ME 262

[gn728]

Haha _ I remember that album - and I was the only one of my roomates that new what an Me-262 actually was... 

[Haza]

On 4/23/2019 at 2:11 AM, LuseKofte said:

 

 

 

 

Herbie goes Luftwaffe?

 

 

On 4/21/2019 at 10:57 PM, ATAG_SKUD said:

Agreed on trading energy for alt if you take a jet and a prop at equal starting energy states and the prop aircraft loses energy faster than the jet every time both aircraft entered into a maximum rate turn then the jet gains an energy advantage on each pass If the jet extends into an energy conserving climb like hi yo-yo before the prop aircraft is able to take advantage of superior acceleration. It seems the prop aircraft is doomed once it is finally is bled down to 1g stall speeds and becomes a strafe target after successive re-engagements.

Regarding sustained turn rate...If the sustained rate of turn is better in the jet then I would think there would be no further energy loss since that would not meet the definition of sustained turn rate. The sustained rate is probably a function of thrust, drag and stall speed. Two out of three likely go to the 262 but it probably depends on forward speed and compressor/prop efficiencies at those speeds and at some point at lower speeds the prop will overtake the 262 in thrust.  I'm sure someone out there  that can give me a lesson on it.

I'd love to see the turn performance chart for the 262.

Skud

 

 

Turn performance of a 262 as requested:

 

 

However in "The Me262 Stormbird" it mentions that "the latter addition of full-span leading edge slats assisted in allowing the 262 to hold its speed in tight turns much better than conventional fighters and while not as tight it was more stable at full power which provided much more energy maneuvers".

 

However, I do not think that I will be making any tight turns in this thing during a dogfight as I will be either climbing or diving unless I'm dieing!

Edited April 24, 2019 by Haza

[D3adCZE]

Technically giant ball of fire spiralling down to earth could be called spiral dive ?

[Blitzen]

Doing my research with help from Wally Wood...

[Herne]

I was curious about the service ceiling. wiki said it was 37500 feet or 11.7 km

this struck me as surprisingly low considering service ceilings for some prop fighters of the time were even higher

[Luftschiff]

This will be in the official skins, I hope?

[MiloMorai]

8 hours ago, =11=Herne said:

I was curious about the service ceiling. wiki said it was 37500 feet or 11.7 km

this struck me as surprisingly low considering service ceilings for some prop fighters of the time were even higher

Piston fighters had super/turbochargers. What did the 262's engines have?

[Herne]

1 minute ago, MiloMorai said:

Piston fighters had super/turbochargers. What did the 262's engines have?

 

well yes there is that, piston engines were at the top of their game and jets were very much in their infancy. I just thought that jets were more efficient with altitude, and didn't expect that under 40k feet that the air would be thin enough to limit the engine. 

But I know nothing about the jumo, was just merely curious

[unlikely_spider]

7 minutes ago, MiloMorai said:

Piston fighters had super/turbochargers. What did the 262's engines have?

 

The German industrial machine was low on raw materials that late in the war, so the design is a bit different:

 

Edited May 3, 2019 by engrish_major

[Guest deleted@83466]

7 minutes ago, MiloMorai said:

Piston fighters had super/turbochargers. What did the 262's engines have?

 

And 8 stage compressor section

 

[ZachariasX]

11 hours ago, =11=Herne said:

I was curious about the service ceiling. wiki said it was 37500 feet or 11.7 km

this struck me as surprisingly low considering service ceilings for some prop fighters of the time were even higher

36'000 ft is tropopause (under standard conditions). Above this altitude, air will not get progressively cooler anymore the higher you go, but instead remain constant in temperature. This means, the decreasing densitiy is not in part offset by lower temperature which helps to reduce the power loss of the engine. Hence, it is generally the ideal and most efficient altitude to fly your jet engine. And it is the reason why all airliners fly there. Above that, you progressively lose efficiency. If you didn't have a lot of margin to start with, then there is little headroom above tropopause. As the optimal cruise altitude is stated around 18'000 ft (IIRC), tropopause should really be a limit for that airframe/engine combination.

