Jump to content

  • Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log in with Windows Live Log In with Steam Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account

Photo
- - - - -

Duel: Messerschmitt Me 262 vs. Gloster Meteor


  • Please log in to reply
246 replies to this topic

#1 Romantic Technofreak

Romantic Technofreak

    GOT Custodian

  • Forum Guru
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,553 posts
  • Joined 10 Years, 8 Months and 22 Days
  • 255 topics

Posted 24 October 2004 - 11:14 PM

Let´s do a jet duel, friens. Our contenders are

the Gloster Meteor:

Posted Image

and the Messerschmitt Me 262:

Posted Image

They didn´t encounter each other in WWII, but they missed each other only for weeks. What do you think would have happened if they met?
Please also consider chances for further development of the both.

Facebook Comments

#2 simon

simon

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 1,204 posts
  • Joined 11 Years, 11 Months and 20 Days
  • 38 topics

Posted 25 October 2004 - 12:07 AM

Good topic.

Well given initial service versions of each, and assuming each was reasonably equally positioned, the Me262 is of course far superior to the Meteor MkI. However other factors make it not perhaps such an unequal fight as it first appears. The Me262s engines are of course notoriously unreliable, and the 30mm cannon whilst powerful were not ideal dogfighting weapons and also prone to jam.

The Meteor however had more reliable engines and the early bugs in Britain's 20mm Cannon had long been ironed out by this point, giving a reliable, effective dogfighting weapon. The four weapons would be more than sufficient to down an Me262 with a short burst, whereas the Me262s if they hit would be distinctly overkill on a target like a Meteor.

Even on the early marks it's a difficult one to answer. On paper the 262 is far and away the better machine (And of course the more technically advanced design), however the Meteor would have been the better dogfighter if the Messerschmitt pilot could be lured away from a Zoom-and-boom scrap, and the edge passes distinctly to the Meteor if one of the Me262s engines failed, an event which would not have been unlikely.

#3 robert

robert

    Regular Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 263 posts
  • Joined 10 Years, 8 Months and 14 Days
  • 4 topics

Posted 25 October 2004 - 01:22 AM

Meteor F.1 or Meteor F.3?

#4 GregP

GregP

    Forum Guru

  • Forum Guru
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,506 posts
  • Joined 10 Years, 10 Months and 28 Days
  • 196 topics

Posted 25 October 2004 - 02:12 AM

The 262 would have won most of the confrontations unless the Meteor found a 262 in the landing pattern or else flying home on one engine.

The Meteor may never have come into existence if the Germans had built the 262 as soon as they COULD have and if they had used it as a fighter or bomber destroyer.

In any case, no version of the Meteor was as good a machine as the Me-262. I think the 262 could have been developed into a very potent fighter after the war if the Allies had chosen to develop it and continue the German type into service.

Also, the 262 could have had the critical Mach number increased with some research to the point where it was routinely flying in the 600 to 650 mph range, ot better. Granted the F Mk.8 was close at 598 mph, but it was the fastest Meteor by a wide margin. The other marks weren't even close. The Me-262, on the other hand, may have been a good match for the planes we were flying 8 years later.

This is, of course, speculation. However, we now have at least one flying Me-262 wiith modern engines built by the Stormbirds operation.

I would be curious to see it flown and reported on by a fighter pilot familiar with Meteors, P-80s, F-86s, CVampires, and Hunters. The Stormbirds are placarded at about 520 mph, but that is done for safety reasons since the reproductions are not at war. The wing and tail airfoils are the same as used on the Me-262 that was stored for so long at Willow Grove NAS in Philadelphis, PA, U.S.A., so it has WWII aerodynamics even though the engines are modern.

Perhaps a pilot's report in some future FLight Journal magazine?

