Messerschmitt Me 262.

Been thinking about that L-39 & Me262 comparison some more Yo-Yo and I have to say that I see two very different aircraft.

Sure the thrust to weight ratio is about the same for both aircraft, but other than that I really don't see the resemblance, and for the following reasons:

Dimensions: The Me262 features a lightly swept high aspect ratio wing equipped with full span LE slats, where'as the L-39 features a very low aspect ratio wing without any LE devices.

Performance: The Me262 is as mentioned 120-150 km/h faster at most altitudes, and it also boasts a climb rate at normal combat load (6400 kg) which noticably higher at over 5,000 ft/min.

Now considering the rough parity in thrust it becomes rather obvious that the by comparison rather large disparity in overall performance obviously is the result of the dimensional differences mentioned above. These dimensional differences no doubt also leads to two aircraft that fly very differently.

As such I'm abit confused as to why you say they are very similar, esp. as I'd consider the two to behave very differently in the air? :)

PS: Apologies if I over analysed your comment, I just thought the two aircraft to be a curious comparison :)

Random failures through the mission editor could be a way of doing that, I think last time I check it didnt work right in MP, have to check again, but many things can level the playing field, or atleast field a more realistic experience...

Hmm, I just doubt random failures are very realistic, I mean supposedly the engines were rotated with new ones before any risk of actual breakdowns.

To be more specific:

It is true that early Jumo 004 engines were pretty unreliable and usually only lasted 10 hours before performance started dropping and part failures were a concern, and most of this due to vibration issues caused by turbine blade harmonics.

The later Jumo 004 engines, the B3 & B4, however were said to run reliably and smooth with no deterioration in performance within the established 25-50 hour service life.

The only real mechanical problem/limitation, one which plagued all early jet engines, was the spool up time and inability to cope with fast throttle changes. But this wasn't a part failure/reliability issue, it was a user error issue, one which for the Jumo 004 was eliminated with the throttle regulator system for the B4 in late 44.

In the end by far the biggest problem for the 262 was the lack of trained pilots to fly it, as well as the low number available to counter the massive amount of allied aircraft in the skies.

I also think it would be very wrong to try and artificially balance the aircraft by giving one handicaps that a new example wouldn't have just to give the other aircraft a better chance against it. Instead the ones concerned about historical accuracy could simply limit the number of available 262s on a server to reflect a realistic disparity in numbers.

I dunno, it would be something worth trying I suppose, after all, whats the fun in always flying in a mechanically sound aircraft :)

Well true, but it would have to apply to all the aircraft then :)

That having been said, whilst it does sound fun and immersive having to deal with random system failures/breakdowns, esp. cause they happen to every aircraft at some point, it rarely turns out to actually be the case ingame - esp. in multiplayer, where it mostly just pisses people off :P (at least thats my experience with people in games which have such features)

I would like those random failures. For all planes then. Frequency bound to the historic reliability of the particular planes. Would be at least one thing where the Pony pilot could smile :)

I would like those random failures. For all planes then. Frequency bound to the historic reliability of the particular planes. Would be at least one thing where the Pony pilot could smile :)

I believe you can set the chance for these before flight.

Looking at the F-86E & F and Me262A1 manuals I notice a striking similarity in landing and stalling speeds despite a noticable wing loading difference. The Me262 obviously benefits from a lower wing sweep angle and higher AR wing, but I didn't predict it would be by that much.

F-86E @ 6758 kg

Stalling speed (flap & gear down): 194 km/h

Lift off speed: 194 km/h

Me262 @ 6400 kg (6900 kg full fuel load)

Stalling speed (flap & gear down): 180 km/h (202 km/h)

Lift off speed: 180 km/h (202 km/h)

Full fuel load for the 262 is a massive 2400 Liters.

What's not to like about the Me 262?

I have many books about it. I have built many models of it. Lord Frank of Whittle, please forgive me, but this is the only aircraft I would sit in which has swastikas on the tail.

That's the only thing I don't like about it. The swastikas.

That's the only thing I don't like about it. The swastikas.

Your safe then. ED doesn't do swastikas. ;)

Your safe then. ED doesn't do swastikas. ;)

I know. And nor does anyone else. Because of course, if anyone sees one, they will start doing really bad things.

I've yet to see the empirical evidence which leads people to believe this, and I expect to wait a long time.....(sigh).......

