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

Shortround6 · Dec 1, 2013

Still post-war but no need to go to the MK 8. the MK IV would have done just fine. First flew 15th Aug 1945. Of course there were still some problems and it took (such was the pace of post-war development) until 1947-48 to sort some of them out. But clipped wing MK IVs were flying earlier than that. The MK IV makes a decent RAF '46 what if

stona · Dec 1, 2013

Shortround6 said:
Still post-war but no need to go to the MK 8. the MK IV would have done just fine. First flew 15th Aug 1945. Of course there were still some problems and it took (such was the pace of post-war development) until 1947-48 to sort some of them out. But clipped wing MK IVs were flying earlier than that. The MK IV makes a decent RAF '46 what if

I don't disagree, but a Derwent I powered F.3 is still the only valid comparison with the Me 262. We'll draw a discreet veil over the Welland powered version
Cheers
Steve

buffnut453 · Dec 1, 2013

Agree...totally unfair to compare the Meatbox F.8 with the Me262.

In terms of comparing the 2 in wartime comparative fit, I think the Me262 was easily the more advanced design aerodynamically speaking. That said, the Me262's outright performance advantage wasn't that marked, indeed the slow acceleration of its engines may have been a significant handicap had it met the Meteor in combat. I suspect a dogfight between the Me262 and Meteor would see the former maintaining energy at all costs while the latter sought to use lower-speed manoeuverability and faster acceleration. In the end a toss-up as to which would win, largely based on the competency of the pilots.

The one area where the Meteor held a clear advantage was in engine reliability. I've made this observation in other threads discussing these 2 types but, IMHO, the performance advantage of the Me262 wasn't sufficient to offset the reliability problems with its engines. Thus as an operational combat aircraft, I'd have to put the Meteor ahead of the Me262...only just ahead but most pilots would rather fly an aircraft with lower performance that they could trust than a better performing aircraft that might let them down at just the wrong time.

GrauGeist · Dec 1, 2013

Technically speaking, the first Meteors to be deployed in a forward area were the F.1 models equipped with the Welland engines (616 squadron, July 1944) giving it a top speed of 417mph (670kph) but as I mentioned before, it was prone to "snaking" at top speeds, requiring the pilot to throttle back until the condition stabilized. This in essence, is robbing the Meteor of it's max speed, which would be critical if a Me262 were bearing down it. Another condition the F.1 suffered, was a compressor stall if the engines were throttled up to quickly. This is a hard habit to break for a piston-powered fighter pilot and this reflex even wreaked havoc among the Me262 pilots.

The F.3 with the Derwent replaced the F.1 models in 616 squadron service late in 1944. But the fact remains that the early Meteors may have been at a slight disadvantage against the Me262.

It is my experience, however, then when the discussion of "Me262 versus Meteor" or Me262 versus P-80" or "Me262 versus the world", people will fight to the death defending the potential adversary of the Me262. Not sure why this is, but it happens. But the truth is, like I mentioned above, they were all closely matched and it wouldn't be until the next generation of jets, that they would start seperating themselves. Even then, you saw performance parellels between types, such as the MiG-15/F-86, but that's just an example and better left to another thread.

So my tossing the F.8 out there, giving it an edge was in jest and I see a few caught that

buffnut453 · Dec 1, 2013

Don't disagree with any of your comments GrauGeist. The Me262 did have a performance advantage against the Meteor, particularly the MkI variant. By the time of the MkIII, I think the gap had closed and the Me262's advantages were largely offset by lack of engine reliability. Overall, the performance of both aircraft types was sufficiently similar for pilot proficiency to be the deciding factor in the event of a dogfight.

GrauGeist · Dec 1, 2013

The Meteor's closing the gap on the Me262 shows two things:
First, just how quickly the British's jet technology was being refined at the time and the other, just how slowly the Me262 was being developed/revised due to wartime shortages and disruptions.

stona · Dec 2, 2013

GrauGeist said:
The Meteor's closing the gap on the Me262 shows two things:
First, just how quickly the British's jet technology was being refined at the time and the other, just how slowly the Me262 was being developed/revised due to wartime shortages and disruptions.

Exactly, and therein lies the problem for the Me 262. In early 1946 the Me 262 still held a marginal performance advantage, despite also having several disadvantages, not least of which was unreliable engines. We should not forget that the major killer of Me 262 pilots was the Me 262 itself.
That performance advantage would have been very quickly eroded by development of the British jet and the Me 262's disadvantages were not likely to be improved much, if at all, given the parlous state of supply of important materials to the German aviation industry.

A snapshot in January 1945 would reveal the Me 262 to be the 'better' aircraft at that time. A longer view would I suggest show that the Meteor was a 'better' aircraft overall.

