ME 262

[EAF19_Marsh]

And if the escorts are over the 262 base and POL is short and Allied tanks are 10 miles away....

 

But this does not change the difficulties discussed about manouvring at higher speeds. This is well recorded in 262 pilot accounts so am not sure why people keep trying to defend this with random hypotheses.

Edited March 19, 2019 by EAF19_Marsh

[Ehret]

Just now, CUJO_1970 said:

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.

 

We weren't discussing team tactics but 1vs1. I recall having 2:1 K/D to my advantage in some other game when flying very late US prop vs 262 (and the like). But enough of sim games - we have empiric evidence where jets had to run away from props. Later, the RAF had done the very interesting test and the results were similar. Eventually, a proper tactics was developed to handle props but it didn't include turns at all.

Edited March 19, 2019 by Ehret

[Panthera]

4 hours 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.

 

I'm not cherry picking anything, I'm discussing a very common scenario that we will see once the aircraft gets introduced to the game, and I know this because I played many hours of IL2 46 experiencing it myself (not that it's at all a scenario unique to that flight sim). I can't count the amount of times I've been in this exact situation, and while certainly yes it does take some skill & experience to be able to pull off these deflection shots with consistency when you don't have Hispanos or MG151's, it will quickly become 2nd nature for those who practice it often.

 

But there's no point in arguing about it, I'll demonstrate it soon enough. 

[Gambit21]

10 minutes ago, Panthera said:

 

But there's no point in arguing about it, I'll demonstrate it soon enough. 

 

 

....he said in his best Clifford Clavin voice...hehe

[Panthera]

11 minutes ago, Gambit21 said:

 

 

....he said in his best Clifford Clavin voice...hehe

 

?

 

Just remember I'm talking regular combat, not 1v1 head on start duels which are ofcourse going to complicate matters as here you're not starting your attack directly astern and level behind your target.

Edited March 19, 2019 by Panthera
astern* damn autocorrect

[Gambit21]

My experience in the old IL2 with the 262 was as follows.

Assuming it's not a surprise bounce...

 

If I'm flying it...I make endless passes on the prop with him evading each time and me going too fast, unable to adjust my aim in time.

Climb, extent, rinse, repeat. One or both of us gets bored and finds something else to do.

 

Someone else is flying it, with me in the prop - same as above in the inverse.

Total kills either way - Zero.

 

If flying the 262 and it was a surprise bounce my odds were better obviously, but I never was as good  at making that spit-second snap shot with it like I was in the 190/Dora/Corsair etc.

I frankly was never very good at shooting with that thing, even in the bounce scenario.

 

I never did get bounced unawares by someone flying it. Not because of anything  I did,  just never happened.

[Panthera]

2 hours ago, Ehret said:

 

We weren't discussing team tactics but 1vs1. I recall having 2:1 K/D to my advantage in some other game when flying very late US prop vs 262 (and the like). But enough of sim games - we have empiric evidence where jets had to run away from props. Later, the RAF had done the very interesting test and the results were similar. Eventually, a proper tactics was developed to handle props but it didn't include turns at all.

 

Well ofcourse it included turns, any angles fight does, it just doesn't involve sustained level turns chasing each others tails, which I get the feeling you interpreted we (or atleast I) were saying would be a viable tactic, when infact I was saying the exact opposite, i.e. you shouldn't attempt to follow a propjobs turn. Pull lead, take a shot, if you miss go vertical and extend. 

 

4 minutes ago, Gambit21 said:

My experience in the old IL2 with the 262 was as follows.

Assuming it's not a surprise bounce...

 

If I'm flying it...I make endless passes on the prop with him evading each time and me going too fast, unable to adjust my aim in time.

Climb, extent, rinse, repeat. One or both of us gets bored and finds something else to do.

 

Someone else is flying it, with me in the prop - same as above in the inverse.

Total kills either way - Zero.

 

If flying the 262 and it was a surprise bounce my odds were better obviously, but I never was as good  at making that spit-second snap shot with it like I was in the 190/Dora/Corsair etc.

I frankly was never very good at shooting with that thing, even in the bounce scenario.

 

I never did get bounced unawares by someone flying it. Not because of anything  I did,  just never happened.

 

I've experienced the same on occasion as well, but it was mostly limited to duels. In online combat scenarios I was very often not spotted until I was quite close, and the times were I was spotted in time I could fight the propjob effectively the same way I fought Zeroes in an F4U.