#5 robert

robert

    Regular Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 263 posts
  • Joined 10 Years, 8 Months and 14 Days
  • 4 topics

Posted 25 October 2004 - 03:37 AM

quote:Originally posted by GregP



Also, the 262 could have had the critical Mach number increased with some research to the point where it was routinely flying in the 600 to 650 mph range, ot better. Granted the F Mk.8 was close at 598 mph, but it was the fastest Meteor by a wide margin. The other marks weren't even close. The Me-262, on the other hand, may have been a good match for the planes we were flying 8 years later.


The production Meteor F.4, which was flying (in prototype form) in 1945, had a top speed of 585 mph. I think that's close.

Specially prepared Meteors cleared 600 mph routinely. The Meteor, of course, held the World Speed Record in 1946/1947, with F.4 EE549, flown by E.M. Donaldson, setting a record of 615.65 mph on September 7, 1946. The same aircraft, flown by Bill Waterton, flew from London to Paris at an average speed of 618.4 mph on January 19, 1947. Although not an official record attempt, D.V. Coates-Preedy flew Gloster's demonstration Meteor F.4 G-AIDC from Brussels to Copenhagen on April 22, 1947 at an average speed of 630 mph.

I still maintain that the Me 262 was put into service at the earliest possible moment. As William Green said in Warplanes of the Third Reich:

"...the simple fact remains that Junkers failed to resolve the problems poised by series manufacture of the turbojet powering the Me 262 until mid-1944, and thus could not commence volume deliveries to Messerschmitt until the following September/October. Furthermore, the consensus of opinion of those actually engaged in the design development and testing of the Me 262 was to be that the fighter was introduced to service at the earliest practicable stage in its evolution; that any earlier deployment of the warplane on a large scale would have been entirely premature."

One can always play "what if", but then one must also consider the impact of a fully funded RAF jet program backing Frank Whittle in 1936, and Meteors being ready for the Battle of Britain...

#6 curmudgeon

curmudgeon

    Regular Member

  • Regulars
  • PipPipPip
  • 867 posts
  • Joined 11 Years, 6 Months and 11 Days
  • 15 topics

Posted 25 October 2004 - 05:51 AM


quote:
"...the simple fact remains that Junkers failed to resolve the problems poised by series manufacture of the turbojet powering the Me 262 until mid-1944, and thus could not commence volume deliveries to Messerschmitt until the following September/October. Furthermore, the consensus of opinion of those actually engaged in the design development and testing of the Me 262 was to be that the fighter was introduced to service at the earliest practicable stage in its evolution; that any earlier deployment of the warplane on a large scale would have been entirely premature."

One can always play "what if", but then one must also consider the impact of a fully funded RAF jet program backing Frank Whittle in 1936, and Meteors being ready for the Battle of Britain...


The Me262 is the favourite romantics' plane. Yes it is pretty, yes it is (in theory) wildly ahead of the opposition. Yes it was an irrelevance.

After WW II only the Czechs produced 'new' Me262s ... none of the major powers bothered. Which should tell us something as both the UK and the US had reliable engines that could have powered the airframe.

If it could have bounced a Meteor (1, 3 or 4) it would likely have succeeded in destroying it. If it was bounced it in turn would have been destroyed. It wasn't a dogfighter, so in a dogfight it could have gone either way ... except that the 262's 30mm cannon jammed if fired under even moderate g forces, and the Meteor (3, 4) had a tighter turning circle at dogfight speeds than the 262 would have been harder to outrun than the piston engined fighters that did kill 262s that were foolish enough dogfight - remember early jets didn't accelerate well.

From maintenance records - day 1: 262?, day 2: 262?, day 3 and forever after: Meteor ... the 262s would never have got off the canvas.

BTW (off topic) RAAF Meteor ground attack aircraft had success(es) and few losses against MiG 15s in Korea.

#7 GregP

GregP

    Forum Guru

  • Forum Guru
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,506 posts
  • Joined 10 Years, 10 Months and 28 Days
  • 196 topics

Posted 25 October 2004 - 07:31 AM

I am aware of the Meteor's success in Korea.