If someone had asked a hypothetical me which one I'd like to fly in 1945, not necessarily in combat, I would choose the Meteor, simply because it was very much less likely to kill me. It's an important consideration

Cheers

Steve

cimmex · Dec 2, 2013

stona said:
We should not forget that the major killer of Me 262 pilots was the Me 262 itself.

Do you have a source of that claim? The faith of every Me262 W-Nr is well known by serious researchers and the numbers tells a different story. This statement is a common myth like "the Me163 killed more own pilots than enemies".
cimmex

stona · Dec 2, 2013

cimmex said:
Do you have a source of that claim? The faith of every Me262 W-Nr is well known by serious researchers and the numbers tells a different story. This statement is a common myth like "the Me163 killed more own pilots than enemies".
cimmex

I could ask you the same.
I've been through the best sources for the fate of Me 262s that I know. The most complete, and I think the best, is 'Me 262 - The Production Log 1941-1945' by Dan O'Connell which is the fruit of many years of research aided by a veritable who's who of eminent Luftwaffe historians (Brown, Eger, Boehme, Rentschler, Wadman, Smith, Creek, Forsyth and so on, a very long list indeed). If you want one book on the fate of the Me 262s produced this should be it.

The numbers would suggest that the Me 262 was a major killer of it's pilots. Certainly more were killed in accidents than by the allied air forces. Somewhere around 100-120 Me 262s were shot down by the allies, about 100 can be matched to known work numbers. Many more were lost in accidents. I don't see how that can be a myth.

If you want an entertaining day or two you can crunch the numbers for yourself

Cheers

Steve

cimmex · Dec 3, 2013

I'm aware that the accident rate was high in the last year of the war, but:
not every accident was caused by the plane.
not every accident killed the pilot.
accidents were not limited to the Me262.
So I cannot follow your statement: "We should not forget that the major killer of Me 262 pilots was the Me 262 itself."
cimmex

stona · Dec 3, 2013

cimmex said:
I'm aware that the accident rate was high in the last year of the war, but:
not every accident was caused by the plane.
not every accident killed the pilot.
accidents were not limited to the Me262.
So I cannot follow your statement: "We should not forget that the major killer of Me 262 pilots was the Me 262 itself."
cimmex

You'll have to go through the numbers. Accidents related to engine problems were common and often fatal. The cause is often known because pilots had time to report the problem before their demise or were observed by someone else. A burning or smoking engine is quite obvious.
The next largest group of fatal accidents were due to unknown causes, often because the evidence consisted of a smoking crater. It is reasonable to assume that most of these were caused by engine failures or catastrophic failure of the air frame.
Many non-fatal accidents were caused by undercarriage failures, particularly the nose wheel, or forced landings following engine problems or in a few cases airframe failures (bits flying off non-catastrophically).
Accidents in all categories, from fatal to minor, were of course caused by pilot error.
Several pilots were killed attempting to abandon the Me 262, though I've never seen it said that it was any more difficult to abandon than any other type.
Cheers
Steve

FLYBOYJ · Dec 3, 2013

The Me 262's accident rate has been well documented in many publications. "Arrow to the Future," (which I own and read) "The Me 262 Stormbird: From the Pilots Who Flew, Fought, and Survived It," and "American Raiders, The Race to Capture the Luftwaffe's Secrets," all address the 262's accident rate from both German and allied sources. I read somewhere that Kommando Nowotny had a 2% loss rate per day when they were operating the 262, a third of all 262 accidents were attributed to some kind of engine failure.

With that said this shouldn't be surprising or unexpected (and shouldn't be looked upon as a detractor of the Me 262s operational history) as most if not all twin engine fighters of WW2 had a higher accident rate than many single engine aircraft, this due to lack of training in engine out procedures, especially early in the war. Combine this with a state of the art aircraft with engines that had had to be changed as little as every 10 hours under combat conditions, it's amazing the accident rate wasn't higher.

pattern14 · Dec 3, 2013

cimmex said:
Do you have a source of that claim?

