Me 262 should have been used as a bomber?

[Franek Grabowski]

It is apples and oranges here. No jet was able to intercept Spitfire XIX (or rather 19) until MiG-15 arrived. This is mostly related to altitude performance of early jets and is not specific to Meteor. Other limitations of Meteor were, I suppose, cautionary. Allies had no need to push it hard forward, so gradually increasing allowed performances were always on the safe side. On the other hand I recall hearing that Meteor suffered from structural failures, until a simple sollution was offered.

[Kutscha]

Franek, Spit PRXIXs, not 19, were intercepted by 262s.

[Graham Boak]

ONLY 415mph at S/L? Don't confuse that with fighters capable of achieving that sort of speed at their optimum altitude. My EAS/TAS tables are at work, unfortunately, so I can't convert that into a speed at (say) 20000ft.

I believe that, given the wing thickness, the Meteor had a very similar Mach limit to the Me 262. I suspect that neither service variant could achieve this in level flight, unlike the Me 163.

The 262, engines aside, was clearly more ready for service than the Meteor. For those who believe that the Germans failed to apply sufficient priority to the jet fighter programme, a study of the delays and problems of the Meteor programme may make them less critical of the German effort. Arguments will no doubt never cease, but the success of the Mk.IV does imply to me that Gloster's more conservative approach could have resulted in a more generally useful fighter, had RR taken over control of the engine programme sooner. However, unlike Germany, Britain had no priority for a short-range bomber interceptor.

[Graham Boak]

OOps.

Re PR: Was this interception of a pressurised or unpressurised Mk.XIX? Either way, a single or a small handful of interceptions did not prevent or sway in any form the operation of the Allied PR units, other than a warning to take extra care. Similarly a Hurricane once managed to shoot down a Dinah. Neither case should be taken as representative of a general capability.

On the other hand, I have no doubt that development of the Me 262, perhaps the version with a rocket booster under the tail, could have produced a more capable anti-PR Mk.XIX device. It just didn't happen in time (rather like the Meteor Mk.IV!)

[Roger Gaemperle]

It is new to me that a piston engined fighter had a higher performance in terms of speed than the Me 262, but then again, I am no Spitfire expert. But I do have one question if the Spitfire indeed had a higher performance: how many Me 262 did the superior Spitfire XIX (pressurized) shot down? Must have been a lot if it had a higher performance and less engine troubles....

I think the main reason that more Me 262 were shot down by Allied fighters as compared to the number of Allied fighters by Me 262 is less due to higher performance but much more due to the far superior number of aircraft employed on the Allied side. Or do you think the result would have been the same if 100 Me 262 met 100 Spitfires? OK, I don't want to start another "what-if" discussion. We will never now as it didn't happen ;-)

[RT]

The only reason of the air-superiority is the number, nd when you gather it you win the war, between the Spit XIX nd the Me262, there is no more difference than between a vitaminated-donkey nd a race-horse

rémi

[Nick Beale]

Originally Posted by Roger Gaemperle

It is new to me that a piston engined fighter had a higher performance in terms of speed than the Me 262, but then again, I am no Spitfire expert. But I do have one question if the Spitfire indeed had a higher performance: how many Me 262 did the superior Spitfire XIX (pressurized) shot down? Must have been a lot if it had a higher performance and less engine

The Spitfire PR XIX would have shot down far more if it had carried any armament!

The point is not just which aircraft had the higher top speed, it's any interceptor's ability from a standing (i.e. when first alerted to the approaching hostile aircraft) to gain the necessary altitude, spot its target, get into an attacking position and open fire - and all before its fuel falls below a safe limit for getting home. So it's not "can you catch him" but "can you catch him in time."

[Franek Grabowski]

Guys, guys, guys... Robert, Spitfire XIX was an unarmed PR aircraft. She had better altitude performance than any jet up into 1950s. Up to appearance of MiG-15 they were flying untouched over the Soviet territories and Soviets had somewhat better jets than Germans.
Kutscha, you certainly mean PR.XI. How could a Spitfire flying at about 14 kms been intercepted by a Me 262 able to reach 11,5 km?

[Roger Gaemperle]

Nick

I understand that tactical value was not only limited to speed. Also, maneuverability and as you said how fast it could intercept, etc. is important. Nevertheless, due to the high speed of the jets they could reach a target much faster than e.g. a Me 109 once they were at the same level. Of course there are pros and cons of the Me 262 (low manouverability compared to piston engined aircraft, unreliable engines, etc.) but if it hadn't been a superior aircraft IN GENERAL and the Spitfire and Meteors far superior the Allied wouldn't have touched it after the war (e.g. only very few Me 109 K-4 were captured and tested after the war compared to Me 262s).
Of course, if you compare it with aircraft that were specifically designed for special roles (e.g. rocket interceptor, high altitude recon aircraft, pure fighter bomber, etc.) you will always find an aircraft superior in one specific feature: The P-51 was more maneuverable, the P-47 the more accurate fighter bomber, the Spitfire XIX the higher (and faster?) flying recon aircraft, the Me 163 the faster climbing fighter, the Lancaster the more weight carrying aircraft, etc. etc. So, there won't be an ultimate truth to this discussion but only arguments for and against one's point of view. And I don't want to say that one was better than the other as it is very difficult to compare aircraft that had different purposes.

What I just wanted to say is that IN MY OPINION (and I don't claim this to be the absolute truth neither) what caused the higher losses of Me 262 to Allied fighters than vice versa was the far superior number of enemy aircraft in the sky of the Reich at the end of the war. Of course there are many other factors that added to this: poor quality of training of young German pilots at the end of the war, unreliable technology, unexperience with flying jets at high speed, new tacticts, etc. etc. And even if the Germans had enough fuel, experienced pilots, sovereignty over their airspace, larger numbers of own fighter in the sky than Allied ones, there would still have been losses of Me 262, but I think the balance would have looked quite different. But as this is a "what if" question, nobody can answer it but just argue for or against it.

Franek, thanks for the correction. As I said, I am not a Spitfire expert and didn't even know that the XIX is an unarmed recon variant. Sorry for my ignorance.

Regards
Roger Gaemperle

[Kutscha]

Franek, the service ceiling of the PR XIX was 42,600ft (13km). Did they always fly at their service ceiling? Btw, the Spit XIV had the approx. same max speed at the same altitude (~26kft) as the PR XIX and had a service ceiling ~1000ft higher than the PR XIX.

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spitfire-XIV-ads.jpg