Developer Diary 199 - Discussion

[=AD=uumembwa]

2 minutes ago, 6./ZG26_Asgar said:

do you not understand that it different people working on code and models?

I'm a customer, why I'm must understand it?

[Asgar]

i bet you also don't vote and then complain about the government. 

You're basically running into a store and demand from the painters to fix the toilet.

[=AD=uumembwa]

Anyway my ask was to developers, not for you.

[SYN_Haashashin]

Hi guys,

 

This topic is for discussion of the DD, anything else has to be posted/discussed somewhere else so keep it on topic.

 

@Mr_Pickles: You already posted the same thing several times in different topics of this forum, included one created by you at the bugs section. No need to spam all topics with the same complain expecting a dev answer.

 

Haash

[Lusekofte]

I know why the debs took this bird into the pack, they knew a lot of people would be ecstatic about it. My interest is merely out of curiosity. I think a very few will be successful in this. Those with best screens able to spot on distances beyond my capabilities. For ground strikes it will be pretty untouchable , a P 51 able to spot it from altitude need also to be in the right place, witch is damn difficult since there is no strategy or plan on anything happening on a public server

[ShamrockOneFive]

22 minutes ago, LuseKofte said:

I know why the debs took this bird into the pack, they knew a lot of people would be ecstatic about it. My interest is merely out of curiosity. I think a very few will be successful in this. Those with best screens able to spot on distances beyond my capabilities. For ground strikes it will be pretty untouchable , a P 51 able to spot it from altitude need also to be in the right place, witch is damn difficult since there is no strategy or plan on anything happening on a public server

 

I intend to give some of the Me262s attacking ground targets a run for their money with the Tempest V. In a dive with that clean airframe, laminar flow wings, and 2000hp of Sabre II engine chewing up the air... I hope to bag a few 262s at least

[Lusekofte]

Yeah, I forgot about the Tempest, I should do well against the ME 262 , but again it means a altitude advantage and good cover from wingmen

[Ehret]

Just now, ShamrockOneFive said:

I intend to give some of the Me262s attacking ground targets a run for their money with the Tempest V. In a dive with that clean airframe, laminar flow wings, and 2000hp of Sabre II engine chewing up the air... I hope to bag a few 262s at least

 

Should be more than 2000hp, like 200hp more I think...

 

Just now, LuseKofte said:

I know why the debs took this bird into the pack, they knew a lot of people would be ecstatic about it. My interest is merely out of curiosity. I think a very few will be successful in this. Those with best screens able to spot on distances beyond my capabilities. For ground strikes it will be pretty untouchable , a P 51 able to spot it from altitude need also to be in the right place, witch is damn difficult since there is no strategy or plan on anything happening on a public server

 

Depends on the discipline of the 262' driver - turning at jet speeds is going to be slow due to higher G-loads and to avoid because of deceleration. For one hit and run - untouchable but not many will be flying the 262 with such strictness.

 

[Asgar]

2 minutes ago, Ehret said:

 

Should be more than 2000hp, like 200hp more I think...

 

are you saying you believe the Sabre II engine has 4000 horsepower? ..... ? ? ?

[Lusekofte]

14 minutes ago, Ehret said:

but not many will be flying the 262 with such strictness.

 

The ones sticking to the bird will. I have seen hit and run tactics from 109 pilots maintaining that practice since the brand begun. They might get punished now when more capable allied fighters appear. And you can hardly call them out on it, simply because it is the smart thing to do. It will add a great deal of frustration on the receiving end, but then again , that is what they feed on  

I would love to be good at the 262, but -i never leave a battle scene with ammo left, and that is suicide for most planes

[Legioneod]

20 minutes ago, 6./ZG26_Asgar said:

are you saying you believe the Sabre II engine has 4000 horsepower? ..... ? ? ?

He said 200 more horsepower. 2000 + 200 = 2200.

[Asgar]

read that as 2000 on my phone ?

[Voidhunger]

questions for the smart guys here in the forum:

 

1) when you activated Riedel starter in Jumo 004 , was there everytime flames?

 

2) was there blue light (or any light) end the end of the engine like is presented in Il2 1946?

 

Thanks

[Asgar]

1) i don't know, but i can imagine it to happen due to unclean burning in the chamber during startup,

2) no, that is an effect only an afterburner would create

[Voidhunger]

1 minute ago, 6./ZG26_Asgar said:

1) i don't know, but i can imagine it to happen due to unclean burning in the chamber during startup,

2) no, that is an effect only an afterburner would create

Ok thanks ?

