I think it was something to do with Me 262s and Meteors and dogfights...
But which Meteor? Post No.2 went into this - but you seem to have concentrated on the Mk.8 with all the MiG references. This is well beyond the scope of the thread.
Zyzygie’s Mumbles and Rambles
- Thread starter Zyzygie
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
But which Meteor? Post No.2 went into this - but you seem to have concentrated on the Mk.8 with all the MiG references. This is well beyond the scope of the thread.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
It was originally intended to compare the Me262 and Meteor (1944-45 marks) in a hypothetical encounter - not this rambling bullshit that's taken over the thread.
Which is why the mods changed the title.
Ah, I see. It kinda makes it difficult for anyone wanting to search for constructive discussion on the merits of both types now the thread's been renamed.
One person to thank for that...
Maybe when I feel better, I will remove all of his ramblings into a separate thread, and rename this one back. Then if he continues to ramble, we can deal with that accordingly.
Me 262 and Meteor (44-45 models) discussion only here, and his rambles in another. People can then choose to go in there, or avoid it.
Me 262 and Meteor (44-45 models) discussion only here, and his rambles in another. People can then choose to go in there, or avoid it.
Last edited:
glennasher
Senior Airman
This place has the worst "thread drift" of any of the web places I hang out, but at least I learn things, even if I am often befuddled by the way things drift off topic. Regardless, I am learning things, and that's not a bad thing, overall.
Still, I'd like it better if there was less of the thread drift, sometimes it's just silly.
Still, I'd like it better if there was less of the thread drift, sometimes it's just silly.
No disagreements from me.
Yup, rest up mate. You got more important stuff to deal with right now.
- Thread starter
- #589
Well OK. I am learning too. For instance, I thought the P47 was just a case of brute force against the Mustang's finesse. But the P47M was faster, much more versatile (dogfighter, interceptor and ground attack) and reasonably maneuverable.
My justification in bringing it into the thread was that at 475 mph it was similar (but slightly slower) speed than the Meteor Mark 3 at 493 mph, and if anything lower maneuverability. Yet it had a 2 - 0 dogfight record against the Me 262 before they sadly ran out of a war.
(That's not counting the taking out of Me262s on takeoff and landing.)
Both the P47M and Meteor have a significant advantage in terms of service ceiling and certainly reliability...
Also, both had high-velocity guns/cannon as against the Me262 which with low-velocity "mines" was optimised for taking out heavy bombers. (*Minengeschoss' ("mine-shell"))
As Eric Brown said, the Me262 was an interceptor not a dogfighter.
Last edited:
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
Even though the Me262 was a "Heavy Fighter", it could, in the right hands, prove to be deadly against an adversary.
Quite a few Allied fighter pilots discovered this the hard way.
Quite a few Allied fighter pilots discovered this the hard way.
- Thread starter
- #591
Further to the Minengeschoss:
"...The shorter flight time of [a high-velocity projectile], plus the larger number fired for a given weight of armament, greatly improves the hit probability of this armament by comparison with the slower-firing cannon, making shoot-downs more likely..."
WORLD WAR 2 FIGHTER GUN EFFECTIVENESS
But this was not applicable to dealing with bombers...
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
Not sure if you're aware of what a 30mm Minengeschoß round does to it's target, but one hit to a fighter can be catastrophic and a large share of the Me262 pilots were experten and knew the RoF of the MK108 and how to land hits with deflection aiming.
Plenty of vintage guncam videos out there that show what a MK103 and MK108 can do to bombers, a fighter is not nearly as rugged.
Plenty of vintage guncam videos out there that show what a MK103 and MK108 can do to bombers, a fighter is not nearly as rugged.
- Thread starter
- #593
Hi Grau, have you forgotten something?
The reason a high percentage of the Me262 pilots were experten was that anyone else was liable to have a short life expectancy...
See:
"I flamed out once when I was in transition training. I was used to pushing the throttle full to increase takeoff power. This was a great error in the jet. I know that many of the pilots who were killed flying the jet probably died due to stalling out this way. The 262 was a very heavy aircraft when compared to the 109 and 190, and at low speed I would equate it to flying a brick..."
Walter "Graf" Kuprinski (from Post #802)
Last edited:
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
I haven't forgotten anything.
