Jump to content


Founders [premium]
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

2034 Excellent

About JtD

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

3661 profile views
  1. I highlighted the important things. Even though the time figure is always given for a 360° turn, it doesn't really matter if you do this over 3600°, 360°, 36° or just 3.6°. Because you exit the turn in exactly the same flight condition you entered it in. Because it is a sustained turn. It is, however, far easier to measure if you do 10 full turns or some such. Many pilots lose speed and altitude and arrive at odd conclusions.
  2. It hasn't changed in the last 24 hours and still is a sustained turn.
  3. Take a 262, start at sea level at 300km/h and do 10 consecutive 360 degree turns. You will not finish it in less than 200s. My guess would be around 400s, because once you're that slow and that low, the 262 is as agile as an elephant.
  4. I know a lot of people who just want to fix a problem when it pops up, and are not looking for someone to blame. I disagree with that bottom line.
  5. Also, maximum instantaneous turn will happen at the same indicated air speed (IAS) no matter the altitude. That's if you wanted to figure it out for yourself. But then we already know it is sustained performance from discussions with the developers, so no need for figuring anymore.
  6. The 262 cannot maintain these turn rates forever, or without losing altitude. Your two screenshots are three seconds apart, in which the 262 has lost 270m altitude. Give that the TAS is around 360 km/h, that's a near vertical dive. No aircraft has problems achieving turn rates of 27°/s if it only has to sustain it for three seconds, in a near vertical dive, at roughly two times the stalling speed. Try a climbing turn next time and the guy who fights this slow in a 262 will be easy meat on the table.
  7. Finally tried the Me262 in game, and can see where you're coming from WRT to the slats. Seems strange, but then I don't have detailed information about how they worked. If they were purely aerodynamic, then they're probably off. I don't have issues with the current elevator authority. CoG has a huge impact, makes me wonder how exactly I reproduce RAF conditions in game. If I go in with standard loadout, I think I can get it to stall from neutral trim in the 400mph 5000ft scenario, at any rate, pretty close to stalling. Hard to notice, given that it does not spin, the slats don't come out and that it bleeds speed very quickly. What I am wondering most, however - is the performance correct? I can get the speeds I expect, but even at full throttle cannot maintain a decent climb rate. Acceleration is very, very slow, too. Depending on altitude, I'd expect to outpace piston engined fighter at speeds of 500 and above, but this does not seem to happen. Has anyone already put numbers to climb rates and acceleration in game?
  8. At Mach 0.86 the 262 was not controllable in pitch and nosed down, at 0.83 it was pretty tricky to pull it out of a dive. It should be mentioned that the 6lb and 400mph Brown refers to are probably true air speed, not equivalent air speed - so these 400 compare to 580 in the Soviet test. WRT to slats, if they were mass and friction free, everything would indeed depend on angle of attack only, but as they are not, operation also depends on dynamic pressure and local g forces. It's exactly NotARobot wrote. Haven't tried the 262 in game, yet. So I'm not saying anything is wrong or everything is right, just commenting on the real life data.
  9. The Soviet figure of ~20kg/g is for 800km/h EAS at 3000m? So that's ~950km/h TAS or Mach 0.8. I don't think that this in any way contradicts the RAF figures of 3kg/g at 650km/h at 1500m. Mach 0.8 might have transsonic/compressibilty effects overlaying any true subsonic characteristics, and controls on the 262 might stiffen up just like they do on any other aircraft. The manual says that when diving, you're supposed to trim the aircraft so that you need to push the stick, which implies that pulling out is not that easy, or at least that you don't need to worry about overloading the frame while doing so. You wouldn't have that clause in if you still were anywhere near 3kg/g in the high speed range, you'd kill pilots with that. Thanks for the educational and interesting discussion.
  10. You make a point in making it a generalisation, I don't.
  11. Oddly enough, production of German equipment didn't take that many man hours, compared to British or US industries at least. It needed more skilled labour though, because Germany didn't have the tools to allow skilled labour to be replaced with unskilled labour quickly and on a larger scale. Producing tools however requires skilled labour, and time. And you need new tools when you make a new product, same way you need to train people for a new product. And so on. US style assembly lines aren't the be-all end-all answer to everything in mass production, it simply wasn't appliciable to Germany at that time. So, I don't think 'poorly geared' is an accurate general description for the German industry, given the output it managed. Six years simply are not enough to make a disarmed country competitive with the worlds largest military and economical powers. German industry did have particularities resulting from that rush and one effect was the inability to produce a tank like the Tiger I in numbers that mattered. Not a general inability to produce war material.
  12. Or you have vastly more natural ressources, external help, lower quality standards and a headstart of maybe a year or two. But not, as you said, decades. The situation in the Soviet Union was so different from the situation in Germany, that neither could have adopted the others mass production philosophy and gain from it. The SU did not have the necessary skilled labour, Germany did not have the necessary space and natural resources. Simple example, Germany had restrictions about maximum manufacturing buildings sizes, in order to minimize effects of bombings. Obviously, a larger assembly line will be benefitial for quick and cheap production. The US and the SU and to some extent the UK went there, and built the buildings as large as they needed to be. Germany built more buildings of the same maximum permitted size, separated by some distance so that, if a bomb hit, it couldn't damage two buildings. (This of course was no protection against the mass bombings of 1944.) In the end, when the war started and production geared up, the large Allied factories had one assembly line, in one building. Steel in, tank out. A German factory had half a dozen buildings, completing partial jobs, and 20% of the effort went into moving half ready products from one building to another. Now we could argue all day if, at the time, this was the right decision, I don't think there's a conclusive answer. Germany produced a lot more ships than the Soviet union did and loads more of important electronics stuff. I also think that they outproduced the SU in terms of aircraft, not necessarily in numbers built, but in combat strength produced. I'd suppose that would already show in aircraft tonnage produced, as a first indicator, or engine power or some such if one was looking for technical indicators. What I mean by this is that it's not a sign of more industrial power if you built Po-2's in higher numbers than your opponent builts say P-47's. Po-2's might still win the war, though.
  13. I'd say it was more an industry that faced different challenges in terms of mass production of military equipment then the US, UK or SU and came up with different solutions. In several areas Germany outproduced the SU, so it cannot have been decades behind.
  14. Possibly so. On the other hand the S and in particular the F engine were much improved in detail and designed with higher boosts to start with, and same way a D-2 could take an increase from 1.42 to 1.65 without MW50, the same might be true for later versions with an increase of 1.65 to 1.82. Additionally, I have yet to see a Fw190A-9 manual to reference an MW50 system. But then I consider this academic, because 1.82ata did not see service, afaik. IIrc the prop reduction gear of the TS engine as installed on the A-9, was not strong enough to support more power than what was reached with 1.65ata.
  15. MW50 was never used in service with BMW801 powered Fw190's. This supercharger behaviour is not unique to the Fw190, neither in real life, nor in game, as WheelwrightPL has already stated. You can check any other aircraft with a mechanical two stage supercharger system and you'll find it does the same. Provided it has an automatic switchover, of course. Or you can check engine performance curves and you'll realize that this drop in manifold pressure is a necessity for maximum power output.
  • Create New...