[TP_Sparky]

It's been years since I read about the engines used in the testing and production models of the Me-262A but as I recall they were subject to several problems inherent to the immature technology.  While simpler than comparable-era piston engines to produce the hard-to-procure strategic materials weren't the only problem.  The design technology of the cold and hot section compressor blades, IIRC, was not well-developed and many later features that reduced compressor blade failure hadn't been discovered or implemented.

 

Rapid throttle movement caused compressor stalls as we all know but that, IIRC, wasn't just unpleasant noises nor momentary power surges or failures.  The rapid power changes inherent in combat situations aren't so easy to avoid and IIRC, the compressor stalls in the 262 engines often caused real damage, caused compressor blades to crack and break free, slicing like super-heated knives through fuel and hydraulic lines.  Once the compressor started shedding blades you'd have to shut that engine down NOW or you'd have catastrophic bearing and engine failure with unbalanced compressors spinning at high speed.

 

I hope the unstable power plants of the 262 are correctly modeled in BoBp lest we get a fantasy weapon without the real-life limitations imposed by rushed engine design,  development and production.  

[MasserME262]

oh god I cant believe its coming... the reason of my name and one of the reasons I love planes ?

[TP_Sparky]

37 minutes ago, ME-BFMasserME262 said:

oh god I cant believe its coming... the reason of my name and one of the reasons I love planes ?

 

And it's beautiful.  If I were to make a list, maybe the Spitfire Mk.Ia and IIa is my first choice, the P-51D bubble canopy second, and then the 262A.

 

The Yak-3 and MiG-1 are probably my favorites for most beautiful Soviet fighter.

 

I'm sure everyone else has their own preferences but the 262 is a fine-looking aircraft of superlative performance with outstanding armament.  Limited range, nascent engine technology and some regrettable design decisions (sweep of wing and fuselage needed rework for better transonic performance)  caused by rushed development prevented this aircraft from reaching full potential.  I laugh when folks argue about how Hitler's delay kept the 262 from sweeping the sky when the engines barely reached the aircraft when it was deployed.  IIRC, the engines were the real limiting factor.  Given that the basic axial flow turbojet engine is still what we use today (albeit with turbofan and afterburners widely used) the Germans pulled off a minor miracle in designing and deploying a somewhat practical modern axial-flow jet engine.

Edited August 20, 2018 by TP_Sparky

[JonRedcorn]

Personally I think it's one of the ugliest planes ever flown. Doesn't make it any less cool. Just can't agree on the looks department. It's one weird looking airplane.

[=EXPEND=CG_Justin]

I placed my faith in the devs and pre ordered BoBP over the weekend. The 262 is going to be a cool addition, while adding an interesting dynamic to MP. Even with all the great Allied planes being added, I will probably still fly mostly Blue. I have to admit though.....I'm ready to see some screenshots of this sexy beast....

 

[DetCord12B]

May not be pertinent to the DD, but any chance the next update will include the ability to use the Viewer for Tank Crew content? Having to make changes and then launch the sim to check them and them make further changes and launch the sim and over and over and over again is pretty taxing.

 

This minute addition would be greatly appreciated.

[Asgar]

3 hours ago, TP_Sparky said:

 

And it's beautiful.  If I were to make a list, maybe the Spitfire Mk.Ia and IIa is my first choice, the P-51D bubble canopy second, and then the 262A.

 

The Yak-3 and MiG-1 are probably my favorites for most beautiful Soviet fighter.

 

I'm sure everyone else has their own preferences but the 262 is a fine-looking aircraft of superlative performance with outstanding armament.  Limited range, nascent engine technology and some regrettable design decisions (sweep of wing and fuselage needed rework for better transonic performance)  caused by rushed development prevented this aircraft from reaching full potential.  I laugh when folks argue about how Hitler's delay kept the 262 from sweeping the sky when the engines barely reached the aircraft when it was deployed.  IIRC, the engines were the real limiting factor.  Given that the basic axial flow turbojet engine is still what we use today (albeit with turbofan and afterburners widely used) the Germans pulled off a minor miracle in designing and deploying a somewhat practical modern axial-flow jet engine.

hahahahaha no....