 

The thing to keep in mind here is that the Me262 is an early jet, i.e. noticably slower than the jets of the 50's, but also better turning at lower speeds than the later jets, the stalling speed being noticably lower than that of a F-86 Sabre for example. Thus it won't have the same difficulties as the later jets when it comes to pulling a short term lead on a propjob, as one the closure rate isn't as extreme, and two it also turns tighter than the later jets as it was designed to operate at much lower speeds. 

[CUJO_1970]

4 hours ago, EAF19_Marsh said:

But this does not change the difficulties discussed about manouvring at higher speeds. This is well recorded in 262 pilot accounts so am not sure why people keep trying to defend this with random hypotheses.

 

It is also no random hypothesis that many 262 pilots became aces, not only by destroying bombers, but by destroying their piston-engine escorts as well. In real life, those men overcame the difficulties with maneuvering at high speeds.

 

It's going to be easier for those of us sitting at desks.

[Gambit21]

 

Just like those of us sitting at desks, most and I'd wager nearly all of those escort kills were aircraft that never saw the 262, thus irrelevant to a conversation about 262 v prop dogfights.

[CUJO_1970]

And I'd wager that would be selling short the pilots on both sides - I've read MACR reports following jet encounters where the pilots were very well aware that they were in a fight with jets. Pilots flying in areas where they were likely to encounter the 262 tended to pay more than the usual attention - especially when they are trying to protect the bombers

 

Dismissing "nearly all" fighter shoot downs by 262 as unobserved is of course purely speculative and itself irrelevant.

[Gambit21]

So you’ve seen reports by aware pilots - well I guess that’s that then. 

[Bremspropeller]

On 3/20/2019 at 2:34 AM, Gambit21 said:

Just like those of us sitting at desks, most and I'd wager nearly all of those escort kills were aircraft that never saw the 262, thus irrelevant to a conversation about 262 v prop dogfights.

 

That's how the lion's share of kills happend anyway. I wouldn't put too much into that.

 

The jets had a simple task: kill bombers and they didn't have time to stick around and go for escort fighters*. If one presented a likely target, they'd go for them, but unless they were in a favourable position to attack, escort fighters were to be left alone.

 

The jets did have some tactical issues due to the large speed-differential between them and most airplanes (including fighters at cruise-power). Hence they went for a "Kette" formation that allowed increased flexibility and coverage of a bomber-formation, when flying an R4M "rollercoaster attack"**.

I'd say that tactical trials were never quite finished and by the time a larger group of experienced (and talented***) fighter pilots got their hands on the airplane in large numbers, the show was about to end anyway.

 

*Sometimes jets were vectored to engage jabos, too. See Krupinski's anecdote on being vectored to the Innsbruck area to fight P-38s. He bounced a squadron of Lightnings but never managed to get off a sho, as he blew past threm halfway through trying to set aim.

 

**My label for the tactic.

 

***e.g. Lützow, Galland, Trautloft, Krupinski, Steinhoff and others

[wokelly]

On 3/19/2019 at 9:23 PM, CUJO_1970 said:

 

It is also no random hypothesis that many 262 pilots became aces, not only by destroying bombers, but by destroying their piston-engine escorts as well. In real life, those men overcame the difficulties with maneuvering at high speeds.

 

It's going to be easier for those of us sitting at desks.

 

I've also been going through the MACRs, for March/April/May 1945, and I don't see much to substantiate the notion the ME262 pilots were overcoming the manoeuvrability difficulties and shooting down piston engines planes. For JG7 in particular, they make claims of about 26x P51s/P47s in March, and 20x P51s/P47s/P38s in April. But reading every MACR for lost fighters on the day those claims are made (and even days when claims were not made in case the date given in books are wrong), I can only find evidence of 2x P51s and 1x P38 actually shot down by ME262s in both months for JG7, and at best only 13x P51s/P47s/P38s could possibly have been shot down (as the MACRs don't have eyewitness accounts of what happened to these planes, but they could have been lost to other causes) by JG7. By my own count, the fighter claims listed in books on German jets are possibly as high as ten times the actual losses. Of course MACRs have their limitations and are not entirely gospel, none the less if a plane was outright shot down over enemy territory, it would have a MACR.

