Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Banshi on May 03, 2010, 07:50:05 PM
-
For about the third time now I watched a ME-262 hang in a fight for 20+ minutes , this simply is not any where near realistic. At best they should have enough fuel to get to altitude go less than a sector make a couple of passes and be on fumes or gliding back to base. Not buzzing an area for half an hour then flying two sectors away to land.
-
For about the third time now I watched a ME-262 hang in a fight for 20+ minutes , this simply is not any where near realistic. At best they should have enough fuel to get to altitude go less than a sector make a couple of passes and be on fumes or gliding back to base. Not buzzing an area for half an hour then flying two sectors away to land.
Now you can surely provide us with some DATA about real life fuel consumption & endurance? :)
I mean... less than a sector means less than 25 miles... even when accoutning for FB 2.0 that would only mean less than 50 miles combat range in RL...
-
Are you certain you are not mixing the jet powered Me262 up with the rocket powered Me163? Remember, a sector is only 25 miles, so even accounting for fuel burn rate you are suggesting the Me262 had a range of about 150 miles....
-
I've read somewhere Combat endurance for a series 262 was somewhere between 60 and 90 minutes with an estimated range of approx. 650 miles.
-
I've had no problem flying for an hour in a 262 at the burnrate of x2.0.
Have you flown the 262?
-
If you fly at 7000 rpm and only use high throttle when
u really need it, I've had missions over 70 minutes
-
If you fly at 7000 rpm and only use high throttle when
u really need it, I've had missions over 70 minutes
The higher you go the more efficient and faster your cruise speed will be. So you could get relatively fast to the fight compared to most piston engined fighters.
I've had fighter when I have one engine knocked out and I'm flying home at 20k with 5krpm single engine and flew 200miles back.
-
I believe people cut there throttle.
-
When I do 262 sorties, I take off and get the plane up 300 ias before I start to do any climbing. Provided I have about 25 miles before the fight, I'll nose up to a RoC of 2.5 or so and throttle back to 7000 rpms. Once I get to about 10k, I'll get my speed up to 350 tas and throttle back to 6500 rpms until I arrive at the fight.
It may not be the most efficient, but it works for me.
-
Did a little test and found the 262 went just as far as a p51 given both aircraft have a 25% fuel load flying in a straight line at 10000 ft....................that is just not realistic since the 262 real world range is half that of the mustang. It should be closer to a Spitfire especially given that loss of an engine was common due to mechanical and pilot error and the plane could only barely fly on one and only then with enough alt and speed already built up.
-
I have several combat descriptions in which a Mosquito PR.Mk XVI came under attack by one or more Me262s. The engagements typically last 30-45 minutes.
-
Did a little test and found the 262 went just as far as a p51 given both aircraft have a 25% fuel load flying in a straight line at 10000 ft....................that is just not realistic since the 262 real world range is half that of the mustang. It should be closer to a Spitfire especially given that loss of an engine was common due to mechanical and pilot error and the plane could only barely fly on one and only then with enough alt and speed already built up.
Your logic is flawed..
What was the FLIGHT TIME for each test?
Why, you may ask, does that matter? Well the 262 covered the same distance because it was doing 500mph, but lasted less time. It just covered more ground in the time it had.
P.S. I think you're overly pessimistic about historic capabilities of the 262. Had it been used as an interceptor when first introduced instead of a bomber, instead of being held back, it would have changed the war.
-
Somebody has been hanging out on wiki a little too much.
-
Your logic is flawed..
What was the FLIGHT TIME for each test?
Why, you may ask, does that matter? Well the 262 covered the same distance because it was doing 500mph, but lasted less time. It just covered more ground in the time it had.
P.S. I think you're overly pessimistic about historic capabilities of the 262. Had it been used as an interceptor when first introduced instead of a bomber, instead of being held back, it would have changed the war.
That and the early engines broke down before their 50 projected hours before an overhaul. Oh and the constant bombing and accessibility to advanced alloys .