nacelle engines were the standard of the time for multi engine aircraft, because they do have some pros, like better accessibilty for maintenance, which is kinda important for an engine with 25 hours flight time.

range: 109 G-6 650km 
             Spitfire Mk VB ~750km
             P51D 1500km @630km/h 
             Me 262 1050km
and unlike the P51 that was specifically designed to escort long range bombers. the 262 is and aerial defense fighter. it doesn't need any more range than that. Just look at the MiG-29 or F-16 (1200km and 925km respectively)

 

there were also no super sonic wind tunnels at the time, nobody even knew what the sound barrier was. the swept wings were revolutionary for the time. and nobody could've done it any better with the knowledge of the time. that's like saying they used bows and arrows even though firearms are much more effective. 

 

[Livai]

UFO is coming....................?

 

 

[Trooper117]

6 hours ago, 15th_JonRedcorn said:

Personally I think it's one of the ugliest planes ever flown. Doesn't make it any less cool. Just can't agree on the looks department. It's one weird looking airplane.

 

The 262 simply looks like a shark... menacing, deadly.

[Pierre64]

[Cybermat47]

1 hour ago, Trooper117 said:

 

The 262 simply looks like a shark... menacing, deadly.

 

Do they enjoy a good belly rub as well?

 

 

[ATAG_SKUD]

In 2018...This I gotta see...REAL (ish) 004 engines

"One day soon, before the end of this year, Steve Hinton will climb into the cockpit of one of the most significant fighters of World War II—one of the few World War II fighters he hasn’t flown—and take it up on what is likely the first flight of its type since 1946. Unlike all the other airplanes of that era that Hinton has piloted, this one’s a combat jet, the world’s first operational one, and the very Me 262 Schwalbe (Swallow) captured at Lechfield, Germany, in 1945 and later test flown at Wright Field, Ohio, by U.S. Army Air Forces Colonel Harold Watson. It will be the only authentic flying Me 262 in the world"
Read more at https://www.airspacemag.com/history-of-flight/paul-allens-warbirds-180967709/#YTJh1hhsZ2EdCA7C.99

Edited August 20, 2018 by ATAG_SKUD

[TP_Sparky]

9 hours ago, 6./ZG26_Asgar said:

hahahahaha no....

nacelle engines were the standard of the time for multi engine aircraft, because they do have some pros, like better accessibilty for maintenance, which is kinda important for an engine with 25 hours flight time.

range: 109 G-6 650km 
             Spitfire Mk VB ~750km
             P51D 1500km @630km/h 
             Me 262 1050km
and unlike the P51 that was specifically designed to escort long range bombers. the 262 is and aerial defense fighter. it doesn't need any more range than that. Just look at the MiG-29 or F-16 (1200km and 925km respectively)

 

there were also no super sonic wind tunnels at the time, nobody even knew what the sound barrier was. the swept wings were revolutionary for the time. and nobody could've done it any better with the knowledge of the time. that's like saying they used bows and arrows even though firearms are much more effective. 

 

 

"ha, ha, ha, no" has seldom been a reasoned response.

 

Yes, there were supersonic wind tunnels and the Germans had them, up to mach 3+, which they used to test, among other things, advanced missiles like the V-2/A-4.  Some 262 advances like swept wings were serendipitous in that it was originally a center of gravity decision that resulted in high-speed advantages.  The tricycle gear resulted from the tailwheel prototype 262 burning up the concrete taxiway and parking aprons yet it made the a/c easier to land on higher approach speeds.

 

The 262 engineers didn't intend to pod-mount the engines.  They wanted to mold them into the fuselage and the pods were a necessary compromise with  reality that proved fortunate because of the need to change out the utterly unreliable 262 engine for hot-section inspection every 5-10-15-25 hours operationally depending on conditions and pilot care with the throttles.

 

The P-51D had triple the range of the 262 with external tanks which it used as regular procedure.  The range of the 262 became critical when they had to put it down NOW and the local airbase was buzzing with Allied fighters.

 

That said, the Germans were fumbling forward in advance of everyone else.  The Allies fielded operational jet fighters later with straight wings, fewer and smaller guns, and centrifugal turbine jet engines (more reliable but less suited for fighters). 

 

It's been years since I've read about this but the 262 is to the jet fighter age, aerodynamically, somewhat like a 1916 fighter is to WWI fighters in that all nations in 1944-45 were edging towards basic understandings of high-speed flight design and jet engine design. 

