Zyzygie’s Mumbles and Rambles

The intended opponent of the 262 was heavy bombers. What was the intended opponent of the Meteor? Insufficient range to escort bombers over Europe and no bombers to shoot down. I get the sense that the Meteor was built because the technology was there, and having a jet fighter seemed like a prudent idea, rather than it having a purpose like the interceptor 262.

This seems akin to a F-106 vs a MiG-21.

Ya gotta start someplace, the RAF started with the Meteor. IIRC, they did use it to chase V-1s (along with Tempests and Spitfires). You can't do it all on paper or now, computers, sooner or later you have to bend aluminum and attach engines to something, and see if it works.

Admiral Beez said:

What was the intended opponent of the Meteor? Insufficient range to escort bombers over Europe and no bombers to shoot down. I get the sense that the Meteor was built because the technology was there, and having a jet fighter seemed like a prudent idea, rather than it having a purpose like the interceptor 262.

Click to expand...

Have you read the RAF design specification of the Meteor (Specification F.18/40 ) and what it was originally designed for? Have you considered the improvements to the design?

Admiral Beez said:

The intended opponent of the 262 was heavy bombers. What was the intended opponent of the Meteor? Insufficient range to escort bombers over Europe and no bombers to shoot down. I get the sense that the Meteor was built because the technology was there, and having a jet fighter seemed like a prudent idea, rather than it having a purpose like the interceptor 262.

This seems akin to a F-106 vs a MiG-21.

Click to expand...

I dont think Britain was designing an aircraft for the hell of it in 1940/41 not when it was being attacked daily by the Luftwaffe.

fastmongrel said:

I dont think Britain was designing an aircraft for the hell of it in 1940/41 not when it was being attacked daily by the Luftwaffe.

Click to expand...

Yes, like I said, having a jet fighter seemed like a prudent idea.

I looked for the spec, but found nothing beyond it being a fighter. Was it intended, like the Me262 to shoot down the bombers you refer to from 1940/41? If interceptor was the intended role we should judge the Meteor as such, but was it, by 1944 intended to combat the German jets?

I think the idea at it's core was to make a fighter with a high performance. Everything else was incidental.

Greyman said:

I think the idea at it's core was to make a fighter with a high performance.

Click to expand...

Did the Meteor have the performance to stop the twin and four engine Arado Ar 234?



That seems to be the Meteor's natural opponent.

Admiral Beez said:

Yes, like I said, having a jet fighter seemed like a prudent idea.

I looked for the spec, but found nothing beyond it being a fighter. Was it intended, like the Me262 to shoot down the bombers you refer to from 1940/41? If interceptor was the intended role we should judge the Meteor as such, but was it, by 1944 intended to combat the German jets?

Click to expand...

The original spec called for a twin engined night fighter, the air ministry pursued further development beyond that. During it's design no one was able to fathom or intend that it was going to go up against the Me262. Had the war progressed I think we would have seen it develop much more rapidly (like all allied jets of the day) and while lagging a bit behind the 262 in some performance envelopes, "would have" been able to compete with the 262 with superior numbers (same could be said for the P-80) There's a lot of "what ifs" in this, but to answer your original question, "What was the intended opponent of the Meteor?" My answer would be "anything it encountered."

Admiral Beez said:

Did the Meteor have the performance to stop the twin and four engine Arado Ar 234?

Click to expand...

Possible but I think it would take some very skilled fighter control from the ground.

Ar 234C-3 - First Jet Bomber of Luftwaffe
Meteor F. Mk.1 415MPH
Arado B-2 458MPH

EDIT: Changed link

Admiral Beez said:

The intended opponent of the 262 was heavy bombers. What was the intended opponent of the Meteor? Insufficient range to escort bombers over Europe and no bombers to shoot down. I get the sense that the Meteor was built because the technology was there, and having a jet fighter seemed like a prudent idea, rather than it having a purpose like the interceptor 262.

This seems akin to a F-106 vs a MiG-21.

Click to expand...

The meteor was a first generation jet fighter similar to the Spit Mk1 and Me109 were first generation all metal piston engined monoplanes, technology has to start somewhere.

fubar57 said:

Ar 234C-3 - First Jet Bomber of Luftwaffe
Meteor F. Mk.1 415MPH
Arado B-2 458MPH

EDIT: Changed link

Click to expand...

