PDA

View Full Version : To those interested in Me-262 FM



XyZspineZyX
08-23-2003, 08:44 PM
Well I did in the last two days testing on Me-262 FM. The results are encouraging: at sea level acceleration and zoom climb are ok. Also best climb until 7000m is ok (best climb speed is correct). I'll have to test the dive at low level, then I'll move to 5000m.

The only bug I discovered, besides the wrong FM above 7000m, is the erroneus loss of speed in turns and sustained turn characteristic. As I said before Me-262 turns sustained (with no wing tip stall) at 330kmh instead of 480kmh. I'll post more detailed findings about this on ORR, then I'll post it to 1C.

I was wrong on acceleration, at least at sea level.


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

Message Edited on 08/23/0303:07PM by Huckebein_FW

XyZspineZyX
08-23-2003, 08:44 PM
Well I did in the last two days testing on Me-262 FM. The results are encouraging: at sea level acceleration and zoom climb are ok. Also best climb until 7000m is ok (best climb speed is correct). I'll have to test the dive at low level, then I'll move to 5000m.

The only bug I discovered, besides the wrong FM above 7000m, is the erroneus loss of speed in turns and sustained turn characteristic. As I said before Me-262 turns sustained (with no wing tip stall) at 330kmh instead of 480kmh. I'll post more detailed findings about this on ORR, then I'll post it to 1C.

I was wrong on acceleration, at least at sea level.


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

Message Edited on 08/23/0303:07PM by Huckebein_FW

XyZspineZyX
08-23-2003, 09:01 PM
Thanks Huck! My low level burning around furballs was stunning in my 262, blowing wings off anything VVS in my way.

But I never could get above 7km and stay there.

XyZspineZyX
08-23-2003, 09:14 PM
Sorry....8km. Barely nudged it. But with 100% fuel so that may be a consideration. Back for another try.

XyZspineZyX
08-24-2003, 01:04 AM
Huckebein_FW wrote:
- Well I did in the last two days testing on Me-262
- FM. The results are encouraging: at sea level
- acceleration and zoom climb are ok. Also best climb
- until 7000m is ok (best climb speed is correct).
- I'll have to test the dive at low level, then I'll
- move to 5000m.

See how easy that was! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

- The only bug I discovered, besides the wrong FM
- above 7000m, is the erroneus loss of speed in turns
- and sustained turn characteristic.

Discovered? Funny, I thought Oleg made a point of that a long time ago?

- As I said before Me-262 turns sustained (with no
- wing tip stall) at 330kmh instead of 480kmh.

Based on?

- I'll post more detailed findings about this
- on ORR, then I'll post it to 1C.

More? Heck, ANY data and or souce would be more than what we have got from you to date!

- I was wrong on acceleration, at least at sea level.

We know/knew



<font size= 3> <font color= blue>
TAGERT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If WAR was not the ANSWER.. Than what the H was your QUESTION?

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=forum
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=discussion

XyZspineZyX
08-24-2003, 01:22 AM
And where are your sources proving his opinions wrong, tagert?

<center>
---------------------------------------
Fokker G.I
http://www.defensie.nl:30280/home/pictures/7370.jpg
http://www.uvika.dn.ua/av/PLANE/HOLLAND/FOKKER_G-1/Fokker_G-1b_03a-n.jpg
</center>

XyZspineZyX
08-24-2003, 06:22 PM
Red_Storm wrote:
- And where are your sources proving his opinions
- wrong, tagert?

See that is actully the best part about it.. I dont have any problems with the current FM.. I like it just the way it is.. I simply pointed out that if *someone* wants a change.. they will have to post more than thier FEELING.. They will have to post some data and it's source and how the current FM does not comply.. Once they get over thier FEELINGS and obtain said data.. they cant help but test it.. And like *HE* found out.. most of what he was whinning about was not broke in the fist place! So.. Ill just give him a bit more rope.. and they will usally do my work for me! Kind of poetic justice aint it! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif



<font size= 3> <font color= blue>
TAGERT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If WAR was not the ANSWER.. Than what the H was your QUESTION?

