Jump to content

Meteor F.III or Me262- Which is better?


wellsprop

Recommended Posts

Hi all,

Just a thought... In my mind the Meteor has it by a long shot. Note: I'm not suggesting comparing the aircraft in a dogfight, I'm comparing there operational usefulness (not necessarily WWII)

The Me262, despite being faster and far superior with it's swept wings, automatic slats and axial flow turbojet, had serious problems, the biggest being the engines. The Junkers Jumo 004 had an engine life of 50 hours (supposedly), but a skilled pilot would be lucky to get 25. They also had a very inconvenient habit of erupting into flames if mishandled or shot.

Overall it seems very poor when compared with the Meteor. The Meteor was slower but was far more maneuverable and had a higher useful ceiling (just). Admittedly, being more maneuverable but slower is of no real advantage because the 262's could employ 'boom and zoom' tactics. Furthermore the Meteor was further refined into an absolutely superb aircraft topping out at 600mph as the F.8. The Me262 was built as the Avia S.92 but production ended due to difficulty in manufacturing. The F.III was powered by the RR Derwent (Whittle's simpler, bulkier, radial flow design), the problem with the big radial flow turbojet is it couldn't be under slung beneath the wings and instead had to be mounted in the wing thus reducing the wings useful area.

Operational use of the 262 was greater than the F.III's due to military politics it seems. The Meteor was refused operation on the continent for fear of it falling into German hands, furthermore, the Meteor spent a lot of time in developing new jet tactics and training US bomber crews in defensive jet tactics.

Now to the problem of armament. Both aircraft has 4 cannons. The Me262 30mm and the F.III 20mm Hispanos. Initially, one would think that the larger 30mm would be better. However the 30mm travelled at only 540 ms^-1 whereas the 20mm travelled at 880 ms^-1. Travelling slow is problem when you are flying a fast aircraft at a maneuvering fighter because you need a HUGE amount of deflection in order to get the bullet in the right place (more lead=less accurate). The energy delivered by both weapons is almost equivalent (E=1/2 mv^2) because the mass of the 30mm isn't MUCH greater the energy is almost the same due to velocity^2.

Overall, the Me262 seems a better bomber interceptor and the Meteor a better fighter. Despite this, the Me262 was just too complicated so production was slow and the engines extremely unreliable..

It's really got my thinking (I'm probably biased) thoughts are more than welcome!,

Ben

Edited by wellsprop
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The 262 was a superior airframe to the Meteor III as they both stood in 1945.

The Meteor III had a lot of development potential as shown post-war. We never saw the development potential of the 262 because Messerschmitt was in no position to do the development, nor to sell it commercially. So the ultimate potential of both types cannot be compared.

The 262 engine in service was, as you say, exceptionally unreliable. That was mainly due to constraints in the materials available for manufacture in Germany in the late stages of the war. They were stuck for high temperature alloys.

Eric Brown's pilot assessment of the two types puts the 262 way ahead of the Meteor III with the exception of the engine problems. If you transported me back to Farnborough in 1946 I would be reluctant to fly a 262 for the reason that I would find it hard to trust the engines. But given the choice of a Meteor III or a 262 with engines of equal quality, I would regard the 262 as a superior combat aircraft and take it in preference to the Meteor III.

Of course I would take a Meteor F.4 or F.8 over either, but really anything entering service post 1945 is an unfair comparison.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Without dealing in counterfactuals, I think the Meteor III was the more useful aircraft.

As Alfred Price reminds us, during the final months of World War II, "Allied fighters were able to shoot down, on average, just over two German jet fighters for each Allied fighter or bomber that was destroyed by the jets." That's not a great batting average for the world's most advanced warplane flown by the hand-picked elite of the Luftwaffe. Not only were the Me262's engines unreliable, to say the least (a side effect of trying to punch above one's industrial and technological weight), its 30mm cannons were horribly prone to jamming (especially during the sorts of maneuvers one might indulge in during a frenetic bout of air-to-air combat), it was unmaneuverable, and surprisingly fragile to boot. Oh, and the brakes were unreliable. It's arguably a sleeker, more menacing-looking machine than the dumpy, friendly-looking Meteor III, and of course it was unbeatably fast. But that didn't save it from the Allied piston-engined fighters.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Me.262 was the better aircraft and it was only handicapped by the state of production facilities in late war Germany. Had the aircrafts been built all to a good quality standard, there would be no discussion at all. The Meteor on the other hand had the advantage of being developed with no fear of bombings and no lack of raw materials and was built in properly equipped factories.

looking at the various aspects:

Performances: the Me.262 was better in what mattered, speed and acceleration. Being able to turn better is of little use with a large speed gap and the slightly better ceiling of the Meteor is not going to make much difference

Armament: the Me.262 armament was designed to destroy bombers. Had the relevant authorities decided to use it against fighters there would have been no problem in using 4 X 20 mm guns. Speaking of the ammunition used, the energy is irrelavant in guns of this caliber, as both use explosive rounds...As a 30 mm round can carry more explosive, the destructive power of the 30mm is higher than the 20mm even if the energy is lower.

