ME 262

[Wolfram-Harms]

1 hour ago, SCG_wtornado said:

In 1946 you would dive down from high altitude and spot some planes and set up your line of attack and blast them with the cannons...

They were not banned for nothing 

 

Problem with air combat sims is, that people often do not play the same scenarios as they were in real life.
In the WW1 sim "Rise of Flight" the turn-fighters often circled very close to the ground to play their "agility card" - in RL they didn't.

 

In WW2, the major task of the Me 262 (as fighters - most were still used as bombers!) - was to intercept bombers.

It is not effective to kill fighter aircraft with them - it's the bomber streams you want to stop.

In an air combat sim, the players try out all their fighter abilities of course. Which must be great for a boom&zoom ace!

[Wolfram-Harms]

RoflSeal, I already reduced it to "German jet engines don't smoke" - due to the fact, that the Merkans seem to burn ANYthing and moonshine whiskey in their jets.

 

But seriously now - I expressed myself unclear. What I meant was Finkeren's "will they pull a trail of smoke" - they shouldn't pull a clearly visible trail.

 

[wtornado]

And sims do not project or show the stress of combat on the engines that work flawlessly in sims.

 

I would be curious to know how many planes fell from the sky without getting hit by fire.

 

You can fly forever if you stay within nominal parameters a engine won't malfunction

 

I doubt very much it was like that  in real life.

[Finkeren]

2 hours ago, RoflSeal said:

Jet engines don't smo-

 

  Reveal hidden contents

 

 

 

 
 

 

 

To be fair though: From that angle the smoke will seem much denser than from the side.

[Panthera]

Again a lot depends on what type of fuel is used, not to mention how completely it is burned. 

 

Take a look at this video at 1:20 min, here you can see the difference between the MiG-15 & F-86:

 

Edited March 8, 2018 by Panthera

[-=PHX=-SuperEtendard]

36 minutes ago, Finkeren said:

 

To be fair though: From that angle the smoke will seem much denser than from the side.

The MiG-29 is particularly smokey though:

 

 

 

I like this picture, it shows how big the Su-27 is in comparison to the MiG), they also are more eco-friendly xP

 

 

 

Edited March 8, 2018 by -=PHX=-SuperEtendard

[Wolfram-Harms]

Gents, could it be that the jets with the stronger smoking are just flying with afterburner?

[-=PHX=-SuperEtendard]

not in the case of the 29 at least, in this video you can see how it doesn't smoke when it's using the afterburners.

 

 

Edited March 8, 2018 by -=PHX=-SuperEtendard

[Wolfram-Harms]

Jeeze, what do the Russians use - coal???

[CrazyDuck]

6 minutes ago, Wolfram-Harms said:

Jeeze, what do the Russians use - coal???

 

Maybe jet engines secretly developed by VolksWagen. 

[SCG_OpticFlow]

5 minutes ago, CrazyDuck said:

 

Maybe jet engines secretly developed by VolksWagen. 

 

The jet engine fuel is closer to diesel fuel so that makes sense...

[Wolfram-Harms]

Mmuahahahaaa!!!

Well, the Germans are not responsible for EVERYthing going bad in the world, okay?

[Livai]

Mmuahahahaaa!!!

Well, let the breeze of freedom spoil you, that makes happy..................................................  

 

 

[Panthera]

20 hours ago, Wolfram-Harms said:

Gents, could it be that the jets with the stronger smoking are just flying with afterburner?

 

No, that would actually mostly remove the smoke trail, you can observe in below video   Also never seen a F-86E/F or B-52 with afterburners

 

 

Edited March 9, 2018 by Panthera

[Wolfram-Harms]

It is interesting to see: we seem to be living in an "age of fight". Say something in a forum, and you will get return fire from all directions.

And it often isn't for the truth about a subject, but just for the fun of the fighting itself.

Even though many already KNOW what the writer had REALLY meant to say. Could that be?

 

What I meant to say was, that jets didn't pull a smoke trail - like a rocket clearly did in those days.

That is, of course, seen more from the side, left or right. From behind, you look through some hundreds of meters of polluted and burnt air.

If I took a shot from my grandma from astern, even SHE might appear smoking!
No, wait - she even appears smoking from any other direction - she is a heavy smoker actually... - you inglorious basterds!

[Panthera]

No wish or attempt at fighting from my end, just responding with explanations instead of a simple yes or no which I believe would be rather rude

[=362nd_FS=RoflSeal]

 

 

Edited March 9, 2018 by RoflSeal

[Panthera]

8 minutes ago, RoflSeal said:

 

 

 That is some incredible footage! 

[Tuesday]

15 minutes ago, RoflSeal said:

 

 

 

Shamelessly re-posted from /r/hoggit without pointing out they are the magnificent CF-18s!

Edited March 9, 2018 by 19//Tuesday

[Wolfram-Harms]

However - interesting to see, how the afterburner is used on and off many times - didn't know they do that so often.

 

Panthera, my post wasn't meant too serious, okay? Everything's alright! As good as it gets...