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=forum
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=discussion

XyZspineZyX
08-24-2003, 07:19 PM
tagert wrote:
- See that is actully the best part about it.. I dont
- have any problems with the current FM.. I like it
- just the way it is.. I simply pointed out that if
- *someone* wants a change.. they will have to post
- more than thier FEELING.. They will have to post
- some data and it's source and how the current FM
- does not comply.. Once they get over thier FEELINGS
- and obtain said data.. they cant help but test it..
- And like *HE* found out.. most of what he was
- whinning about was not broke in the fist place! So..
- Ill just give him a bit more rope.. and they will
- usally do my work for me! Kind of poetic justice
- aint it!


I don't usually reply to village idiot, though I can make an exception once in a while.
I'm sure you LIKE an underperforming 262, and you're not alone in here. Problem is that you can't prove that what you like is actually realistic. There is a significant difference in Me-262's acceleration before and after the patch. Now answer this question: which variant got it right and why?

The difference between you and the rest of the people talking the FM is that they can actually calculate the performance and compare it with FB representation, you instead keep on spamming this forum with inane posts - your first post on this thread is a fine example.

Here's your primer on performance testing. Read it and ask polite questions.
http://forums.ubi.com/messages/message_view.asp?name=us_il2sturmovik_gd&id=zigbs


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
08-24-2003, 07:21 PM
How do you know the zoom climb is OK?? What kind of data exists for zoom climbing, in any plane for that matter.
Plenty on sustained normal climbing but almost nothing was ever published on zoom, it was not something they analyzed.
That's the problem I am facing, I am very convinced the zoom climb and energy bleed in the verical are porked with the new 262 but can't prove it, so I stopped posting on it.
Except for this post anyway. Also can't do a bug report on it since Oleg wants factual data and therefore will not believe or take seriouisly my or anybodies gut feelings. So I kinda just have given up on the 262 and will no longer fly her. I am fairly sure it was toned down too much and largely for political reasons due to the server fights over the 262. Now in it's weaker form, it's being allowed back on many, since the cry babies can now shoot it down more easily in prop fighters, like they wanted to do. Yes, it's still fast and can be flown such that it can still be deadly but the vertical can't be right. Feels now like it weighs 200 tons when you try vertical fighting or when you try going over 7,000 meters. Sad that politics are more important than realism. But like I said, I can prove nothing. But would like to know how you concluded the zoom climb is ok. Please explain your logic maybe???

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin - 1755

XyZspineZyX
08-24-2003, 07:38 PM
Well in other posts Huck has shown he knows quite a bit about the math involved & in this thread he has shown the ability to admit when he is wrong. he also says he's using the proper bug reporting procedures. So i don't think he is just another whiner.
It takes time to realize who is ful of it & who ain't. in the mean time I hope everyone will play nice.
So please leave the name calling on the playground folks, 7 have anice flight!


http://www.warbirdalley.com/images/polikarpov.jpg


"Anytime you have an opportunity to make things better and you don't, then you are wasting your time on this earth." -Roberto Clemente

XyZspineZyX
08-24-2003, 07:40 PM
Here is some info for best climb speed.

0-4km 0-13,000ft 450 km/hr
4-6km 13,000-19,700ft 500 km/hr
6-8km 19,700-26,200ft 550 km/hr
8-10km 26,200-32,800ft 600-650 km/hr


The best climb speeds are much higher than FB. In FB best climb is achieved at about 375km/h IAS with 100% fuel, and about 350km/h IAS with 25% fuel. Thats nowhere near the correct 450 IAS.

Online sources quote the ceiling as being between 11500m and 13000m, depending on if you're talking service or absolute ceiling. Not the current 8000m.

The only info I could find about zoom climb is a vague reference about the Me-262 being capable of 15,000ft (4500m) zoom climbs. In FB, with a level starting velocity of 1000km/h TAS at sea level, I was able to do a 4300m pure vertical zoom climb. Using shallower zooms, even higher altitudes could be attained.

