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

[GrauGeist]

Why is this becoming so truncated?

What do you mean "fighter bomber" Are you referring to the Me262A-2/a?

The Meteor F.8 was nothing like it's WWII predecessor. Perhaps in appearance only, but it's airframe was enhances, it received a newer, more powerful engine and so on.

When the Meteor F.8 went head to head against the MiG-15, it was meeting it's peer in battle. Their performance was comparable (although the F.8 had better performance in some aspects) and they were both used as front line fighters. Therefore: Peer.

The Me262 would have been at home fighting any early jet types as they had similar or comparable profiles. But the core of the discussion was could the Me262 "dogfight" propellor types (although this was not it's mission).
The answer is no. And the pilots of the Me262, in their own words, said they would engage fighters only on their terms or else they would leave.

This would be like a P-51 trying to dogfight a Fokker D.VII - which it simply would not be able to do. The P-51 is much too fast to be able to get inside of the D.VII's turn (sound familiar?) so it's best option would be to zoom in on it and try and get in a burst before it turned away and got out of the gunsights.

In WWII, the F.3 of 616 squadron would have been the platform that the Me262 would have met historically had they ever caught sight of one another. They would have been able to get into a fight on equal terms much like the later Meteor types did against Soviet jets in Korea.

 

[BLine22]

When the Meteor F.8 went head to head against the MiG-15, it was meeting it's peer in battle. Their performance was comparable (although the F.8 had better performance in some aspects) and they were both used as front line fighters. Therefore: Peer.

In what way was F.8 comparable or better than the MIG 15? The Mig was 50 Mph faster, its ceiling was 7000ft higher, it climbed better and had more range.

 

[GrauGeist]

In what way was F.8 comparable or better than the MIG 15? The Mig was 50 Mph faster, its ceiling was 7000ft higher, it climbed better and had more range.

So...what do you you think would qualify as "comparable"?
1 to 5 miles an hour as performance separation? Perhaps 10 mph - 20mph?

So then the F-86 was not comparable to the MiG-15 either?

The F-86 had a lower max. ceiling by 1,000 feet, it's RoC was a little less...does this make it not comparable, then?

 

[BLine22]

So...what do you you think would qualify as "comparable"?
1 to 5 miles an hour as performance separation? Perhaps 10 mph - 20mph?

So then the F-86 was not comparable to the MiG-15 either?

The F-86 had a lower max. ceiling by 1,000 feet, it's RoC was a little less...does this make it not comparable, then?

No, I would say that the F-86 and Mig-15 were definitely comparable. I would consider the Meteor F-8 more in a class with the F-80C, F84G, F9f, and F2H.

 

[Zyzygie]

What do you mean "fighter bomber" Are you referring to the Me262A-2/a?

.

No... I was referring to the Meteor as a fighter bomber and the Me 262 as a bomber destroyer. The Meteor was able to carry bombs and in Korea, eight napalm-tipped rockets, and was competitive with the Sabre and MiG 15 in dogfighting at low to medium altitudes, but overall was outclassed as a specialist fighter. It was arguably analogous to the Hawker Typhoon:

"The Typhoon disappointed as a fighter, especially at altitude but found its true niche as a fighter bomber from September 1942. It was fitted with racks to carry two 500lb and then two 1,000lb bombs. By September 1943 it was fitted with eight RP-3 rockets each with a 60lb warhead, equivalent to the power of a naval destroyer`s broadside." (Wikipedia)​

 

[Juha2]

Hello Zyzygie
Thanks for the US evaluation report!
Yes, also Germans had noted the hunting and had tried to solve it but had not succeeded in that before the end of the war. Meteor suffered from the same problem. The view problem is interesting, while not as good as the Allied late war bubble canopies, Me 262 canopy didn't look that bad but the distortion problem might well be real. And the real vision, look like that at the RLM there were kindred souls to those at the Air Ministry who thought that the fast fighters didn't need a good rearward vision (very early Typhoons and the original canopy of Meteor F.8). The rearward vision from the cockpit of He 162 wasn't that good either.

Juha

 

[FLYBOYJ]

and was competitive with the Sabre and MiG 15 in dogfighting at low to medium altitudes,

Total hogwash (especially when comparing the MiG-15) unless you're talking about some post WW2 war games or the driver of the MiG/ Saber was asleep at the stick.