Nevertheless, I think the 262 was a better aircraft in WWII. After WWII is another story, and you could make a case for either plane. Still, early Meteors went less than 500 mph and were developed into 600 mph airplanes, though not routinely in service ... more of a "let's clean one up, wax it, and make it as smooth as possible, and make the run with mimimum fuel and no antennas on it" sort of thing.

My point is that, with similar cleanup, the Me-262 could also have been improved a great deal. If fitted with a larter, higher=power engine, it might also have made a good single-engine plane.

Who can say?

I appreciate the Meat Box and its contributions. I just think that the German designs, partlcularly the Me-262, He-280, and the piston Ta-152 series could have been developed into an effective fighter force easily.

History is usully written by the victors of a conflict, perhpas rightly so, perhaps not. I simply state that the early German jets could easily have been a deciding factor is deployed correctly and with sufficient Luftwaffe support.

Of course, this would also mean Hitler would suddenly have gotten smart and listened to his advisors. That, too, fortunately never happened.


#8 BuzzLightyear

BuzzLightyear

    Regular Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 222 posts
  • Joined 10 Years, 7 Months and 29 Days
  • 12 topics

Posted 25 October 2004 - 09:03 AM

IMO, the Germans were well on their way to having a transonic plane in the Me-262. A clean airframe and axial flow engines were already in place. More highly swept wings and a redesigned stabilizer may have done it.

The Meteor used in Korea was hardly the same plane used in WWII. Nevertheless, while it had some success against the MiG-15 (so did the F-80 and F-84), it was more a target for the MiG than a hunter.

#9 simon

simon

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 1,204 posts
  • Joined 11 Years, 11 Months and 20 Days
  • 38 topics

Posted 25 October 2004 - 02:49 PM

"The Meteor may never have come into existence if the Germans had built the 262 as soon as they COULD have and if they had used it as a fighter or bomber destroyer."

"I simply state that the early German jets could easily have been a deciding factor is deployed correctly and with sufficient Luftwaffe support."

Two very sweeping statements. OK this prompts me to ask the next question then, how?

For a start the Me262 was put into service as soon as reliable engines were available and although issued to bomber units many of those "Bombers" still seemed to have been used as fighters and bomber interceptors. So the Me262 was used as soon as it could have been, unless you intended series production of the piston engine prototypes... ;)

As for being a deciding factor, against what? The whole of the allied war machine? How could the Me262 have ever turned the war for the Eastern front for example?

As I said earlier, the Me262 was one of the most technically advanced designs of the war. The superiority of the aircraft possibly exceeded the abilities of the Luftwaffe to service and maintain it, and certainly the ability to provide pilots capable of flying it.

I also stated in another thread that the only way to have completed halted the US Daylight bomber offensive would have been to destroy the production lines on the mainland USA, something the Me262 was patently incapable of doing. Otherwise the US would have just increased the numbers of fighter escorts until the Luftwaffe interceptors were completely swamped. Something the US was capable of doing.

Phrases like "The Me262 could have won the war!" are often used, but I have yet to hear any convincing arguments as to exactly how.

#10 Corsarius

Corsarius

    Regular Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 656 posts
  • Joined 10 Years, 11 Months and 20 Days
  • 19 topics

Posted 26 October 2004 - 04:17 AM

"the Me-262 could have won the war!"

*ahem* just kidding.

I would say, however, that if Australians were equipped with more developed Schwalbes than Meteors in Korea, we might have given them a bit more stick (although we did all right for an aircraft that was considerably outclassed).

I'd go with the schwalbe against the meteor, but only just, as the schwalbe had superior performance, it's armament was not really designed for dogfighting and there the meteor has it.

#11 GregP

GregP

    Forum Guru

  • Forum Guru
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,506 posts
  • Joined 10 Years, 10 Months and 28 Days
  • 196 topics

Posted 26 October 2004 - 07:29 AM

Hi Simon,

My statement about the Meteor goes along these lines.

