Me 262 bombs/drop tanks racks and center of gravity

[klebor]

I have noticed most planes carried bombs very near their center of gravity.

In case of Me 262 it looks like bombs (even 2x500kg) or drop tanks are being carried below the nose.

What was the reason? Was CoG of Me 262 so far ahead?

[BlitzPig_EL]

Been wondering that myself.

 

As we all know, or should know, the sweep of the wings on the 262 was done for CG reasons, not for greater performance.  So I don't know why the bombs/other stores are mounted so far forward.

[CountZero]

Tricycle gear combained with no heavy engine in nouse, so i would think its ok to have them so far front to balance things

[bzc3lk]

Where else would you put them?

 

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

Edited June 28, 2018 by bzc3lk

[Ropalcz]

Those bombs (2x SC 250) were put there as a ballast for takeoff - it improved the overall ballance of the Me 262.

[bzc3lk]

9 minutes ago, Ropalcz said:

Those bombs (2x SC 250) were put there as a ballast for takeoff - it improved the overall ballance of the Me 262.

 

I thought they were put their because of this guy.

Spoiler

 

[klebor]

From 262 Pilot Handbook posted bybzc3lk:

 

Looks like with full all internal fuel tanks CoG was a little to far to the rear and the bombs or drop tanks were beneficial for maintaining optimal CoG.

Edited June 28, 2018 by sereme1

[AndyJWest]

They were probably put there because there was nowhere else to put them. The main wheels retract inwards, leaving no room for them nearer the centre of gravity.

 

Edit: Maybe not, on second thoughts. From a look at photos, they could probably have gone a bit further back without fouling the undercarriage. 

Edited June 28, 2018 by AndyJWest

[klebor]

Looks like there was still some room to place the racks further to the nose and closer to the wheels. 

 

 

Another interesting feature:

Looks like taxing will be - without prop wash and rudder - similar to HS129 but even more demanding. On the other hand there will be tricycle.

Edited June 28, 2018 by sereme1

[AndyJWest]

Just now, sereme1 said:

Looks like there was still some room to place the racks further to the nose and closer to the wheels. 

 

 

The 2a 'Sturmvogel' version was able to carry SC 500s though, which would be a bit longer. Possibly the racks were placed to allow this?

[klebor]

BTW. Looks like in old IL2 fast throttle imputs causing instant fire were far too simplified and overdone by a big margin 

You can open throtthe quickly without burning the engine.

 

Thanks for this manual, it contains a lot of usefull information.

Edited June 28, 2018 by sereme1

[303_Bies]

 

1 hour ago, sereme1 said:

BTW. Looks like in old IL2 fast throttle imputs causing instant fire were far too simplified and overdone by a big margin 

You can open throtthe quickly without burning the engine.

 

Until 6000 - 7000 RPM you should open throttle slowly to avoid stall (not burn the engine...) but from 6000 - 7000 RPM you could open the throttle fast.

cheers

[Yogiflight]

15 minutes ago, bies said:

Until 6000 - 7000 RPM you should open throttle slowly to avoid stall (not burn the engine...)

Sorry mate, read again. "...the smooth air flow breaks up just as it does on a stalled wing."   So there is not enough air coming into the engine, which will cause an engine fire, I guess, because the fuel burns inside the turbine, instead of getting blown out.

[I./ZG1_Juno11]

The 262´s engines didnt have any computed control to control the incoming air/fuel ratio. So your throttle is the only control and if thats why you´ll get an engine stall/compressor stall pretty quick, which the result that the fire from the combustion chamber is beeing force forward, into the compressor and usually damage and burn this area since its not made for this kind of heat.

Pretty much what Yogi said.

 

But the fire from Il2 was wrong in my eyes, even if you put in too much fuel, it will flood itself rather then burn like in il2. Results the same, engine failure ?