 

Despite the reputation of the ME262, it very much struggled to perform given the extremely hostile aerial environment it was flying in. Considering the context it flew in (extremely hostile aerial environment, pilots with not enough training on jets, low operational numbers, and manufacturing flaws), I think you can argue its results are still good, but I do not see evidence in the MACRs to suggest it did as well as it is often reputed to have done. Certainly no 5:1 exchange ratio.

 

I'd be very cautious of the kill claims for the German jet "aces", especially if they have lots of fighters claimed. The MACRs don't back up those numbers. Even the bomber losses seem rather inflated, and should be taken with caution. The truth is, German record keeping during the months the ME262 flew most of its missions (Feb to May 1945) was not great, as Germany was going through its death spasms. As far as I am aware, there is no official records for Luftwaffe claims in 1945 that have been found. A lot of the literature on the ME262 is heavily reliant on the memories of German Jet Veterans collected decades after WWII. Thus, they should be treated with caution.

 

Edit - rough example of my research for March 3rd, 1945 if anyone is interested - https://docs.google.com/document/d/1IDFapmKo54TegKeh-gwu1bd7vOvaEfbRu_F8eBaFm-g/edit?usp=sharing. I'm currently at 90 pages and 10,000 words for JG7 and JV44 from March 1st to May 2nd/3rd.

Edited March 24, 2019 by wokelly
Clarification on the claims I am talking about, plus MACR limitation note.

[MiloMorai]

I would suggest anyone interested in the Me262 to read the 4 vol. tome by Smith'Creek published by Classic.

 

A review, http://www.rollmodels.net/nbookreview/classicpubs/me262/me262.php

 

[LukeFF]

6 hours ago, MiloMorai said:

I would suggest anyone interested in the Me262 to read the 4 vol. tome by Smith'Creek published by Classic.

 

A review, http://www.rollmodels.net/nbookreview/classicpubs/me262/me262.php

 

 

Manfred Boehme's book JG7 is also a very good read on the Me 262 and, despite the title, covers more than just this particular unit. 

 

https://www.amazon.com/JG-Fighter-Schiffer-Military-History/dp/0887403956

[Haza]

"The Me262 StormBird" https://www.amazon.com/Me-262-Stormbird-Pilots-Survived/dp/0760342636 mentions only Qty 3 x P-38s (Qty 1 by III./EJG2 and Qty 2 by I./JG7) and Qty 38 x P51s (with Qty 25 by JG-7) shot down between Mar/Apr/May 45.

 

Of note, this book contains interviews between Me262 pilots and Allied fighter and bomber pilots/crew and is able to back-up some of the claims.  In one account an American gunner describes an Me262 attacking a bomber that explodes and this explosion then takes out the adjacent bomber, thus not just relying on German memories.  In deed the book also mentions Me262s downed by Allied pilots and once again these surviving pilots (both sides) were able to talk about their engagements to once again verify such claims.

 

I guess we will never know exact details, however, this book although a little disjointed was a bloody good read!

 

 

Regards

 

 

Edited March 25, 2019 by Haza

[CUJO_1970]

On 3/24/2019 at 3:32 PM, MiloMorai said:

I would suggest anyone interested in the Me262 to read the 4 vol. tome by Smith'Creek published by Classic.

 

A review, http://www.rollmodels.net/nbookreview/classicpubs/me262/me262.php

 

 

Only ~ $800.00 American for all 4 volumes.

 

Can't really justify that when I can read the experts in this thread for free  ?

 

[MiloMorai]

Well CUJO I said read.

 

 

[kestrel79]

I just saw one of the new loading screens in game of the Me262 and got excited.

[Zooropa_Fly]

10 hours ago, kestrel79 said:

I just saw one of the new loading screens in game of the Me262 and got excited.

 

You shouldn't have.

You've wasted a pair of underwear for nothing.

[Tyberan]

On 3/26/2019 at 3:35 AM, CUJO_1970 said:

 

Only ~ $800.00 American for all 4 volumes.

 

Can't really justify that when I can read the experts in this thread for free  ?

 

Book depository 

 

I've got the full set I bought some at a local bookshop for $100aud each and the rest from book depository for between $50-60aud.

 

Just need to shop around. I also have the Fw190 3 volume set it's good too, paid around $50-70aud each for them.

[Reggie_Mental]

On 3/5/2019 at 9:50 AM, ICDP said:

 

Now I know why I never ever contemplated watching that movie or any other Holywood A list move to do with air combat.  Utterly laughable.

