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

[renegate326]

No contest here M262 was designed for a jet engine, and the Gloster Meteor was pretty much a jet engine on a propeller body.

 

[Airframes]

Eh?
It's obvious from your other, seemingly biased posts, that you have a preference fro anything not British, which is your priviledge - each to their own choice. But to say the Meteor was a 'propeller body', when it was the first British aircraft designed for production and service, to accept Whittle's developed engine is ridiculous!

 

[Njaco]

No worries Parsifal - he makes up his own 'facts' to fit his bias.

 

[GrauGeist]

Perhaps I might point out here, that the Me262 first flew with a nose-mounted piston engine and...yes, that's right, a propellor attached to that piston engine...

So now what?

 

[wuzak]

No contest here M262 was designed for a jet engine, and the Gloster Meteor was pretty much a jet engine on a propeller body.

Strangely enough, when the Meteor was modified to test the Trent turbo prop its landing gear had to be lengthened, even though the props were quite small 97ft 7in diameter).

 

[Njaco]

 

[parsifal]

I got as bit excited in this thread. Ive had some time to reconsider this debate. Truth is, both aircraft were impressive results of aircraft engineering. Both aircraft were effective, or could have been effective designs, and both aircraft had a profound effect on aircraft design and development

 

[GrauGeist]

What I found fascinating, was how the early jets were developed when powered flight was literally only several decades old.

Today's designs look similiar because of modern aerodynamic applications but those early jets were as unique and individual as an aircraft can get.

High wing, low wing, elliptical wing, inadvertant swept wing, straight wing...only thing better than looking at these jet pioneers would be visiting an antique automobile museum!

 

[GrauGeist]

What I found fascinating, was how the early jets were developed when powered flight was literally only several decades old.

Today's designs look similiar because of modern aerodynamic applications but those early jets were as unique and individual as an aircraft can get.

High wing, low wing, elliptical wing, inadvertant swept wing, straight wing...only thing better than looking at these jet pioneers would be visiting an antique automobile museum!

 

[pattern14]

After reading this thread from start to finish, the Me 262 gets my vote easily over the meteor. Even the off topics were interesting. I still maintain the Arado Ar234 was the most underated jet aircraft produced though.

 

[Njaco]

I agree. MY OPINION has always been that the 234 was just slightly better than the 262. I have no facts or source material - just my opinion.

 

[michaelmaltby]

Over on Sunny's thread he has a longish video on the Bell Airacomet and GE turbine that took to the skies in 1942. Well worth watching ..

 

[pattern14]

I agree. MY OPINION has always been that the 234 was just slightly better than the 262. I have no facts or source material - just my opinion.

There a number of good publications on this aircraft, as well as the usual urban myth and misinformation stuff. The Ar234 was always overshadowed by the other WW2 jets, particularly the 262. Be good to start a thread on it so we could gather as much accurate data as possible.....maybe someone else out there has good resources to offer ( hint, hint).

 

[pattern14]

Eh?
It's obvious from your other, seemingly biased posts, that you have a preference fro anything not British, which is your priviledge - each to their own choice. But to say the Meteor was a 'propeller body', when it was the first British aircraft designed for production and service, to accept Whittle's developed engine is ridiculous!

I've actually read that before, but so far it remains unsubstantiated. The well known Military Historical/aviation author, Christopher Chant , says as much in his book, "The Nazi War Machine". In the section on the Luftwaffe, Chant says that the Meteor was merely a prop driven aircraft re-designed for jet turbines, and "wholly inferior" to the Me 262, which he states was "a generation ahead ". I don't know his source of information, or where he would have any historical data on that. Interesting note on the 262 being prop powered in the V1 for flight testing though. The heinkel He 280, the worlds first jet fighter, was making pure jet flights BEFORE the much vaunted 262 was even airborne on its prop motor. It also flew before the experimental Gloster Whittle, and had the nose armament mock up completed, the ejector seat had already been used in flight ( saving the pilot), and was only really hampered by the delay in turbine readiness. Of course, it was shelved for political and technical reasons in favour of the 262, and the rest is history. If the Nazi's had had the foresight to steal Sir Franks Derwent engines in 1941, things may have been different. I just thought of a great plot for a movie......Gestapo agents infiltrating the secret British laboratories, smuggling the plans and scientists aboard a U-boat, beautiful blonde German spy etc.etc.....