The faith of every Me262 W-Nr is well known by serious researchers and the numbers tells a different story. This statement is a common myth like "the Me163 killed more own pilots than enemies". It is definitely no myth that the Me 163 was more dangerous to its own side. While it may have claimed 10 kills, many more pilots ( and ground crew) were killed during refuelling, take off or landing. Some exploded in mid air, others doused their pilot with the corrosive fuel mix, which literally dissolved the hapless fellow. Around 80% of all Komet losses were from accidents, compared to about 30% for the 262. Dr Lippisch had designed the fastest manned fighter of ww2, and probably the most aerodynamically efficient, but it was an act of desperation operationally. At least they actually shot down some bombers, which is more than can be said about the He162. The only single engined Jet powered aircraft to see combat, it failed to bring down a single enemy aircraft, although it did engage them on a few occasions. The only claim was disputed, being credited to an AA battery. It killed more of it own pilots proportionally than the Me 262 as well. The Meteor failed to bring down a single manned opponent as well, and killed its share of pilots, particularly after the war during training. The tag "Meatbox" is not complimentary. The 262 on the other hand, was called the "Stormbird", "Swallow', or "Turbo", which, to me, speaks for itself( although I read somewhere that Chuck Yeager called them "Blowjobs"......) We can point and counter point until we are blue in the face, but the 262, for all its shortcomings and problems, was the most successful jet powered fighter of WW2. The Arado Ar 234 is still my favourite though!

GrauGeist · Dec 3, 2013

In all fairness, the Ar234 was a bomber, so lives outside the "best fighter" box...it dwells in the shadow of the "zoomies" so never really gets the accolades it deserves.

As far as the Me262's operational losses are concerned, here is a quick listing of several incidents I have on hand:
19May44 - WkNmr 130002, training incident; Ufz. Flachs, killed
16June44 - WkNmr 130008, training incident; Fw. Becker, injured
30July44 - WkNmr 170058, engine fire; Fhr. Kaiser, bailed out
23August44 - WkNmr unk, crash on T/O - I./Kg51 (first incident)
23August44 - WkNmr unk, crash on T/O - I./Kg51 (second incident)
17September44 - WkNmr 170298, landing incident; Fw. Bertelsbeck, killed
28October44 - WkNmr 110479, nose gear collapsed; Oblt. Schall
2November44 - WkNmr 110368, crash on T/O; Uffz. Zollner, injured
6November44 - WkNmr 170045, engine failure; Ofw. Baudach
20November44 - WkNmr 170107, crash on T/O; Ofhr. Schope, killed
26November44 - WkNmr 110373, test flight crash; Ofw. Alt, killed
2December44 - WkNmr 110551, training crash; Ogfr. Mentzel, killed
9December44 - WkNmr unk, wing seperation; Hpt. Kornagel bailed out
10January45 - WkNmr 17098, landing incident; Ofw. Weise, killed

I could keep going, the list of these incidents is a long one, but this gives an idea of the hazards of flying the Me262.

And none of the listed above are related to battle damage or combat...

meatloaf109 · Dec 4, 2013

FLYBOYJ said:
The Me 262's accident rate has been well documented in many publications. "Arrow to the Future," (which I own and read) "The Me 262 Stormbird: From the Pilots Who Flew, Fought, and Survived It," and "American Raiders, The Race to Capture the Luftwaffe's Secrets," all address the 262's accident rate from both German and allied sources. I read somewhere that Kommando Nowotny had a 2% loss rate per day when they were operating the 262, a third of all 262 accidents were attributed to some kind of engine failure.

With that said this shouldn't be surprising or unexpected (and shouldn't be looked upon as a detractor of the Me 262s operational history) as most if not all twin engine fighters of WW2 had a higher accident rate than many single engine aircraft, this due to lack of training in engine out procedures, especially early in the war. Combine this with a state of the art aircraft with engines that had had to be changed as little as every 10 hours under combat conditions, it's amazing the accident rate wasn't higher.

And here is where I show my ignorance.
Is it that the 262 (and others), could not fly on one engine, or was it that on take-off (262 only) an engine faliure caused a situation that could not be quickly remedied by the pilot? I have read that the 262 pilots were the best that Germany had.

stona · Dec 4, 2013

The Me 262 could fly on one engine, post war US test pilots were taught the routine for doing so by the Germans. It was not a terribly good glider, but unpowered landing was theoretically possible.
The problem with engine failures was that they very often led to fires. The problem with catastrophic air frame failures is self evident. There were serious issues with the tail plane, particularly the elevators.

An engine failure on take off, or before a safe speed and/or altitude had been reached was always a dangerous and often fatal event, not just for the Me 262.

The Me 262 was a very unreliable aircraft. The number of problems encountered on the simplest test, ferry and training flights would certainly alarm anybody interested in flight safety. These varied from the mundane (failure of U/C to retract, leaky compressed air cylinders, loose fuel tanks, switches failing, instrument and throttle problems ,fuel pump failures, brake failure and other so called 'minor' issues, all listed in the first few reports I have just read) to the fatal.

By no means all Me 262 pilots were the 'best Germany had' and even the best had very limited experience on the type. Reading accounts of some very experienced pilots would indicate that old habits died hard. For example, instinctive and rapid opening of the throttles was something that the Me 262's engines could not cope with and yet many pilots did it anyway. Not all lived to tell the tale.

