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

What ifs are fascinating, but as Civettone says, the vast majority of German late war projects (such as those featured on the wpnderful Luft-46 site) were little more than paper planes of unknown potential or even feasibility.

Hypothetically (very hypothetically), had Germany and its aircraft industry somehow survived WW2, the best gauge of what they might have developed probably are the various designs Tank, Messerchmitt, and others offered to clients such as Argentina, Egypt, and others - plus the German influenced Soviet designs of the late 1940's up to and including the Mig-15 series. I also expect that the twin-engined Me-262 concept with its underwing nacelles would go by the wayside fairly quickly as more powerful jet engines came available, although like the Meteor it might lhave found a niche in its HG forms.

However, it must be admitted that visions of a 1950 Luftwaffe patrolling the skies and near space with giant Horten flying wing bombers, Sanger space planes, tailless supersonic fighters, and assymetrical superplanes is more fun than Germans in planes that look a lot like Mig-15s, La-15s, F-86s, B-29s, and Valiants.
 
Magnon said:
An interesting post-war development was Kurt Tank's design for Argentina, the Pulqui II.Regards,

Magnon
Click to expand...

As interesting as it is, the tA183 was studied AND drawn by Multhropp and not by Kurt, Mister Tank only apposed his stamp with his name on it.

If the pulqui descends from the ta183, than the mig15, the La15 and the saab29 do also, as all of them have the same shape...but also, maybe, they descend from the P.1101 that has the same shape too???

The fuselage structure of the pulqui has nothing to do with the one drawn by multhropp...and this last was easier to build than the solution adopted by Tank on the pulqui, especialy, the center section holding the wings.

The shape found on all 50' planes is simply the result of the knowledge of aerodynamics build through the WW2.
 
The following chart may be of interest in assessing the Me 262's turning performance. Hans Fey reported that was a weakness of the Me 262:

"The Me 262 is relatively slow in turns and movements. It cannot, for instance, Split -S in less than 9000 - 12000 feet."​

See http://www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com/Images/Me262/ME262PILOTDEBRIEF.pdf

From what he said, it would seem reasonable to infer that at a flat out 500 knots, the turn radius was 6,000 ft, which would approximate to less than 5 Gs maximum allowing for adding 1 G on pull-out. This would explain why the Me 262was not able to out-turn a Mosquito (in six passes).

For the lower value, the corresponding average G is 5.8, giving 6.8 maximum on the bottom of the pull-out, still not great for a dogfighter.

Regards

Magnon
 

Attachments

  • Turn.jpg
    46.2 KB · Views: 218
at that speed, the meteor's MK3 pilot couldn't even move the ailerons, thus the 262 was still turning faster
 
Something is interesting regarding the comparison of the F 86 and the MiG 15":

Turning circles for each aircraft were very similar, with the F-86 gaining advantage at low speed because of its leading edge slats. The MiG's higher thrust to weight ratio allowed it to power through turns a little better than the Sabre. Rate of roll/pitch was a problem for the MiG as they did not have boosted controls. At high speeds (400kts+) stick forces would become so high that the aircraft was very difficult to roll or pull into turns/climbs etc. The F-86 on the contrary, was very easy to fly and control and was responsive throughout the flight envelope. With the introduction of the "6-3" slat-less wing in Sept. 1952, on the F-86F-25 (and later refitted to older aircraft.), the Sabre was able to turn inside the MiG all the way up to its combat ceiling of 50,000 ft (15,250 m) and increased its max speed to 695 mph (1118 km/h), giving the "F" a 30 mph (48.3 km) top speed advantage over the MiG (Albeit at the loss of low speed handling and a higher landing speed.)​
The MiG-15

It's surprising that removal of the slats from the F-86 improved manouevrability.

The F-80 had power boosted controls but they were apparently a mixed blessing:

The first major issue with the Shooting Star involved the power boosted aileron controls. (Controls in previous aircraft were unboosted, but the jets' higher speeds required greater control forces which meant that pilots needed additional help.) When operating normally the F-80's system permitted a roll rate of 135 degrees per second, however, when inoperative the fighter's roll rate was reduced to less than 12 degrees a second; put another way, without aileron boost stick forces increased fifteen fold. In September 1947 the service attributed four major accidents to loss of lateral control and suspected this as the cause in five other accidents. Three of the first 29 fatal F-80 accidents were caused by loss of control. The problem was that the F-80's hydraulic system could not provide adequate pressure for aileron boost when other hydraulic systems were operating (such as the landing gear or speed brakes). Lockheed's design was flawed and the USAF response was worse. When a crew chief in one RF-80 unit found that a larger hydraulic accumulator from an RB-26 would fit nicely on the Shooting Star and solve the problem, the responsible Air Force agency, Air Materiel Command, would not authorize the "fix." Instead it told the unit to "proceed at their own risk" and did not circulate the information to other F-80 outfits. Only belatedly did the Air Force begin modifying the system in 1948 by substituting a larger accumulator to provide more hydraulic pressure, but this modification took some time.​