So.... if I'm chasing an Arado B-2 I want to to be flying a 450 mph Tempest VI or Spitfire Mk.21

Admiral Beez said:

So.... if I'm chasing an Arado B-2 I want to to be flying a 450 mph Tempest VI or Spitfire Mk.21

Click to expand...

So would I, but something that's always missed here - when we have discussions like this, many will post the top speed of an aircraft, it doesn't mean it was always flown at its maximum speed, especially early jet aircraft.

Only if you are also in possession of a Wayback machine


"The Tempest Mk.VI fitted with a Sabre V engine first flew on May 9th, 1944 with production fully ramping up in the proceeding months. With special consideration given to Middle Eastern usage, the Tempest Mk.VI's cooling mechanisms were further modified to cope with the hotter temperatures experienced there, resulting in the installation of an extra oil cooler in the starboard wing's leading edge (much like the Tempest II). After flight trials which lasted until February 1946, the Tempest VI was finally cleared for operational usage and equipped five RAF squadrons in the Middle East along with four in Germany"

Admiral Beez said:

So.... if I'm chasing an Arado B-2 I want to to be flying a 450 mph Tempest VI or Spitfire Mk.21

Click to expand...

The Tempest VI wasn't available until after the war and its maximum speed altitude wasn't at the altitude that the Ar 234 would be flying.

The Spitfire would have more of a chance, but still slim.

Only 20 Meteor Is were built. They were superseded by the Meteor III which used more powerful Derwent I or IV engines, except the first 15 which used the Wellend, the same engine as the Mk I.

Meteor Mk III.
Statistics (most with Derwent IV engines)
Engine: Two Derwent I or Derwent IV engines
Thrust: 2,000lb (Derwent I) or 2,400lb (Derwent IV)
Span: 43ft
Length: 41.4ft
Gross Weight: 13,342lb
Maximum level speed at sea level: 486mph
Maximum level speed at 30,000ft: 493mph
Rate of climb at sea level: 3,980ft/ min
Ceiling: 46,000ft
Cruise Range at normal load: 504 miles
Armament: Four 20mm cannon in nose and two 1,000lb bombs or sixteen 90lb rocket projectiles under the wings

From Gloster Meteor F Mk.III

Also, http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/meteor/meteor3ads.jpg

Admiral Beez said:

Did the Meteor have the performance to stop the twin and four engine Arado Ar 234? That seems its primary opponent.

Click to expand...

You have to get a handle on the timelines. Unless your spies (intelligence) is very, very, very good no airplane in WW II was designed to counter any enemy airplane (modifications like jamming a the Griffon into an existing Spitfire excepted).
Initial Design work on both the Meteor and the Arado 234 started in 1940 with first flights in 1943 but actual operations didn't start until late summer of 1944. Operations of both types might best be described as sporadic. First Luftwaffe use of the Arado 234 being some of the prototypes or A series with the skid landing gear for recon. Production of 4 engine Arado 234s with real landing gear was a total of 14 in the spring of 1945, many more airframes were built but the engines were diverted to the Heinkel 162 program.

The Meteor went through several different engines and the modifications to the engine nacelles increased speed by up to 60mph using the same engines.
No 616 Squadron had gone into service with Meteor Is in July of 1944 (first V-1 kills Aug 4th) but re-equipped with MK III Meteors in Jan 1945. MK III Meteors came with a variety of
engines. However see:
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/meteor/meteor-chart-8june45.jpg
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/meteor/meteor-29sept44.pdf

Admiral Beez said:

So.... if I'm chasing an Arado B-2 in 1945, I want to to be flying a 450 mpg Tempest VI.

Click to expand...