 

[parsifal]

I lost the plot at the mention of the blonde

 

[parsifal]

Its a non-sequita argument. Presumably the criticsm relating to the Meteor relates to its unswept wing geometry. Does that mean also aircraft like the F 104, A-10, SU25, Canberra, Venom, Sea Venom, Vampire are also not aircraft designed for jet engines, simply because they dont have swept wings. Come on, think about how ridiculous that line of argument actually is. Fair enough the 262 was a better design, but really, the meteor was not a significant design as well??? come on....

 

[wuzak]

I've actually read that before, but so far it remains unsubstantiated. The well known Military Historical/aviation author, Christopher Chant , says as much in his book, "The Nazi War Machine". In the section on the Luftwaffe, Chant says that the Meteor was merely a prop driven aircraft re-designed for jet turbines, and "wholly inferior" to the Me 262, which he states was "a generation ahead ". I don't know his source of information, or where he would have any historical data on that. Interesting note on the 262 being prop powered in the V1 for flight testing though. The heinkel He 280, the worlds first jet fighter, was making pure jet flights BEFORE the much vaunted 262 was even airborne on its prop motor. It also flew before the experimental Gloster Whittle, and had the nose armament mock up completed, the ejector seat had already been used in flight ( saving the pilot), and was only really hampered by the delay in turbine readiness. Of course, it was shelved for political and technical reasons in favour of the 262, and the rest is history. If the Nazi's had had the foresight to steal Sir Franks Derwent engines in 1941, things may have been different. I just thought of a great plot for a movie......Gestapo agents infiltrating the secret British laboratories, smuggling the plans and scientists aboard a U-boat, beautiful blonde German spy etc.etc.....

I had to check a couple of claims. The He 280 did, indeed, fly before the Gloster E.28/39. The He 280 fly as a glider in 1940, and powered flight in March 1941. The E.28/39 flew in May 1941.

A couple of problems with your espionage plan. First is that if they looked for drawings of an engine with the name Derwent in 1941 they would have not found any - they were a couple of years too early, and would be looking in the wrong company's drawing cabinet. The second is that German spies didn't get very far in England during WW2, mostly being captured on, or shortly after, arrival.

 

[cimmex]

IMO the E28/39 should be compared to the He178 which already flew in august 1939.
cimmex

 

[FalkeEins]

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

you're thinking of Kurt Tank's Ta 183 (for the MiG 15) ..but not according to Yefim Gordon.
As to 'progress beyond surrender', the French tested the Me 262 and the BMW engines extensively through 46-47 when trying to re-establish their own aero industries. They could easily have put the Me 262 back into service - but of course neither the design nor the engines were 'mature' enough. ( the 003s did though lead to the ATAR - 'R' for Richenbach - a BMW facility) But the pilots at the CEV (Centre d'essais en Vol - flight test centre) didn't like the Me 262 and the French chose not to take the Me 262 any further - like the Russians they bought the RR Nene...

 

[pattern14]

I had to check a couple of claims. The He 280 did, indeed, fly before the Gloster E.28/39. The He 280 fly as a glider in 1940, and powered flight in March 1941. The E.28/39 flew in May 1941.

A couple of problems with your espionage plan. First is that if they looked for drawings of an engine with the name Derwent in 1941 they would have not found any - they were a couple of years too early, and would be looking in the wrong company's drawing cabinet. The second is that German spies didn't get very far in England during WW2, mostly being captured on, or shortly after, arrival.

The Gestapo agents were already in place, and the Blonde would have romanced the information out of the be-spectacled and bumbling scientist ( therefore looking in the right drawer). How can anyone argue with logic like that????