Cheers

Steve

FLYBOYJ · Dec 4, 2013

meatloaf109 said:
And here is where I show my ignorance.
Is it that the 262 (and others), could not fly on one engine, or was it that on take-off (262 only) an engine faliure caused a situation that could not be quickly remedied by the pilot? I have read that the 262 pilots were the best that Germany had.

stona said:
The Me 262 could fly on one engine, post war US test pilots were taught the routine for doing so by the Germans. It was not a terribly good glider, but unpowered landing was theoretically possible.

Any airplane could land unpowered with enough pixie dust - also known as "airspeed."

The 262 could most certainly fly on one engine (at altitude I think it could hold over 300 mph) as like most twin engine aircraft, the problem is with a twin engine aircraft the sequence of configuring the aircraft for single engine operation varied from aircraft to aircraft. Although this process is easily taught, it is something that must be practiced and the pilot must stay proficient with. It sounds easier than is actually is but if could be very difficult at times especially for a low time pilot or during combat situations and during takeoff and landing.

The hardest thing is to first recognize the engine out, adding opposite rudder to avoid adverse yawing and then going through emergency procedures to prevent other unwanted situations (fire). If the aircraft is not equipped with rudder trim the pilot will have to continue to add opposite rudder while maneuvering. At slower speeds and while taking evasive action this could be difficult.

As the first combat units operating the 262 were basically "bomber" squadrons, many of the first 262 pilots came from the bomber ranks and may have had good twin engine training. As single engine pilots converted to the 262 when it officially went to JG units is when there might have been higher accident rates during engine out operations - this is just speculation on my part, if anyone has information confirming or busting this, please post!
Here's a document about flying the 262, read page 5 concerning single engine operations;

http://www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com/Images/Me262/ME262WendeL.pdf

stona · Dec 4, 2013

Similar single engine advice to that I have read elsewhere. It was not a simple procedure.

Unpowered landings were obviously very difficult. Many pilots who survived failure of both engines did so by abandoning the aircraft, there must be a reason why they chose that option. All the pilots that I've spoken to do not consider themselves parachutists and entrusting their lives to some 'silk' and a few cords is definitely the last resort. I don't see why WW2 pilots would be different.
It's not just a question of airspeed. I don't know what the ideal airspeed/glide angle/rate of descent was for the Me 262 in unpowered flight is, but it might have discouraged pilots with sufficient altitude from embarking on such a course. I can't remember reading instructions for an unpowered landing, neither can I recall an account by anyone who succeeded in pulling one off. That doesn't mean it didn't happen, I'd be happy to hear that someone did it and survived.

In the Me 262 handbook the section following "Einmotorenflug und Einmotorenlandung" (one engine flight and one engine landing) is "Fallschirm-Ausstieg" (parachute-exit).........which may be self explanatory !

An awful lot of Me 262s crashed when attempting emergency landings, though this was not always related to engine failures and I have never categorised the reasons. Someone with a few days to waste could fairly easily do so from available records.

Cheers

Steve

FLYBOYJ · Dec 4, 2013

stona said:
Similar single engine advice to that I have read elsewhere. It was not a simple procedure.

Actually a bit simplier in a single, the big difference is in the end you're either going to crash or bail out!

stona said:
It's not just a question of airspeed. I don't know what the ideal airspeed/glide angle/rate of descent was for the Me 262 in unpowered flight is, but it might have discouraged pilots with sufficient altitude from embarking on such a course. I can't remember reading instructions for an unpowered landing, neither can I recall an account by anyone who succeeded in pulling one off. That doesn't mean it didn't happen, I'd be happy to hear that someone did it and survived.

Even without power, if you're able to put the nose down (and have altitude) you will gain enough airspeed to maintain a best glide (Vbg) in almost any airplane including the 262. If you're in the pattern and operating at approach speeds, good luck!

GrauGeist · Dec 4, 2013

FLYBOYJ said:
Even without power, if you're able to put the nose down (and have altitude altitude) you will gain enough airspeed to maintain a best glide (Vbg) in almost any airplane including the 262. If you're in the pattern and operating at approach speeds, good luck!

All bets are off if there's any Allied fighters in the area, though!

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

Which is better, Me 262 or the Gloster Meteor?

Me 262

Gloster Meteor

Lieutenant General

Major

Captain

Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung

Captain

Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung

Major

Senior Airman

Major

Senior Airman

Major

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

Airman 1st Class

Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung

1st Lieutenant

Major

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

Major

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung

Users who are viewing this thread

Similar threads