The F-86 (and Meteor) also had speed brakes, something the Mig (and Me 262) lacked:
...the F–86 had excellent speed brakes located aft of the wing on the sides of the lower fuselage. The airplane was so slick that it was hard to slow down, but you need to slow down when you maneuver in combat, for combat is fought at all the edges of an airplane's envelope, as fast as you can go and as slow as you can go. These brakes caused very little pitch change, deployed and retracted quickly, and gave us a tremendous advantage in trying to hold position and track a hard-maneuvering MiG.​
from Silver Wings, Golden Valor: The USAF Remembers Korea

It was a transitional time for aircraft controls, in that a completely new system was required:
The introduction of power-operated controls has in itself caused a new problem in that the pilot no longer "feels" the pressure resisting the movement of the controls; this feel was always a safety factor in that it made the pilot conscious of the forces he was applying, and in fact there was some advantage in that there was a limit to what he could do to the aeroplane owing to the sheer limitation of his strength. So important is this matter of feel that when power-operated controls are used it has been necessary to incorporate artificial or synthetic "feel"...​
from The Mechanics of Flight; Kermode.

If the Me 262 had lower stick forces, it would have done it by higher leverage, which means higher movement for a given output, i.e. - the stick forces are relatively light but the stick requires a lot of movement to get the desired response. Nothing is had for nothing.

See WW2 Warbirds: the Messerschmitt Me 262 Schwalbe (Swallow) - Frans Bonn

The Me 262 V10 introduced the 'gear change' control column that reduced stick forces at high airspeeds​

Regards,

Magnon
 
Last edited:

This verifies the previous post...
 
Magnon - neither post proves anything. It is easy for controls to be boosted to overcome 'slow roll', 'slow pull out' etc. It is not so easy to keep wings, tails, etc from deprating when those 'boost' devices are installed.

The Mustang had rudder reverse 'boost' to make rudder forces greater during high q manuevers to make it harder for the pilot to destroy the airplane during high asymmetric manuevers (slow rolls, turns during a dive, etc.)

BTW, the slats have only two possible values - 1.) low speed speed wing tip control and 2.) slightly reduced drag over a twisted wing leading edge.

The MiG had a sevre pitch up moment in Mcr causing stress leading to possible tructural failure.

Like the 109 it was stiff in high G turns, but like the 109, could be overcome by a strong pilot - BTW the airplane doesn't 'stay' in 400-450 kts envelope very long with that T/W ratio - ditto the F-86 - or the Me 262 - or the original Meteor - for the same reasons
 

Thanks Drgndog,

What I was trying to say was that it is not black and white. If I understand your post correctly, you're saying much the same thing.

It seems the problem wasn't really satisfactorily resolved until several years after the war with the introduction of powered controls with feedback.

Regards,

Magnon
 

Magnon - Electonic feedback control systems were (are) far more useful to manage stability and control, particularly in the area of unsteady and unstable flight.

Boosted control surfaces were used in WWII (P-38 a prime example), with mixed results. The aileron boost truly improved roll performance for the P-38L while boosting the elevator to attempt earlier compressibility dive pullout just yanked the tail off sooner.

Reverse rudder tab boost was deployed to later model P-51D and retofitted to increase rudder forces in high Q (like a dive) flight to make it harder to slow roll or attempt a rudder turn in a dive.

So, power boost was used and usually with good results but usually structural limit considerations made the deployment a cautious exercise by the engineers.
 

I can't find figures giving a direct comparison between the Meteor F3 and the Me 262, but the following gives the F4 comparison:

Meteor F4:
"Wings, fuselage, fin and tailplane must be subjected to tests simulating the most exacting conditions to be expected in flight, while horizontal surfaces, fixed and movable, must show exceptional torsional stiffness. An ultimate strength pull-out factor for the Meteor IV is 10 at 500 m.p.h., 8.5 at 550 m.p.h. and 7 at 600 m.p.h. indicated".
flight archive 1946

Me 262 Structural airframe G limits

+7g @ 440mph
-5g @ 410mph
worldaccessnet

So, admittedly the figures are for the more robust F4, but this is a very high margin.

