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
A relevant reference in this matter is:
Messerschmitt Me 262. - Page 2 - WW2 in Color History Forum
Extract - This new nickel alloy called "Nimonic 80" allowed the jet engine's turbine parts, particularly the blades, to operate for long periods under tremendous stress, under high heat and corrosive exhaust, without deforming or melting. This new non-ferrite alloy was far superior to all German constructive metal alloys used in the aircraft industry. After the war, Nimonic 80 set the stage for a revolution in jet-propelled aviation.
Messerschmitt Me 262. - Page 2 - WW2 in Color History Forum
Extract - This new nickel alloy called "Nimonic 80" allowed the jet engine's turbine parts, particularly the blades, to operate for long periods under tremendous stress, under high heat and corrosive exhaust, without deforming or melting. This new non-ferrite alloy was far superior to all German constructive metal alloys used in the aircraft industry. After the war, Nimonic 80 set the stage for a revolution in jet-propelled aviation.
Haven't read all this thread yet, but it looks from the poll as if I'm going to fly in the face of popular opinion on this one.
I would say the Meteor was better.
The 262 was a more advanced design and potentially far better, Gloster basically stuck jet engines onto an airframe that could easiliy have been designed for two Peregrines or Taurus' a year or two earlier, the turboprop Meteor looks perfectly natural for example. But circumstances prevented the 262 from getting anywhere near that potential.
Not its fault of course, but still a fact. within a year of the wars end the Meteor was setting the first 600mph plus speed records. The 262 could have been faster but didn't get the chance.
The potential of the 262 to be one of the greatest fighters in the world is plain to see, but due to factors other than design, by 1945, I think the Meteor was the better aircraft in service.
An extension to the war would have rendered it redundant pretty quickly, but it didn't happen
I would say the Meteor was better.
The 262 was a more advanced design and potentially far better, Gloster basically stuck jet engines onto an airframe that could easiliy have been designed for two Peregrines or Taurus' a year or two earlier, the turboprop Meteor looks perfectly natural for example. But circumstances prevented the 262 from getting anywhere near that potential.
Not its fault of course, but still a fact. within a year of the wars end the Meteor was setting the first 600mph plus speed records. The 262 could have been faster but didn't get the chance.
The potential of the 262 to be one of the greatest fighters in the world is plain to see, but due to factors other than design, by 1945, I think the Meteor was the better aircraft in service.
An extension to the war would have rendered it redundant pretty quickly, but it didn't happen
Last edited:
I'm not getting what you are trying to say I'm afraid. If you go by "performance potential realized" then the Me 262 wins by a margin: No Meteor mark that saw service in WW2 was faster then its in-service Me 262 equivalent.
If you go by "actual combat potential realized" ... what did the Meteor really do besides downing some V-1s and some ground strafes late in the war?
If you go by "actual combat potential realized" ... what did the Meteor really do besides downing some V-1s and some ground strafes late in the war?
delcyros
Tech Sergeant
I wonder if recordsetting is a qualifying parameter in this thread. Wartime records are not accounted for nor are they accepted officially. Otherwise the Me-262 was the first jet airplane to hit 600 mp/h in level flight during a controlled and recorded high speed trial* -well in advance of a year before the Meteor could do the same.
*) Me-262V09 high speed trials conducted over a measured distance in mid 1944. Later in 1944, the Me-262C rocket assisted jet fighter was certified to a speed of 970 km/h at optimum altitude (=602 mp/h).
Messy1
Master Sergeant
And also thanks to the British. At one point, the Russians were so far behind, even in basic areas such as metallurgy. At one point, Russians officials were given a tour of one of the British factories producing jet engines. Unknown to the British, all Russians had been given special soft sole shoes by the Russian government to wear that would pick up metal shavings of the various types of metals that were used and prodcued so the Russians could analyze the alloys and copy them. They had serious issues with material quality.
I thought my post would cause a scratching of heads, but that was not its purpose. The citing of the speed record was more by way of showing what opportunity was denied the 262, rather than a qualifier for the Meteor.
I also think a service fighter is judged on more than speed and I feel that a far larger percentage of the Meteors delivered to squadrons over the same period the 262's were delivered to the Luftwaffe were available for operations for longer. It is not the Meteors fault that we did not need to send it out against the Luftwaffe. it did the job that was asked of it with more reliability than its rival. There isn't much more useless than an aeroplane on the ground.
