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

plan_D · 06-30-2005, 11:18 AM

Actually there's been others coming into port with the Jolly Roger flying after this Iraq war from firing cruise missiles.

the lancaster kicks ass · 06-30-2005, 01:55 PM

i can't believe the argies actually thought they could take on not only britian, but if it'd got worse, the UN too........

plan_D · 06-30-2005, 06:06 PM

They were relying on inaction. Which was true on the part of the U.N but Britain could handle it.

DerAdlerIstGelandet · 07-01-2005, 09:54 AM

I hate to say it but just about anyone can take on the UN. The UN has not shown me anything to think they can make a stand since Korea and maybe just maybe Desert Storm.

plan_D · 07-01-2005, 10:04 AM

Well, the U.N 'military' is a peace keeping force but if the U.N got involved and did think it was viable to kick Argentina out of the Falklands then the worlds militaries would bare down on them.

Since there's actually no law against war, even though some like to claim there is. How can there be?

DerAdlerIstGelandet · 07-01-2005, 10:14 AM

I dont know I just think the UN has gotten weak.

plan_D · 07-01-2005, 10:29 AM

That's because it has.

DerAdlerIstGelandet · 07-01-2005, 10:30 AM

evangilder · 07-01-2005, 10:42 AM

And corrupt.

delcyros · 07-02-2005, 04:03 AM

A little back?
Adler, I searched for an report of Galland, flying a Meteor in Argentinia. I assume that there is a report but probably not in the net. All I found is an old (sept. 1991) article from the jet&prop magazine, where an article is found about these flights. This article quotes on Buenos Aires sources.
The individual plane was the C-057 from III Escuadron, Grupo Aéro 7.
It was an Meteor F MK-IV (those with clipped wings).
Evaluation flights with Galland supported his opinion, that the Meteor has both, advantages and disadvantages over The Me-262 A-1 he flew.
Advantages:
-air brake (not included in the MK-III)
-reliable engines (ummm, how reliable are Dervent-I?)
-more poweroutput=better acceleration (not in the MK-III series)
-good turning rate at low speed

Disadvantages:
-particular high take-off and landing speed (due to the clipped wings, which haven´t been in the MK-III series)-low roll rate, particularly at medium to high speeds (even with clipped wings)
-bow snaking at high speeds (common to almost all 1st gen. jets)
-earlier compressability pronblems
-speed loss in turns

His result was that if the Dervent - V had been added to the Me-262 airframe, than the result would have been the best of the 1st gen jet fighters.
(in his mind the 1st gen. jets had no or little sweep)

DerAdlerIstGelandet · 07-02-2005, 02:48 PM

What you say there is pretty much what I have read in most comparisons of the aircraft in stating that the Meteor would accelerate quicker but once the Me-262 got going she would leave the Meteor behind.

Erich · 07-02-2005, 02:57 PM

the concept of slowness for the 262 is relevent in it's taking off and landing as well as trying to turn too quickly ~ tight. It just can't be done without a possible stall and this is where the hordes of P-51's took full advantage. No wonder that 3/4r's of the kills were over German airfields or in the very near vacinity

DerAdlerIstGelandet · 07-02-2005, 03:13 PM

Exactly once she was at full speed nothing in the skies could catch her but that ofcourse was until one of the engines flamed out and then she was as good as lost.

FLYBOYJ · 07-02-2005, 04:50 PM

I wonder what the 262 would do in a high attitude stall, engines at idle and have the aircraft "backslide." I would think you would have the quickest double flame out since "Topgun."

delcyros · 07-03-2005, 09:09 AM

-

The Junkers Motorenwerke at Dessau had a pressurizing chamber to simulate working conditions in any altitude up to 10.000 m. According to tests with Jumo-004 A0 and -004 B2 the high altitude behavior of the jets was somehow worrisome. This lead to the development of twin jet needles for better high altitude behavior in the Jumo-004 E0, which was bench tested in jan./feb. 1945 (also with afterburner) for repeated 100 hours runs (with and without reheat). Thrust was increased to 1000 Kp dry and slightly over 1200 Kp with reheat. I don´t know if any Me-262 have ever been equipped with -004 E, but I doubt it. (had it been done, the Me-262 A top speed would increase to somwhere around 565-575 mp/h and the trhust to weight ratio would be around 0.37 instead of 0.28

) The -004 E was to be entered into serial production in march´45, a few specimen have been captured at the Dessau and Berlin plants by red army forces. The -004 E entered mass production as the RD-10 F in the SU.
I should add that the Me-262 does accelerate slowly, just as slowly as the P-80 ( a little better) or Meteor MK-III (a little worser) do.
It was the surplus in thrust of the Dervent-V driven MK-IV, which made the difference: more than twice as much thrust gave a considerable acceleration advantage.
Beside of these planes, the Bell P-59, He-280 and (to a lower degree) the He-162 have better acceleration than the Me-262.
A Meteor MK-IV is also faster than a Me-262.
If you compare MK-III with Me-262, the Messerschmidt wins in speed, while acceleration is about the same or slightly superior. I wonder why so many think the Meteor III accelerates better than the Me-262 A, it cannot do with Dervent-I.