Which 262 Will We Get?

[[TWB]Sauerkraut-]

I'm not talking a specific designation or anything...

 

I mean will we be flying the Schwalbe or the Sturmvogel? The trend thus far is 2 fighters, two ground attackers/bombers for each nation in the standard edition.

 

At first glance, it would seem that Bodenplatte breaks this trend with no dedicated ground attack aircraft. I'm thinking the idea here is that fighter-bombers count as an appropriate substitute.

You have the p-51 and the p-47 in particular (two of the bastards could carry as much ordinance as a b-17) on the Allies side, and the A-8 and the 262 Sturmvogel on the Axis side.

 

Thoughts?

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

 

or 

 

[LukeFF]

Probably the standard A-1 with an option to convert it into an A-2. Nothing really surprising. 

[Royal_Flight]

I'd be surprised if it didn't come with an option to carry bombs. The262 was used this way during Bodenplatte and in the tactical air campaign during this timeframe in this theatre. 

With no heavy bombers to intercept, this is likely why the 262 was included in BoBo. 

[Yogiflight]

1 minute ago, Royal_Flight said:

With no heavy bombers to intercept, this is likely why the 262 was included in BoBo. 

Aside the reason, that a lot of us just want to fly it in BOX.

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

The A-2 made most sense given the scenario.

[BlackSix]

We need Me 262 A-2a for I./KG 51 and II./KG 51 and Me 262 A-1a for Kommando Nowotny, so maybe we'll do both modifications.

[Royal_Flight]

1 minute ago, Yogiflight said:

Aside the reason, that a lot of us just want to fly it in BOX.

 

Yeah, obviously. 

I don't want to see heavy bombers in BoX either, as the sim won't be able to do them justice.

 

My point is that the roles the 262 were well-known for were high-altitude bomber interceptions, and low-level fast tactical bombing. 

As the former won't be offered in BoBo, I'd be surprised if the 262 wasn't included with the latter in mind.

 

Either way, I'm also looking forward to giving it a spin. 

[Asgar]

16 minutes ago, BlackSix said:

We need Me 262 A-2a for I./KG 51 and II./KG 51 and Me 262 A-1a for Kommando Nowotny, so maybe we'll do both modifications.

I love you!

[Finkeren]

3 hours ago, 6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann said:

 

or 

 

 

Oh Dear Lord! Look what they’re doing to those poor machines.

 

#metoosixtytwo

[Voidhunger]

A-1a variant please!

[Blackhawk_FR]

I don't know why I see many people saying it's gonna be a bad fighter killer. 

It can rush on his target really fast, so more chances to have a surprise effect. Then 4xMk108 will easily do the job. 

Pure hit&run fighter, gonna be effective in savage dogfights (will quite lot of aircrafts in) but useless in 1vs1 or 1vs2 or 2vs1.

[Freycinet]

Me 262 A-1a/U5

Heavy jet fighter with six 30 mm (1.181 in) MK 108 cannon in the nose

and

Me 262 A-2a "Sturmvogel"

Definitive bomber version retaining only the two lower 30 mm (1.181 in) MK 108 cannon

make the most sense.

 

I think they weren't too different when it comes to the exterior and cockpit, so it should be relatively easy to model both.

 

- I have followed this team since Neoqb days. Amazing to think that we are now moving from biplanes to jets...  

[Asgar]

1 minute ago, Freycinet said:

Me 262 A-1a/U5

Heavy jet fighter with six 30 mm (1.181 in) MK 108 cannon in the nose

and

Me 262 A-2a "Sturmvogel"

Definitive bomber version retaining only the two lower 30 mm (1.181 in) MK 108 cannon

make the most sense.

 

I think they weren't too different when it comes to the exterior and cockpit, so it should be relatively easy to model both.

 

- I have followed this team since Neoqb days. Amazing to think that we are now moving from biplanes to jets...  

that one doesn't really make sense, i've never heard about that one being used in any meaningful number if at all

[sevenless]

33 minutes ago, 6./ZG26_Asgar said:

that one doesn't really make sense, i've never heard about that one being used in any meaningful number if at all

 

This might help:

 

https://me262.de/versionen/messerschmitt-me-262-a-2a-sturmvogel/

35 minutes ago, Freycinet said:

Me 262 A-2a "Sturmvogel"

Definitive bomber version retaining only the two lower 30 mm (1.181 in) MK 108 cannon

Nope, what you describe is the 262 A2a/U1 variant with only 2 MK 108. Only 2 were build.

 

The basic 262 A2a was armed with 4 MK108s plus the bomb racks.

 

see also here:

 

http://www.me-262.de/home/historie.php

 

As it seems Australia has the only remaining A2a from KG 51

 

https://www.awm.gov.au/index.php/collection/C111055

Edited April 6, 2018 by sevenless

[MiloMorai]

18 minutes ago, 6./ZG26_Asgar said:

that one doesn't really make sense, i've never heard about that one being used in any meaningful number if at all

 

That is because it was only tested in one prototype, WNr 112355.

