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

[Magnon]

It seems to me that there is arguably a parallel between the Shwalbe and the Starfighter, in that both

- were specialist interceptors
- lacked manoeuvrability
- had high wing loadings (the Starfighter much higher)
- suffered from instability in flight, particularly in high-G manouevres
- had relatively high stall speeds (the Starfighter was far worse)
- had very high attrition rates (the Starfighter's was in peacetime)​

... [Interceptors] sacrifice performance in the air superiority fighter role (i.e., fighting enemy fighter aircraft) by tuning their performance for either fast climbs or high speeds, respectively. The result is that interceptors often look very impressive on paper, typically outrunning, outclimbing and outgunning less specialized fighter designs. Yet they tend to fare poorly in combat against those same "less capable" designs due to limited maneuverability... Interceptor aircraft - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia​

Where the analogy breaks down is that the Me 262 was built for speed, and was expected to have a clear superiority over its opposition in this area and hence be able to outrun them.

Interestingly, the Starfighter was designed in Kelly Johnson's "Skunkworks."

Do you know anything about it DragonDog?

Regards,

Magnon

 

[Magnon]

Magnon, You have to be more careful with selecting Your sources and jumping from individual samples (ONE TEST on ONE engine at ONE given day) to general conclusions. Put them in a meaningful statistic in the first place would be my primary advise. This may allow the interested reader to judge whether or not the sample has significance for the whole Jumo-series or not. You may find the relevant primary sources in the Freiburg Archive (but it may be possible that some of the material relating to Jumo benchtest moved to Berlin since 2002) and I know that a roughly 2in thick agglomeration of single benchtests is there. That beeing said, I greatly appreciate Your input here.

The speed margin of wartime Me-262 (with all the plane to plane variation) and Meteor is significantly different from what You suggest. It´s not a single value but a spread of discrete points. For the Me-262 You may find the Rechlin mass tests on 142 serial Me-262A1 intersting. Tests were conducted late in 1944 with top speed measured in different altitudes and clacluclated back to standart atmosphere, but the paper dates to early 1945 (I think it was RG-Lunatic who digged out this source first in another -262 relevant post). It would be highly interesting to see a comparable convolution of serial Meteor-III tests before jumping to general statements.

Best regards,
delc

Where I am coming from is that:

- It is undeniable that there were problems in durability of the JUMO engines. The graphs of temperature distribution show how "close to the wind" the operation of the engine was. There was absolutely no room for error in terms of the rate of throttle opening. The aluminium coating on the flame tubes was going to melt at 660C, allowing much increased rates of scaling corrosion. Even on a test rig, very significant rates of thrust deterioration and SFC increase were measured, mainly due to the turbine elements.
- Whereas the published figures for speed and climb rate were obtained for a new engine, an operational fighter would have to be operating with less-than-ideal output.
- This is born out by results of evaluation by the Allies after the war, in which generally less than the nominal 540 mph were reported.
- Hans Fey indicates that 515 mph was the lower limit of acceptability for their performance assessment.​

Best regards,

Magnon

 

[pbfoot]

The 104 was also uses as a maritime srike aircraft by the German Navy and the Canadians used it solely as a lo level strike aircraft a task at which it excelled

 

[drgondog]

It seems to me that there is arguably a parallel between the Shwalbe and the Starfighter, in that both

- were specialist interceptors
- lacked manoeuvrability
- had high wing loadings (the Starfighter much higher)
- suffered from instability in flight, particularly in high-G manouevres
- had relatively high stall speeds (the Starfighter was far worse)
- had very high attrition rates (the Starfighter's was in peacetime)​

... [Interceptors] sacrifice performance in the air superiority fighter role (i.e., fighting enemy fighter aircraft) by tuning their performance for either fast climbs or high speeds, respectively. The result is that interceptors often look very impressive on paper, typically outrunning, outclimbing and outgunning less specialized fighter designs. Yet they tend to fare poorly in combat against those same "less capable" designs due to limited maneuverability... Interceptor aircraft - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia​

Where the analogy breaks down is that the Me 262 was built for speed, and was expected to have a clear superiority over its opposition in this area and hence be able to outrun them.

