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

[Magnon]

He-162

...The call for a Volksjager(people's fighter) is an astonishing late- war accomplishment that went from drawing board to flight in only three months. This very hurried project (code-named "Salamander") managed to produce the Heinkel 162, "unique in the history of aviation as the only aircraft in which development, pre-production prototypes and main production lines were started almost simultaneously and proceeded in parallel." Curious in the design is the location of the jet engine, mounted on top of the fuselage directly above and behind the cockpit; this motivated the installation of a simple ejection seat, reflecting that the pilots were more highly valued than the aircraft itself.

The aircraft itself was very effective as a fighter interceptor, equalling the Me-262. In some ways it was superior: "The BMW engine proved to be far less sensitive to throttle movments than those of the Me 262, though still prone to flameouts. This allowed the He 162 to be flown up to the limits of the pilot's confidence in the aircraft, unlike the Me 262 whose engines restricted much in the way of maneuvers." It was very fast and well armed. However, it had a problem of having a very short flight time of 30 minutes, and many operational losses were due to running out of fuel.

Despite its rapid development and excellent qualities, it was another case of too little too late for the Luftwaffe. The production program was planned to put out 4,000 aircraft per month, but only a few hundred were in fact produced because of the success of the Allied bombing campaign. Although a very few He-162s did see action over Germany in April 1944, the fighter essentially had no impact on the war.

il2guide

Galland didn't share in the above regard for the viability of the 162 as an interceptor.

Regards,

Magnon

 

[Magnon]

From Galland's "The First and the Last":

...From the beginning I had strongly opposed the Volksjaeger project. In contrast to the creators of this idea, my objections were based on factual reasons such as insufficient performance, range, armament, bad visibilty, and dubious airworthiness. Furthermore I was convinced that this aircraft could not be brought into worthwhile operation before the end of the war..

...The project had one advantage: It was technically quite impossible to hang a bomb under the tiny aircraft and to declare it a Blitz bomber. Compared with the Me 262, the He 162 meant a step backward in every way...​

Regards,

Magnon

 

[drgondog]

Absent a Vne diagram for both ships, stating velocity vs G load for a specific weight, all discussion about manuever limits are essentially useless. Anecdotal hearsay at best

 

[Magnon]

Quote from Mechanics of Flight by Kermode:

...Before leaving the subject of manoeuvres we ought to mention that the inertia of an aeroplane - or to be more correct, the moment of inertia of the various parts - will largely determine the ease or otherwise of handling the machine during manoeuvres... Any heavy masses which are a long way from a particular axis of rotation will make it more difficult to cause any rapid movement around the axis; thus engines far out on the wings result in a resistance to rolling about the longitudinal axis; and a long fuselage with large masses well forward or back will mean a resistance in pitching and yawing...​

Or from Inertia and Maneuverability

... the time required to go from 1g to 9g may be affected by weight, or more importantly, pitch axis moment of inertia. To go from 1g to 9g requires a change in angle of attack and pitch acceleration, so in general a lighter airplane can reach 9g quicker than a heavy one...

...Also consider that a heavier aircraft with subsequent higher mass moments of inertia will resist maneuvering. Therefore, to get to the 9g level more control forces will be required. This equates to either larger control surfaces or higher control surface deflection. Either produces higher drag. Therefore more thrust is required to maintain energy. Vicious circle...

Lighter is always better, everything else being equal (e.g. the Zero was lighter, but no armor made it highly vulnerable)..​

http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-14686.html

Or from Fighter Combat

...Pitch acceleration is dependent on control power and on the aircraft's pitch stability and its inertia. The moment of inertia about the pitch axis is a function of the fighter's weight and its distribution fore and aft about the CG. Increasing total aircraft weight or moving some of this weight farther from the CG either forward or aft tends to increase pitch inertia and reduce pitch acceleration. The position of the CG also has an effect. Aft CG positions usually increase pitch performance by reducing aircraft stability...​

Shaw R. Fighter Combat

Or the same principle applies to sports cars. The purists typically aim for a mid- engined layout. See Porsche will reveal new mid-engine sports car in LA — Autoblog

The ME 262 is obviously inferior to the Meteor in terms of mass distribution (See attachments). The Meteor fuel tanks are located on the normal and lateral axes. The Me 262 well forward and aft of those axes. The light grey tank was added late in the War to extend range. The bottom line here is that the ME 262 pilot was forbidden to carry out aerobatics.

