GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
You could also claim the first "jet on jet" action was the Meteor intercepting the V1...
Which jet was better, the Me 262 or the Gloster Meteor?
- Thread starter BountyHunter15
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
I haven't read all this thread because I don't think we will ever know what was the better out of the Me262 or Meteor, as with most of these kind of comparisons there are too many factors to weigh up. The one thing I will say is that the Me262 does look more like a modern jet fighter but I'm not sure how much that counts for, perhaps I'm thinking the Me262 had more development potential than the Meteor. As the Me262 wasn't allowed to carry on in development for as long as the Meteor then maybe it is easier compare the Meteor to the Shooting Star? I know the Shooting Star is looked upon as a post war aircraft but it was of the same generation having been developed during the war. Also I have heard that the Americans rushed some Shooting Stars over to Italy to deal with a Arado 234 recon plane that their Mustangs couldn't catch but I don't know the facts behind this.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
The Me262 was produced after the war by Avia (Czech) as the S-92 and CS-92 and served with them until about 1950-1951, while the existing Me262s were grabbed up by the Allies for testing and evaluation. Willy Messerschmitt intended to upgrade the Me262 and was in the process of doing so at war's end. If the war had drug on, it would have seen a much cleaner design produced though performance would still rely heavily on the quality of the engines.
The P-80 never saw combat in WWII despite rumors of "chasing" Ar234s and such. The first Shooting Stars in the ETO were actually grounded for a while because of problems.
The first ones arrived in England (and Italy) in January of 1945 and eventually a total of 83 were stationed in Europe by war's end.
Personally, I like the P-59 better than the P-80, but that's based more on looks than performance
The P-80 never saw combat in WWII despite rumors of "chasing" Ar234s and such. The first Shooting Stars in the ETO were actually grounded for a while because of problems.
The first ones arrived in England (and Italy) in January of 1945 and eventually a total of 83 were stationed in Europe by war's end.
Personally, I like the P-59 better than the P-80, but that's based more on looks than performance
Erich
the old Sage
Ar 234's in Italia under Sommer : see here on this site
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/ar-234-losses-5230.html
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/ar-234-losses-5230.html
Erich
the old Sage
speaking if Italy there was even a small band of ar 234's flying missions at night so don't expect any Allied NF to catch these, bad enough that the Widows of the 422 and 425th nfs couldn't in the ETO // 262's and mis-Iding them in the fall of 44 when Kommando Welter was not even an existing unit let alone in the 9th AF sector of operations ............
Average speed of me 262.. 542 mph average speed of meteor 3.. 472 mph.
Me 262 being a much better diver having the best tact mach number of any operational ww2 fighter, if I remember correctly, the me 262 was faster in horizontal flight at some altitudes than the Meteor3 could dive safely.
The Meteor 3 from every thing ive read had a very poor roll at medium and high speeds, The me 262 could roll at 400 mph at 5000 ft in 3.8 secs, which was faster than the fw 190.
Equal climb but the me 262 should have much better zoom climb.
No direct comparison was made that im aware of but I would put my money on the me 262 maintaining its speed in turns, one pilot said that the me 262 held its speed better than the p80a in turns which itself maintained its speed better that piston engine fighters.
me 262 had a range of 652 miles at 30.000 ft the meteor 3 had a range of just under 600 miles with the addition of an external 180 gallon tank.
Me 262 had devastating firepower especially when it came to twin engine and four engine aircraft with its 4x30mm cannons with mine shells and 24 r4m air to air rockets, but the meteor had an excellent package with its 4x 20mm cannons.
I believe from what ive read that the Meteor had worse snaking at speed than the me 262
The meteor had a higher ceiling and had much lighter wing loading
Of course there are other things such as engine reliability, cockpit layout and view etc, but from what I have written the me 262 in a whole other league from the Meteor.
Me 262 being a much better diver having the best tact mach number of any operational ww2 fighter, if I remember correctly, the me 262 was faster in horizontal flight at some altitudes than the Meteor3 could dive safely.
The Meteor 3 from every thing ive read had a very poor roll at medium and high speeds, The me 262 could roll at 400 mph at 5000 ft in 3.8 secs, which was faster than the fw 190.
Equal climb but the me 262 should have much better zoom climb.
