Author Topic: 262 weight (Read 432 times)

moot · « **on:** February 01, 2005, 04:45:44 AM »

It seems heavier than in AH1; is it?

Krusty · « **Reply #1 on:** February 01, 2005, 12:05:44 PM »

Yes. Weight was fixed to be more accurate.

Only problem is said weight is all over the map and the plane is unstable at times.

Now it's more a reflection of how it flew in real life. More inertia. SLower accelleration (if I recall the posts back when this change was made)

Guppy35 · « **Reply #2 on:** February 01, 2005, 12:33:35 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Krusty
Yes. Weight was fixed to be more accurate.

Only problem is said weight is all over the map and the plane is unstable at times.

Now it's more a reflection of how it flew in real life. More inertia. SLower accelleration (if I recall the posts back when this change was made)

An old RAF friend, who flew Meteors with 616 Squadron in 1945, had a chance to fly a captured 262 in May of 45. He said it got off the ground even slower then the Meteor, and that in his words "snaked" through the air much the same as the Meteor. I imagine that refers to some instablity in flight too.

Dan/Slack

bunch · « **Reply #3 on:** February 01, 2005, 01:23:05 PM »

iirc, dutch roll has a tendency to screw with swept wing plane more than straight winged ones

HoHun · « **Reply #4 on:** February 01, 2005, 01:34:43 PM »

Hi Guppy,

>An old RAF friend, who flew Meteors with 616 Squadron in 1945, had a chance to fly a captured 262 in May of 45. He said it got off the ground even slower then the Meteor, and that in his words "snaked" through the air much the same as the Meteor. I imagine that refers to some instablity in flight too.

The Me 262 was subject to high-speed snaking, but according to Eric Brown, it was much better in that respect than the Meteor. (He provides actual Mach numbers.)

If I remember his summary correctly, the wartime Meteor had a lower tactically useful Mach number than most piston-engined fighters due to the snaking characteristics. The problems were finally cured, but only post war. The Germans had some of the same problems both with the Me 262 and the Ar 234, but found a quicker way around the worst of it.

According to Eric Brown, all of the first generation jets were affected by this to some degree, and usually worse than the German jets (I'm sure that only means "initially").

The Meteor also suffered from turbulence-induced snaking, which Brown said made it a poor fighter-bomber, too. I think these characteristics might account for some of the hesitation in using the Meteor in combat.

I'm sure your RAF friend is spot-on on the slow Me 262 take-off - the Meteor had a much better power-to-weight ratio than the Messerschmitt jet. I'm sure a duel between both types would be been highly interesting, but none of the simulations I played so far gave me the opportunity to try it out :-)

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

Flyboy · « **Reply #5 on:** February 01, 2005, 02:29:33 PM »

what do you mean "snaking" ?

plane start sliding left and right?!

HoHun · « **Reply #6 on:** February 01, 2005, 04:05:33 PM »

Hi Flyboy,

>what do you mean "snaking" ?

>plane start sliding left and right?!

Imagine someone stomping on the rudder pedals alternatingly while you try to line up a target.

That will give a rough idea of "directional snaking", or yaw oscillations, and their tactical impact.

In the low-altitude V-1 chaser role, the early Meteor didn't get to the high Mach numbers (fast speed of sound and high air resistance in the dense air -> low top speed), so in that role the problem didn't matter.

"Low top speed" of course only in comparison to what it could do at a higher altitude - it was easily faster than the fastest propeller fighters down low!

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)