 

But it is a good question. NACA looked into this more than 60 years ago.

 

Long story short, while the above mentioned fact sets limits to what you can do (or require you to introduce special solutions to the problem), compressor design as such greatly affects power loss at altitude, I quote from the summary of the mentined report:

 

[...]

A summarization of data for several engines shows that failure of turbojet engine performance to generalize for all altitudes is primarily due to a decrease in compressor efficiency and corrected air flow with reduced Reynolds number index and a reduction in combustion efficiency with increased altitude. Data also show that, although engines of different design may have equal thrusts at sea level, the thrust can differ by as much as 26 percent at an altitude of 45,000 feet. These differences, which are introduced as a corrected engine speed effect, are primarily due to differences in compressor air flow and efficiency characteristics from one engine to another. The additional effects of Reynolds number on the performance variations with altitude from one engine to another are of much smaller magnitude than the corrected engine speed effect.

[...]

 

I wouldn't bet on the Jumo-004 having a very efficient compressor. I mean, it works a bit, but...

[danielprates]

8 hours ago, MiloMorai said:

Piston fighters had super/turbochargers. What did the 262's engines have?

 

A jet engine is basically a compressor, that ignites the compressed air and releases it backwards to generate thrust. So any jet engine, by definition, is supposed to be better then piston engines at higher altitudes. 

[ZachariasX]

5 hours ago, danielprates said:

A jet engine is basically a compressor, that ignites the compressed air and releases it backwards to generate thrust. So any jet engine, by definition, is supposed to be better then piston engines at higher altitudes. 

 

It makes it more efficient but not really more powerful as such. But if you go really higher than 11 km altitude, other problems start. You would need a pressurized cockpit, such as high altitude piston engine fighters had. One of several airframe related properties that give reason to such altitude limit, even when in principle the plane could reach a higher altitude.

 

The other side of the problem are engine related. The Jumo runs out of air just as any other single stage compressor assisted piston engine, despite as jet engine it being more efficient at altitude. (Of course, there are limits to this.)

 

You can read here The Jet Race and the Second World War what was required to get the jets going that high. (It could have been a very good book if it had a seen a good editor.) In short, axial engines of the time were absolutely capable of going up >40k ft altitude, provided you had a pressurized cockpit like the Airacomet had installed. But then you needed to add barometric regulated throttle governors to lean out the engine at altitude that it becomes possible to throttle back as idle would still be rich enough for almost full power. Things like that. It‘s not trivial to clear your aircraft for altitudes past 11 km. You only do that if you have to.

 

The fact that some ordinary prop aircraft could go a tad higher was just a consequence of the gearing of their second stage compressors and you get some 10% variance. If you wanted to go higher, even those props required special modifications that made it unsuitable for most common types of operations.

[Tyberan]

Not sure how I missed this news

 

http://warbirdsnews.com/warbird-restorations/fhcams-me-262-warpaint-unveiled.html

 

It's looking good. 

[BlitzPig_EL]

Reminds me of the field applied camo used by the IJAAF in New Guinea.

[Voidhunger]

9 hours ago, Tyberan said:

Not sure how I missed this news

 

http://warbirdsnews.com/warbird-restorations/fhcams-me-262-warpaint-unveiled.html

 

It's looking good. 

Nice nice,good progress, i just hope it will be flying occasionally and not grounded after one flight.

[Tyberan]

They fly the original fw190 a5 a few time a year. I'd love to get over there one day

[Panthera]

On 4/24/2019 at 10:12 AM, Haza said:

 

 

 

Herbie goes Luftwaffe?

 

 

 

 

Turn performance of a 262 as requested:

 

 

However in "The Me262 Stormbird" it mentions that "the latter addition of full-span leading edge slats assisted in allowing the 262 to hold its speed in tight turns much better than conventional fighters and while not as tight it was more stable at full power which provided much more energy maneuvers".

