ME 262

[Gambit21]

2 hours ago, 1/LG1-MarkWilhelmsson said:

The Mustang airfoil was designed for speed, not lift. It cannot turn as well as everyone thinks and the Macchi can outclimb it.

 

Ummm...compared to the 262 does - which is the entire point...

Context my friend...context.

[Soilworker]

19 hours ago, Tapi said:

Another interesting thing: front wheel comes up separately and it has it's own brake lever. (see vid above at  23:00)

 

This would be cool if they implemented it, they could add a control called "Break Lever" or something which could control the 262 front wheel plus the brakes for all the Soviet and British aircraft that don't have independent wheels brakes. They can leave the "Wheel Brakes" option for everyone who doesn't have independent axes for each. 

 

Also thanks for the video, I'll check it out properly tonight. Děkuji! 

[II./SG.1-MarkWilhelmsson]

On 3/12/2019 at 12:32 AM, Gambit21 said:

 

Ummm...compared to the 262 does - which is the entire point...

Context my friend...context.

262 will turn better at very high speeds and retain much more momentum than the P51 in tight turns. The  turning radius overall may be larger because of its much higher speed, but it will traverse through more degrees per second than the P51 at its best turning speed if the P51 is at that same speed. Obviously the P51 will turn better at lower speeds; that's a given.

[Gambit21]

Are you just needing to be correct?

None of that changes anything about my original post and the context of which it was typed.

 

The Mustang, and aircraft that was used for example purposes (it could be any late war prop) doesn’t attain the high speeds of the 262 that you’re referring to. You seem to be either debating with yourself, or someone who was making an entirely different point than I was.

[II./SG.1-MarkWilhelmsson]

On 3/11/2019 at 11:13 PM, =621=Samikatz said:

 

It's not that bad:

 

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/p51b-12093.html

(Test is for a P-51B, but on the same engine settings the planes perform in an extremely similar manner, the B maybe being 2-3mph faster)

 

 

3600 feet/min is about 18m/s, but as the report reads its not done at full power (WEP on even the most basic setting would add over 200hp) and with all the radiators fully opened, so in game I expect most players will be getting more out of it. While you can't chase a 109 through a climbing turn, I'm sure it'll be more than good enough to keep up with 190s. Against Messers you'll want to use the massively superior control at high speed and stellar energy retention to get the upper hand

 

Now if the devs are kind and give it 72 or even 75"HG that'll be a lot more interesting...

 

 

I wonder what the G14 and K4 could do in emergency power with boost. Stats page in game says like 21m/s in combat power. In game with the K4 I see over 30m/s in boost staying above 300kph the whole time.

[Ehret]

3 minutes ago, 1/LG1-MarkWilhelmsson said:

262 will turn better at very high speeds and retain much more momentum than the P51 in tight turns. The  turning radius overall may be larger because of its much higher speed, but it will traverse through more degrees per second than the P51 at its best turning speed if the P51 is at that same speed. Obviously the P51 will turn better at lower speeds; that's a given.

 

The G-load increases velocity squared thus you will black-out first trying to follow the same turning path of slower prop when at very high speeds.

[II./SG.1-MarkWilhelmsson]

2 minutes ago, Gambit21 said:

Are you just needing to be correct?

None of that changes anything about my original post and the context of which it was typed.

 

The Mustang, and aircraft that was used for example purposes (it could be any late war prop) doesn’t attain the high speeds of the 262 that you’re referring to. You seem to be either debating with yourself, or someone who was making an entirely different point than I was.

 

 

Folks are pointing out turn rate as a weakness in the 262 when in fact it turned better at high speeds than any other aircraft. This is relevant because at very high speeds is the only way this aircraft should be flown.

[Ehret]

Just now, 1/LG1-MarkWilhelmsson said:

Folks are pointing out turn rate as a weakness in the 262 when in fact it turned better at high speeds than any other aircraft. This is relevant because at very high speeds is the only way this aircraft should be flown.

 

Doesn't matter unless you are super-human.