Edited March 9, 2018 by Wolfram-Harms

[KatieLuna]

I think it'll be interesting to see the wing ripping at high speeds being modelled. The Me262 had just 1 spar, as opposed to the 2 spar design which would have given it considerably more strength. As such it couldn't pull intense g's at high speeds, as the wings weren't designed for it. From what i've read this is from Messerschmitt's old habits of single spar wings in his 109s. The P51Ds, spits etc. all had 2 spars at least.

[Wolfram-Harms]

I never heard anything about wings ripped off due to high energy.

 

English WIKIPEDIA strangely says something different for the fighter qualities of the jet, than the German version.

 

English version:
Luftwaffe pilots eventually learned how to handle the Me 262's higher speed and the Me 262 soon proved a formidable air superiority fighter,
with pilots such as Franz Schall managing to shoot down 17 enemy fighters in the Me 262, 10 of them American P-51 Mustangs.
Other notable Me 262 aces included Georg-Peter Eder, with 12 enemy fighters to his credit (including nine P-51s), Erich Rudorffer also with 12
enemy fighters to his credit, Walther Dahl with 11 (including three Lavochkin La-7s and six P-51s) and Heinz-Helmut Baudach with six (including
one Spitfire and two P-51s) amongst many others.

 

The author of the German version says, that due to the tendency of the jet flame airflow to ripp off, and the difficulty to catch a slower tight-turning

enemy fighter, the Me 262 could never be an air superiority fighter, and was most only used for the interception of bombers, where she did very well.

(This is of course for the fighter version A-1, not for the "Blitz Bomber" version.)

 

 

 

 

Edited March 9, 2018 by Wolfram-Harms

[Panthera]

52 minutes ago, TheTacticalCat said:

I think it'll be interesting to see the wing ripping at high speeds being modelled. The Me262 had just 1 spar, as opposed to the 2 spar design which would have given it considerably more strength. As such it couldn't pull intense g's at high speeds, as the wings weren't designed for it. From what i've read this is from Messerschmitt's old habits of single spar wings in his 109s. The P51Ds, spits etc. all had 2 spars at least.

 

IIRC the Me262's wings were designed to withstand something like ~11 G's at fully loaded weight, so there shouldn't be any such problems. The aircraft used a very beefy spar made of steel, which is noticably stronger than the typically used duralumin.  There is also no known instance of what you describe ever occuring.

[Mitthrawnuruodo]

Load factor limits usually exist only to make sure that an aircraft can safely fly in the future. If subsequent missions are unlikely to occur, load factor limits don't really exist.

 

Wing rips from excessive load factors are usually restricted to games. 

[Frenchy56]

2 hours ago, Wolfram-Harms said:

 

Pictured: State of a Me-262 A-1 during its final landing approach

Edited March 9, 2018 by Frenchy56

[Panthera]

4 hours ago, Wolfram-Harms said:

However - interesting to see, how the afterburner is used on and off many times - didn't know they do that so often.

 

Panthera, my post wasn't meant too serious, okay? Everything's alright! As good as it gets...

 It's all good

[SCG_OpticFlow]

16 hours ago, Wolfram-Harms said:

I never heard anything about wings ripped off due to high energy.

 

English WIKIPEDIA strangely says something different for the fighter qualities of the jet, than the German version.

 

English version:
Luftwaffe pilots eventually learned how to handle the Me 262's higher speed and the Me 262 soon proved a formidable air superiority fighter,
with pilots such as Franz Schall managing to shoot down 17 enemy fighters in the Me 262, 10 of them American P-51 Mustangs.
Other notable Me 262 aces included Georg-Peter Eder, with 12 enemy fighters to his credit (including nine P-51s), Erich Rudorffer also with 12
enemy fighters to his credit, Walther Dahl with 11 (including three Lavochkin La-7s and six P-51s) and Heinz-Helmut Baudach with six (including
one Spitfire and two P-51s) amongst many others.

 

The author of the German version says, that due to the tendency of the jet flame airflow to ripp off, and the difficulty to catch a slower tight-turning

enemy fighter, the Me 262 could never be an air superiority fighter, and was most only used for the interception of bombers, where she did very well.

(This is of course for the fighter version A-1, not for the "Blitz Bomber" version.)

 

 

 

 

 

What is the device in the nose? Some tiny radar?

[Ehret]

Just now, OpticFlow said:

 

What is the device in the nose? Some tiny radar?

 

Looks like a gun camera.

[Wolfram-Harms]

33 minutes ago, Ehret said:

Looks like a gun camera.

 

You are right - it was the gun cam.

 

 

 

Edited March 10, 2018 by Wolfram-Harms
Image changed

[SCG_OpticFlow]

59 minutes ago, Wolfram-Harms said:

 

You are right - it was the gun cam.

 

 

 

Impressive machine, ahead of its time...

[KatieLuna]

2 hours ago, OpticFlow said:

Impressive machine, ahead of its time...