If the Me-262 had been put into production in 1941, then daylight bombing of the third reich may have been proven very difficult if not impossible. In that case, the Germans would have retained a foothold in France and so would have had airfields on the west coast of France, putting them in a position to throw impressive air power at convoys approaching Great Britain.

In such case, the Whittle research may have been abandoned in favor of more conventional fighter and bomber protection.I do NOT say the end of the war would have changed, I am only speculating about "what ifs" regarding the Me-262.

I dispute that the engines weren't ready until 1944. They were almost no more reliable in 1944 than they were in 1941.

History is history and we KNOW what happened. This is all mere speculation, and I reserve the right to speculate as I see fit. I offer you the same privelidge ... so go ahead and speculate how my speculation could not have happened.

I say it COULD have, but didn't. Of course, Mars could ALSO have invaded Earth, but didn't.

#12 JoeB

JoeB

    Regular Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 166 posts
  • Joined 10 Years, 3 Months
  • 0 topics

Posted 26 October 2004 - 11:53 PM

"BTW (off topic) RAAF Meteor ground attack aircraft had success(es) and few losses against MiG 15s in Korea."

"The Meteor used in Korea was hardly the same plane used in WWII. Nevertheless, while it had some success against the MiG-15 (so did the F-80 and F-84), it was more a target for the MiG than a hunter."

It is OT, developed versions of the end of WWII straight wings were considerably more capable (F-80C v. F-80A too), and the MiG-15 bore no resemblance in perforamce to any WWII a/c.

But FWIW I agree much more with the second statement. Trying to serve as air superiotity fighter 5 Meteors were downed by Soviet MiG-15's, in combats all recognizable in Soviet accounts (ie. against them not the Chinese); they claimed a lot more Meteors (as wont to do in all Korean combats) but no losses for them contrary to 2 claims by Meteors in those combats. Later when relegated to fighter bomber role a Meteor claimed a MiG in one engagement, and a Chinese account appears to admit the loss of two of their MiG's in the same combat. So 2:5 overall.

Some straight wings did better; The Panther did best with 5 (official claim and actual result though not the same 5) MiG kills by USN F9F's for 1 loss of a USMC F9F. F-80C's used as air superiority fighters v. MiG's (Nov '50 through March '51) downed 6-7 MiG's against 3-5 losses of their own (real kills of MiG's remarkably only 2 officially credited and one of those is wrong; 3-5 reflects one incident of safe F-80 return but written off and one thought lost to AAA but possibly corresponding to a MiG claim). Later the MiG's improved the score by occasionally picking off F-80's acting as fighter bombers.

Again FWIW in a small statitical sample with other differences (tactical situations, which specific MiG units, etc) an evolved Meteor seemed perhaps less able to deal with an aerodynamically overmatching plane than evolved versions of rough contemporaries.

Joe

#13 curmudgeon

curmudgeon

    Regular Member

  • Regulars
  • PipPipPip
  • 867 posts
  • Joined 11 Years, 6 Months and 11 Days
  • 15 topics

Posted 28 October 2004 - 01:24 PM

quote:Originally posted by GregP


My statement about the Meteor goes along these lines.

If the Me-262 had been put into production in 1941, then daylight bombing of the third reich may have been proven very difficult if not impossible. In that case, the Germans would have retained a foothold in France and so would have had airfields on the west coast of France, putting them in a position to throw impressive air power at convoys approaching Great Britain.

I dispute that the engines weren't ready until 1944. They were almost no more reliable in 1944 than they were in 1941.

History is history and we KNOW what happened. This is all mere speculation, and I reserve the right to speculate as I see fit. I offer you the same privelidge ... so go ahead and speculate how my speculation could not have happened.


well despite flying a prototype in July 1942, and a preproduction unit in very late '43 (normal delay for most WW II aircraft) the first production 262s weren't off the assembly lines until May '44. Even then the engines had a service life of 25 hours. A service life of 10 hours (the 1942 versions, hot off Junkers prototype line) just wasn't viable. The engines weren't available until mid 1944.

