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

[stona]

i think it was at Salerno that Warspite was hit

It was. She was never fully repaired but still tipped up of Normandy to bombard German positions with her reduced armament before being placed in reserve (category C which is often one tow from the scrap yard)) in February 1945.

Cheers

Steve

 

[Readie]

Great planes but, I would still rather have a Spitfire

 

[thedab]

To me the 262 look a bit like a 1930s racer

but bit mind you

 

[Zyzygie]

Quote from The Gloster Meteor :
The Meteor I was an all-metal aircraft of conventional construction, with low-mounted straight wings with two spars, turbojets mid-mounted in the wings, and a high-mounted tailplane to keep it out of the way of the jet exhaust. It had "fence"-style air brakes above and below the wings inboard of the engines to keep the aircraft controllable in a high-speed dive.
The point is that the Me 262 didn't have air brakes...

Quote from Harkins, Hugh . RAF Meteor Jet Fighters in World War II, An Operational Log; Centurion.

Although they never met in combat, it is inevitable that the Meteor III is compared to its wartime rival, the Me. 262. The Meteor III had a higher profile drag compared with that of the Me. 262. This was principally caused by the Meteors higher wing drag, in turn caused by the Meteors lower wing loading, which corresponded to lower maximum speeds compared to the Me. 262. After a series of trials with the Me. 262 at RAE Farnborough in 1945, it was determined that with engines of equal thrust the Meteor III would be 20 mph slower than the Me. 262. On the plus side for the Meteor III, the lower wing loading gave it better take off performance, including a shorter take off run, and better manoeuvrability compared with the Me. 262.

 

[GrauGeist]

Quote from The Gloster Meteor :
The Meteor I was an all-metal aircraft of conventional construction, with low-mounted straight wings with two spars, turbojets mid-mounted in the wings, and a high-mounted tailplane to keep it out of the way of the jet exhaust. It had "fence"-style air brakes above and below the wings inboard of the engines to keep the aircraft controllable in a high-speed dive.
The point is that the Me 262 didn't have air brakes...

Quote from Harkins, Hugh . RAF Meteor Jet Fighters in World War II, An Operational Log; Centurion.

Although they never met in combat, it is inevitable that the Meteor III is compared to its wartime rival, the Me. 262. The Meteor III had a higher profile drag compared with that of the Me. 262. This was principally caused by the Meteors higher wing drag, in turn caused by the Meteors lower wing loading, which corresponded to lower maximum speeds compared to the Me. 262. After a series of trials with the Me. 262 at RAE Farnborough in 1945, it was determined that with engines of equal thrust the Meteor III would be 20 mph slower than the Me. 262. On the plus side for the Meteor III, the lower wing loading gave it better take off performance, including a shorter take off run, and better manoeuvrability compared with the Me. 262.

The airbrakes were installed to keep the Meteor controllable in a dive.

This has been hashed out over and over again, on a first generation jet: engine RPM and subsequent speed was slow to build...you did NOT bleed off airspeed in a first generation jet.

Repeat after me: you do NOT bleed off speed in a first generation jet.

The Luftwaffe pilots that were successful in fighting Allied piston powered fighters in the Me262 maintained thier speed, the Luftwaffe pilots who ended up in the Allied gun cameras did not.

I know it's an awesome fantasy to think about "what if", had the Meteor met the Me262 in a showdown, but the Me262 pilots had actual jet combat experience over the Meteor pilots and that would have given them the edge.

You may want to read a little about the Me262 pilots who actually fought with their jets, because in spite of a lack of airbrakes, they were able to maneuver the Me262 well enough to make it an extremely dangerous adversary.

And for the record, the closest WWII came to jet-on-jet encounter, was an attack on 616 Squadron's base at Fassberg, when it was bombed by Ar234s.

 

[nuuumannn]

The question has to be asked, better at what? Me 262 better looking in my opinion, but Meteor better engines, certainly more reliable and longer lasting. Combat discussions leave little real answer when comparing aircraft to aircraft, simply because the guy in the cockpit is inevitably going be the deciding factor. You put Bob Stanford Tuck in a Meatbox and some tyro Luftwaffe pilot in an Me 262 and Tuck would win, however, you put Galland in the 262 and some newbie RAF pilot in the Meatbox and guess what happens. I also think the RAF pilots certainly would not have felt their aircraft was inferior to the Me 262, not that they had the chance to find out, but I'm sure they would have been itching to do so.