Losses: most Me.262 were shot down during take off and landing. Every jet aircraft is vulnerable in these situations. The high losses suffered by Luftwaffe jet fighters were due to one thing mainly: the presence of a much larger number of allied aircrafts that could gurantee air superiority pretty much everywhere and everytime.

Operational usefulness overall: the Me.262s managed to shoot down bombers, that was the mission for which they were supposed to be used. I don't know of any piloted aircraft ever shot down by a Meteor during WW2..

Postwar developments: the Meteor was indeed further developed and the F.4 was already a much better aicraft than the F.3. Now the F.8 is in theory an even better aircraft.... but ! The Meteor F.8 entered service in 1949. In the same year the USAF formed its first unit equipped with the F-86A, an aircraft that was much superior to the latest Meteor variant. When it entered service, the F.8 was not a superb aircraft anymore but something obsolete, as the Korean war would show later.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The 262 was a superior airframe to the Meteor III as they both stood in 1945.

The Meteor III had a lot of development potential as shown post-war. We never saw the development potential of the 262 because Messerschmitt was in no position to do the development, nor to sell it commercially. So the ultimate potential of both types cannot be compared.

The 262 engine in service was, as you say, exceptionally unreliable. That was mainly due to constraints in the materials available for manufacture in Germany in the late stages of the war. They were stuck for high temperature alloys.

Eric Brown's pilot assessment of the two types puts the 262 way ahead of the Meteor III with the exception of the engine problems. If you transported me back to Farnborough in 1946 I would be reluctant to fly a 262 for the reason that I would find it hard to trust the engines. But given the choice of a Meteor III or a 262 with engines of equal quality, I would regard the 262 as a superior combat aircraft and take it in preference to the Meteor III.

Of course I would take a Meteor F.4 or F.8 over either, but really anything entering service post 1945 is an unfair comparison.

Ah, that's interesting about Brown's assessment. My understanding about the 262's development was it had got too complicated. My reason for mentioning the F.8 was just to state how good the air frame already was :P

Without dealing in counterfactuals, I think the Meteor III was the more useful aircraft.

As Alfred Price reminds us, during the final months of World War II, "Allied fighters were able to shoot down, on average, just over two German jet fighters for each Allied fighter or bomber that was destroyed by the jets." That's not a great batting average for the world's most advanced warplane flown by the hand-picked elite of the Luftwaffe. Not only were the Me262's engines unreliable, to say the least (a side effect of trying to punch above one's industrial and technological weight), its 30mm cannons were horribly prone to jamming (especially during the sorts of maneuvers one might indulge in during a frenetic bout of air-to-air combat), it was unmaneuverable, and surprisingly fragile to boot. Oh, and the brakes were unreliable. It's arguably a sleeker, more menacing-looking machine than the dumpy, friendly-looking Meteor III, and of course it was unbeatably fast. But that didn't save it from the Allied piston-engined fighters.

Here's some trivia; Alfred Price is my friends grandfather and lives in the same town as me!

That kill:death ratio is APPALLING the Spit XIV had a K:D of around 11:1!

Well, if we get right down to it, the Meteor III served practically no useful military purpose in WW2 either. No-one would have missed it if it had not existed before VE-day, given a few more Tempests.

Arguably neither did the Me262. They did have the ability to decimate bombers however, they were so few and far between they didn't affect the war.

I would, however, agree that the 262 saw more operation in WWII, but that is only because the Meteor's weren't allowed over the continent or in Germany.

Ben

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So the answer as to "which was better" depends which question you prefer to hone down to.

Which was of more actual military value to its operators during WW2? (Which was your original question as I understood it) The 262 (though frankly both types were of negligible military impact) because it conducted more operations and did more damage to its enemy than the Meteor during WW2.

Which was the superior airframe? The 262.

Which was the more airworthy package overall (which is to judge the whole kit and caboodle purely as a flying machine rather than a a weapon)? The Meteor, because it was the one with working engines, by the time the Mark III came along.