[II./SG.1-MarkWilhelmsson]

2 minutes ago, Ehret said:

 

Doesn't matter unless you are super-human.

 

I'm curious about how they model blackout with increasing G-forces.

[Gambit21]

25 minutes ago, 1/LG1-MarkWilhelmsson said:

 

 

Folks are pointing out turn rate as a weakness in the 262 when in fact it turned better at high speeds than any other aircraft. This is relevant because at very high speeds is the only way this aircraft should be flown.

 

The SR-71 turns better at mach 3 than the Sopwith Camel does!  

 

That’s about how silly this debate of yours is - the actual conversation/context is either meaningless to you, or you fail to perceive it.

[Ehret]

43 minutes ago, 1/LG1-MarkWilhelmsson said:

I'm curious about how they model blackout with increasing G-forces.

 

Just like it's now - if you exceed few Gs you gradually lose vision and if you keep pulling you will be blind for few moments.

If you are in plane with good instantaneous turn ability it's kind of last resort but effective one to deny the enemy's gun solution and buy some time.

If the following plane has higher velocity than you its pilot will not be able to follow your black-outing turn.

[Blackhawk_FR]

3 hours ago, 1/LG1-MarkWilhelmsson said:

 

I'm curious about how they model blackout with increasing G-forces.

 

Never really tried but in the game, you only loose vision. The pilot won't be unconcsious. 

[Zooropa_Fly]

13 hours ago, 1/LG1-MarkWilhelmsson said:

 

 

Folks are pointing out turn rate as a weakness in the 262 when in fact it turned better at high speeds than any other aircraft. This is relevant because at very high speeds is the only way this aircraft should be flown.

 

I expect, as I remember from IL2.. that turning the '262 will feel like you're trying to turn an oil tanker.

On the ocean that is.

[Feathered_IV]

I’ll look forward to seeing if the AI continue that habit of the standard come-hither turn with the 262.  They should be easy meat if that is the case.  

[Tyberan]

That would be funny, didn't the real thing have tip stall at lower speeds at high bank angles.

 

Would be interesting to see how this planes plays out in MP and single player. In endurance was only 60mins of fuel.

 

 

[6./ZG26_McKvack]

4 hours ago, Tyberan said:

That would be funny, didn't the real thing have tip stall at lower speeds at high bank angles.

 

Would be interesting to see how this planes plays out in MP and single player. In endurance was only 60mins of fuel.

 

 

 

All swept wing aircrafts has a tip-stall tendency due to the span-wise flow and will give nose up effect as the center of pressure moves forward. This will only occur at higher speeds when banking but same effect in all stalls.

Will be fun to see this in IL-2 with the 262.

Edited March 15, 2019 by 6./ZG26_McKvack

[novicebutdeadly]

From memory in the old il2 performance charts,

The me 262 started to out turn it's opponents at about 500 km/h

So in a higher speed 3D engagement (usually starting at altitude), with minimal thrust changes the 262 if flown sensibly should be fairly untouchable (like the P51 is against the bf 109).

But in a slow 2D merry-go-round engagement it would be useless.

So the key for the Me 262 is to use discipline, and to control the engagement.

Which is where team work will come into play rather heavily for the allies... if any server allows them (not holding my breath).


 

[Bremspropeller]

On 3/11/2019 at 1:47 PM, ZachariasX said:

No. Whittle and everybody else in that department were perfectly aware of how to build axial compressor turbines at the time. But they knew they could make reliable engines with centrifugal compressors right away. It took over 10 years for axial turbines to make centrifugal ones obsolete. By that time not just RR made very good axial turbines as well. At the time, it was certainly the right choice going for centrifugal compressors to have a lot of them and working. You can do one thing while not droping the other.

 

The Gloster Meteors had comparable capabilities to the Me-262. But none of those Meteors wanted to kill their pilots by just blowing up on their own. I'd say, that is a remarkable upside.