Edited August 20, 2018 by TP_Sparky

[Dakpilot]

9 hours ago, 6./ZG26_Asgar said:

hahahahaha no....

nacelle engines were the standard of the time for multi engine aircraft, because they do have some pros, like better accessibilty for maintenance, which is kinda important for an engine with 25 hours flight time.

 

 

I think you misunderstood.. 

 

Nascent 

 

adjective

(especially of a process or organization) just coming into existence and beginning to display signs of future potential.

"the nascent space industry" 

 

Cheers, Dakpilot 

[Asgar]

10 minutes ago, TP_Sparky said:

Yes, there were supersonic wind tunnels and the Germans had them, up to mach 3+,

only one i read about  was "Tunnel A" which was taken to the US after the war and only finished in 1950

[Scottvdken]

6 minutes ago, 6./ZG26_Asgar said:

only one i read about  was "Tunnel A" which was taken to the US after the war and only finished in 1950

 

https://books.google.com/books?id=voP3CQAAQBAJ&pg=PA134&lpg=PA134&dq=german+wind+tunnels+ww2&source=bl&ots=5x_xfShFlt&sig=t-Pz1d8KIVs49xISjZIQwoP9GiI&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwigqKSWivzcAhWETd8KHQQKDjA4ChDoATAEegQIBhAB#v=onepage&q=german wind tunnels ww2&f=false

 

Start at page 133 if the link doesn't drop you there. 

[TP_Sparky]

44 minutes ago, Dakpilot said:

 

I think you misunderstood.. 

 

Nascent 

 

adjective

(especially of a process or organization) just coming into existence and beginning to display signs of future potential.

"the nascent space industry" 

 

Cheers, Dakpilot 

 

Exactly.

 

It's my fault really.  Language should be transparent.  I hesitated to use "nascent" but did anyway.  My bad.  "Newly-discovered" conveys the same meaning.

 

If I respect my audience and intend to convey information or entertain,  my words should flow into their understanding without pause to figure out meaning.  Many people say complex or seldom-used words are "more precise."  I disagree.  A simpler word or two can be just as precise except in technical terms.

 

As Churchill said, when you want to reach people's hearts, use small words.  He said they reach back to the Anglo-Saxon and not the Norman-French and so go deeper into our collective heritage.  If I respect and care about who I'm writing to I can take a moment and use a word or two other than "nascent" and they understand.  To do otherwise is to shout, "I've been to college" or "Let's see if I can make someone feel inferior" (they won't, they just won't like me).

 

JMHO

 

Anyway, back on topic,

 

it'll be great fun if the 262 air-to-air rockets have the fail-to-fire problems many Germans mentioned.  Whether I'm flying the 262 or not, I'd want a realistic failure rate for the scenario date.  Imagine the frustration.  Jump the B-25's.  Half the rockets hang on the racks.  Now I'm carrying useless ordinance I can't pickle off and I'm trying to stay alive amid vengeful P-51s.  ?

 

Edited August 20, 2018 by TP_Sparky

[Asgar]

36 minutes ago, TP_Sparky said:

 

Exactly.

 

It's my fault really.  Language should be transparent.  I hesitated to use "nascent" but did anyway.  My bad.  "Newly-discovered" conveys the same meaning.

 

If I respect my audience and intend to convey information or entertain,  my words should flow into their understanding without pause to figure out meaning.  Many people say complex or seldom-used words are "more precise."  I disagree.  A simpler word or two can be just as precise except in technical terms.

 

As Churchill said, when you want to reach people's hearts, use small words.  He said they reach back to the Anglo-Saxon and not the Norman-French and so go deeper into our collective heritage.  If I respect and care about who I'm writing to I can take a moment and use a word or two other than "nascent" and they understand.  To do otherwise is to shout, "I've been to college" or "Let's see if I can make someone feel inferior" (they won't, they just won't like me).

 

JMHO

 

Anyway, back on topic,

 

it'll be great fun if the 262 air-to-air rockets have the fail-to-fire problems many Germans mentioned.  Whether I'm flying the 262 or not, I'd want a realistic failure rate for the scenario date.  Imagine the frustration.  Jump the B-25's.  Half the rockets hang on the racks.  Now I'm carrying useless ordinance I can't pickle off and I'm trying to stay alive amid vengeful P-51s.  ?

