Meteor mkIII vs. Me262 vs. He162

[GScholz]

262 hands down. The 162 would have become a better fighter with a few months more development and proper production. A properly built He 162 could best a 262.

The Volksjäger program was a pipe dream and Heinkel knew this from the start and designed the He 162 as a proper fighter demanding a proper pilot to fly it. The He 162 was a truly excellent design, and a truly remarkable feat since it went from design to production in just three months. All of the 162's vices, including the too powerful rudders, were known in January 1945, but production couldn't be halted for any reason; the enemy was literally at the gates. However, in the closing weeks of the war a number of He 162s were built in the Mittelwerk underground factory at Khonstein. These were properly made, and it was these examples that were tested by RAE Farnborough and Eric Brown. It was Brown's favorite early jet.


As for people claiming Eric Brown is biased, I dismiss any such claims as nothing more than whining from lesser men. I've had the honor of meeting Eric Brown and he is a perfect gentleman, and apart from a (justified) pride in British accomplishments I have not heard or read one word from him that I find in any way biased. On the contrary; I find all his conclusions to be supported by well researched arguments. You may disagree with his arguments, but that does not make it bias. His detractors would be wise to look into their own bias.

In Eric Brown's "Duels in the Sky" he presents his "picks" for the best single engined fighters of WWII:

1 Spitfire and Fw 190 tied for first place
2 Hellcat
3 Mustang IV
4 Zero
5 Tempest V
6 Kawanishi George


His best picks for carrier fighters:

1 Hellcat
2 Zero
3 Wildcat
4 Corsair
5 Sea Hurricane.
6 Seafire

His "picks" are not based solely on performance, but also on the impact they had on the war. You may disagree with some of his choices, but this is clearly not a man with a bias.

Eric Brown is the most experienced test pilot and naval aviator that has ever lived, and many of his records will probably never be broken due to the circumstances of WWII. Pilots of the future simply won't get the chance. No man, living or dead, possess the same magnitude of firsthand knowledge of Axis and Allied late-war aircraft. Brown, speaking German, was on the British "Enemy Flight" team that scoured the German countryside for aviation technology. He personally interrogated people like Kurt Tank, Willy Messerschmitt, Ernst Heinkel, Hanna Reitsch, Hermann Göring (!), Erich Hartmann, Werhner Von Braun and many more. People would be wise to listen to this man.

[Zacherof]

When I was reading up on the volksjager(btw salamander is incorrect, as that was the title of the whole production)it was from an engineeing and mechanical stand point outstanding. Although fire power goes the the shwlabe hands down.

[Bruv119]

here here,

Lets see HTC model the meteor mk III and let the AH experten decide which one is better. 

[GScholz]

I'd love to see the Meteor and P-80 in the game. Both would probably be very fun MA rides.

[Butcher]

here here,

Lets see HTC model the meteor mk III and let the AH experten decide which one is better. 

Meteor Mk III would win hands down - better acceleration, top speed, climb - it was tested against the Tempest - in which the Tempest only won in a turn fight, otherwise the Meteor Mk III was hands down a better aircraft.

I'm assuming the Mk III is what served in europe, I know the Mk I was a piece of crap.

[Karnak]

I'd love to see the Meteor and P-80 in the game. Both would probably be very fun MA rides.

P-80 I don't think should be added.  It was only in prototype and saw no service of any kind.  The last jets that could be added are the Meteor and He162.  Two versions of the Meteor could be added and I believe there are a couple more versions of the Me262 that could be added as well.

Meteor Mk III would win hands down - better acceleration, top speed, climb - it was tested against the Tempest - in which the Tempest only won in a turn fight, otherwise the Meteor Mk III was hands down a better aircraft.

I'm assuming the Mk III is what served in europe, I know the Mk I was a piece of crap.

Meteor Mk I, 408mph top speed, anti-diver duties only.
Meteor Mk III, 490mph top speed, anti-diver duties and limited operations on the continent.
Meteor Mk IV, 610mph top speed, missed the war by less than a year.

[mthrockmor]

When I googled Eric Brown's book this Youtube came up. Pretty appropriate when comparing turn rate, climb, etc. The Falcon comes in second place. Great footage.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jg4x9_pDH-I

boo

PS I would be interested to note what Brown thought of the different models and marks of the 190 and Spits. Which did he rate as the ultimate of each?

[GScholz]

Butcher, the Meteor F Mk III had a max speed at SL of 486 mph. It could do 493 mph at 30k (the most favorable numbers I could find). Climb rate was similar to 262. Eric Brown called the Meteor a "pedestrian aircraft" compared to the 262 and that it would offer "no contest". That is unless you also claim Brown is biased against British aircraft...

I imagine it would do well in AH though with the laser guns and better turning circle.

[Butcher]

perfect gentleman, and apart from a (justified) pride in British accomplishments

Here's a quote for ya -

I think like any test pilot, he has his good and bad points. As with any pilot, personal bias is going to enter the equation. If you have only one sample of an aircraft to test, and it has issues with fuel, or has been a crashed aircraft that has been patched together, that information should enter into the equation as a sub-par aircraft example.

