Dogfight: Me 262 vs. Meteor

[Koopernic]

The technical solution was to install a lead computing gyro sight the EZ 42 and the more advanced EZ 45 which would allow side on attacks, including those with R4M folding fin missiles as well as guns. Future versions were to incorporate the FuG 248 EULE radar into the EZ 42 gyro sight. It was a 10.880 MHz radar with up to 2km range for automatically setting the distance to the target. The Me 262 with this sight would have been a monster as the reflector sights reticule would move to where the rounds were going at the selected targets range. This would make getting hits very easy, much easier than a pure gyro site. The EZ42 was very accurate as it took into account atmospheric conditions automatically.

Likewise the TSA 2D toss bombing sight was also entering troop testing on the Me 262 at the close of the war. The two supposed bugs of the Me 262: the lack of an accurate bomb sight and the aiming problem had in fact both excellent solutions in advanced stages of development.

I don't imagine that Me 410 style dive brakes would have been hard to fit to the Me 262 but they chose not to do so.

 

[GrauGeist]

GrauGeist,

I could envision using dive brakes at the completion of a stern intercept to slow down the 262 as it entered weapons employment range to allow for longer aim and trigger time. Then the pilot would either climb away or execute a slight dive to get back to a desired speed / energy state then climb again. Using dive brakes would preclude using maneuvering to slow down meaning more controllable transition from high intercept speed to slower weapons employment / trigger speed.

As it returned to land the dive brakes would more quickly slow it from the safety of high speed flight to the tactically more dangerous pattern speeds. This would shorten its vulnerability time in a Mustang rich environment.

Cheers,
Biff

Biff, the problem with the "brake - shoot - dive" idea is that the Me262s entered into the bomber stream at a high rate of speed and commenced their assault right under the nose of the escorts, who were flying top cover. In many cases, the Me262 groups or singles entered into the Bomber's contrail and followed in like sharks or approached from such an angle that hide thier approach until the last moment, so the escorts had a narrow window to react. However, once detected, the Me262 had to work fast, so it's speed was it's best asset.

Once the Me262 has committed his run and opened up on one or two bombers in his pass, escorts were already diving to intercept, so slowing on the attack run would allow the escort to close the gap by a considerable degree. Conversely, the Me262 commits to the attack, builds up speed and follows through by throttling up from the dive, pulling away from the pursuing escorts, allowing him the ability to gain a safe "space" to come about and conduct one more attack run even though the escorts are on his tail, albeit a distance away.

Once he's made another dive through the bomber stream, the 262 once again pulls up, puts some coal in the fire and climbs up and away from the frustrated escorts.

Without any measure of air superiority, the Luftwaffe had to adapt to the circumstances and it turns out that the high-speed slashing attacks allowed the 262 good results with survivability. Another tactic was to hit the high lead bombers, dropping them and/or their debris into the bombers below and behind.

 

[Greyman]

"This was a Blitzkrieg aircraft. You whack in at your bomber. It was never meant to be a dogfighter, it was meant to be a destroyer of bombers... The great problem with it was it did not have dive brakes. For example, if you want to fight and destroy a B-17, you come in on a dive. The 30mm cannon were not so accurate beyond 600 meters. So you normally came in at 600 yards and would open fire on your B-17. And your closing speed was still high and since you had to break away at 200 meters to avoid a collision, you only had two seconds firing time. Now, in two seconds, you can't sight. You can fire randomly and hope for the best. If you want to sight and fire, you need to double that time to four seconds. And with dive brakes, you could have done that." - Eric Brown

Also, check out the Meteor report at http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/meteor/Meteor-CFE.pdf (paragraphs 122 to 127).

In the conclusions:

"Dive brakes are valuable tactically on selected occasions and also for economical flying as they allow a steeper dive at the limiting speed and curtail the time and space occupied when reducing speed before landing."

The Meteor also had a IId gyrosight and Hispano cannon, making things easier. Hordes of Mustangs are the main issue here but giving tactical options for the pilot is usually a good idea.