No direct comparison was made that im aware of but I would put my money on the me 262 maintaining its speed in turns, one pilot said that the me 262 held its speed better than the p80a in turns which itself maintained its speed better that piston engine fighters.
me 262 had a range of 652 miles at 30.000 ft the meteor 3 had a range of just under 600 miles with the addition of an external 180 gallon tank.
Me 262 had devastating firepower especially when it came to twin engine and four engine aircraft with its 4x30mm cannons with mine shells and 24 r4m air to air rockets, but the meteor had an excellent package with its 4x 20mm cannons.
I believe from what ive read that the Meteor had worse snaking at speed than the me 262
The meteor had a higher ceiling and had much lighter wing loading
Of course there are other things such as engine reliability, cockpit layout and view etc, but from what I have written the me 262 in a whole other league from the Meteor.
parsifal
Colonel
Not sure where all those figures are from, and some details i simply dont have the data for, but the account or analysis looks dodgy to me
Average speed of the meteor was not 472mph. In fact I dont even understand what is being implied here.
The most numerous subtype of the meteor was the F8, which had the following characteristics
Performance
Maximum speed: 600 mph (522 knots, 965 km/h, Mach 0.82) at 10,000 ft (3,050 m)
Range: 600 mi (522 nmi, 965 km)
Service ceiling: 43,000 ft (13,100 m)
Rate of climb: 7,000 ft/min (35.6 m/s)
Wing loading: 44.9 lb/ft² (149 kg/m²)
Thrust/weight: 0.45
Time to altitude: 5.0 min to 30,000 ft (9,145 m)
Armament
Guns: 4 × 20 mm British Hispano cannons
Rockets: Provision for up to sixteen "60lb" 3 in rockets or eight 5 in HVAR rockets. under outer wings
Bombs: two 1000 lb (454 kg) bombs
Performance
Maximum speed: 900 km/h (559 mph)
Range: 1,050 km (652 mi)
Service ceiling: 11,450 m (37,565 ft)
Rate of climb: 1,200 m/min (At max weight of 7,130 kg) (3,900 ft/min)
Thrust/weight: 0.28
Armament
Guns: 4 × 30 mm MK 108 cannons (A-2a: two cannons)
Rockets: 24 × 55 mm (2.2 in) R4M rockets
Bombs: 2 × 250 kg (550 lb) bombs or 2 × 500 kg (1,100 lb) bombs (A-2a only)
Service record
Me 262 1400 produced. shot down about 150 enemy aircraft. maximum force on operations about 200
Meteor, about 3900 produced. Operational deployment about 45 aircraft during the war. Shot down about 40 V1s, never really engaged in air combat role.
During Korea, 77 sqn of the RAAF had mixed success with its F-8s. Destroyed at least 15 MIG-15s, but lost about 4 or 5 in return. Also shot up about 60 other aircraft, including a anumber on the ground. My opinion, Meteor was a more effective FB with heavier bombload and more effective ordinance, carrying napalm equipped HVAR but that is a little unfair, as the meteor had another 5 years to develop its apability
Average speed of the meteor was not 472mph. In fact I dont even understand what is being implied here.
The most numerous subtype of the meteor was the F8, which had the following characteristics
Performance
Maximum speed: 600 mph (522 knots, 965 km/h, Mach 0.82) at 10,000 ft (3,050 m)
Range: 600 mi (522 nmi, 965 km)
Service ceiling: 43,000 ft (13,100 m)
Rate of climb: 7,000 ft/min (35.6 m/s)
Wing loading: 44.9 lb/ft² (149 kg/m²)
Thrust/weight: 0.45
Time to altitude: 5.0 min to 30,000 ft (9,145 m)
Armament
Guns: 4 × 20 mm British Hispano cannons
Rockets: Provision for up to sixteen "60lb" 3 in rockets or eight 5 in HVAR rockets. under outer wings
Bombs: two 1000 lb (454 kg) bombs
Performance
Maximum speed: 900 km/h (559 mph)
Range: 1,050 km (652 mi)
Service ceiling: 11,450 m (37,565 ft)
Rate of climb: 1,200 m/min (At max weight of 7,130 kg) (3,900 ft/min)
Thrust/weight: 0.28
Armament
Guns: 4 × 30 mm MK 108 cannons (A-2a: two cannons)
Rockets: 24 × 55 mm (2.2 in) R4M rockets
Bombs: 2 × 250 kg (550 lb) bombs or 2 × 500 kg (1,100 lb) bombs (A-2a only)
Service record
Me 262 1400 produced. shot down about 150 enemy aircraft. maximum force on operations about 200
Meteor, about 3900 produced. Operational deployment about 45 aircraft during the war. Shot down about 40 V1s, never really engaged in air combat role.