So AFAIK the FM is reasonable except for best climb speed, the climb rate itself being close to object viewer specs, and the funky high altitude performance with the low ceiling.

As far as acceleration and low speed zoom, they are understandably poor given its wing loading and 1/4 T/W ratio. Though there are no numbers to corroborate it, the current acceleration of the Me-262 appears more plausible than the 1.0 FM, given historical descriptions of the Me-262 being plauged by poor acceleration (hence the need for fighter cover during takeoff).

http://www.smiliedb.de/s/sdb06894.gif http://www.smiliedb.de/s/sdb57471.gif http://www.smiliedb.de/s/sdb11726.gif http://www.smiliedb.de/s/sdb75733.gif http://www.smiliedb.de/s/sdb80477.gif http://www.smiliedb.de/s/sdb64472.gif http://www.smiliedb.de/s/sdb59442.gif http://www.smiliedb.de/s/sdb80347.gif http://www.smiliedb.de/s/sdb73057.gif http://www.smiliedb.de/s/sdb48642.gif



Message Edited on 08/24/0312:48PM by StG77_Fennec

XyZspineZyX
08-24-2003, 07:43 PM
Huckebein_FW wrote:
- tagert wrote:
-- See that is actully the best part about it.. I dont
-- have any problems with the current FM.. I like it
-- just the way it is.. I simply pointed out that if
-- *someone* wants a change.. they will have to post
-- more than thier FEELING.. They will have to post
-- some data and it's source and how the current FM
-- does not comply.. Once they get over thier FEELINGS
-- and obtain said data.. they cant help but test it..
-- And like *HE* found out.. most of what he was
-- whinning about was not broke in the fist place! So..
-- Ill just give him a bit more rope.. and they will
-- usally do my work for me! Kind of poetic justice
-- aint it!
-
-
- I don't usually reply to village idiot, though I can
- make an exception once in a while.

Funny.. I dont recall seeing your mom posting here?

- I'm sure you LIKE an underperforming 262, and you're
- not alone in here.

Your sure huh? Well guess what, you are wrong once again. I actully enjoy fying it off and online.. Problem is offline alot of folks dont allow jets in.. Guess they just dont know how to fly them.. or fly aginst them.. But I digress, the simple point is your wrong.

- Problem is that you can't prove that what you
- like is actually realistic.

Still dont get it huh? Please note that Im not requesting a change, thus I dont need to post diddilly. Your the one asking for change, the burdon is ON YOU! And if you remember I simply pointed out to you that you will have to post more than your feelings on the topic to obtain change.. You know like the IAN boys did with the P47.

- There is a significant difference in Me-262's
- acceleration before and after the patch. Now answer
- this question: which variant got it right and why?

My guess is that due to the drag being modeled incorecttly in the fist version they had to up the thrust.. You know the two oposing forces.. Anyway, once they fixed the eng drag they had to adj the thrust.

- The difference between you and the rest of the
- people talking the FM is that they can actually
- calculate the performance and compare it with FB
- representation,

The equations and calculations are not the hard part, getting the data they used is.

- you instead keep on spamming this forum with inane
- posts - your first post on this thread is a fine
- example.

A sane man would appeare insane in an insane world.

- Here's your primer on performance testing. Read it
- and ask polite questions.

First question, where is your excell spread sheet in the Me262.. You know the one your currenlty whinning about?



<font size= 3> <font color= blue>
TAGERT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If WAR was not the ANSWER.. Than what the H was your QUESTION?

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=forum
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=discussion

XyZspineZyX
08-24-2003, 08:01 PM
mortoma wrote:
- How do you know the zoom climb is OK?? What kind of
- data exists for zoom climbing, in any plane for that
- matter.
- Plenty on sustained normal climbing but almost
- nothing was ever published on zoom, it was not
- something they analyzed.

