Me 262 should have been used as a bomber?

[Kutscha]

Jon, Meteors would not done much, being not much faster than the prop jobs, except to add to the 262's 'kill' tally. Besides they had restrictions placed on them when it came to aerobatics, ie combat manuevers.

[Graham Boak]

John, I cannot claim to be a Lancastrian, being a Geordie in long-term exile. (Strictly speaking, arguably not a Geordie either, but a pit-yacker, but perhaps that's too obscure!).

However, I have been employed in Aerodynamics, Flight Test and Operational Analysis for a well-known Single British Aircraft Company. I have seen the (real) Pk for WW2, later and current weapons. Modern guided weapons really are more than one order of magnitude more accurate than the unguided weapons of WW2.

I didn't see the programme, so cannot comment on what was said, what biases the makers may have introduced to their presentation (deliberately or accidentally), or what was omitted. I certainly would not recommend accepting all the sales claims for modern kit, but the improvement since WW2 is non-the-less real.

The comment from Luftwaffe pilots could be made by any bomber pilot, any era. Error distance is dependent on speed, all else constant. With no more sophisticated aiming device, the 262 would be less accurate than an Fw 190, and considerably less accurate than a Ju 87. Hunter pilots may sympathise, being no better off.

Kutscha: What Me 262 kill tally? Against fighters, it had one of the poorest kill to loss ratios in history. Are you discussing limitations on the Meteor Mk.1, which was used against the V-1s, or the Meteor Mk.3 that came to the continent in 1945? The main combat limitation on the Mk.3 was the short range, common to all that generation of jet fighters and (with shortage of numbers) preventing it from playing any significant role. That generation of jet fighters were all interceptors, not escorts or air superiority types.

[Kutscha]

Graham, the F.3 I have as doing only 415mph @ SL. The F.4 being some 170mph faster than the F.3.

"The pilots appreciated the additional power provided by the Meteor III relative to the Meteor I, as well as the improved view with the new canopy. However, the ailerons had been deliberately wired to be "heavy" to prevent aerobatic maneuvers from overstressing the wings, and pilots complained that flying the aircraft could be very tiring; this had not been a problem with the Meteor I, since it hadn't been cleared for aerobatic maneuvers. Pilots also complained that the machine tended to "snake" at high speed, limiting its accuracy as a gun platform, and it tended to become uncontrollable in a dive due to compressibility buffeting."

" Just after the end of the war in Europe, a few Meteor IIIs were evaluated for possible use in the photo-reconnaissance role, but at the time their performance was not that superior to the Spitfire PR.XIX."

Are you including the vulching in the 262's loss ratio? Me262 units made claims for some 736 enemy a/c, of all types.

[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."