(OK, it was also partly due to the JUMO tending to flameout or surge during manoeuvres)

Again, quoting from Kermode:

Aerobatics

...There are many reasons why aerobatics should be performed in those types of aircraft which are suitable for them. They provide excellent training for accuracy and precision in manoeuvre, and give a feeling of complete mastery of the aircraft, which is invaluable for all combat flying...​

Regards,

Magnon

 

[Magnon]

At 850 - 880 m/s the 20 mm Hispano/Oerlikon had much (around 70%) higher muzzle velocity than the 30 mm Mk 108:

The MK 108's shells dropped a long way compared to a normal 20mm shell at the same range, up to 135 feet in the first 3,300ft of range...a British HS.404 20mm only dropped 24.7 feet in the same distance, and so the Me 262 had to fire from very close or it would miss the target.​

http://warbirdsforum.com/showthread.php?t=3702&page=3

It also had a significantly higher rate of fire at 700 rpm as against 650 for the Mk 108.

The Mk 108 was optimised for destroying slow-moving non-manoeuvrable bombers, and it was good at doing that:

The Me-262A-1a was armed with four short-barrelled MK-108 30 millimetre cannon in the nose. The MK-108 was a low-velocity weapon, only a step above an automatic grenade launcher, and in fact its explosive shells were referred to as "mines". However, although they didn't have long range, they had terrific killing power. The top pair of cannon had 100 rounds per gun, while the lower pair had 80 rounds per gun.​

The Messerschmitt Me-262 Schwalbe / Sturmvogel

At about 190 shells per cannon, the Meteor's Hispano had around twice the firing time of the Mk 108 of the Me 262 (90 shells per cannon).

Regards,

Magnon

 

[drgondog]

Magnon - you are dabbling in aero and energy again. Unless you have the respective moments of Inertia in particularly the roll axis you have no basis of comparison regarding rolling intertia which must be overcome by ailerons.

As to ballistics - the circular error of probability for both guns is absurd at 1000m. I have no idea what your experience is regarding hitting a non-moving target at 1000m but it is a lot easier than shooting down something flying stubbonly in a bouncing environment at 175 -400mph.

Whale away for 300m or less because that is where a/c were shot down.

 

[Magnon]

Magnon - you are dabbling in aero and energy again. Unless you have the respective moments of Inertia in particularly the roll axis you have no basis of comparison regarding rolling intertia which must be overcome by ailerons.

As to ballistics - the circular error of probability for both guns is absurd at 1000m. I have no idea what your experience is regarding hitting a non-moving target at 1000m but it is a lot easier than shooting down something flying stubbonly in a bouncing environment at 175 -400mph.

Whale away for 300m or less because that is where a/c were shot down.

Item 1 - the acid test was Me 262: no aerobatics; Meteor F3: aerobatics OK. That beats all the figures you want to throw at it. And neither you nor I have any figures anyway.

Item 2 - the figure of 1000 m was just to indicate relative fall. Agreed neither was going to be firing at that range if they were smart.

Regards,

Magnon

 

[drgondog]

Item 1 - the acid test was Me 262: no aerobatics; Meteor F3: aerobatics OK. That beats all the figures you want to throw at it. And neither you nor I have any figures anyway.

All that says is 'no aerobatics', doesn't say 'don't roll because xx yy or zz' . What you don't know is whether the 262 had a decent roll but the airframe experienced intertial coupling because af adverse yaw characteristics at high speeds (as a possible example)..

Item 2 - the figure of 1000 m was just to indicate relative fall. Agreed neither was going to be firing at that range if they were smart.

Regards,

Magnon

And my point is that you have a proclivity to throw 'stuff' on the wall, pose as a knowledgable expert based on other's observations without having the full context of your refwerence quoter or the underlying knowledge to question or caveat what you regurgitate here.

If you are attempting to explain why one ship out rolls another from an engineering standpoint you should understand inertial moments about the symmetric axis of an airplane, have some data to offer lines of possibilities, explore aileron surface, boosted designs, initial aileron resonse and the full effect.

If you want to compare based on flight tests, that's ok, present the comparisons. If you want to illustrate a placard that says 'no aerobatics', explain why the instruction was issued by the manufacturer. If you have evidence of structural failures for all non level flight conditions - tell us what they were and why Messerschmidt couldn't solve it in time.

