PDA

View Full Version : Which was first into service? The Gloster Meteor or the Me262?



Xiolablu3
09-08-2006, 12:47 AM
Just been reading a dateline page, it has these entries :-


July 1944 No 616 squadron exhanges its Spitfires for Gloster Meteor jet fighters.

18 July 1944 Operational debut of the Messerschmitt Me 262 jet fighter.

27 July 1944 Gloster Meteor jet fighters fly missions against V-1s.

4 August 1944 First kill (a V-1) of a Gloster Meteor jet fighter

5 October 1944 The first victory on a jet fighter, when a Spitfire Mk.XIV shot down a Me 262.



I always thought that it was the Me262 which was the first Jet into service?

So basically both planes entered service at almost exactly the same time? Or is this timeline wrong pls?

Capt.LoneRanger
09-08-2006, 01:33 AM
AFAIK the Gloster always lacked maneuverability. It was used as a Ground-Attack-plane only in a single squadron, that was operating from Holland.
At higher speed, it seemed useless in fighter-roles.

The Me262 was the first fighter-jet to enter large production numbers (compared to the time, of course) - and they were used as fighter-bombers and interceptors. It was far better suited for the fighter-role.

Jaws2002
09-08-2006, 02:06 AM
Plus the 262 was much faster then the version of Meteor that flew during the war.

BTW: 262 flew for the first time in spring 1941. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif Thx God hitler was clueless about aircraft.

Capt.LoneRanger
09-08-2006, 02:40 AM
Thx God hitler was clueless about aircraft.

Indeed... The first version was even finished for testing in 1939, AFAIK. But Hitler really was an idiot. With all his complexes, he was still stuck in his WW1-Foot-Soldier-Experiences and disregarded the importance of the Kriegsmarine and Luftwaffe completely. In his eyes, both were merely usefull to support infantry and tanks. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

Xiolablu3
09-08-2006, 02:43 AM
The Meteor was actually in service before the Me262 :-


From Wikipedia:-

'The Gloster Meteor was the first operational Allied jet fighter aircraft of World War II. It first flew with the British Royal Air Force (RAF) in 1943, and commenced operations in mid-1944, only some weeks later than the world's first operational jet, the German Messerschmitt Me 262. In early 1946, following the end of the war, a Meteor was used to set a world air speed record of 616 mph (991 km/h) TAS (see below). Meteors remained in service with several air forces for many years and saw action with the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) in the Korean War.'


I was surprised by this, because we dont actually hear much about the Meteor. I always thought it was the Me262.


I think the Vampire was a much better British plane than the Meteor. Maybe someone can confirm this. I remember being told it could turn a lot tighter than either the Me262 or the Meteor.

'The de Havilland Vampire, or DH.100, was the second jet-engined aircraft commissioned into the Royal Air Force during World War II (the first being the Gloster Meteor), although it did not see combat in that conflict.'

'The Vampire was an exceptionally versatile aircraft, and it set many aviation firsts and records, being the first RAF fighter with a top speed of over 500mph. Piloted by Captain Eric "Winkle" Brown, a Sea Vampire was the first jet to take off from and land on an aircraft carrier, and in 1948 John Cunningham set a new world altitude record of 59,446 ft (18,119 m). On 14 July 1948 Vampire F3s of No. 54 Squadron RAF became the first jet aircraft to fly across the Atlantic Ocean'

Interesting planes.

Xiolablu3
09-08-2006, 02:51 AM
Just been doing some more reading.

Apparantly it was the early versions of the meteor which were poor performers.MkI suffering from 'snaking' and poor aileron performance.

The MkIII from Sept 1944 was much closer to Me262 in performance.

stathem
09-08-2006, 02:57 AM
I have it that the Meteor was first into service, but no sources yet.

Contrary to popular belief, the allied higher-ups were well aware of the imminent arrival of the Me-262. Indeed it's postulated that Adrian Warburton was killed whilst on a Recce mission to photograph on of the fields where it was being tested (pre-operationally).

I get the impression that the Meteor I was rushed into squadron service before it was really ready in order to claim a 'first'

mynameisroland
09-08-2006, 03:15 AM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Just been reading a dateline page, it has these entries :-


July 1944 No 616 squadron exhanges its Spitfires for Gloster Meteor jet fighters.

18 July 1944 Operational debut of the Messerschmitt Me 262 jet fighter.

27 July 1944 Gloster Meteor jet fighters fly missions against V-1s.

4 August 1944 First kill (a V-1) of a Gloster Meteor jet fighter

5 October 1944 The first victory on a jet fighter, when a Spitfire Mk.XIV shot down a Me 262.



I always thought that it was the Me262 which was the first Jet into service?

So basically both planes entered service at almost exactly the same time? Or is this timeline wrong pls?

The Meteor that enetered service in July 44 was only capable of doing around 410mph. A Spitfire IX was a better fighter and a Me 262 going over 540 mph was a vastly superior fighter.

I think the British didnt want to rush its under developed fighter in to the front line when it wasnt needed and Britain was worried about a Meteor crashing over occupied Europe and the Germans stealing its secrets Lol!

Xiolablu3
09-08-2006, 03:16 AM
I really like the look of the Meteor, it looks sort of classic in shape.

http://www.cbrnp.com/profiles/quarter3/gloster_meteor/meteor_f8_raaf_a77-446.jpg


Looks a bit too big and clumsy to be a pure fighter tho. Its sort of like an A10 Warthog (which interestingly I love the look of, even tho others say its ugly)

HotelBushranger
09-08-2006, 03:20 AM
Even though that's the F.8, the Korean era Meteor, yes I agree it is a very nice plane and one of the few jets I would love to fly http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Xiolablu3
09-08-2006, 03:24 AM
Sorry , I am not sure about the versions, I just grabbed the best pic I could find in 2 minutes http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I guess its just the nose and body that look similar to the A10 Tbolt II

Abbuzze
09-08-2006, 03:32 AM
The 262 was in service before the Meteor.

But you have to look at the right place. Because of the allready mentioned idioticity of Hitler the first Me 262 wasn´t sent to JG´s but to Bomber Geschwader!

KG51 got six 262´s in June 44.

http://www.ww2.dk/oob/bestand/kampf/bikg51.html

whiteladder
09-08-2006, 03:47 AM
Britain was worried about a Meteor crashing over occupied Europe and the Germans stealing its secrets Lol!


The Meteor did operate over Europe, and over Germany at the end of the war. They were painted white to avoid mis identifaction. I think there was a genuine concern about the Germans stealing the Meteors secrets, the engines were much better than those fitted to the 262 and led to a whole series of classic engines through the 50`s (Derwent, Welland, Nene).

In fact the main reason for the delay to the 262 wasn`t Hitlers changable mind (although that didn`t help) it was problems with the Jumo engine.

Something with German aerodynamics(262) and British engines could have turned the tide.

WOLFMondo
09-08-2006, 03:57 AM
It should be pointed out the Meteor is still in service!!

Martin Baker use two of them as test beds for new seats. Why? Because they are ultra reliable and simple.

GerritJ9
09-08-2006, 03:58 AM
Adolf Galland flew the Meteor post-war in Argentina and considered the Me262 superior, though was full of praise for the Meteor's engines. A combination of the 262 airframe and Rolls-Royce engines would have produced an awesome aircraft- strange that apart from the Czechs nobody else used the Me262 post-war.
The main problem with the 262's engines was the lack of nickel, necessary for the manufacture of high temperature resistant alloy steels used in turbine blading among others. The Germans went to great lengths in trying alternatives, even ceramics were being considered- nothing new now, but in the 1940s nothing short of revolutionary! In the longer term, the centrifugal-compressor turbojets were a dead end, axial-flow proving superior.

leitmotiv
09-08-2006, 04:02 AM
Yes, whiteladder, well-regarded aviation technology historian, Alfred Price, buried the old myth that Hitler held up the service introduction of the Me 262 in his fascinating THE LAST YEAR OF THE LUFTWAFFE. It was the engines that kept it from entering service earlier, and the terrible engines, which had ridiculously short service lives, were the Achilles heel of the redoubtable 262 throughout its brief career.

Abbuzze
09-08-2006, 04:23 AM
Originally posted by leitmotiv:
Yes, whiteladder, well-regarded aviation technology historian, Alfred Price, buried the old myth that Hitler held up the service introduction of the Me 262 in his fascinating THE LAST YEAR OF THE LUFTWAFFE. It was the engines that kept it from entering service earlier, and the terrible engines, which had ridiculously short service lives, were the Achilles heel of the redoubtable 262 throughout its brief career.

But even with more reliable engines, the 262 would have been a equipment for KG´s instead of JG´s, while they would stay with 109´s and 190´s... Hitler forbid to talk about the Me262 as a fighter. If the potential of the 262 would be recogniced by the Nazi leadership and if Hitler gave the evelopment of the 262 a priority, the development of "better" jetengines would be undoubtable faster. Hitler didn´t delayed the devolpment of the 262 and the Jumo, but he also didn´t accelerated it - which is also a kind of delay.