 

Some wisecrackery from my side:

 

1) The Jumo 004 (of the "dog-whistle" thrust class) as a relatively low mass-flow jet engine. Axial engines start to have gap-flow issues at low mass-flow sizes, as the percentage of gap-flow grows larger with smaller dimensions. That's why (size going down) you have axial, mixed axial/ centrifugal and purely centrifugal engines today.

 

2) Radial engines are okay for creating the necessary pressure-gradient over a sigle stage of those dog-whistle engines. Once you go up in size, not only does weight grow way too quickly with centrifugal engines; the repeated curvaute of the flow required for ultiple centrifugal stages (higher pressure ratio across the compressor) makes such a design too clumsy and inefficient.

 

3) The Meteor was a friggin death-trap*. In 1952, the RAF lost a whopping 250 Meteors (abut 800 airplanes lost in total that year!).

For reference: The supposed "widowmaker" (F-104) took 25 years to amount a total loss of 292 aircraft with ze Germans.

 

_

* Well, flying procedures back in the day amounted for most of that. I used to have a paper (I might have linked it already) where the evolution of checklists and safety-culture over the past couple of decades was discussed...

[sevenless]

would love to have these two in the game at some point:

 

[RedKestrel]

On 3/14/2019 at 4:22 PM, Gambit21 said:

 

The SR-71 turns better at mach 3 than the Sopwith Camel does!  

 

That’s about how silly this debate of yours is - the actual conversation/context is either meaningless to you, or you fail to perceive it.

No, no, lets let this go. In the end, it may result in my dream engagement - seeing a Po-2 shoot down an Me-262!

[Panthera]

On 3/15/2019 at 3:08 PM, 6./ZG26_McKvack said:

 

All swept wing aircrafts has a tip-stall tendency due to the span-wise flow and will give nose up effect as the center of pressure moves forward. This will only occur at higher speeds when banking but same effect in all stalls.

Will be fun to see this in IL-2 with the 262.

 

The 262's wing sweep is very mild however, and it also features full span LE slats, so I wouldn't  expect to notice such an effect.

 

 

On 3/14/2019 at 8:53 PM, Ehret said:

 

The G-load increases velocity squared thus you will black-out first trying to follow the same turning path of slower prop when at very high speeds.

 

It's more relevant during the first turn where, depending on entry speed, the Me262 is likely able to come around just as fast or perhaps even faster, and thus it will be able to force a 2nd head on.  

 

If the 262 starts out behind the P-51 it's about making use of the extra rate to quickly pull lead and fire a burst before the P-51's smaller radius forces an overshoot. The extra AoA that the slats allow the 262 to pull will also be very beneficial here. After the burst you go vertical, you do not follow the tighter turning propjob.

 

 

On 3/11/2019 at 1:47 PM, ZachariasX said:

So you had to basically make a Jumo 004A to make it somewhat reliable.

 

Well the Jumo 004A was just a B built with the intended materials, and by all accounts it ran very reliably, passing several 100 hour continious full throttle tests.

 

Thus as far as I can tell the Jumo 004 design was sound, it very much being the lack of heat resistant materials which caused the TBO to plummit.

 

By 45 they had managed to make the newest engines last up to 50 hours though (up from an initial of only 10 hours!), despite the lack of the same materials. This lack of heat resistant metals forced the Germans to find some pretty ingenious ways to cool the engine, like hollow fan blades, something that wouldn't have been necessary otherwise.

 

Infact as far as I can tell had the proper heat resistant metals been available for usage the Jumo 004 should've not only been able to run reliably, but also at much higher RPM and thus thrust ratings. 