Which was the safer for its pilots? The Meteor, same as above.

Which turned out to be a bigger success after the end of WW2? The Meteor, but not because of inherent superiority, simply because it was on the winning side and therefore was the only one of the two in a position to get developed.

Edited by Work In Progress
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm pretty sure the Meteor was eventually deployed to the continent, but in the closing months of the war. I've found no reference that they saw any air to air combat, besides that of V1 intercepts in 1944.

The 262, while not as well built as the Meteor, was probably far more effective than it. Even with the engine life troubles through lack of high quality metal, deployed in significant numbers and earlier, it would have decimated bomber formations. It's first flight with jet engines was mid 1942. The 8th AF got chewed up enough in 1943 by piston engine fighters, just imagine what the 262 would have done. Would the deployment of the Meteor in large numbers in 1943 have an effect on the war like the 262 could have....

Edited by Brad
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, because in 1943 a Meteor would not have had the range to do anything useful. First-generation jets were crippled by short range and endurance. The late-war 262 was fighting defensively over home turf, so was able to engage the enemy as it approached (if they could find any fuel, get it started, and get it into the air at all).

Had there been a re-run of the Battle of Britain in 1943, you could have used some Meteors for home defence if you'd had them, though even then you might have found the poor acceleration and poor rate of climb meant that rival Spitfire units would engage a high flying enemy bomber force much more quickly. The 262 had much better climb and speed than the Meteor III, so was a useable interceptor in a way that the Meteor really only became when the massively better F.4 went into service.

Standing combat air patrols of the Meteor III would have been a non-starter because of the poor endurance.

No Meteor could have fought over Germany pre D-Day, and would have been of precious little value sneaking over the channel to blow up the odd French train. The Hurri IIC was still perfectly adequate for that in 1943, and the Typhoon and Tempest were about to do it properly, along with the P-47D and Mustang III, and the Mossie and Beau for anti-shipping and longer range targets.

A 1946 re-run of the B of B would be a different thing. Give me an 11 Group full of the Meteor F.4 and that would be a useful defensive force indeed

Edited by Work In Progress
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's some trivia; Alfred Price is my friends grandfather and lives in the same town as me!

You can't even begin to comprehend the level of jealousy I'm currently experiencing.

The Me.262 was the better aircraft and it was only handicapped by the state of production facilities in late war Germany. Had the aircrafts been built all to a good quality standard, there would be no discussion at all.

That's all well and good, but they weren't, and thus there is. Somehow the Allies managed to knock them down at a rate of two to one, landing or not. The Germans didn't even manage that feat over Poland in 1939, with advantages similar to those the Allies had in 1944-45 as well as the technological edge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd say 46 (on the ground) plus 13 V1s to 0 Meteors lost in combat is probably a more favorable rate of exchange from the perspective of the aircrew...but perhaps if the Luftwaffe had been a little better at its job, the Meteor might have gotten to do more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But in your air-to-air fighter-vs fighter figures for the 262 you are not counting its bomber victims, or indeed anything they destroyed on the ground e.g. in Operation Bodenplatte.

Edited by Work In Progress
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But in your air-to-air fighter-vs fighter figures for the 262 you are not counting its bomber victims.

Price specifically was counting bombers AND fighters. Me262s show down one bomber or fighter for every two Me262s lost.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's all well and good, but they weren't, and thus there is. Somehow the Allies managed to knock them down at a rate of two to one, landing or not. The Germans didn't even manage that feat over Poland in 1939, with advantages similar to those the Allies had in 1944-45 as well as the technological edge.

Can't agree with this: the situation of Germany in the last few months of the war was much worse than that of Poland in 1939. Germany was constantly under attack from two sides with an overwhelming number of enemy aircrafts. The industrial system was destroyed and most aircrafts were built from subassemblies coming from the most desparate sources.

We're discussing the merit of the single aircraft type here. The overall losses or loss/kills ratio is affected by external factors that have nothing to do with how good or bad the aircraft was. In that situation, any type of aircraft would have suffered comparable losses. Even a couple of squadrons of F-15s would have probably been wiped out in a couple of weeks, yet nobody questions that the Eagle is a better fighter compared to a Meteor.

