Gloster Meteor vs Messerschmitt Me 262, one-vs-one dogfight

[Glider]

Not even the meteors most avid fan would claim that it was a match for the Mig 15 and the F86 in air combat. In the GA role it was probably as good as the best but not in air combat.

[FLYBOYJ]

How long does it take to make a high speed attack?
On the other hand:
I think this is correct for engines with afterburner due the horrible fuel consumption when used.
Just checked the book “Flugmotoren und Strahltriebwerke von Kyrill von Gersdorff (ISBN 9783763761289)” The Jumo 004 did not have a general time limit for the max power setting. The pilot has to keep care of the exhaust temperature and the max. rpm must not be exceeded instead. Early jet engines running cooler at lean max power setting than throttled down and running rich.cimmex

I think you're going to find this is a norm. About 5 minutes max power. Depending on the engine you might have 10 minutes at 96% and unlimited time at 92%. "Lean max power setting?" You don't have a mixture control on turbine engines.

[cimmex]

I think you're going to find this is a norm. About 5 minutes max power. Depending on the engine you might have 10 minutes at 96% and unlimited time at 92%. "Lean max power setting?" You don't have a mixture control on turbine engines.

Of course there is no mixture control on turbine engines. But due the poor fuel regulation the air to fuel ratio is not ideal at the Jumo 004 so you get a rich setting at lower power which can lead to engine overheating or even flame out.
cimmex

[FLYBOYJ]

Of course there is no mixture control on turbine engines. But due the poor fuel regulation the air to fuel ratio is not ideal at the Jumo 004 so you get a rich setting at lower power which can lead to engine overheating or even flame out.
cimmex

This setting isn't so much "rich" as compared to a recip engine but allows excess fuel into the burners and is basically typical for all turbine engines, even those of that period. During the start cycle "excess" fuel is dumped into the burners to aid during the ignition cycle. On many turbine engines during the start cycle you have a "fuel valve" or "fuel c0ck" (as the Brits call it) that can control fuel flow output into the burner. During the start cycle as EGT rises the fuel control is supposed to limit the excess fuel into the burners so you don't get an over temp during the start cycle. If during the start the EGT rises close to the caution area, you can limit fuel flow via the fuel valve until ignition is stabilizes and the engine begins to idle on its own (usually about 30%) and the fuel control begins to do its job. During this time the throttles are kept in one position (ground idle) and not touched until idle speeds and engine temps stabilize.

The Me262 did not have a fuel valve and starting fuel flow was controlled with the throttle. During the start sequence (after engaging the starter engines and reaching 800 rpm) you turned on a fuel selector to the rear tank and slowly advanced the throttle to 3000 rpm, at 3000 rpm the throttle ignition button is released. During this sequence you can't exceed 650C EGT and I would assume you can control this by how quickly you advance the throttle. This was probably the main reason why you had flame outS, hung starts or over temps on the Jumo 004.

[GregP]

Nobody flew WWII aircraft at maximum power for very long, jet or piston. They almost never got to maximum speed except in a dive from altitude.

They flew at cruise power until they either decided to initiate an attack, at which time they accelerated, or reacted well enough to being attacked to be able to increase power while trying to counterattack or evade. If they were attacked unexpectedly, say .. .from out of the sun or from above and behind, they might never live to increase power.

In a mele dogfight, of which there were a few, but very few ... the power was likely at military unless the pilot was about to be killed and knew it, at which time he went to WEP, if so equipped. Yes, there were a few guys who used WEP when NOT in an emergency and these guys likely ended up in a POW camp if they did if very often when far from friendly lines.

WWII engines, jet or piston, aren't fond of WEP for any but short periods and tend to throw a scrap iron fit if subjected to it for long.

[davparlr]

@davparl and @Kryten,
The first German Jet engines to run and fly were in fact centrifugal types. The HeS 003 and the HeS 008. Not only did they have radial outflow (centrifugal compressors) they had radial inflow turbines.

I didn’t mean to imply that Germany did not work with or build centrifugal type engines, only that the thrust-to-weight ratio of flying German engines was quite a bit less than the flying Allied engines. Which would have generated the reduced weight I identified if the Derwent engine was used instead of the Jumo.

