Aces High Bulletin Board

General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: dirt911 on May 15, 2010, 11:43:39 PM

Title: 262A-1 vs.262A-2
Post by: dirt911 on May 15, 2010, 11:43:39 PM
Can someone give me any specs on A-1 vs. A-2 they are both almost the same but i believe that A-2 was faster and carried 12-55mm PB1 rockets.
Title: Re: 262A-1 vs.262A-2
Post by: 321BAR on May 15, 2010, 11:45:31 PM
so you want an even higher perk rated 262? :headscratch:
Title: Re: 262A-1 vs.262A-2
Post by: dirt911 on May 15, 2010, 11:54:29 PM
No..just asking for a comparison if i wanted a higher perked 262 this would be in the wishlist.
Title: Re: 262A-1 vs.262A-2
Post by: Karnak on May 15, 2010, 11:57:46 PM
Why would it be faster?  Germany only had one jet engine in service.
Title: Re: 262A-1 vs.262A-2
Post by: dirt911 on May 15, 2010, 11:58:51 PM
Im not sure just thought of it being a higher horse engine.But the rockets i know were mounted on it.
Title: Re: 262A-1 vs.262A-2
Post by: Karnak on May 16, 2010, 12:00:40 AM
Jets are not referred to in horsepower, but rather in lbs of thrust (or kgs of thrust).  Rocket hard points would make it draggier, thus slower.
Title: Re: 262A-1 vs.262A-2
Post by: Eagleclaw on May 16, 2010, 12:04:58 AM
Draggier, a new word, add it, Websters!  :lol
Title: Re: 262A-1 vs.262A-2
Post by: dirt911 on May 16, 2010, 12:07:17 AM
Yes but that is the pilots choice if he wants them let him have them.
Title: Re: 262A-1 vs.262A-2
Post by: MiloMorai on May 16, 2010, 01:11:13 AM
Can someone give me any specs on A-1 vs. A-2 they are both almost the same but i believe that A-2 was faster and carried 12-55mm PB1 rockets.
Do you know how to do internet searches?

Anyways, the A-1 was a fighter while the A-2 was a fighter-bomber and only had 2 cannons.

Maximum speed:
    Me 262A-1a: 540mph (870km/h)
    Me 262A-2a: 470 mph (755km/h)
Title: Re: 262A-1 vs.262A-2
Post by: STEELE on May 16, 2010, 01:46:05 AM
AFAIK they made a few 262's with more "sweep" to the wings, thus increasing the compression speed. As to how many actually saw combat...?
Title: Re: 262A-1 vs.262A-2
Post by: Karnak on May 16, 2010, 01:52:06 AM
AFAIK they made a few 262's with more "sweep" to the wings, thus increasing the compression speed. As to how many actually saw combat...?
Never heard anything about that.  They were hard pressed as it was, I am skeptical that they would tinker with the production of something they needed so desperately.
Title: Re: 262A-1 vs.262A-2
Post by: Yossarian on May 16, 2010, 03:19:46 AM
AFAIK they made a few 262's with more "sweep" to the wings, thus increasing the compression speed. As to how many actually saw combat...?

I flew something like that once in Flightgear before, I'll try and dig it up.

EDIT: It was the Me-262 HG I, II, and III.  From what I've just read, only the HG I was ever built, and the HG III had a projected top speed of Mach 0.96.  Cite notes 31 and 32 of this Wikipedia article apparently talk about it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messerschmitt_Me_262 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messerschmitt_Me_262)

Also: http://up-ship.com/drawndoc/rd/rd.htm (http://up-ship.com/drawndoc/rd/rd.htm)
Title: Re: 262A-1 vs.262A-2
Post by: danny76 on May 16, 2010, 04:38:36 AM
Draggier, a new word, add it, Websters!  :lol

Draggier, a co-efficient of draggage :confused:
Title: Re: 262A-1 vs.262A-2
Post by: Eagleclaw on May 16, 2010, 07:35:32 AM
Draggier, a co-efficient of draggage :confused:

Well I'll be, Inflected form of Draggy, haha.
Title: Re: 262A-1 vs.262A-2
Post by: 321BAR on May 16, 2010, 08:11:32 AM
Draggier, a co-efficient of draggage :confused:
Well I'll be, Inflected form of Draggy, haha.
:huh :O :uhoh :bolt:

 :rofl :rofl :rofl
Title: Re: 262A-1 vs.262A-2
Post by: Rino on May 16, 2010, 09:12:27 AM
Why would it be faster?  Germany only had one jet engine in service.

