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

It is. A longlasting airframe, from which a smaller number is probable to be produced and which has a considerably lower performance means nothing.
From several points of view, the Meteor-III and moreso the Meteor-I are at best under average jets. They don´t have a better thrust to weight ratio (kkep in mind that the thrust to weight ratio of the Me-262 was also under average), e.g. less acceleartion (thanks to a worse aerodynamic airframe), they suffer a lot in top speed and the Meteor can´t keep it´s energy as well as the Me-262. Beside of this the most important figure of the early jets qwas the critical Mach speed (a considerable advancement in this figure could reason a new design), and the Me-262 is better in this.
The argument with the jet engines is true but not that striking. The Me-262 has jet nacelles, which allow an easy replacement of the jet engines (from which no less than 5000 have been produced in the end) after 10 hours (and there are Werknummern with engines of 30 hours and even more, but this belongs probably to the Jumo-004B-4/-004 D2 and not to the early ones.
What stays is the questionable point that the Meteor could turn inside the Me-262, thanks to a lower wingload and that the Meteor has a better armement for dogfights. On the other side it suffers in a main point for high speed dogfights: Initiative! It couldn´t dictate the terms of engagement, if hit by a MK-108 grenade (except for duds and wingtip hits), the Meteor is in serious problems, and the Meteor is a larger target to hit, too. In the end, that´s what counts, if you are able to replace more hi-performer and have the higher quantities, it doesn´t mean anything that the engines will be out soon. Just replace them in time.

delcyros said:

It is. A longlasting airframe, from which a smaller number is probable to be produced and which has a considerably lower performance means nothing

Click to expand...

I disagree Del, what good is it go go into combat with a "hotrod" that has a high probability of failure before ever making it to combat? I'd give up the slight edge on performance for reliability.

try reading a copy of JG 7's history for starts. The jet was not termed throw away. In fact in the night fighter rold commander Kurt Wleter was very upset and almost uncotrollably according to veteran pilots, when a pilot brought their rig home after dealing with Mossies in 1945 and there was even 1 ding in the body of the jet. They were not expendable. Yes the jet was crudely made and comparing it in the rolde with the RAF jet is what if so lets not even suppose. the Schwalbe had the operative record and performed obviously not as the Luftwaffe really had hoped but for the jet pilots it was a freedom they had longed for even knowing they would be hunteed down flying back to their airfields

Erich said:

try reading a copy of JG 7's history for starts. The jet was not termed throw away.

Click to expand...

I have no access from JG 7s history, but does it differ from the fact that the engines only had a 10 hour life, it that? I know when a turbine engines fails, it usually happens 2 places - on the ramp during start-up and during take off at climb. If I was flying an aircraft that maybe had a 10 hour engine life, the pucker factor would be extremely high for me until I reached my "engine out maneuvering speed and altitude" which I would guess for the -262 was about 1000' AGL and about 160 knots.

I've seen 3 262s, and all 3 of them, although somewhat restored, looked like they were hand built, seams and gaps didn't line up and rivet patterns seemed to have no reasoning. Again, I am not questioning the capability of the aircraft (when it was functioning as advertised) but the over-all reliability which I think would of been a major factor had the aircraft deployed earlier or the war lasted later, especially assembling the aircraft with limited raw materials and resources, I don't see the -262 giving the biggest "bang for the buck."

I will still go with the Me-262. Yeah it was far from perfect but so was the Meteor and the Me-262 would still outfly a Meteor in a dogfight and if it could not he would just simply fly away at full throttle and the Meteor would be left in his exhaust!

I've been on it around it underneath it and almost in the cockpit. For the time it was revoloutionary and looking back on it in our present day should not even be considered in our thought of te present high tech world. We can all summarize of the what if had the war gone on and the Luftw. been on an even keel with the Allies, the German techs would of overwhlemingly brought forward wing swept designs not even considered by the Allies...........

back to topic the Meteor did not have the combat expereicne as an a/c, the 262 did and talking about the 262's defaults does not really come into the category of the consdieration between the two. had the two fought out multi-pitched battles then we could easily chit-caht, but for present the topic probably ought to be closed............we are only guessing again

I agree it is hard to compare two aircraft when one never even saw air to air combat except with a bomb with wings.

Erich said:

we are only guessing again

Click to expand...

