PDA

View Full Version : Some comments on the Me-262



ake109
07-14-2007, 11:51 AM
IMHO, the Me-262 in IL2 is about the most stable and benign aircraft to fly if you exclude the engine responsiveness.

What I mean is that in the Me-262, I find that I can yank the thing all over the place and even stall it without it ever doing a spin. Low or high speeds, I can go berserk on the rudders, ailerons and elevators and the worst that can happen is that it loses airspeed and dips (without spinning) its nose down before control is regained once airspeed goes back up.

Did anyone ever read any pilots' comments on the flying qualities of the Me-262? Was it that good?

FritzGryphon
07-14-2007, 11:58 AM
All I've read is that hard manuevering of any kind was avoided for fear of flaming out the engines.

I recall one test pilot account of the engines flaming out when he attempted a sideslip. It seems unlikely that they would ever do spin or stall tests.

Though, with the combination of slots and the swept wing, it seems totally plausible that it had benign stalling qualities.

VW-IceFire
07-14-2007, 12:01 PM
I think this is a common issue with any plane that has leading edge slats which includes the 262, 109, late versions of the LaGG-3, La-5 through La-7...not sure if I'm missing any. All of these planes seem to be a fair bit more stable to rapid maneuvers that would stall another plane and flip it around.

ake109
07-14-2007, 12:29 PM
Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
I think this is a common issue with any plane that has leading edge slats which includes the 262, 109, late versions of the LaGG-3, La-5 through La-7...not sure if I'm missing any. All of these planes seem to be a fair bit more stable to rapid maneuvers that would stall another plane and flip it around.

Well, if you take any of the other planes with slats (e.g. any of the 109s) and banked it 90deg and yank back on the stick hard, the 109 will tumble and spin soon enough. The 262 will not do it no matter how rough you are.

Daiichidoku
07-14-2007, 12:43 PM
Steinhoff said most pilots with any brains would, once having taken off, set the throttle to 80% (mil power) and friction lock it in place, and never touch it again until let-down

Waldo.Pepper
07-14-2007, 01:06 PM
I think it may have been Adolf Galland who mention setting the throttles and leaving them.

Here is an extract on handling of the Me-262 from from Wings of the Luftwaffe - by Eric Brown.

Note what he says about lowering the landing gear at 500kmph -

"Gerd Lindner had told me that he had dived the Me 262 up to Mach 0-86, although above Mach 0-83 the research dives had been performed under strict control. Before take-off the elevator trim had been set by the aerodynamicists and not touched in flight other than in cases of dire emergency. Apparently the aircraft was dived from about 26,250 ft (8 000 m) at an angle between 20 and 25 deg until 620 mph (1 000 km/h) TAS was achieved at about 19,685 ft (6 000 m). At Mach 0-83 the nose started to drop and it was necessary to apply some 30 Ib (14 kg) of pull on the stick with both hands. As the Mach number increased a violent buffeting set in, apparently coming from the aft portion of the cockpit canopy and producing an extremely alarming high-frequency banging. The aircraft meanwhile became progressively heavier in the nose, the stick pull necessary at Mach 0-86 increasing to about 100 Ib (45 kg). Recovery was effected by holding the dive angle steady until the Mach number automatically reduced with the decreasing altitude.

On the strength of these tests, the Luftwaffe pilots had been instructed not to exceed an airspeed of 596 mph (960 km h) below 26.250 ft (8 000 m), more than 560 mph (900 km, h) being considered inadvisable above that altitude. They were also advised to set the elevator trimmer so that a slight initial push was required to enter a dive, and that the trimmer should not be used as an aid to recovery. Nevertheless, these instructions were sometimes forgotten in the heat of combat, and accidents happened.

Sinuous propensity

I carried out high Mach dives on the Me 262 up to a maximum of Mach 0'84, and these fully confirmed all Gerd Lindner's observations. The important thing, however, was that I had ascertained the tactical usability of the Me 262 up to Mach 0'82, and this capability had undoubtedly endowed Messerschmitt's fighter with a marked advantage over every other operational aircraft of WW II.