Regards,

Magnon
 



taking Data from IL2-1946 flight sim as true numbers, funny

maybe got some from willie's factory, or even from stormbirds.com?

ps: at-5G , the pilot is dead!


You still didn't answer my question yet:
how could a MK3 turn faster as the 262 if the MK3's ailerons couldn't be moved at speeds above 400mph? (see operationnal repport on the mk3) or maybe you don't understand my question ,what could be possible because English is my fourth language and i have difficulties to write what i mean, and then i will paraphrase the question : how much time does it take in the mk3 if a pilot want to make a 180° tunr from the moment he start to move his stick on the Y-axis?...i bet it would be very long if the pilot isn't able tu push the stick enough to bank the plane for the turn....
 

The quoted figures come from Me-262

It also indicates: 'The entire aircraft has a giant sticker on it that reads "Caution: FRAGILE".'

The writer of this has done his research well.

If you want confirmation of this, it is well and truly borne out by the Messerschmit test pilot Hans Fey's comments on http://www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com/Images/Me262/ME262PILOTDEBRIEF.pdf

In terms of what an aircraft should be designed for, see:

What can be dangerous are high accelerations; expressed as multiples of gravity, or g's. In pulling out of a dive, for example, a pilot may be subjected to an acceleration as high as 9 g. If a force of 4 to 6 g is sustained for more than a few seconds, the resulting symptoms range from visual impairment to total blackout... While facing backward in a seated position, properly supported human test subjects have been able to tolerate a deceleration force of 50 g without severe injury.

The acceleration that causes blackouts in fighter pilots is called the maximum g-force. Fighter pilots experience this force when accelerating or decelerating quickly. At high g's the pilots blood pressure changes and the flow of oxygen to the brain rapidly decreases. This happens because the pressure outside of the pilot's body is so much greater than the pressure a human is normally accustomed to. One human body handles g's different then another. ​
Acceleration of Blackout in Fighter Pilots

Regards,

Magnon
 

What is the roll rate of the Me 262? I haven't been able to find the statistics for the Me 262.

It seems the F3 Meteor was about 40 degrees per second at 300-400 mph, the F4 about 85 degrees per second, and the Lockheed F80 about 135.

The controls were limited to prevent the pilot from overstressing the structure. The Meteor structure was much more robust than the Me 262.
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 categorically "no acrobatics are to be performed" and "no spins are to be attempted"
• This is backed up by Messerschmit pilot 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"

I'll go into this further down the track.

Regards,

Magnon
 
Last edited:

-Yes, that's what i mean, it's even worse as this is a kind of manual from "acces high" game, even worse than il2 in this case

-I wrote -5G not +50G's, there is a big difference, and i do know the differencies between individuals and G's. nothing new here.


Magnon said:
What is the roll rate of the Me 262? I haven't been able to find the statistics for the Me 262.
Click to expand...

-Rollrate 262: me neither, lol. Maybe more luck at stormbirds.com?

Magnon said:
It seems the F3 Meteor was about 40 degrees per second at 300-400 mph, the F4 about 85 degrees per second, and the Lockheed F80 about 135.
Click to expand...

If you say so, my question was: the time needed for the pilot at 400mph to move the ailerons into position to get the roll of 40°/sec (your numbers)
If you can answer that, you'll know the real time needed for the roll.But that points cerntainly depends of the pilot's arms size...Hasta la Vista Ailerons!

Magnon said:
The controls were limited to prevent the pilot from overstressing the structure. The Meteor structure was much more robust than the Me 262.
Click to expand...

Nothing in the RAF evaluation repport about that.


If yo have an airplane flying 150mph faster than any other airplane, as pilot, do you really want to start a dogfight like in 14-18? You don't need it, you speed is a bigger advantage. Why would you spin the plane? that would only mean you're a bad pilot and you loose all your energy and what also means you're already dead if ennemy fighters are next to you...

Please read again the repport http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/meteor/Meteor-CFE.pdf and check points 68-73-74-76-79!!!!-90(table)-93-115 and conclusions 137-139-140

The MK3 was a bad plane , at least bad enough for aerial combat and for it's pilot comfort. Take a look at the 262's cockpit and the meteors Cockpit, just the same as the comparaison between a spitfire's cockpit and the wurger. (i could even use the exemple between the spit and the p51 that also had a nice done cockpit)
A lot of garbage badly placed in the meteor and everything ergonomicaly and logicaly placed in the 262. If you're a pilot and the airforce gives you bird where the workload to fly the plane is nihil (almost) and another where you have to look in crazy ways to check the instruments, because a lot of them is invisible, in what plane will you fly better?
 