Most other aircraft of the time had guncams. If you were talking about all the notes in the pic, then yes, yes it was.

[CUJO_1970]

21 hours ago, TheTacticalCat said:

I think it'll be interesting to see the wing ripping at high speeds being modelled. The Me262 had just 1 spar, as opposed to the 2 spar design which would have given it considerably more strength. As such it couldn't pull intense g's at high speeds, as the wings weren't designed for it. From what i've read this is from Messerschmitt's old habits of single spar wings in his 109s. The P51Ds, spits etc. all had 2 spars at least.

 

"Close this book and never open it again" -wise words from a wise man named Oleg Maddox.

 

Me-262 was built for speeds in the trans-sonic region and could maneuver at speeds where many piston engine aircraft of the era had already reached compressibility and part-shedding.

[CUJO_1970]

Me-262 was an air-superiority fighter.

 

It was in development as such before the heavy bomber threat was fully realized/materialized. Although heavy bombers were the priority, 262 pilots killed targets of opportunity in the air whatever those may be, fighter or bomber.

 

Many 262 pilots would qualify for ace status based only on the number of fighters they destroyed.

[Fliegenpilz]

On 10.3.2018 at 12:19 AM, Mitthrawnuruodo said:

Load factor limits usually exist only to make sure that an aircraft can safely fly in the future. If subsequent missions are unlikely to occur, load factor limits don't really exist.

 

Wing rips from excessive load factors are usually restricted to games. 

 

Nope. Not at all. Check static aeroelasticity:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aeroelasticity

 

Of course, most fighters are subsequently built to withstand far greater forces than the pilot might endure.

[Gambit21]

On 3/11/2018 at 1:40 PM, Fliegenpilz said:

 

Nope. Not at all. Check static aeroelasticity:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aeroelasticity

 

Of course, most fighters are subsequently built to withstand far greater forces than the pilot might endure.

 

Note Mitthraw's use of the word "usually" 

 

As you indicate blackout is likely to happen before an airframe failure.

So again - usually his statement holds true.

 

As a side note, James Wood of the 352nd told me that he could always tell if he was flying a Mustang that had been taken into and pulled out of a dive that was too fast/beyond spec. Something was just "off", and you could never get those birds to fly quite right ever again.

He was a late war replacement so I imagine he flew some weary Mustangs.

[Wolfram-Harms]

1 hour ago, Gambit21 said:

 Something was just "off", and you could never get those birds to fly quite right ever again.

 

Interesting bit! I can imagine that he knew what he said - and felt. Just something felt overall wrong with it, but couldn't be pointed out.
But still - that is not yet a wing failure.

[NETSCAPE]

When I get the Me-262 all I'm going to do in multiplayer is strafe ground targets and kill all AAA. If anyone drops on me I'll just zoom away. 

 

It will be interesting to see how effective the lazer-guided AA that people make in multiplayer missions will work against the 262. 

[seafireliv]

I`m sure someone`s already said it (didn`t read whole thread). The Me262 should never be in multiplayer unless in actual realistic battle or campaign scenarios. In simple mp dogfights they are hugely overpowered  because they were never used like that (and couldn`t be) in real life.

[Legioneod]

35 minutes ago, seafireliv said:

I`m sure someone`s already said it (didn`t read whole thread). The Me262 should never be in multiplayer unless in actual realistic battle or campaign scenarios. In simple mp dogfights they are hugely overpowered  because they were never used like that (and couldn`t be) in real life.

Of course they should be in multiplayer. There will only be a few of them most likely and they have enough weaknesses to balance out their advantages.

[[DBS]Browning]

5 hours ago, seafireliv said:

I`m sure someone`s already said it (didn`t read whole thread). The Me262 should never be in multiplayer unless in actual realistic battle or campaign scenarios. In simple mp dogfights they are hugely overpowered  because they were never used like that (and couldn`t be) in real life.

 

I think you'll find this won't be the case.

It can be an absolute nightmare to take down fighters in the 262, even if you bounce them.

Gunnery is as tough as it gets. The shells from the 30mm's move slowly, the plane shakes when they fire and the mussel flash and smoke restricts visibility. Added to that you are almost always making a deflection shot because you don't want to be slow enough to sit on anyone's six. Your target is likely to be turning far, far faster than you could, even if you wanted to turn (which you don't) and you are going to have only the shortest of moments inside your firing solution before your targets is behind you. To get a fighter kill you need to have your shot lined up well before you are in range, the enemy must not move too far outside of your envelope and you must take a deflection shot with a low velocity gun in a fraction of the time you usually get for such shots. Turning around for a second shot is a lengthy process if you don't want to be vulnerable and your opponent is always going to be on the defensive and capable of turning out of your envelope.

 

You might not get shot down if you aren't caught with your trousers down, but taking a enemy fighter down isn't going to be easy either.

 

In Il2 '46, they where not restricted on servers because they shot everyone down, they where restricted because it was so hard to shoot them down. They just end up being an annoying pest for fighters. Not hard to avoid, but not possible to shoot.