Thrust-to-weight ratio of flying engines

Jumo 004B (Me-262) 1.25
BMW 003 (He 162) 1.42
Derwent I (Meteor F.3) 1.9
J-33A-11 (P-80A) 2.2
J-31 (P-59A) 2.4

German preference for axial designs was due to the perception that the high frontal area of centrifugal designs would cause airframe integration issues. The Meteors did indeed have seriously delaying airframe-propulsion integration issues that required spars forged to go around the engine and repeated engine nacelle redesign.

German preference of cross sectional area reduction is evident in the Fw-190D-9/Ta-152 and the Ju-88 radiator designs. Reduced area of the two Jumo 004 in the Me-262 was a substantial 8 sqft less than the two Derwent I engines in the Meteor. However, I think the complex spar integration of the Meteor was caused more by the engine mounted in the middle of the wing (verses under wing on the Me-262) than by its size.

However Heinkel Hirth did bench the reaction type axial compressor HeS 006 and in production form would have produced 860kg thrust for 390kg weight as opposed to 880kg thrust for 745kg weight for the Jumo 004 which used impulse type blades.

The HeS 008 compressor was 10% more efficient and could do in 5 stages what the Jumo compressor required 8 stages.

This engine had great potential and could be considered the direct ancestor, along with the slightly smaller Westinghouse J-30 engine, to the modern jet engine. Both axial engines had equal thrust-to-weight of 2.2, basically equaling the centrifugal compressor engines and ran within six months of each other.

For the Germans radically efficient production was of extreme importance and ahead of most other things.

Understandable and also typical of US developments.

[davparlr]

Interview with an apparent German test pilot, Hans Fey, at zenoswarbirdvideos.com, the instructions for the Acceptace Test Procedures (ATP) for max speed flight for the Me-262 was not to exceed 10-15 minutes although he felt 20 minutes was OK. He also indicated that minimum acceptable max airspeed was 515 mph at 13k ft.

[davparlr]

Bottom Line: Me 262 was much faster than Meteor and P-80A during the period of the hostillities. It could out accelerate and outclimbe the P-80A and likely the Meteor (especially as the Meteor approched its top speed) at around 25,000ft.

This is a slightly altered repeat from my post on another thread.

Data review of my own data, “Spitfireperformance”, and other googled sites revealed several data source for the two planes. These are the data source I have found for the Me-262.

Spitfireperformance document on British test on German jet propelled aircraft. Although they claim to reflect performance of data provided by Germans, it has lower performance levels for the Me-262 and the thrust appears low.

German documents on speed of Me-262 with the Jumo 004B engine. This is the speed I will show although it appears faster airspeeds at lower levels than other sources.

Russian data that appears as just published data. I will show climb data from this site since it conforms to other sources.

Me-262 Pilot Debrief . German pilot Hans Fey who apparently flew acceptance test on the Me-262 and stated that minimum airspeed was 515 mph at some altitude below 13,000 ft., which is quite a bit below the airspeed stated in the German document above.

Arrow to the Future, a book on Me-262 by Walter J. Boyne which was a bit of a disappointment in performance data. What it did show was standard data points. It did show that the climb rate of the Me-262 was 3937 ft/min at SL.

This is the data source I have found for the P-80.

From Spitfireperformance:

3 December, 1946 test by AAF on airspeed comparison of production P-80A vs modified wing tips and nose. Document is signed by the afore mentioned Col. Albert Boyd. This aircraft was flown with the J-33-11 engine.

7 November, 1946 test by AAF on surface treatments. Document is signed by Col. Albert Boyd.

14 February, 1947, test by AAF on best, worst and average P-80A with J-33-9 engine
Document is signed by Col. Albert Boyd.

"The P-80 Shooting Star", a book by E.T. Wooldridge, which shows a performance comparison of the P-80A versus the XP-84. While this data referenced an AF memorandum, I did not use this data. It showed a much higher speed than some of the other tests, including 562 mph at sea level.

So this is basically what I have.

Me-262 per German document for airspeed, common data for climb, and for the P-80A, with J-33-9/11 engines. The two P-80 engines were interchangeable and were rated at 3570 lbs thrust.
For airspeed, I made four comparisons based on spotty data. Me-262 (worst) is worst case based on test pilot report that min airspeed was 515 mph and other airspeed estimates based on delta to best performance. Me-262 (best) is best case based on German data. For the P-80, (worst) is worst case per test and (best) is best case.

