Gloster Meteor vs. Me-262

[Justin Moretti]

I know these two aircraft (or any two jet aircraft in WW2) never fought each other, but does anyone know whether comparisons were done after the war? All the published figures I've seen suggest that the Meteor is much, MUCH slower, but this relates only to the 'short nacelle' MkI: I don't know whether any later marks got into service before the war's end, nor whether they were much faster.

[STEVEN]

The Meteor F.III entered service in December 1944.An advanced flight was sent to Melsbroek in Belgium,the rest of the squadron was sent to the continent in March of 1945(doesn't say where),they saw limited action (doesn't specify what "limited action" is in the info i have) before the war ended in May.

A further Squadron,504 Sqn began forming with Meteor F.III's in April 1945 but the war had ended before they were operational.

F.III Meteor's had two Rolls Royce-Whittle Welland Turbojets giving 2000lbs of thrust each,giving the F.III a top speed of 470mph at a maximum height of 30,000ft.

That i'm afraid is all i have,how does that compare to the Me262 ??.

Steven

[Justin Moretti]

Rather poorly in terms of maximum speed, I think (about 70mph gap by memory). I would have to go back and do some digging to find out other factors. The aircraft with the lowest wing loading and highest thrust-weight ratio ought to win, unless the other is capable of disengaging cleanly. Given the 262's swept wing (however minimal), I don't think it would have any problems disengaging (i.e. in a high-mach dive) from even a Meteor III (certainly not from a Mk I, rated at about 410mph). I seem to recall that critical mach number for the Meteor wasn't all that crash-hot.

The problem would be very similar IMHO to that of the Meteor F.VIII's of the RAAF in the Korean conflict, when pitted against the MiG-15. The F.VIII was much faster than the early models, but the -15 was at least as much faster again as the 262 was over the early Meteors. Result: a kill-loss ratio heavily in favour of the MiG. Advantages of the Meteor (to the extent that it had them) were: more rapid acceleration at low level (where the Meteors were, in any case, as part of their air-support role), two engines (ability to get home if one were damaged), rugged construction and armament (four relatively high-velocity cannon at high rate of fire, as compared to three heavier guns, somewhat slower, with lower MV). I suspect that the relative merits would be much the same for early Meteor vs. Me262, but of course we will never know...

[BlackSeptember1918]

Everything I've read tends to indicate the 262 would have out performed the Meteor III . An interesting book is the Messerschmidt 262 Combat Diary . In it it gives a good account of the evaluations flown . One particularly interesting part is an account from Clive Gosling who was flying Gloster Meteor's with 616 Squadron in 1945 . He was tasked with flying a 262 in May 45 from Lubeck to Fassberg .
His impressions are not in a technical sense , but more as a pilot .
He stated .
" Now , what was the Me262 like in comparison to the Meteor ? . It was 80 kph faster , the critical Mach number was higher and the rate of climb roughly similar . The rudder balance was smooth and the view from the cockpit was definately not so good . It was rather more difficult to fly and the turbines less reliable ( i imagine this was hearsay , as he only flew it the once ) . I had flown 200 hrs in the Meteor with only one engine failure . The armament was essentially heavier than the Meteor , the rate of turn less good and , with this one short flight and the manoeuves I had attempted , the amount of fuel remaining led me to believe that the fuel consumption was much higher than the Meteor , and that the Me262 could have had only a short combat radius and would have had to return to base much ealier ."
Only a short analasis , but interesting none the less I think .
A stated in ealier in my post , everything I have read indicates the Meteor III would have been out performed by the 262 , but also the combat situation would have to be taken into account . The Hawker Hurricane would not have matched up well to the 109E on paper ...but with dogfights during the B of B being around 200 mph and the combat situation it was able to give a very good account of itself .
It would have been an interesting fight to see !!...
Cheers .
Phil.

[STEVEN]

Phil


In his account Clive Gosling says the turbines were less reliable.As you say doubtful that he could determine that in one short flight.

But i have red somewhere (desperately trying to remember where) that the Me262's major short coming was it's short engine life of 26 HOURS !!!!.I can't remember if this came from analysis after the war of from captured German Records.

Have you heard or red this too ??.

Stephen

[BlackSeptember1918]

Stephen
Yes thats right mate , the engine life was something in that range . One of the major problems was that the turbine blades had to be made from lower quality material due to shortages . It was something to do with the way the blades stretched and spread under the extreme temps and pressures from memory . I have the data somewhere , and will dig it out if someone is not kind enough to add it beforehand . It would be interesting to see the data the Checoslovakian's ( thats gotta be spelt wrong ?? ) had on the 262 , as they used it as a fighter until about 1948 I think , calling it the S-92 . The 262 was designed originally to carry the BMW 003' engines and to have them mounted in the wing roots . The Jumo 004 was a larger engine so they mounted it mid wing . I've read that the performance of the 262 would have been improved if the engines had been mounted in this position , even the larger 004's .
I'll get back to you with that data , if your interested .
Cheers.
Phil.

[Wittmann's Revenge]

The Messerschmitt Me 262 was one of the first turbojet-powered aircraft to achieve combat status, and was the result of pre-war research with gas turbines in Germany. Design of the aircraft started in 1938 and the prototype airframes were ready in 1941 but , as the Junkers jet engines were not ready then the first flight took place on April 18.