It was more like a Marvel comic kids story. The Nazis were all stereotypical aryan boxheads in a way that if Black airmen had been depicted that way, everyone would lose their shit and scream 'racist cracker' etc;

 

There was a made-for-TV film in the 90s that was much better, and re-iterated that the hardest battles the 'red tails' fought were with their own air force and government and not only the Luftwaffe and the Nazis. Doubly brave airmen, all of them. 

 

I'm nicking this:

 

Edited March 27, 2019 by Reggie_Mental
oops

[wokelly]

On 3/24/2019 at 10:20 PM, LukeFF said:

 

Manfred Boehme's book JG7 is also a very good read on the Me 262 and, despite the title, covers more than just this particular unit. 

 

https://www.amazon.com/JG-Fighter-Schiffer-Military-History/dp/0887403956

 

Manfreds book is very good (he did A LOT of the original research on JG7 and the ME262 that most other books rely on), but he relies too much on the claims of the veterans when relating the kills they made in combat. To be fair, he does state on several accounts that the claims need to be taken with caution. However, he kinda ignores his own advice on a few occasions; for example he hugely contradicts himself on page 135 (air battles on March 30th, 1945) by discounting US reports that German jets didn't press the attack (claiming the US reports downplayed the effectiveness of the Jets), and sides with the veterans claims of 4x B17s and 3x P51s. However, the MACRs for the B17s (and even B24s - I checked those in case they got the plane identification wrong) were all to flak, except for one which was apparently shot down by P51s (survivors from the plane claim this). None of the P51 MACRs show any lost to ME262s; two were lost to mechanical issues (coolant issues it seems), and one was caught in an explosion during ground strafing and crashed.

 

The only reference I could find to ME262s on this day was in one MACR (which claimed one jet made a pass at a straggler behind the formation), in the diary of a 398th Bomber Group crew member (mentions enemy fighters attacking stragglers), and in the after action report of the 303rd Bomber Group (saying one crew reported a ME262 made one pass at their B17, but says there were no real attacks on the group). In fact, the US reports about the German jets not pressing their attack really seems to be true, but Manfred kinda just chooses to believe the veteran accounts. He turns a day that looks, at best, 1x B17 shot down for the loss of 3x ME262s, into a day when 8 Allied planes went down for the loss of 3x ME262s.

 

His book is basically what I used to tally up the JG7 claims, and what days they happened on (though I often looked at other days as well), and it where I am seeing an enormous disconnect between the claims and the actual losses. So, the combat aspect of his book needs to be treated with caution, he only cites Allied loss records occasionally against JG7 claims, probably because back in the late 80s that stuff was difficult to find (not like today with all the resources on the Internet). Again, I believe it needs to be given its due in regards to original research, this author tracked down a lot of these veterans and preserved their experiences, and dug up a lot of documents.

 

On 3/25/2019 at 2:43 AM, Haza said:

"The Me262 StormBird" https://www.amazon.com/Me-262-Stormbird-Pilots-Survived/dp/0760342636 mentions only Qty 3 x P-38s (Qty 1 by III./EJG2 and Qty 2 by I./JG7) and Qty 38 x P51s (with Qty 25 by JG-7) shot down between Mar/Apr/May 45.

 

Of note, this book contains interviews between Me262 pilots and Allied fighter and bomber pilots/crew and is able to back-up some of the claims.  In one account an American gunner describes an Me262 attacking a bomber that explodes and this explosion then takes out the adjacent bomber, thus not just relying on German memories.  In deed the book also mentions Me262s downed by Allied pilots and once again these surviving pilots (both sides) were able to talk about their engagements to once again verify such claims.

 

I guess we will never know exact details, however, this book although a little disjointed was a bloody good read!

 

 

Regards

 

 

 

I read parts of ME262 StormBird on Google Books (to see if it was worth buying), and yeah I gotta agree with the disjointed part, it made me take a pass on the book. I used "JG7 - The Worlds First Operational Jet Unit" by Manfred Boehme, and "Jagdgeschwader 7 'Nowotny'" by Roberty Forsyth as my sources as I figured the more focused sources would be best. The MACRs have lots of details on planes that do get shot down by ME262s, plus they also have accounts from surviving crew collected after the war (though this is focused on the fate of missing or dead crew members, there is useful info about how they where shot down in those accounts).