Interestingly, the Starfighter was designed in Kelly Johnson's "Skunkworks."

Do you know anything about it DragonDog?

Regards,

Magnon

Yes, although the 104 and U-2 were designed before my period with Lockheed. I did some aero/structural modelling work on theF-104 and SR-71/A-12 to compare against the test data results as well as some engagement on the Q-12 and D-21 ramjet powered drones for the SR-71

The analogy between F-104 and Me 262 is a very thin one. Both were interceptor/air superiority fighters powered by jet engines, both had internal cannon. That about sums it up.

As to obvious differences - T tail Stabilator, fuselage mounted landing gear, AR ~ 2.4, t/c ratio (~3.4%) and leading edge so sharp as to require gloves for ground crew, anhedral wing, imbedded fuselage engine, conical inlet, Whitcomb fuselage, downward ejection seats, EXTREMELY low drag - in fact the 104 top speed was limited by aluminum heat properties - not thrust

Note - The 'instability' issue you refer to are very common for all supersonic fighters at high AoA - the extemely low aspect ratios for something like F-104 also necessitate creative thinking to achieve acceptable landing speeds. IIRC the 104 had one of the first blown jets though slots in wing to improve boundary layer 'attachment' over the trailing flaps as an example.

The 104 sucked in a turn - far more than the Me 262.. but it would roll nearly 2x turns per sec... faster than a pilot could really utilize.

 

[Magnon]

The Starfighter had big problems:

The Lockheed F-104 "Star Fighter"

...In June of 1958, English Electric test pilot Roland Beaumont test flew an F-104A. He was quite critical of the Starfighter. He found the aircraft to have inadequate directional damping, evidenced by a persistent low-amplitude short-period oscillation throughout most of the flight regime. The use of a thin, highly-loaded wing had a severe adverse effect on the turning maneuverability. There were excessive break-out forces of the power-controlled ailerons. At high angles of attack, the high-set stabilator would tend to stall in the wing downwash, and a departure into a flat spin was often the result. Recovery from such a flat spin was usually possible only if there was sufficient height so that increased engine power could be applied to accelerate the aircraft back into controlled flight. Beaumont found that subsonic handling properties were unpleasant and particularly dangerous in take-off and landing configuration and were not compatible with bad weather operation. He predicted that the F-104 was likely to suffer a high accident rate in operation...​

Attrition Rate

Starfighter with Luftwaffe

...In Luftwaffe service, the F-104G got a bad reputation because of the large number of accidents, many of them resulting in fatalities. Intensive flying operations with the Starfighter did not start in Germany until 1961, when only two crashes took place. There were seven crashes in 1962, 12 in 1964, and 28 in 1965, or more than two a month. By mid-1966, 61 German Starfighters had crashed, with a loss of 35 pilots. At the height of the crisis, the Starfighter accident rate peaked at 139 per 100,000 flying hours. As a result, the German press went into a feeding frenzy and the F-104G was given derogatory nicknames such as the "Flying Coffin" or the "Widowmaker", which brings to mind all of the flak that surrounded the Martin B-26 Marauder during World War 2. One running joke at the time was that if you waited long enough, just about every square mile of Germany would have a Starfighter crash onto it...​

...During its period of service with the German armed forces, about 270 German Starfighters were lost in accidents, just under 30 percent of the total force. About 110 pilots were killed. However, the attrition rate in German service was not all that much greater than that of the F-104 in service with several other air forces, including the United States Air Force. Canada had the unenviable record of losing over 50 percent of its 200 single-seat CF-104s in flying accidents. The loss rate of Luftwaffe Starfighters was not all that extraordinary, since the Luftwaffe had suffered a 36 percent attrition rate with the Republic F-84F Thunderstreak, the Starfighter's immediate predecessor...​

It just goes to show. I felt sure that 30% would have had to have been an all-time attrition rate for an aircraft in peacetime...

http://www.airplanedriver.net/study/f104.htm

...Try not to fall on your head when exiting the aircraft. Adrenaline does funny things to a person, and you should have plenty of it after flying this airplane. So much for the F-104, the ultimate:
"Bad Ass Airplane".​

Now how does this tie up with the Me 262? Well, it's just that they were both specialist interceptors, and the Me 262 exhibited a lot of the negative properties of the Starfighter, but admittedly to nowhere near the same extent...