I believe both MiG-15 and F-86 were close to 80 mph faster than the F.8 at sea level

 

[Shortround6]

The Meteor was NOT in the same class as the F-86 and Mig-15 as evidenced by the day fighters squadrons in Germany being issued Candair built Sabre jets to replace their Meteor MK 8s and 2 Squadrons in UK using Candair Sabres. Total of 11 squadrons in RAF using MK 4 Sabre jets.
Granted Sabre's changed during the Korean war But even an F-86A was superior to a MK 8 Meteor.
Meteor was much closer in performance to P-80C, and F-84 (various) and the Navy straight wing jets.

 

[fastmongrel]

Hello Zyzygie
And the real vision, look like that at the RLM there were kindred souls to those at the Air Ministry who thought that the fast fighters didn't need a good rearward vision (very early Typhoons and the original canopy of Meteor F.8). The rearward vision from the cockpit of He 162 wasn't that good either.

Juha

To be fair to the Air Ministry they didnt design the Typhoon or early Meteor canopies. The Typhoons bloody awful original canopy was solely the responsibility of Sidney Camm the designer. The early Meteor canopies werent great but 1st gen jets were a leap into the dark I think the canopy wasnt high on the designers list of priorities.

The F8 early metal rear canopy was so that the cannons could be loaded the ammo tank hatches were under the metal portion which on early marks flipped up or in the F8 the whole canopy slid back to allow access.

 

[Juha2]

Yes, I know but IIRC at that time there was a mock-up phase during which the authorities accepted the manufacturers' choices, also the cockpit solutions.


Juha

 

[tyrodtom]

Zyzygie i would like to hear a little more about these " napalm tipped rockets" you mention in post #745.

 

[Zyzygie]

The Meteor was NOT in the same class as the F-86 and Mig-15 as evidenced by the day fighters squadrons in Germany being issued Candair built Sabre jets to replace their Meteor MK 8s and 2 Squadrons in UK using Candair Sabres. Total of 11 squadrons in RAF using MK 4 Sabre jets.
Granted Sabre's changed during the Korean war But even an F-86A was superior to a MK 8 Meteor.
Meteor was much closer in performance to P-80C, and F-84 (various) and the Navy straight wing jets.

"…above 25,000 ft the Sabre was totally superior because all it had to do was take advantage of its greater speed range and dive away. If the Sabres were above you to start with, your only defence was to execute a hard break towards the attack. Each time you carried out such a defensive manoeuvre at height you lost energy and became progressively slower and more vulnerable, while the Sabres (if they knew what they were about) zoom-climbed back above you for another attack. On the other hand, if you managed to find F-86s below you and they were tempted to try and 'mix it', the Meteor could give them a very nasty fright. At 20,000 ft or below, the Meteor could out-turn, out-accelerate and out-climb a Sabre. It also had much more effective airbrakes, which, used at the right time, could cause a high-speed attacker to overshoot his target and become a sitting duck! This was particularly so against the F-86A, which was relatively underpowered and had automatic wing leading-edge slats. In a very hard turn the slats often operated asymmetrically, which caused the Sabre to flick out of the turn. At such a moment spectacular camera gun footage was possible, especially if you had your nose almost up his jet-pipe!"
"The Derwent was probably the most flexible and rugged jet engine of its day. In the Meteor it suffered terrible abuse but was incredibly reliable. Unlike many other early jet engines, particularly axial engines, it had good surge resistance, and with some care and understanding it could be accelerated to full throttle very quickly. It was possible to get it to surge on occasion – usually when above 25,000 ft – by banging the throttle open from a low power setting when the aircraft was at a very slow forward speed and a high angle of attack. The surge was announced by a series of muffled pops, accompanied by vibration, and the jet-pipe temperature needle jammed at the high end of the scale. Recovery was obtained by completely closing the throttle, then opening up progressively, all the time watching the JPT gauge. I do not remember a Derwent actually flaming out as a result of in-flight abuse, and they never seemed to have been damaged by the disgraceful hammering we gave them…"

Caygill, Peter Meteor from the Cockpit: Britain's First Jet Fighter Casemate Publishers​

The Meteor F 8 had a much higher thrust to weight ratio 0.47 vs 0.35 for the Sabre, and therefore better acceleration and initial climb rate, and the engines were much more robust than the J47. The Meteor also had a lower wing loading 43 vs 51.3. See attachment 1.

The later F86 variants had the leading edge slats removed to give the so called "6-3" wing :

"... In the case of the solid leading edge and increased internal fuel capacity, the design change produced increased combat performance..." ​

See attachment 2.