-
Somebody has been hanging out on wiki a little too much.
lol
-
Did a little test and found the 262 went just as far as a p51 given both aircraft have a 25% fuel load flying in a straight line at 10000 ft....................that is just not realistic since the 262 real world range is half that of the mustang. It should be closer to a Spitfire especially given that loss of an engine was common due to mechanical and pilot error and the plane could only barely fly on one and only then with enough alt and speed already built up.
Some simple math for you: :old:
The Jumo 004B had a maximum fuel consumption of 1234 kg/h. That is under worst circumstances -> full throttle at takeoff.
That means two engines consume 2468 kg/h, which translates into ~3100 l/h.
The Me 262 had a maximum fuel capacity of 2600l. 2600l/3100l = 50 minutes flight time... at takeoff!
Now what flight time does our E6B show for the 262 at takeoff with full thrust and fuel burn 1.0? 43 minutes. Even less than the expected theoretical maximum. :)
-
don't be asking for our whizz bang anti hangar banger horde defender ride to be neutered !!
now jog on....
it got tampered with the last few patches and now it is right again. :aok
-
From Wikipedia:
"Operationally, the Me 262 had an endurance of 60 to 90 minutes."
Seems correct there too. ;)
-
Some simple math for you: :old:
The Jumo 004B had a maximum fuel consumption of 1234 kg/h. That is under worst circumstances -> full throttle at takeoff.
That means two engines consume 2468 kg/h, which translates into ~3100 l/h.
The Me 262 had a maximum fuel capacity of 2600l. 2600l/3100l = 50 minutes flight time... at takeoff!
Now what flight time does our E6B show for the 262 at takeoff with full thrust and fuel burn 1.0? 43 minutes. Even less than the expected theoretical maximum. :)
For those of us with comprehension problems could we have that in chart form. :aok
:salute
-
The range of a me-262 was a little less than 600 miles the mustang was nearly 1200 so in my test if the model being used was correct the 262 would only have been able to go half the distance of the mustang instead it actually went a little farther. The model being used is way off and needs to be corrected, math and in the field testing show this to be true, unless of course you think the me-262 had a better combat range than the mustang.
-
The model being used is way off and needs to be corrected, math and in the field testing show this to be true,
No it does not. See my post above.
-
You can lead a horse to water Lusche....... But you cant make him drink.
No it does not. See my post above.
But I will say this.... New guy sure does know more than we do. ANd he knows how to make friends. LOL
-
"No it does not. See my post above." your numbers fail to take the scale of the game into account which is why it differs from actual field testing.
Again, I did an actual field test did you? Testing does not lie and in my test the me-262 went farther than the mustang......du that's not realistic, not even close. The game is scaled, a Spitfire with nearly as much range as a me-262 can't even come close it. If it was modeled correctly the range would be slightly more than a spit but given the lack of reliability in the engines it should be less because the game does not take reliability into account. Flame outs and engine loss were common often due to pilot error.
"But I will say this.... New guy sure does know more than we do. ANd he knows how to make friends. LOL"
My father did not raise a "yes" man..................and since I am correct and in field testing backs this up I am not willing to just go with the flow to be anyone's friend.( I'll leave that for the feel good Obamabots :rolleyes:). I have been studying aircraft, WWII in particular, since I was old enough to open a book, I probably have more literature on my library shelves than you have even read total on the subject in your entire life. Anyone who knows squat about these aircraft could tell in an instant the range on the plane in the game is way off, makes for good fun for the 262 pilot but it cheapins the game.
The numbers don't lie, the range of the mustang was around 1200 miles the 262 less than 600 therefor the 262 should only have half the range which my test, in the game, shows it actually has a equal or greater.
The game model is not just wrong but grossly in error.
-
5 posts............ And you're asking Lusche if he checked his data?
Oh geez.