After getting caught with their pants down twice with the F 84 and F 104, the Germans since then seem to be keen on joint Anglo-German projects.

Regards,

Magnon

 

[Magnon]

The Lockheed F-104 "Star Fighter"

The Indian – Pakistan War of 1965:
...The first encounter in history between Mach 2 fighters took place on September 11, 1965. A single PAF F-104A encountered four IAF MiG-21s from Halwara. The F-104 managed to escape by exiting the combat at tree-top height and Mach 1.1, which the MiG-21s were unable to match. No blood was drawn during this encounter.
When it found itself confronted with the Indian Air Force's diminutive Folland Gnats, the Pakistani F-104As often found themselves outmaneuvered. This was especially true if the Starfighter pilot chose not to use his Mach 2 speed advantage and decided instead to engage in low-speed dogfights with his opponents. In addition, since most of the air-to-air fighting occurred at low altitudes, the Starfighter's Sidewinder air-to-air missiles were often unable to distinguish between target aircraft and ground clutter and a lot of missiles missed their targets. However, the Starfighter's afterburner enabled it to break off combat at will and get out of trouble in a hurry...

... War between Pakistan and India broke out again on December 7, 1971. By this time the Indian MiG force was formidable, with eight squadrons operationally ready. During the 1971 war with India, No 9 Squadron of the Royal Jordanian Air Force with about 10 F-104As was transferred to Pakistan to help out. It is not certain if the Jordanian F-104As were actually used in combat and if they were, whether they were flown by Pakistani or Jordanian pilots.​

Both sides have published wildly differing figures for air victories and losses during this war, although it appears that the F-104 came off second-best in the few encounters that occurred with IAF MiG-21s--with the F-104s scoring no confirmed victories and suffering at least two losses. Indian air historians claim that five PAF Starfighters were lost in combat, and they also claim that two Jordanian Starfighters were shot down by MiG-21s on the last day (December 17) of the 1971 war. The PAF has admitted that two PAF Starfighters were lost in combat with IAF MiG-21s during the 1971 war, plus another one lost to ground fire. According to Pakistani sources, nine IAF MiG-21s were shot down on the Western front, with two of them being shot down by PAF fighters (one by an Chinese-built F-6 and another by a F-86 Sabre). The PAF has admitted that the maneuverability of the F-104 was poor during close-in combat and that the F-6 and F-86 were far better in a dogfight. ​

If a subsonic Folland Gnat, designed on a shoestring for sale to third-world countries, could whip a Starfighter in a dogfight, it goes to show that in general an interceptor should not try to mix it up with a less specialised fighter.

As a dogfighter, the Starfighter was not so much a "star," more like a "dog," actually.

Regards,

Magnon

 

[pbfoot]

I won't change the topic except to say your knowledge of the 104 is IMHO sorely lacking , it was a rare aircraft in the fact it had a 40 service career as a 1st line fighter,

 

[drgondog]

Magnon - The articles you presented were basically accurate with respect to issues the F-104 had during its lifetime. Having said that, the airplane was designed as the fastest interceptor in the world - It had by far the highest thrust to weight ration and the first one able to climb to 100,000 feet.

My father's last three high performance aircraft before retirement were the F-105, the F-101 and the F-104 and he liked each of them and respected the strengths and weaknesses of all of them. At the time he flew the airplane it was the only operational Mach 2+ fighter in ther world and the fastest time to climb. The only derogatory comment I recall is the it was not a dogfighter and should never be employed as such in manuever fights.

That would be obvious based on wing loading and AR as all HoA manuevers would be stretching the stability envelope.

Tony Lanphier also seemed to like the F-104 and as a test pilot he didn't get paid to be a politician - so he called them as he saw them.

Net - it was the fastest, was the first to use the M-61 in operations, was nearly 70% faster than the F-100, could climb far above any bomber or fighter in existance and for some time after it was introduced. IIRC it was the first (by far) to attain 100,000 feet largely due to the exceptional performance of the J-79 and the 104's extremely low drag.. god knows it wasn't lift due to the wing.