Just imagine if Hitler would gave a "Führerbefehl" to press the 262 into service. Unrelaiablity was never a cause for the nazileadership not to use a weapon in warfare . Remeber the Panther at Kursk. The short livetime of the Jumos are around the average livetime of a 109 in this time of the war.

luftluuver
09-08-2006, 04:36 AM
Originally posted by Abbuzze:
The 262 was in service before the Meteor.

But you have to look at the right place. Because of the allready mentioned idioticity of Hitler the first Me 262 wasn´t sent to JG´s but to Bomber Geschwader!

KG51 got six 262´s in June 44.

http://www.ww2.dk/oob/bestand/kampf/bikg51.html At the end of June 1944, 6 Me262s were delivered to 3./KG51. Pilots for these a/c did not arrive at Lechfeld til July 10.

An Einsatzkommando was set up and was given the unit designation Kdo Schenk. This unit had the same delivery dates as 3./KG51. On July 26 Kdo Schenk reported 4 pilots (2 active) and 5 Me262s (4 operational). Kdo Schenk was reinforced by elements of 3./KG51 on Aug 23 but of the 9 a/c sent only 5 arrived at Juvincourt (near Reims).

It is interesting to note that Fritz Wendel wrote In level flight the Revi was useless for accurate bombing. Pinpoint targets could not be hit. Kdo Schenk was therefore unable to claim any tactical success. Wendel had some other uncomplimentory comments as well. (see 262 Vol.2 pg 361)

For info on the Meteor see http://www.vectorsite.net/avmeteor.html


BTW: 262 flew for the first time in spring 1941. The first jet powered flight took place on July 18 1942 with Me262V3, piloted by Fritz Wendel. This was a tail dragger a/c.

whiteladder
09-08-2006, 04:41 AM
The original jumo 004a preproduction engines were actually quite reliable, they ran for up to 100 hours in tests. But they were never ment for production, they used expensive materials that were in short supply and were heavy. The production 004b engine used lower quality steel for the fans and had aircooling. this is were the problem arose. The aircooling used 7% of the compressor air so reducing performance and the engine started to have vibration problem. The vibration was cured by changing the stator design and altering the harmonics of the blades (possibile this had occurred because of the aircooling ducts in the first place). Even with the changes engine life still hovered around 10 hours.

luftluuver
09-08-2006, 04:47 AM
Saur in addessing the Jagerstab on June 6 1944 stated the first 500 Me262s produced were to be bombers and the next 500 Me262s produced were to be fighters. This should have happened by Nov 44 but production rates were not met. Total production til Nov 44 was only 411 from Mtt Augsburg and 26 from Mtt Regensburg.

Capt.LoneRanger
09-08-2006, 04:55 AM
Actually the better durability of the Glosters Engines was not engineers miracle works, but rather due to lack of high quality materials for Germany.

As stated above, those high quality resources were rather used to build tanks, new Mega-Guns and the V1/V2/V3 program.

Well, not being sure if Wiki is really a source of wisdom (as everybody can write there, whatever he wants until proofen wrong by others), but I also read in that article (German Version) and others, that the Meteor's problems at higher speeds were not being solved until after the war.

OD_79
09-08-2006, 05:17 AM
Actually it was partly down to the type of engines used. The Germans used the more complicated, and less reliable, Axial flow engines and they only had a life of about 10 hours. The Meteor used less complex Centrfugal flow engines, I think that they were also less powerful, initially.
There is uncertainty about which was in service first different source, which I have at home (i'm at work!), say different things, but there was only a week in it either way. The Me262 was ready as an airframe way before it went into service but the engines were not. It flew but only with a piston engine in the nose and as a glider, it didn't fly under jet power only for a few years (can't remember the exact date - will check when I get home).
The Meteor MkIII was a much better aircraft than the Mk I absolutely no question there. One of the reasons it was lacking in agility was they had artificially weighted the airlerons because there were some things that the aircraft had not been cleared for and they wanted to stop the pilots doing it! They got rid of it later.

OD.

whiteladder
09-08-2006, 05:22 AM
Actually the better durability of the Glosters Engines was not engineers miracle works, but rather due to lack of high quality materials for Germany.


True to a large extent(for example in 1943 IIRC german stopped using Tungsten for anti-tank rounds because of the need to save the tungsten for cutting tips in lathes etc), but in the harsh realities of war time the Germans choose the wrong technogolical route with their engines. Centifugal jet were easyier to produce using techniques already well establish in the manufacture of superchargers.Stanley ****** started work at Rolls Royce designing superchargers for merlins. They are also inherently more robust.
So while in the longer scheme of things axial was the future for combat jets it was the wrong path in war time.

whiteladder
09-08-2006, 05:32 AM
I think that they were also less powerful, initially

There was actually very little difference in power output with the early versions of both German and British engines at around 2000lb.

Abbuzze
09-08-2006, 06:20 AM
Originally posted by luftluuver:
At the end of June 1944, 6 Me262s were delivered to 3./KG51. Pilots for these a/c did not arrive at Lechfeld til July 10.

An Einsatzkommando was set up and was given the unit designation Kdo Schenk. This unit had the same delivery dates as 3./KG51. On July 26 Kdo Schenk reported 4 pilots (2 active) and 5 Me262s (4 operational). Kdo Schenk was reinforced by elements of 3./KG51 on Aug 23 but of the 9 a/c sent only 5 arrived at Juvincourt (near Reims).

Is in your source any detail about the pilots that flew such delivery missions?

luftluuver
09-08-2006, 07:39 AM
Abbuzze, no. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

ImpStarDuece
09-08-2006, 07:43 AM
Remember that the Me-262 wasn't the only jet fighter delayed by unnecessary technical and political interference.

Rover, who took over development of jet engines from Power Jets, essentially kept the British jet engine programme static for about 18 months. It wasn't until Whittle got fed up and went to Stanley ****** and got Rolls Royce involved that they got things moving again. The Meteor was flying by June 1943, but it could of been flying even earlier if it had had and appropriate engines available to it from the beginning of design and testing.

Then there was the debarcle with the Vampire prototype sitting around for almost 6 months doing nothing when the Goblin engine meant to power it was sent to the US to use in ground testing and was subseqently melted.

A lot of the Meteors limitations (particularly the Mk I) were artifically imposed by the RAF, because it was designated an experimental aircraft through most of the war, even while flying combat operations out of Holland in 1945!

Waldo.Pepper
09-08-2006, 09:07 AM
From The Illustrated Dictionary of Fighter Aircraft of WW2

"the first batch of 16 Meteor Is, which entered service on 12 July 1944 with one flight of 616 Sqn, the pilots having previously converted. This was eight days before the first nine Me 262s of KG51 entered service."

The books are kind of like "the golden book of WW2 planes" - but still.

Here is a scan of the page.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v516/WaldoPepper/Meteor/09-08-2006080105AM.jpg

Daiichidoku
09-08-2006, 09:48 AM
Originally posted by luftluuver:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">BTW: 262 flew for the first time in spring 1941. The first jet powered flight took place on July 18 1942 with Me262V3, piloted by Fritz Wendel. This was a tail dragger a/c. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Jaws must have been confused with the He-280, a wonderful type, by far the superior of the 262, at least in terms of being an air-superiority fighter

(from wiki)[my own captions]
The first prototype was completed in the summer of 1940, but the Heinkel HeS 8 intended to power it was running into difficulties. On September 22, 1940, while work on the engine continued, the first prototype started glide tests [first flight 11 sept '40, towed behind he-111, first free-glide, sept 22]with ballast hung in place of its engines. It would be another six months before Fritz Sch¤fer would take the second prototype into the air under its own power, on March 30, 1941 [some sources place this date as Apr 2, '41]

[this THE jet fighter that WOULD have made a difference...a huge difference]

The Heinkel company began the He 280 project on its own initiative after the He 178 had been met with indifference from the Reichsluftfahrtministerium ("RLM") (Ger. "Reich Aviation Ministry"). The head designer was Robert Lusser, who began the project under the designation He 180 in late 1939

Internally, the He 280 was equipped with a compressed-air powered ejector seat, the first aircraft to carry one. [ and to use one, too...Jan 31, '43 either Fritz Schafer or Helmut Schenk, both have been reported as the pilots, catapulted from the He-280 V1 when it went out of control due to heavy icing, he landed uninjured but the aircraft was lost.]
It was also planned to pressurise the cockpit

[this next passage COULD have been a date in EaRLY 43, or LATE 42, had RLM not been a**holes...the 280 had a huge lead in development time, both in ariframe and engine tech, over the 262]
By the end of 1943, however, the third prototype was fitted with refined versions of the HeS 8 engine and was ready for its next demonstration. On December 22, '43 [this date is also reported as late 41, and early 42] a mock dogfight was staged for RLM officials in which the He 280 was matched against a Focke-Wulf Fw 190 [Anton, series unknown]. Here, the jet not only demonstrated its vastly superior speed, but also out-maneuvered its opponent