If the pros and cons of every aircraft are considered, the Me.262 is superior to the Meteor F.3 and this was confirmed by postwar tests

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the pros and cons of every aircraft are considered, the Me.262 is superior to the Meteor F.3 and this was confirmed by postwar tests

Absolutely, particularly if only flown in a straight line. The Me262 was a superior airframe to the Meteor F3. No question. But I'd argue that it was an inferior weapons system, owing to the unreliability of its engines and guns, compounded by its poor maneuverability. "What might have been" wasn't; the Me262 was never not an unreliable aircraft with malfunction-prone weapons. The Meteor didn't blow up when you tried to accelerate, and the cannons generally fired when you wanted them to. Those things are pretty important in a combat aircraft.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

>PC

When in comes to manoeuvreability the F.III had a tighter turning circle due to its lower wing loading but a poor rate of roll, poor rate of climb, poor acceleration and weak ailerons. The F.4 was a different prospect altogether. Sawing big chunks off the wings and nearly doubling the power made it sooo much better - in fact more like a 262.

> Giorgo

True. If you have next to no fuel, and the sky is black with overwhelming numbers of well armed, well crewed enemy aircraft, it doesn't really matter what your few remaining serviceable types are.

Edited by Work In Progress
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So the answer as to "which was better" depends which question you prefer to hone down to.

Which was of more actual military value to its operators during WW2? (Which was your original question as I understood it) The 262 (though frankly both types were of negligible military impact) because it conducted more operations and did more damage to its enemy than the Meteor during WW2.

Which was the superior airframe? The 262.

Which was the more airworthy package overall (which is to judge the whole kit and caboodle purely as a flying machine rather than a a weapon)? The Meteor, because it was the one with working engines, by the time the Mark III came along.

Which was the safer for its pilots? The Meteor, same as above.

Which turned out to be a bigger success after the end of WW2? The Meteor, but not because of inherent superiority, simply because it was on the winning side and therefore was the only one of the two in a position to get developed.

Well not necessarily WWII. Just in terms of production, capability, cost etc.

I'm pretty sure the Meteor was eventually deployed to the continent, but in the closing months of the war. I've found no reference that they saw any air to air combat, besides that of V1 intercepts in 1944.

The 262, while not as well built as the Meteor, was probably far more effective than it. Even with the engine life troubles through lack of high quality metal, deployed in significant numbers and earlier, it would have decimated bomber formations. It's first flight with jet engines was mid 1942. The 8th AF got chewed up enough in 1943 by piston engine fighters, just imagine what the 262 would have done. Would the deployment of the Meteor in large numbers in 1943 have an effect on the war like the 262 could have....

It was deployed to Belgium and used in the airfield ground attack role (which it was brilliant at!). I'm not sure what it met in the way of enemy fighters.

You can't even begin to comprehend the level of jealousy I'm currently experiencing.

That's all well and good, but they weren't, and thus there is. Somehow the Allies managed to knock them down at a rate of two to one, landing or not. The Germans didn't even manage that feat over Poland in 1939, with advantages similar to those the Allies had in 1944-45 as well as the technological edge.

I really ought to try and have a chat with Alfred Price! I've had many talks with my friend about all the people Price has met. Price also had the biggest collection of Spitfire pics, he gave them away so that people would be able to see them.

I can easily believe that any Meteor F.III would be no match for a well built Me262 (although it would come down to pilot skill most likely). However, I think even the highest quality Me262 would still take too much man power to build (regardless of bombing situation or material supply...).

​Slightly tangential question;

Which is your favourite?

Mine would be the Meteor because of it's slimmer curvier shape and cockpit way up front! (Being at Hendon and seeing the two together did make me realise that the Shark-like 262 has a much greater presence than the Meteor)

Ben

Edited by wellsprop
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Absolutely, particularly if only flown in a straight line. The Me262 was a superior airframe to the Meteor F3. No question. But I'd argue that it was an inferior weapons system, owing to the unreliability of its engines and guns, compounded by its poor maneuverability. "What might have been" wasn't; the Me262 was never not an unreliable aircraft with malfunction-prone weapons. The Meteor didn't blow up when you tried to accelerate, and the cannons generally fired when you wanted them to. Those things are pretty important in a combat aircraft.

The Meteor is only more manouverable at low speeds in a turning fight. A kind of combat no jet fighter pilot would have entered. The Storch had a better turning radius than a Spitfire, does this make it more manouverable ???

Speaking of reliability, the Meteor wasn't a particularly reliable aircraft either ! Better than the Me.262 but worse than most piston engined aircrafts.

Same for the armament: the Hispano was for example less reliable than the M2, so should we say that in the end the Mustang was better than the Meteor since it had a more reliable engine and a more reliable armament ?