 

In terms of different claim counts, a lot of that simply comes down to the fact an actual list of claims for 1945 just doesn't seem to exist, or at least has not been found (as far as I know). Even Forsyth and Boehme disagree on certain claims for JG7, and "ME262 - A Combat Diary" tacks on additional claims that neither Forsyth and Boehme do not mention. The actual claims are kinda immaterial, the problem is (*in my opinion*) the literature which informs people about these planes don't give proper warning of just how unreliable these claims may be. The claims by ME262 pilots need to be treated with a large dose of caution, not only where they not put through the Germans own confirmation process (which had basically broken down at this point), but they might not even reflect the actual claims made at the time (a list of which does not seem to exist, unless I am mistaken).
 

I agree, we will never find an exact number for what the ME262s shot down. Even the MACRs are flawed to an extent in that planes that crash land in friendly territory due to battle damage do not always get a MACR written about them; there is one raid when a B17 badly damaged by flak crashed while landing, killing 7 of the crew, however no MACR exists for it. For outright shot down planes, it seems reliable. For anything the Germans would claim as "Herausschuss" (essentially damaged or probable kills, though also bombers forced to drop its bombs), it is not a good resources for. I'm sure there are a number of planes badly damaged in ME262 attacks that made it back to base, probably written off and scrapped, but which have no reports written about it because it wasn't tallied up in the final losses.

 

That said, when one considers the odds these jets were flying against, even a 1:1 exchange ratio in the context of 1945 should be seen as quite good. Flying Luftwaffe propeller driven aircraft in 1945 was near suicide in the West, so much so the Germans resorted to ramming Allied bombers during their April 7th attack on the 8th Air Force.

Edited March 29, 2019 by wokelly

[CountZero]

On 3/14/2019 at 9:04 PM, 1/LG1-MarkWilhelmsson said:

 

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

I just check it and when i got in blackout i look from outside and i could easy control all functions of airplane in ful blackouted screan from pilots view. Is pilot in blackout able to do that ? i would expect when your in blackout you should not be able to control airplane also, or atleast have slower controls functions.

[Legioneod]

1 hour ago, 77.CountZero said:

I just check it and when i got in blackout i look from outside and i could easy control all functions of airplane in ful blackouted screan from pilots view. Is pilot in blackout able to do that ? i would expect when your in blackout you should not be able to control airplane also, or atleast have slower controls functions.

In reality I don't think you'd have muscle function, basically like passing out so the fact that we can still control the aircraft after blacking out is incorrect.

Edited March 31, 2019 by Legioneod

[crigby46]

In Carrier Pilot by Norman Hanson, he recalls the symptoms of blacking out as a result of sustained G;

 

Alarming heaviness of the limbs and head, inability to lift feet from rudder bar;

Greying of vision;

Vision darkening still further, hearing impairment;

Blindness and near total deafness - still able to control the aircraft;

True unconsciousness.

 

Of course this is anecdotal and different people have different degrees of ability to withstand G in any case, but it does suggest the sim at present corresponds with everything up to actual unconsciousness. Once the 262 is in it'll be properly easy to make sure you're well and truly over-G, so it'll be interesting to see whether the sim will actually render your pilot unconscious at some point, or whether it's simply not in there yet.

[SCG_ErwinP]

I'm not hyped... I'm not hyped... I'm not hyped...

Damnit!

[Legioneod]

1 minute ago, SCG_ErwinP said:

I'm not hyped... I'm not hyped... I'm not hyped...

Damnit!

 

Man I really hope this is possible one day. Too bad we can't just take the B-17 from 46 and put it into BoX. I'd still enjoy protecting them/shooting them down.

[GrinderX9]

Sorry if this has been asked before. When the me 262 arrive, I intend it to be the first "fighter" I learn to handel full real.

Anyone knows or take an educated guess about what kind of engine management settings and "things" one has to operate and learn? 

 

I guess prop pitch are one thing I don't have to think about …..

[CountZero]

You should be able to test it in 11-42 days

YOu only need to have trottle up and down maped i guess

more info here :

 

 

[ShamrockOneFive]

It sounds to me, and correct me if I'm wrong, that engine controls should be actually quite simple to operate here. Engine management procedure may, depending on how its modeled, be the thing that causes the most trouble. I hope anyways ?

 

My time in the 262 is probably going to be spent mostly with a pair of SC250s strapped underneath and zooming in for hit and run bombing raids. I'm ready!