[sadly, much info remains widely varying, such as top speed, listed anywhere from 400mph to 570 mph, many seem to settle on 508mph, close to the "official" quote of 820kph]


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v479/Daiichidoku/He280-V3-2.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v479/Daiichidoku/He280-V2-1.jpg

Xiolablu3
09-08-2006, 09:55 AM
Nevermind Im stupid ;http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Daiichidoku
09-08-2006, 09:58 AM
lol i was about to reply to your original post, you didnt edit fast enough ;P

i wont bother now http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

p1ngu666
09-08-2006, 10:18 AM
262 was a better bomber than fighter. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

i think rover made a jet powered car http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

stathem
09-08-2006, 10:22 AM
Originally posted by p1ngu666:
262 was a better bomber than fighter. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

i think rover made a jet powered car http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

http://www.makingthemodernworld.org.uk/icons_of_invention/img/IM.1111_el.jpg

and more famously (to me at least)

http://www.wheelsarchives.freeserve.co.uk/page-02/06-34-99.jpg

JG53Frankyboy
09-08-2006, 10:39 AM
Originally posted by p1ngu666:
262 was a better bomber than fighter.

i dont think so.
the Me262 lacked range, bombload and accurate bombsight.
it was just a fighterbomber, fast , yes, but in any other aspect poor..

but it was a very good interceptor. and the USAAF was aware of this , otherwise i doubt they would have covered its bases in such kind they did succesfull.

it must have been a horrible situation for the bombercrews if a B-17/B-24 box was attacked by such a Me262 V-formation.

fortunatly there were never enough 262 in the air, the US tactic worked well and the plane itself had still its proplems because of the new technology.

Ratsack
09-08-2006, 10:44 AM
This €˜Hitler was a moron€ theme gets repeated over and over again, but it ignores the fact that he was probably right on the Me262. He held the view, probably engendered by Rommel, that the only way the Germans could possibly defeat the coming Allied invasion of France was if it were done at the time of the landing. This may seem like a truism now, but at the time the standard German defensive doctrine was to counter attack with a mobile reserve.

Rommel repeatedly stressed to his colleagues, and to Hitler, that Allied air superiority would make the deployment of any such reserve impossible. It would be destroyed before it reached the battlefield, and the subsequent experience of Panzer Lehr in Normandy bears this out. The logical consequence of this line of thought was that the forces that would normally be concentrated in the reserve would instead be parceled out along the front. As a result, where ever the Allied blow fell, the local forces would be short of firepower. The deficit would have to be provided by the Luftwaffe.

The Me262 was the only hope of providing that sort of firepower in the face of the Allied tactical air forces. No other German type could possibly have survived contact with the air umbrella over the landings.

If the Germans had had 300-500 Me262 bombers available for immediate deployment to Normandy, it may well have been an ugly situation for the Allied shipping. I think it€s drawing too long a bow to suggest the 262 alone could have defeated Overlord, but we should remember that bad weather soon after the landing smashed up one of the Mulberry harbours and left the bridgehead in parlous supply condition. If there€d been a swarm of angry Me262s overhead as well, who knows€¦

But in reality, the Me262 was underdone. For all that it was a very advanced design, it was not ready for combat. Considering that it was dangerous to move the throttle too much at high speed or high altitude (or both!), and the fact that the plane was not designed for transonic flight, the Germans had a basic operational problem right there. There was no safe way to loose altitude, particularly in the absence of air brakes: even the Meteor had them. I wonder why wonderous Willy forgot €˜em?

Cheers,
Ratsack

Xiolablu3
09-08-2006, 12:09 PM
I guess it was safer to go against the Allied bombers even in a Me262 with those flaws , than a 109 or FW1990 without flaws.

Calculated risk.

p1ngu666
09-08-2006, 12:55 PM
Originally posted by JG53Frankyboy:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by p1ngu666:
262 was a better bomber than fighter.

i dont think so.
the Me262 lacked range, bombload and accurate bombsight.
it was just a fighterbomber, fast , yes, but in any other aspect poor..

but it was a very good interceptor. and the USAAF was aware of this , otherwise i doubt they would have covered its bases in such kind they did succesfull.

it must have been a horrible situation for the bombercrews if a B-17/B-24 box was attacked by such a Me262 V-formation.

fortunatly there were never enough 262 in the air, the US tactic worked well and the plane itself had still its proplems because of the new technology. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

got huge speed, resonable bombload, the range is okish

Jaws2002
09-08-2006, 12:56 PM
Originally posted by Ratsack:

If the Germans had had 300-500 Me262 bombers available for immediate deployment to Normandy, it may well have been an ugly situation for the Allied shipping. I think it€s drawing too long a bow to suggest the 262 alone could have defeated Overlord, but we should remember that bad weather soon after the landing smashed up one of the Mulberry harbours and left the bridgehead in parlous supply condition. If there€d been a swarm of angry Me262s overhead as well, who knows€¦

Ratsack

I'd say you are wrong here. very wrong. If they had those 300-500 Me-262's you said AS FIGHTERS ready for the overlord, they could have cleaned the sky of allied aircraft opening the landings to all the specialized EFFECTIVE ground attack and bomber aircraft they already had. With air cover that German mobile reaction force could have reached the landing zone fast and relativelly safe. A very scary view. First of all the allied air power was what stopped the reinforcements to get to the landing area in time. Those allied planes that were doing milk runs could have been stopped by 262's in numbers. The whole day light offensive would have been stopped.

The 262 as bomber could not hit ****. Sorry. they would do a better job with classic bombers that had air cover.

Xiolablu3
09-08-2006, 01:03 PM
I guess they could dive bomb for better accuracy. Almost any plane can get reasonable accuracy by (maybe shallowish) dive bombing. I suppose that the high speed would make this more difficult than with prop fighters tho.

This would have solved the accuracy probelm, but be very dangerous, and very risky for those very valuable Me262's which Germany would have very few of.


Probably better to use conventional bombers and have teh Me262's escorting.

p1ngu666
09-08-2006, 02:15 PM
maybe u should ask the ghestapo about what a similer aircraft to a jabo 262 could do. called the mossie http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

the lw didnt have a effective ground attack/bomber force by mid 44 in the west.

plus the 262 would have a nightmare escorting bombers, you would need say stukas, which would be doing 300kph, just about with bombs.

its record as a fighter wasnt as wonderbar as some would have u belive aswell. btw 262s where at first limited to the height they could drop bombs, hadto drop bombs from higher alts, which made accuracy poor.

plus u might get only 5hours per engine (10 is often stated as optimistic), and they would be raggin the engines, and taking battle damage.

plus there bases would be obivous, and get bombed to buggery.

bienenbaer
09-08-2006, 02:55 PM
The Me-262 is the offensive German fighter in exaggeration. It is unbelievable fast and well-armed, but it turns just badly and its perfomance peaks are at high speed. It is nothing but a Bf-109, Bf-110 or FW-190 in extreme. Thus, it was used in "BnZ", in fact with its very own variant of that tactic, the "rollercoaster" attack, because of its almost too high speed.

BUT for this to be effective the Me-262 needs space to determine its place of attack and it cannot deal with "ordinary" fighters in its "retreat space" (Rückzugsraum), especially when landing.

In order to defend the air-superiority against a larger number of enemy fighters in its own air-space, the Luftwaffe needed a kind of Spitfire, a defensive fighter to harass the allied escort fighters and to chase them away from the Me-262 airbases.

Probably the better balanced FW-190D would have done if available MID OF 1943 in large numbers.

Germany did not have the capability to have ready at that time both that "Spitfire" and a same large number of Me-262 to decimate the bombers, while both was necessary.

Therefore the fast decline of the LW.

The Me-262 was a destroyer not a fighter.

The missing "Spitfire" lost the war.

Jaws2002
09-08-2006, 05:06 PM
I don't agree with you. the 262 was a killer against anything. Numbers is what they needed, not a "spitfire " to defend them. If they had numbers so when you go land there are other fast jets flying around to cover you , you don't need a piston fighter around.

Most WW2 fighters got shot down when they never saw what hit them. Is easy for 100 allied fighters to all watch for the same two jets and avoid their fast attacks. When you have to watch for 100 jets flying with 100 mph faster then you, is a very different story.
You can try that in the game. make a mission with a bunch of jets in the opposite team. Is so easy to be blown up by a jet while you are hoping to catch another one.

SkyChimp
09-08-2006, 05:46 PM
Someone said the Meteor was not very manueverable. I don't know about the WWII era Meteor. But the US Commander of the Far East Air Force flew a RAAF Meteor during the Korean war (can't remember the Mark used) and he said something to the effect that the plane had a wonderful climb rate and was very manueverable, but was too slow and didn't roll very well (compared to the F-86).

