I’d like to know which of these were the best over all, since they were the only jets flying in 1945.
As far as I know, I’d recon that perhaps the Vampire was the best of these early jets, as it was fairly small, very agile, and fast, especially at low altitudes and had good speed over a wide altitude range, and had very good fire power with its 4 20mm cannons.
The Me-262 was fast for its time but it’s low altitude performance wasn’t quite as good as the Vampire’s (the Mk 1 and 3 Vampires were as fast at sea level as the 262 was at 20,000 ft), and it had possibly the highest wing loading of any WWII era fighter of 60 lbs/ft (the 262 weighed nearly as much as a P-47, but had less wing area for its span, or a higher aspect ratio, while the Vampire was much lighter and smaller, and had a wing with generous wing area). The 262 also had 4 30mm cannons, but these were low-velocity weapons with limited range and were most effective against heavy bombers, rather than a fighter like the Vampire, which was as about as small a target as a Spitfire or a Mustang.
The P-80 was fairly advanced, but it was no faster than the 262 or the Vampire, and, because of a fairly high wing loading (not as bad as the 262, but still much higher that most piston engined fighters), it was fairly difficult to fly until it’s pilots got used to it, and that and engine flame-outs (also an issue with the Vampire and especially the Me-262) caused quite a few accidents on take off and landing. Also, it’s armament of 6 .50 machine guns, though adequate for piston engined fighters against other fighters or even German or Japanese medium bombers, was barely adequate for a jet, as was discovered during the Korean War with the F-80 and the F-86, which resulted in the M61 20mm Gatling gun being introduced on the F-104 and has been, in one form or another, the main air-to-air gun armament for every US-built jet fighter since the Vietnam War.
The early definitive Meteors performed well for their relatively limited power, an because of a low wing loading, handled well, but since the Mk 3 wasn’t cleared for many aerobatic maneuvers, it had heavy controls because of the wired up ailerons (though Mk 1s didn’t have such limitations), and the Mk 1s had very limited engine power for the size of the aircraft, and I do wonder if the Meteor’s size in it’s early models posed it some of the same issues that the Me-262 had. In later Meteors, they featured modified alerons and clipped wings to give it a better roll rate (and area that early Meteors struggled in compared to most piston engined fighters and the Vampire), but these wouldn’t show up in number until after VJ day.
I’d like to know the pros and cons of these aircraft and how they stacked up against each other, but for me, the edge would have to go to the Vampire, as it seemed to be the easiest to fly and best mimicked the characteristics of a similarly sized piston engined fighter (most fighter pilots still trained on various piston engined aircraft, after all), and was probably the best dogfighter and was a decent interceptor for the time, even though aircraft such as the Griffon engined Spitfires, the Tempest and the DH Hornet could easily out climb most of these aircraft and for sure out accelerate them, which is why so many Me-262s were shot down by Mustangs and Tempests, as well as dogfighting at low speed with the piston engined fighters was just short of an invitation to get shot down.
So which of these early jets was best?
By: Dr Strangelove - 12th February 2012 at 17:08
It might have looked like a W & G build, but you can’t deny it was a very much a British export success.:D:D:D
In all respects other than aesthetics, I wholeheartedly concur that for its time the Meteor was fine aeroplane,the number of versions & sales speak for themselves. 😎
By: Radpoe Meteor - 12th February 2012 at 15:49
ME262, purely on the grounds that it looked so good, unlike the Meteor which looked like Wallis & Gromit made it. :p
Steady Eddie!!!
It might have looked like a W & G build, but you can’t deny it was a very much a British export success.:D:D:D
By: Bager1968 - 11th February 2012 at 23:51
I know it gets repetitive but the 262 didn’t have swept wings for aerodynamic reasons, it was because the original engines were replaced and the c of G moved, a quick fix was to sweep the wings back – not design genius, just luck
Exactly… the initial use for everybody was for CG/control reasons (the Northrop XP-56 had them swept to put the aileron/elevator combo far enough behind the CG to give sufficient control authority).
It was during flight testing and wind-tunnel work that the other benefits, including delaying compressibility effects, were noted… by all those developing swept-wing aircraft, not just the Germans.
It is true that North American combined the previous US work with the captured German information to design the high-speed swept wing of the F-86 Sabre, but there was a considerable body of data and design work from the US in that mix, not just German stuff.
By: Augsburgeagle - 11th February 2012 at 19:54
Interesting video of the DTM in Berlin acquiring a 162!