[Lusekofte]

1 hour ago, ShamrockOneFive said:

It sounds to me, and correct me if I'm wrong, that engine controls should be actually quite simple to operate here. Engine management procedure may, depending on how its modeled, be the thing that causes the most trouble. I hope anyways ?

 

My time in the 262 is probably going to be spent mostly with a pair of SC250s strapped underneath and zooming in for hit and run bombing raids. I'm ready!

To me this is the only way to utilize the 262 in bop pack. At least for most of us. 

To avoid this plane most will fly low and be rather hard to hit in full speed. And if your not in full speed in a 262. Your basically dead at low altitude. I am curious about this plane and the Tempest

[Herne]

that video countzero linked. I didn't realise the throttles were THAT sensitive ! 

[-TBC-AeroAce]

59 minutes ago, =11=Herne said:

that video countzero linked. I didn't realise the throttles were THAT sensitive ! 

 

I think with these engines the idea was to get them stable and then to leave them.

[GrinderX9]

Thanks for the video , I remember seeing that many years ago. Good to hear that Jet actually means less complicated, not more.   

I did fly a lot of me 262 back in old IL 2 days, I had an old Joystick that no longer was very accurate on the throttle, lost a lot of engines that way.

 

But in multiplayer, my favorite always was the Ar-234-  . I was good at level bombing. But with the Arado, I liked to  dive bomb, and fly home hugging the ground. It was almost always a given success. I hope one day that we  in addition to the me 262, can have the Ar 234 and Gloster Meteor. Good for what if scenarios that "almost" happened. 

 

But for now, I'm more then happy with the 262 ?

 

[Lusekofte]

1 hour ago, =11=Herne said:

that video countzero linked. I didn't realise the throttles were THAT sensitive ! 

This is why they where sitting ducks in landing pattern.  They could not throttle up without risking flame out and in some cases fuel flow made the engine burst in fire. 

[danielprates]

55 minutes ago, LuseKofte said:

This is why they where sitting ducks in landing pattern.  They could not throttle up without risking flame out and in some cases fuel flow made the engine burst in fire. 

 

I can't wait to see 'if' and 'how' those handling issues are going to be depicted in the game when the 262 comes out.

 

Edit: let me be clearer. All that discussion about the operational use of the 262 in real life....ir won't matter if you can use the plane differently from RL limitations. Afaik the 262 had all the abovementioned limitations because it had to be handled with extreme care, so if in-game we are allowed to horse around with the throttle, what is the point of all the debate?

 

I for one hope that thrle game 262 is every bit as touchy as the RL counterpart. I tell ya, the very first thing I am going to do when it comes out is to start a runway start QMB mission, and throtle up in less then a second, hoping for no less then a fire!

Edited April 20, 2019 by danielprates

[Lusekofte]

In old IL 2 the engines burst into flames every time you moved the throttle too fast forward. It is not historical correct. But it is better than leaving this negative feature of early jets. Truthfully it would in most cases flame out and you have no power or worst. Full on one witch will end in crash at low speed and altitude. They need to put this in. Together with relative fast  wear and lack of power. Within 10 hours the wear is so much that a major overhaul is needed

[danielprates]

8 minutes ago, LuseKofte said:

In old IL 2 the engines burst into flames every time you moved the throttle too fast forward. It is not historical correct. But it is better than leaving this negative feature of early jets. Truthfully it would in most cases flame out and you have no power or worst. Full on one witch will end in crash at low speed and altitude. They need to put this in. Together with relative fast  wear and lack of power. Within 10 hours the wear is so much that a major overhaul is needed

 

Yeah exactly!

[ZachariasX]

28 minutes ago, LuseKofte said:

Truthfully it would in most cases flame out and you have no power or worst.

You‘re not that lucky. Sorry to say that.

 

Compressor stalls that you would more likely have on two or three spool jet engines. In a single spool jet engine, you‘d supply too much fuel by opening the throttle too fast. This excess of fuel creates a larger burn (there‘s still enough of air to burn that fuel) and this increases temps beyond permissible limits.

 

So if you are advancing throttles way faster than the engines are spooling up, you should indeed expect a little fire eventually. But more interesting will be how the compressor out there next to you will come apart (and in which direction).

 

Trust me, slamming the throttle forward in such a jet is more entertaining than you described it.