Did the MiG-15 use brakes? how did their attacks go versus the B-29s?

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Did the MiG-15 use brakes?

how did their attacks go versus the B-29s?

Against F-86s
Russian Aces of the Korean War - MiG-15 Pilots versus USAF F-86s

The B-29 and MiG Alley | Talking Proud

 

[kool kitty89]

Between 80 - 90% is what you're normally operating at. You could go higher is you follow the indicated parameters, watching EGT and also watching your airspeed indicator insuring you're not over stressing the air frame.

If that was the specific case for operating conditions on the Jumo 004B-4, then my original comment would apply to staying very near that range and not throttling down in order to slow down during combat conditions like a piston engine fighter would. (pulling sharp maneuvers - or using air breaks to bleed of speed when the situation merited it or especially when it was a matter of otherwise risking diving beyond the mach limit -or for allowing landing approaches with the throttle high enough to allow for a go-around without waiting for the engines to spool back up)

Again, I think brakes aerodynamically designed and placed to help facilitate critical mach pull-out would be ideal, and was under the impression that the P-80's belly brake did allow this in addition to slowing the plane down.

stoichiometric? In my experience that term is normally associated with recips as the mixture can be controlled. An adverse stoichiometric fuel mixture in a turbine engine is something beyond operator control, and could tell you that most pilots don't even know what that is!

Turbine engines are normally designed to maintain a near-stoichoimetric fuel/air mixture within the flame tubes within cans or burners in annular combustion chambers (so-called 'combustors' in most turbine engine terminology I've seen, or at least the British references) with the hot combustion products then combining with the majority of remaining compressed air before entering the turbine section. Throttling up too quickly on the 004B would allow over-fueling of the engine and introducing a rich mixture to the flame tubes, partial combustion and further combustion of the products when introduced to that excess air stream, thus resulting in a higher turbine inlet temberature (or a spike in temperature until the compressor could spool up to the proper mass flow for the fuel being injected)

In any case the net effect (from the perspective of the turbine inlet) is the engine running less-lean and thus runs hot. (jet engines normally running extremely lean with mostly air passing through the system and a limited amount of hot combustion products adding the energy to drive the turbine)

I say 'less lean' rather than 'rich' because rich implies more fuel than there is air to oxidize it, which is not the case.

At what point would divebrakes/airbrakes be necessary in the execution of this attack? Deploying divebrakes/airbrakes in the middle of a bomber stream would achieve two results:
1 - it would allow more exposure for the defensive gunners to put a round in your engine or other vital portion of the aircraft
2 - it would allow the escorts to gain closer ground to intercept you.

Brakes are for when things go wrong or might go wrong, not for use during an attack, and they'd apply to similar cases where they'd be useful on the Meteor or P-80 (or YP-80) BEFORE the post-war models with better thrust to weight ratios. The P-59 could have done with brakes too given it tended to have such good gliding ability that it would 'float' on landing approaches and was hard to get it to set down. (low wing loading and relatively low drag at low speeds -it had problems with transonic drag at moderate speeds mostly due to the engine nacelle design, I believe)

So:
- avoiding diving too fast or assisting in recovering from critical mach dives
- holding down maximum speed on landing approaches (very similar context to controlled dives) while keeping throttles up to allow rapid acceleration for a go-around if needed.
- least desirable case: fighter on your tail or other situation where the best (desperate) option is to force an overshoot to provide enough time to dive and accelerate away before they can make another pass.


The context isn't that much different from post-war examples, but certainly more dramatic in different performance envelopes. The F-86 vs Mig 15 might be one of the closer cases given the Saber diving better and having better top speed (and higher critical mach and better ability to cope with supersonic speeds) while the MiG had lower wing loading and better thrust to weight ratio for better climb, turn, and acceleration. (also better speed control through throttle allone, less inertia/mass and more control over thrust -you can't control your weight, so that gravity 'thrust' in dives on the F-86 is going to he high regardless of throttle settings) You wouldn't want to use the brakes unless you had to, but when you DID need them, you'd sure be glad they were there.