Seems to me that the Meteor was, indeed, a very maueverable plane.

leitmotiv
09-08-2006, 07:24 PM
Heinz Bar was able to rack up a presentable score with the 262, and this says something considering the circumstances under which they had to operate. As for me, if I had my choice of a WWII-era jet mount, I would have preferred the P-80, He 162, or Vampire. When I am using the 262, I feel like I am driving a '79 Cadillac DeVille armed with short-range cannon.

Grendel-B
09-09-2006, 02:23 AM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
I always thought that it was the Me262 which was the first Jet into service?

So basically both planes entered service at almost exactly the same time? Or is this timeline wrong pls?

Me 262 entered operational service first and was the first jet in series production as well. There are different dates for different things. When first jets were sent to squadron? When squadron got operational? When series production started?

The Meteors that were first on operational status were basically hand-built prototypes. Factual production of the Meteors started much later. The devil is in the details .)

Grendel-B
09-09-2006, 02:34 AM
Originally posted by leitmotiv:
the terrible engines, which had ridiculously short service lives, were the Achilles heel of the redoubtable 262

It wasn't so much the engines or the technology, than the materials. After the war France and Soviet Union build their own Jumo 004s (and BMWs) for their fighters and bombers, using better materials, until later generation jet engines were available. Those Jumos gave good service and performance still for a few years after the war.

And take notice: you're only talking about the first series production 004s. The engine life of the series produced Jumos improved steadily from 10 hours to 20, 30 and so on, before the engines required maintenance. The engine manufacturers were not just sitting idly.

And yet another notice: the first jet fighters of US Navy had engine life of 10 hours, before maintenance. After the war.

leitmotiv
09-09-2006, 03:13 AM
Point well taken, Grendal-B---was not indicting the design of the turbos, or the designers, but merely remarking on the dismal service life of the product which was the result of factors well out of their control. Given the circumstances of the systematic bombing of Germany's railroad net in 1945, it was an amazing feat to have produced a working engine at all with the disruptions in the supply of materials.

The-Pizza-Man
09-09-2006, 04:36 AM
Originally posted by Grendel-B:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by leitmotiv:
the terrible engines, which had ridiculously short service lives, were the Achilles heel of the redoubtable 262

It wasn't so much the engines or the technology, than the materials. After the war France and Soviet Union build their own Jumo 004s (and BMWs) for their fighters and bombers, using better materials, until later generation jet engines were available. Those Jumos gave good service and performance still for a few years after the war.

And take notice: you're only talking about the first series production 004s. The engine life of the series produced Jumos improved steadily from 10 hours to 20, 30 and so on, before the engines required maintenance. The engine manufacturers were not just sitting idly.

And yet another notice: the first jet fighters of US Navy had engine life of 10 hours, before maintenance. After the war. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't think that was hours before maintenance for the Jumos, it was hours before complete replacement of the engine. One form of maintenance was done on engines after practically every flight.

luftluuver
09-09-2006, 05:20 AM
And yet another notice: the first jet fighters of US Navy had engine life of 10 hours, before maintenance. After the war
That is undestandable as it was peacetime and the a/c operated in a salty envirement.

Abbuzze
09-09-2006, 05:42 AM
Originally posted by luftluuver:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">And yet another notice: the first jet fighters of US Navy had engine life of 10 hours, before maintenance. After the war
That is undestandable as it was peacetime and the a/c operated in a salty envirement. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

As understandable as it would be wartime and the a/c operated out of forests and autobahnen http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

whiteladder
09-09-2006, 07:04 AM
improved steadily from 10 hours to 20, 30 and so on
I think we will have to disagree with this point. The stated design life of the engine as delivered from the factory was 35 hours, in practice in operational units this was found to be the 10 hours that is often quoted. A good pilot could get up 20 hours from an engine, a good pilot in the sense of how he managed the engines. The engine was very seceptible to rapid increases in throttle demands. Because it relied on compressor air to cool the turbine blades it was possible for the core turbine temperature to riase to a critical level before the compressor stage had spooled fast enough to supply cooling. To improve reliablity the rpm of the production b series was reduced, and an automatic system was in delevopement to control throttle demands.

And as someone pointed out 10 hour was the time to replace the engine, not to perform maintance. Although the engine wasn`t a complete write off it did need to go back to the factory for re assembly.

Even with improved materials post war use was limited and insignificant especially when you consider an engine like the Nene first run in 1943(and which provided the powerplant for the MIG-15) ceased production in 1979!

WWMaxGunz
09-09-2006, 07:25 AM
Originally posted by luftluuver:
The first jet powered flight took place on July 18 1942 with Me262V3, piloted by Fritz Wendel. This was a tail dragger a/c.

He-178 proto was flown in 1941 in mock fight against early FW-190A. Voss was there and very
impressed but Gen. Milsch objected on grounds of "American Nosewheel" so halted all work.
Could the Heinkel have been operational by 1943? Probably so but materials for engines
would have been the same problem. The big money went to submarines and... tanks?

luftluuver
09-09-2006, 07:50 AM
Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by luftluuver:
The first jet powered flight took place on July 18 1942 with Me262V3, piloted by Fritz Wendel. This was a tail dragger a/c.

He-178 proto was flown in 1941 in mock fight against early FW-190A. Voss was there and very
impressed but Gen. Milsch objected on grounds of "American Nosewheel" so halted all work.
Could the Heinkel have been operational by 1943? Probably so but materials for engines
would have been the same problem. The big money went to submarines and... tanks? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Agh Max, yes the He178 flew first but the post was with regards to the Me262.

Are you sure it was a He178 and not the He280 that flew the mock combat?

On December 22 1943, a mock dogfight was staged for RLM officials in which the He 280 was matched against a Focke-Wulf Fw 190.

Daiichidoku
09-09-2006, 10:36 AM
obvisoulsy Max hasnt read the entire thread, or he would have seen my reference to the He 280, including the 289 vs Anton fight http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

major_setback
09-09-2006, 11:24 AM
Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
It should be pointed out the Meteor is still in service!!

Martin Baker use two of them as test beds for new seats. Why? Because they are ultra reliable and simple.

Amazing!


http://www.airsceneuk.org.uk/airshow02/kemble/meteor.jpg

Xiolablu3
09-09-2006, 11:55 AM
I remember something about that.

The Meteor used for tests of ejector seats isnt it?

I think I saw it on the History channel.

luftluuver
09-09-2006, 12:32 PM
Originally posted by Daiichidoku:
obvisoulsy Max hasnt read the entire thread, or he would have seen my reference to the He 280, including the 289 vs Anton fight http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif What is a 289? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Dtools4fools
09-09-2006, 02:27 PM
Someone said the Meteor was not very manueverable. I don't know about the WWII era Meteor. But the US Commander of the Far East Air Force flew a RAAF Meteor during the Korean war (can't remember the Mark used) and he said something to the effect that the plane had a wonderful climb rate and was very manueverable, but was too slow and didn't roll very well (compared to the F-86).

Seems to me that the Meteor was, indeed, a very maueverable plane.


Regards,
SkyChimp


Emphasis on COMPARED TO THE F-86...
Now how would the 262 compare to the F-86?

Means nothing compared to other aircraft, only that specific one compared with.

A Galaxy will turn a Herculess in a very manouverable plane...

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

*****

Daiichidoku
09-09-2006, 02:31 PM
Originally posted by luftluuver:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Daiichidoku:
obvisoulsy Max hasnt read the entire thread, or he would have seen my reference to the He 280, including the 289 vs Anton fight http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif What is a 289? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

code = fat finger + lack of motor co-ordination + terrible eyesight

bienenbaer
09-09-2006, 03:56 PM
Originally posted by Jaws2002:
I don't agree with you. the 262 was a killer against anything. Numbers is what they needed, not a "spitfire " to defend them. If they had numbers so when you go land there are other fast jets flying around to cover you , you don't need a piston fighter around.

Most WW2 fighters got shot down when they never saw what hit them. Is easy for 100 allied fighters to all watch for the same two jets and avoid their fast attacks. When you have to watch for 100 jets flying with 100 mph faster then you, is a very different story.
You can try that in the game. make a mission with a bunch of jets in the opposite team. Is so easy to be blown up by a jet while you are hoping to catch another one.

I am sceptical.

- if the Me-262 is too fast there is no time for precise aiming. If it slows down to some ten km/h above the prop fighters speed, then they are manoueverable, horizontally anyway, and due to their better accelaration, probably even vertically.

- the allied fighters - with experienced pilots at that time - fly in a wing or squadrons, a large number of planes guarding each other from surprise.

Do you know Johannes Steinhoff's "Verschwoerung der Jagdflieger"? He describes one encounter with russian fighters and Lightnings each.