True.

- That's the problem I am facing, I am very convinced
- the zoom climb and energy bleed in the verical are
- porked with the new 262 but can't prove it, so I
- stopped posting on it.

So let me see if I understand.. As you noted, there is nothing posted on it.. Yet you feel it is wrong? So.. Your feeling is based off of something you read? right? My guess would be it was some pilots account of how he did something.. If so, post that.. not that it would be something one could use to request a change from Oleg.. but, at least we could get a feel for your BIAS in interpeting pilots accounts.. That is a very GRAY area.. two people can read the same thing and walk away with two totally different preceptions.

- Except for this post anyway. Also can't do a bug
- report on it since Oleg wants factual data and
- therefore will not believe or take seriouisly my or
- anybodies gut feelings.

Well.. look at it like this.. the static climb rates seem good to go.. If they were wrong.. then the zoom would surlly be wrong.. So what is left that could be wrong? Momentum? I just dont know enough about the FM to know how tha factors in.. but that method of excluding things could help narrow your search.

- So I kinda just have given up on the 262 and will
- no longer fly her.

Too bad.. I look at it like this.. no sim is perfect.. AND no sim ever will be.. So if someting being off by 10mph is going to cause you greif.. to the point that you can not enjoy any of the other things modeled well.. Than maybe you should find another hobbie? Becuase no sim will ever be perfect.. So when handed lemons.. make lemonaid.. I have learned to fly the Me262 very well on line, I use her stong points and avoid the weak.. And I get alot of kills.. to the point that one server actually took jets out.. They could just not deal with a Jet handing them thier A in every sortie! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

- I am fairly sure it was toned down too much and largely
- for political reasons due to the server fights over
- the 262.
- Now in it's weaker form, it's being allowed
- back on many, since the cry babies can now shoot it
- down more easily in prop fighters, like they wanted
- to do.

LOL! OH PLEASE!!! Dont go there! Please dont go down the black helocopter conspericy path.. It is not there! You seem like a reasonable person.. Please there is no group of guys in black suits that are holding a gun to Olegs head.. No mater how much Huck wants to belive the IAN boys are that group! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif The Me262 is a simple case of a rushed job.. They had the engine drag modeled porked in ver 1.0, thus they had to adj the thrust to overcome that problem.. When they fixed the engine drag problem, they had to tone down the thrust.


- Yes, it's still fast and can be flown such
- that it can still be deadly but the vertical can't
- be right.

Based on?

- Feels now like it weighs 200 tons when
- you try vertical fighting or when you try going over
- 7,000 meters. Sad that politics are more important
- than realism.

They arent.

- But like I said, I can prove nothing.

Would still like to hear or read where you got your impression from.. Granted it might not be any hard data.. just some pilots accounts.. you had to get that FEELING somewhere? Im just curious what it is you read that gave you that FEELING

- But would like to know how you concluded the zoom
- climb is ok. Please explain your logic maybe???

See above.



<font size= 3> <font color= blue>
TAGERT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If WAR was not the ANSWER.. Than what the H was your QUESTION?

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=forum
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=discussion

XyZspineZyX
08-24-2003, 08:21 PM
StG77_Fennec wrote:
- Here is some info for best climb speed.
-
- 0-4km 0-13,000ft 450 km/hr
- 4-6km 13,000-19,700ft 500 km/hr
- 6-8km 19,700-26,200ft 550 km/hr
- 8-10km 26,200-32,800ft 600-650 km/hr
-
-
- The best climb speeds are much higher than FB. In
- FB best climb is achieved at about 375km/h IAS with
- 100% fuel, and about 350km/h IAS with 25% fuel.
- Thats nowhere near the correct 450 IAS.

I noticed that too.. but imagine what a tizzy folks would have had if someone said the Me262 is not only not undermodeled but overmodled! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

- Online sources quote the ceiling as being between
- 11500m and 13000m, depending on if you're talking
- service or absolute ceiling. Not the current 8000m.