Thats why I think that the Meteor was the better aircraft at that time. I also think that a Derwent-262 would have been better than both of them. Maybe I'm mad?
I also think a service fighter is judged on more than speed and I feel that a far larger percentage of the Meteors delivered to squadrons over the same period the 262's were delivered to the Luftwaffe were available for operations for longer. It is not the Meteors fault that we did not need to send it out against the Luftwaffe. it did the job that was asked of it with more reliability than its rival. There isn't much more useless than an aeroplane on the ground.
Thats why I think that the Meteor was the better aircraft at that time. I also think that a Derwent-262 would have been better than both of them. Maybe I'm mad?
Erich
the old Sage
although many bomber crews in 45 thought they were safe the threat they felt the most was the 262. every guy tha flew a B-17 and B-24 saw at least one in combat and to say the elast they felt overwhelmed with the speed and firepower many of these guys saw their buddies blown to pieces after a pass.
I really cannot see a rational discussion competing the little M with the 262, developed for different purposes and used for different purposes
I really cannot see a rational discussion competing the little M with the 262, developed for different purposes and used for different purposes
parsifal
Colonel
I tend to think the Me 262 was superior in the context of WWII, but in terms of design stretchability, I am inclined to favour the Meteor.
There is no record of the Me 262 ever meeting a meteor, which is not surprising, considering that 616 squadron, was the only allied jet equipped formation to see service on the continent during the war, and then only with 4 aircraft on special deployment until well into 1945, and operating in the PRU role. It is therefore totally invalid to compare combat results of the Meteor to those of the Me 262 as aa measure of relative performance.
However in the Korean war the Meteor saw service from 1951 with 77 Squadron of the RAAF, and met on a number of occasions with the MIG-15. The MIG was a newerdesign, but piloted by inferior pilots, nevertheless the opinion of the 77 squadron CO prior to entering the battle area was that they were in for a hard time against the MIGs. This was exacerbated by the role they were put into....bomber escort, which tied them to speeds and at altitudes that were less than optimum for the type.
The Royal Australian Air Force acquired 113 Meteors between 1946 and 1952. F.8 Meteors saw extensive service during the Korean War with No. 77 Squadron RAAF. The squadron, which had previously flown P-51 Mustangs in Korea, first flew Meteors on July 30, 1951 and had some success in jet-versus-jet combat, against MiG-15 pilots, shooting down six confirmed kills of the newer and generally superior MiGs in the period of September to November. However, four RAAF Meteors were lost on December 1, 1951 in a dogfight between 12 aircraft from 77 Squadron and 40 MiGs. As a result, 77 Squadron was relegated to ground attack duties, a role in which it performed well. While at least 29 Meteors were lost as a direct result of enemy action in Korea, the vast majority of these were shot down by anti-aircraft fire while serving in a ground attack capacity. The heavy loss rate was due to the type of sight being used with the rockets they were firing, requiring the aircraft to fly straight for a dangerously long time in order to achieve satisfactory accuracy
There is no record of the Me 262 ever meeting a meteor, which is not surprising, considering that 616 squadron, was the only allied jet equipped formation to see service on the continent during the war, and then only with 4 aircraft on special deployment until well into 1945, and operating in the PRU role. It is therefore totally invalid to compare combat results of the Meteor to those of the Me 262 as aa measure of relative performance.
However in the Korean war the Meteor saw service from 1951 with 77 Squadron of the RAAF, and met on a number of occasions with the MIG-15. The MIG was a newerdesign, but piloted by inferior pilots, nevertheless the opinion of the 77 squadron CO prior to entering the battle area was that they were in for a hard time against the MIGs. This was exacerbated by the role they were put into....bomber escort, which tied them to speeds and at altitudes that were less than optimum for the type.