One of the flight characteristics plaguing early jet aircraft was the phenomenon known as directional snaking. Its probable cause was recognised as being airflow separation just forward of the tail section, this giving rise to a small-amplitude, short-period yawing oscillation. This compressibility effect did, of course, seriously impair the aircraft's tactical use as a stable gun platform, and we at Farnborough had experienced severe snaking trouble with the Meteor I above Mach 0-7. The attempts that were made to sort out this problem on the Meteor I make quite a saga, the problem of high Mach snaking being compounded by another undesirable form of sinuosity, rough air snaking, which seriously limited the Meteor's tactical use in the ground attack role.

Interrogation of Lindner had revealed an almost identical story of a lengthy trial-and-error process in attempting to eliminate the Me 262's tendency to snake. It had been ascertained that rough air snaking was due to a lack of effective fin area which was inherent in the design. Since the destabilising effect of the airscrew was missing, it had evidently seemed apparent that fin area could be reduced for a given stability, but in fact the loss of resultant damping had proved excessive. The Me 262's snaking characteristics had improved when the top third of the fin-and-rudder assembly had been removed, but the loss in rudder power had increased the single-engine safety speed to 200 mph (320 km/h), so this modification had been found unacceptable. We had had similar results with an identical modification to the Meteor I, although these had not been quite so successful, as the nose of the Gloster fighter was much shorter than that of the Me 262 which acted as a counteracting fin, and made up for some of the loss of damping resulting from reduction of the tail fin area.

The high Mach snaking had been found to be due to induced rudder oscillation caused by variation in rudder hinge movement which tended to move the rudder to overbalance direction. The best way of combating this effect was by use of rudder auto stabilisation, as we discovered with the Meteor after the war had ended, but German experimentation had not progressed that far. The German development programme had gone no further than the thickening of the trailing edge of the fin-and-rudder assembly and the provision of strips of sheet metal which were bent outwards along this edge. The overall effect was better than that obtained with the Meteor 1 but inferior to that of the little Heinkel He 162.

The normal range of flight characteristics from acrobatic manoeuvres to the stall revealed the Me 262 as a very responsive and docile aeroplane, leaving one with a confident impression of a first-class combat aircraft for both fighter and ground attack roles. Harmony of control was pleasant, with a stick force per g of 6 Ib (2,72 kg) at mid cc position and a roll rate of 360 deg in 3'8 sec at 400 mph (645 km/h) at 5,000 ft (1 525 m). Maximum speed attainable in level flight on one engine was about 310 mph (500 km/h), and this called for application of one-third full rudder.

For landing the undercarriage could be lowered at 310 mph (500 km/h), but it was preferable to reduce speed to 250 mph (400 km/h) and throttle back to 5,000 rpm, thus counteracting the nose-up trim change as the wheels came down. I found it best, after lowering the undercarriage, to open up to 6,000-7,000 rpm and lower the flaps 20 deg at about 225 mph (350 km/h), turning in at ! 85 mph (300 km/h). When on finals it was advisable to apply full flap at 155 mph (250 km/h), reducing speed to 125 mph (200 km/h) for crossing the airfield boundary. The Me 262's landing run was long and was always accompanied by that unpleasant suspicion of fading brakes that one had with all German aircraft of the period. Lindner's distrust of the Jumo turbojets was obvious from his recommendation to approach high and steep, sideslipping in to land, but 1 found this technique to result in vigorous buffeting, and it was certainly not to be recommended as an operational practice.

That, then, was the Me 262, variously known as the Schwalbe and the Sturmvogel. But whatever the appellation, it was in my view unquestionably the foremost warplane of its day; a hard hitter which outperformed anything that we had immediately available but which, fortunately for the Allies, was not available to the Luftwaffe in sufficient numbers to affect drastically the course of events in the air over Europe. It was a pilot's aeroplane which had to be flown and not just heaved into the air. Basically underpowered and fitted with engines sufficiently lacking in reliability to keep the adrenalin flowing, it was thoroughly exciting to fly, and particularly so in view of its lack of an ejector seat. I was reminded vividly of this aircraft when I first flew the F-4 Phantom some 20 years later. This later-generation US aircraft offered its pilot that same feeling of sheer exhilaration, but the Phantom possessed the added attractions of safety and reliability which perhaps kept the pulse at a somewhat lower tempo than it attained when flying the Me 262 in those now-distant days of 1945."