Also remember that even though the F-86 COULD recover from a supersonic dive, it also needed a good amount of altitude to do so and while I don't believe the brake was safe to operate at such speeds, it WAS useful as a preventive measure.

 

[GrauGeist]

Brakes are for when things go wrong or might go wrong, not for use during an attack, and they'd apply to similar cases where they'd be useful on the Meteor or P-80 (or YP-80) BEFORE the post-war models with better thrust to weight ratios. The P-59 could have done with brakes too given it tended to have such good gliding ability that it would 'float' on landing approaches and was hard to get it to set down. (low wing loading and relatively low drag at low speeds -it had problems with transonic drag at moderate speeds mostly due to the engine nacelle design, I believe)

So:
- avoiding diving too fast or assisting in recovering from critical mach dives
- holding down maximum speed on landing approaches (very similar context to controlled dives) while keeping throttles up to allow rapid acceleration for a go-around if needed.
- least desirable case: fighter on your tail or other situation where the best (desperate) option is to force an overshoot to provide enough time to dive and accelerate away before they can make another pass.


The context isn't that much different from post-war examples, but certainly more dramatic in different performance envelopes. The F-86 vs Mig 15 might be one of the closer cases given the Saber diving better and having better top speed (and higher critical mach and better ability to cope with supersonic speeds) while the MiG had lower wing loading and better thrust to weight ratio for better climb, turn, and acceleration. (also better speed control through throttle allone, less inertia/mass and more control over thrust -you can't control your weight, so that gravity 'thrust' in dives on the F-86 is going to he high regardless of throttle settings) You wouldn't want to use the brakes unless you had to, but when you DID need them, you'd sure be glad they were there.

Also remember that even though the F-86 COULD recover from a supersonic dive, it also needed a good amount of altitude to do so and while I don't believe the brake was safe to operate at such speeds, it WAS useful as a preventive measure.

The general consensus so far,is that the Me262 needed airbrakes to slow it down and allow more time to attack the B-17s. My argument is that airbrakes defeat it's purpose and advantage in the attack.

You want to casually stroll up and peck away at a B-17, then climb into a Sturmbock and try and pick the stinger out of tail-end Charlie. But I guarentee you'll take your lumps both by the gunners and the escorts who are zeroing in on your position.

An Me262 had the ability to knock out a heavy with 3 - 4 rounds of 30mm. Even as fast as they closed and the limited amount of time that they were able to put the cannons on target, they did terrible damage. Also, in that brief moment they were within range of the defensive fire, they were virtually impossible to track with the turrets and the waist and cheek gunners simply didn't have a wide enough arc to sight, lead and fire in that short amount of time. This was a tremendous blessing for the Me262's pilots, as it minimized the possibility of being damaged/downed.

And as mentioned before, the Luftwaffe did not own the sky..there were very angry people up above, in very fast piston aircraft who took the safety of the bombers very personal. So once again, speed was the patron saint of the Me262: get in, get ugly and get out...

 

[BiffF15]

The general consensus so far,is that the Me262 needed airbrakes to slow it down and allow more time to attack the B-17s. My argument is that airbrakes defeat it's purpose and advantage in the attack.

You want to casually stroll up and peck away at a B-17, then climb into a Sturmbock and try and pick the stinger out of tail-end Charlie. But I guarentee you'll take your lumps both by the gunners and the escorts who are zeroing in on your position.

An Me262 had the ability to knock out a heavy with 3 - 4 rounds of 30mm. Even as fast as they closed and the limited amount of time that they were able to put the cannons on target, they did terrible damage. Also, in that brief moment they were within range of the defensive fire, they were virtually impossible to track with the turrets and the waist and cheek gunners simply didn't have a wide enough arc to sight, lead and fire in that short amount of time. This was a tremendous blessing for the Me262's pilots, as it minimized the possibility of being damaged/downed.

