Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Fighters, Bombers and Recon Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Duel: Messerschmitt Me 262 vs. Gloster Meteor
45-Shooter    4/9/2013 4:42:18 PM
Which do you think would win and why. Secondly, what would you do, or have to do to reverse the outcome above? As in modifications to the plane.
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7   NEXT
JFKY    I regret encouraging Shooter   4/10/2013 11:52:25 AM
but I will say I'd give the edge to the Meteor...in terms of armament.  The Me-262's armament was geared towards bomber-busting.  It had a relatively low rate of fire, allowing smaller, faster a/c to pass thru the stream of fire with a large chance of not being hit.
 
The Meteor's armament was more geared to defeating smaller, more agile opponents.
 
But the Schwalbe wasn't really designed as a dog-fighter, but was intended to attack massed B-17/24's.  Had the Luftwaffe developed the Mk-213C in might have been a different story.
 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       4/10/2013 9:06:24 PM

This IS absolutely true! But completely irrelevant! Before any plane can fire his guns at the target, it has to close with it and be in range. The -262 is so much faster than the Meteor that it never gets to shoot, unless the 262 is in the landing pattern.
 
 

But the Schwalbe wasn't really designed as a dog-fighter, but was intended to attack massed B-17/24's.  Had the Luftwaffe developed the Mk-213C in might have been a different story.
Did you know that they were so disappointed with the Mk-108 that they installed two Mk-103s in the nose of at least one 262? They also tried the BK-5 to destroy bombers at longer ranges.
You might as well be in a SPAD-7 if the 262 pilot is the least bit good at what he does for all the good your better guns will do!
 
Quote    Reply

JFKY    I KNEW I'd regret this....   4/10/2013 9:15:03 PM
Yes that's why P-51's and other prop-fighter aircraft defeated the Me-262....because they were FASTER.  Really, I am not going to debate your silly fantasies.  I merely made the point that the 3cm cannon fitted to the Me-262 were better suited to destroying B-17's.  And the further point that had the Mk 213C (Revolver Cannon) been as well developed, the armament equation would have changed.
 
And that's it...I'm not going to waste hours reading your ill-researched and frequently debunked claims, based on some Flight Simulator Game you played, or trade page numbers about Mike Spick, with you.
 
I made small point or points and that's it...good luck enticing others to post and waste their time, because basically you are as bad, in your own way, as Bluewings or French Stratege were. 
 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       4/11/2013 12:10:30 AM

What were the characteristics of the 213C gun? Out side of the reduction of weight from installing two 213s instead of 4 108s, there seems to be little or no difference between them. They are both very slow MV and BC weapons?
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

Jabberwocky       4/11/2013 1:30:06 AM
MK213C
Calibre: 30 mm
Ammunition: 30x85B
RoF: 1,100-1,300 rpm
MV: 530 m/sec
Weight: 75 kg
 
MG123
Calibre:20mm
Ammunition: 20x135
RoF: 1,100-1,400 rpm
MV;1020-1050 m/sec
Weight: 75 kg
 

What were the characteristics of the 213C gun? Out side of the reduction of weight from installing two 213s instead of 4 108s, there seems to be little or no difference between them. They are both very slow MV and BC weapons?
 
 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter    seems like more of the same to me.   4/11/2013 2:16:29 AM



What were the characteristics of the 213C gun? Out side of the reduction of weight from installing two 213s instead of 4 108s, there seems to be little or no difference between them. They are both very slow MV and BC weapons?

 
If I trade 180 Kgs of 108s for 150 Kgs of 213Cs, it saves 30 Kgs, but does nothing for the bane of the ammo, IE low MV =530 M/S which made shooting at maneuvering targets impossible.
 
Quote    Reply

Jabberwocky    Me-262 USAAF assesment   4/11/2013 2:37:24 AM

Me 262 information from the 1947 US handling tests

 

Cruise speed: 465 mph

Stall speed: 112-125 mph

Flight duration: 45-50 minutes at low altitude, 60-90 minutes at high altitude

Thrust: 1980 lb per engine

 

Speeds:

4500 ft: 524 mph

10,000 ft: 546 mph

20,000 ft: 548 mph

30,000 ft: 509 mph

 

The handling characteristics were poor at all speeds above 350 mph. The airplane would not make a very satisfactory gun platform because of a tendency to hunt directionally, which resulted in snaking at speeds above 400 mph IAS.

Trim and stability:

 

Stalls were clean and straight with no tendency to drop a wing. A stall warning, consisting of buffeting of the airplane and controls, occurred at a speed approximately 5 mph above the stall. Indicated stalling speed in the clean configuration was l30 mph

Vision:

 

Excessive trouble which developed with engines… the engines appeared most unreliable and required frequent replacements… intakes never functioned satisfactorily, as compared to those installed on our own aircraft and required excessive maintenance.

CONCLUSIONS

 

 

 

 
Quote    Reply

Jabberwocky    Me-262 USAAF assesment pt 2   4/11/2013 2:38:48 AM

Despite a difference in gross weight of nearly 2000 lb, the Me-262 was superior to the average P-80A in acceleration and speed, and approximately the same in climb performance.

The handling characteristics of the Me-262 airplanes tested were very poor. However, it is believed that, with the exception of the directional hunting or yawing, they would have been considerably improved if aileron and elevator service tabs had been connected.

The Me-262 apparently has a higher critical mach number, from a drag standpoint, than any current AAF fighter.

 
Quote    Reply

Jabberwocky    RAF Meteor III tactical trials pt 1   4/11/2013 2:39:57 AM

Quote    Reply

Jabberwocky    RAF Meteor III tactical trials pt 2   4/11/2013 2:40:53 AM

The great disadvantage of the Meteor III from a tactical and general flying viewpoint is the heaviness of the ailerons throughout the speed range. At medium and high speeds evasive action and even moderate turns are very tiring.

 

The upright seating position and the low rudder pedals are a distinct disadvantage in combating the effects of ‘G’

 

The almost complete absence of change of trim on a typical fighter sortie relieves the pilot a great deal.

 

Under bumpy weather conditions the aircraft becomes directionally unstable, the instability manifesting itself as moderate to bad snaking. The only cure for this is to throttle back and reduce sped, the use of rudder only aggravates it.

 
Quote    Reply
1 2 3 4 5 6 7   NEXT



 Latest
 News 		  Most
 Read 		  Most
 Commented		  Hot
 Topics