Yeah.. but it is true for all the ac in fb.. So at least it is an even playing field, porked, but across the board.

- The only info I could find about zoom climb is a
- vague reference about the Me-262 being capable of
- 15,000ft (4500m) zoom climbs. In FB, with a level
- starting velocity of 1000km/h TAS at sea level, I
- was able to do a 4300m pure vertical zoom climb.
- Using shallower zooms, even higher altitudes could
- be attained.

Cool

- So AFAIK the FM is reasonable except for best climb
- speed, the climb rate itself being close to object
- viewer specs, and the funky high altitude
- performance with the low ceiling.
-
- As far as acceleration and low speed zoom, they are
- understandably poor given its wing loading and 1/4
- T/W ratio. Though there are no numbers to
- corroborate it, the current acceleration of the
- Me-262 appears more plausible than the 1.0 FM, given
- historical descriptions of the Me-262 being plauged
- by poor acceleration (hence the need for fighter
- cover during takeoff).

Agreed 100%


<font size= 3> <font color= blue>
TAGERT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If WAR was not the ANSWER.. Than what the H was your QUESTION?

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=forum
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=discussion

XyZspineZyX
08-24-2003, 08:25 PM
Hi Fennec,

I tested it at full fuel and climbed with know best speeds (TAS kmh: 475 SL, 500 2km so on) and reached 7000m in 8.5 min like I should on full throttle (climb test says 10 min but is not at full throttle).

Mortoma, if it will be enough time I'll post data on zoom climb and acceleration, but first I'll post on turn because this is the main error. But you can be sure that at least at sea level zoom is correct. Until loss of speed in turns is corrected use Me-262 with a maximum of 50% fuel. Me-262 carries a lot of fuel internally 2400l, that's much more than Bf-110 for example, so there is a clear improvement when starting with half fuel. Also fuel consumption bug will be nice to have it fixed. Now you can fly on 25% fuel forever which gives an unrealistic performance advantage.


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

Message Edited on 08/24/0302:27PM by Huckebein_FW

XyZspineZyX
08-24-2003, 10:11 PM
What Huckie, no climb test done for 6100kg? Why is that?

Did you not post that the best climbing speed for the 262 was approx. 475kph. Why do I see 500kph at 2km with further increases as height increases?

http://www.stenbergaa.com/stenberg/crandall-stormclouds2.jpg

XyZspineZyX
08-24-2003, 10:21 PM
MiloMorai wrote:
- What Huckie, no climb test done for 6100kg? Why is
- that?

I'm interested in the plane modeled in FB. So if Oleg says 6880kg that's fine for me.


-
- Did you not post that the best climbing speed for
- the 262 was approx. 475kph. Why do I see 500kph at
- 2km with further increases as height increases?

That's quite dumb try Milo. Why TAS in climb increases with altitude?? Why do you think?
On the other hand IAS, is 475kmh at sea level and is slightly decreasing with altitude.


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
08-25-2003, 12:29 AM
now they got to make the b1 realistic http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif right now it tears apart the 262 badly even from a 2000 alt advantage


http://mysite.verizon.net/vze4jz7i/ls.gif

Good dogfighters bring ammo home, Great ones don't. (c) Leadspitter

XyZspineZyX
08-25-2003, 12:36 AM
You'll find that Huck rarely uses correct weights or dimensions in his calculations. And if his calculations are different than the results of actual tests or pilot accounts, he states the tests were in error or the pilots were drunk. And he NEVER takes into considertion FLIGHT CHARACTERISTICS that can not be calculated.



Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/SkyChimp2.jpg

XyZspineZyX
08-25-2003, 01:31 AM
Huckebein_FW wrote:
- MiloMorai wrote:
-- What Huckie, no climb test done for 6100kg? Why is
-- that?
-
- I'm interested in the plane modeled in FB. So if
- Oleg says 6880kg that's fine for me.
-

LOL Huckie, did you not say I was trolling when I posted data for 7000kg. What is with the change? 6880kg is a lot closer to the 7000kg (with a weight breakdown given) that I gave, than your 6100kg./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif In fact, the 6977kg, er 7000kg, is only 97kg more than in Oleg's spec. There are many errors in Oleg's listed FB specs.

