Early Gloster Meteor vs ME262

[V8 Fettler]

Simpo Two said:

V8 Fettler said:

There is a general misconception that the Me262 was an air superiority fighter, it wasn't. It was a bomber destroyer. The 262 was particularly vulnerable when taking off and landing, see "Rat Scramble" as an example of the RAF exploiting this. The Germans countered by providing escorts (generally FW190s) to dogfight the Allied dogfighters whilst the 262 took off or landed.

You're correct in that the only time the Allies could really shoot down a 262 was during take-off and landing (when its speed advantage had gone) - so these later had to be covered by more conventional fighters for protection. But your statement 'The 262 would fly with a couple of FW190s' implied that both types flew together as an attacking force. That wouldn't work for the same reason that Me109s tied to He111s didn't work - the fighters lost the advantage of speed and height.

What do you think the Germans used in an attempt to tie up the Mustangs when the 262s attacked the bombers?

[Eric Mc]

They also used the Fw190s as "field defence fighters" so they didn't "escort" the 262s. They stayed in the air in and around the 262's airfield ready to pounce on any Allied fighters that were trying to get onto the tail of a landing or taking off 262.

[IanMorewood]

Of course the term bomber destroyer is justified as that was the primary target of an interceptor in a target rich environment however lots of USAAF fighters got mauled as well Mustangs and Thunderbolts where no match for a slashing 262 spitting out 30mm, several 262 aces claim more fighters than heavy bombers.

[V8 Fettler]

Eric Mc said:

They also used the Fw190s as "field defence fighters" so they didn't "escort" the 262s. They stayed in the air in and around the 262's airfield ready to pounce on any Allied fighters that were trying to get onto the tail of a landing or taking off 262.

The first 262 attacks on the USAAF were a surprise, but the Americans swiftly developed a response which involved the 262 having to fly through layers of Mustangs. A 262 might be quick in a straight line, but it has to turn at some point, and a Mustang will always get inside that turn. The FW190 was used by the Luftwaffe to disrupt the Mustangs and thus attempt to protect the 262.

[Simpo Two]

V8 Fettler said:

What do you think the Germans used in an attempt to tie up the Mustangs when the 262s attacked the bombers?

Sure, but they didn't fly in formation together, which was the inference from your phrase 'flew together'. If so the 262 would be forced to fly at the speed of a 190.

Also see 'roller coaster'.

[V8 Fettler]

Simpo Two said:

V8 Fettler said:

What do you think the Germans used in an attempt to tie up the Mustangs when the 262s attacked the bombers?

Sure, but they didn't fly in formation together, which was the inference from your phrase 'flew together'. If so the 262 would be forced to fly at the speed of a 190.

Also see 'roller coaster'.

Just as the Mustangs flew at similar speeds to the USAAF bombers.

If the 262 was going to be involved in a dogfight in the real world, the pilot would decline combat and rely on escorting FW190s.

Re: "Roller Coaster", what do you think happened when the 262 decelerated below the bomber stream? Mustangs everywhere.

[Simpo Two]

V8 Fettler said:

Just as the Mustangs flew at similar speeds to the USAAF bombers.

But not in formation. They had height, so could quickly convert height to speed to defend the bombers.

V8 Fettler said:

Re: "Roller Coaster", what do you think happened when the 262 decelerated below the bomber stream? Mustangs everywhere.

The idea behind the roller coaster was to dive through the top cover at ridiculous speed, to below the bomber stream, pull up sheddding speed along the way into a firing position beneath, then stick forward and get the hell out before the fighters caught up. I agree that after a while the US fighters would probably try to evolve counter tactics, but when you have such speed advantage, you can pretty much choose your terms.

Where did you get the idea that 262s always flew in formation with 190s?