 

However, I do not think that I will be making any tight turns in this thing during a dogfight as I will be either climbing or diving unless I'm dieing!

 

 

Hehe, you'll be surprised how well it turns if modelled correctly, which there is no reason to believe it wont be

 

That said it won't turn tighter than the prop jobs, but it will be able to hold its energy during maneuvers better so as to allow a trade in speed for a faster rate to provide a gun solution for a moment until you have to break off and reset. In short in the 262 you should be fighting the propjobs much the same way F4U's fought Zero's in the Pacific.

Edited May 24, 2019 by Panthera

[danielprates]

This is just my opinion, and I don't mean to target none of the posts above specifically, but all this talk about the 262's turn radius ... I mean, the plane was designed specifically to be considerably faster than it's opponents, and used in that role. Though planes in a same speed category may handle a little differently, making comparisons a worthwhile thing, it is obvious that a much faster plane will have a much larger turn radius, thus comparing becomes a bit mute. A much slower plane will have a much tighter turn too, but so what, does it make it a 'better' plane to be in? I would't want to face a Mustang in a Gloster Gladiator, which (I am assuming) did a much tighter turn. For that matter I would rather face the 262 from inside an Thuderchief, not a Mustang, and the 262 probably had a much better turn radius. 

 

So it all comes to using the right tool for the right job. Now, when caught outside of it's own environment (say, during landings or climbing to higher altitude) or doing what it shouldn't be doing to begin with (com'ere, you mustang you, dogfight me!), I am sure the 262 would be caught with it's pants down. But the mere idea that the 262 would be a bad plane to be in, around prop fighters (if used correctly) to me is just crazy-talk.

Edited May 25, 2019 by danielprates

[MeoW.Scharfi]

It will turn better than you think with that sciolism taken from games like WT, Il2 1946 and so on..

 

On 4/24/2019 at 10:12 AM, Haza said:

Turn performance of a 262 as requested:

 

 

Especially it's high speed turn like initial turn will be really good. So this is soooo wrong. It was not only designed to be very fast, also to be very maneuverable at high speed.

Edited May 25, 2019 by MeoW.Scharfi

[Zooropa_Fly]

In IL2 1946 turning the ME262 was like turning an ocean tanker.

The brick is being kind, and should be reserved for demonstrating the balance of a Sopwith Camel.

 

S!

[EAF19_Marsh]

On the basis of g-loading alone, all of these discussion about ‘turn’ performance are going to be higly relative and hence a little accademic.

 

IIRC radial g in a turn is Vsquared over R. If a 262 is travelling at 500mph vs a P-51 at 400mph, the 262 will have to pull roughly 1.5 times the g to follow the Mustang in an equivilent turn. That is a lot of drag for the 262 (2.3 times normal striaght and level flight? Too early in the morning for this stuff!) and will drain energy very quickly, whatever it’s clever design elements and use if slats. It might retain energy ‘well’, but there are limits give its T/W and Newton.

 

Someone better informed in fluid dynamics feel free to correct my pre-coffee calculations.

 

Very excited to fly it...

[D3adCZE]

From what I know, T/W ratio and wing design plays huge role in turn rate as we can see in 109 G6 vs G14. Those are basically the same planes, but G14 has more powerful engine which allows it to sustain tighter turns. It can be seen in flat turns against La5FN where G6 will get outturned, but G14 will outturn it. It is just a guess though.

[=621=Samikatz]

Turning bleeds speed, if you drop too low your turn rate will suffer. Stands to reason that a more powerful plane has a better sustained turn, even if it doesn't have a better instantaneous one

[MeoW.Scharfi]

7 hours ago, =621=Samikatz said:

Turning bleeds speed, if you drop too low your turn rate will suffer. Stands to reason that a more powerful plane has a better sustained turn, even if it doesn't have a better instantaneous one

 

14 hours ago, EAF19_Marsh said:

On the basis of g-loading alone, all of these discussion about ‘turn’ performance are going to be higly relative and hence a little accademic.