Airspeed

SL
Me-262 (worst) 515
P-80 (worst) 520
Me-262 (best) 521
P-80 (best) 548

10k
Me-262 (worst) 520
P-80 (worst) 524
Me-262 (best) 531
P-80 (best) 544

20k
Me-262 (worst) 529
P-80 (worst) 523
Me-262 (best) 540
P-80 (best) 531

30k
Me-262 (worst) 509
P-80 (worst) 505
Me-262 (best) 518
P-80 (best) 510

40k
Me-262 (worst) NA, above Me-262 ceiling
P-80 (worst) 481
Me-262 (best) NA, above Me-262 ceiling
P-80 (best) 493

Climb

SL
Me-262 3960 ft/min
P-80 (worst) 4300
P-80 4640

20k
Me-262 2160
P-80 (worst) 2500
P-80 2830

30k
Me -262 1080
P-80 (worst) 1650
P-80 1910

Ceiling
Me-262 37,560 ft
P-80 45,000

Looking at this data, the lowest performing P-80A is equivalent to the poorest performing Me-262 in airspeed and the best performing P-80A is equivalent to the best Me-262 in airspeed. In both cases, the P-80A is superior to the Me-262 in climb. It also must be noted that the P-80 has over a mile more ceiling than the Me-262. This, as demonstrated in Korea by the Mig-15, is a significant advantage.

Now I must admit I did not use the magazine article stating that a finely tuned Me-262 could do 560 mph but neither did I include the Assistant Chief of Air Staff statement that the P-80A was tested at 562 mph.

I don’t think you have a strong argument that the Me-262 was much faster than the P-80A. Nor does it seem to have any chance of out climbing the P-80 at any altitude.

[Siegfried]

F-4s never fought MiG-15s in Vietnam


Significant? What models of F-86 and Meteor are you talking about?? I worked for a man who owned both aircraft types (he still owns an F-86F) and he would beg to differ with you. He owned a Meteor (TT20). The Meteor accelerated well but it wasn't an F-86 or Mig-15 equal below 10,000 feet. It came close in some performance aspects but was still outclassed.

I'm thinking of the Meteor F8 versus the F-86A, the F8 seems to have had a noticeably better thrust to weight ratio. The F-86 went through many, quite radical in engineering terms, modifications that eliminated this T/W ratio inferiority.

RAAF F8's did engage MiG 15's. The RAAF was significantly outnumbered and the losses were 4:2 in favour of the MiG's

[FLYBOYJ]

I'm thinking of the Meteor F8 versus the F-86A, the F8 seems to have had a noticeably better thrust to weight ratio. The F-86 went through many, quite radical in engineering terms, modifications that eliminated this T/W ratio inferiority.

RAAF F8's did engage MiG 15's. The RAAF was significantly outnumbered and the losses were 4:2 in favour of the MiG's

Even the -86A was superior. It did not have the acceleration or top speed of the later marks but once it gained momentum it moved along quite likely. The Meteor F8 was a great effort to stretch out a first generation turbine fighter aircraft in an attempt to "bring it up a notch." In a slower turning fight the F8 could give an -86A a run for its money but one would be a fool to engage a fighter like an F8 Meteor at lower air speeds. Later production F-86As were almost 80 mph faster than the Meteor F8

Well aware of the F8s Korean war records. It seems that they engaged Soviet pilots. JoeB where are you?!?

[cimmex]

@ davparlr
I don’t think to take 1946/47 data for the P-80 to make comparison is nor fair. At this time the Me262HG series would be available or at least the Jumo004D engines. Not talking about other models like Ta183 or similar. In 1945 Howard Hughes wanted to race a Me262 against a P-80 but was not allowed by the authorities, why? ... Fact is neither P-80 nor Meteor were really combat ready during WWII and they were put in service only for propaganda reasons.
Regards
Cimmex

[Vincenzo]

Just for remember the 13 YP-80A were delivered from october '44 to april '45, the delivery of P-80A-1 started in april '45 (3 planes). In april '45 the German was over

[cimmex]

The XP-80 was no combat plane. I found this definition:
("X" from eXperimental design and developmental pure research programs, with no operational mission intended or feasible)
Regards
Cimmex

[Milosh]

The XP-80 was no combat plane. I found this definition:
("X" from eXperimental design and developmental pure research programs, with no operational mission intended or feasible)
Regards
Cimmex

What does the 'P' stand for?

[FLYBOYJ]

What does the 'P' stand for?

Pursuit