[Eric Mc]

Rather than discuss 262 tactics, I thought the thread was a comparison between the 262 and the Meteor I and III (the two Meteor versions used in WW2)

Because the jet turbine was such a radical new idea in 1941, the British made a very conscious decision to mate the revolutionary engine to a very conservative airframe. That is one of the reasons why the Meteor's aerodynamic qualities were not that great. The 262 was more advanced aerodynamically - which gave it a higher top speed. But it had many shortcomings too and I don't think that it could ever have been the war winning weapon that some people state now and then.

[IanMorewood]

I don't agree, in sufficient numbers and without the build flaws (slave labour, lack of materials) it was sufficiently superior to anything else flying at the time. Would have been like the Fokker Scourge of 1915 and early 1916 when the RFC was being mullered by eindeckers with synchronised machine guns.

[Eric Mc]

Saying "without the build flaws" is like saying "if only circumstances had been totally different there might have been a totally different outcome".

The build flaws (and some problematic aerodynamics) were an inherent part of the entire project and no matter how many they might have built and how many pilots they could have trained to fly them and no restrictions on available fuel they STILL would have not been properly operational given all the other problems faced by the Third Reich in 1944/45.

I think the subsequent career of the post war 262 derivative - the Avia S-92 - shows what a tricky and difficult aeroplane it was and even without resource pressures it was going to take a massive effort to transform its theoretical capabilities into reality.

[Dr Jekyll]

Slightly OT here, but when might we have seen operational jet fighters if WW2 hadn't happened?

It always seems odd to me that the monoplane piston engined aircraft with retractable undercarriage is such an historically important type of fighter, yet by the time it had completely taken over from fixed undercarriage biplane fighters the design was already basically obsolete. The brief window between piston biplanes and jet monoplanes just happened to coincide with WW2.

[IanMorewood]

Another problem of course was the fact the entire 3rd Reich was being pummeled day and night by heavy bombers, the western war for Germany was going pretty badly from mid 42 onwards, it didn't stop the Germans producing some fine machines.

[Jazoli]

Camlet said:

Very slightly off topic, but in the excellent book A Higher Call, ex Luftwaffe ace Franz Stigler (who was also an outstanding human being due to his heroic actions to protect a stricken B-17 over Germany) spoke at length about his time flying 262s towards the end of the war. The point about poor materials and engines which would dangerously fall apart was well made. What I didn't realise was just how incredible the 262 was for its time. Goodness knows what would have happened if the 262 had access to quality materials, and the Luftwaffe access to more 262s.

It is an excellent book indeed, read it this weekend, recommended.

[Eric Mc]

Dr Jekyll said:

Slightly OT here, but when might we have seen operational jet fighters if WW2 hadn't happened?

It always seems odd to me that the monoplane piston engined aircraft with retractable undercarriage is such an historically important type of fighter, yet by the time it had completely taken over from fixed undercarriage biplane fighters the design was already basically obsolete. The brief window between piston biplanes and jet monoplanes just happened to coincide with WW2.

Interesting point. The principles of jet turbine power had been established by the end of the 1920s - all it needed was an incentive for governments to fund the various projects. It can be said that WW2 actually DELAYED some of this funding as governments were sometimes reluctant to expend too much money on what they thought were technologies that might not be developed quickly enough to be of use in the war. This attitude severely delayed proper funding of the V2, for instance.

In the UK, the Air Ministry was very hard pushed to get the aviation industry where it could produce large quantities of current technology aircraft, let alone newfangled, unproven technology.

That is one of the reasons why Rover were given the task of building the first jet engines for Whittle as the normal aero engine manufactures were working flat out trying to manufacture and improve their current, traditional designs.

[Hooli]

Dr Jekyll said:

Slightly OT here, but when might we have seen operational jet fighters if WW2 hadn't happened?

It always seems odd to me that the monoplane piston engined aircraft with retractable undercarriage is such an historically important type of fighter, yet by the time it had completely taken over from fixed undercarriage biplane fighters the design was already basically obsolete. The brief window between piston biplanes and jet monoplanes just happened to coincide with WW2.

