, but will automatically stall in a turn. Under normal conditions of fuel stowage this position is not exceeded, but it is necessary to watch most carefully the transfer pumping instructions... Watch particularly that the main tanks do not overflow as the J2 fuel will run out into the fuselage and get on the radio equipment which interferes with radio traffic...
[To say the least...]OK. Let's check the fuel management out -
From ME262PilotDebrief
...There are two main fuel tanks, one forward and one behind the cockpit, each with a capacity of 900 litres... Beneath the seat of the pilot is a reserve tank of 200 litres capacity. Total fuel capacity is therefore close to 2000 litres... The concentration of all tanks near the pilot makes his position extremely vulnerable...
Putting it bluntly, the pilot is placed right in the middle of the fuel stowage zone, and the plane itself is more at risk because the fuel is significantly more spread out and hence makes a bigger target than that in the Meteor. In order to get greater range, later versions added a second (600 litre) auxiliary tank at the rear, and reduced the size of the rear main tank to 775 litres – making a grand total of 2500 litres fuel capacity.From Me262PilotHandbook
Fuel System Controls: ...Fuel transfer is accomplished by operation of the push button switch located in the main switch panel... Fuel is transferred from the main auxiliary tank to the main fuel tanks only. Transfer from the auxiliary fuel tank located beneath the pilot's compartment is accomplished by pumping into the rear auxiliary tank and then into the main fuel tanks. Fuel transfer is automatic upon operation of the fuel transfer switch. Fuel is transferred at unequal rates into the forward fuel tank...
Center of Gravity position: ...With the three forward fuel tanks full and the rear one empty, the best center of gravity will be maintained...
[Now just keep that in mind]Fuel System management: Fuel selector switches – the fuel valve controls... have three positions; rear position fuel shut off; center position rear main fuel tank; and forward position front main fuel tank. In order to maintain a suitable center of gravity, the following selector valve positions have been found to be practical –
1. When starting the jet units and taxiing – both fuel selector valves at "rear main fuel tank."
2. During take-off and in flight – left hand unit at "front main fuel tank" and right hand unit at "rear main fuel tank."
After about ten min of flying time, switch on the fuel transfer system. [Turn?] off the transfer system when the fuel gage shows 900 litres... as there may be a danger of the fuel running over.
1. When starting the jet units and taxiing – both fuel selector valves at "rear main fuel tank."
2. During take-off and in flight – left hand unit at "front main fuel tank" and right hand unit at "rear main fuel tank."
After about ten min of flying time, switch on the fuel transfer system. [Turn?] off the transfer system when the fuel gage shows 900 litres... as there may be a danger of the fuel running over.
Fuel transfer – fuel transfer switches are located in the right side of the cockpit, main switch panel... Fuel is pumped from the 200 liter tank to the 600 liter tank and then to the front and rear main tanks. The fuel is pumped into the rear main tank at a faster rate than into the front main tank. The ratio is 3:1...
To put it mildly, there are some very real problems here. It's not the sort of complex system you want to be dealing with at any time, let alone in a combat situation. As the well-known Murphy's Law points out, "If something can go wrong, it will..."
From Design Analysis of Me 262 Jet Fighter
...The fuel system consists of two 238-gal. main tanks plus a 53-gal. reserve and, at least in design plans, an auxiliary tank of about 170 gal. capacity. Both self-sealing main tanks have plywood coverings and are suspended by two straps on the ends of which are bolts that go up through pressed fittings riveted to the inside of the fuselage skin about two-thirds of the way up the side. Nuts are put on the bolts through access holes in the fuselage skin, with the holes covered by doped fabric patches. Each of the main fuel cells has two booster pumps and the reserve tank has one, the system being so arranged that fuel can be pumped from any tank to either engine, or fuel from the rear tank can be pumped to the front. The reserve tank (at least some of these have not been self sealing) goes just in front of the main spar. It is trapped to a single-skin panel, 19-3/4 in. deep by 66¼ in. wide, that is reinforced by six hat-shaped stiffeners and is attached to the fuselage by flat screws placed approximately 1¾ in. apart. Evidence of the Nazis' attempts to get more range out of the Me-262 is shown by plans for installation of the 170-gal. auxiliary tank aft of the rear main cell. It is not known how extensively, if at all, this plan was carried out, for the craft studied was the latest model produced and it had no such installation...