During Korea, 77 sqn of the RAAF had mixed success with its F-8s. Destroyed at least 15 MIG-15s, but lost about 4 or 5 in return. Also shot up about 60 other aircraft, including a anumber on the ground. My opinion, Meteor was a more effective FB with heavier bombload and more effective ordinance, carrying napalm equipped HVAR but that is a little unfair, as the meteor had another 5 years to develop its apability
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
Be interesting to see how the Avia S-92 developed after the war, since the Czechs built and operated it until the early 50's, though I'm pretty sure it never fired a shot in anger. There should be some service data regarding it's use during those 12 years.
Jabberwocky
Staff Sergeant
Some selected Me 262 information from the 1947 US handling tests:
The Meteor F-8 is a 1950 onwards plane. No clue, why you compare such data against a plane from 1944/45. The plane in the same timeframe was the Meteor MkIII and the data presented by "awack" looks reasonable.
cimmex
parsifal
Colonel
nope. the topicdoesnt say any of what you are claiming. Its meteor v me 262. not meteor (1944) vs me 262(anytime). i can say Me 262 9anytime) becaause even in 1950 the czechs were still building (or using) their version of the 262, the s-92
If it were the other way around though (comparing a 1950 Axis plane to a 1944 Allied plane), people would be rioting.
Pointing out the forum norm. Just saying...
Pointing out the forum norm. Just saying...
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
What's ridiculous, is comparing a post war airframe to one that ceased production before the war ended. Wouldn't you suppose that creates an imbalanced evaluation?
How about if I compared the Meteor to a MiG-21 and concluded that the Meteor was a pile of crap because it simply could not perform nearly as well as the MiG?
How about if I compared the Meteor to a MiG-21 and concluded that the Meteor was a pile of crap because it simply could not perform nearly as well as the MiG?
parsifal
Colonel
But the Meteor did perform against the mig. not the mig-21, but it did fly against the mig 15 (and possibly the Mig-17, and shot down, from one squadron, 15 of them. The MiG 15 was, in my opinion a superior aircraft to the Me 262. If the Meteor can better the Mig, it can better the 262.
If you were to say this is an illdefined topic, to the point of it being silly, I would agree. thats whats ridiculous. But what Im debating is the topic, nothing more, nothing less. On the basis of the topic parameters alone, not trying to introduce my own biases, or what I think the topic should be, the Meteor was a superior aircraft, with the runs on the board to prove it
Next time, more thought might go into the topic parameters........and people wont make spurious claims
If you were to say this is an illdefined topic, to the point of it being silly, I would agree. thats whats ridiculous. But what Im debating is the topic, nothing more, nothing less. On the basis of the topic parameters alone, not trying to introduce my own biases, or what I think the topic should be, the Meteor was a superior aircraft, with the runs on the board to prove it
Next time, more thought might go into the topic parameters........and people wont make spurious claims
Im only comparing aircraft that would have fought against each other, I used the best version of the Meteor that would have done so, the Meteor Mk III which I believe entered service in early 45, the Meteor 1 being slower than the best piston engine fighters of the time which entered service around the same time as the me 262.
Any way the data I posted like speed are from actual testing of production fighters and not estimates.
Any way the data I posted like speed are from actual testing of production fighters and not estimates.
parsifal
Colonel
Where in the thread topic does it say we absolutely have to pick wartime figures and be selective as to dates. I can only repeat what i have already pointed out. its Meteor versus Me 262, not Meteor MkIII vs Me 262, (the best figures I can find). We cant even say the me 262 was not contemporary to the F8. It was being built at the same time.
Much of what is being touted around here as fact is simply the post war hype that the Germans managed to manufacture after the surrender which also suited their American captors. The Me 262 was junk in my opinion, whereas the meteor was a much more sober, measured, and ultimately successful type that deserves far more credit than it ever gets recognition for. Thems the breaks I guess.
parsifal
Colonel
Im quoting 77 sqn combat results
http://aces.safarikovi.org/victories/victories-united.nations-korean.war.air.to.air.victories.pdf
and
Jan J. Safarik: Air Aces Home Page