 

[parsifal]

Probably should ask which might be superior in a hypothetical 1946 context. This would give both a/c some time to mature. The me 262's most pressing demands were to improve serviceability rates, whilst the Meteor had a pressing need to improve its performance really, relative to the competition.

it would not be a level playing field, so there needs to be an element of speculation here. the assumption is that somehow the Russian steamroller has been halted or delayed and the cross channel invasion postponed, but not defeated. Germany is in the ring, but battered, Britain is in the ring, but with limited resources. extrapolate the available resources and technologies....which a/c is likely to be superior?

 

[parsifal]

A few comments I managed to scrounge from various places;

"Specially prepared Meteors cleared 600 mph routinely. The Meteor, of course, held the World Speed Record in 1946/1947, with F.4 EE549, flown by E.M. Donaldson, setting a record of 615.65 mph on September 7, 1946. The same aircraft, flown by Bill Waterton, flew from London to Paris at an average speed of 618.4 mph on January 19, 1947. Although not an official record attempt, D.V. Coates-Preedy flew Gloster's demonstration Meteor F.4 G-AIDC from Brussels to Copenhagen on April 22, 1947 at an average speed of 630 mph.

I still maintain that the Me 262 was put into service at the earliest possible moment. As William Green said in Warplanes of the Third Reich:

"...the simple fact remains that Junkers failed to resolve the problems poised by series manufacture of the turbojet powering the Me 262 until mid-1944, and thus could not commence volume deliveries to Messerschmitt until the following September/October. Furthermore, the consensus of opinion of those actually engaged in the design development and testing of the Me 262 was to be that the fighter was introduced to service at the earliest practicable stage in its evolution; that any earlier deployment of the warplane on a large scale would have been entirely premature."

One can always play "what if", but then one must also consider the impact of a fully funded RAF jet program backing Frank Whittle in 1936, and Meteors being ready for the Battle of Britain..."

"The Me262 is the favourite romantics' plane. Yes it is pretty, yes it is (in theory) wildly ahead of the opposition. Yes it was an irrelevance.

After WW II only the Czechs produced 'new' Me262s ... none of the major powers bothered. Which should tell us something as both the UK and the US had reliable engines that could have powered the airframe.

If it could have bounced a Meteor (1, 3 or 4) it would likely have succeeded in destroying it. If it was bounced it in turn would have been destroyed. It wasn't a dogfighter, so in a dogfight it could have gone either way ... except that the 262's 30mm cannon jammed if fired under even moderate g forces, and the Meteor (3, 4) had a tighter turning circle at dogfight speeds than the 262 would have been harder to outrun than the piston engined fighters that did kill 262s that were foolish enough dogfight - remember early jets didn't accelerate well.

From maintenance records - day 1: 262?, day 2: 262?, day 3 and forever after: Meteor ... the 262s would never have got off the canvas.

BTW (off topic) RAAF Meteor ground attack aircraft had success(es) and few losses against MiG 15s in Korea"

 

[fastmongrel]

The design team at Glosters after the takeover by Hawker Siddeley was tiny compared to other factories a lot of the talent had gone to other parts of the conglomerate. Glosters only got the Jet design because they had nothing else to do and I would be surprised if the design team ever exceeded a 100 or so. DeHavilland were the same with the Vampire at one point in late 1943 only two senior designers were working on it part time, more were doing sketches for the future Jetliner that became the Comet.

I dont know if the massive (in comparison to the British effort) German jet programme could have been hurried along but certainly if the 262 got going in late 43 then the British Jets could have had more money and men thrown at it and got at least a serviceable Vampire or Meteor for early to mid 44.

 

[Zyzygie]

The airbrakes were installed to keep the Meteor controllable in a dive.

This has been hashed out over and over again, on a first generation jet: engine RPM and subsequent speed was slow to build...you did NOT bleed off airspeed in a first generation jet.

Repeat after me: you do NOT bleed off speed in a first generation jet.

The Luftwaffe pilots that were successful in fighting Allied piston powered fighters in the Me262 maintained thier speed, the Luftwaffe pilots who ended up in the Allied gun cameras did not.

I know it's an awesome fantasy to think about "what if", had the Meteor met the Me262 in a showdown, but the Me262 pilots had actual jet combat experience over the Meteor pilots and that would have given them the edge.

You may want to read a little about the Me262 pilots who actually fought with their jets, because in spite of a lack of airbrakes, they were able to maneuver the Me262 well enough to make it an extremely dangerous adversary.

And for the record, the closest WWII came to jet-on-jet encounter, was an attack on 616 Squadron's base at Fassberg, when it was bombed by Ar234s.

