Military: And it flies again.....

[GoatChomper]

http://www.stormbirds.com/project/general/updates.htm

[Moe_Rahn]

Oh maaaaaaaaaaannnn.

That is Steven Seagal in Above The Lawesome.

[gYmBaG]

that looks nice, how fast does that thing go? i mean it is probably one of the first jet planes, so im guessing it cant go that fast

[Enders]

wasn't that plane in a couple of battles against allie planes? Nothing big, but just before the end of the war.

[Prowl]

Hitler for some dumb reason deployed them as fighter bombers rather than air superiority, which handicapped them and prevented them from ever having the impact they could have had. Top speed of around 540mph for the me262 was faster than prop planes, but not massively so, 450mph could be reached by a later mark Spitfire or the US P-38 lightning

[Airborne506]

Interesting note, I believe Chuck Yeager shot 1 or 2 ME-262's down. He caught it coming in to land at an airfield and dove for the kill. There's a historical aviation assoc. at the local airbase and they have a restored 2 seat trainer version and I've seen it up close. Very neat plane.

[Karaya1]

The Me262 was used as a fighter from mid 44 until the end in limited amounts. But yea, mainly as a fighter bomber. Really just a too little too late thing. While untouchable at combat altitudes and at its capible speeds the 262's acceleration was not all that, climb wasnt all that and it certaintly wasn't as good a turner as the allied props. When 262'S were downed it was generally when they were taking off and climbing to altitude or decending for landing. Still the most advanced fighter of the war though, unquestionably. Plus, that 30mm cannon could rip bombers up bad.

The Fw190 and Bf109 were still the main fighters in Germany'S arsenal until the end of the war. All the top aces in the history of air combat flew 109's almost exclusively. Lead by Eric Hartmann, 352 kills, fucking rediculous. 2nd place is like 302 kills or something. There were over 10 German aces in the 109 with over 200 A2A kills. Pretty impressive. If you want a good read check out Hartmanns biography, The Blond Knight of Germany. It'S pretty cool.

[Milkman Dan]

The Me262 is such a sexy jet plane.

Top speed of around 540mph for the me262 was faster than prop planes, but not massively so, 450mph could be reached by a later mark Spitfire or the US P-38 lightning
Yeah, but that 110 MPH gap can make a big difference in a battle.

[GrosPoisson]

Really just a too little too late thing.

That seems to be the story of all German weapons development during the latter years; Me 262, MP-44, Tiger and King Tiger tanks, and so on.

[Mr.P]

Actually 110 mph is MASSIVE difference when you're still using machine guns and not missiles. The Me262 was nearly invulnerable to enemy fighters when it was in its element. Most fighters at the time had their machine guns set to converge at 2-400 yards max, so if you couldn't get that close, you couldn't take accurate shots.

[troutie]

well, as Prowl pointed it, it was flawed little by little by hitler's decision to make it a bomber (real pity, that thing with these four nasty mk108 30mm canons was a born interceptor), his engine lifespan was way too short (we read about 20 hours service time) and was tricky as hell (lower throttle too quick at high alt, flame out, raise throttle, it caught fire, etc), take off and landing were critical as well. But it displayed an avant-garde design etc etc that would soon impress allies during the post war trials.

Diminished production capacity, always shrinking ammount of experten (who were obviously the best suited to pilot these) etc...

too little too late! We should learn a lot more with that replica :D

[Mystrick]

Me 262, nice plane. Lots of faults though, especially the engines.

If Hitler would have given it time for testing of the engines instead of rushing it into production, massive difference, especially to B-17 squadrons. That 30mm canon coupled with the 20mm would do massive damage (SPR anyone?)

Remember too, the Me 262 wouldn't fly alone, it'd join up with Me 109 and FW 190 squadrons, coupled with the tactics they had of taking out the bombers, serious damage.

But, all in history.

[Mr.P]

Me 262, nice plane. Lots of faults though, especially the engines.

Not really lots of faults, pretty much JUST the engines. The airframe itself was almost perfect for the available engine power. Keep in mind, the Mustang was a fairly crappy plane until it finally got a good power plant in the Merlin. Doesn't mean the plane was full of faults, just waiting for the right power plant.

[SWATJester_os]

In its element being the key thing. It couldn't turn and burn like a mk 9 spit, or a me 109. It COULD boom and zoom, like a FW190, or a mustang. however, force it into a turning fight and it was outclassed and easily destroyed.