By: AdlerTag - 11th February 2012 at 15:44
I’m a little surprised by the shouts being made in favour of the He162. Yes, it was an amazing aircraft considering it was designed and flown so quickly, but it still had flaws regards design and production quality. The engine was slow to respond, especially from idle (which led to a number of serious undershoot accidents on landing), the electrics were dicey, and the rudders were too powerful (the cases of wing failure attributed to glue problems were actually more to do with the wings being overstressed by rudder inputs). The examples evaluated by the French after the war exhibited all these problems, and the engines would only deliver about 70% of the advertised power, which dictated the use of flaps for all take-offs despite the long runway.
All in all it may have been a delight once it was airborne, but it was all too easy to get killed in.
By: Augsburgeagle - 11th February 2012 at 13:24
I think you might be getting a little confused with the Heinkel He 280; the world’s first fighter jet, the first twin engined jet and the first to be fitted with an ejection seat – which was also actually used in emergency. The He 162 didn’t have one and from what I’ve read it was a bast*rd to fly.
Me 262, followed closely by the Vampire (Spider Crab). Me 163 for pure exoticism, although can an aircraft with a reputation for killing more of its pilots than enemy ones be included for greatness?
Hi,
The 162 did have an ejector seat and was apparently a delight to fly, however not for a 16 year old member of the HJ!
http://www.ejectionsite.com/he162seat.htm
It’s a design I would love to see be reproduced with a modern motor, I can imagine it being quite something to fly!
By: nuuumannn - 11th February 2012 at 13:08
The HE162 Salamander single engined maneuverable and also the first combat jet aircraft if I am not mistaken to be fitted with an ejector seat? Also it was supposedly fairly easy to fly or so some of the testing concluded.
I think you might be getting a little confused with the Heinkel He 280; the world’s first fighter jet, the first twin engined jet and the first to be fitted with an ejection seat – which was also actually used in emergency. The He 162 didn’t have one and from what I’ve read it was a bast*rd to fly.
Me 262, followed closely by the Vampire (Spider Crab). Me 163 for pure exoticism, although can an aircraft with a reputation for killing more of its pilots than enemy ones be included for greatness?
By: Maple 01 - 11th February 2012 at 09:32
I know it gets repetitive but the 262 didn’t have swept wings for aerodynamic reasons, it was because the original engines were replaced and the c of G moved, a quick fix was to sweep the wings back – not design genius, just luck
By: J Boyle - 11th February 2012 at 07:11
I would have thought some of those aircraft used swept wings for CG purposes rather than to delay on onset of compressability.
After all, even biplanes (German R-bombers of WWI, Tiger Moths, Great Lakes, etc) had swept wings…and not for speed.
Unless you’re being sarcastic….hard to tell from where I sit. 🙂
By: Bager1968 - 11th February 2012 at 05:36
Yes its fairly clear that rapid development of US post war jets owed a lot to German designs and technology.
I hardly think the American were alone in using German research. How do you thing the Soviets built the MiG-15?
A better question is why did it take so long for the UK to adopt swept wings?
You completely missed the sarcasm in his post.
This is demonstrated by the other sentence of his post:
For example things like swept wing designs date back to mid war aircraft and used in such aircraft as the Sabre.
Mike E
The US flew several swept-wing designs during the war… some flying before the first sight of the ME-262 by Allied pilots.
The Curtiss XP-55 Ascender had a swept wing, and first flew on 2 December 1941 (wind tunnel tests on models had been underway since 1940).
The Northrop XP-56 also featured a swept wing, and first flew on 30 September 1943.
So the US was already doing swept wings long before seeing any German test data… hence the sarcasm.
And don’t forget the fitting on the XP-42 of an “all-flying” horizontal stabilizer in 1942, which was then tested in both a wind tunnel and in actual flight… years before the US ever saw the Miles M.52 data.
By: J Boyle - 11th February 2012 at 01:00
The Airacomet was evaluated here in the UK and returned to USA after it was concluded it was a pretty poor and marginal aircraft.
Regards
Mark
Which is why it never entered large scale USAAF service.
Basically, only service test quantities were produced.
The Americans figured out fairly quickly that it was better to have one good, large engine than two smaller ones. Hense, the F-80 and F-84…both of which had long service careers.
You have got to give the F-80 credit, Lockheed got the airframe right. Like the Meteor and Vampire, it was amazing such early jet efforts were so successful. The P-80 not only had a good combat career in Korea, but it spawned the aforementioned T-33 and the F-94 all-weather interceptor, as well as the little known carrier training variant, T2V-1 Seastar.
But in reality, the early straight wing jets were using leftover WWII piston aerodynamics. The same could be said of early jet bombers.
The F-86 was the first “game changer”…by that I mean its aerodynamics were able to take full advantage of a jets power.
By: paul178 - 11th February 2012 at 00:21
Can we add the only operational rocket powered fighter the Me163 to the list or is it only for jet engines?