     Both Jumos and BMWs were used.
Title: Re: 262A-1 vs.262A-2
Post by: dirt911 on May 16, 2010, 01:27:45 PM
 :noid







 :banana:
Title: Re: 262A-1 vs.262A-2
Post by: whipster22 on May 16, 2010, 04:00:22 PM
?
Title: Re: 262A-1 vs.262A-2
Post by: AWwrgwy on May 16, 2010, 06:01:53 PM
 :O

Oh Nooees!!1!


(http://maztulis.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/can-of-worms.jpg)




wrongway
Title: Re: 262A-1 vs.262A-2
Post by: Krusty on May 16, 2010, 06:05:15 PM
It's the exact same plane. 2x Mk108 cannons were removed (in many cases you still had the ejection ports present) and 2x pylons were attached under the nose for use with 2 bombs. In fighter mode it could also carry underwing R4M rockets.

There is no performance difference. No wing difference. No engine difference. Exact same plane, just different configurations. I'd personally like to see the R4M rockets in-game on the 262 we already have, but that's just me.
Title: Re: 262A-1 vs.262A-2
Post by: Eagleclaw on May 16, 2010, 06:10:41 PM
There is no performance difference. No wing difference. No engine difference. Exact same plane, just different configurations. I'd personally like to see the R4M rockets in-game on the 262 we already have, but that's just me.

+1
Title: Re: 262A-1 vs.262A-2
Post by: vonKrimm on May 16, 2010, 11:36:59 PM
Well I'll be, Inflected form of Draggy, haha.

So when drag becomes too draggy and thus the plane is draggier, then the resultant draggage is draggonian to the plane's performance?
Title: Re: 262A-1 vs.262A-2
Post by: MORAY37 on May 16, 2010, 11:42:06 PM


There is no performance difference. No wing difference. No engine difference. Exact same plane, just different configurations. I'd personally like to see the R4M rockets in-game on the 262 we already have, but that's just me.

Talk about sick.  12X R4M's.....35 kills in a 262 sortie would show up regularly.  Once you get the knack for aiming those things, it's a cinch to kill sets of buffs at 2K+.
Title: Re: 262A-1 vs.262A-2
Post by: Krusty on May 16, 2010, 11:45:15 PM
I imagine folks would only get a couple of kills with them, firing them off in spreads. More rockets used per kill.
Title: Re: 262A-1 vs.262A-2
Post by: OOZ662 on May 17, 2010, 12:13:40 AM
:O
Oh Nooees!!1!
(http://maztulis.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/can-of-worms.jpg)
wrongway

(http://i236.photobucket.com/albums/ff255/OOZ662/wut.jpg)
Title: Re: 262A-1 vs.262A-2
Post by: MORAY37 on May 17, 2010, 03:35:54 AM
I imagine folks would only get a couple of kills with them, firing them off in spreads. More rockets used per kill.

You're kidding right? Get the range down right, and two rockets gives you a set of buffs, every time.  Aim for the lead buff, and launch in pairs, about 2K out.  One set for every two rockets.  110's are fun as heck doing this.

Put 12 on a 262 and people would be massacring buff sets. Just with the rockets, I'd top out with 18 kills.  I'd expect around 10 or so, each time, during peak hours.
Title: Re: 262A-1 vs.262A-2
Post by: Karnak on May 17, 2010, 04:15:29 AM
R4M rockets are not the same as the mortar rockets in AH now.
Title: Re: 262A-1 vs.262A-2
Post by: MiloMorai on May 17, 2010, 05:18:41 AM
German rockets
http://www.tarrif.net/wwii/guides/a2g_rockets.htm
Title: Re: 262A-1 vs.262A-2
Post by: Motherland on May 17, 2010, 01:52:00 PM
You're kidding right? Get the range down right, and two rockets gives you a set of buffs, every time.  Aim for the lead buff, and launch in pairs, about 2K out.  One set for every two rockets.  110's are fun as heck doing this.