 

Recently learned that the "Sturmvogel" which only had 2 30mm cannons installed later carried 4 30mm cannons.

 

"The upper two canons needed to be removed only in aircraft produced until sometimes late 1944. Later fighter bomber versions had all 4 canons plus the required bomb carriers and electrical equipment. As far as I remember (haven't access to my Messerschmitt documents right now), it was due to center of gravity and weight reasons. Later Me 262 had the additional fuel tank behind the cockpit after the landing gear had been strenghtened. With the additional fuel tank, the center of gravity was moved backwards again and all 4 canons could be installed." 

[Haza]

This!?

Apparently the one here in Canberra is the only remaining Me262 fighter-bomber in the world.

 

https://www.awm.gov.au/collection/C111055

 

https://acesflyinghigh.wordpress.com/2016/04/30/australian-war-memorial-messerschmitt-me-262-black-x/

 

EDIT:  OK, just saw previous post with link!!

Edited April 6, 2018 by Haza

[Luftschiff]

I imagine 4 MK108 would be quite sufficient for basically anything with wings.

[[TWB]Sauerkraut-]

9 hours ago, BlackSix said:

We need Me 262 A-2a for I./KG 51 and II./KG 51 and Me 262 A-1a for Kommando Nowotny, so maybe we'll do both modifications.

 

Awesome! Thanks for the feedback.

[LukeFF]

5 hours ago, MiloMorai said:

Recently learned that the "Sturmvogel" which only had 2 30mm cannons installed later carried 4 30mm cannons.

 

Yeah, that sounds right. There's a combat report from KG 51 from late 1944 mentioning them having a mix of 4-cannon and 2-cannon planes.

[SCG_Space_Ghost]

Can't wait to dip my balls in to some 262.

[NETSCAPE]

Ground attack with the 262 sounds like a hoot!  

[Blutaar]

Are all 4 guns fired at the same time or slightly delayed? Does anybody know?

[Haza]

8 hours ago, Space_Ghost said:

Can't wait to dip my balls in to some 262.

 

Now would you be dipping those down either the intake or perhaps up the exhaust pipe?

[Tyberan]

I’ve got the full book series on the me262 by Eddie Creek and J.Richard Smith. These book describe all sorts of armament version but most never went past the trials stage. Only the A1, A2 then there was R4 aerial rockets used on the A1 for destroying bombers.

 

im super excited for the 262 probably my favourite aircraft and no one has done a decent flight sim version of it.

 

I’m really looking forward to making skins for this when it’s released, so many options.

[[TWB]Sauerkraut-]

On 4/6/2018 at 4:28 PM, Ishtaru said:

Are all 4 guns fired at the same time or slightly delayed? Does anybody know?

 

I'm too lazy to research it myself, but I'm fairly certain that most aircraft which had armament clustered in the nose had a specific timing for each gun, so no two guns would fire simultaneously.

I believe the 262 and p-38 are both examples of this.

I'm pretty sure the idea is that the shock wave from a nearby gun firing at the same time could essentially give the shell a small "push" as it exits the muzzle and cause a larger weapon spread.

 

A really good example of this was the Kirov-class cruisers (the 1930's one). The designer was set on cramming 3 180 mm guns into very small turrets. As a result, all three guns had to be mounted on the same cradle (meaning they couldn't be elevated or fired independently) very close together. This resulted in two things:

First, the guns took forever to reload because the turret was so cramped.

Second, the ships had absolutely terrible accuracy due to their massive weapon spread. It was later found that this was because the guns were so close together, the gun blasts from neighboring guns would cause the shells to change trajectory.

Edited April 7, 2018 by itsthatguy

[EAF19_Marsh]

I expect the single-engined variant will be quite common.

[Voidhunger]

3 hours ago, Haza said:

 

Now would you be dipping those down either the intake or perhaps up the exhaust pipe?

[Blutaar]

7 hours ago, itsthatguy said:

I'm too lazy to research it myself, but I'm fairly certain that most aircraft which had armament clustered in the nose had a specific timing for each gun, so no two guns would fire simultaneously.

I believe the 262 and p-38 are both examples of this.

I'm pretty sure the idea is that the shock wave from a nearby gun firing at the same time could essentially give the shell a small "push" as it exits the muzzle and cause a larger weapon spread.

 

Makes sense, thx for pointing out.

[MiloMorai]

8 hours ago, itsthatguy said:

 

I'm too lazy to research it myself, but I'm fairly certain that most aircraft which had armament clustered in the nose had a specific timing for each gun, so no two guns would fire simultaneously.

I believe the 262 and p-38 are both examples of this.

I'm pretty sure the idea is that the shock wave from a nearby gun firing at the same time could essentially give the shell a small "push" as it exits the muzzle and cause a larger weapon spread.