 

nah, i probably would noticed if i wasn't roaming the forum before coffee ? so my brain replaced it with a more commonly used term on this forum. stupid brains, thinking they know what's being read after only seeing the first couple letters of a word.

 

but anyways, yeah i think we're all on the same page, the 262 is gonna deliver a very unique and interesting experience.

Edited August 20, 2018 by 6./ZG26_Asgar

[TP_Sparky]

3 hours ago, 6./ZG26_Asgar said:

yeah i think we're all on the same page, the 262 is gonna deliver a very unique and interesting experience.

 

Yes, quite true, brave rabbit. (y'know, your avatar and Thor,  in the latest Avengers movie?)

[[CPT]milopugdog]

As cool as the Me-262 is, the P-38 is still #1 in my heart. ❤️

[TP_Sparky]

25 minutes ago, [CPT]milopugdog said:

...the P-38 is still #1 in my heart. ❤️

 

The P-38's counter-rotating props meant that if either engine failed the torque and P-factor from the operating engine would help counteract the drag from the (hopefully) feathered prop and dead engine.  There was no 'critical engine' in the P-38, a fact beloved by many pilots and super-helpful in single-engine operations.  Not many US military a/c before (or after) had counter-rotating props due the the engine/gearbox supply logistics problems it added.  The Wright Flyers (and other Wright a/c) used by the Army Signal Corps come to mind, and the later P-82 Twin Mustang, OV-10 and today's Osprey but not too many other US military a/c.  

 

So she should be a sweet single-engine performer.  

[AndyJWest]

3 minutes ago, TP_Sparky said:

 

The P-38's counter-rotating props meant that if either engine failed the torque and P-factor from the operating engine would help counteract the drag from the (hopefully) feathered prop and dead engine.  There was no 'critical engine' in the P-38, a fact beloved by many pilots and super-helpful in single-engine operations.  Not many US military a/c before (or after) had counter-rotating props due the the engine/gearbox supply logistics problems it added.  The Wright Flyers (and other Wright a/c) used by the Army Signal Corps come to mind, and the later P-82 Twin Mustang, OV-10 and today's Osprey but not too many other US military a/c.  

 

So she should be a sweet single-engine performer.  

 

I think you should take another look at the P-38. In production aircraft, the downgoing blade was outboard for both engines, meaning that the torque and P-factor made things worse on engine failure. Effectively, it had two critical engines. Early prototypes had the engines rotating the other way, but they made the change to improve stability as a gun platform.

[Ehret]

24 minutes ago, AndyJWest said:

I think you should take another look at the P-38. In production aircraft, the downgoing blade was outboard for both engines, meaning that the torque and P-factor made things worse on engine failure. Effectively, it had two critical engines. Early prototypes had the engines rotating the other way, but they made the change to improve stability as a gun platform.

 

It makes one truly wonder why contra rotating props weren't used more often. Even if extra gears would nullify efficiency gains it'd still improve handling significantly. Safety too and keeping your pilots alive was the most important thing as history shows.

[TP_Sparky]

47 minutes ago, AndyJWest said:

 

I think you should take another look at the P-38. In production aircraft, the downgoing blade was outboard for both engines, meaning that the torque and P-factor made things worse on engine failure. Effectively, it had two critical engines. Early prototypes had the engines rotating the other way, but they made the change to improve stability as a gun platform.

 

I remember that now.  I looked online because I had a vague memory that they'd discarded what I described after the prototypes but I'd thought it was due to the difficulties of supplying the different powertrain parts and the extra maintenance crew training.   I'd thought they'd gone to same-way rotation but I remember now you're correct.  It's been years since I did my reading.   Mea culpa (my fault).

 

My great uncle flew P-38's.  His sister gave me his wings. He flew his 38 from England to their current base in Belgium or the Netherlands and as he circled in the traffic pattern his 38 exploded in the air.  Probably a supercharger disintegrated sending superheated parts through fuel lines and tanks and hydraulics.  (Great) Aunt Earnestine had problems finding out what happened to him and didn't understand until she learned that soon after her brother's death a German raider dropped a bomb onto the squadron pilot billet and killed most of his buddies.  So she had a bit of consolation that even had he not been lost in the mid-air explosion, he probably wouldn't have survived much longer.  I don't know if any 38 pilots were killed in Bodenplatte ground attacks.  Maybe another raid.  I also know from my own service that the unflattering things often escape military records.  

[Silverback]

thanks devs