BTW they were apparently used in the korean war, as I hear.

[Mr.P]

It couldn't turn and burn because of the engines though. If you have slow acceleration, as the early jet engines did, you're not going to get good turn rate. With proper engines I think the 262 could have remained in service well into the Korean war as a capable fighter. Hell, it was probably a fair deal better then the P-80.

[vecdran]

Glad to see it flying again. I know it's not completely realistic, but I remember flying that thing in IL-2 Sturmovik with full realism on, it's a real pain in the ass to fly :O I must've blown the engines about 30 times before I was finally able to take off, and then 30 more times while dogfighting.

[Memorex]

thats sweet

[SWATJester_os]

It couldn't turn and burn because of the engines though. If you have slow acceleration, as the early jet engines did, you're not going to get good turn rate. With proper engines I think the 262 could have remained in service well into the Korean war as a capable fighter. Hell, it was probably a fair deal better then the P-80.

It couldn't turn and burn because faster aircraft have a larger turn radius.

[Mr.P]

It couldn't turn and burn because faster aircraft have a larger turn radius.

Not inherently. The problem was that the 262 couldn't slow down to make those turns, and then get back up to speed. Whether or not the airframe itself could have managed tight turns, well, perhaps we'll get to see now :)

[SWATJester_os]

it is an inherent issue. If you take a cessna 152 and an f16, the cessna will turn in a tighter radius than the f16 simply because it's going slower. That is one of the principles of flight...it has little to do with the airframe, rather, with the engine. And then secondarily, with the wings.

[Mr.P]

Its going slower because it can't go faster, and the F-16 can't turn in that radius because its wing wasn't designed to be effecient at slow speed.

A Sidewinder missile, going mach 3, could turn in a SMALLER radius then a Cesna though. It has nothing to do with the velocity, just the airframe and the engine's ability to accelrate out of the turn. The reason a fighter jet going speed can't make Cesna like turns is because the pilot would black out, or simply die.

A Mustang could go twice the speed of a Liberator, but I bet could out turn it.

[SWATJester_os]

Listen....you're ignoring the point.

2 airframes, identical in every way, one going 200kts the other going 400kts....the 200 knot one will outturn the 400knot one every time. It is a matter of the laws of physics and aerodynamics. I'm a pilot, I'm pretty well aware of how aerodynamics works.

[Mystrick]

Swat hit it on the nail.

You also compared a North American P-51D Mustang to a Consolidated B-24D Liberator.

1) P-51 is a Air superiority fighter, it's meant to make turns like that.
2) B-24 is a Heavy bomber (heavier than the B-17 [carry more loads]) and it can no way in hell turn like a P-51.
3) An F16 will have a wider turn radius because it's keeping the constant speed (fast) while it's turning, a Cessna 150 will turn quicker because it's keeping the constant speed (slow) while it's turning.

As pictured here: (not to scale, planes not drawn right, etc)

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y232/Mystrick/pic143.jpg

[Mr.P]

How is me comparing a Mustang to a Liberator any more ludicrous then comparing a F-16 to a Cessna?.....

Yes, I understand the phsyics of it, but it all gets back to my original argument that the airframe on the 262 MIGHT be able to keep pace in turn and burn if it had better, modern engines. The 262 was hardly any larger, and had excellent aerodynamics for a plane of the time. Its speed means nothing, because, guess what, it can SLOW DOWN 100mph and go the same pace as a Spitfire, etc.

Basically, all I'm trying ot say is, velocity has NOTHING to do with the picture when you're talking about different airframes. The 262 is different then ANY aircraft of its period, and its ability to turn and fight was limited by its ENGINES, not the airframe. So.....who knows? Maybe re-fitted, and with proper engines, it COULD have kept pace turning with the high end piston fighters.

[solidsnake]

How is me comparing a Mustang to a Liberator any more ludicrous then comparing a F-16 to a Cessna?.....

Yes, I understand the phsyics of it, but it all gets back to my original argument that the airframe on the 262 MIGHT be able to keep pace in turn and burn if it had better, modern engines. The 262 was hardly any larger, and had excellent aerodynamics for a plane of the time. Its speed means nothing, because, guess what, it can SLOW DOWN 100mph and go the same pace as a Spitfire, etc.