Pilot conversion was a problem. In late '44 Galland removed the 262s from combat to resume pilot training ...

The Meteor III (late '44) was closely comparable with the Temest V as a dogfighter (see http://www.faqs.org/...r/avmeteor.html), the only downside (heaviness of its ailerons) was a design feature to compensate for another perceived problem (to limit the pilots doing violent aerobatics with consequent strain on the wings). The Schwalbe had a dogfighting performance reminiscent of a brick, it also fell apart when hit. In Korea (I know OT ... I raised it) Meteors made it home about half the times they were hit by 23mm or 37mm cannon ... survivable.

Late design Meteor IIIs had their tailpipes lengthened to avoid compression buffet and their speed went up by 70-80 mph, well over the Schwalbe's top speed.

Me262 - very pretty, and the allies were lucky the Germans decided to build them. Having read up more on the topic I understand why the RAF Meteor pilots in north Europe wanted to scrap with 262s. With deeper insight I think the Meteor III would have won the majority of 'even' combats ...

#14 Lightning

Lightning

    Forum Guru

  • Forum Guru
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,723 posts
  • Joined 10 Years, 6 Months and 14 Days
  • 44 topics

Posted 28 October 2004 - 09:31 PM

Hi curmudgeon,

My references give the MK III the advantage in ceiling and range while giving the advantage to the 262 in speed and climb:

Ceiling-
* Meteor MK III: 44,000 ft
* 262A-1a : 37,565 ft

Range-
* Meteor MK III: 1340 mi
* 262A-1a : 652 mi

Speed-
* Meteor MK III: 493 mph @ 30,000 ft
* 262A-1a : 540 mph @ 19,685 ft

Climb-
* Meteor MK III: 2155 ft/min
* 262a-1a : 3937 ft/min

How many Meteor MK IIIs had the tailpipe modification which you describe? Were there enough to be significant?

Also, much is made of the malfunctioning of the 262's guns, but the Meteor's guns gave much trouble as well. In early attempts to destroy V1 "Buzzbombs", Meteors lost valuable opportunities in this regard. In fact, on several occasions, the pilot had to resort to "tipping" the V1 over with his wingtip when his guns failed.

#15 Ricky

Ricky

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 2,448 posts
  • Joined 11 Years, 5 Months and 11 Days
  • 117 topics

Posted 29 October 2004 - 07:10 PM

Appearently Meteors in service with Israel (they got a few NF versions, though they were not in use for long) experienced much trouble with their cannons. I read an account of an Israeli pilot who shot down an Arab recon plane 'with one cannon, as the other(s?) had failed, again'.
Obviously, that is a paraphrase, from memory!


#16 PMN1

PMN1

    Forum Guru

  • Forum Guru
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,194 posts
  • Joined 10 Years, 5 Months and 18 Days
  • 232 topics

Posted 30 October 2004 - 05:50 AM

quote:Originally posted by simon
[br Otherwise the US would have just increased the numbers of fighter escorts until the Luftwaffe interceptors were completely swamped. Something the US was capable of doing.


Have you read 'The Hitler Options' edited by Kenneth Macksey - this is exactly one of the options in this book.

It explores alternate decisions and their impacts on WW2.

Two other interesting books are 'Rising Sun Victorious' and 'Third Reich Victorious' edited by Peter G Tsouras

#17 PMN1

PMN1

    Forum Guru

  • Forum Guru
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,194 posts
  • Joined 10 Years, 5 Months and 18 Days
  • 232 topics

Posted 30 October 2004 - 05:54 AM

I'm currently in the middle of reading 'Whittle - the true story' by John Golley and it does raise some interesting 'if onlys'.

Its currently 1938 in the book and our back isn't against the wall so we haven't given the crown jewels to our US cousins yet.

