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

red admiral said:

1. 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).

2. 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.

Click to expand...

1. Here are the credits/losses/actual results of Meteor in Korea, decisive combats only (somebody shot down on on side or another per that side's account):

-December 1 1951: 4 Meteors lost to MiG's, 2 MiG's destroyed credited to Meteors. The opponent was the Soviet 176 Guards Fighter Regiment which claimed 12 Meteors without loss.

-May 8, 1952: Meteors were credited with 1 MiG destroyed for no loss. The opponent was the PLAAF 45th Fighter Regiment which actually lost 2 a/c with 2 others damaged, claiming 3 Meteors.

-October 2 1952: Meteor downed without claim, Soviets claimed 1.

2:5, 0:5 v. Soviet AF, v 2:0 v PLAAF. So it was pretty bad, actually, especially the earlier period trying to use the Meteor as air superiority a/c to supplement the F-86. The MiG's generally attacked from altitude advantage, but MiG-15's in Korea usually did against all opponents, F-86 too. The Meteor proved obsolete as air-air machine in these combats, and 77 Sdn's role was switched to fighter-bomber, where the 2 kills v PLAAF and the additional loss to the Soviets occurred in '52. In other sparring before the Dec 1 combat a few Meteors were also hit (and a number claimed by the Soviets) without actual losses on either side. The record of basically later straightwings like F-80C, F-84D, E, G and F9F was considerably better, especially the F9F (5 kills, 1 loss v MiG's). Needless to say I'm speaking in all cases of results verified in opposing records, not claims.

2. This particularly well illustrates the meaninglessness of many mock combat anecdotes. In exactly the same real combat situation at the very same time, F-86 and Meteor alongside one another in summer/fall 1951 over Korea, the F-86 maintained a strong kill ratio advantage v the MiG-15. Against the same units where the Meteor's achieved 0:4, F-86's went around 3:1, though that was the worst period in the war for the F-86 (summer-end of '51), since those Soviet units, 324th and 303th Fighter Divisions (176th Guards Regiment was an element of the 324th) were probably the best to serve in Korea, and the numerical situation was most heavily in favor of the MiG's at that time, with the 2 Soviet divisions augmented by 2 Chinese and 1 NK divisions as the fall progressed, w/ still just one F-86 group, 4th FIG, bearing the main load on the UN side. This was one reason Meteors were tried out supplementing the F-86's in air superiority work at that time, and F-84's used for escort in some cases in that period also.

The Cull/Newton book is generally excellent, and there's no comparable book in English so far. However a weak spot is reporting results from US records. The book generally reports Soviet results from good and fairly recent Russian-language published sources (though not actual records). Commonwealth results are reported from records and personal accounts (this is the focus of the book, afterall). But, US results, losses particularly, are reported pretty spottily mainly from older published sources. This can give the impression that the US results are unclear in many cases, when they are not: the results of almost all the combats reported in that book are clear in US records.

Joe

Adolf Galland was perhaps the best person able to compare the two aircraft. He flew the Me 262 for the Luftwaffe and the Meteor for the Argentine air force:

Sure a 1952 jet engine it's best of one of 1945

that's crap about the 262 only knocking down 150 Allied A/C, who the heck came up with the bogus figures anyway when we know that at least 45 Allied a/c were shot down by Welters NF band alone.

JG 7 on the other hand I can say with almost certainty that it did not shoot down 450-500 US/RAF crates, and although the 262 war diary does not list all the confirmed kills of the 262 units as there were at least 10 that scored it is in the neighborhood of 300 plus kills achieved

ah the myths that fly around

Erich said:

that's crap about the 262 only knocking down 150 Allied A/C, who the heck came up with the bogus figures anyway when we know that at least 45 Allied a/c were shot down by Welters NF band alone.

JG 7 on the other hand I can say with almost certainty that it did not shoot down 450-500 US/RAF crates, and although the 262 war diary does not list all the confirmed kills of the 262 units as there were at least 10 that scored it is in the neighborhood of 300 plus kills achieved

ah the myths that fly around

Click to expand...

Erich, what is your best guess as to the actual figures for the total allied aircraft shot down by the Me 262?

good question Chris, I had an overall figure at one time but there is still so much to try and confimr from JG 7. known Us bomber losses do not figure into the LW kills as claimed, they just are not there. US fighter forces claim 100 destroyed 262's alone this not put into effect the ones lost to RAF/TAF and other Allies like the Soviets of which at least two jets were lost in action. and another point the total number of Soviet losses due to 262's is also unknown. for a fact JG 7 did perform airfield runs over Soviet airfields and shot the hell out of any parked targets and motor transport. Many folk find this doubtful but we must realize that the LW was stretched thin doing all sorts of ground and air attacks in defense of Berlin from the Soviets and the western Allies....

side notation JG 301 with Fw 190D-9's were performing ground attacks with anti-personell bomblets on Soviet movements and then turning around and facing US P-47's and RAF fighters like the Spitfire and Tempest all on the same days

From Wikipedia:

The Me 262 was difficult for its opponents to counter, but it had weaknesses. By contemporary standards its wing loading was high (295.0 kilograms per square metre) and its rate of turn was correspondingly poor. The 262 pilots were told to avoid dogfights. The Mustangs and the other Allied escort fighters were more maneuverable so they would fly high above the bombers and dive from this height to get extra speed and reduce the speed difference. Trained Allied pilots could catch up to a turning 262 or avoid rather easily its attacks. Oberst Johannes Steinhoff encountered a dozen Russian fighters early in 1945 without managing to shoot down a single one—he started doubting the dog fighting qualities of the Me 262. He recalled:

The wing loading of the Meteor was 189 kg/m2.