Basically, all I'm trying ot say is, velocity has NOTHING to do with the picture when you're talking about different airframes. The 262 is different then ANY aircraft of its period, and its ability to turn and fight was limited by its ENGINES, not the airframe. So.....who knows? Maybe re-fitted, and with proper engines, it COULD have kept pace turning with the high end piston fighters.


I hate to break it too you but engines dont make planes turn. secondly if you try turning while going too fast you will black out and your wings will break off from the g force.

[Mystrick]

And plus, the Me 262's engines where big and bulky for it's size (about the same size as a P-51) which would cause drag and stress over the airframe.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

[Moe_Rahn]

Glad to see it flying again. I know it's not completely realistic, but I remember flying that thing in IL-2 Sturmovik with full realism on, it's a real pain in the ass to fly :O I must've blown the engines about 30 times before I was finally able to take off, and then 30 more times while dogfighting.
Oh god, I remember that. I had to always throttle up the Me-262 really slow, because if I just jacked it up all the way right off the bat, my engines would blow and I'd just coast down the runway. Although it was interesting to purposefully blow the engines while airborne at full speed, and see how long you could glide.

[Wallrod]

I hate to break it too you but engines dont make planes turn. secondly if you try turning while going too fast you will black out and your wings will break off from the g force.
Pay attention to the discussion. It was established that it's turning ability was limited by the engines' inability to decelerate (and accelerate out of a fight) quickly and safely in order to match speeds needed to turn as tight as other fighters of the time. It was only able to do fast passes on slower targets. A better engine that allowed that would have made it possible for the 262 to engage in lower speed, manouverability-based combat.

[GoatChomper]

A Sidewinder missile, going mach 3, could turn in a SMALLER radius then a Cesna though.
Uhh, no. Notice that when the target is unable to extend away from a fight, a maximum-performance turn into the missile is the preferred tactic.

[Mr.P]

Preferred tactic less because of the missiles turning radius, and more that the missile's tracking system relies on a "where will it be" logic. A sudden change in direction causes the tracking computer to suddenly figure out an entire new heading very quickly or else lose the target. That, and turning to face a heat-seaking missile turns your engines, and thus the hottest point of the aircraft, AWAY from the missile presenting a smaller heat signature, along with laying an unpredictable trail of counter-measures. All this and its not a garauntee that the missile wont tag you, it just improves your chances. Modern missiles CAN make extremely quick turns. The AMRAAM can be fired at targets that aren't even in front of the aircraft, but to the sides and even slightly behind in some situations.

Oh well, at least Wallrod seems to know where I'm coming from, perhaps I just haven't articulated my argument well enough for everyone else.

[GoatChomper]

Preferred tactic less because of the missiles turning radius, and more that the missile's tracking system relies on a "where will it be" logic.
Negative. A brief instruction on how the Sidewinder acquistion and tracking system works.....

Ever seen a video of a Sidewinder in flight? Notice the distinctive corkscrewing displayed by the exhaust trail. That's because the thermocouple that comprises the seeker unit rotates at a high speed and constantly adjusts the missile's vector to center the perceived circle of light that is the target's thermal source.
That, and turning to face a heat-seaking missile turns your engines, and thus the hottest point of the aircraft, AWAY from the missile presenting a smaller heat signature.....
That's no longer quite the case with post-1980 Sidewinders.....we're now using all-aspect ones with sensors discriminating enough to use the thermal signature generated by the engine intakes or even the target's leading surfaces if heated enough by air friction.

[Mr.P]

Well, that, and modern Sidewinders don't "sidewind", that was a feature prevalent on the early models.

And while the seaker issue isnt' always the case with modern sidewinders, I can't imagine the USA going up against a country using modern sidewinder missiles......

Russian heat seakers continue to use compartively older technology as they focused more on radar guided missiles, same with the Chinese. So yes, it makes sense to train American pilots to still turn towards missiles. Most of the missiles used around the world are pre-late 80s technology.

[gYmBaG]

i love the visual mystick lol :p also, any of you who took calculous? if you havnt, maybe you should, it will help you sort all this out

[Mr.P]

i love the visual mystick lol :p also, any of you who took calculous? if you havnt, maybe you should, it will help you sort all this out

Yes, sadly, lol........

[SWATJester_os]

yeah. I love the to scale high-wing cessna ;)

[Mystrick]

:D

That's the only part I put a lot of time into ;)