Which jet was better, the Me 262 or the Gloster Meteor?

[Erich]

has to be the Me 262A-1a Schwalbe.......

due to the combat experience of the a/c and although the engines/fuel was of short duration the bomber crews faced these things on a daily baiss from February 45 onward and always expected a "zoomer" to fly through the formation not being able to track any jet with the standard .50's on the bombers from any position. Several bomber crew vets I have interviewed from the 8th AF have said it was their worst nightmare in spring of 45, even more so than the Flak.........

[the lancaster kicks ass]

and guys don't remember the meteor could turn inside a -262........

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by Erich

has to be the Me 262A-1a Schwalbe.......

due to the combat experience of the a/c and although the engines/fuel was of short duration the bomber crews faced these things on a daily baiss from February 45 onward and always expected a "zoomer" to fly through the formation not being able to track any jet with the standard .50's on the bombers from any position. Several bomber crew vets I have interviewed from the 8th AF have said it was their worst nightmare in spring of 45, even more so than the Flak.........

While you are quited correct Erich, I have to disagree in as much as from what I've seen and read about the -262, operationally it was a "throwaway" aircraft. As stated, poor engine reliability, dissimilar metals used through out its structure, etc. Although the maintaining of its production was anything but "brilliant," I think it would have been discovered that if you could get 500 hours out of an airframe before it falls apart, it would of been a miracle. I guess my point is the -262s poor maintainability because of the way it was built may have been the potential of an Achilles heel! (I'm thinking like a maintainer)

[lesofprimus]

Clip I just put together....

[FLYBOYJ]

Nice Les!

In Walter Boyne's book "Arrow to the Future" There was a section devoted to the Smithsonian Institute ME-262 restoration. In the text it was mentioned on how the airframe was poorly faired and lots of "bondo" was used during construction. Little or no corrosion control was incorporated in production birds and there was a lot of aluminum and steel co-mingling, very bad for maintenance. The book called the ME-262 a "50 hour airframe."

Innovations included a "tub" cockpit assembly, electric trim which moved the whole horizontal stabilizer (a handy thing to have on a 500 mph jet aircraft, I could attest to this) and the drawn seamless steel tube oleo landing gear struts. While light and easy to make, this construction method marked for a weaker undercarriage.

The questions I would have to ask myself is although the ME-262 is the higher performer, is that higher margin of performance worth a 50 hour airframe and 10 hour engines, while in contrast the Meteor was a lot more reliable (50 hour engines on the conservative end of the scale) and a much more robust construction that will probably last at least 1000 hours?!?

[delcyros]

It is. A longlasting airframe, from which a smaller number is probable to be produced and which has a considerably lower performance means nothing.
From several points of view, the Meteor-III and moreso the Meteor-I are at best under average jets. They don´t have a better thrust to weight ratio (kkep in mind that the thrust to weight ratio of the Me-262 was also under average), e.g. less acceleartion (thanks to a worse aerodynamic airframe), they suffer a lot in top speed and the Meteor can´t keep it´s energy as well as the Me-262. Beside of this the most important figure of the early jets qwas the critical Mach speed (a considerable advancement in this figure could reason a new design), and the Me-262 is better in this.
The argument with the jet engines is true but not that striking. The Me-262 has jet nacelles, which allow an easy replacement of the jet engines (from which no less than 5000 have been produced in the end) after 10 hours (and there are Werknummern with engines of 30 hours and even more, but this belongs probably to the Jumo-004B-4/-004 D2 and not to the early ones.
What stays is the questionable point that the Meteor could turn inside the Me-262, thanks to a lower wingload and that the Meteor has a better armement for dogfights. On the other side it suffers in a main point for high speed dogfights: Initiative! It couldn´t dictate the terms of engagement, if hit by a MK-108 grenade (except for duds and wingtip hits), the Meteor is in serious problems, and the Meteor is a larger target to hit, too. In the end, that´s what counts, if you are able to replace more hi-performer and have the higher quantities, it doesn´t mean anything that the engines will be out soon. Just replace them in time.

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by delcyros

It is. A longlasting airframe, from which a smaller number is probable to be produced and which has a considerably lower performance means nothing

I disagree Del, what good is it go go into combat with a "hotrod" that has a high probability of failure before ever making it to combat? I'd give up the slight edge on performance for reliability.

[Erich]

try reading a copy of JG 7's history for starts. The jet was not termed throw away. In fact in the night fighter rold commander Kurt Wleter was very upset and almost uncotrollably according to veteran pilots, when a pilot brought their rig home after dealing with Mossies in 1945 and there was even 1 ding in the body of the jet. They were not expendable. Yes the jet was crudely made and comparing it in the rolde with the RAF jet is what if so lets not even suppose. the Schwalbe had the operative record and performed obviously not as the Luftwaffe really had hoped but for the jet pilots it was a freedom they had longed for even knowing they would be hunteed down flying back to their airfields

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by Erich

try reading a copy of JG 7's history for starts. The jet was not termed throw away.

I have no access from JG 7s history, but does it differ from the fact that the engines only had a 10 hour life, it that? I know when a turbine engines fails, it usually happens 2 places - on the ramp during start-up and during take off at climb. If I was flying an aircraft that maybe had a 10 hour engine life, the pucker factor would be extremely high for me until I reached my "engine out maneuvering speed and altitude" which I would guess for the -262 was about 1000' AGL and about 160 knots.

I've seen 3 262s, and all 3 of them, although somewhat restored, looked like they were hand built, seams and gaps didn't line up and rivet patterns seemed to have no reasoning. Again, I am not questioning the capability of the aircraft (when it was functioning as advertised) but the over-all reliability which I think would of been a major factor had the aircraft deployed earlier or the war lasted later, especially assembling the aircraft with limited raw materials and resources, I don't see the -262 giving the biggest "bang for the buck."

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I will still go with the Me-262. Yeah it was far from perfect but so was the Meteor and the Me-262 would still outfly a Meteor in a dogfight and if it could not he would just simply fly away at full throttle and the Meteor would be left in his exhaust!

[Erich]

I've been on it around it underneath it and almost in the cockpit. For the time it was revoloutionary and looking back on it in our present day should not even be considered in our thought of te present high tech world. We can all summarize of the what if had the war gone on and the Luftw. been on an even keel with the Allies, the German techs would of overwhlemingly brought forward wing swept designs not even considered by the Allies...........

back to topic the Meteor did not have the combat expereicne as an a/c, the 262 did and talking about the 262's defaults does not really come into the category of the consdieration between the two. had the two fought out multi-pitched battles then we could easily chit-caht, but for present the topic probably ought to be closed............we are only guessing again

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I agree it is hard to compare two aircraft when one never even saw air to air combat except with a bomb with wings.

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by Erich

we are only guessing again

Agree!

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

There are other ways we can possibly compare them though, such as performance or handling.

[the lancaster kicks ass]

the meteor has it on handeling......