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


While the 262 made use of both steel and aluminum in conjunction with one another, so did many aircraft of WW2. Again your argument has no real world basis. Situations where dissimilar metals are placed next to each other can be dealt with and many of todays aircraft still use dissimilar metals in their construction. WW2 fighters were not designed for longevity and 500 hours on an airframe would have been considered remarkable.
 

It didn't suck against contemporary jets, just against a lower Lift loaded conventional fighter. At a speed of 100mph > than a Mustang in a rat race trying to maintain the same turn radius would have a.) blacked the pilot out and b.) put the airplane in an Angle of Attack which it could not sustain - cause a stall - but the engines probably stall before the wing.

Had nothing to do with structural integrity
 
You are dabbling again. Steel was used because they a.) needed the smaller dimensions in the structural member to take the calculated loads - and acceptable stress levels or b.) greater strength with same cross section. 4130 Steel has a tensile strength nearly 2x 2024 Aluminum but it is denser.

It would take a long time for a steel/aluminum corrosion issue to occur - certainly time that the Luftwaffe didn't have. There are several surface treatments to alleviate the problem.

As to .125 (or similar) skin thickness on surface of the wing, that is all about a.) creating stiffer shear panels, and b.) augmenting cap area for spars to reduce stress levels due to bending/torsion.

Why do you keep heading down a path to look at airframe structures to try for points on the Meteor. Stop - it is past the silly point in the debate...
 
FLYBOYJ said:
It was, well kind of


Avia S-92 Turbina

Remember, turbine aircraft technology advanced quickly during the post war period. The F-80 and Meteor were basically obsolete within 5 years.
Click to expand...


That was just continuing production and only 12 were made.

I think all were obsolete before they went into service, they were just test beds that got produced. The germans were advanced in swept wing research but that isnt esential for supersonic flight, the bell x1 didnt have swept wings. Even swept wings needed a huge amount of research before they were safe. Miles tested the stabilator in 1944 and provided data to bell for the X1. All sides could have put in much more advanced aerodynamic features into their planes but each feature puts in a new variable, many pilots crashed in the early days just because they went familiar with a new way of flying. In my region alone there were over 25 meteors lost in accidents, it was the same with the 262 and F-80. Turbine technology advanced very quickly in both power and reliability but it was a long time before swept wings for supersonic flight was relevant and swept wings were only a part of the issue.

I dont think you could develop the 262 much further because a bigger engine would make it more unstable even if it didnt reach the ground.
 

All good points made, however if we were to freeze time and look at the fall of 1944, there is no doubt that the 262 was the better jet in terms of performance. The Meteor evolved to be a better aircraft in its late WW2 and post war variants but the clock stopped for the 262 and Germany. Could the Me 262 been improved to match or exceed aircraft like the Meteor or P-80? Absolutely, but probably not much more better than its contemporaries, but to continue to compare later variants of th Meteor to the 262 is just nonsense, it's like comparing a Spitfire Mk I to an Fw 190D.
 

I agree but the two planes builders were in a different situation. The allies were winning the war and didnt want to give the technology to germany with a lost aircraft, to me it was a research programme with no defined "enemy". No one in the west especially the UK had the thought energy or money for a continuation of war. I would agree that in 1944/45 the 262 was marginally the better plane but the UK wasnt being bombed by 1000 bomber formations. If the UK was under the same pressure the performance of the engine would have been ramped up without regard to engine or pilot life and afterburners tried out.

The fuselage of the 262 is above the wing and the engines are below, to me it is fundamentally unbalanced like a motorcycle with a side car. The faster it goes the more unstable it would be. And like a M/C with a side car it has problems with corners/dives. Just my opinion not based on any data apart from it used to go inverted in a dive, the engines drag being greater than the fuselage (as I see it).

BTW there are another 10 meteors lost in the North Sea along with a similar number of Lightnings, Tornados, 2 of the F111 and a single F15. That is 35 meteors crashed in a small region in peacetime with conservative aerodynamics and reliable (for the time ) engines. Post war jets may have been better than piston engined planes but a huge amount more dangerous.