Later Sabres also replaced their inadequate 6 x 0.5" machine guns with 4 x 20mm cannon:

The F-86H-5-NH, which appeared in January of 1955, introduced an armament of four 20-mm M-39 cannon. The M-39 was formerly known as the T-160, which was first tested in Korea. These guns weighed 286 pounds more than previous Sabre gun installations, but packed a lot more punch. Ammunition supply was limited to only 600 rounds, which was only about six seconds of firing time.

North American F-86H Sabre​

On the other hand it's not much good having superior maneuverability below 20,000 ft as the excerpt above indicates:

"the Sabres (if they knew what they were about) zoom-climbed back above you for another attack"

​

 

[Zyzygie]

Zyzygie i would like to hear a little more about these " napalm tipped rockets" you mention in post #745.

See Korean strike No. 77 Sqn RAAF

You have to get a couple of minutes in to see the rockets in action.

See also attachment.

 

[tyrodtom]

I'm surprised , the warheads couldn't much more than 2 gallons of napalm. But it looks to be effective,

I'm so used to the way the USAF did it. No napalm bombs smaller than 33 gallons, and they very seldom used that. Usually the 66 and 100 gallon napalm bombs were what we loaded when I was working with such things in the late 60s.

 

[Glider]

Maybe its worth considering the views of the Australian pilots of the Meteor in Korea who had a Christmas song which went

'All I want for Christmas is my wings swept back,
My wings swept back, my wings swept back'

A refrain that has no technical stats behind it I agree, but equally, says it all

 

[Zyzygie]

I'm surprised , the warheads couldn't much more than 2 gallons of napalm. But it looks to be effective,

I'm so used to the way the USAF did it. No napalm bombs smaller than 33 gallons, and they very seldom used that. Usually the 66 and 100 gallon napalm bombs were what we loaded when I was working with such things in the late 60s.

The warheads were 60 lb. That's about 27 kg. Based on RD of roughly 0.8, that's about 33 litres, or about 9 US gallons.

 

[Shortround6]

Rockets in the photo in the attachment appear to be standard HE rockets.
Napalm rockets may look like

Still doubtful if they held 9 gallons

Source for photos is: Do we have a napalm rockets mod? - Thirdwire: Strike Fighters 2 Series - Mods & Skinning Discussion

One newspaper clippings attached say 5 gallons (Australian newspapers and RAAF aircraft so imperial gallons would be a very good guess = 6 1/2 US gallons?).

Edit: warhead weight is not filling weight. Warhead weight would include the walls of the warhead, the filling and the fuse/s.

 

[Zyzygie]

Rockets in the photo in the attachment appear to be standard HE rockets.
Napalm rockets may look like

Still doubtful if they held 9 gallons

Source for photos is: Do we have a napalm rockets mod? - Thirdwire: Strike Fighters 2 Series - Mods & Skinning Discussion

One newspaper clippings attached say 5 gallons (Australian newspapers and RAAF aircraft so imperial gallons would be a very good guess = 6 1/2 US gallons?).

Edit: warhead weight is not filling weight. Warhead weight would include the walls of the warhead, the filling and the fuse/s.

OK. That explains that... but I still wouldn't like to get hit with 6.5 U.S. gallons of napalm.

 

[Shortround6]

Sabre's in Korea had pretty much six .50 cal guns, the 20mm cannon don't show up until until late and then in limited numbers for test. Cannon armed Sabres , eight in number arrived in Korea in Jan 1953. They managed 282 combat sorties before the armistice in July 1953. No F-86Hs were issued to active squadrons, even in the US, until 1954.
However the six .50 cal guns in the Sabre's were not WW II guns. They were the M3 model that fired at around 1100-1200rpm or almost 50% faster than WW II guns. They also fired different ammo. The M23 incendiary round was a large part of the ammo load. I am not sure if it reached 100%. The M23 had about 500fpm more velocity but was essentially an incendiary round with NO armor piercing ability. It did carry 5.8 grams of incendiary material though.
The Meteor used MK V Hispanos which fired at about 720rpm which is better than most of the WW II Hispanos ( Tempests got the MK V) and at some point after WW II the British switched to aluminum fuses instead of brass for the 20mm HE rounds which made them lighter and improved velocity a bit.