...Johannes Steinhoff explained his learning curve on attacking fighters: "what I had to learn was that , unlike the Me 109, I could not easily reduce power or flaps to tighten a turn, getting in behind an enemy fighter. It would not work; You could flame out the engines, or go into an unrecoverable stall, usually a flat spin... Bleeding off airspeed by pulling up into the enemy was also not as effective due to the higher speeds... dogfighting against the fighters was sheer suicide..."

from The Me 262 Stormbird: From the Pilots Who Flew, Fought, and Survived It

See attachment for more detail on the above​

 

[GrauGeist]

...Johannes Steinhoff explained his learning curve on attacking fighters: "what I had to learn was that , unlike the Me 109, I could not easily reduce power or flaps to tighten a turn, getting in behind an enemy fighter. It would not work; You could flame out the engines, or go into an unrecoverable stall, usually a flat spin... Bleeding off airspeed by pulling up into the enemy was also not as effective due to the higher speeds... dogfighting against the fighters was sheer suicide..."

from The Me 262 Stormbird: From the Pilots Who Flew, Fought, and Survived It

See attachment for more detail on the above​

Now while your at it, find the other Me262 pilot's comments regarding airbrakes and post those, too.

 

[BLine22]

This has been hashed out over and over again, on a first generation jet: engine RPM and subsequent speed was slow to build...you did NOT bleed off airspeed in a first generation jet.

Repeat after me: you do NOT bleed off speed in a first generation jet.

One of the purposes of speed brakes on jets is so you can slow down without reducing engine rpm to the point where spool up time becomes a problem. F-80/T-33s land with their speed brakes deployed so that they can make their approach with a higher power setting. Many carrier jets did the same thing. I would speculate that every jet designed after the 262 had speed brakes including transports and airliners. To say that the 262 would not have benefited if it had them is silly.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Grau, you took the words right out of my mouth;

Some comments - Zyzygie, you posted some good information here but it still seems you're trying to build justification to show that the Meteor was a better aircraft than the Me 262. It's obvious in the post war years the Meteor evolved into the superior aircraft but in mid 1944 the Meteor had a long way to go before it was a world class fighter.

First you attempted to show that the Me 262 was "difficult" to fly, there's been plenty of evidence posted to show just the opposite. There were things on the 262 that were "different" (just like other early jets) but through training, one learns these things. Like all early jets, it had its teething problems but when it functioned well there's no doubt it was deadly.

Now let's talk dog fighting - there is no doubt the Me 262 WAS NOT a dog fighter, it's obvious it couldn't rapidly slow down or accelerate and it was indicated that rapid pitch up attitude changes could induce a compressor stall. So with that said, why would one even considering dog fighting??? The use of its speed was the 262's best asset in taking on other aircraft, and that to include fighters. Why would anyone consider throwing away a major tactical asset just to get into a twisting/ turning fight that IMO would just be an extension of male testosterone!

Once again it seems we are too hung up on "dog fighting" rather then hit and run tactics that are not only more effective but also provide a level of survive-ability especially when out numbered. I'm willing to bet dollars to donuts that most of the fighter claims by the 262 posted earlier were achieved during a "boom and zoom" attack.

Biff - any comment would be welcomed!

"Find the enemy and shoot him down. Anything else is nonsense."
Manfred Von Richthofen

 

[GrauGeist]

Joe, we could even take the speed issue one step further.

What was the best way for U.S. pilots to engage the A6M? It was speed not a turning fight. To get into a turning fight with the A6M meant certain trouble so the "boom and zoom" tactic was the best option.

At no time did a Hellcat pilot lament that he wished he had airbrakes so he could dogfight the Zero...

 

[GrauGeist]

One of the purposes of speed brakes on jets is so you can slow down without reducing engine rpm to the point where spool up time becomes a problem. F-80/T-33s land with their speed deployed so that they can make their approach with a higher power setting. Many carrier jets did the same thing. I would speculate that every jet designed after the 262 had speed brakes including transports and airliners. To say that the 262 would not have benefited if it had them is silly.

You're comparing two different aircraft: P-80 and Me262.

The Me262 had a high stall speed (between 115 and 125 mph), so at what point would the Me262 benefit from air-brakes? On the roll-out perhaps, but certainly not on final.