 

IIRC radial g in a turn is Vsquared over R. If a 262 is travelling at 500mph vs a P-51 at 400mph, the 262 will have to pull roughly 1.5 times the g to follow the Mustang in an equivilent turn. That is a lot of drag for the 262 (2.3 times normal striaght and level flight? Too early in the morning for this stuff!) and will drain energy very quickly, whatever it’s clever design elements and use if slats. It might retain energy ‘well’, but there are limits give its T/W and Newton.

 

Someone better informed in fluid dynamics feel free to correct my pre-coffee calculations.

 

Very excited to fly it..

 

 

The better turn performance is not a YES or NO answer actually. It does or it doesn't is the wrong way to describe the turn ability of a plane. Especially in IL2 you see most planes turn better than others in different speeds. A 190A can turn tighter with 560 kph than a La5FN while the La5FN turns tighter than a 190 at slow speed. A 109E tighter than a I16 at very slow speed and so on......

 

Therefore a 262 can turn tighter at very high speed than any other fighter at like +800 kph which is VERY useful to make deflection shots when your aim is good enough. The design is as described made for fast planes, which includes good high speed turn performance.

 

And yes the slower plane often turns better than the faster one, yet a good turn performance at high speed helps for making better shots while diving on someone, look at the Fw190 for example which still has good controls at dive speeds.

Edited May 29, 2019 by MeoW.Scharfi

[Beazil]

Interesting discussion.  I honestly hope we get to find out sooner rather than later.  I'm sure we all have ideas of just how the 262 "ought" to handle in turns and at speed, but with most of us only having the 1946 version as experience, I expect many will expect a version that is more or less similar.  I am excited to see the 1C version of this iconic bird.  Thanks for everyone's comments so far.  S!

[CountZero]

this is how turn times looked in old il2 262v51

Spoiler

i expect similar here, 262 unbeatable at high speed

Edited May 29, 2019 by 77.CountZero

[Ribbon]

On 3/19/2019 at 2:32 AM, LukeFF said:

 

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

Reading that reminded me on this cartoon

https://youtu.be/4vqF1KbUCOc

[Poochnboo]

On 5/2/2019 at 11:50 AM, Blitzen said:

Doing my research with help from Wally Wood...

Blazing Combat!!!! I had all four issues. Terrific mag. Some of the greatist comic artists in the buisiness had work in there. And covers by Frank Frazetta. What was not like?

[IVJG4-Knight]

4 hours ago, EAF_Ribbon said:

Reading that reminded me on this cartoon

https://youtu.be/4vqF1KbUCOc

 

I wanted to do a video about this "supersonic 262 " but it's like a ton of information.I don't know when i will have the disposition.

The short version i want to say here based on multiple books and some US nasa and state department  documents i found:

I seriously doubt he went supersonic but he was close.Me 262 theoretically could go supersonic if you build a special version with some modifications.But nobody cared about that because there was a war going on.This is just my opinion .

 

Edited May 30, 2019 by IVJG4-Knight

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

10 hours ago, MeoW.Scharfi said:

 

 

 

The better turn performance is not a YES or NO answer actually. It does or it doesn't is the wrong way to describe the turn ability of a plane. Especially in IL2 you see most planes turn better than others in different speeds. A 190A can turn tighter with 560 kph than a La5FN while the La5FN turns tighter than a 190 at slow speed. A 109E tighter than a I16 at very slow speed and so on......

 

Therefore a 262 can turn tighter at very high speed than any other fighter at like +800 kph which is VERY useful to make deflection shots when your aim is good enough. The design is as described made for fast planes, which includes good high speed turn performance.

 

And yes the slower plane often turns better than the faster one, yet a good turn performance at high speed helps for making better shots while diving on someone, look at the Fw190 for example which still has good controls at dive speeds.