From my perspective, it was over sold and represented a dead end in fighter evolution until the advent of truly reliable missiles which could negate better manuever fighter aircraft like the MiG 21.

But back to the topic of Me 262. As you agreed there are few valid comparisons between the two fighters?

 

[Kurfürst]

Maybe this was why 1432 were built, most sitting on the ground and only around 300 were ever used in combat. (Sorry, I'm just being facetious here.)

Regards,

Magnon

Spitfire XIV. 900-odd built, 120 were ever present in service. Tempest ditto..
Bf 109K. 1700-odd built, highest number I know to be in service at time was 300-odd.
P-47D Thunderbolt... what, 15 000 built...? I willing to be there was never more than 1500-2000 in service at a time.

It's a typical ratio.

 

[Magnon]

I won't change the topic except to say your knowledge of the 104 is IMHO sorely lacking , it was a rare aircraft in the fact it had a 40 service career as a 1st line fighter,

I'm sure it put the fear of God into any bomber commander who had to face it, but it wasn't a dogfighter, it was a specialist interceptor...

Regards,

Magnon

 

[Magnon]

[/INDENT]

Spitfire XIV. 900-odd built, 120 were ever present in service. Tempest ditto..
Bf 109K. 1700-odd built, highest number I know to be in service at time was 300-odd.
P-47D Thunderbolt... what, 15 000 built...? I willing to be there was never more than 1500-2000 in service at a time.

It's a typical ratio.

To my knowledge, the highest number of sorties on a single day was recorded as 44.

That would be around 3%...

JV44 had been formed by Adolf Galland as a last-ditch effort to keep the cream of the Luftwaffe pilots together, flying the best available aircraft. Formed from 12 / JG54 on 10 February 1945 at Brandenburg-Briest, JV44 began operations on 31 March 1945 from Munich-Riem with twenty-five Me262s and fifty pilots. A month later, every remaining Me262 was being flown to the JV44 base from disintegrating units, ending up with over 100 Me262s. After transferring to Salzburg-Maxglam, the unit was forced to surrender on 3 May 1945. In its month of operations, the unit showed what the Me262 was capable of, shooting down around forty-five Allied aircraft while having an average of only six aircraft operational at any time.​

Messerschmitt Me 262 Schwalbe

That's around 6%.

Regards,

Magnon

 

[Magnon]

But back to the topic of Me 262. As you agreed there are few valid comparisons between the two fighters?

the unit was designed to kill US/RAF bombers not engage in a hand to hand struggle in the air with opposing fighters..............look how wide the turns were of the 262 allowing Allied fighters to close within and deal the lethal blows

What Erich the Old Sage is saying, DragonDog, is that the Me 262 was a specialist interceptor. That's what it was designed to do... That's what it had to do.

There is nothing shameful about that, surely?

Regards,

Magnon

 

[drgondog]

What Erich the Old Sage is saying, DragonDog, is that the Me 262 was a specialist interceptor. That's what it was designed to do... That's what it had to do.

There is nothing shameful about that, surely?

Regards,

Magnon

So, how is the 'specialist interceptor' Me 262 different from the initial design purpose and mission of the Spitfire, the Me 109, the Me 163, the Meteor, the P-80, the Yak 3?

 

[bada]

Bada - one note on your comparison of Meteor vs Fw 190 speed limit at 20,000 ft. The table showed 400 IAS which is Indicated Air Speed not True Air Speed. The Fw would do 400mph TAS but closer to 280-300 (a guess - I don't have my books unpacked to do the math) IAS at 20,000 feet.

oupsie, my mistake you're right.

Magnon:
the 3-6% or whatever procents, are they calculated on the total number of airframes build?
otherwise, you have to know the total aiframes build till that day of 44 sorties, substract the airframes not delivered yet , the ones in maintenance ,the one destroyed and the ones in flight schools (not that there were a lot of them at the end of the war and specially for the 262 ). If we take the example of the spit14, so, let's take the date of 10jan44, there was only 1.65% availibility of the spit14.
BUT if you take in acccount the airframes awaiting for delivrey , the proto used for testing, you'll find that there was 100% assignation for the MK14, what means 8 airframes, and if we apply the 75% availibity rule, we end with 6 airframes capable of combat.
Now you see what i mean?