I know. And nor does anyone else. Because of course, if anyone sees one, they will start doing really bad things.

Not to stray OT here, but the reason is because they want to sell their products in Germany. :)

Your safe then. ED doesn't do swastikas. ;)

So, historical accuracy set to maximum... unless it involves connotations of historical nastiness. :huh:

Mind you, surely that's a charge that could be levelled at *all* warplanes - regardless of faction and/or era?

I suppose it depends which you find more offensive: flying a pretend aircraft sporting a funny-looking cross, or flying a pretend aircraft that was used to drop sticky-fire on people...

Not to stray OT here, but the reason is because they want to sell their products in Germany. :)

Ah. Fair point. :)

So, historical accuracy set to maximum... unless it involves connotations of historical nastiness. :huh:

 

Mind you, surely that's a charge that could be levelled at *all* warplanes - regardless of faction and/or era?

 

I suppose it depends which you find more offensive: flying a pretend aircraft sporting a funny-looking cross, or flying a pretend aircraft that was used to drop sticky-fire on people...

Let's not drift further from the thread topic. This subject was already hashed out very thoroughly in another thread (probably closed) back when the whole WWII project began being discussed.

The similarity of L-39 and Me-262 i meant is not in exact performance similarity but in the main dynamic charachteristics behaviour. They both have linear slope of climb rate vs altitude and the climb rate itself is not very different, they both have lack of thrust in low speed area, so, prone to be risky in the range below the climb speed. They have relatively low max speed increasing vs altitude. And they both can outrun any prop fighter in DCS.

So, if somebody wants to train tactics vs Mustangs - they can try.

I still see a significant difference that will come as a nasty surprise to any Mustang pilot who believes that once he's mastered countering the L-39 he's in good shape against an Me262.

For one the acceleration of the Me262 at typical combat load will be higher (Me262 outperformed the P-80 here as well), esp. due to the rather large disparity in drag which also permits the Me262 a considerably higher top speed.

Top speeds

Me262: 840+ km/h @ SL, 870+ km/h @ FTH (*)

L-39: 700 km/h @ SL, 750 km/h @ FTH

(*) Average speed of serial production aircraft established through test flights by the RLM at fully laden weight of 7,130 kg. At typical combat weight British test pilot Eric Brown managed 914 km/h in 1945.

Then there's climb rate, the Me262's climb rate at a typical combat load of 6,400 kg is over 5,000 ft/min (3,900 ft/min @ 7,130 kg & ~4,500 @ 6,900 kg w/ B2/3), with an optimum climbing speed of 430-450 km/h. In other words over 1,000 ft/min faster than the L-39 at 4,035 ft/min.

Also I expect a noticable difference will be felt in terms of the Me262's better energy retention during maneuvers as well as an ability to carry out maneuvers more sharply in comparison to the L-39 at the same speeds, and this thanks in great part to the LE slats and much higher AR wing. I.e. the Me262 experiences no real fall off in CL at speed. The 262's 10 deg flap setting will no doubt also be of great use during combat.

In addition to this the 262's greater mass will be of benefit when wanting to regain any lost speed, or during zoom climbs.

All of the above things will make flying let alone facing the Me262 a very different experience from that of the L-39, esp. when flying near the edge where the Me262 will be a lot more forgiving.

First of all it's performance differed depending on the engines and - this is relevant for late war - production quality. With the Jumo 004 B-1 the 262 had noticeably worse performance than with the later B-2 and B-3s, which although introduced in late 1944/early 1945 could not replace the B-1s altogether due to production and material shortages.

It's climb performance was good at low altitudes (25-30 m/s at SL) but decreased rapidly with altitude. At 3km+ the Bf-109 outclimbed it and at typical WW2 combat alts even P-51 surpassed the 262 in climb performance.

It's low acceleration characteristics at high speed combined with a Takeoff weight of nearly 7t and bad manouvrebility (it had a slow and sluggish roll rate) means that combat is strechted over large distances. So it should be pretty simple to avoid getting hit by an incoming 262 if you have sufficient situational awareness.

The maximum TO weight was 6900kg. No idea where you got such a high number nor the information that germans tested performance with such overload, which wouldn't even make sense since it's far higher than usual combat weight.

Btw. Max speed for the 262 with B-1 engines was 790km/h at SL and 850km/h at ~ 6km. The B-2 and B-3 increased it qiute a bit but not greatly.