:)

#18 curmudgeon

curmudgeon

    Regular Member

  • Regulars
  • PipPipPip
  • 867 posts
  • Joined 11 Years, 6 Months and 11 Days
  • 15 topics

Posted 01 November 2004 - 07:14 AM

quote:Originally posted by Lightning

Hi curmudgeon,

My references give the MK III the advantage in ceiling and range while giving the advantage to the 262 in speed and climb:

....

How many Meteor MK IIIs had the tailpipe modification which you describe? Were there enough to be significant?

Also, much is made of the malfunctioning of the 262's guns, but the Meteor's guns gave much trouble as well. In early attempts to destroy V1 "Buzzbombs", Meteors lost valuable opportunities in this regard. In fact, on several occasions, the pilot had to resort to "tipping" the V1 over with his wingtip when his guns failed.


searched and searched ... the original web-based information said 'late in the production run' and something about retrofitting in the field. So numbers would be plastic (and there were only 2 trial squadrons in the field). I almost gave up and admitted to a post-war thing (the F. 4 prototypes had the feature), but then on paper Gunston stated this modification occurred 'late in the war'. This mod probably changed the RAF plan to use Vampires as their preferred fighter if the war had continued (Vampires were issued to a squadron in late April 45 after manufacture was farmed out to English Electric with consequent delays).

The Meteor Mk I had major problems with the cannon due to spent cases jamming the shutes, this was fixed for the Mk III.

Straight wings were slower, but were much better dogfighters, than swept wings. With 1st and 2nd generation jets the low engine acceleration meant speed was lost rapidly when manoeuvring began. Even 3rd generation combat occurred subsonic with power used to accelerate the beasts ... so we are moving into a narrow speed range with engine and aerodynamic acceleration balancing.

#19 GregP

GregP

    Forum Guru

  • Forum Guru
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,506 posts
  • Joined 10 Years, 10 Months and 28 Days
  • 196 topics

Posted 01 November 2004 - 10:32 AM

Interesting to speculate on 3rd-generation jet fighters. We now posess the capability to build fighters that won't bleed down to subsonic speeds while maneuvering, but we are also wanting stealth. Once you throw stealth into the fray, the aerodynamics goes to hell in a handbasket, and we're back to dogfighters at about mach 1 or so.

It will be interesting to see how the F-22 Raptor plays out when it becomes operational. Many Russian think the MiG 1.44 would give the Raptor a better-than-even fight, but I say the Raptor would sight the MiG 1.44 well before the MiG would sight the Raptor due to stealth, and the incomin missile from the Raptor would not have to dogfight.

Anyway, it would be very nice to argue 4th-generation jets, but this is a WWII forum. If not, I'd argue very hard for maintaining manned fighters augmented with UAVs.

Hey Taglia, how about operning a forum on aircraft in the Korean, vietnam, cold war, and new-generation stuff? I could argue the Korean war jets for hours! I love MiGs, having worked on several and taxied one around for over 30 minutes.

#20 Romantic Technofreak

Romantic Technofreak

    GOT Custodian

  • Forum Guru
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,553 posts
  • Joined 10 Years, 8 Months and 22 Days
  • 255 topics

Posted 01 November 2004 - 10:47 PM

Thank you for the many answers, friends. It´s always good to see having created a topic that produces interest![^]
I would like to continue with a speculation why the Me 262 wasn´t produced again after WWII. Maybe the two-jet concept for fighter was only necessary as long as only not-too-powerful jets were available. After WWII, the situation changed. Better jet engines came up everywhere, and the flight characteristics could be improved significantly by moving the one and only engine towards the gravity center of the aiplane, into the fuselage. If so, it would also make the Meteor a fading concept as time goes by. Am I right?

But, the Me 262 over Korea would have been a nice sight! Only question is, on which side? Maybe on both?:)




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

AVIATION TOP 100 - www.avitop.com Avitop.com