Put 12 on a 262 and people would be massacring buff sets. Just with the rockets, I'd top out with 18 kills.  I'd expect around 10 or so, each time, during peak hours.
R4M's were very small rockets with an explosive charge, with a trajectory similar to a MK108's 30mm round according to what I've read. It wasn't an airburst rocket like the WGr.21, however 1 or 2 hits from the weapon were enough to bring down a bomber.
They were generally used like a shotgun from 600-800 yards as Krusty suggested. Still extremely deadly weapons. And they didn't have the extremely heavy, draggy stovepipes that the WGr.21 requires.

I think the Me 262A-2 was capable of carrying a pair of WGr.21's, though...
Title: Re: 262A-1 vs.262A-2
Post by: dirt911 on May 17, 2010, 03:28:34 PM
It's the exact same plane. 2x Mk108 cannons were removed (in many cases you still had the ejection ports present) and 2x pylons were attached under the nose for use with 2 bombs. In fighter mode it could also carry underwing R4M rockets.

There is no performance difference. No wing difference. No engine difference. Exact same plane, just different configurations. I'd personally like to see the R4M rockets in-game on the 262 we already have, but that's just me.

+1 on the R4M's.
Title: Re: 262A-1 vs.262A-2
Post by: Cthulhu on May 20, 2010, 12:37:23 PM
R4M's were very small rockets with an explosive charge, with a trajectory similar to a MK108's 30mm round according to what I've read. It wasn't an airburst rocket like the WGr.21, however 1 or 2 hits from the weapon were enough to bring down a bomber.
They were generally used like a shotgun from 600-800 yards as Krusty suggested. Still extremely deadly weapons. And they didn't have the extremely heavy, draggy stovepipes that the WGr.21 requires.

I think the Me 262A-2 was capable of carrying a pair of WGr.21's, though...
Motherland is absolutely correct. R4M's would be absolutely devastating. :uhoh  No cool launcher like a Dog Sabre, but nonetheless very effective.

I'd love to see an X-4 option as well. They were never operational (officially), never even tested on 262's, and I seriously doubt a 262 pilot could hit a damned thing with one, but it sure would be fun to try!  :D
Title: Re: 262A-1 vs.262A-2
Post by: lyric1 on May 21, 2010, 12:08:43 AM
http://stormbirds.com/warbirds/index.html
Title: Re: 262A-1 vs.262A-2
Post by: AWwrgwy on May 21, 2010, 01:26:58 AM
Motherland is absolutely correct. R4M's would be absolutely devastating. :uhoh  No cool launcher like a Dog Sabre, but nonetheless very effective.

(http://stormbirds.com/warbirds/images_technical/r4m.jpg)
RM4 Air-to-air missile (http://stormbirds.com/warbirds/tech_r4m_rocket.htm)



Quote
I'd love to see an X-4 option as well. They were never operational (officially), never even tested on 262's, and I seriously doubt a 262 pilot could hit a damned thing with one, but it sure would be fun to try!  :D

(http://www.luft46.com/missile/x4-10.jpg)
(http://www.luft46.com/missile/x4-11.jpg)

Quote
Approximately 1000-1300 airframes had been finished at Ruhrstahl's Brackwede factory by early 1945, and were awaiting their rocket motors, when the BMW facility at Stargard was bombed, destroying all the finished BMW 109-548 rocket engines. This missile was intended to be issued in numbers to the Luftwaffe by the early Spring of 1945, but the bombing of the BMW rocket engine factory, and the war's end prevented the combat use of the world's first guided air-to-air missile.



wrongway
Title: Re: 262A-1 vs.262A-2
Post by: Cthulhu on May 21, 2010, 06:47:36 AM
Thanks for the visual aids WW    :aok

BTW, read about the liquid fuel delivery system on the X-4. Kinda different.  :uhoh