This is a straight translation from the german edition, admittedly dilettantic:

"Below me circled a full swarm of (russian) fighters, it might have been ten or twelve. They flow these chaotic manouevres with unforeseen turns, with zoom and descent, with loopings and spirals, that were part of their tactics. A certain arrogance was in their behaviour ("We fly over the German Reich - where are the famous german fighters?")

The temptation to get one of them in front of my cannons was great. But as soon as they noticed me, they would turn ever more wild, would fly straight only for some meters, and make the approach incredible difficult for me. I would need to disappear from their view, bring myself far beyond them, would then have to meet them at their altitude, and then cross this whole circus most surprisingly.

(Note: the Me-262 had no airbrake, he describes its need in more detail in his encounter with the Lightnings)

...

Now I saw them before me, black points on the armoured glass plate before my face. Then I drove into the mid of their round dance of turns and aerobatics. I passed one who stood in the air ("I am too fast!"). The one above me went into a right bank turn, light blue painted lower side shining against the violett sky. One turned direct in front of the nose of my Me. Fierce jerks, as I flew through his prop turbulences. The one in the mellow left turn! Turn around the plane. I came from below, eye pressed against the vizor (pull ever more tightly!), a shake in the wings, - pop, pop, pop - while the cannons hammered briefly. Missed, far beyond his tail. One could almost cry, I could not shoot any of them. They were like a circus of fleas. Doubts: is this really such a good fighter?

...

What was I doing wrong? Could one at all successfully attack a group of wild turning fighters with the Me-262?"

Note:

- If wanted, I could translate his encounter with the Lightnings as well
- I do not endoubt the interceptor qulities of the Me-262 against heavies.

Dtools4fools
09-09-2006, 04:06 PM
bienenbaer,

two point to think about:

- was the entire bunch of Russian fighters able to get the lone 262?

- what if it wouldn't have been a lone 262 in a entire bunch of Russian fighters, but an entrie bunch of 262, make it a teamworking bunch of 262 (Russian fighters turning away from one 262 in front of nose of another one...)
I think it would look vastly different if it would be an engagement with roughly equal numbers. Point is the faster plane, in this case 262, can dictate the engagement (and disengage if needed), the slower one can't.

What if Steinhoff qwould have been in a 109 or a FW 190, btw...???
*****

SkyChimp
09-09-2006, 06:17 PM
Originally posted by Dtools4fools:

Emphasis on COMPARED TO THE F-86...
Now how would the 262 compare to the F-86?

Means nothing compared to other aircraft, only that specific one compared with.

A Galaxy will turn a Herculess in a very manouverable plane...

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

*****

Probably, but it was what I had with respect to manueverability. It was the F8 version which was considerably hotter than the versions used in WWII.

In mock dogfights with Sabres, and in actual combat against MiGs, both much faster planes than the Meteor, the Meteor aquitted itself reasonably well, especially at lower altitude due to its manueverability and climb rate. I suspect that the earlier Meteors would have had similar advantages of manueverability against the Me-262.

Jaws2002
09-09-2006, 07:20 PM
Originally posted by bienenbaer:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jaws2002:
I don't agree with you. the 262 was a killer against anything. Numbers is what they needed, not a "spitfire " to defend them. If they had numbers so when you go land there are other fast jets flying around to cover you , you don't need a piston fighter around.

Most WW2 fighters got shot down when they never saw what hit them. Is easy for 100 allied fighters to all watch for the same two jets and avoid their fast attacks. When you have to watch for 100 jets flying with 100 mph faster then you, is a very different story.
You can try that in the game. make a mission with a bunch of jets in the opposite team. Is so easy to be blown up by a jet while you are hoping to catch another one.

I am sceptical.

- if the Me-262 is too fast there is no time for precise aiming. If it slows down to some ten km/h above the prop fighters speed, then they are manoueverable, horizontally anyway, and due to their better accelaration, probably even vertically.

- the allied fighters - with experienced pilots at that time - fly in a wing or squadrons, a large number of planes guarding each other from surprise.

Do you know Johannes Steinhoff's "Verschwoerung der Jagdflieger"? He describes one encounter with russian fighters and Lightnings each.

This is a straight translation from the german edition, admittedly dilettantic:

"Below me circled a full swarm of (russian) fighters, it might have been ten or twelve. They flow these chaotic manouevres with unforeseen turns, with zoom and descent, with loopings and spirals, that were part of their tactics. A certain arrogance was in their behaviour ("We fly over the German Reich - where are the famous german fighters?")

The temptation to get one of them in front of my cannons was great. But as soon as they noticed me, they would turn ever more wild, would fly straight only for some meters, and make the approach incredible difficult for me. I would need to disappear from their view, bring myself far beyond them, would then have to meet them at their altitude, and then cross this whole circus most surprisingly.

(Note: the Me-262 had no airbrake, he describes its need in more detail in his encounter with the Lightnings)

...

Now I saw them before me, black points on the armoured glass plate before my face. Then I drove into the mid of their round dance of turns and aerobatics. I passed one who stood in the air ("I am too fast!"). The one above me went into a right bank turn, light blue painted lower side shining against the violett sky. One turned direct in front of the nose of my Me. Fierce jerks, as I flew through his prop turbulences. The one in the mellow left turn! Turn around the plane. I came from below, eye pressed against the vizor (pull ever more tightly!), a shake in the wings, - pop, pop, pop - while the cannons hammered briefly. Missed, far beyond his tail. One could almost cry, I could not shoot any of them. They were like a circus of fleas. Doubts: is this really such a good fighter?

...

What was I doing wrong? Could one at all successfully attack a group of wild turning fighters with the Me-262?"

Note:

- If wanted, I could translate his encounter with the Lightnings as well
- I do not endoubt the interceptor qulities of the Me-262 against heavies. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Now how would he have done if it flew as you said a Spitfire in that situation? it would have been a quick kill for the Russians. he flew the jet, alone and al those guys could not touch him. Now imagine the bounce done by 4-5 262's. It would have been a massacre. It was the same in the beginning of the war, when the Germans flew fast 109F's against I-153's. This is the same tactic used by the Russians. You don't gain no tactical advantage this way.

In 262 one had 100 Mph advantage against the fastest of the props. You had the speed, you were the predator and everything else in the sky was prey. Is that simple.

But you need decent numbers to make it work. One jet trying to attack fifty won't work. Seeing the other guy first is the greatest advantage in a fight. Wen twenty jets attack sixty or eighty props is a different story all together because one can't keep an eye on 20 fast planes and the one you don't see will get you.

Dtools4fools
09-09-2006, 07:35 PM
I read about wired controls to prevent overstressing of wings, slow rolling on Meteor III.
Does not sound to great to me...

Clipped wings on F4 to lessen stress on wings and get better roll rate, btw.

And about Korea:
"The Meteor was used for escort duties at first, with the aircraft's initial combat mission taking place on 29 July. A month later the Meteors mixed it up with MiG-15s and got the worst of it, with one Meteor lost and the pilot taken prisoner, and two others badly damaged. The Meteor seemed to be no match for the MiG-15, though Australian pilots protested that they might have done much better had they been trained for air-to-air combat instead of ground support, but by the end of 1951 the Meteor had been relegated to the ground-support role."

From Meteor Page (http://www.vectorsite.net/avmeteor.html)

And I still don't see the logic that if a improved F8 with clipped wing was more manouverable (but otherwise inferior) than Sabre and Mig then the MkI and III with different wing would be automatically more manouverable than 262.
The comment that the 262 airframe with Meteor engines would have been best jet fighter in WWII shows on one side the Jumos problems but one the other hand there must have been something not so good with the Meteor airframe too...

*****

SkyChimp
09-09-2006, 08:11 PM
The roll rate with the "long span" wings wasn't that good. The Gloster Meteor F Mk4 rolled at 80 degrees per second at 400 mph with a 60lb stick force. I don't have a roll rate with clipped wings. And I don't have it for the Me-262.

Here's a comparison from the book "The first Jet Aircraft" by Wolfgang Wagner:

http://members.cox.net/us.fighters/meteor.jpg

sudoku1941
09-09-2006, 08:16 PM
Originally posted by SkyChimp:
It was the F8 version which was considerably hotter than the versions used in WWII.

In mock dogfights with Sabres, and in actual combat against MiGs, both much faster planes than the Meteor, the Meteor aquitted itself reasonably well, especially at lower altitude due to its manueverability and climb rate.

Dude...dude... come on, you're grasping at straws big time here.

For one: the F8 Meteor has a completely different tail unit, and the engines (and even the nacelles carrying the engines) had been redesigned several times by the time the F8 appeared.

For two: I don't recall any tests of mock dogfights between F8s and Sabres...but REAL KOREAN WAR HISTORY (which is much more relevant than any controlled test) shows that the F8 was meat against the MiG-15; couldn't outclimb it (neither could the Sabre, for that matter), couldn't outturn it (quoting the Aussie pilots, "All we want for Christmas is our wings swept back...") and I don't believe was faster, either.