As far as using dive brakes in battle, it's speed was it's strong point. When the 262 dove in for the attack on bombers, the turret gunners simply could not get their turret to turn fast enough to engage. The manned gunners even had a difficult time. This was a salvation as a single .50 round hitting one of the Jumos would result in a catastrophic failure. And the Allied escorts were fristrated as they tried to catch the Me262s as they tore through a formation and they would often times be helpless to intervene. This is proof that speed was their best offense/defense. So again, at what point would air-brakes have been a benefit? The 004s were not producing tremendous thrust, so keeping the engine's RPMs up while bleeding off speed to engage would not have produced results like a modern jet. The 262 would have bled off speed and then needed time for the engine's to get the ship back up to speed.

Proof of this is by the length of real-estate the Me262 needed to get airborn on T/O - it made a fully loaded P-47 look like a STOL bird. The average length of runway needed to get airborn was about 1,200 yards for concrete and over 1,500 yards for grass.

When trying to understand the Me262's flight profile, a person has to throw out everything they know about modern (2nd generation onward) jet aircraft and start with a clean slate.

 

[fastmongrel]

Joe, we could even take the speed issue one step further.

What was the best way for U.S. pilots to engage the A6M? It was speed not a turning fight. To get into a turning fight with the A6M meant certain trouble so the "boom and zoom" tactic was the best option.

At no time did a Hellcat pilot lament that he wished he had airbrakes so he could dogfight the Zero...

If you get into a Dogfight with any aircraft your doing it wrong. Dogfighting gives the other guy a chance.

 

[Zyzygie]

Grau, you took the words right out of my mouth;

Some comments - Zyzygie, you posted some good information here but it still seems you're trying to build justification to show that the Meteor was a better aircraft than the Me 262. It's obvious in the post war years the Meteor evolved into the superior aircraft but in mid 1944 the Meteor had a long way to go before it was a world class fighter.

First you attempted to show that the Me 262 was "difficult" to fly, there's been plenty of evidence posted to show just the opposite. There were things on the 262 that were "different" (just like other early jets) but through training, one learns these things. Like all early jets, it had its teething problems but when it functioned well there's no doubt it was deadly.

Now let's talk dog fighting - there is no doubt the Me 262 WAS NOT a dog fighter, it's obvious it couldn't rapidly slow down or accelerate and it was indicated that rapid pitch up attitude changes could induce a compressor stall. So with that said, why would one even considering dog fighting??? The use of its speed was the 262's best asset in taking on other aircraft, and that to include fighters. Why would anyone consider throwing away a major tactical asset just to get into a twisting/ turning fight that IMO would just be an extension of male testosterone!

Once again it seebomber destroyingms we are too hung up on "dog fighting" rather then hit and run tactics that are not only more effective but also provide a level of survive-ability especially when out numbered. I'm willing to bet dollars to donuts that most of the fighter claims by the 262 posted earlier were achieved during a "boom and zoom" attack.

Biff - any comment would be welcomed!

"Find the enemy and shoot him down. Anything else is nonsense."
Manfred Von Richthofen

I can pretty much agree with a lot of that. The Me262 was a good aircraft overall for bomber destroying.
But I think you'll agree that it wasn't fully ready for service:

Evaluation of the Me 262

(Project number NAD-29)

http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA800524

Me 262 FLIGHT CHARACTERISTICS:

Two airplanes, Nos. T-2-711 and T-2-4012 were used in this test program. General maintenance was very difficult on both airplanes. Number T-2-711 was flown 12 flights for a total of 10 hr and 40 min, and No. T-2-4012 was flown eight times for a total of 4 hr and 40 min. Four engine changes were necessary on No. T-2-4012 and five on No. T-2-711. Power failure in flight resulted in abandonment of the airplane and complete destruction of No. T-2-711. ​

Tests were discontinued on No. T-2-4012 after two single-engine landings resulting from engine failure in flight, because the value of further flights was not believed to be worth the risk and trouble of maintaining the airplane...

Handling and control at various speeds:

The handling characteristics were poor at all speeds above 350 mph. The airplane would not make a very satisfactory gun platform because of a tendency to hunt directionally, which resulted in snaking at speeds above 400 mph IAS.​

CONCLUSIONS:

The handling characteristics of the Me-262 airplanes tested were very poor. However, it is believed that, with the exception of the directional hunting or yawing, they would have been considerably improved if the aileron and elevator servo tabs had been connected.

The pilots concluded that the Me-262 would not make a satisfactory gun platform because of its tendency to hunt directionally which turned into actual snaking the faster the plane went.​

Which should make one take pause and consider the irony here... That one of the Me-262 strengths, i.e. its superior speed is also a weakness when it comes to stability and its usefulness as a gun platform.