Some of the lightnings and Phantoms may have been lost running out of fuel intercepting "Bears"
 
Last edited:
Agree, but compared to the F.1 the 262 wasn't "marginally" better, it was a lot better...
Do you have any type of engineering basis for this assumption? Just because an aircraft "looks" unstable, doesn't mean it is. I mean, let's take what you just described.



These series of YAK fighters were highly successful.

This all depends on the mission and pilot. Overall I'll bet dollars to donuts that the accident rate for the RAF is one 1/5 of what is was in the post war era (if not more).
 

The first meteors were deployed in advance of the deployment of V1, I dont think anyone would have formed a squadron otherwise, once you have formed the squadron you have a load of pilots wanting action.
As I said the two planes were in a different situation, no urgency was placed on the meteor because during the BoB it wasnt ready and later it didnt have an enemy it could reach. "Better" is a general term in speed, manouverability reliability serviceability. The 262 could probably been more effective if it was slower and more flyable/reliable, personally I wouldnt like to fly either.

That yak fighter has wings in the middle of the fuselage the 262 is low wing, like I said its just the look of the plane it looks un balanced to me.

For accidents its difficult to say because the web site doesnt give exact details post war (undersatndable some of the planes are/were still in service but post war most operations are training while in the war its a mix of operational and training. There are a much larger number of meteors than vampires lost but that may be the local deployment.

The site is below

WWW.YORKSHIRE-AIRCRAFT.CO.UK
 

An interesting post-war development was Kurt Tank's design for Argentina, the Pulqui II. This may be an indication of where German jet fighter development was going. It was highly swept, had a Rolls-Royce Nene engine and four Hispano Suiza 20mm cannon. It also had significant problems, including a wing failure and stability problems:

Regards,

Magnon
 

Attachments

  • Tank 001.jpg
    121.5 KB · Views: 182
  • Tank 002.jpg
    121.8 KB · Views: 197
  • Tank 003.jpg
    106.9 KB · Views: 185
  • Tank 004.jpg
    71.9 KB · Views: 183
I think we are all aware of that design and its problems. There were others that were much more advanced in terms of design progress. I wonder why you chose to provide that one

TEC, I am pretty sure there's a lot more to why accident rates with jet planes got progressively better as time went along: safety regulations, PILOT TRAINING and of course technical advancements in many fields. It would make a lot more sense to e. g. compare the Meteor accident rate to that of a Tempest. I have no doubt the Meteor lost more and surely it has to do with new technology but that is the way it is. No pain no gain.

As to copying the Me 262: There were quite a few Russian designs copying the general layout. But as with many weapon developments: as the war was over, most intermediate designs saw no or limited service and by the time Korea started there were newer and better designs like the MiG 15. Who copied the Meteor? Who copied the P-59? Who copied the P-80?
 
Last edited:
tail end charlie said:
Why wasnt the 262 copied if it was so good?
Click to expand...
Only some thoughts on the subject
there was no paradigm shift from recip design to jet design, it didn't happen overnight.
It would be a generation on from the Me262/Meteor before they accommodated the fact that there was no need to hang the jet powerplants from mid-wing with no prop disc to consider.

On the subject of swept-wing design, I'm not clear on the intent behind the sweep adopted by Messerschmitt for the 262, I have always understood it was to correct a CoG issue otherwise they would have stuck with a straight-wing design too.

The Meteor stuck with even more conservative design principles that could be found in advanced recip design twins of the period. The Meteor's ace (for me) was the pilot's command view of his personal battlespace from right at the front of the fuselage.

The Me262 and the Meteor rolled out all the new ideas for propulsion, on platforms of more familiar, tried and trusted design, the Me262's aerodynamic profile was pretty radical for the time but it didn't really depart from accepted principles of what got bolted to where.

Joe put it well, the clock stopped for Germany but for everyone else involved in aero programs for better jets, the lessons were learned from these two 'test vehicles', from now on, airframe technologies would better accommodate and exploit the new propulsion systems. I would say that that is the reason why nobody really copied them in the simplest interpretation of the word.
 
tail end charlie said:
The first meteors were deployed in advance of the deployment of V1, I dont think anyone would have formed a squadron otherwise, once you have formed the squadron you have a load of pilots wanting action.
Click to expand...