 

[Magnon]

The Me 262 was forbidden from doing deliberate spins. This may have been partly due to the problem of the instability of the engines in terms of flameout and surge, but also due to mass distribution, as discussed above.

"In order to get out of a spin [the pilot] must get it out of the stalled state by putting the nose down, and... stop it rotating by applying "opposite rudder." (Mechanics of Flight)​

In other words, the pilot has to reduce the angle of attack, and hence exit the stall. As Kermode points out, badly designed aircraft don't have the ability to do that:

"The farther back the centre of gravity, and the more masses that are distributed along the length of the fuselage, the flatter and faster does the spin tend to become and the more difficult it is to recover. This flattening of the spin is due to the centrifugal forces that act on the masses at the various parts of the aircraft."​

(See attachment)

What Happens in a Spin
...The amount of rotational energy accumulated is critically dependent upon the mass distribution of the aircraft, more mass further from the CoG results in more rotational energy, an aft CoG condition is a typical instance, full wingtip tanks, or a long nose and engine well forward of the CoG are others... Some WW2 fighter aircraft were typical instances and unrecoverable once a spin fully developed...
What Can Go Wrong
...The sensitivity of the spin to the aerodynamic and mass distribution characteristics of each and every type of aircraft, and the idiosyncrasies of type specific recoveries make the spin a potentially lethal manoeuvre in the hands of the unfamiliar. There are two common ways in which spins and recoveries can go badly wrong.
The first instance is where the recovery cannot be effected and the aircraft continues spinning until it impacts the ground. Failure to recover a spin may result both from improper technique or pilot disorientation as to the direction of the spin, or from inappropriate choice of aircraft or configuration for the manoeuvre.
Some aircraft will be reluctant to exit a spin as the effectiveness of their controls will be inadequate to arrest the rotation, as discussed above. This condition may also result from inappropriate loading or filling of tanks, both of which can change the mass distribution to a configuration where more rotational energy (ie having increased the moment of inertia) can be stored in the aircraft, than what the controls can overcome. Some types may not be recoverable, others may take a lot of altitude to recover. This means that several rotations may pass before the rate of rotation is lowered to the point where recovery can be effected, and this must be accounted for in the height budget for the manoeuvre...​

Aerobatics - Spinning
The Me 262 was unstable with full fuel load. See Wendel:

...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...​

http://www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com/Im...E262WendeL.pdf
It has been claimed that this was written relatively early in the war, and the problems had been addressed by the end. On the contrary, in order to get extra range, the Germans added an extra fuel tank aft, which would have exacerbated the CG problem.

When was it written?

Regards,

Magnon

 

[FLYBOYJ]

There were many WW2 fighters that were prohibited from intentional spins. The P-38 and P-39 are two I know off the top of my head.

 

[Magnon]

And my point is that you have a proclivity to throw 'stuff' on the wall, pose as a knowledgable expert based on other's observations without having the full context of your refwerence quoter or the underlying knowledge to question or caveat what you regurgitate here.

If you are attempting to explain why one ship out rolls another from an engineering standpoint you should understand inertial moments about the symmetric axis of an airplane, have some data to offer lines of possibilities, explore aileron surface, boosted designs, initial aileron resonse and the full effect.

If you want to compare based on flight tests, that's ok, present the comparisons. If you want to illustrate a placard that says 'no aerobatics', explain why the instruction was issued by the manufacturer. If you have evidence of structural failures for all non level flight conditions - tell us what they were and why Messerschmidt couldn't solve it in time.

Nobody's going to be able to put test figures up. But wait, maybe you could... You said you were going to dig out your old test reports that you had filed away...? Any luck?

Until then, I return to Kermode...
...There are many reasons why aerobatics should be performed in those types of aircraft which are suitable for them. They provide excellent training for accuracy and precision in manoeuvre, and give a feeling of complete mastery of the aircraft, which is invaluable for all combat flying...

Have you any problems with that?

By the way, I have never posed as a knowledgeable expert on anything... As I recall, I said I was not qualified to sweep the floors of the Skunkworks...

Regards,

Magnon

 

[Magnon]

There were many WW2 fighters that were prohibited from intentional spins. The P-38 and P-39 are two I know off the top of my head.

Neither were considered great dogfighters, surely...?

Regards,

Magnon

 

[Shortround6]

Actually the Russians liked the P-39 for air to air combat and Chuck Yeager said he would take on anybody in anything with a P-39 as long as it was 100ft or so (or words to that effect?) A spin at low altitude usually being fatal.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Neither were considered great dogfighters, surely...?