Additionally, when testing enemy aircraft during wartime conditions, there may not be anyone who has trained and flown the aircraft in combat to understand the nuances of the airplane itself and to explain them. This is probably more true with German aircraft as they were quite good at technical innovation.

It is much easier to fly an aircraft to it's full capabilities when you have access to what the engineers say the limitations and capabilities are. Without that information, test data may not be complete as there are variables that may not be known at the time of tests.

I have a great respect for his wartime deeds as an RAF pilot. He certainly has flown a number of aircraft. But you cannot base any argument on the opinion of one source. Anyone who has ever worked in a test environment knows that a single test will not provide reliable data. You need at least three sets of results to have any chance of reliable test data. When working with numbers and empirical data, three tests run by the same person will provide good data. When working with variables that are subjective, you needs at least three different testers.

The man was a good test pilot, and flew many aircraft's - but he had a harsh dislike for the Corsair, even though he only flew the early bird cage version. His opinion is shown bias when he rants about the Wildcat, only because he shot down two Fw-200 condors in a Martlet.
Look at his comments towards the Me-109, he test flew one 109G/U2 that had gondolas on it and claimed it wasn't a very good dogfighter. He based his opinion on a bird setup for shooting down bombers, when fact is the 109 was almost as good as any Spitfire was - something he would not admit too.

Just because you fly 460 wirbirds or whatever his official figure is, doesn't mean your the master of your trade. Look at his opinion of the 190 vs the 109 - he preferred the 190 yet why does all the german aces prefer the me109 over it? I guess a hundred aces can't be all wrong and eric brown right.

For me to have a source of information It has to be more credible then eric brown, I am not down grading what he done or has done, however there is some understated bias in there that I couldn't point my finger and say his word is good as gold.

[Karnak]

I imagine it would do well in AH though with the laser guns and better turning circle.

The fact that it has quad nose mounted Hispanos and would be the third fastest fighter in the game, far faster than the vast majority of opponents it would face, would ensure it would do well, even as a pedestrian aircraft.

[GScholz]

Meteor Mk IV, 610mph top speed, missed the war by less than a year.

If by "missed the war by less than a year" you mean "1947" then you are correct. Only two squadrons got equipped with IVs in 1947, the rest had to wait until 1948.

[Karnak]

If by "missed the war by less than a year" you mean "1947" then you are correct. Only two squadrons got equipped with IVs in 1947, the rest had to wait until 1948.

Ah.  My memory was saying Oct-Nov of 1945 when it set a new world speed record.  I could very well be wrong on when that happened, but I thought it was shortly after the war.  By no means was I suggesting the Mk IV should be added to AH as it clearly has no place in the game.

[GScholz]

Here's a quote for ya -

The man was a good test pilot, and flew many aircraft's - but he had a harsh dislike for the Corsair, even though he only flew the early bird cage version. His opinion is shown bias when he rants about the Wildcat, only because he shot down two Fw-200 condors in a Martlet.
Look at his comments towards the Me-109, he test flew one 109G/U2 that had gondolas on it and claimed it wasn't a very good dogfighter. He based his opinion on a bird setup for shooting down bombers, when fact is the 109 was almost as good as any Spitfire was - something he would not admit too.

Just because you fly 460 wirbirds or whatever his official figure is, doesn't mean your the master of your trade. Look at his opinion of the 190 vs the 109 - he preferred the 190 yet why does all the german aces prefer the me109 over it? I guess a hundred aces can't be all wrong and eric brown right.

For me to have a source of information It has to be more credible then eric brown, I am not down grading what he done or has done, however there is some understated bias in there that I couldn't point my finger and say his word is good as gold.

Who are you quoting?

And nothing of what you say looks like bias to me, unless I'm totally wrong about what that word means. I bet you won't find any German ace who says the 109 was better than the 190. I've seen several interviews with among others, Rall and Hartmann, who says the 190 was better, but they were so familiar with the 109 that they would rather keep flying it than start all over again by learning a new aircraft in the middle of a war. As for the 109 being as good as the Spit: That varied a lot with models and time frame. Brown didn't like the 109G, and that's his opinion, not bias.

[GScholz]

Ah.  My memory was saying Oct-Nov of 1945 when it set a new world speed record.  I could very well be wrong on when that happened, but I thought it was shortly after the war.  By no means was I suggesting the Mk IV should be added to AH as it clearly has no place in the game.

The prototype flew in late 1945 yes. Production started in 1946, and squadron service in 1947. If the war was still on they probably could have gotten it out the door sooner though.

[Karnak]

I'd say that the Bf109 was at an ebb against its Spitfire contemporaries during the Gs vs the VIII/IX/XVIs.  The F is clearly superior to the V, which was the Spitfire's ebb.  The Es and the I/IIs are pretty dang even, as is the K and the XIV.