When production started in 1944...Hitler persisted in demanding developemnt of the Me 262 as a bomber for reprisal raids on the UK. Development of the fighter was badly delayed and it wasd not until late in '44 that the aircraft entered Luftwaffe service. The Me 262A-la Schwalbe (Swallow) fighter was armed with four 30mm guns in the nose. It was followed by the Me 262A-la/U1 with two additional 20mm guns, the Me 262A-la/U2 bad weather fighter, and the /U3 unarmed reconnaissance aircraft.

The Me 262A-2a Sturmvogel (Stormy Petrel) bomber could carry up to 1,102lbs of bombs in addition to the 30mm guns and a two-seat version (with prone bomb aimer) Me 262A-2a/U2 was also produced.

Before the end of the war Me 262s were being flown with some success against Allied bombers both as day and night fighters (the latter were radar-equiped Me 262B-la/U1 aircraft) and air-to-air rockets were being developed. Dogged by Allied raids on factories and airfields, the Luftwaffe's jet fighter units nevertheless posed a formidable threat to Allied air superiority during the last few months of the war.

Specification:
Me 262A-la
* Single seat interceptor fighter
* two 1.984lb thrust Junkers Jumbo turbojets
* Max speed 541 mph at 29,965ft
* initial climb rate 3,937ft per minute
* ceiling 36,090ft
* normal range 525 miles

Meteor F.MkI
* Single seat interceptor fighter
* two 1,700lb thrust Rolls-Royce Welland I turbojets
* Max speed 415 mph at 10,000ft
* ceiling 40,000ft
* armament - four nose mounted 20mm Hispano cannon with provisions for six

The above information is from The Encyclopedia of Weapons of World War II

[BlackSeptember1918]

Interesting stuff from the encyclopedia Michael Wittmann .
There are a few urban legend's in there though .
From memory the 262 first flew with 2 BMW 003's and a DB605 in the nose just incase , which was a good thing as the 003's failed soon after take off ..compressor blade failure was the cause from memory . Also Hitler has been blamed often for the late entry of the 262 into service as a fighter , but people who have studied the subject believe it was more a failure to produce a servicable and reliable engine . Some even believe Hitler's idea was correct , as a fighter bomber that was able to penetrate the Allied air umbrella during D-Day would have been a real asset . Ofcourse the jet wasn't operational until after the Allied landings . Again from memory , even though Hitler forbade any work to go ahead on the fighter variant of the 262 , work continued . He was spewing when he later found out that work had continued on the fighter .
Commando Nowotney was not very successful in operating the first 262 fighter force , with all the problems of bringing an unknown aircraft type into service without it really being ready for service . JG7 was more successful , and infact had more success than the more well known JV44 Commanded by Galland .
If the R4M rocket had been available earlier , the type would have been more successful .
I have been thinking Stephen , and I believe ( again from memory ) that the Jumo 004 was replaced after 10 hours of service...but again thats from memory.
I believe KG51 brought the type into service as a fighter-bomber .
Another fault with the Jumo 004 was that the engine was very prone to flaming out , this happened mainly if the throttle was roughly handled , or if a high g manouvre was attempted . Galland's method was to set and forget the throttle at about 3 quarters.
The Welland and Jumo turbojets were actually two varients of the same idea . I think the Welland was a centrifugal turbojet and the Jumo and axial ...The axial type is the one that survives today .
I think I should consult some of the books I have on the 262 before I continue gassing on about it , but working 15 hour days means that I don't normally get a chance to enjoy my books until I am on my days off .
Cheers
Phil.

[STEVEN]

Phil

I would be very interested to see the data on the various types of engine proposed/used in the Me262.I'll await it with interest.

Wittmann's Revenge

Thanks for the comparison spec's between the Me262 and Meteor.really didn't realise that with the first version's of each fighter,that the difference between the top speed was so great.

Stephen

[STEVEN]

Both

Living were i do,Telford in Shropshire i am 15 minutes drive from RAF Cosford.Which houses the Royal Air Force Museum.In addition to the fantastic engines,rockets,prototypes,transport aircraft,warbirds,military jets on display they have an example of both the Me262 and Meteor.

The Meteor,DG202/G is the first prototype Meteor that first flew on 24.07.1942 powered by two Rover W2b engines.

The Me262 (Werk No 112372) is a Me262A-1.Early history is unknown but it ended up at Farnborough after the war,where it was given the RAF serial no VK893.

In addition to the aircraft,on display in the engine hall they have an example of the Jumo 004 and a Rolls Royce W2b/23 and a Rolls Royce Derwent (both of which powered versions of the Meteor).

Interestingly they also have an example of the Power Jets W2/700,made by Frank Whittles own company.It never went into production but in trials by 1944 it was producing 2485lbs of thrust.Examples of this engine did fly in prototype meteors.The company was taken over by the Ministry of Aircraft Production in 1944 and the project was scrapped,If Only !!.

I have attatched a photo of each of the aircraft,taken from the excellent guide book that i got on my last visit (one of about 12 visits so far).

Stephen