 

A really good example of this was the Kirov-class cruisers (the 1930's one). The designer was set on cramming 3 180 mm guns into very small turrets. As a result, all three guns had to be mounted on the same cradle (meaning they couldn't be elevated for fired independently) very close together. This resulted in two things:

First, the guns took forever to reload because the turret was so cramped.

Second, the ships had absolutely terrible accuracy due to their massive weapon spread. It was later found that this was because the guns were so close together, the gun blasts from neighboring guns would cause the shells to change trajectory.

American 3 gun turret BBs had the same problem. The guns were fired at a slightly different time.

[LukeFF]

Interesting notes from Kampfflieger Volume Four about the carrying of bombs by Me 262s:

• On November 20th, I./KG 51 reported that 12 of its 47 aircraft were the 4-cannon model but that two guns had been removed 'for the moment' to save weight.
• By mid-December, II./KG 51 was ordered to fit all four cannon and two bomb racks but no armor plate.

[Field-Ops]

1 hour ago, LukeFF said:

Interesting notes from Kampfflieger Volume Four about the carrying of bombs by Me 262s:

• On November 20th, I./KG 51 reported that 12 of its 47 aircraft were the 4-cannon model but that two guns had been removed 'for the moment' to save weight.
• By mid-December, II./KG 51 was ordered to fit all four cannon and two bomb racks but no armor plate.

Interesting indeed. I wonder if it would be appropriate to have the modifications "remove two guns" and "add bomb racks" not be tied to each other since the circumstances behind the removal and additions of these mods were not entirely tied to each other in reality. 

[Talisman]

11 hours ago, LukeFF said:

Interesting notes from Kampfflieger Volume Four about the carrying of bombs by Me 262s:

• On November 20th, I./KG 51 reported that 12 of its 47 aircraft were the 4-cannon model but that two guns had been removed 'for the moment' to save weight.
• By mid-December, II./KG 51 was ordered to fit all four cannon and two bomb racks but no armor plate.

All part of the early operational evaluation work I suppose.  Some interesting information and photographs here: http://ourairports.biz/?cat=68

 

Happy landings,

 

Talisman

[LukeFF]

1 hour ago, 56RAF_Talisman said:

All part of the early operational evaluation work I suppose. 

 

KG 51 was a fully operational bomber unit. 

[csThor]

Operational evaluation was begun well before autumn 1944. For the A-1a it was carried out by Erprobungskommando 262 (also known as Erprobungskommando Thierfelder after its commander Htm. Werner Thierfelder, after the latter's death it morphed into Kommando Nowotny) and for the A-2a it was Einsatzkommando Schenck (mostly 3./KG 51) which was to test the 262 as fighter bomber over France in 1944. Both units went active towards the end of June 1944.

[Haza]

On 4/6/2018 at 9:44 PM, MiloMorai said:

 

That is because it was only tested in one prototype, WNr 112355.

 

Recently learned that the "Sturmvogel" which only had 2 30mm cannons installed later carried 4 30mm cannons.

 

"The upper two canons needed to be removed only in aircraft produced until sometimes late 1944. Later fighter bomber versions had all 4 canons plus the required bomb carriers and electrical equipment. As far as I remember (haven't access to my Messerschmitt documents right now), it was due to center of gravity and weight reasons. Later Me 262 had the additional fuel tank behind the cockpit after the landing gear had been strenghtened. With the additional fuel tank, the center of gravity was moved backwards again and all 4 canons could be installed." 

 

I believe that the top 2 cannons carried 80 rounds each with the 2 lower cannons carrying 100 rounds each.

 

In addition, I didn't realise that Ekdo 262 (testing unit) shot down numerous allied aircraft between 2 Aug - 4 Oct 44.

 

(source The Me262 Stormbird  ISBN 978-0-7603-5735-4)

[Trooper117]

Hopefully we will get the one with two jet engines... 

[unreasonable]

This one after I have flown it...

 

 

[Haza]

Just now, Trooper117 said:

Hopefully we will get the one with two jet engines... 

 

The first flown Me262 V1, coded PC+UA, coded 000001, flown by Fritz Wendal had a conventional piston engine in the nose in case the aircraft jet engines failed as they did not want to risk losing the aircraft. The piston engine was used a few times when the jet engines failed. 

 

 

Just now, unreasonable said:

This one after I have flown it...

 

 

 

I believe that this aircraft was flown by Johannes Steinhoff and this crash occurred during take-off on a grass strip, 18 Apr 45.  Although I have read that the crash was owing to a tyre blow out, I have also read that it was because the airfield had been attacked the previous day and lots of potholes remained on the airfield as well as debris that caused an issue, so perhaps one led to the other.

 

 

Regards

 

(source The Me262 Stormbird  ISBN 978-0-7603-5735-4)

Edited May 3, 2018 by Haza

[sevenless]

9 hours ago, unreasonable said:

This one after I have flown it...

 

 

 

Danger! Johannes Steinhoff was happy to survive, though badly burned.