German Me 262 vs British Gloster Meteor

[flash]

Originally Posted by At ease

"Bad" fuel was not a cause of premature engine failure for the 262 (unless it had been contaminated in transit/storage).

The Jumo004 was actually rather tolerant of a wide range of fuels (see also M1/A1 Abrhams gas turbine engine, amongst others for their ability to use a wide variety of liquid fuels).

It could even run on "AVGAS", but there was generally even less of that available than the more suitable kerosine/parrafin/diesel fuels which could be blended in all sorts of ratios and still provide good performance.

The cause of premature failure of the engines was substandard metals, which had actually been overcome by the very last stage of the war.

And/Or incorrect pilot technique with relation to throttle handling.

I thought I said that in the opening sentence.

[flash]

Originally Posted by At ease

"Bad" fuel was not a cause of premature engine failure for the 262 (unless it had been contaminated in transit/storage).

The Jumo004 was actually rather tolerant of a wide range of fuels (see also M1/A1 Abrhams gas turbine engine, amongst others for their ability to use a wide variety of liquid fuels).

It could even run on "AVGAS", but there was generally even less of that available than the more suitable kerosine/parrafin/diesel fuels which could be blended in all sorts of ratios and still provide good performance.

The cause of premature failure of the engines was substandard metals, which had actually been overcome by the very last stage of the war.

And/Or incorrect pilot technique with relation to throttle handling.

I thought I said that in the opening sentence.
All gasoline engines will run on all fuel,just to lower or higher standards and at significant cost in wear.
See all tank engines for the above.
The Jumo 004 didn't just suffer from turbine blade and combustion chamber failure,it was actually a very unresponsive engine no matter what the materials used.

[T. A. Gardner]

Originally Posted by At ease

"Bad" fuel was not a cause of premature engine failure for the 262 (unless it had been contaminated in transit/storage).

The Jumo004 was actually rather tolerant of a wide range of fuels (see also M1/A1 Abrhams gas turbine engine, amongst others for their ability to use a wide variety of liquid fuels).

It could even run on "AVGAS", but there was generally even less of that available than the more suitable kerosine/parrafin/diesel fuels which could be blended in all sorts of ratios and still provide good performance.

The cause of premature failure of the engines was substandard metals, which had actually been overcome by the very last stage of the war.

And/Or incorrect pilot technique with relation to throttle handling.

Exactly. The Jumo 004 used almost no high temperature metals whatsoever in its construction. The turbine assembly was made from sheet metal that was flame sprayed with an aluminum coating to reduce the effect of heat on it. The individual turbine blades were hollow to allow for cooling air to pass through them.
The after part of the engine (the combustion chamber and exhaust) was sheet metal too. This was a two layer design that had cooling air passing through the gap between the two layers from bleed air off the compressor section.
It was a neat design for the time in terms of keeping things cool as they could but it was also a poor man's set of choices. The inconel and stainless steel of the Dewent and other Allied jet engines negated the failure problem by being very high temperature metals.
The other problem with the Jumo design is the Zwibel (Onion) at the exhaust. This is a hydraulically operated bulb that regulates the exhaust flow. It is supposed to be fairly automatic in operation with the pilot just setting the engine on the the desired use setting. The problem is that it is in the middle of all that heat and frequently fails leaving it stuck in its current position.

[At ease]

Originally Posted by flash

I thought I said that in the opening sentence.

In post #12, you also said this:

Take a Jumo 004 which is far more "choosy" and feed it bad fuel,it will fail every time.

That is why I highlighted the sentence in bold in my post #13, as this statement is incorrect.

[Long Lance]

Originally Posted by the ace

Nice idea, but the Meatbox' virtues didn't include a great endurance either.

A good pilot in a Meteor could probably make mincemeat of a novice in an Me 262 (the most likely scenario by 1945), but an experienced pilot in an Me 262 could use his performance advantage to dictate combat - a very uncomfortable scenario.

I stand corrected in part

from wiki the Meteor during WW2 was the type F3

from this site (which has a similar post)

http://warbirdsforum.com/showthread.php?p=29031

Specification F.3 speed,mph 458/sl 493/30’ K climb,fpm 3,980/sl
ceiling serv 44’ K range,mi 1,340 w/ventral drop tank
engine 2 x RR RB.37 Derwent I turbojet/c 2,000 lbf
weight,lb empty 10,519 gr 13,920 max ? K
armament 4 x Hispano MkIII 20mm cannon/600? rpg + none?


So a Meteor with a range of 1340mi vs the 262 with a flying time of 60-90min (wiki). So I reckon that the Meteor had a greater endurance than the 262 but not as much as I thought. I've seen the Jumo engines up close at the the aircraft museum in Cape Town and another one somewhere else and boy o boy talk about "Scrapheap Challenge". (No disrespect to any slave workers who built them). They looked like beaten up pieces of aluminium. I just cannot imagine a Brit engine looking so rough and ready thus by implication the Meteor's engines were more fuel efficient.

btw that warbirds site has a good discussion on the Meteor vs the 262. I suppose recommending competitive sites is OK?

[Charles C]

Originally Posted by T. A. Gardner

It's back to just speed. The Me 262 can't even do anything close to a radical maneuver. I'd say it cannot even use its full maneuverability potential because of the engines.
If a 262 pilot pitches up to quickly or rolls hard into a turn it is likely to cause a compressor stall on one or both engines. That is a bad thing in a dogfight.

Erm.. Got any source on this ? Otherwise I'm going to have to call BS on that one mate, prime reason being that it goes against every report available on the aircraft, plus it makes zero sense. Compiling the facts & opinions expressed in every US, British & German manual or report on the aircraft and not once are issues with compressor stalls due to hard maneuvering mentioned anywhere, and frankly I cannot myself figure out why that would ever happen either.

No, what is mentioned on the other hand is that the Jumo 004's were sensitive to aggressive throttle control, with rapid changes in power being capable of causing a compressor stall, not how the aircraft was thrown around, something which is rather well known to those familiar with the aircrafts' history.

As for the versus debate, I'd argue that both aircraft, Me262 & Meteor, were fairly close in terms of maneuverability. The Meteor did have a lower wing loading, but the Me262 benefitted from full span slats that increased the lift produced by the wings considerably, and its' controls also remained light and balanced at very high speeds where the Meteor had issues.

Also the climb rate of the Me262 was 3.900 ft/min at its max permissable weight of 7,130 kg, whilst the usual clean combat weight was a good deal lower at 6400 kg, at which weight the rate of climb was atleast a good 5,500+ ft/min. No Meteor that saw service during the war managed such a performance.

So the Me262 definitely has the edge in this versus contest.