Can we stop this "oooh, the Meteor could have pwned the Me262 IF only..." hyperventilating??? Fact is, the Meteor was not ready for prime time by the end of WWII and was held back from duty that would put it in a position to be lost over Axis territory and captured (lest the Germans learn from anything the Allies had done right with the system thus far). It is a FACT that it was NOT A FACTOR in relevant combat during WWII, while the Me262 undoubtedly was.

And, finally, the war did not operate on a "tit for tat" basis, with everything even stephen. Put another way, the Allies were not "owed" a jet just because the Germans had fielded one (or actually several; all of which themselves weren't quite ready for primetime, but the situation being what it was, the Axis improvised and threw them into the fray anyway).

Another fact: the Meteor really doesn't belong in this planeset, and neither does the F-80 Shooting Star. Both are "Korean War" jets for all intents and purposes. A few "milk run" ground attack missions or buzz bomb tipping missions for the Meteor don't do much to refute that theory.

p1ngu666
09-09-2006, 08:17 PM
the problem of the 262 was it was too big a step, plus the lack of airbrakes is abit sux.

most aircraft where safe from 262, and 262 safe from them, because the difference so big.

262 is like taking a dodge viper to a go cart track

leitmotiv
09-09-2006, 08:34 PM
SkyChimp's stats (wing loading) clearly show the 262 was a pig maneuverability-wise, and the slower, less-lively (power-weight ratio) Meteor IV was significantly more maneuverable. Another factor is engine performance at high altitude---note the 262 maxed out at 6000m while the Meteor IV maxed at 9000m---this would have boded ill for the 262.

SkyChimp
09-09-2006, 08:35 PM
Originally posted by sudoku1941:
Dude...dude... come on, you're grasping at straws big time here.


I€m not grasping at anything. I€m not a €œfan€ of either plane. I€m only posting some facts I know about the planes.





For one: the F8 Meteor has a completely different tail unit, and the engines (and even the nacelles carrying the engines) had been redesigned several times by the time the F8 appeared.


Yes, that€s true.




For two: I don't recall any tests of mock dogfights between F8s and Sabres...but REAL KOREAN WAR HISTORY (which is much more relevant than any controlled test) shows that the F8 was meat against the MiG-15; couldn't outclimb it (neither could the Sabre, for that matter), couldn't outturn it (quoting the Aussie pilots, "All we want for Christmas is our wings swept back...") and I don't believe was faster, either.


I didn€t say tests, I said mock dogfights. I€m not sure it was formal in any way. Down low the Meteor could out turn the Sabre (so could the Shooting Star, for that matter).

I€m talking maneuverability, ie turn ability, not speed or climb. The Meteor was apparently a very good turning jet fighter.

Dtools4fools
09-09-2006, 09:32 PM
F Mk4 is already clipped wing, no?

Even if wing loading is better I wonder what that means that wing stress was a problem? Could it go to its limit with those early unclipped wings or not? Better wing loading won't help much if you can't put stress on the wings, no?

Point is 262 is quite a bit faster (Meteor speed stats are F4 and not Mk I-III, btw) and therefore can dictate engagement.

<pre class="ip-ubbcode-code-pre"> most aircraft where safe from 262, and 262 safe from them, because the difference so big. </pre>

In that sense a triplane from WWII would be safe from an Eurofighter too...

Point is that 262 can dictate engagements to slower plane and take pot shots. Slower plane can only dodge attacks and try to survive...
Not good for slower plane in my opinion...

****

leitmotiv
09-09-2006, 09:45 PM
262 Couldn't dictate much when the Meteor was able to fly higher and faster, see SkyChimp's stats. One of the characteristcs of the Meteor's engines was superb high altitude performance. The Sovs copied these engines for the MiG-15, and it had superb high altitude performance, too. The 262 was a champ as long as it was in its element: medium altitude opposed to piston aircraft, and a target which was not turning. What's all the fuss about? The 262 was a wonder weapon in a limited context. Even Messerschmitt wanted to make huge changes to the design as soon as possible.

SkyChimp
09-09-2006, 10:31 PM
Originally posted by Dtools4fools:
F Mk4 is already clipped wing, no?


The first 100 F Mk. 4s did not have shortened wings.




Even if wing loading is better I wonder what that means that wing stress was a problem? Could it go to its limit with those early unclipped wings or not? Better wing loading won't help much if you can't put stress on the wings, no?

Point is 262 is quite a bit faster (Meteor speed stats are F4 and not Mk I-III, btw) and therefore can dictate engagement.


I'm a little lost on the "structural weakness" thing. Any airplane can be overstressed even though they are rated for relatively high loads - some were somewhat infamous for it.

Structural weakness appears to have been an issue during the design phase of the Meteor but was corrected on production models. During design and testing it was determined that the center section of the rear spar across the engine bay may fail (it did in testing), but was corrected by using high tensile steel for the banjo and radial stiffners on the web.

The later F Mk. 4 was intially produced with long wings of the earlier models, but went to short wings when it was discovered that the wings may not withstand the increased stresses placed upon them by a dramatic increase in speed. Therefore, the wings were shortened 10 inches to cope with the increased stress. It also had the effect of reducing roll rate, but it decreased rate of climb and ceiling.

I can't find anything in my sources to suggest there was an ongoing problem with structural soundness that would adversely effect the meteors ability to be flown to its permissbile loadings.

The Me-262 had definate advantages on paper over the first service Meteor. And it appears to have been faster than the later F Mk. 4, but not greatly so. But the Mk.4 had a much better climb rate. Early centrifugal engines spooled up faster than axials, so the Mk. 4 probably would have had an acceleration advantage. The ceiling of the Mk. 4 was higher. And I don't believe there was any real appreciable difference in dive capabilities. Counting the F Mk. 4 as a WWII fighter is a big stretch, though.

Xiolablu3
09-09-2006, 10:43 PM
Originally posted by sudoku1941:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SkyChimp:
It was the F8 version which was considerably hotter than the versions used in WWII.

In mock dogfights with Sabres, and in actual combat against MiGs, both much faster planes than the Meteor, the Meteor aquitted itself reasonably well, especially at lower altitude due to its manueverability and climb rate.

Dude...dude... come on, you're grasping at straws big time here.

For one: the F8 Meteor has a completely different tail unit, and the engines (and even the nacelles carrying the engines) had been redesigned several times by the time the F8 appeared.

For two: I don't recall any tests of mock dogfights between F8s and Sabres...but REAL KOREAN WAR HISTORY (which is much more relevant than any controlled test) shows that the F8 was meat against the MiG-15; couldn't outclimb it (neither could the Sabre, for that matter), couldn't outturn it (quoting the Aussie pilots, "All we want for Christmas is our wings swept back...") and I don't believe was faster, either.

Can we stop this "oooh, the Meteor could have pwned the Me262 IF only..." hyperventilating??? Fact is, the Meteor was not ready for prime time by the end of WWII and was held back from duty that would put it in a position to be lost over Axis territory and captured (lest the Germans learn from anything the Allies had done right with the system thus far). It is a FACT that it was NOT A FACTOR in relevant combat during WWII, while the Me262 undoubtedly was.

And, finally, the war did not operate on a "tit for tat" basis, with everything even stephen. Put another way, the Allies were not "owed" a jet just because the Germans had fielded one (or actually several; all of which themselves weren't quite ready for primetime, but the situation being what it was, the Axis improvised and threw them into the fray anyway).

Another fact: the Meteor really doesn't belong in this planeset, and neither does the F-80 Shooting Star. Both are "Korean War" jets for all intents and purposes. A few "milk run" ground attack missions or buzz bomb tipping missions for the Meteor don't do much to refute that theory. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Geez. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

Bi1, He162, Do335 'belong' more do they?

SC was just telling us his thoughts about the Meteor, not saying anything about version, or vs Me262. (In fact he KNEW that it was a later version he was talking about) He wasnt saying anything baout having it in game either...

You seemed to totally miss the point of his post and assume there is an ulterior motive.

leitmotiv
09-09-2006, 11:22 PM
The Meteors I and III should have been in '46 as well as the Vampire---and, for that matter, a Japanese Kikka and Reppu. Everybody would have had their super aircraft and everybody would have been happy---for about 20 minutes.

Kocur_
09-10-2006, 02:43 AM
The Sovs copied these engines for the MiG-15

No, no! They copied B-29! What they did with Derwent and Nene is BOUGHT them from British government http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif

leitmotiv
09-10-2006, 05:43 AM
Whoops---right you are, Kocur_---I stand corrected!

luftluuver
09-10-2006, 06:04 AM
The prototype MiG 15 was powered by bought Nene engines BUT the production MiG 15s were powered by copied Nene engines, the RD-45.