Men can tell the stats what men wants if you don't have a valid and comprehensive protocol to use.

Edit: the ME262 was drawn in 1940 and build in 1941...can you explain how thye could know that a bomber interceptor will be needed 3years after that?
Willy has certainly a magical time warp glass-ball

 

[drgondog]

I'm sure it put the fear of God into any bomber commander who had to face it, but it wasn't a dogfighter, it was a specialist interceptor...

Regards,

Magnon

The F-104 was not conceived as a 'specialist interceptor' - it was only an interim solution in Air Defense Command until the disappointing F-102 was replced by the F-106.

It was intended as an air superiority fighter and evolved its role over time. While it was the 'fastest', future combat with slower aircraft in Pakistan/India wars and Vietnametc, demonstrated the range and agility (ditto F-4 and F-105 to a degree) issues that laid the groundwork to push the F-16 and F-15 concepts forward.

 

[drgondog]

oupsie, my mistake you're right.

Magnon:
the 3-6% or whatever procents, are they calculated on the total number of airframes build?
otherwise, you have to know the total aiframes build till that day of 44 sorties, substract the airframes not delivered yet , the ones in maintenance ,the one destroyed and the ones in flight schools (not that there were a lot of them at the end of the war and specially for the 262 ). If we take the example of the spit14, so, let's take the date of 10jan44, there was only 1.65% availibility of the spit14.
BUT if you take in acccount the airframes awaiting for delivrey , the proto used for testing, you'll find that there was 100% assignation for the MK14, what means 8 airframes, and if we apply the 75% availibity rule, we end with 6 airframes capable of combat.
Now you see what i mean?

Men can tell the stats what men wants if you don't have a valid and comprehensive protocol to use.

Not to mention the other 262's ready to launch but far away from the bomber stream at the time..

The failure to put more 262's in the air in one day was amplified by a.) lack of fuel, b.) placed out of range from the battles of the day - and c.) possibly too few pilots checked out in the airframe.

 

[pbfoot]

I'm sure it put the fear of God into any bomber commander who had to face it, but it wasn't a dogfighter, it was a specialist interceptor...

Regards,

Magnon

it was never an interceptor in CAF livery in fact it was a very good strike fighter/including nukes, flying very lo its hard to hit what you can't see . I'll let you get back to your Quixote quest to validate the Meteors existence

 

[Magnon]

it was never an interceptor in CAF livery in fact it was a very good strike fighter/including nukes, flying very lo its hard to hit what you can't see . I'll let you get back to your Quixote quest to validate the Meteors existence

A 50% attrition rate in peacetime, pbf.... is that some sort of record?

Finds it hard going in a dogfight against a Folland Gnat...

The "CAF" doesn't have nukes, surely?

As long as you're happy, pbf...

 

[Magnon]

OK then guys... The important thing is in bold type:

Originally Posted by Erich
the unit was designed to kill US/RAF bombers not engage in a hand to hand struggle in the air with opposing fighters..............look how wide the turns were of the 262 allowing Allied fighters to close within and deal the lethal blows

I will admit that I am not going to change your minds, but when people fail to learn from mistakes, they usually run a big risk of losing wars.

But that's OK...

Regards,

Magnon

 

[drgondog]

OK then guys... The important thing is in bold type:

Originally Posted by Erich
the unit was designed to kill US/RAF bombers not engage in a hand to hand struggle in the air with opposing fighters..............look how wide the turns were of the 262 allowing Allied fighters to close within and deal the lethal blows

I will admit that I am not going to change your minds, but when people fail to learn from mistakes, they usually run a big risk of losing wars.

But that's OK...

Regards,

Magnon

Magnon - you are hanging your thesis that the Me 262 was a.) 'specialist interceptor' and b.) a failure at that because it had 'wide turns'?

The Me 163 was a succcess because it didn't have wide turns? The F-4 was a failure because it couldn't fight a MiG 21 in the horizontal? The Spit was a failure because it couldn't out turn a Zero?

Who are referring to relative to 'fail to learn from their mistakes'?? The only 'mistake' I see so far is that the people debating you keep doing so when it is clearly a waste of time.