Edited March 18, 2019 by Panthera

[II./SG.1-MarkWilhelmsson]

I enjoyed this short read. Interesting to note that the writer states that there is no tendency to enter spins. A cursory search didn't yield much on the author, a pilot by the name of F. D. Van Wart. Claims flight time of up to 90 minutes at higher alts and that throttle response was fast when already above 7000rpm.

http://zenoswarbirdvideos.com/Images/Me262/262PilotHandbook.pdf

Edited March 18, 2019 by 1/LG1-MarkWilhelmsson

[novicebutdeadly]

2 hours ago, 1/LG1-MarkWilhelmsson said:

I enjoyed this short read. Interesting to note that the writer states that there is no tendency to enter spins. A cursory search didn't yield much on the author, a pilot by the name of F. D. Van Wart. Claims flight time of up to 90 minutes at higher alts and that throttle response was fast when already above 7000rpm.

http://zenoswarbirdvideos.com/Images/Me262/262PilotHandbook.pdf

I'm even more curious about the Me262 having a movable horizontal stabilizer,

And that the author seems to have heard of at least one me 262 breaking the sound barrier??

In summary of what the author says"

Max speed in a dive (at 20-30 deg) 950 km/h indicated

At speeds of 950- 1000 km/h ("it is reported") the airflow around the plane approaches the speed of sound and no direction control surfaces work

At this speed some wing over and dive, whilst others enter a gentle dive

("it is also reported") Once the speed of sound is exceeded normal control resumes

I wonder if his information comes from his own first hand, or from talking to test pilots first hand,

or perhaps talking from former Luftwaffe pilots?

According to this" https://books.google.com.au/books?id=JSuGDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT218&lpg=PT218&dq=F.+D.+Van+Wart+former+pilot&source=bl&ots=2rg3qBsFfO&sig=ACfU3U3liVmBobFNU62yz8uNAAIIGL_n7Q&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjkxJSz-YzhAhXJeX0KHSTCD9UQ6AEwD3oECAUQAQ#v=onepage&q=F. D. Van Wart former pilot&f=false"

The information was "culled" from captured pilots.

 

Edited March 19, 2019 by novicebutdeadly

[BlitzPig_EL]

No Me 262 ever broke the sound barrier, ever.  Those engines hanging out in the breeze are far too draggy for starters.

At most there was some localized supersonic flow over parts of the airframe, but that airplane was totally incapable of breaking the sound barrier, period.

[LukeFF]

29 minutes ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

No Me 262 ever broke the sound barrier, ever.  Those engines hanging out in the breeze are far too draggy for starters.

At most there was some localized supersonic flow over parts of the airframe, but that airplane was totally incapable of breaking the sound barrier, period.

 

It's not so certain: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Guido_Mutke

[Ehret]

In defending plane you will only need to pull enough to black-out. The opponent will not be able to follow at least will not get a gun solution. It still works when following plane has the same, or even little lower speed because to bear guns will have to pull bigger angle/s. Of course it only concerns in-plane maneuvers and if you have similar resistance to Gs.

 

I recall an interview with WW2 P-40 pilot who was able to evade Zeroes that way. I will try to find the link.*

 

In the sim it's very effective when flying fast in the P-39L and some 109/190 pilots can pull it off, too. It doesn't matter if I can out-pull them because then I'm just blinded and there goes my gun solution.

 

Edit: * about Zero it was rolling speed at high speed where the P-40 was better. The pulling Gs was from here.

Edited March 19, 2019 by Ehret

[BlitzPig_EL]

Sorry Luke, this was beaten to death in the old UBI forum years ago, and soundly debunked.

 

The 262 airframe is not capable of breaking the speed of sound.  It is just wishful dreaming on the part of the Luftwaffe fans, nothing more.

[[URU]Panzer-uy]

9 minutes ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

Sorry Luke, this was beaten to death in the old UBI forum years ago, and soundly debunked.

 

The 262 airframe is not capable of breaking the speed of sound.  It is just wishful dreaming on the part of the Luftwaffe fans, nothing more.

It is Right!  0K

 But the 262 airframe is   ( it's  close )  of breaking the speed of sound .

Edited March 19, 2019 by =MANCOS=Panzer-Red

[[URU]Panzer-uy]

 

[AndyJWest]

I think it's more likely that the speed of sound would break the Me 262. 

