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

Which is better, Me 262 or the Gloster Meteor?

  • Total voters
    131

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

Some background material on the centrifugal vs axial compressor advantages as at the late forties is attached for information. Surge caused flameout on changing throttle settings and when manoeuvring. Novotny was to lose his life on one such an occasion.

The original source was "Flight" archives http://www.flightglobal.com/FlightPDFArchive/1950/1950 - 2126.PDF

Regards,

Magnon
 

Attachments

  • Compressors 1.jpg
    92.5 KB · Views: 121
  • Compressors 2.jpg
    126.1 KB · Views: 131
  • Compressors 001.jpg
    186.5 KB · Views: 116
FLYBOYJ said:
Good information but totally outdated.
Click to expand...

Great to hear you have access to later data which contradicts it, Flyboy ... Can you post it, or just point us to where we can get it?

Regards,

Magnon
 
Last edited:
US Air Force Museum - WWII - Messerschmitt Me-262 Swallow
Me 262
The Messerschmitt Me 262 Swallow (or Stormbird) has got to be one of the hottest looking aircraft ever designed. That shark-like fuselage not only looks menacing, it's also an aerodynamically well designed lifting body. Fortunately due to lack of high temperature resistant alloys and quality control problems arising from the Nazi's use of slave labor, the Me 262 had a lot of mechanical problems. Its Junkers Jumo 004 Turbojet engine had a time between overhaul interval of less than 50 hours. Mostly this was due to the wartime shortage of nickel alloys which would have enabled them to manufacture turbine blades that were more heat resistant. The materials used were not much better than common steel and were prone to stretching and cracking. In today's turbine aviation engines if you lose a compressor blade it might take out one or more blades behind it and keep running, although with a good deal of vibration and lessened power. If a Junkers Jumo 004 turbojet lost a compressor blade, it almost invariably led to a catastrophic cascading failure with the turbine shedding more and more blades in a domino effect until the engine literally blew apart. Interestingly enough the Arado 234 bomber which used the same engines had much fewer problems. The difference with the Arado 234 was that after takeoff the throttles were set to a cruise position and generally left there until landing. This made for less variations in operating temperatures and RPMs resulting in fewer compressor blade cracks and failures.

When the Junkers Jumo 004 turbojets were operating properly they were unbeatable and uncatchable. They were most vulnerable at takeoff and landing. The Me 262 did not have the complicated fuel management that today's gas turbine engines have. If the pilot advanced or retarded the throttles too quickly he risked over or underfuelling the engine causing a flame out and total power loss. The engines were also sensitive to angle of attack changes. If the airflow deviated much from coming straight into the intake, such as in abrupt maneuvering, the airflow could be disturbed enough [to] stall the compressor, flaming out the engine.​

Problems with regard to flameout if any aerobatics were tried... maybe that's why they were forbidden in the Me 262 Handbook? There were big problems with restarting the engines after flameout, but that's another story...

Regards,

Magnon
 
A quote from Stormbirds.com website:

...The Me 262, although a great fighter, had one glaring weakness - it's engines, which remained an early development prototype practically throughout their use. The Jumo 004 was never intended by its designers for front-line service, as it was not yet fully developed. It was pressed into service because of the war situation. That, coupled with the fact that inferior materials were used, at least in the later production, made the engines unreliable. Therefore the Me 262s takeoff and landing was an extremely vulnerable time for the fighter. If a pilot was attacked while the engines weren't yet at full power and attempted to suddenly increase power to maneuver, the engines would flame out and leave the plane a sitting duck. That is, if it didn't crash right away, being so close to the ground...​

Wurger! The piston engine protectors of the Luftwaffes finest.

This is pretty much up to date, and confirms the inferiority of the JUMO as at the time it was pressed into service...

Regards,

Magnon
 
DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
I don't think anyone is arguing that the Me 262 was a dog fighter. I also don't see how that makes it inferior to the Meteor.
Click to expand...

I agree... The uncontestable fact is that the Me 262 was the prototype of the modern fighter. But as Voltaire once said:

Le mieux est l'ennemi du bien​

The perfect is the enemy of the good​



Regards,

Magnon
 
Last edited:

Magnon - ALL jet engines are sensitive to AoA changes - some moreso than others... restart not always fun either.
 
This still going? Magnon you must be at least on page 300+ of the "why the Me 262 sucks" google results page now
 
Magnon said:
Great to hear you have access to later data which contradicts it, Flyboy ... Can you post it, or just point us to where we can get it?

Regards,

Magnon
Click to expand...

Jet engine 101 - Axial flow engines are going to produce more power and be more efficient than centrifugal flow engines for high speed applications. I've worked on Turbomeccas, J-33s, M701s, T-56s, and more recently RR Vipers and I can tell you with 33 years working on aircraft this is a fact. Centrifigual engines are good for helicopters or for applications where space is at a minimum and where there will be a lot of load on the turbine (PT-6 for example). I can list about a dozen text books that go into this, probably the most prominent being FAA Advisory 65-12A and Aircraft Gas Turbine Engine Technology by Treager. It was evident after the first generation of jet fighter aircraft what was going to be the standard jet propulsion configuration.
 

You might have missed that I put the caveat "best for the late forties." The big advantages of the axial jets are low frotal area and a much higher potential pressure ratio. However, at the time, for development during wartime, the centrifugals got to 3.9:1 pressure ratio vs 3.12 for the axials. The high frontal area of the Derwent was negated by embedding the engine in the wing. The Meteor nacelles had lower drag than the Me 262s.

There's no dispute that the axial was better in the long term, but the Allies were developing them in parallel with centrifugals.

Regards,

Magnon
 
No I didn't miss the caveat, and my original quote "Good information but totally outdated
Magnon said:
There's no dispute that the axial was better in the long term, but the Allies were developing them in parallel with centrifugals.

Regards,

Magnon
Click to expand...

Agree....
 
Good point on the centrifugal jet engines: they were indeed the better choice that early on.

I wonder what this is based on. Never intended for front-line service?? They were working on it for 4 years straight and they knew it would be the main engine of the Me 262 since 1942.

Let me also add that the Jumo 004 was improved at the end of 1944 reaching an overhaul time of 25 hours which was not all that bad. Also it would get a regulator like on the BMW 003 which would take care of most of the accidental flame outs.
So we should also take this into account when judging the Me 262: the 1944 or the 1945 version?

Kris
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

M
  • Poll
Which one is overall better between Ta-152H and P-47M/N?
2
Replies
30
Views
3K
_PabloSniper_
A
Is Mig 21 Better For Fight
2
Replies
20
Views
2K
Zipper730
  • Poll
Which was better
Replies
5
Views
1K
Supermarine-SpitfireMkXIV
  • Poll
Which aircraft was the better Russian bomber?
Replies
5
Views
4K
GrauGeist
  • Poll
German multiengine jet bomber best immune to Allied interception
Replies
0
Views
943
Vahe Demirjian
Menu
Log in
Register