Kocur_
09-10-2006, 06:27 AM
Whether British sold a number of those engines examples only or any rights for them, the result was that Soviets got newest jet engines technology not by spying or stealing it but in result of voluntary decision of western power. Very interesting decision...

leitmotiv
09-10-2006, 06:36 AM
Truly, very interesting. Prime Minister Clement Attlee and Labour were disposed kindly to the USSR---perhaps this was the reason?

leitmotiv
09-10-2006, 06:42 AM
As Churchill said about Attlee: "A sheep in sheep's clothing" and "a modest man and rightly so."

Abbuzze
09-10-2006, 07:15 AM
Originally posted by leitmotiv:
262 Couldn't dictate much when the Meteor was able to fly higher and faster, see SkyChimp's stats. One of the characteristcs of the Meteor's engines was superb high altitude performance. The Sovs copied these engines for the MiG-15, and it had superb high altitude performance, too. The 262 was a champ as long as it was in its element: medium altitude opposed to piston aircraft, and a target which was not turning. What's all the fuss about? The 262 was a wonder weapon in a limited context. Even Messerschmitt wanted to make huge changes to the design as soon as possible.

If you take a closer look to the stats you see that the 262 has twice as many fuel as the Meteor (seems also twice the range if we take the MK4). If you calculate the most important figures for a 262 with similar fuelload. The numbers are getting even more in favour for the ME.

3.11 kg/kp vs 4.02kg/kp for the Meteor

258 kg/m² vs 173.5 kg/m² for the Meteor.

So the Gloster still have a lower wingload, but with an eye at the thrustload, I would prefer the 262.

Xiolablu3
09-10-2006, 07:34 AM
Originally posted by Kocur_:
Whether British sold a number of those engines examples only or any rights for them, the result was that Soviets got newest jet engines technology not by spying or stealing it but in result of voluntary decision of western power. Very interesting decision...

VEry STUPID decision.

They were totally trusting of the Russians, it was decided that they would be sold by a game of billiards :/ The British Diplomat said if the Russian could beat him at billiards, they could have the engine.

Bet there was a big DOH when it was shooting down Meteors and F86's in Korea.

Kocur_
09-10-2006, 07:39 AM
Originally posted by leitmotiv:
Truly, very interesting. Prime Minister Clement Attlee and Labour were disposed kindly to the USSR---perhaps this was the reason?

I bet it was. Not personally by Mr.Atlee perhaps, but LP was on Soviet leash quite obviously.

leitmotiv
09-10-2006, 08:02 AM
Peter Sellers brilliantly ridiculed a Labour apparatchik in I'M ALL RIGHT, JACK---a mini-Stalin. Hilarious.

NeilStirling
09-10-2006, 09:24 AM
Meteor IV

http://www.aeroengineer.net/history/meteor/index.html

Neil

sudoku1941
09-10-2006, 10:37 AM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:

Bi1, He162, Do335 'belong' more do they?

SC was just telling us his thoughts about the Meteor, not saying anything about version, or vs Me262. (In fact he KNEW that it was a later version he was talking about) He wasnt saying anything baout having it in game either...

You seemed to totally miss the point of his post and assume there is an ulterior motive.

No, those other planes should be tossed in the trash along with the other oddities.

There is ALWAYS an ulterior motive with this particular discussion. The reasoning is as gradeschool stupid as this:

"Waaaaah, the Germans get a jet, the Allies should have one, too!! Waaah...

Oooh! What about the Meteor? What about the Shooting Star? What about an F-15??? Yeah, that'll 'even things up'!!"

These people are always looking for a "wonder plane" that will give them so many advantages that they'll be an instant worldbeater...but what they really need is a clue about basic stick and rudder moves, energy management and situational awareness... things that will help them improve in ANY plane. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

SkyChimp
09-10-2006, 03:25 PM
Originally posted by SkyChimp:
Someone said the Meteor was not very manueverable. I don't know about the WWII era Meteor. But the US Commander of the Far East Air Force flew a RAAF Meteor during the Korean war (can't remember the Mark used) and he said something to the effect that the plane had a wonderful climb rate and was very manueverable, but was too slow and didn't roll very well (compared to the F-86).

Seems to me that the Meteor was, indeed, a very maueverable plane.

I found the info on this that I thought I had remembered accurately.

"In April 1951, General Partridge of the USAF visited Ikawuni to try out the Meteor,...,flew an F.8 solo expressing the view after his ride that the fighter was a sound aircraft but slow, lacking manueverability at certain heights, with a restricted rear view over a wide arc." Source: The Gloster Meteor, MacDonald Aircraft Monographs, Edward Shacklady.

Xiolablu3
09-10-2006, 03:55 PM
Originally posted by sudoku1941:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:

Bi1, He162, Do335 'belong' more do they?

SC was just telling us his thoughts about the Meteor, not saying anything about version, or vs Me262. (In fact he KNEW that it was a later version he was talking about) He wasnt saying anything baout having it in game either...

You seemed to totally miss the point of his post and assume there is an ulterior motive.

No, those other planes should be tossed in the trash along with the other oddities.

There is ALWAYS an ulterior motive with this particular discussion. The reasoning is as gradeschool stupid as this:

"Waaaaah, the Germans get a jet, the Allies should have one, too!! Waaah...

Oooh! What about the Meteor? What about the Shooting Star? What about an F-15??? Yeah, that'll 'even things up'!!"

These people are always looking for a "wonder plane" that will give them so many advantages that they'll be an instant worldbeater...but what they really need is a clue about basic stick and rudder moves, energy management and situational awareness... things that will help them improve in ANY plane. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So you really think that this thread was to try and get a Meteor in the game? I fly mainly FW190 if I can fly blue.

I would get a tin foil hat if I were you http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

MB_Avro_UK
09-10-2006, 05:00 PM
Hi all,

This may or may not be interesting.

My father flew the F8 Meteor in Britain in 1951. He told me that it was easier to fly than the Harvard/Texan that he had trained on in Canada.
There was of course no engine torque and take off was easy.

The range of the plane was very limited without a belly tank. By the time an operational ceiling was reached it was almost time to head home.

Many pilots were killed (and their instructors) practicing an engine failure on climb out from take off.This was eventually curtailed as more pilots were killed practicing for an emergency than were killed by the real thing.

He remembers performing aerobatics over his girlfriend's house (later to be my mother) and forgot that he was carrying a fuel belly tank. Aerobatics were forbidden with this configuration as there was possibility that the tank would separate from the aircraft.

He was on standby for the Korean war and to this day is glad that he didn't have to get involved.

Anyway SkyChimp,did you enjoy the pint of Spifire beer I sent you... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Best Regards,
MB_Avro

leitmotiv
09-10-2006, 05:17 PM
Fascinating. So the MkI and III without belly tanks would have had a hard time using any altitude advantage against a Me 262---would have run out of juice climbing to position!

Xiolablu3
09-10-2006, 05:41 PM
Originally posted by leitmotiv:
Fascinating. So the MkI and III without belly tanks would have had a hard time using any altitude advantage against a Me 262---would have run out of juice climbing to position!

Yeah, it wasnt really a match for the Me262, especially in its early marks.

Possibly because the Germans pushed everything to the limit with the Me262, they were desperate. Or maybe the Me262 was just a better design.

The RAF would never have put a plane into service as dangerous as the Me262 was in 1944 - there was simply no need. So they added a lot of 'safety barriers' to the Meteor. Had the roles been reversed, maybe we would have seen a dangerously boosted Meteor and a sluggish Me262, who knows?

Whatever the reasons, it cannot be denied that the Me262 was a much better plane. I was just wondering which went into service first. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

sudoku1941
09-10-2006, 05:42 PM
So you really think that this thread was to try and get a Meteor in the game?


Absolutely. It's always what's behind these posts. And, I believe it got the F-80 into the game, which doesn't belong, either.

Xiolablu3
09-10-2006, 05:44 PM
Originally posted by sudoku1941:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">So you really think that this thread was to try and get a Meteor in the game?


Absolutely. It's always what's behind these posts. And, I believe it got the F-80 into the game, which doesn't belong, either. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I dont quite know what to say, so I wont say a word. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

Low_Flyer_MkVb
09-10-2006, 05:58 PM
So what 'planes actually do belong in the game?

p1ngu666
09-10-2006, 06:48 PM
ones he wants, obivously http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

i guess the meteor is the hurri of jets.

i dont know how "milk run" the ground attack sorties where, but generaly the flak was heavy, to very heavy.

ground attack was no milk run..

sudoku1941
09-10-2006, 09:42 PM
Originally posted by Low_Flyer_MkVb:
So what 'planes actually do belong in the game?

You're seriously asking me this question??

Go read the package(s). This is a WWII combat flight sim.

So, duh: planes that flew in WWII that had a significant effect on the war. That excludes the experiments, the onesies-twosies, the oddities, etc.

No Bi-1. No Meteor. No P-80. No MiG-3U (of which only 6 were ever built). No I-185. No D0-335. There are a few others that were so rare as not to constitute inclusion that slip my mind.

But it's not, to use a bad pun, rocket science. It's all about "representative, relevant airframes".