[Panthera]

3 hours ago, Ehret said:

In defending plane you will only need to pull enough to black-out. The opponent will not be able to follow at least will not get a gun solution. It still works when following plane has the same, or even little lower speed because to bear guns will have to pull bigger angle/s. Of course it only concerns in-plane maneuvers and if you have similar resistance to Gs.

 

I recall an interview with WW2 P-40 pilot who was able to evade Zeroes that way. I will try to find the link.*

 

In the sim it's very effective when flying fast in the P-39L and some 109/190 pilots can pull it off, too. It doesn't matter if I can out-pull them because then I'm just blinded and there goes my gun solution.

 

Edit: * about Zero it was rolling speed at high speed where the P-40 was better. The pulling Gs was from here.

 

It's a lot more complicated than that.

 

Wether or not the trailing aircraft will be able to get a gun solution first of all depends on the relative positions, energy state & distance between the aircraft, and thus pulling a black out turn isn't always enough to avoid a momentary gun solution for the attacker.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Ehret]

1 minute ago, Panthera said:

It's a lot more complicated than that.

 

No at least if we are talking about G loads - it's very simple - if the pilot in your target is getting blind and collapsing due to Gs you will be too if you attempt to follow target's path in the very moment. That doesn't imply what the final result will be of course. The defender might run out of velocity to pull instantaneous high G turns. Or open fire and pull blind hoping something hits. Add more speed and turning ability and at some point it becomes human pilots G resistance match as it did IRL and it's truly awful in modern times.

[EAF19_Marsh]

Hilarious degree of BS in this thread belaying a basic lack of understanding WRT physics. Supersonic, high-turn rate  262 is possibly the best one.

 

I have an X-WIng for sale....

[CIA_Yankee_]

On 3/14/2019 at 6:18 PM, F/JG300_Faucon said:

 

Never really tried but in the game, you only loose vision. The pilot won't be unconcsious. 

 

If you pull hard enough to fully black out the game does a decent job of simulating a loss of consciousness. I don't know if you actually lose the ability to control your plane, but you loose vision for a very long time indeed, completely taking you out of the fight for several (very) long seconds.

[Panthera]

11 hours ago, Ehret said:

 

No at least if we are talking about G loads - it's very simple - if the pilot in your target is getting blind and collapsing due to Gs you will be too if you attempt to follow target's path in the very moment. That doesn't imply what the final result will be of course. The defender might run out of velocity to pull instantaneous high G turns. Or open fire and pull blind hoping something hits. Add more speed and turning ability and at some point it becomes human pilots G resistance match as it did IRL and it's truly awful in modern times.

 

No, you're ignoring the fact that the trailing aircraft does not need to do this in order to get a shot opportunity. Employing basic trigonometri we can see how a trailing aircraft doesn't need to pull the same rate or G as the target infront in order to pull lead for a shot:

 

It is only if the trailing aircraft wishes to follow the target around the turn directly in its wake that it at some point needs to pull at least the same rate as the target. However you'd be foolish to attempt this in a jet vs a propjob. If you don't get hits in the first deflection shot, then you extend vertically and time your next pounce.  

 

[EAF19_Marsh]

48 minutes ago, Panthera said:

No, you're ignoring the fact that the trailing aircraft does not need to do this in order to get a shot opportunity.

 

You are cherry-picking this: if one aircraft flies in a straight line and another crosses its path, the former needs not deviate at all. That has no bearing on the debate about relative rates, radiii or loading on the aircraft. A 262 will have difficulty lining up on a manoevring piston-engined fighter, whatever your dreams might be. In fact, the escort fighter pilots' own reports indicate many encounters ended as a draw; they were too slow and the 262s too unwieldy at speed to turn with the escorts.

 

You can set up any number of scenarios, and some of these did occur, but the basic fact is that a 20% in speed doubles the force for a given turn so the 262 will have issues for a sustained turn vs a snapshot after a slower aircraft - Newton trumps Messerschmidt.