Still waiting for that weight breakdown, as well as the climb data for 6100kg./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

-
--
-- Did you not post that the best climbing speed for
-- the 262 was approx. 475kph. Why do I see 500kph at
-- 2km with further increases as height increases?
-
- That's quite dumb try Milo. Why TAS in climb
- increases with altitude?? Why do you think?
- On the other hand IAS, is 475kmh at sea level and is
- slightly decreasing with altitude.
-
-

That 500kph is the same as I posted earlier for which you had your usually bs comment about./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Did you forget that the 262, above 400kph, shows only TAS on the ASI?

http://www.stenbergaa.com/stenberg/crandall-stormclouds2.jpg

XyZspineZyX
08-25-2003, 07:16 AM
SkyChimp wrote:
- You'll find that Huck rarely uses correct weights or
- dimensions in his calculations. And if his
- calculations are different than the results of
- actual tests or pilot accounts, he states the tests
- were in error or the pilots were drunk. And he
- NEVER takes into considertion FLIGHT CHARACTERISTICS
- that can not be calculated.

I dont doubt it.. In that I have seen an example of how his bias works.. That NACA document on the P47 roll rate, he took most of it out of context.. to misslead people? My guess, or.. maybe.. maybe he is just that blind and really belives what he says? That would be real sad.



<font size= 3> <font color= blue>
TAGERT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If WAR was not the ANSWER.. Than what the H was your QUESTION?

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=forum
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=discussion

XyZspineZyX
08-25-2003, 01:26 PM
I contacted the Stormbirds site as I said I would in another post, but unfortunately, I haven't recieved a reply from them so far. I'm going to send them another request today, so lets see what they have for us on the original 262.

http://www.student.richmond.edu/~vk5qa/images/forumsig.jpg


"Come on in, I'll treat you right. I used to know your daddy."

XyZspineZyX
08-25-2003, 09:53 PM
bump

http://www.student.richmond.edu/~vk5qa/images/forumsig.jpg


"Come on in, I'll treat you right. I used to know your daddy."

XyZspineZyX
08-25-2003, 10:34 PM
LeadSpitter_ wrote:
- now they got to make the b1 realistic http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif right now
- it tears apart the 262 badly even from a 2000 alt
- advantage



Its ridiculous that its even in game especialy putting it in 1l2 sturmovik with no 262 i mean it never saw combat, i love this game but they make sure vvs fans always have an advantage puttin it in and especialy the way it performs is complete BS. And then cripple 262 cos of a few whiners.

XyZspineZyX
08-25-2003, 11:15 PM
Hmmm.....the data posted on this website and in the object viewer says that the 262 is supposed to be able to climb to 7,000 meters in 6.8 minutes........................

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin - 1755

XyZspineZyX
08-26-2003, 03:35 AM
bump

http://www.student.richmond.edu/~vk5qa/images/forumsig.jpg


"Come on in, I'll treat you right. I used to know your daddy."

XyZspineZyX
08-26-2003, 03:45 AM
I just held my brakes on the runway and went both jets to 100% and took off like rubber band airplane. This thing rocks at low level. Is 100% while standing still hysterically correct? Don't care one way or the other, just an interesting observation.

XyZspineZyX
08-26-2003, 03:50 AM
mortoma wrote:
- Hmmm.....the data posted on this website and in the
- object viewer says that the 262 is supposed to be
- able to climb to 7,000 meters in 6.8
- minutes........................

As it does.. faster even.. But I didnt want to start an Me262 Overmodeled thread! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

PS did it with 100% fuel load and ammo

<font size= 3> <font color= blue>
TAGERT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If WAR was not the ANSWER.. Than what the H was your QUESTION?

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=forum
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=discussion