The inclusion of non-self-sealing tanks into the mix would just compound the pilot's paranoia with regard to sitting in the middle of the fuel stowage which was already prone to leakage. I don't know the characteristics of the brown coal-based J2 fuel, but I suspect it included some volatile fractions. Cheap and nasty will do just fine when you've got your backs to the wall. The Germans also used aviation gasoline as backup fuel for the Me 262. Looking on the bright side, it would undoubtedly have been a quick death.
On the other hand, the Meteor's system was relatively a model of simplicity. It had one main tank with two compartments, and one ventral drop tank. There were no fuel transfer operations required to be carried out by the pilot during the flight. All the fuel was located right where it needed to be in terms of CG, and gravity acted to distribute it between the two compartments of the main fuel tank.
From the Meteor-CFE Report No 68:
Fuel Capacity:
15. The fuel capacity is 330 gallons [1485 litres] internally carried in one main fuselage tank which is divided into two compartments; [the] front one feeding the port engine and the rear one the starboard engine.
16. The ventral drop tank of 180 gallons [810 litres] can also be carried, the fuel being transferred to the main tanks by air pressure from the blower on the engine.
[So no need for a mechanical pump, and the fuel was automatically transferred into the compartments of the main tank as the fuel there was used up. The design was such that there was no risk of overfilling and spillage as there apparently was in the Schwalbe transfer operations.]15. The fuel capacity is 330 gallons [1485 litres] internally carried in one main fuselage tank which is divided into two compartments; [the] front one feeding the port engine and the rear one the starboard engine.
16. The ventral drop tank of 180 gallons [810 litres] can also be carried, the fuel being transferred to the main tanks by air pressure from the blower on the engine.
17. The two compartments of the main tank can be interconnected by a balance [line] when the fuel will settle to the same level in the two [compartments]. This does not allow the two engines to be run off one [compartment]...
...The design range of the centre of gravity is from 27.9% of the standard mean chord to 34.1% standard mean chord. In all cases the centre of gravity lies within this range. The most extreme position reached is for an aircraft with no ventral tank with all its ammunition expended when the centre of gravity is at 33% standard mean chord. The effect of the ventral tank is to move the centre of gravity forward...0.4% when full...
Obviously the other advantage with a drop tank is that when it comes to combat, the pilot can choose to ditch it, hence lightening his craft ready for dog-fighting.
Regards,
Magnon
Last edited:
tail end charlie
Senior Airman
- 615
- Aug 24, 2010
I dont know much about aerodynamics but I read that the 262 originally (as a prototype) had a propellor at the front "just in case" could that be why the cockpit and fuel were in the centre?
Was there a reason for the meteor and 262 having the engines in the wings, easy to change in the actual plane and change the type of engine or safer if they exploded?
Were these two planes, being the first on each side sort of test bed prototypes that ended up going into service for a pressing need?
Actually the main reason the Me 262 had a piston engine at first was because the jet engines were not ready in time to start flight testing. The piston engine remained for safety purposes for the first few flights with jet engines.
tail end charlie
Senior Airman
- 615
- Aug 24, 2010
Thanks, thats what I read (admittedly on wiki) but it with regard to cockpit position and fuel they must have had the idea to put an engine on the front from the start (i would have thought) putting the pilot and fuel behind.
having read how much fuel the 262 pilot had in front behind and underneath ...I take the meteor thanks
Glider
Captain
They did not plan to put the engine in the front it was a stop gap method to get over the delay of the engine. The piston engine replaced the guns so it wasn't a major problem.