Regards,

Magnon

They weren't - but having flown in simulated air to air combat I can tell you that the ability to spin is useless in most if not all scenarios.

 

[drgondog]

Nobody's going to be able to put test figures up. But wait, maybe you could... You said you were going to dig out your old test reports that you had filed away...? Any luck?

I posted most of the USAAF 1946 test at Dayton on this forum but it was a hand typed reprint of the test report. I'll see if I can locate it here, then dig into my unpacked files if I can't find it.

Until then, I return to Kermode...
...There are many reasons why aerobatics should be performed in those types of aircraft which are suitable for them. They provide excellent training for accuracy and precision in manoeuvre, and give a feeling of complete mastery of the aircraft, which is invaluable for all combat flying...

Have you any problems with that?

No but might remind you that Spinning was prohibited in the P-51, P-39 and P-38 (but performed by very competent test pilots intentionally during flight test eval)..

By the way, I have never posed as a knowledgeable expert on anything... As I recall, I said I was not qualified to sweep the floors of the Skunkworks...

Regards,

Magnon

Posing or expounding - there is a difference?

 

[drgondog]

Neither were considered great dogfighters, surely...?

Regards,

Magnon

The P-39 and P-38 (and P-51) were far greater 'dogfighters' than either the Meteor or the Me 262 - did that make them superior fighters? No.

The I-16 was extremely maueverable - did this make it superior to the Me 262 with manuever placard? No.

The MiG 17 and 19 could outroll, out turn an F4 and F8U . Better fighters?

 

[Magnon]

The P-39 and P-38 (and P-51) were far greater 'dogfighters' than either the Meteor or the Me 262 - did that make them superior fighters? No.

The I-16 was extremely maueverable - did this make it superior to the Me 262 with manuever placard? No.

The MiG 17 and 19 could outroll, out turn an F4 and F8U . Better fighters?

The Me 262 as a fighter:

QUOTE: "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."​

Erich the Old Sage

Me 262 as a bomber:
Galland says that due to lousy visibilty and lack of airbrakes, the Me 262 was lucky to drop a bomb within the right zip code (or on a small town):

"...At last, in August, 1944, the first Blitz bombers went into action against the Allied invasion army, but the chances of success had now become meagre because of the Allied advance. During these actions a few bombs were dropped daily somewhere on enemy territory. Very rarely was one able to say what, if anything, they had hit, or with what result..."​

The Meteor had a good multi-role capability, far better reliabilty, and was much more rugged.

Regards,

Magnon

 

[Glider]

The Meteor had a good multi-role capability, far better reliabilty, and was much more rugged.

Regards,

Magnon

Plus of course the Meteor was 100mph slower in a dive and about 60mph slower in a straight line. A small but important point that hasn't been mentioned in a while.

 

[parsifal]

oh my....there is a saying that seems very appropriate at this point....there are none so blind as those that will not listen.....

 

[Magnon]

Plus of course the Meteor was 100mph slower in a dive and about 60mph slower in a straight line. A small but important point that hasn't been mentioned in a while.

The Me 262 was rated for 540 mph. The RAE and US got well-maintained aircraft up to 525 - 529 mph after the war. The minimum acceptance criteria was 515 mph (ref Hans Fey). There was more like a 40 mph margin, at best.

Getting the aircraft to fly was a real lottery:

The Jumo 004 would prove to be the source of the Me 262's greatest weakness. The turbojet was at this time still in it's infancy and many technological hurdles had to be overcome... In some cases, a brand new engine would suffer catastrophic failure during initial run-up. Even engines that worked right had a very short operational life. Most would only last for 12 hours of operation. On many occasions, pilots were forced to land with one or both engines out.​

Messerschmitt Me 262 Schwalbe "Swallow"

In terms of diving:

[Hans Fey, Messerschmitt test pilot and technical inspector] says that the structural workmanship on the Me 262 is not as good as that on the Me 109. When testing the Me 262, it was not infrequent for parts to be stripped off in fast, steep dives and Fey has himself lost cockpit covers, bomb racks and the needle valve [read variable area nozzle] of the tail pipe during dives. In fact, because of these uncertainties, the pilots rarely did a roll or similar maneuver during acceptance flights...​

Me262pilotdebrief

Go right ahead and dive...

Regards,

Magnon