 

La5 and 109 can turn better at slow  speeds becouse they have devices for augmenting the lift - slats.  Me  262 has it 2 but is heavy.

[EAF19_Marsh]

10 hours ago, MeoW.Scharfi said:

The better turn performance is not a YES or NO answer actually.

 

I think that you missed the point a little: I agree that the the term 'turn performance' is meaningless in the wider sense. What I was attempting to insert was little a constant factor, in this case basic physics. Again:

 

1.2-ish x speed (my example was 400 vs 500 mph) = difference in velocity squared (1.44 or roughly 1.5) over the same turn radius (ie, nominally following the same flight path), which for argument's sake is 1,000m (2,000m diameter of turning circle). The 400 mph (180 metres per second) of the piston-engined fighter is set against the 500 mph (224 metres per second) of the 262.

 

What does that mean? It means that while 180 squared over 500 is just over 3 g for the piston-ended pilot, But for the 262 pilot, trying to keep the target in his sights, this means 5 g. That is a lot of lift for a high wing-loading aircraft, despite its lack of draggy prop and generally slippery design.

 

So the 262 'turn' might be quite 'good' - particularly for the first few seconds - but basic physics suggests that the T/W ratio will struggle to maintain this continuous manouevre after a slower aircraft without the 262 slowing considerably. Thus the 'turn' is not a terribly efficient way of flying. Indeed, from pilot accounts I get the impression that the successful ones avoided turning at all.

[Eisenfaustus]

That doesn't contradict Scharfis post - a good high speed turn is important for lining up your guns in a high speed pass - not following your victims turn endlessly. It's the same when you are fighting in a 190. And if the 262 actually keeps it's speed better during turns then a prop-fighter, this only means you can line up your sight without fearing severe energy disadvantage afterwards...

[=621=Samikatz]

At high speeds I would be worried about the amount of blood in the pilot's head. G-forces are no joke!

 

USAAF pilots had basic G-suits by this point in the war, though. I wonder if the devs will eventually model that

[EAF19_Marsh]

4 minutes ago, Eisenfaustus said:

That doesn't contradict Scharfis post - a good high speed turn is important for lining up your guns in a high speed pass - not following your victims turn endlessly. It's the same when you are fighting in a 190. And if the 262 actually keeps it's speed better during turns then a prop-fighter, this only means you can line up your sight without fearing severe energy disadvantage afterwards...

 

Well yes, but if you endless create favourable scenarios then you endlessly win. May as well say: it was faster, ergo it shot down aircraft that were slower.

 

To reiterate, what I was trying to show was that a combination of high speed and resulting requirement to generate greater lift are not a vague item to be buried under a difference of opinion regarding the nebulous sense surrounding 'turn'.

 

Maneuvering effectively is one thing, but what I tried to present was the more basic issue concerning the difficulties for a low T/W aircraft trying to following another while at appreciably higher speed. Sure, you can mitigate this, but the basic sense is that you will bleed more speed at 500mph (for argument's sake) than at 400mph because you need to pull quite a lot more 'g'.

 

'Good turn' therefore becomes extremely situation-dependent. Nothing I have read from pilots on either side suggested that the 262 tended to 'turn' in general as this would be a poor use of its capabilities (though I think one pilot whose name now escapes me did use the stab trim to affect a tight turn at speed).

 

A friendly debate, by the way, not trying to provoke anyone.

[Zooropa_Fly]

I'm sensing a difference between a 'turn' and a 'swerve'.

My definition of a turn (in this case) is changing direction 180 degrees.

 

In 1946 the '262 was twitchy at speed, but a full 180 turn seemed to take an age.

Once you bled off speed (turning too long) it's acceleration wasn't that good and you could be in trouble at that point.

 

Can't wait to see what the new one's like in any case !

Edited May 30, 2019 by Zooropa_Fly

[Quinte]

1 hour ago, Zooropa_Fly said:

My definition of a turn (in this case) is changing direction 180 degrees.