And as mentioned before, the Luftwaffe did not own the sky..there were very angry people up above, in very fast piston aircraft who took the safety of the bombers very personal. So once again, speed was the patron saint of the Me262: get in, get ugly and get out...

Grau,

What I was envisioning was a 262 that would come in at high speed, use maneuvering G (not sure what the intakes could take in the form of disrupted airflow), pop the boards (extend the speed brakes), leave the throttle up, come on the trigger at max range, come off trigger at min range (edge of return fire), and then depending on my speed and P-51 intercept position / proximity, either dive or climb away. If the Mustangs were too close at the start, I would have the flight lead tap / bounce / attack the Mustangs (diversionary tactic with hopes of scoring), while the wingman went after the bombers. Either way I would never move the throttles in combat (based on the known sensitivity of throttle movement).

As for the "get in, get ugly, and get out" all I can say is I remember being a bachelor...

Cheers,
Biff

 

[Koopernic]

Indeed the tactical solution was a shallow dive to below the bombers followed by a pull up manoeuvre to wash of speed.

 

[Greyman]

I know I'm getting further away from 1945 but I thought this was interesting:

Here's a subject that will always stir up an argument. We feel the use of speed brakes in combat is a mandatory requirement. During an attack airspeeds generally have to be cut down to within 150 or 200 knots of the aircraft being attacked, if anything other than a few sporadic hits are to be the result. An element slowing down to any extent should have another element high and fast for top cover. Speed brakes may be used anytime the immediate result could be a kill. Never use them head on - trade your airspeed for altitude in a case of this kind. Never use them to tighten up your turn unless, as you use them, you are sliding high and to the rear of the aircraft being attacked. - Major Frederick C. Blesse

 

[Milosh]

Could air brakes be used to cause an attacking a/c to overshoot the a/c being attacked?

 

[Greyman]

Could air brakes be used to cause an attacking a/c to overshoot the a/c being attacked?

Yeah but it's a bit of an 'out of the frying pan and into the fire' situation.

You're trading your chances of success in the next few minutes for a better chance to survive the next few seconds.

Generally.

 

[Koopernic]

Could air brakes be used to cause an attacking a/c to overshoot the a/c being attacked?

Sometimes, but your enemy sees airbrakes deploying. Reverse thrust or even thrust vectoring in flight is rather faster.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Sometimes, but your enemy sees airbrakes deploying. Reverse thrust or even thrust vectoring in flight is rather faster.

Have you ever been in a high performance jet while doing high speed maneuvers?!? If you could see the airbrakes being deployed, you don't need an aircraft to fly, just a red cape!!! The latter are for airshows and top gun movies!

 

[Koopernic]

Have you ever been in a high performance jet while doing high speed maneuvers?!? If you could see the airbrakes being deployed, you don't need an aircraft to fly, just a red cape!!! The latter are for airshows and top gun movies!

Well it wasn't actually my idea, Roy Braybrook writing in a series of articles on fighter design in Air International made that observation. Of course Braybrook (who actually designed a fighter jet) was talking about fast jets which can have F-15 sized barn door airbrakes versus say the bucket reversers on the Tornado. Meteor air brakes were possibly quite small.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Well it wasn't actually my idea, Roy Braybrook writing in a series of articles on fighter design in Air International made that observation. Of course Braybrook (who actually designed a fighter jet) was talking about fast jets which can have F-15 sized barn door airbrakes versus say the bucket reversers on the Tornado. Meteor air brakes were possibly quite small.

I know of Roy Braybrook, I also know and worked with other engineers who designed combat jet aircraft and many of them have never even flown a GA airplane, let alone a jet!!! Even with "barn door airbrakes" I could tell you it's the last thing you're looking for and then again if you're that close you've pissed away several million dollars worth of BVR weaponry.

I've done close VR simulated air combat in L29s and L39s and the last thing I was looking out for is when my opponent popped the speed brakes...