Might depend in which month in 1945

http://etd.ohiolink.edu/send-pdf.cgi/Pavelec Sterling Michael.pdf?osu1082396007

"...Furthermore, the fundamental conception of turbojet engine technology was different between the Germans and the Allies. The Germans considered the engines peripheral within the entire aircraft system. The engines were the prime movers but the aircraft itself was the focus. This is evidenced by the importance of the aircraft designers themselves – Messerschmitt and Heinkel, as well as others – who were given the contracts for jet aircraft and later shopped for engines. Ample funding was given to Junkers Motorenbau (Jumo) and BMW for development, but the airframes were the focus, the engines were secondary. Thus, the RLM records reflect the ongoing debate in Germany over the airframes and development at Heinkel and Messerschmitt rather than more than a cursory mention of the concurrent engine programs. In Germany, the engines were less important than the airframes; the axial-flow engine was developed because it promised the best performance. The Germans were interested in developing the most capable aircraft possible under the constraints of war and time.
The Allies, on the other hand, focused on the engines. The British, led by Whittle's developments, and the Americans, building directly on the British turbojet program, continued development of the centrifugal-flow type. The Allies made the engine the center of attention and developed airframes around the powerplant. Developmental funding and effort went into improvements in the engine; airframes were an afterthought. In all three Allied wartime turbojet programs, Gloster's Meteor as well as Bell and Lockheed, the airframe designers were given engine specifications and told to develop airframes around the powerplants. Centrifugal-flow engines were improved during the war, but the Americans and British considered the turbojet aircraft superfluous to the war effort..."


https://www.456fis.org/ME-262.htm

"...The Me-262 had no real effect on the course of the war, though it would provide the Allies with plenty of inspiration in the postwar period. It was well in advance of anything the Allies had or had plans to build. Adolf Galland flew British Gloster Meteors in Argentina after the war and felt that if the Meteor's reliable engines had been mated to the Me-262's advanced airframe, the result would have been the most formidable of the first-generation jet fighters..."

The Perfect is the enemy of the Good:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_is_the_enemy_of_good

Perfect is the enemy of the good, or more literally the best is the enemy of the good, is an aphorism which is commonly attributed to Voltaire, who quoted an Italian proverb in his Dictionnaire philosophique in 1770: "Il meglio è l'inimico del bene".[2] It subsequently appeared in his moral poem La Bégueule, which starts[3]
Aristotle, Confucius, and other classical philosophers propounded the principle of the golden mean, which counsels against extremism in general.[4] The Pareto principle or 80–20 rule explains this numerically. For example, it commonly takes 20% of the full time to complete 80% of a task while to complete the last 20% of a task takes 80% of the effort.[5] Achieving absolute perfection may be impossible and so, as increasing effort results in diminishing returns, further activity becomes increasingly inefficient.
Robert Watson-Watt, who developed early warning radar in Britain to counter the rapid growth of the Luftwaffe, propounded a "cult of the imperfect", which he stated as "Give them the third best to go on with; the second best comes too late, the best never comes."[6]

FLYBOYJ said:

"...The Me-262 had no real effect on the course of the war, though it would provide the Allies with plenty of inspiration in the postwar period.

Click to expand...

I've often through the Me.262 was a design dead end.



With few exceptions, like the above Yak-28, everyone quickly moved away from underwing engine pods, instead emulating the inboard engines of the Heinkel He 178, Horten Ho 229 and the Napkinwaffe's Blohm & Voss P 197.

Admiral Beez said:

I've often through the Me.262 was a design dead end.

With few exceptions, like the above Yak-28, everyone quickly moved away from underwing engine pods, instead emulating the inboard engines of the Heinkel He 178, Horten Ho 229 and the Napkinwaffe's Blohm & Voss P 197.

Click to expand...

You're comparing a design to a configuration - two different animals.

To a great extent everyone -- outside of the military-- designs aircraft for engines and even the military pays a great deal of attention to the engine designers' plans for the next generation. It's become pretty imperative now, as engines cost more to develop than airframes (the costs for military aircraft are now dominated by the electronics and by the need to integrate everything. Considering that some recent aircraft don't have functional guns because of software issues, one may wonder whether there is a serious conceptual problem...). High speed aircraft also need a great deal of engine:airframe integration.

Regarding underwing engine mounts, there are a lot of advantages to having the engines as close to the fuselage as possible, especially in case of engine loss. On the other hand, too closely mounted engines have their own downsides. At least one F-18 was lost when one engine failed and the resulting debris fod'd the other.