It wasn't unusual to put fuel in front and behind the pilot, the Spitfire was a prime example. At the end of the day the Me 262 was a lot faster than the Meteor III as operational during the war. Both aircraft were well armed and likely to inflict fatal damage to the other so the important factor is which was most likely to get their guns onto target.
I would choose the one thats approx 40-50mph in level flight and 100mph faster in a dive.
tail end charlie
Senior Airman
- 615
- Aug 24, 2010
I thought that putting an engine to pull a plane that wasn't originally designed to be there would overstress everything around it....thanks anyway
From what the article on wiki said it doesnt seem like the meteor was rushed at all it refers to things like "waiting for engine type approval" then after the V1 threat disappeared they (seemingly) couldnt decide what to do with it since they didnt want to use it over Germany itself. Again from the wiki article (sorry) it says the aerodynamics were "not advanced" which from the same article refering to various engine changes led me to think it was just a sort of test bed that ended up in service.
tail end charlie
Senior Airman
- 615
- Aug 24, 2010
I dont know how exactly this forum system works but I think it was MAGNON who posted the above
Magnon. I read a few articles years ago about development of turbines. Basically it stated that the problems with the 262 engines (and all early jets) was (amongst many other things) getting alloys to withstand the temperature. This is not just the amount of nickel involved but the exact percentage of each element and subsequent treatment.
Whereas Germany was for years at the forefront of metallurgy (I work in the steel industry and my job is littered with words like Bauschinger effect and Luders plateau) in these particular alloys the british had stolen a march (so to speak) which made the british engines more reliable.
I dont go into things in the detail that you guys do but from what I have read the british were adopting a safety first attitude. There was no need for the British to operate a plane whose engines only lasted 10-50 hrs (those figures I have read here). This advance in metallurgy they wanted to protect and so they wouldnt allow Meteors to fly over German territory, they didnt need to, because the allies were winning. The Americans had Jets in theatre late in Europe but never deployed them for the same reason. I dont think it was a shortage of Nickel that was the problem (if it was then I appologise) but knowing exacly how much nickel chromium molybdenum or whatever other alloying elements were required.
Similarly the Americans had the shooting star available in 1945 but didnt deploy it for whatever reason protection of technology or safety because one crashed on a demonstration in England (see below). Reading
about the early days of jet engines the guys involved were brave to take off evenm without an enemy to fight!!!!!
from wiki
The Shooting Star began to enter service in late 1944 with 12 pre-production YP-80As one of which was destroyed in the accident that killed Burcham. A thirteenth YP-80A was modified to the sole F-14 photo reconnaissance model and lost in a December crash. Four were sent to Europe for operational testing (two to England and two to the 1st Fighter Group at Lesina Airfield, Italy) but when test pilot Major Frederic Borsodi was killed in a crash caused by an engine fire on 28 January 1945, demonstrating YP-80A 44-83026 at RAF Burtonwood, the YP-80A was temporarily grounded. Because of the delay the Shooting Star saw no combat in World War II.
Colin1
Senior Master Sergeant
So
a bit like doping in silicon manufacture, there is one ratio and one ratio only that will work in the alloying process for critical components in jets/turbines?
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
It was a matter of both - they did need nickel during the alloying process and also had to determine the right composistion that would provide the required heat resistance.
A bit like that but you can have several different alloys that would provide the same heat resistance. They may exhibit different properties and may have advanatges and disadvantages in their use (brittleness, corrosion resistance, stress failure)
tail end charlie
Senior Airman
- 615
- Aug 24, 2010
I dont know about turbine metallurgy but for steels in furnaces there is a phenomenon called "creep" which means they deform slowly under quite small loads even their own weight this means they need a special analysis. I presume its the same only more so for turbines bearing in mind the temperature changes, gases, pressures and speeds involved. Most furnaces run continually at one temperature.
On my last job I was told that adding 2% Indium transformed the performance of aluminium, I had never heard of "Indium" until then.