I'm aware of the pilot allocation to the jet Jabos staffels and the majority were Experten and they were MORE than capable of defending themselves when bounced.
I am fully aware of Brown's sentiments and God knows you've posted those quotes ad nauseum, but if you researched the Me262 pilot records half as much as you posted that other crap, you'd discover that Me262s downed a considerable amount of Allied fighter types, such as P-51s, Spitfires, P-38s, Mosquitos, P-47s and so on.
YES, the Me262 was NOT a true fighter, however it was purely capable of engaging a fighter AS LONG AS THE PILOT MAINTAINED HIS SPEED ADVANTAGE.
Read about Brown's observations regarding the Me262's ability to maintain high-speed turns that piston fighters were not capable of performing.
Quite a few instances where a Me262 was ravaging bombers only to turn on a pursuing escort and shoot it down.
I'm aware of the pilot allocation to the jet Jabos staffels and the majority were Experten and they were MORE than capable of defending themselves when bounced.
I am fully aware of Brown's sentiments and God knows you've posted those quotes ad nauseum, but if you researched the Me262 pilot records half as much as you posted that other crap, you'd discover that Me262s downed a considerable amount of Allied fighter types, such as P-51s, Spitfires, P-38s, Mosquitos, P-47s and so on.
YES, the Me262 was NOT a true fighter, however it was purely capable of engaging a fighter AS LONG AS THE PILOT MAINTAINED HIS SPEED ADVANTAGE.
Read about Brown's observations regarding the Me262's ability to maintain high-speed turns that piston fighters were not capable of performing.
Quite a few instances where a Me262 was ravaging bombers only to turn on a pursuing escort and shoot it down.
- Thread starter
- #595
OK, so we agree...
If an aircraft is optimised as an interceptor, you don't expect it also to perform exceptionally as a dogfighter.
The one is a "pit bull" and the other's a "wolfhound."
- Thread starter
- #596
"...It was originally intended to compare the Me262 and Meteor (1944-45 marks) in a hypothetical encounter..."
The Meteor F4 could fit a '45 definition:
"...The Gloster Meteor F Mk.IV was the first post-war version of the Meteor, and was a dramatic improvement on the Meteor F Mk.III. The main reason for the improved performance of the Meteor IV was its engines. Rolls-Royce had developed a new jet engine, the Nene. This was much more powerful than the early Derwent engines used in the Meteor, but was too big to fit into the Meteor's engine nacelles."
"Rolls-Royce responded by producing a scaled-down version, 85.5% of the size of the Nene, which it gave the name Derwent V. This new engine provided 3,500lb of thrust, a 50% increase on the power offered by the Derwent IV used in later Meteor IIIs. The Derwent V ran for the first time on the test bench on 7 June 1945."
Gloster Meteor F Mk.IV
"This new engine was then fitted to a Meteor Mk.III (serial EE360), to make the F Mk.IV prototype. This made its maiden flight on 15 August 1945... Tests revealed that the new Meteor had much better performance than earlier models, reaching 570mph at 10,000ft, nearly 80mph more than the fastest Mk.IIIs. Acceleration was also dramatically improved. While earlier versions of the Meteor had been somewhat pedestrian, the Mk.IV would twice create new World Air Speed Records. The Mk.IV also had fully harmonised controls, making it much easier to fly..."
From Eric Brown:
But I'm guessing that you're referring to aircraft which were in-service in 1945 only...
The Meteor F4 could fit a '45 definition:
"...The Gloster Meteor F Mk.IV was the first post-war version of the Meteor, and was a dramatic improvement on the Meteor F Mk.III. The main reason for the improved performance of the Meteor IV was its engines. Rolls-Royce had developed a new jet engine, the Nene. This was much more powerful than the early Derwent engines used in the Meteor, but was too big to fit into the Meteor's engine nacelles."
"Rolls-Royce responded by producing a scaled-down version, 85.5% of the size of the Nene, which it gave the name Derwent V. This new engine provided 3,500lb of thrust, a 50% increase on the power offered by the Derwent IV used in later Meteor IIIs. The Derwent V ran for the first time on the test bench on 7 June 1945."
