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

[Magnon]

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.

The Me 262 Pilot's Handbook gives maximum level flight speed as 830 km/hr (515 mph).
Source: (1946) No. F-SU-1111-ND ME-262 A-1 Pilot's Handbook

This brings the speed differential down to practically zero, after other factors such as the Meteor's much superior acceleration and reliability are factored in.

Regards,

Magnon

 

[drgondog]

Magnon - the 'handbook' was developed by USAAF test pilots Post War. I suspect that the handbook limitations were solely incorporated to ensure a safe margin to make sure the captured 262 was available for sustained test purposes at Wright Pat.

As long as you are quoting Fey, recall that 515mph was Minimum acceptance limit level flight from factory... and that the test pilots were not interested in finding the airframe limits for very scarce, non-replacable, aircraft.

 

[renrich]

For what it is worth, one of the "great" fighters of WW2, indeed one of the great piston engined fighters of all time was prohibited from intentional spinning. The F4U Corsair!

 

[drgondog]

Ditto the Mustang

 

[parsifal]

for what its worth, which isnt much, my opinion remains that both these aircraft were pioneers and achieved greatness because of that. But I remain unconvinced that the meteor was superior to the 262. RAAF Meteors had a great deal of trouble dealing with MiG-15s in Korea, which i think conceptually was derived from the 262. It perhaps symbolises what the German design might have been capable of, if it had been allowed to progress beyond surrender

 

[Magnon]

for what its worth, which isnt much, my opinion remains that both these aircraft were pioneers and achieved greatness because of that. But I remain unconvinced that the meteor was superior to the 262. RAAF Meteors had a great deal of trouble dealing with MiG-15s in Korea, which i think conceptually was derived from the 262. It perhaps symbolises what the German design might have been capable of, if it had been allowed to progress beyond surrender

I think it's drawing a rather long bow, Parsifal, to say that the Mig 15 was conceptually derived from the Me 262. They had very little in common, surely:

Single engine vs two on the wings
Slatless vs slats
Cockpit well forward vs cockpit well back in the middle of the fuselage
Airbrakes vs no airbrakes​

The Meteor lost five vs. three confirmed and two probable Migs. The rules for the Meteor pilots were that the claimant had to watch the enemy actually impact the ground. Hardly practical when the odds were sometimes thirty Migs to eight Meteors.

In addition to that, the Migs had British Nene jet engines, a more powerful version of the Derwent.

Regards,

Magnon

 

[Magnon]

for what its worth, which isnt much, my opinion remains that both these aircraft were pioneers and achieved greatness because of that. But I remain unconvinced that the meteor was superior to the 262. RAAF Meteors had a great deal of trouble dealing with MiG-15s in Korea, which i think conceptually was derived from the 262. It perhaps symbolises what the German design might have been capable of, if it had been allowed to progress beyond surrender

I would concede (and have done) that the Me 262 was the better bomber destroyer. That was what it was needed for.

The Meteor was a better multi-role aircraft.

Regards,

Magnon

 

[parsifal]

Hi magnon

With regard to meteor combats in Korea, No. 77 sqn re-equipped with the type at the end of May 1951. The combats that i know of were as follows. 29 august 1951, eight meteors tangled with just six migs, losing A77-721. There were no losses to the Migs. on 12 December 1951, 12 meteors were bounced by 45 Migs claimimg two migs downed, but losing three meteors in the process. According to Parnell Lynch (Australian Air Force since 1911) , "having been outclassed by the Migs as afighter, the squadron converted to the ground attack role". That hardly supports what you are trying to say that it was comparable to the MiG as a fighter. The history goes on to say "by 27 July 1953, after no 77 sqn had been on active service for 3 years, it had flown 4836 missions (18872 individual sorties) destroying 3700 buildings 1500 vehicles 3 Mig 15s, and three propeller driven aircraft for the loss of forty two pilots, thirty two pilots in the meteor".

this is hardly a ringing endorsement of the meteor as a fighter, and in fact helps to explain why, having just received the meteor into service in 1951, the australian government almost immedialtey thereafter took steps to manufacture the Avon Sabre> it was our lack of success in the designed role of the meteor that led to its relatively early replacement. as for your comment that the 262 was a bomber destroyer, where on earth do you get that from. thats like saying the phantom was primarily a bomber destroyer because it wasnt so good at dogfighting. it was in fact a superior fighter versus fighter aircraft, as its experiences over a 25 year frontline service record attests. the same can be said about the me 262. Just because it might not be so good at a horizontal dogfight, does not mean it did not have a lot of potential as a fighter. ill bet the house that if the WWII jockeys that had to fight this bird were around, they would completely disagree with you. I will bet they would say something like 'the 262 was a helluva fighter', instead of blathering on about all its weaknesses.

im about as pr-allied as they come, but i really dont like allied propaganda anymore than the pro-german stuff

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

The Meteor was a better multi-role aircraft.

I have not really posted in this thread, but I have been reading it with much enthusiasm, but I have not seen how this has been shown.

instead of blathering on about all its weaknesses.

It is very easy to prove ones point when one only shows the strengths of "Aircraft A" and the weaknesses of "Aircraft B".