The Royal Australian Air Force acquired 113 Meteors between 1946 and 1952. F.8 Meteors saw extensive service during the Korean War with No. 77 Squadron RAAF. The squadron, which had previously flown P-51 Mustangs in Korea, first flew Meteors on July 30, 1951 and had some success in jet-versus-jet combat, against MiG-15 pilots, shooting down six confirmed kills of the newer and generally superior MiGs in the period of September to November. However, four RAAF Meteors were lost on December 1, 1951 in a dogfight between 12 aircraft from 77 Squadron and 40 MiGs. As a result, 77 Squadron was relegated to ground attack duties, a role in which it performed well. While at least 29 Meteors were lost as a direct result of enemy action in Korea, the vast majority of these were shot down by anti-aircraft fire while serving in a ground attack capacity. The heavy loss rate was due to the type of sight being used with the rockets they were firing, requiring the aircraft to fly straight for a dangerously long time in order to achieve satisfactory accuracy
red admiral
Senior Airman
- 479
- Mar 24, 2005
With the Yanks in Korea by Cull and Newton gives a very detailed account of the British and Commonwealth air operations over Korea. Despite the obvious performance advantages between the MiG-15 and the Meteor F8 the actual combat wasn't so bad, with overall exchange rates being around 1:1 (though a slight advantage to the MiG-15). The actual combats themselves are described in the book and usually involved MiGs having both a numerical and position advantage. Pairs of MiGs would swoop down from above and carry out short hit and run attacks on the F8s. The F8s would try to manoeuvre for a shoot after the pass but usually found themselves being engaged by a second pair of MiGs making a similar attack to the first. Usual combat was around 30-40 MiGs against 4-8 F8s. The main problem for the pilots was having sufficient time to manoeuvre for a gun shot and then seeing whether or not any hits occurred. The Meteor proved itself very durable in combat, one aircraft taking 8 37mm cannon shells around the tail. Speed isn't everything when it comes to combat.
Also mentioned are mock dogfights between the the F-86 and the F8 over Japan. The F8 was found to be superior under 25,000ft, especially when it came to a turning and climbing fight. The F-86 had an advantage in critical mach number so could usually disengage when things got too bad.
The postwar career of the Meteor is often overlooked but was very successful. Even just as an engine testbed the Meteor was enormously successful. Most bizarre was a scheme with RR Nene engines and thrust vectoring for STOL studies in the 1950s. Immediately postwar Gloster had more time to focus on design rather than production and produced a whole host of Meteor designs with swept and delta wings and Avon or Sapphire engines. These studies directly lead to the Javelin with the change to fuselage mounted engines occurring in 1947.
The Gloster Meteor still flies today as a flying testbed for Martin-Baker.
Also mentioned are mock dogfights between the the F-86 and the F8 over Japan. The F8 was found to be superior under 25,000ft, especially when it came to a turning and climbing fight. The F-86 had an advantage in critical mach number so could usually disengage when things got too bad.
The postwar career of the Meteor is often overlooked but was very successful. Even just as an engine testbed the Meteor was enormously successful. Most bizarre was a scheme with RR Nene engines and thrust vectoring for STOL studies in the 1950s. Immediately postwar Gloster had more time to focus on design rather than production and produced a whole host of Meteor designs with swept and delta wings and Avon or Sapphire engines. These studies directly lead to the Javelin with the change to fuselage mounted engines occurring in 1947.
The Gloster Meteor still flies today as a flying testbed for Martin-Baker.
Last edited:
And the reality with regards to operations is:
- only a handful of Meteors saw service in WW2
- until 1945 it was inferior in speed to already in service piston fighters, including the Mustang and the Tempest, it's only benefit: getting experience on jet powered fighters
- are air-to-air victories still important for a fighter?
- impact was nil
and with regards to design:
- inferior drag in about every area except for the nacelles, whbich was more of a design decision than a real drawback
- tendency for snaking that was never really solved
- otherwise solid, conventional but unimpressive
Funny how someone who accused me of being an apologist of German WW2 tank designs argues for, and here I say it, an obviously inferior airframe.
The only thing that brought the meteor to comparable speeds was the use of superior engine thrust later on.
- only a handful of Meteors saw service in WW2
- until 1945 it was inferior in speed to already in service piston fighters, including the Mustang and the Tempest, it's only benefit: getting experience on jet powered fighters
- are air-to-air victories still important for a fighter?
- impact was nil
and with regards to design:
- inferior drag in about every area except for the nacelles, whbich was more of a design decision than a real drawback
- tendency for snaking that was never really solved
- otherwise solid, conventional but unimpressive
Funny how someone who accused me of being an apologist of German WW2 tank designs argues for, and here I say it, an obviously inferior airframe.