-
"New guy doesn't know how to quote, but sure does know how to field test"
:rofl :lol :rofl :lol :rofl
"But I will say this.... New guy sure does know more than we do. ANd he knows how to make friends. LOL"
-
"No it does not. See my post above." your numbers fail to take the scale of the game into account which is why it differs from actual field testing.
Again, I did an actual field test did you? Testing does not lie and in my test the me-262 went farther than the mustang......du that's not realistic, not even close. The game is scaled, a Spitfire with nearly as much range as a me-262 can't even come close it. If it was modeled correctly the range would be slightly more than a spit but given the lack of reliability in the engines it should be less because the game does not take reliability into account. Flame outs and engine loss were common often due to pilot error.
"But I will say this.... New guy sure does know more than we do. ANd he knows how to make friends. LOL"
My father did not raise a "yes" man..................and since I am correct and in field testing backs this up I am not willing to just go with the flow to be anyone's friend.( I'll leave that for the feel good Obamabots :rolleyes:). I have been studying aircraft, WWII in particular, since I was old enough to open a book, I probably have more literature on my library shelves than you have even read total on the subject in your entire life. Anyone who knows squat about these aircraft could tell in an instant the range on the plane in the game is way off, makes for good fun for the 262 pilot but it cheapins the game.
The numbers don't lie, the range of the mustang was around 1200 miles the 262 less than 600 therefor the 262 should only have half the range which my test, in the game, shows it actually has a equal or greater.
The game model is not just wrong but grossly in error.
Your field testing is flawed in at least one account that I can think of...
1/4 tank in the mustang is not really 1/4 of the maximum fuel loadout of the Mustang. The full fuel loadout has to include drop tanks to get to the max. The 262 does not have drop tanks, thus the whole fuel loadout has to be carried internally.
So, 1/4 tank in the mustang is not 1/4 of the full fuel loadout (it may be closer to an 1/8 than you thing), and 1/4 tank in the 262 is 1/4 of the fuel loadout.
I am sure that your flight test did not include best cruise speed and configuration (throttle and rpm), and also best cruise altitude for both planes, etc.
You need to compare apples with apples.
As for the little "Obamabot" comment, you really should rethink that before you go down that road, it just destroys your credibility...
-
In AH, at fuel burn 1.00, maximum fuel loadout,
the ME 262 has an endurance of 43 minutes at full power at takeoff.
the P-51D has an endurance of 159 minutes at full power at takeoff.
As pointed out by Edgar, you can't just compare 25% internal fuel setting.
Now show me real-world data that shows my real world data I provided above about the Jumo 004B's fuel consumption is wrong. I mean data, not just "It's just wrong"
I have been studying aircraft, WWII in particular, since I was old enough to open a book, I probably have more literature on my library shelves than you have even read total on the subject in your entire life.
You are not the only one in here reading books ;)
-
But his words are larger than ours. :D
You are not the only one in here reading books ;)
-
It's gonna be a pie-chart free for all in here soon...
:noid
-
...
My father did not raise a "yes" man..................and since I am correct and in field testing backs this up I am not willing to just go with the flow to be anyone's friend.( I'll leave that for the feel good Obamabots :rolleyes:). I have been studying aircraft, WWII in particular, since I was old enough to open a book, I probably have more literature on my library shelves than you have even read total on the subject in your entire life. Anyone who knows squat about these aircraft could tell in an instant the range on the plane in the game is way off, makes for good fun for the 262 pilot but it cheapins the game.
...
Dude, lighten up. You may be used to being the smartest guy in the room where you live, but here on the AH BBS, that little room has now become the big, wide world.
-
Now, now, folks. Let's give a little leeway to our new members from FA or elsewhere. They may simply not know how things work here, or the best way to present themselves on the forums.
-
Now, now, folks. Let's give a little leeway to our new members from FA or elsewhere. They may simply not know how things work here, or the best way to present themselves on the forums.
We should all be thankful that, after all this time, somebody is finally checking these kind of things! :D
-
lol don't pick on the new guys you bullies.
Banshi if you want to prove them wrong, download the training arena map, create an offline game and make sure the fuel burn is 1.0. Grab a full fuel pony with drop tanks, spawn at 20K from the fields up north and go to whatever alt is best for the mustang (see the ingame charts). Use the max cruise engine setting and wait for the acceleration to end. now you can see the actual range in the E6B. Same with the 262.
-
Please learn this game a little while longer before you start battles with the data monsters like Lusche.
Returning vet, been playing since AH1.
-
It's gonna be a pie-chart free for all in here soon...
:noid
Here ya go:
(http://i937.photobucket.com/albums/ad212/mhuxt/pie.jpg)
-
^^^
:lol :lol :lol
:salute
-
Lol at the pie charts.
-
Here ya go:
(http://i937.photobucket.com/albums/ad212/mhuxt/pie.jpg)
:rofl I needed that.
-
Did a little test and found the 262 went just as far as a p51 given both aircraft have a 25% fuel load flying in a straight line at 10000 ft....................that is just not realistic since the 262 real world range is half that of the mustang. It should be closer to a Spitfire especially given that loss of an engine was common due to mechanical and pilot error and the plane could only barely fly on one and only then with enough alt and speed already built up.
Hello Banshi,
To do a true field test, what you need to do is take off a 262 with 100% fuel load, then run that at MAX CRUISE throttle at cruising altitude.
Then take a P-51D, with 100% fuel, and drop tanks, and run that at MAX CRUISE throttle and rpms, at cruising altitude.
That would give you a more accurate view of flight endurance of both of these aircraft.
-
scherf :rofl
-
:rofl :rofl :rofl
-
Did the same test on a spitfire and it's range was about what I expected at a 2 sectors versus the 7 the me-262 went and the 6 3/4 the p-51 went. Since the range of spit is close to the me-262 this again clearly shows the model of the 262 is badly flawed. There now is no doubt what so ever that, for whatever reason, the range of 262 is in error. Basically it has been given what amounts to unlimited fuel especially considering the poor operational dependability of this aircraft.
-
Did the same test on a spitfire and it's range was about what I expected at a 2 sectors versus the 7 the me-262 went and the 6 3/4 the p-51 went.
And what about this?
In AH, at fuel burn 1.00, maximum fuel loadout,
the ME 262 has an endurance of 43 minutes at full power at takeoff.
the P-51D has an endurance of 159 minutes at full power at takeoff.
As pointed out by Edgar, you can't just compare 25% internal fuel setting.
Pony has about 4 times the flight time of a 262... why do you insist on comparing 25% fuel tanks and presented real-world data? Where is you data about real world Me 262 fuel endurance?
Did you even noted what I wrote about the Jumoo 004 RW fuel consumption rates?
-
Pilots notes for 262 in English here:
http://www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com/Images/Me262/262PilotHandbook.pdf
Gptta love that man Zeno.
-
Here ya go:
(http://i937.photobucket.com/albums/ad212/mhuxt/pie.jpg)
:rofl
-
Did the same test on a spitfire and it's range was about what I expected at a 2 sectors versus the 7 the me-262 went and the 6 3/4 the p-51 went. Since the range of spit is close to the me-262 this again clearly shows the model of the 262 is badly flawed. There now is no doubt what so ever that, for whatever reason, the range of 262 is in error. Basically it has been given what amounts to unlimited fuel especially considering the poor operational dependability of this aircraft.
:headscratch:
isnt the endurance avail to ea AC in regards to the 'sectors' they fly, have anything to do with THE SPEED at which ea flys??
I wood expect the 262 to cover more 'sectors' due to higher speed within 'X' amount of fuel/time than either the spit or the 51. the 51 flying faster than the spit.
PS..is the MA FB rate 2.0?
:bolt:
-
PS..is the MA FB rate 2.0?
:bolt:
Yes, 2.0 so as to give the longer ranged aircraft an advantage of some kind for that range while still making the bases close enough together for gameplay to be fun.
-
Yes, 2.0 so as to give the longer ranged aircraft an advantage of some kind for that range while still making the bases close enough together for gameplay to be fun.
oh, so 2.0 is 'less' fuel consumption than 1.0?
-
oh, so 2.0 is 'less' fuel consumption than 1.0?
No it is more...it is twice the fuel consumption as normal basically.
-
oh, so 2.0 is 'less' fuel consumption than 1.0?
"More", 2.0 Fuel Burn Rate(which is what all MA's are set at) means that the plane burns fuel twice as fast as it would in real life. 1.0 means the plane will burn fuel at the same rate as it did in real life. Scale accordingly from there for any other numbers.
-
oh, so 2.0 is 'less' fuel consumption than 1.0?
It halves fuel endurance, forcing things like La-7s and Spitfire Mk XVIs to be short range fighters while P-51Ds, Ki-84s and Mosquitoes can still roam far and wide while at the same time keeping bases close enough to each other to not have excessively flight times to the action.
-
For proper tests use 100 percent fuel, and you use a fuel burn of 1.0 (offline not in the MA where it is set to 2x fuel burn rate) at ALT (@18-22k) and reduced throttle to standard CRUISE settings. Also, dont "count sectors"??? you hit the "ESC" key once airborne and then hit the "E6B" button on the panel (third one down) and it reads off the current range. Thats how you do a proper test.
Ranges for the following a/c on INTERNAL fuel only (no Drop Tanks) at 100 percent internal capacity, at cruise settings in Real Life is this:
Ki-84: 1053 miles
F4U-1D: 1015 miles
P-51D: 950 miles
P-38J: 890 miles
> Me-262: 652 miles <
P-47D-1: 570 miles
Fw 190D-9: 519 miles
Me 109G-6: 465 miles
Spitfire IX: 434 miles
The Ki-84 and F4Us ranges are max ranges at much reduced throttle, not typical combat ranges.
As you can see the Me 262s range is actually greater than many of the single seat fighters on internal fuel. 652 miles puts it into the top 1/2 category. Its range vs the Spitfire IX on internal fuel is @ 50 percent greater, no doubt owing to its much higher cruising speeds on jet engines once at alt.
Stop using 25 percent fuel and flying at 500 feet at max power in the Main Arena when you test them. It will not give an accurate result.
Also keep in mind that ranges vary greatly depending on alt, throttle, WEP use, ect and that they are only "generalised #s" they are never absolutes.
-
Stop using 25 percent fuel and flying at 500 feet at max power in the Main Arena when you test them. It will not give an accurate result.
Also keep in mind that ranges vary greatly depending on alt, throttle, WEP use, ect and that they are only "generalised #s" they are never absolutes.
25% would also vary from plane to plane and have nothing to do with comparative range.
25% of what? After all, 100% fuel in a P-51 does not equal 100% fuel in an Me 262 volume wise nor in rate of consumption.
wrongway
-
It is called throttle management. Alot of ppl think that you ahve to fly full throttle at all times. I love using max cruise or less then max. I drop my rpms alot when I am on a long flight. The rpm reduction can save alot of fuel. <S> I will be coming back sooner then I thought lol. Damn Crack
-
Yes, 2.0 so as to give the longer ranged aircraft an advantage of some kind
oh
i believed that when you said this^^^^
that 1.0 fuel consumption was normal and 2 was 1/'2' of normal.
-
oh
i believed that when you said this^^^^
that 1.0 fuel consumption was normal and 2 was 1/'2' of normal.
Nah, then there'd be nothing the P-51 could do that the Spitfire couldn't do better.
Well, other than run. :P
-
the range of a 262 is around 652 miles
-
I'll leave that for the feel good Obamabots :rolleyes:
I'm just wondering, do you have any other Interesting facts about them? Their fuel burn being grossly inaccurate perhaps?