 

[Magnon]

Hi magnon

With regard to meteor combats in Korea, No. 77 sqn re-equipped with the type at the end of May 1951. The combats that i know of were as follows. 29 august 1951, eight meteors tangled with just six migs, losing A77-721. There were no losses to the Migs. on 12 December 1951, 12 meteors were bounced by 45 Migs claimimg two migs downed, but losing three meteors in the process. According to Parnell Lynch (Australian Air Force since 1911) , "having been outclassed by the Migs as afighter, the squadron converted to the ground attack role". That hardly supports what you are trying to say that it was comparable to the MiG as a fighter. The history goes on to say "by 27 July 1953, after no 77 sqn had been on active service for 3 years, it had flown 4836 missions (18872 individual sorties) destroying 3700 buildings 1500 vehicles 3 Mig 15s, and three propeller driven aircraft for the loss of forty two pilots, thirty two pilots in the meteor".

this is hardly a ringing endorsement of the meteor as a fighter, and in fact helps to explain why, having just received the meteor into service in 1951, the australian government almost immedialtey thereafter took steps to manufacture the Avon Sabre> it was our lack of success in the designed role of the meteor that led to its relatively early replacement. as for your comment that the 262 was a bomber destroyer, where on earth do you get that from. thats like saying the phantom was primarily a bomber destroyer because it wasnt so good at dogfighting. it was in fact a superior fighter versus fighter aircraft, as its experiences over a 25 year frontline service record attests. the same can be said about the me 262. Just because it might not be so good at a horizontal dogfight, does not mean it did not have a lot of potential as a fighter. ill bet the house that if the WWII jockeys that had to fight this bird were around, they would completely disagree with you. I will bet they would say something like 'the 262 was a helluva fighter', instead of blathering on about all its weaknesses.

im about as pr-allied as they come, but i really dont like allied propaganda anymore than the pro-german stuff

I didn't say it was comparable as a fighter to the MiG. I just said it got similar results in the dogfights. There is a subtle difference.

It was 100 mph slower after all and had much higher moment of inertia around the roll axis. That's a lot of disadvantage to make up.

Its advantages were better acceleration and smaller turn radius.

Regards,

Magnon

 

[pbfoot]

The only reason the Meteor had such a long lifespan as a 1st line fighter is the Brits had nothing to replace it with ,it wasn't until the Hunter that they had a reasonable aircraft. It had rubbish range and a very poor safety record

 

[Magnon]

"...Skepticism is a virtue in history as well as in philosophy..."

Napoleon Bonaparte​

Read more: Virtue Quotes Page 2 - BrainyQuote

 

[Maximowitz]

A virtue? 100% essential.

 

[Rivet]

The Messerschmitt's Junkers engines were the limiting factor in flight parameter, not the airframe, unless one is referring to the night fighter conversion of a few.

 

[pbfoot]

has one ever seen a affluent or employed philosopher . The Meteor was junk , but as stated before they had nothing to replace it

 

[parsifal]

I dont kow that it was junk PB, buts its a real stretch to say that the Meteor was superior to the Me 262, or that the Me-262 was somehow not effective in fighter vesrus fighter combat. I'll concede that the me 262 showed great promise, but in the context of the war failed to deliver. This as hardly a fault of the design, it was the product of the circumstances that the type was pushed into at the end of the war

 

[Magnon]

Will Rogers said: "It's not what we don't know that gives us trouble; it's what we know that ain't so."

 

[pattern14]

After reading this very extensive thread, it seems that everything that could have been said, has been. And lots of stuff rehashed and rephrased as well. Facts are usually more important than "what if" scenarios, so thought I would throw a few in. The Germans achieved lots of early milestones; first officially recognised jet flight, first twin jet aircraft, first jet fighter, first manned rocket interceptor, first single engined jet fighter, fastest fighter, first jet bomber etc etc etc. The Me 262 was the worlds first operational Jet fighter ( interceptor for the purists), produced the first jet aces, and achieved far more combat kills than any other first generation Jet. The first jet bomber with a jet fighter escort ( Ar234's with 262's covering). The P80 achieved nothing operationally during WW2, and the meteor only claimed V1's, hardly a combat situation. They were made from poor quality materials by semi skilled workers, under the most appalling conditions. Pilot training and development of tactics were crisis management at best, and maintainence and field communication were little better. You can argue thrust versus roll rate until you are blue in the face, but the Me 262 shot down hundreds of allied aircraft while being totally out numbered by better built and better maintained aircraft, flown by better trained pilots. This fact, regardless of comparison and interpretation, remains.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

AFAIK the 262 "claimed" just over 700 aircraft of all types. It did operate in a target rich environment. Your points taken but it was still too little too late (preaching to the choir).

 

[pattern14]

All too true.....no amount of 262's could have changed the outcome, as there was too much else that was lost. As for kill claims and tallies, it really varies quite wildly, from between @180 "confirmed", to over 700 claimed. Still a lot more than either the P80, Vampire, or Meteor put together. First Jet V jet damage recorded was a squadron of Meteors that had a couple of planes damaged when their Belgian airbase was bombed by Arado Ar234's....if you want to be really pedantic.