Gloster Meteor F Mk.IV
"This new engine was then fitted to a Meteor Mk.III (serial EE360), to make the F Mk.IV prototype. This made its maiden flight on 15 August 1945... Tests revealed that the new Meteor had much better performance than earlier models, reaching 570mph at 10,000ft, nearly 80mph more than the fastest Mk.IIIs. Acceleration was also dramatically improved. While earlier versions of the Meteor had been somewhat pedestrian, the Mk.IV would twice create new World Air Speed Records. The Mk.IV also had fully harmonised controls, making it much easier to fly..."
From Eric Brown:
But I'm guessing that you're referring to aircraft which were in-service in 1945 only...
Last edited:
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
The problem here, that people are forgetting the basic principle of a turning fight: you lose airspeed.OK, so we agree...
If an aircraft is optimised as an interceptor, you don't expect it also to perform exceptionally as a dogfighter.
The one is a "pit bull" and the other's a "wolfhound."
If the 262's engines had functioned as originally designed, then it would have been better suited for a furball even though it was built for speed.
Trying to put it up against slower prop jobs would be like pitting a Spitfire against a Fokker D.VII - that Spit would be able to overtake the D.VII but the Fokker would easily turn inside of the Spitfire and land rounds while the Spit was turning wide.
The He280, which had a different engine design and an elliptical wing, was far better suited for a turning fight.
The Me262 also presented a steep learning curve as it was new technology and the book of "does and don'ts" for jet combat had nothing but blank pages at that point in time.
while we can't oppose the fact about the reliability or piston engines at the end of the war, we could also discuss the reliability of the Derwent engines....except some vague quotes about the 004, what could you post about the Derwents?
Now, for the Altitude advantage, i'd like YOU to check the RAE report : http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/meteor/Meteor-CFE.pdf , Page 29 showing The RAE being unable to perform any decent tests above 20000ft (+/-6500m) due to surging engines, those engines were from 1946 and not 1944 or 45! Meaning they had been optimised in the afterwar period but still had some predominant issues.
It seems you haven't saw any pictures from a 108 an an airframe, One 108 hit on a fighter is a kill.
Always the same quotes... now what do you think will happen when you slam the Derwent engine like an engine piston? ...keep it secret, don't tell anyone, otherwise the web legend could be broken: it will flame out...
OK, so we agree...
If an aircraft is optimised as an interceptor, you don't expect it also to perform exceptionally as a dogfighter.
The one is a "pit bull" and the other's a "wolfhound."
The 262 was build from the start as a fighter, a very fast one, that needed new tactics and a new way to "dogfight", it wasn't designed/build as an interceptor.
Another web legend.
"...It was originally intended to compare the Me262 and Meteor (1944-45 marks) in a hypothetical encounter..."
The Meteor F4 could fit a '45 definition:
.....
But I'm guessing that you're referring to aircraft which were in-service in 1945 only...
No it doesn't fit the definition, to compare the meteor to the 262 you have only 2 options: MK1 or MK3.
What happend after 8May45 is NOT relevant to the discussion.
It seems you try to avoid the RAE 1946 report about the MK3 called "Tactical Trials Meteor III"
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/meteor/Meteor-CFE.pdf
RAE (the reference establishement for aircraft trials in GB, not just a pilot's quote! ) concluded the Meteor MKIII wasn't fit for combat, and this was in 1946, with already upgraded engines. The Meteor3 was a DOG, even a COW in combat, it wasn't able to perform the basic combat maneuvres. POINT.
We could also discuss the other points that make an airplane a fighter , like the pilot position, the instruments layout, commands position, back up and emergency systems,etc...
The 262 proved it's ability to fight, the meteor proved only it could do some PR in an allied controlled airspace.
Reluctant Poster
Tech Sergeant
- 1,673
- Dec 6, 2006
Dogfighting died with the introduction of the monoplane. Dogfighting died with the introduction of the jet. Dogfighting died with the introduction of air to air guided missiles, yet somehow it is still with us.
Peter Gunn
Master Sergeant
Perhaps against a D model Mustang, how about the H? "much more versatile" How do you figure that?
Not sure it was more capable, but I digress, what is this thread about again?
Users who are viewing this thread
Similar threads