I used to consider a turn was 147°, but now I'm pretty sure it's definitely 213°. A swerve is definitely somewhere between 14  and 22°, though.

[DD_fruitbat]

I think sometimes people get confused by assuming the tightest turn is the fastest turn, when it isn't.

 

The fastest turn time is never achieved by yanking back as hard as you can, but by maintaining the corner speed for that particular plane, in a sustained turn.

 

Nothing will be able to follow a 262 in a sustained turn at 500kph, that said any prop will be able to turn inside a 262 going at 500kph, becauses of having a smaller turn radius, but that isn't going to likely achieve a gun solution....

 

 

Edited May 30, 2019 by DD_fruitbat

[IVJG4-Knight]

3 hours ago, EAF19_Marsh said:

 

Well yes, but if you endless create favourable scenarios then you endlessly win. May as well say: it was faster, ergo it shot down aircraft that were slower.

 

To reiterate, what I was trying to show was that a combination of high speed and resulting requirement to generate greater lift are not a vague item to be buried under a difference of opinion regarding the nebulous sense surrounding 'turn'.

 

Maneuvering effectively is one thing, but what I tried to present was the more basic issue concerning the difficulties for a low T/W aircraft trying to following another while at appreciably higher speed. Sure, you can mitigate this, but the basic sense is that you will bleed more speed at 500mph (for argument's sake) than at 400mph because you need to pull quite a lot more 'g'.

 

'Good turn' therefore becomes extremely situation-dependent. Nothing I have read from pilots on either side suggested that the 262 tended to 'turn' in general as this would be a poor use of its capabilities (though I think one pilot whose name now escapes me did use the stab trim to affect a tight turn at speed).

 

A friendly debate, by the way, not trying to provoke anyone.

 

Even modern jets will not be able to defeat ww2 planes at their own game, tight turns .

I tried in dcs f 15 vs spitfire .You can't defeat the spitfire if at it's own game  That is in a tight continuous tight turn you have to energy fight or use a trick.

 

Even the mirage 2000 with and without fly-by-wire .I could do a kulbit with that plane(fly by wire disabled) and even than you can't defeat the spitfire at it's own game , i can get a shooting opportunity if a do 75% of kulbit but even then i have one shot after that i'm dead or i extend(run away)   ; don't know if i can post dcs vids here , will try later or send you the link in PM.

 

Same here just a friendly debate.

Edited May 30, 2019 by IVJG4-Knight

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

7 hours ago, Eisenfaustus said:

That doesn't  Scharfis post - a good high speed turn is important for lining up your guns in a high speed pass - not following your victims turn endlessly. It's the same when you are fighting in a 190. And if the 262 actually keeps it's speed better during turns then a prop-fighter, this only means you can line up your sight without fearing severe energy disadvantage afterwards...

 

Lining up for shot hardly can be described as a turn. 

 

 

3 hours ago, IVJG4-Knight said:

 

Even modern jets will not be able to defeat ww2 planes at their own game, tight turns .

I tried in dcs f 15 vs spitfire 77th.You can't defeat the spitfire if at it's own game  That is in a tight continuous tight turn you have to energy fight or use a trick.

 

Even the mirage 2000 with and without fly-by-wire .I could do a kulbit with that plane(fly by wire disabled) and even than you can't defeat the spitfire at it's own game , i can get a shooting opportunity if a do 75% of kulbit but even then i have one shot after that i'm dead or i extend(run away)   ; don't know if i can post dcs vids here , will try later or send you the link in PM.

 

Same here just a friendly debate.

 

F15 can pull and sustain 7G , no WW2 plane can do that. But this is out of human capabilities. Tight turn is U 180 deg turn where radius and rate is optimal (edge of stall), for that you need lots of lift - I mean speed and structure hard enough to stand that force. To keep that speed you need  power and piston engine can't give same as jet do.

Edited May 30, 2019 by 307_Tomcat