Agree!

There are other ways we can possibly compare them though, such as performance or handling.

the meteor has it on handeling......

Me-262 has it on performance...

Agreed to both of you. I really think it would have been interesting to have had a Meteor and a Me-262 battle to go off of. It would have been the battle of the heavy weights.

The MK-III would be somwhat outclassed by the Me-262. It has such a low powerload and overall performance. The handling advantage of the Meteor-III is somehow questionable, also. Galland flew a Meteor in Argentinia and he was impressed by it´s acceleration (FMK IV or later) but disappointed by it´s handling compared to the Me-262.
The Meteor MK-IV with Dervent V engines on the other hand is a much better contender: better acceleration, better powerload in the end better level speed. The Me-262 A could still disappear while entering a dive but all in all I see some advance for the Meteor MK-IV. In the timeframe of the MK-IV (introducing in very late 1945) we would also see some advances for the Me-262 but this is going off topic.
To the engines I also want to underline that you have to look closer WHAT engines are meaned in the Me-262.
The Jumo-004A engines for example, build with a higher degree of spare metals has an average lifetime of 50 hours. It´s quantity is neglectable (something between 10 and 15 Me-262 have been equipped with these jet engines).
The Jumo-004B 1/B-2 are prone to be very sensitive against rapid throttle setting changes, they also have only 820, resp. 840 Kp thrust output. Average lifetime is around 10 hours. A majority of the Me-262 till dec. 44 have been produced with these engines. Just to counter some generalizations.
The Jumo-004 B-3 jet engine has a higher thrust setting by some slightly increasing in distribution of additional air to the turbine blades (allowing a higher turbine temp.), resulting in an increase in power output to 890 Kp static thrust. These engine are also sensitive to trhottle setting change and have a average lifetime of 20 hours. After 20 hours the engines are taken back for excamination, if they are okey, they can be operated for additional 10 hours. Most 1945 produced Me-262 have -004B-3/B-4 jet engines. The Jumo-004 B-4 jet engines are more simplified for serial production but based on the B-3 with same performances and shortcomings.
The Jumo-004 D-0/-1 jet engines have an increased air intake and are made by new, more heat resistant alloys, increasing both, lifetime and thrust output. While still sensitive to rapid throttle settings, flame outs by slipping maneuvres are not that common, thrust is increased to 940 Kp and lifetime to + 50 hours. The -004 D was tested by some Ar-234 and Me-262 prototypes and went into serial production at feb. 1945, it is not known if , beside of a few prototypes, serial Me-262 have ever been equipped with -004D jet engines.

Do you have any other info on his stay in Argentina. I know it was Kurt Tank that convinced President Peron to bring him over and that the Argentine Airforce was still using his tactics that he tought them in the Falklands War with great sucess dispite the fact that they lost the war. What I would love to see though is a full report on his thoughts of the Meteor. I have not been able to find anything like this.

Great success? The Argentinian Air Force were battered in the Falklands, no single Royal Navy aircraft was lost to enemy air action. The only reason the Argentinians achieved some victories over British ships was because of the faulty equipment (Rapiers were bouncing off aircraft) and the distance at which Britain was operating compared to Argentina.

Argentina got slaughtered in the air, land and sea.

I dont know about that they did manage to hit some ships. When I say great success look at what they did against a force like the Royal Navy.

Yes, they managed to hit a few ships. That doesn't mean success since their Navy got a kicking, they didn't stop the Royal Navy, their Air force was smashed to pieces and they became bankrupt.

The Royal Navy was hit due to a few command failures, faulty equipment AND the situation. Those ships had to sit there, in the open while the troops were off loaded on to the islands. Meanwhile, all that was able to defend the ships were Royal Navy Sea Harriers.

Actually D, the Argies hit many ships but nothing happened, many of the bombs carried on the A-4s didn't go off. I met an Argie A-4 driver when he was picking up A-4s modified by Lockheed several years ago. He said more than 75% of the free fall bombs used by them were defective.

So? That means nothing, one bomb won't blow a ship to pieces. It was the exorcets that did the damage, not bombs. The Argies were no match, and the RAF didn't even have combat aircraft down there, it was all Sea Harriers.

I never said they were successful in stopping the British. I said they had quite some success with there tactics. That they lost is true and that they lost badly is true.