By: Good Vibs - 10th February 2012 at 22:59
Me262 versis P-80 & early USAF
Correct me if I am wrong but did not Ed Maloney (Air Museum fame) want to use his real Me262 in a flyoff against the USAF newly acquired and into active service P-80. The USAF refused for what I have read would have had embarrassing results for them.
Of course as others have already mentioned the engine life was very short on the 262’s.
PS:I would still like to see the new build 262 at Flying Legends.
I always stay on after the show is over to watch the “aircraft be put to bed”.
On one occasion the T-33 which was at Duxford at the time came back from an airshow somewhere else and postitioned to land, downwind, base & finals.
I must say, after two days of beautiful Mustangs, Spitfires, etc doing their thing…and I do love the sight and sound, I was amazed how easy the T-33 flew past with his speed and beauty. And that in the traffic pattern!
I think a 262 at Flying Legends would be the Cherry on the top of the cake!
After all it is also a Legend, perhaps a new build but still a Legend.
By: Arabella-Cox - 10th February 2012 at 21:58
Power Jets Provided 2 x W.1 turbojet engines for the Bell P-59 Airacomet. USA sent an Airacomet over the the UK in exchange for a Meteor. The Airacomet was evaluated here in the UK and returned to USA after it was concluded it was a pretty poor and marginal aircraft.
The Meteor was never returned !!
Regards
Mark
By: Highwayman47 - 10th February 2012 at 21:33
Re 10
J. Boyle
Wasn’t it a fact that early American jet fighter design was based at least on some British research and that the British provided the Americans with a jet engine (Nene ?) which went on to power several of their early designs?
John Green
I don’t think the Americans used any British research data in their early jet designs although the XP-80 did use an early Halford H-1 engine(DH Goblin). P&W produced 1,137 RR Nenes and 4,021 RR Tays under licence for such types as the Grumman Panther and Cougar.
By: John Green - 10th February 2012 at 20:44
Re 10
J. Boyle
Wasn’t it a fact that early American jet fighter design was based at least on some British research and that the British provided the Americans with a jet engine (Nene ?) which went on to power several of their early designs?
John Green
By: pagen01 - 10th February 2012 at 20:38
I think that sums it up quite well Peter, the Meteor was comparitively simple, reliable, tough, and aerodynamically unchallenging, coupled with fairly reliable centrifugal engines this made for an attractive proposition for the services at the time.
As JB touches on, the Me262 was more advanced for sure, but needed the right industrial might behind it, especially in the engine department. The engines of course were of the axial flow type which went on to be the better and dominant type.
The Me also had that perfect high, midships cockpit/pilot positioning under a large mainly transparent canopy.
The Americans did come up with a supreme fighter design with the swept-wing F-86 Sabre, without a doubt, even more remarkable when you consider that it was planned as a fighter from the start. Again the pilot and canopy arrangement was superb.
However the UK had already started producing swept wing jets, the D.H.108 flew in May ’46, 17 months before the XP-86, the UKs first conventional all swept jet, the Supermarine 510 flew only 2 months later.
However these were (tricky) prototypes and their trials and tribulations only highlight the North American achievement.
It’s interesting that the fabled Miles M.52 design didn’t have a swept-wing, but featured a very thin section straight wing. Although swept wings were the way to go with ’40s & ’50s airframe technology and aerodynamics, the thin straight wing has ultimately been shown to be the best solution for high speed flight, witness the Starfighter, F-5, F-16, F-18 etc.
By: PeterVerney - 10th February 2012 at 19:20
Getting back to the subject, I still think the old Meatbox was the best compromise at the time. A good stable gun platform with well developed armament, quite agile and easy to fly. I well remember the satisfaction felt twice watching F84Fs spinning out of sight while they attempted to bounce us.
By: PeterVerney - 10th February 2012 at 19:12
A better question is why did it take so long for the UK to adopt swept wings?
Because, like most things our public servants (sic) meddle in, the old saw applies “A camel is a horse, designed by a committee”. There is a fuss again re how costs of MOD projects are still escalating, Nimrod, dare I say it, was mentioned :eek::eek:
By: J Boyle - 10th February 2012 at 17:34
Perhaps the query should be…aerodynamically which was the best design?
If yoy take into account the engines and their low TBOs, all had limitaitions as warplanes.
The Me 262 design may have been a winner, but was let down by engines made in far from ideal circumstances.
Yes its fairly clear that rapid development of US post war jets owed a lot to German designs and technology.Mike E
I hardly think the American were alone in using German research. How do you thing the Soviets built the MiG-15?
A better question is why did it take so long for the UK to adopt swept wings?
Sign In
February 10, 2012 at 1:55 pm