The only thing that brought the meteor to comparable speeds was the use of superior engine thrust later on.
nice to read is the evaluation raport from 1946 on the mike william's site
Meteor Performance Trials.
the strange thing, despite all the so called performance and reliability of derwent engines, is found on the page 29 of the raport, the engines having "surging" above 20000ft .
even with a life time of25h, the 262 seems suporior in all aspects comparing to the MkIII.
Meteor Performance Trials.
the strange thing, despite all the so called performance and reliability of derwent engines, is found on the page 29 of the raport, the engines having "surging" above 20000ft .
even with a life time of25h, the 262 seems suporior in all aspects comparing to the MkIII.
parsifal
Colonel
Riacrato are you saying I think you are a German apologist, because I dont think that????
Kurfürst
Staff Sergeant
It doesn't make much sense to compare essentially post-war, up-engined variants of the Meteor to the wartime Schwalbe. Certainly development of the Me 262 did not stop with the first serial production variant, as this February 1945 German paper on further development and performance improvement of the Me 262 shows.
There was indeed a lot potential in the 262. It has to be remembered that the Germans aimed at a very conservative design with both the 262 and the Jumo 004, that would encounter the least amount of development difficulties and could be pressed into service with minimum delay.
There was indeed a lot potential in the 262. It has to be remembered that the Germans aimed at a very conservative design with both the 262 and the Jumo 004, that would encounter the least amount of development difficulties and could be pressed into service with minimum delay.
Attachments
red admiral
Senior Airman
- 479
- Mar 24, 2005
The initial question is rather vague, after all, what does "best" actually mean. During the war the Meteor gave good service with the RAF in getting used to jet aircraft and operational tactics. Didn't achieve a great deal in visible results due to not being allowed the chance and simple lack of impetus behind the project. More important and useful to flood the skies with P-51s rather than a few hundred new jets. Postwar the Meteor gave good service but was outclassed by 1950 by the new generation of jets with proper swept wings. The Me 262 would be also, both designs running into mach limitations around 0.85. There were redesigns with swept wings to both aircraft to increase this limitation, but neither were built.
red admiral
Senior Airman
- 479
- Mar 24, 2005
Thats for the initial Mk IIIs the later Mk IIIs went up to around 0.83 which was later increased a bit again with the F8
parsifal
Colonel
The reason I brought up the Korean war experiences of the F8 was to demonstrate that the Meteor had some potentialities in the air combat role. It is not a valid sample to look at the experiences of the MkIs and Mk IIIs during the war because of the very limited deployment they were given. However the Meteor was deployed quite extensively in Korea, and went up against an aircraft superior to the me 262 in many ways, although the pilots flying them were not of high quality (on the other hand the MIGs greatly outnumbered the Meteors, and the Meteors were being forced into a mision profile they were not well suited to), and here it held its own quite well, though not outstandingly. By extrapolation, obe could therefore say that contrary to the general feeling in this forum, the Me 262 might not have wiped the floor with the Meteor, though I acknowlwedge the limitation of the approach, and have already conceded that I think the 262 does hold the advantage, purely on the basis of its higher speed
I thought you said something along those lines, but I might have been overreacting so I apologize.
If we are talking development potential, really all that was realized for the Meteor was more engine thrust.
The only chance the Meteor could've made a real impact is if the F.3 was available right after the invasion. It could then attack Me 262s on their way home or right after take-off. In reality that role fell to the Mustangs and some degree the Tempests. The Meteor will always remain a footnote in history just like the P-59 or the Do 335 some people here have been talking about so enthusiastically. All could've been available in time at least as far as development goes. They simply were not that good and it's time to accept that. Granted, the Meteor at least gave a familiarization platform for future pilot generations.
It was also a better gun platform. The Meteor was notorious for snaking at relevant combat speeds, no such thing for the Me 262. The speed advantage (according to British tests) would always be in the vicinity of 20 mph if powered by similar thrust.
Which fighter design of any of the Western powers could wipe the floor with the equivalent design of another Western power during that era (40-45)? I can't think of any of the top off my head.
Last edited:
