262 durability ?

[Hristo]

What is your experience regarding 262's durability ?

IMO, it doesn't take much to blow up or lose parts. AFAIK, it was built using quite many steel components instead of aluminium.

Or is it flying tanks of gas syndrome ?

Any thoughts ?

[Dr Zhivago]

Me262  had armored front window glass and an armored seat back, so its more likely flying gas tank...

[Hortlund]

In my experience, the 262 is as fragile as a small paper bag. One ping will take something off.

Yesterday I was in a 262 and a p51 got on my 6 about D 1.0 out. Naturally he was spraying like a madman, and I was constantly moving around to avoid being an easy target. I heard one ping, and I cant have been hit by that many bullets since I must have flown through his spray-stream of bullets. BAM, engine 1 & 2 oil gone. I could almost hear the P51 jock wet himself with excitement since I was now trailing black smoke from both engines. I managed to get away and land on one engine though (apparently the engines leak oil att different rates).

SO here is a big to the bish P51D pilot who was over A78 yesterday and pinged a knight 262. Better luck next time.

[Hristo]

You did bad. In 262 it is very easy to deny a shot to just about anybody.

j/k, of course. The ability to stay untouchable should not be an arbitrary factor to the 262 durability.

[LLv34_Snefens]

"Apparently the engines leak oil att different rates."[/b]

This is not specific about the 262, but when you get an oil leak it is random from time to time, at what rate you are loosing oil. Find the oil pressure gauge and see how quickly it drops. Sometimes you can go on for several minutes, other times it's only a matter of seconds.
__________________
Ltn. Snefens
Lentolaivue 34
My AH homepage

[Mathman]

AFAIK, the 262 was fairly vulnerable to gunfire.  The engines were its Achilles Heel.  We are talking about a piece of cutting edge equipment that was using rather embryonic engines made when there was a lack of proper resources available.  If a bird getting sucked into a modern jet engine can cause catastrophic damage, what do you think a couple .50 cal bullets are going to do to the early jet engines of the mid 40's?

As far as other parts of the aircraft, I couldn't begin to say whether it was more or less likely to lose parts if hit.

[superpug1]

I think that the p51 was lucky. If im flyin a 262 and theres another plane on my 6 i just nose down and hit 500. have a few drinks then turn and stray his tail with some good oold 30mm rounds. and remember I only need a couple o shots.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[HoHun]

Hi Hristo,

>AFAIK, it was built using quite many steel components instead of aluminium.

Good point: While the Me 109 consisted of 95% light alloys, the Me 262 had the precentage reduced to just 55%.

The Me 262 was well armoured, too: It was protected by 196 kg (432 lbs) of armour plate. For comparison: The P-38 - similar in being a twin-engined single-seat fighter - carried 330 lbs of armour.

Jet engines by design were much more resistant to battle damage than piston engines since they lacked extensive radiator and oil cooling systems that were the achilles heels of piston engines. They ran without the auxiliary systems (like the ignition gear) that were indispensable for piston engines, and the jet engine itself consisted of very few moving parts that were difficult to damage critically.

The Korean War demonstrated the high durability of jets very well. Though the USAF fighters' heavy machine guns were considerably improved over the WW2 versions, and though they had a ballistically ideal centre-line battery, the MiGs were capable of absorbing much more damage than the WW2 piston fighters could and still return home. As a consequence, the USAF battle-tested 20 mm cannon (Project GUNVAL) and generally adopted them for future fighters.

In short: The Me 262 had a durable structure with a large percentage of steel components, it was well armoured, and its jet engines were able to withstand battle damage better than piston engines could. On top of that, it had two of them :-)

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

[Urchin]

It is a 'gameplay concession'.. I asked either Superfly or Hitech about why the wings and engines get damaged so easily, they said they were modelled that way on purpose.  

I can only guess it is because the engine unreliability isn't modelled, so they felt they had to give it some sort of Achille's Heel.  (other than the 200 point price tag I mean).

[AKSWulfe]

The jet engines may have been "durable", but moreso than the Pratt & Whitney? No way. EDIT: In fact, the jet engines used in WWII were not more durable than anything... except maybe balsa wood. MiG and F86 jet engines differed greatly from those of the Arado and 262.

The turbines were easily destroyed on the 262, them lil blades fell off a good deal resulting in catastrophic engine failure.

It was the only spot on the 262 to aim for, most pilots reported hitting the engines with a quick burst, and they would immediately begin smoking and/or begin to burn.
-SW

[illo]

Originally posted by Mathman
If a bird getting sucked into a modern jet engine can cause catastrophic damage, what do you think a couple .50 cal bullets are going to do to the early jet engines of the mid 40's?

Hmm... how couple of 50cal bullets and bird  relate to eatchother? I cant see any connection.

[illo]

Originally posted by Urchin
It is a 'gameplay concession'.. I asked either Superfly or Hitech about why the wings and engines get damaged so easily, they said they were modelled that way on purpose.  

I can only guess it is because the engine unreliability isn't modelled, so they felt they had to give it some sort of Achille's Heel.  (other than the 200 point price tag I mean).

Why don't they model planes as realistically as they can???

How about unrealiability in other planes, cannons etc? Is there also some "compensation"?? I fail to see how more unrealism compensates unrealism.

[HoHun]

Hi Akswulfe,

>The jet engines may have been "durable", but moreso than the Pratt & Whitney? No way.

Thanks for contributing another opinion. If you'd only spiced it up with a tiny little bit of fact ... but it's not too late for that yet.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

[Hortlund]

Originally posted by Hristo
You did bad. In 262 it is very easy to deny a shot to just about anybody.

j/k, of course. The ability to stay untouchable should not be an arbitrary factor to the 262 durability.

Full story on how the P51 got my engines here

[AKSWulfe]

I did, or did you not understand those other characters I typed were words?

The turbines were easily destroyed on the 262, them lil blades fell off a good deal resulting in catastrophic engine failure.

It was the only spot on the 262 to aim for, most pilots reported hitting the engines with a quick burst, and they would immediately begin smoking and/or begin to burn.
-SW