I hope Biff chimes in on this one...

 

[Juha]

Well it wasn't actually my idea, Roy Braybrook writing in a series of articles on fighter design in Air International made that observation. Of course Braybrook (who actually designed a fighter jet) was talking about fast jets which can have F-15 sized barn door airbrakes versus say the bucket reversers on the Tornado. Meteor air brakes were possibly quite small.

Hello Koopernic
you can see Meteor's airbrakes deployed and shut in these pictures
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gloster_Meteor#/media/File:Gloster_Meteor_Prone.jpg and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gloster_Meteor#/media/File:Royal_Military_Museum_Brussels_2007_442.JPG

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Hello Koopernic
you can see Meteor's airbrakes deployed and shut in these pictures
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gloster_Meteor#/media/File:Gloster_Meteor_Prone.jpg and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gloster_Meteor#/media/File:Royal_Military_Museum_Brussels_2007_442.JPG

They could be seen quite clearly, thanks for posting that! Try looking for them deployed 1000' feet in front of you while sitting in a tight, hot cockpit with heavy belts digging into your torso and a helmet and oxygen mask wrapped around your face while pulling 3/ 4 Gs at 375 knots....

Oh, I didn't mention about trying to get the pipper on the target either!

 

[BiffF15]

Gents,

I have used the speedbrakes in the Eagle while flying BFM (basic fighter maneuvers), but not that often. It auto retracts above a certain AOA, and you can slow down more just by pulling harder on the stick. FYI I think it's 3 feet by 12 feet tall, and doesn't go all the way out if you are going super fast.

The Eagle, Flanker and maybe the Hornet are the only ones that have big enough speed brakes that you would actually notice at 1-2k feet (if the aspect allowed it). The F-16 speedbrakes are tiny, I probably wouldn't notice if I were flying fingertip with him...

However, if I was gunning or about to gun a guy and noticed his speedbrakes out (which I have) it would change nothing. I would turn on the gun, then reposition to (to avoid the overshoot) and maintain the offensive whether I got him or not.

Cheers,
Biff

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Gents,

I have used the speedbrakes in the Eagle while flying BFM (basic fighter maneuvers), but not that often. It auto retracts above a certain AOA, and you can slow down more just by pulling harder on the stick. FYI I think it's 3 feet by 12 feet tall, and doesn't go all the way out if you are going super fast.

The Eagle, Flanker and maybe the Hornet are the only ones that have big enough speed brakes that you would actually notice at 1-2k feet (if the aspect allowed it). The F-16 speedbrakes are tiny, I probably wouldn't notice if I were flying fingertip with him...

However, if I was gunning or about to gun a guy and noticed his speedbrakes out (which I have) it would change nothing. I would turn on the gun, then reposition to (to avoid the overshoot) and maintain the offensive whether I got him or not.

Cheers,
Biff

Thanks Biff - your "professional" perspective is always welcomed in this forum in educating those of us with a little jet time and those who never flown in a jet.

 

[Koopernic]

Hello Koopernic
you can see Meteor's airbrakes deployed and shut in these pictures
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gloster_Meteor#/media/File:Gloster_Meteor_Prone.jpg and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gloster_Meteor#/media/File:Royal_Military_Museum_Brussels_2007_442.JPG

They are so small I suspect that they were not tactically useful in normal situations. Perhaps their purpose was recovery from a dive or avoidance of Mach Tuck. These brakes were not fitted to the Meteor I, only the Meteor III. The early meteors had a low Mach limit and even the meteor III needed lengthened nacelles I think 3 times. By the time they got it right (in meteor III used for meteor iv prototypes) the match limmit was only a tiny bit less than the Me 262 though they were in a better position to exploit a dive since they could confidently recover.

The Germans were probably thinking in terms of raising Mach limmit because of their awareness of swept wing technology. Ironically air brakes became extremely important as a method of avoiding sabre dance in swept wing aircraft on landing approach. (only super sabre had the issue)