[Ehret]

1 hour ago, Panthera said:

It is only if the trailing aircraft wishes to follow the target around the turn directly in its wake that it at some point needs to pull at least the same rate as the target. However you'd be foolish to attempt this in a jet vs a propjob. If you don't get hits in the first deflection shot, then you extend vertically and time your next pounce. 

 

Good luck doing that at extremely rapid closure (could be 100m/s or more) and with very low velocity guns in the 262 (effective range is not higher than 300m). An aware pilot in a prop can initiate mild opposite turn in advance ruining your longer range shot and you will not be able to react in 2 or 3 seconds which are left to overshoot. Unless you have some super-human reflexes or you are an oracle.

[RedKestrel]

1 hour ago, Panthera said:

 

No, you're ignoring the fact that the trailing aircraft does not need to do this in order to get a shot opportunity. Employing basic trigonometri we can see how a trailing aircraft doesn't need to pull the same rate or G as the target infront in order to pull lead for a shot:

 

It is only if the trailing aircraft wishes to follow the target around the turn directly in its wake that it at some point needs to pull at least the same rate as the target. However you'd be foolish to attempt this in a jet vs a propjob. If you don't get hits in the first deflection shot, then you extend vertically and time your next pounce.  

 

The Me-262 in this scenario has a pretty difficult job though. High closure speed, high angle-off, and slow-firing cannons with poor trajectory. Maybe 1 in 10 pilots you run into will be able to consistently pull off a shot like that with those factors involved. Probably fewer. 

The extension tactic is a good one but in game you will find yourself very quickly outside of visibility range. So if you're attacked by a 262, evade the attack, then dive in the opposite direction of his flight path and gain separation (which will happen very very quickly). By the time he's comfortable enough to come back around and attack again, you've disappeared. If he tries to stick with you in a turn fight more fool him. 

Basically a well-flown Me-262 will be immune to enemy fighters, and if one attacks you there's no point in doing anything but getting out of dodge. But if you see it coming, its not that hard to dodge his fire, and the visibility bubble issues that make him hard for you to spot make YOU hard to spot as well. 

The 262 will really shine as an uninterceptible fast bomber, but I don't think many people will fly it that way online at least. 

[Gambit21]

1 hour ago, EAF19_Marsh said:

 

You are cherry-picking this: if one aircraft flies in a straight line and another crosses its path, the former needs not deviate at all. That has no bearing on the debate about relative rates, radiii or loading on the aircraft. A 262 will have difficulty lining up on a manoevring piston-engined fighter, whatever your dreams might be. In fact, the escort fighter pilots' own reports indicate many encounters ended as a draw; they were too slow and the 262s too unwieldy at speed to turn with the escorts.

 

You can set up any number of scenarios, and some of these did occur, but the basic fact is that a 20% in speed doubles the force for a given turn so the 262 will have issues for a sustained turn vs a snapshot after a slower aircraft - Newton trumps Messerschmidt.

 

 

Yep

1 hour ago, Ehret said:

 

Good luck doing that at extremely rapid closure (could be 100m/s or more) and with very low velocity guns in the 262 (effective range is not higher than 300m). An aware pilot in a prop can initiate mild opposite turn in advance ruining your longer range shot and you will not be able to react in 2 or 3 seconds which are left to overshoot. Unless you have some super-human reflexes or you are an oracle.

 

 

...and yep.

[CUJO_1970]

1 hour ago, Ehret said:

 

with very low velocity guns in the 262 (effective range is not higher than 300m). An aware pilot in a prop can initiate mild opposite turn in advance ruining your longer range shot and you will not be able to react in 2 or 3 seconds which are left to overshoot. Unless you have some super-human reflexes or you are an oracle.

 

300m is easily effective range, it's the range a piston engine fighter turns into confetti. 2 or 3 seconds is more than enough time.  If the 262 is working in teams or coordinating attacks with a Dora or K-4 it will be an especially unpleasant experience. The hunter makes you break, the killer takes you out ?

 

We took out a squad flying RAF Mustang III back in the old IL/2 and the server host got so mad they banned the 262, lol.

Edited March 19, 2019 by CUJO_1970