I believe Whittle's first jet flew in '39 or '40. So probably '45?

[irocfan]

V8 Fettler said:

There is a general misconception that the Me262 was an air superiority fighter, it wasn't. It was a bomber destroyer.

but wasn't that down to our mate with the dodgy 'tache? IIRC it was actually designed asa fighter but uncle Adolf insisted it had to be able to fulfil a fighter/bomber role

[Eric Mc]

Hooli said:

Dr Jekyll said:

Slightly OT here, but when might we have seen operational jet fighters if WW2 hadn't happened?

It always seems odd to me that the monoplane piston engined aircraft with retractable undercarriage is such an historically important type of fighter, yet by the time it had completely taken over from fixed undercarriage biplane fighters the design was already basically obsolete. The brief window between piston biplanes and jet monoplanes just happened to coincide with WW2.

I believe Whittle's first jet flew in '39 or '40. So probably '45?

Whittle's engine was bench tested in 1939. The first aircraft to fly with a flightworthy version of the Whittle engine was in 1941.

The German Heinkel He178 flew in September 1939 - powered by a simple centrifugal flow jet designed by Pabst Von Ohain. If the Luftwaffe and the German Air Ministry had been on the ball, they should have been pushing and backing Heinkel to develop a fighter as quickly as they could. Instead, Heinkel had to do this development work without much support and, when it was time to order a jet fighter into production, they sidestepped Heinkel (who were already flying the He280) and ordered the fighter from Messerschmitt - who had yet to fly anything jet powered.

The Nazis were every bit as incompetent as the Brits when it came to recognising potential.

[Eric Mc]

irocfan said:

V8 Fettler said:

There is a general misconception that the Me262 was an air superiority fighter, it wasn't. It was a bomber destroyer.

but wasn't that down to our mate with the dodgy 'tache? IIRC it was actually designed asa fighter but uncle Adolf insisted it had to be able to fulfil a fighter/bomber role

Not quite the true story. Willi Messerschmitt was an ardent Nazi and like all Nazis, was always trying to curry favour (and financial gain) from "Der Fuhrer". Apparently, when discussing the merits of the 262 with Hitler, the subject was broached that the 262 might make a good fighter bomber. Messerschmitt immediately said it was ideal (it wasn't) but promised the Fuhrer that this version would take priority. Hitler had never really insisted on this.

[maffski]

Eric Mc said:

The Nazis were every bit as incompetent as the Brits when it came to recognising potential.

Which was lucky, otherwise the bombers would have been too busy getting shot down by surface to air missiles to worry about the fighters. A lot of German research was virtually shut down when the war looked to be going so well.

But Stalin doesn't need to feel left out, if it wasn't for him Korolev could have been developing his rocket fighter a couple of years sooner rather than digging gold in a Siberian Gulag.

[V8 Fettler]

Eric Mc said:

Rather than discuss 262 tactics, I thought the thread was a comparison between the 262 and the Meteor I and III (the two Meteor versions used in WW2)

Because the jet turbine was such a radical new idea in 1941, the British made a very conscious decision to mate the revolutionary engine to a very conservative airframe. That is one of the reasons why the Meteor's aerodynamic qualities were not that great. The 262 was more advanced aerodynamically - which gave it a higher top speed. But it had many shortcomings too and I don't think that it could ever have been the war winning weapon that some people state now and then.

You're subverting the thread Eric! Dogfighting tactics, defined by the general lack of dogfighting capability of the 262 and the Meteor.

The 262 needed long range guided weapons and the ability to detect targets at a long range to be an effective air superiority fighter. The Germans could have built twice as many 262s with much improved reliability (but the same capability), the end result would have been the same: the Americans build enough Mustangs to hunt the 262 to extinction.

Edit: double quote removed

Edited by V8 Fettler on Monday 13th April 16:13