Speaking of what might have been, what never happened was a combat between the two types. Had this happened the Meteor would have likely come out second best.

​Slightly tangential question;

Which is your favourite?

Neither. My favourite would be a type that had an even smaller impact on operations in WW2: the P-80.

Not because it was better than the others (tests done in the US after the war showed that it was itself inferior to the Me.262 in terms of performance), but because it showed the way things had to be done: engine in the fuselage fed by side mounted air intakes. Of course this was not possible with the Meteor and the Messerschmitt because of the lower thrust of their engines, but the P-80 is a much more modern design and its layout became in a way or the other the one used by most postwar fighter aircrafts. It should say something that in its T-33 2-seater form the P-80 it's still in service almost 70 years later...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really ought to try and have a chat with Alfred Price! I've had many talks with my friend about all the people Price has met. Price also had the biggest collection of Spitfire pics, he gave them away so that people would be able to see them.

I am not qualified to give a lot of advice, about anything (although at 31 I already feature in a number of hair-raising cautionary tales), but if I were to be able to tell you one thing, it's never pass up on a chance to meet, or write to, or speak with an author or other person you admire. I was quite a stupid little fellow when I was eight, and I asked incredibly banal questions of him, but still, writing a letter to and receiving a reply from "Johnnie" Johnson is one of the proudest moments of my life -- which may just tell you how weak my other attainments are, I don't know. But still!

>PC

When in comes to manoeuvreability the F.III had a tighter turning circle due to its lower wing loading but a poor rate of roll, poor rate of climb, poor acceleration and weak ailerons. The F.4 was a different prospect altogether. Sawing big chunks off the wings and nearly doubling the power made it sooo much better - in fact more like a 262.

I didn't know that the F.3 had a poor rate of climb, for whatever reason I had always assumed that was more a problem of the later "short wing" marks. The Meteor F4 certainly seems in any case to have been the high-water mark of Meteordom, given the ultimate fate of the F.8s in Korea. Almost mind-boggling to realize F.8s were still in RAF service in the late 1950s.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fact that the Me262 fighter variants were equipped with 4x 30mm cannon alone put it ahead of the Meteor. One or two rounds were considered sufficient to bring down something the size of a Lanc or a B-17, so imagine what it would have done to a Mustang, a Spit, or a Meteor. I think had the Jumo 004 been more reliable, and the aircraft not been built using a lot of slave labor (not to mention the vacillations on its operational deployment), the Me262 could well have owned the sky in Europe in 1946/47. Those things being given, it would have probably bettered the P-80 Shooting Star as well (which, don't forget, was in Europe at the end of the war).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Folks,

I've seen this type of discussion on other forums and they almost always descend into arguments to defend positions taken by the protagonists (in the discussion, not in WWII...although some "discussions" do start to feel like the outbreak of WWIII!).

Given that this forum is about "WWII Military Modelling", may I respectfully request we stick to that topic (ok, I know we often take meandering diversions away from the subject at hand!) and avoid discussions along the lines of "which is the best aircraft" or "what if Germany had Fw190s in 1940". All to often, such threads end in tears...usually after several temper tantrums. We have enough fun with debates about correct colours and kit (in)accuracy without bringing arguments about the real thing into the fray!

Apologies for being the curmudgeon! :)

Cheers,
Mark

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't know that the F.3 had a poor rate of climb, for whatever reason I had always assumed that was more a problem of the later "short wing" marks. The Meteor F4 certainly seems in any case to have been the high-water mark of Meteordom, given the ultimate fate of the F.8s in Korea. Almost mind-boggling to realize F.8s were still in RAF service in the late 1950s.

It was really about the power rather than the wings, at least until properly high altitude, e.g 30,000' plus

The total installed thrust went from 3,400 lb in the I to 4,000 lb in the III, to 7,000 lb in the F.4.

For really high altitude you want both, hence the long wing reinstated on the PR.10, for which manoueuvrability and strength were less important

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Procopius,

Wasn 't poking the finger at you (or anyone else, for that matter). It's just that these discussions tend to become entrenched...and we all know how effective trench warfare was in terms of achieving much of anything beneficial. None of us do it intentionally but we've all been there, in the heat of the moment, filled with the crushing desire to answer back to something with which we disagree.

I love coming to Britmodeller. I learn so much from the great people who contribute to these forums. There are some incredibly knowledgeable and generous people among the Britmodeller family...and I'm protective of this island of sanity in the maelstrom that is norm for so many other forums (fora?).

Edited by mhaselden
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...