Difference in climb was probably marginal. Yes the Meteor had better power to weight but climb is not just power to weight. It is power to weight AFTER you take out the power needed to maintain climb speed AND the power needed to overcome the extra drag of the aircraft flying at what ever incidence (angle of attack) was needed to get the climb rate desired.
The Meteor, being a much higher drag aircraft, was using a lot of it's extra power to fight the extra drag. Both planes, according to published specifications, had a very similar initial climb rate. I sure wouldn't bet much on a 3-5% difference in published figures as individual production planes could vary around 3% from each other when new.
However climb rate was very dependent on weight. 1954 Jane's gives the following figures for 3 different Meteors.
T. MK 7 at .......14,140lbs......8,000fpm at sea level
F. MK 8 at....... 15,675lbs......7,000fpm at sea level
PR, MK 10 at.. 17,345lbs......6,050fpm at sea level. This version reverted to the full span wings of the early MK III. which added 3-4,000ft to the ceiling.

Performance for F-86 versions can be found here: Sabre vs MiG

I would take the service ceiling numbers with a grain of salt (or more) and would note that the higher powered -27 engine didn't make into service in Korea until June of 1952 and then in increasing numbers until the armistice the next summer.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

"…above 25,000 ft the Sabre was totally superior because all it had to do was take advantage of its greater speed range and dive away. If the Sabres were above you to start with, your only defence was to execute a hard break towards the attack. Each time you carried out such a defensive manoeuvre at height you lost energy and became progressively slower and more vulnerable, while the Sabres (if they knew what they were about) zoom-climbed back above you for another attack. On the other hand, if you managed to find F-86s below you and they were tempted to try and 'mix it', the Meteor could give them a very nasty fright. At 20,000 ft or below, the Meteor could out-turn, out-accelerate and out-climb a Sabre. It also had much more effective airbrakes, which, used at the right time, could cause a high-speed attacker to overshoot his target and become a sitting duck! This was particularly so against the F-86A, which was relatively underpowered and had automatic wing leading-edge slats. In a very hard turn the slats often operated asymmetrically, which caused the Sabre to flick out of the turn. At such a moment spectacular camera gun footage was possible, especially if you had your nose almost up his jet-pipe!"
"The Derwent was probably the most flexible and rugged jet engine of its day. In the Meteor it suffered terrible abuse but was incredibly reliable. Unlike many other early jet engines, particularly axial engines, it had good surge resistance, and with some care and understanding it could be accelerated to full throttle very quickly. It was possible to get it to surge on occasion – usually when above 25,000 ft – by banging the throttle open from a low power setting when the aircraft was at a very slow forward speed and a high angle of attack. The surge was announced by a series of muffled pops, accompanied by vibration, and the jet-pipe temperature needle jammed at the high end of the scale. Recovery was obtained by completely closing the throttle, then opening up progressively, all the time watching the JPT gauge. I do not remember a Derwent actually flaming out as a result of in-flight abuse, and they never seemed to have been damaged by the disgraceful hammering we gave them…"

Caygill, Peter Meteor from the Cockpit: Britain's First Jet Fighter Casemate Publishers​

The Meteor F 8 had a much higher thrust to weight ratio 0.47 vs 0.35 for the Sabre, and therefore better acceleration and initial climb rate, and the engines were much more robust than the J47. The Meteor also had a lower wing loading 43 vs 51.3. See attachment 1.

The later F86 variants had the leading edge slats removed to give the so called "6-3" wing :

"... In the case of the solid leading edge and increased internal fuel capacity, the design change produced increased combat performance..." ​

See attachment 2.

Later Sabres also replaced their inadequate 6 x 0.5" machine guns with 4 x 20mm cannon:

The F-86H-5-NH, which appeared in January of 1955, introduced an armament of four 20-mm M-39 cannon. The M-39 was formerly known as the T-160, which was first tested in Korea. These guns weighed 286 pounds more than previous Sabre gun installations, but packed a lot more punch. Ammunition supply was limited to only 600 rounds, which was only about six seconds of firing time.

North American F-86H Sabre​

On the other hand it's not much good having superior maneuverability below 20,000 ft as the excerpt above indicates:

"the Sabres (if they knew what they were about) zoom-climbed back above you for another attack"

​

And you're using this comparison against the F-86A, make the same paper comparisons with the F-86F. Even with the limitations with the F-86A below 20K, if you keep your speed up it still outclassed the F.8. Again, you'd have to be asleep at the stick to get suckered in to throw away your tactical advantage.

"On the other hand, if you managed to find F-86s below you and they were tempted to try and 'mix it', the Meteor could give them a very nasty fright."

If the queen had slightly different anatomy, she'd be the king!