The cannon of the Me 262 was low-velocity, suitable for destroying bombers, but relatively useless for dogfighting:
The site Düsenjägers - Jet Aces of The Luftwaffe gives the log of claimed kills for the Me 262 as 357. It should be noted that these are claimed kills. If the overall claimed kill rate of the Luftwaffe was correct, the RAF and USAAF would have been wiped out many times over. In fact, they had very substantial air superiority over the Luftwaffe during the vast majority of the war.

by the way I have helped with Petr's site since he first opened it. you cannot go by the jet aces scores as the only kills as an overall total so that is useless.......... JG 7 claimed over 450 kills themselves of which I already gave explanation. it would do you best as well as others not to quote anything from Wiki, Stein never faced the Soviets in a 262 as he was transferred out and replaced by Weissenb before JG 7 even had contact with the Soviets in March of 45.

I know this is a little off topic, but I wonder how well the P80A would have faired against the Me262?

The fact remains that the Germans spent big resources on building a fighter for which the engines had to be thrown away after 10 hours. Fourteen hundred built but only 200 could be put into service at any given time. The critical factor which made jet engines viable was the British development of Nimonic 80.

Similarly, Germany invested heavily in building 4000 V2s which could only deliver a single one tonne warhead. One Allied strategic bomber could deliver 4 - 10 tonnes per mission, and had a liife expectancy of 20 missions. Thousand bomber Allied raids were not uncommon.

Do the maths!

Wrong again. The Germans had successfully tested their Jumo 004 engine using the intended metals at full throttle for 100 hours without any issues. The problems occured when they were forced to mass produce the engine with other materials than intended, esp. having to do without the special high temperature resistant metals used in the prototype engines.

Soren said:

Wrong again. The Germans had successfully tested their Jumo 004 engine using the intended metals at full throttle for 100 hours without any issues. The problems occured when they were forced to mass produce the engine with other materials than intended, esp. having to do without the special high temperature resistant metals used in the prototype engines.

Click to expand...

He'll be back later Soren. He's just popped over to Wikipedia to do a bit of research....

This is laughable...

Why would they run the prototype with the high creep resistant alloy and then not use it in production?

They had access to the extensive nickel resources of Finland for almost the whole of the war, so it can't be a shortage of nickel.

Raus, raus mit das ratschitten stoff!

Magnon said:

This is laughable...

Click to expand...

Erm, no, incase you haven't noticed it yet you're the one everyone's laughing at.

Why would they run the prototype with the high creep resistant alloy and then not use it in production?

They had access to the extensive nickel resources of Finland for almost the whole of the war, so it can't be a shortage of nickel.

Click to expand...

Aah the ignorance is strong in this one!

From Magnon's favorite source:
The initial 004A engines built to power the Me 262 prototypes had been built without restrictions on materials, and they used scarce raw materials such as nickel, cobalt, and molybdenum in quantities which were unacceptable in production.

The bottom line is that the Germans are just a nation of losers. They haven't won a war yet.

They copied aircraft from the Americans (Wright brothers). They copied jet engines from the British (Whittle patented it in the early thirties), but didn't manage to copy Nimonic 80 because of wartime security.

The only thing they have produced of any note was the cuckoo clock, or was that the Swiss?

Click to expand...

Why do I have a feeling this will be one of Magnon's last posts on this forum?

Great Info

Magnon said:

This is laughable...

Why would they run the prototype with the high creep resistant alloy and then not use it in production?

They had access to the extensive nickel resources of Finland for almost the whole of the war, so it can't be a shortage of nickel.

Raus, raus mit das ratschitten stoff!

Click to expand...

Magnon, cool it with the name calling. If you want to make a point, please do so without calling another nation "losers". We have some fine members here who are German and, like any other nationality, we won't tolerate blanket accusations.

Fact is, you made a valid point regarding the run-time of the engines but then tossed that in the trash with the comment.

You and Soren are both right in that the engine was developed with proper metals to run but circumstances dictated alternate metals which reduced operation time.

Hawk 75 said:

I know this is a little off topic, but I wonder how well the P80A would have faired against the Me262?

Click to expand...

There's a thread here on exactly that topic although I'm not sure if it was a P-80 A they trialled it against. IIRC the tests carried out by USAAF crews showed them both to be rather similar in performance especially regarding parameters speed and climb. One test pilot was quoted as favoring the Me 262.

Magnon is not going to last long at all. One more stupid comment out of his mouth like that, and he is gone!

To all Forum Members:

Comments like that about ANY nation will not be tolerated! Comments like that are ignorant, worthless and are not constructive to this forum.

the comments and I agree with Chris really had nothing to do with the 262 vs the Meteor comparisons, unfortunate as the simple rebuttal from this member did not work and was called out and was in excuse to turn the tables on my question to ansers with bogus back up statements not even worthy. Once again it appears another member needs to read up on the overal operations privately and then make comment and not just one to two sources for proof.

really sad to have to read further and nearly puke on this thread