Actually that's somewhat incoorect. the first Meteor Squadron was 616 squadron who gave up their Spitfires for the new jet. Operating the F.1, they had a lot of issues the first few months of operations and it took them about a month to get their first V1 kill. Several F.1 s were lost during this time (I believe 5 to either engine failures or pilot error during landings, it seems thre is little record of the F.1's MC and attricion rate but depending on sources about 1/4 of the squadron was lost. things got better with the F 3 which was deplyed in late 1944 but it still had a lot of bugs.
Agree
tail end charlie said:
That yak fighter has wings in the middle of the fuselage the 262 is low wing, like I said its just the look of the plane it looks un balanced to me.
Click to expand...
It has a very similar layout - again, just because it looks unstable doesn't mean it is and beside a good fighter should have some inherent instability built into it.

I also believe that meteors were used more in night and IMC operations.
 

That basically was the point I was making, the V1 gave a chance to see what operational problems there were.

The yak looks more balanced to me, take the undercart away and the engines and fuselage are on the ground. From what you say a combat plane is like a racing motorcycle which are on the edge of stability in a straight line so they change direction and corner more quickly.

Most meteors where I live were lost in training accidents my local airfield was an . Personally I am not a big fan of the meteor, when talking about fighters in 1945 I think the Vampire was a better plane than both of them, but being a private venture took longer to get sorted. The ghost engine which went in the vampires successor the Venom was being tested in 1944 which shows what could have been done if the pressure was on.
 
Sorry gents,

but I have some problems with the suggestive statements in this thread and the latent argumentation from some guys, that the german developments of Jet planes in WW II, were outclased from the allied development.
If there is any weapon technology, where the germans were constant equal with the allieds then it is the aviation industry

If you want to compare then please compare the whole circumstances. Raw materials to manufactor, time of development, fuel, and industry resources that were functioning and not rebuilt after bombardments.

The first german jet fighter was the He 280, a true jet dog and turn fighter. (Year 1941)
It's main problems were the engines because the german aviation industry had not the raw material (enough for mass production) to built the small HeS 8A engines.

But Heinkel had built a development center for jet planes and engines (especially for the He 280) and all results had huge influences of the later jet planes and jet planes in development.
At 1945 the germans had three jet engines. The Jumo 004, BMW 003 and the Heinkel HeS 011.
Also the Me 262 as the first jet fighter in mass production and combat.
The Ta 183 and the Me P.1101were in development.
I ask which other country had this designs and engines combat ready or in development at 1944/45?
Apart from the Arado 234 as the first jet bomber.

And this with very very little raw materials and an industry production that was under bombardment on a daily basis.

And if the german aviation industry was that poor, why on earth they could produce, one of the best piston engine fighters of WW II with an industry in the last breaths from raw materials to manufactor and sub systems that perhaps are functioning on a daily basis?

If you want to compare then please compare designs and engines and the potentials of these under the same requirements.

Edit:

To through the Pulqui II in the the discussion is like to compare apples with beans.
Or do you want to compare the whole aviation industry from germany with argentina from the possibility to manufactor and the whole sub system of a truly functional avation industry? That's very funny because a design is important but most important is the possibility to manufactor the design with all potentials. And to my opinion the argentina avation industry was in the beginning and miles away from the potential of the german avation industry in 1945!
 
Last edited:
Many of the German 1945 designs - like the BV P 212 or 215, or other designs by Lippisch, Junkers, Heinkel, ... - were indeed advanced but I have never ever seen any serious research about the viability of these designs. So it is all really nice to fantasise about how "cool" it would have been if those fighters had seen service but fact is that we are clueless. Take the applauded Ta 183. At least there we have the Pulqui II as an indication of the aerodynamical problems the Ta 183 would have seen. Maybe German scientists would have come up with a solution, like wing fences, on their own but maybe another design would have been chosen.

So as to the B&V designs, they were so radical I have serious doubts about them.

Kris
 
DonL said:
If you want to compare then please compare the whole circumstances. Raw materials to manufactor, time of development, fuel, and industry resources that were functioning and not rebuilt after bombardments.
Click to expand...

I think that's been done several times on this thread.
 
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
940
Vahe Demirjian
Menu
Log in
Register