FLIGHT CHARACTERISTICS:

Cockpit Layout:​

The cockpit is somewhat cramped and it is difficult to turn in the seat to obtain vision to the rear. The location of the instruments and controls is satisfactory except that the throttles and starting controls are located too far aft for easy manipulation.

Brakes and ground handling:

The brakes were very poor, which made ground handling difficult.

Take-off and initial climb:​

All take-offs were running take-offs, due to the poor brakes. The ground roll was slightly longer than ordinarily required. The nose wheel could be lifted off at about 100 mph IAS, and the take-off was made at about 120 mph in a nose-high attitude.

Vision:

Vision was rather poor, due to the design of the canopy; many braces obstructed the line of vision and distortion was apparent when looking upward. Vision to the rear was poor because of the difficulty of turning in the seat to look aft.​

But arguably the Meteor air brakes were pretty handy to have, either for dogfighting or ground attack...

"On 27 March 1953 Flight Sergeant George Hale and Flight Sergeant David Irlam were part of a flight of four Meteor F8s - led by Squadron Leader John Hubble - attacking ground traffic between Pyongyang, capital of Communist North Korea, and Sinmak with under-wing rockets.

Upon reaching Pyongyang the formation split with Hale and Irlam heading south in line astern at low level. Hale sighted three transonic swept-wing MiG 15 fighters preparing to attack two USAF RF-80 Shooting Stars. As he jettisoned the ventral tank on his Meteor - A77-851- and turned to intercept the MiGs, Hale fired off the last two of his underwing rockets in an attempt to distract the enemy pilots. This forced the two MiGs to turn away from each other.

As he turned to follow the enemy, Irlam reported that he was under fire and Hale turned into the new threat, which turned out to be two MiGs on Irlam's tail. While Irlam headed for cloud cover in his damaged Meteor, Hale's opponent extended his air brakes and turned in behind Irlam, but overshot. Hale extended his air brakes and slotted in behind the MiG. He opened fire and hit the enemy fighter squarely behind the cockpit. The MiG rolled on its back and fell away, spewing smoke. Just as Hale was about to follow his victim, two more MiGs dived on him. However, he managed to pull into them and fired but their speed carried them away. A third pair of Communist jets turned in on his tail but Hale turned back on them and opened fire on the second MiG, which left a trail of white smoke. Out of ammunition, Hale had to let the MiGs get away. Back at Kimpo, Hale and his wingman counted no fewer than 112 shrapnel holes in Irlam's Meteor. However, the two MiG silhouettes painted on Hale's cockpit by his crew chief lasted only a few days before Squadron Leader John Hubble ordered them to be painted out as they broke RAAF regulations. By the end of hostilities four months later though, 77 squadron had lost 32 Meteor pilots in 18,872 sorties but had deprived the Communists of 3,700 buildings. 1,500 vehicles and six MiG 15s."

JetAgeRMC_Korea​

 

[GrauGeist]

Two things to point out here.

First of all, the Me262s evaluated by the U.S. were not in top shape and were not capable of top performance. On the other hand, Eric Brown's assesment of the Me262 he evaluated was just short of glowing. His Me262 was also maintained by German ground crews that were experienced in Me262 operations...the U.S. Me262s were ground crewed by Americans that were not familiar with the aircraft.

Secondly, you're comparing the performance of a post-war meteor against a peer type, not a piston-powered type. And the MiG-15 was also equipped with air-brakes, too.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

I can pretty much agree with a lot of that. The Me262 was a good aircraft overall for bomber destroying.

But I think you'll agree that it wasn't fully ready for service:

No jet flying during WW2 was fully ready for service!

 

[Zyzygie]

...you're comparing the performance of a post-war meteor against a peer type...

Hmm. A definition of peer - "something of equal worth or quality." Are you saying the Meteor was equal worth to the MiG 15?
As a fighter bomber compared to a fighter, maybe, but not as a pure fighter, surely?

Again we're comparing apples with oranges, as applies also in trying to compare the Me 262 and the Meteor.

As a bomber destroyer, yes, it was effective. As a fighter bomber, no:

"I'll never change an opinion I've expressed often, that with just 300 Messerschmitt Me 262 jet fighters we could have on any day shot down a minimum of 200 bombers," said Galland. "If this could have continued for even a fortnight, then the day bombing would have had to be halted." Galland called the "blitz bomber" idea "a typical Hitler error."

The Messerschmitt Me 262 Jet Fighter | Defense Media Network​