And no, it's not that I have anything against the Meteor. I happen to be building one for another flight sim. It's an interesting plane, actually... but it's only relevant in Korea.

Xiolablu3
09-10-2006, 10:12 PM
You are totally missing the point of the thread and taking it totally off topic with your paranoid delusions...Oleg can add any planes he wants to his sim. And he does, he doesnt need your persmission on whether it was used in WW2 or not.

Why do you care what planes are added anyway? You dont play this game any more, its so ****, isnt it? I have never seen you say a good thing about it, so you for sure dont PLAY it?

How did a interesting thread about the meteor get turned into Stigler arguing about what planes are in the sim. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/disagree.gif

sudoku1941
09-10-2006, 10:43 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
You are totally missing the point of the thread and taking it totally off topic with your paranoid delusions...Oleg can add any planes he wants to his sim. And he does, he doesnt need your persmission on whether it was used in WW2 or not.

Why do you care what planes are added anyway? You dont play this game any more, its so ****, isnt it? I have never seen you say a good thing about it, so you for sure dont PLAY it?

How did a interesting thread about the meteor get turned into Stigler arguing about what planes are in the sim. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/disagree.gif

Clearly, the Bi-1 and the MiG-3U, and the I-185 prove your assertion that Oleg can do what he wants. I wasn't asking his permission either.

But, all three of the planes I just mentioned were all irrelevant footnotes of WWII; you can't argue that, and neither can Oleg.

HellToupee
09-10-2006, 10:58 PM
but then they can add what ever planes they like to the game relevant or not, some people find them interesting.

Daiichidoku
09-11-2006, 12:20 AM
forget it, Stiglr, too many fanbois just dont get it

F6_Ace
09-11-2006, 01:04 AM
Without wishing to drag this further OT...

In defence of Xiola, I know him and I don't think his motive was to get a Meteor in the game at all but rather to discuss the point in the subject.

On the other hand, I completely agree about the fantasy planes and the time that gets spent on them being wasted as opposed to adding more relevant aircraft/sorting out long-standing, tiresome problems.

Abbuzze
09-11-2006, 02:21 AM
I also have never had the impression that this thread is intended to bring the Meteor in this game. Except the fact that it is to late for new planes. New projects are not made by Olegs team.

It is just an interesting and good question.

leitmotiv
09-11-2006, 02:26 AM
X asked an honest, good question. Why trivialize it by accusing him of some kind of childish plot?

Xiolablu3
09-11-2006, 08:43 AM
So that we can end this thread on a positive note, I can honestly say that I SWEAR there was no ulterior motive to this thread. I saw those dates and was surprised that it said the Meteor entered service beofre hte Me262, so I asked in the thread what you guys thought, thats IT. Unlike some others I could mention, I am willing to admit that I dont know EVRYTHING, and some guys on this board know a lot more about planes than me, thats why the question was asked here.

In the thread it turned into a good discusion about the Meteor, which is good.

No planes are even being added anymore, so how would a Meteor even get added to the game ANYWAY?


I actually agree that we need the Typhoon and some other planes in the game much more than the Meteor, but the discussion was never even ABOUT that. Plus its not up to us anyway, Oleg will put the planes he wants in HIS sim.

Some of the cynics can say the fanbois have faults, but this time its the cynics which are totally wrong and just being paranoid.

WOLFMondo
09-11-2006, 09:54 AM
Originally posted by sudoku1941:


No Bi-1. No Meteor. No P-80. No MiG-3U (of which only 6 were ever built). No I-185. No D0-335. There are a few others that were so rare as not to constitute inclusion that slip my mind.


Notice your error there? One of those aircraft saw production run from 1944 to well into the 50's and first entered service in 1944, shooting down some V1's. Guess what one I'm talking about.

Dtools4fools
09-11-2006, 10:28 AM
Could that be the Gloster Meteor?

Hehehe...

Intersting is that those jets retain their airspeed a low level much better than the props.

One thing about the Meteor: originally planned for 6 20mm guns it was only 4 as two were not well servicable, right? Dead weight had to be put in place the instead. Changes in engine and nacelles (giving needed improved performance) led to more unbalance at dead weight had to be increased to total of 450kg!?!!!?
That's from the webpage I linked earlier; any info on this?

Problem was then solved with new tail of F8. I think with F8 Meteor became a sound aircraft, but by then no more match for the swept wing Mig-15 and Sabre.

****

p1ngu666
09-11-2006, 10:36 AM
mondo, do335 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

do i get a prize? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/partyhat.gif

Arm_slinger
09-11-2006, 05:54 PM
Would of been the meteor if it wasn't for the bloody politians.

WOLFMondo
09-12-2006, 02:21 AM
scarcasm? :P

The.Tyke
09-12-2006, 05:08 AM
Originally posted by Capt.LoneRanger:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Thx God hitler was clueless about aircraft.
But Hitler really was an idiot. With all his complexes, he was still stuck in his WW1-Foot-Soldier-Experiences and disregarded the importance of the Kriegsmarine and Luftwaffe completely. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thats's why Churchill was'nt keen on him being assasinated ! He would have probably been replaced by somebody far more capable.

sudoku1941
09-12-2006, 10:11 AM
Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by sudoku1941:


No Bi-1. No Meteor. No P-80. No MiG-3U (of which only 6 were ever built). No I-185. No D0-335. There are a few others that were so rare as not to constitute inclusion that slip my mind.


Notice your error there? One of those aircraft saw production run from 1944 to well into the 50's and first entered service in 1944, shooting down some V1's. Guess what one I'm talking about. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Notice yours? You admit the Meteor had a 1944 production run and "shot down some V1s". Not the sort of combat we're dealing with in IL-2, is it? Sort of falls into the "hardly flew" category nicely, doesn't it?

And, actually you limit the early Meteors more than I do. They did do a few limited air-ground strikes (but were tellingly held back from front-line combat where they might be shot down and captured by the then woefully overmatched, overstretched Luftwaffe).

Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but "into the 1950s" means after WWII. Maybe....Korea???

Aaron_GT
09-13-2006, 07:49 AM
but LP was on Soviet leash quite obviously.


Some members of the Labour Party might have been sympathetic, but it wasn't universal, and some members of the period were rather critical of the Soviet Union. Britain, under Attlee, was an active participant in the start of the Cold War. Some would argue that it was FDR that gave the USSR an easy ride initially, although I once saw a US Army training film created a short while before VE Day which interestingly indicated that whilst fratenisation with the Germans would not be a good idea in the short term that US troops should be aware that they were likely to be allies in a few years against the Soviet threat, so it seems that some elements in the US government, even before Truman took power, were concerned about the USSR.

Aaron_GT
09-13-2006, 07:55 AM
Back on topic to the Meteor...

The Meteor was never really intended to be a big production fighter, but more a technology demonstrator. The other Gloster jets, the Rocket and Ace, which were much neater designs, did not do too well. It was anticipated that the Meteor would soon be replaced by an intermim generation (e.g. Supermarine Attacker) before the development immediately post war led to a replacement of the Meteor (Hunter, Javelin, Lightning).

In the end Britain was heavily in debt at the end of WW2, was also committed to providing large amounts of aids to Germany (hence bread rationing only beginning in the UK after WW2, due to committments to send large amounts of grain to post war Germany) and was convulsed with problems in colonies and Mandates (India, Pakistan, Palestine in particular). This meant that budgets were reallocated and modified which meant that the future generations of aircraft were somewhat delayed and the Meteor was still in service in a main capacity in Korea, rather than relegated to things like ground attack like the P-80.

Whole programs got cut in the immediate post war period, most tellingly the Miles M.52.

Aaron_GT
09-13-2006, 07:57 AM
And, actually you limit the early Meteors more than I do. They did do a few limited air-ground strikes (but were tellingly held back from front-line combat where they might be shot down and captured by the then woefully overmatched, overstretched Luftwaffe).


Why risk having your expensive technology demonstrators shot down in air-to-air combat when you are winning the war anyway, and it is about to end? Sure, you test the new aircraft in some ways, but you don't put them at extreme risk. The same was true of the P-80.

Aaron_GT
09-13-2006, 08:01 AM
Problem was then solved with new tail of F8. I think with F8 Meteor became a sound aircraft, but by then no more match for the swept wing Mig-15 and Sabre.

Although bizzarely one of the PR marks, (12 or 16 - not sure) when fitted with cast-off U2 engines and extended rings was the match of the U2 (some say more than a match) in terms of altitude, just not in range.

The Meteor also did grab a speed record.

But the Meteor was really just designed to gain experience in producing a jet fighter (discussions during development between Gloster and various government bodies bear this out) rather than an attempt to produce a very competitve aircraft. A competitive aircraft was expected to come next. In the end budget cuts and the failure of the Ace and Rocket to live up to expectations meant that the Meteor was modified and continued whilst waiting for the Hunter, Javelin, etc (just a bit too late for Korea).