Last edited:

The evaluation was quite critical in some areas, but overall said the fighter was very capable; read the conclusion.

Also:
Nose Wheel Shimmy
192 ATI-61 C
Nose wheel shimmy on the Me 262 turbojet fighter bomber (in German). Me-262-970, May 1944 = ATI no. 32631
Short report on nose wheel shimmy tests of the German Me 262 (V-9). Report concludes that a definite amplitude (initial deflection), a certain amount of pivotal friction, and a certain taxiing speed must be produced in order to cause shimmy. Theoretically, this means that the nose wheel should be locked completely to prevent shimmy. The maximum wheel deflection during taxiing is 13 to 15 degrees when the critical shimmy speed (about 31 mph) is reached. It is proposed to install a hydraulic damper on the V-9 model.

Landing Gear Weakness197 DC-27 C
Fend, Contributions to eliminate the difficulties encountered with the landing gear of the Me 262 (in German). ME-262-148, Oct. 1944 = CADO no. 45 2138-1 = ATI no. 19072
This is a report on measures for prevention of damage to the landing gear of the German Me 262. Results of investigations during flight and on the test field indicated that the shock absorbing qualities of the hydraulic strut heretofore used in the Me 262 are unsatisfactory because of the effect of lateral forces. The latter effects increase the loads above the amount previously expected. As a consequence, damage results due to overloading of the tires, the strut and mounting plates. This overloading can be eliminated by modification of the landing gear (hydraulic pressure, quantities of oil, damping return stroke, fork linkage, wheel drive, etc.). The various types of damage are thoroughly discussed and the probable causes analyzed.

ALERT


The CFE pilot's report was nothing like as critical as Hans Fey. Read http://www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com/Images/Me262/ME262PILOTDEBRIEF.pdf .... Shocking...

Regards,

Magnon
 
Last edited:

The above URL for the Me 262 defect has been changed.
 

The Meteor's cockpit was small and cramped but I can assure you that after a few hours flying the aircraft a typical fighter pilot of the day would eventually familiarize himself with the instruments and their locations. In actuality the placement of the instruments were in a "usual location." Engine instruments on the right of the center panel, primary flight instruments in the center, and airspeed and VSI to the left. Center below the main instrument panel is the fuel panel. Power level, fuel control and starting to the left, electrical and radios to the right.

This link has several shots of the cockpit of a MK V which I know did not differ much from the III. Very cramped but there is nothing really misplaced or placed out of the ordinary.

Google Image Result for http://futurshox.net/stamp/planes3/cp-0102-meteor5.jpg



A vast majority of aircraft with a NLG experience nose shimmy and even with shimmy dampners installed weight needs to be kept off the nose during high speeds at take off and landing.
 
Last edited:

You may have forgotten one of my previous posts on flyability, Bada:



The Me 262 pilot was stuck with what he had on board. The Wendell report was apparently written fairly early on in the development of the aircraft (ca 1944?). Later, as mentioned, to get more range they added an extra tank aft of the rear main tank, making the centre of gravity problem worse.

Well, if you still want to go for the Me 262, you're welcome... but there's more to come, Bada... You may be able to work out where I'm going with regard to spinning and stability (and manoeuvrability).

Regards,

Magnon
 
Last edited:
FLYBOYJ said:
A vast majority of aircraft with a NLG experience nose shimmy and even with shimmy dampners installed weight needs to be kept off the nose during high speeds at take off and landing.
Click to expand...

Quote. OK, not necessarily shimmy, but nosewheel nonetheless:
The goal of the Me 262 Project was not to make an identical copy of the original aircraft; some concessions have been inevitable... The Me 262's nose gear was notoriously fragile, with the Germans losing many aircraft to nose wheel collapses. Hammer fashioned a brace for the gear that eliminated the problem.​
Stormbird | Military Aviation | Air Space Magazine

Regards,

Magnon
 
Last edited by a moderator:

The weakness of the NLG is a whole other story. The shimmy, if not dealt with by keeping weight off the nose can potentially cause the strut to fail.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

A
Is Mig 21 Better For Fight
2
Replies
20
Views
2K
Zipper730
  • Poll
Which was better
Replies
5
Views
877
Supermarine-SpitfireMkXIV
  • Poll
Which aircraft was the better Russian bomber?
Replies
5
Views
3K
GrauGeist
  • Poll
German multiengine jet bomber best immune to Allied interception
Replies
0
Views
828
Vahe Demirjian
  • Poll
Who was better
2
Replies
25
Views
3K
tyrodtom
T
Menu
Log in
Register