First of all it's performance differed depending on the engines and - this is relevant for late war - production quality. With the Jumo 004 B-1 the 262 had noticeably worse performance than with the later B-2 and B-3s, which although introduced in late 1944/early 1945 could not replace the B-1s altogether due to production and material shortages.

 

It's climb performance was good at low altitudes (25-30 m/s at SL) but decreased rapidly with altitude. At 3km+ the Bf-109 outclimbed it and at typical WW2 combat alts even P-51 surpassed the 262 in climb performance.

 

It's low acceleration characteristics at high speed combined with a Takeoff weight of nearly 7t and bad manouvrebility (it had a slow and sluggish roll rate) means that combat is strechted over large distances. So it should be pretty simple to avoid getting hit by an incoming 262 if you have sufficient situational awareness.

 

The maximum TO weight was 6900kg. No idea where you got such a high number nor the information that germans tested performance with such overload, which wouldn't even make sense since it's far higher than usual combat weight.

 

Btw. Max speed for the 262 with B-1 engines was 790km/h at SL and 850km/h at ~ 6km. The B-2 and B-3 increased it qiute a bit but not greatly.

Not sure where you've got all that from but it's not correct. (I'm guessing you've been looking at some of the first RAF flights with a worn and underperforming 262 and He162 however)

First of all the B-2 engines were ready already in early 1944, also most 262's infact flew with the B3 engines, and a good chunk with the B4's.

Secondly Me262 performance was never 750 km/h at SL, the RLM tested 125 production aircraft and established an average top speed of 840 km/h at SL and 870 km/h at FTH with the B2 & B3 engines, and that at a fully laden weight without bombs of 7,130 kg. The same tests established an average climb rate of 3,900 ft/min at the same 7,130 kg.

At typical combat load of 6,400 kg this performance naturally increased significantly with climb rate exceeding 5,000 ft/min and top speed reaching 900+ km/h, as found by Eric "Wrinkle" Brown in 1945 where he reached 568 mph in level flight.

Also above ~450 km/h the Me262 accelerated faster than any prop fighter as the jet engines didn't loose thrust.

Finally the myth that the Me262 couldn't turn is just that, a myth. Keep in mind that the Me262 featured a lower stalling speed than the F-86 Sabre, and I don't believe anyone considers this a poor turning aircraft. Sure it couldn't turn with a prop fighter at slow speeds, but beither could the Sabre, or most any other jet for that matter. However at high speeds the Me262 could turn as tight as the pilot could stand and more, plus hold its speed better than any prop fighter whilst doing it thanks to a cleaner design and the higher thrust provided by the jet engines at these speeds.

With higher maneuvering speeds however also comes higher G's, as Kurt Welter found out in his first flight in the A1:

"the g force in my first turn at speed was significantly higher than I had experienced in traditional propeller aircraft, and this forced concentration"

Thus keeping track of your speed in the Me262 or Sabre and never stray below 500 km/h and you can overcome the prop jobs quite easily.

Yea you have a single sheet with data on a totally factory fresh and cleaned fuselage - must be the only truth.

- 5000 ft/min = 25m/s. I did not satate anything different...

- we are talking about the Me 262 A-1 here I assume, which didn't have bombs. Max. Takeoff weight is 6900kg.

- no confirmation about RLM tests with 7130kg OVERLOADED machine -> myth (until proven right)

- my data is mostly based on german tests and Jumo engine documents. Don't know where some of your very questionable claims derive from.

- it's a 7 ton airplane with high wing laoding....yea it will turn good for sure

Anyway it's up to you what to believe and not. Just be prepared to face an unexpected suprise if eventually the DCS Me 262 arrives with B1 engines.

that single sheet of data shows the mean avarage of 125 serial production me 262s.

In other words it is, by a very wide margin, the most reliable data of all WW2 fighters.

Also note that the Me 262 climbed pretty well, but the main point is that it climbed at some 200 kph faster than propeller jobs.

that single sheet of data shows the mean avarage of 125 serial production me 262s.

 

In other words it is, by a very wide margin, the most reliable data of all WW2 fighters.

 

Also note that the Me 262 climbed pretty well, but the main point is that it climbed at some 200 kph faster than propeller jobs.

Don't expect him to realize that.

I'm also curious what sources he has, so far I see none.