Rood-Zwart
07-15-2007, 02:59 PM
In game, you can jam the throttle as fast as you want, as long as your engines are doing 8000+ rpm http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

mortoma
07-15-2007, 05:54 PM
Originally posted by Rood-Zwart:
In game, you can jam the throttle as fast as you want, as long as your engines are doing 8000+ rpm http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif I thought it was 6000RPM and above!?!? About 48% thottle as reported by the throttle info ( on the right middle of screen ). Though many turn that info off due to it not being realistic. At least that's what I remember from flying it.

luftluuver
07-15-2007, 06:39 PM
Originally posted by mortoma:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Rood-Zwart:
In game, you can jam the throttle as fast as you want, as long as your engines are doing 8000+ rpm http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif I thought it was 6000RPM and above!?!? About 48% thottle as reported by the throttle info ( on the right middle of screen ). Though many turn that info off due to it not being realistic. At least that's what I remember from flying it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Correct, 6000rpm and above.

Not sure if it made into production a/c but a new control was developed that would allow the pilot to move the throttle as rapidly as he wanted to from much less rpm.

VW-IceFire
07-15-2007, 07:10 PM
Originally posted by ake109:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
I think this is a common issue with any plane that has leading edge slats which includes the 262, 109, late versions of the LaGG-3, La-5 through La-7...not sure if I'm missing any. All of these planes seem to be a fair bit more stable to rapid maneuvers that would stall another plane and flip it around.

Well, if you take any of the other planes with slats (e.g. any of the 109s) and banked it 90deg and yank back on the stick hard, the 109 will tumble and spin soon enough. The 262 will not do it no matter how rough you are. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Thats because it doesn't have (or isn't modeled with) enough elevator authority at speed to do that sort of thing.

Kettenhunde
07-15-2007, 07:20 PM
Apparently the aircraft was dived from about 26,250 ft (8 000 m) at an angle between 20 and 25 deg until 620 mph (1 000 km/h) TAS was achieved at about 19,685 ft (6 000 m).

Wonder what the atmospheric model was this was recorded under?

In the NACA standard atmosphere of 1956, the most common in use for aerodynamics, 620mphTAS at 19685ft is Mach 1.004.

All the best,

Crumpp

blakduk
07-15-2007, 08:58 PM
Originally posted by Daiichidoku:
Steinhoff said most pilots with any brains would, once having taken off, set the throttle to 80% (mil power) and friction lock it in place, and never touch it again until let-down
I would have to say that's exactly the same way i fly the plane in this sim. It doesnt have good acceleration, it's fast but bleeds energy in hard manoveures and the engines are prone to breaking if the throttle gets swung too hard.
The strength of this sim is that i fly the Me262 this way through trial and error- i'd say the modelling is spot on.
It's a benign plane to fly because it doesnt have the torque of a prop, it has a tricycle undercarriage, and the major flaw of the plane is the lack of an ejector seat (which is not a big problem in a sim).

My only complaint about the modelling in the sim is the tendency for the autopilot to throttle back. If i switch the autopilot off without putting the throttle on my joystick back to 50% the engines flameout and die http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif
I know, i shouldn't be so lazy- but i'm a kid and this is a game http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

ake109
07-16-2007, 01:36 AM
Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ake109:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
I think this is a common issue with any plane that has leading edge slats which includes the 262, 109, late versions of the LaGG-3, La-5 through La-7...not sure if I'm missing any. All of these planes seem to be a fair bit more stable to rapid maneuvers that would stall another plane and flip it around.

Well, if you take any of the other planes with slats (e.g. any of the 109s) and banked it 90deg and yank back on the stick hard, the 109 will tumble and spin soon enough. The 262 will not do it no matter how rough you are. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Thats because it doesn't have (or isn't modeled with) enough elevator authority at speed to do that sort of thing. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, the damn thing can turn pretty tight at speed if the stick is yanked back while doing a slight nose-dip. Enough to black out within seconds.

Elevator authority aside, the slatted props will still spin out even if you don't pull back too hard, but hold it in a tight turn long enough. The Me-262 will never spin out no matter what I do (as long as no parts are blown off).

In fact, has anybody ever managed to get the Turbo into a spin in game? Any real life accounts?

And yeah, in game, its just like what the real pilot's wrote, keep the speed up and nothing touches you (not even IL2 AI bomber gunners). The latest 4.08 patch seems to make the Jumos more sensitive to overheating, but 90% throttle is still enough to outrace everything. Not sure how realistic the game engine modelling is. Did the real Jumo004 allow the pilot to yank the throttle all over as long as it was >6000rpm?