-
My 262 flies for 43 minutes at a fuel multiplier of 1. The P-51D with drop tanks flies for 160 minutes. Tests performed at maximum power and maximum fuel. Of course both aircraft can easily go much longer.
-
For about the third time now I watched a ME-262 hang in a fight for 20+ minutes , this simply is not any where near realistic. At best they should have enough fuel to get to altitude go less than a sector make a couple of passes and be on fumes or gliding back to base. Not buzzing an area for half an hour then flying two sectors away to land.
If this thread were an aircraft:
:huh Shakes stick and growls "my aircraft" followed by shooting a "disregard" call to ATC...
(A simple facepalm seemed too unoriginal)
DATA lad, DATA. Even if your description didn't seem pretty commonplace, I would submit that some people experience a degree of time dilation when their cartoon lives are threatened :D
-
I have been studying aircraft, WWII in particular, since I was old enough to open a book, I probably have more literature on my library shelves than you have even read total on the subject in your entire life. Anyone who knows squat about these aircraft could tell in an instant the range on the plane in the game is way off, makes for good fun for the 262 pilot but it cheapins the game.
When some tool posts the above comment, you know their head is stuck where the Sun don't shine and actually know very little of what they boast.
The numbers don't lie, the range of the mustang was around 1200 miles the 262 less than 600 therefor the 262 should only have half the range which my test, in the game, shows it actually has a equal or greater.
Numbers do lie if the person citing the numbers has no clue. The operational range of the ME 262 was 1,052 km (652 mi) with an operational flight time of 60 to 90 minutes.
The game model is not just wrong but grossly in error.
There is something that is not just wrong but grossly in error and it's not the game. Silly n00bs.
ack-ack
-
The range of a me-262 was a little less than 600 miles the mustang was nearly 1200 so in my test if the model being used was correct the 262 would only have been able to go half the distance of the mustang instead it actually went a little farther.
The Mustangs range is with external DT and flying very slow, not much more than 200 mph (don't remember the actual number). Do not compare 25% at full throttle to find the max range. One of the greatest things about the mosquito is that it could achieve the great ranges without having to slow down much. Some long range sorties averaged over 300 mph for the entire trip. PR mosquitoes had problems with Mustang escorts that could not keep up when their DT was still on and having to conserve fuel for the whole trip.
-
"No it does not. See my post above." your numbers fail to take the scale of the game into account which is why it differs from actual field testing.
Again, I did an actual field test did you? Testing does not lie and in my test the me-262 went farther than the mustang......du that's not realistic, not even close. The game is scaled, a Spitfire with nearly as much range as a me-262 can't even come close it. If it was modeled correctly the range would be slightly more than a spit but given the lack of reliability in the engines it should be less because the game does not take reliability into account. Flame outs and engine loss were common often due to pilot error.
"But I will say this.... New guy sure does know more than we do. ANd he knows how to make friends. LOL"
My father did not raise a "yes" man..................and since I am correct and in field testing backs this up I am not willing to just go with the flow to be anyone's friend.( I'll leave that for the feel good Obamabots :rolleyes:). I have been studying aircraft, WWII in particular, since I was old enough to open a book, I probably have more literature on my library shelves than you have even read total on the subject in your entire life. Anyone who knows squat about these aircraft could tell in an instant the range on the plane in the game is way off, makes for good fun for the 262 pilot but it cheapins the game.
The numbers don't lie, the range of the mustang was around 1200 miles the 262 less than 600 therefor the 262 should only have half the range which my test, in the game, shows it actually has a equal or greater.
The game model is not just wrong but grossly in error.
Possible source of descrepancy maybe that your test only included 10K cruise. In real life the plane has to take off and climb. The 262 may use excessive amounts of fuel during full power take and climb, as compared to the Mustang. Only looking at one part of the flight cycle, may not give an accurate estimate of the entire flight cycle. :salute