Author Topic: Me262 question: Did it have WEP?  (Read 3689 times)

Offline EagleDNY

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1514
Re: Me262 question: Did it have WEP?
« Reply #30 on: May 19, 2011, 02:14:37 PM »
Theoretical calculations have indicated that it was possible for 262 to achieve Mach 1.2 in a dive, although it is suspected that while the structure can take it upon acceleration it possibly cannot hold together on deceleration. My guess is that fuselage is OK in this kind of stress but it is probably wings that are under an incredible stress due to too shallow sweep-back angle.

Structurally the 262 was not too flimsy either. In comparison if 109 had 0.75mm aluminum on tip of its wing, the thickness was 2mm in 262. The net effect on structural strength is considerable.

-C+

I've seen a few of those calculations as well.  Structurally the 262 is pretty robust - I remember having a thread back discussing the structure of a 262 wing back when people were routinely ripping off the wingtips.  If you like the heavy 2mm surface material, you'll love the actual I-Beam main spar of chrome molybdenum steel - remember those wings are lifting the fuselage and holding a pair of heavy jet engines as well.  I think the nacelles would be the biggest problem - it isn't like they had a full-size transonic wind tunnel to test shapes and airflow.  Besides the drag of having a couple of fat nacelles under the wing, I'd think that supersonic air being rammed into those engines would probably screw things up pretty badly given the warnings about throttling them up slowly to avoid turbulence in the compressor stages.  If you managed to get it up over Mach 1 in a dive from high altitude and she held together, I think you would end up with a flame out as you came back under Mach 1 (if not a catastrophic engine failure of some kind from the use of sheet metal turbine blades).  

A LOT of early jet engine designs had problems with airflow.  There is a good reason why the first supersonic aircraft were powered by rockets.  



Offline dtango

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1702
Re: Me262 question: Did it have WEP?
« Reply #31 on: May 19, 2011, 02:52:33 PM »
Did the Me-262 have WEP?
Technically no.  WEP is a specific capability for supercharged piston aircraft engines to temporarily increase power output by increasing maximum allowed air compression through Anti-Detonant Injection (ADI) such as water injection.  The main limit to the length of WEP is the amount of ADI available.  Axial turbojet engines like the Jumo 004 don’t have such a mechanism.  The closest turbojet analog to WEP would be an afterburner.

Turbojets have a host of different physics problems they deal with compared to supercharged piston engines.  A major limiting factor with turbojets centers on the turbine fan blade stress from high temperatures & physical forces (e.g. centrifugal, pressure, etc.).  Turbine inlet temperature & material strength of the turbine blades are critical design constraints for turbojets.  The anecdotes from EagleDNY & Charge relate to this issue.

The 8700 RPM time limit is consistent with reducing the temperature & physical stress on the Jumo 004 turbine to increase the life of the engine as well as reduce the probability of engine damage or failure.  This is corroborated by

AAF tests of an Ar-234 with Jumo 004’s which states “All flights, except for the three maximum speed points were conducted at a recommended reduced power setting of approximately 8000 rpm as compared to the rated rpm of 8700 to conserve the life of the engines.”

From this logic the 8700 rpm time limit would be an engine failure modeling issue in AH, not a limited engine power-boost issue like WEP.


Did the Me-262 reach Mach 1 in a dive?
Krusty’s headscratching “layers & layers of boundary layer sound barrier” description notwithstanding, it would be difficult for WW2 aircraft to reach Mach 1 including the Me-262.

The primary problems to solve in reaching mach 1 and beyond would be to overcome the
a) exponential increase in wave drag at transonic speeds,
b) stability & control issues from the formation of shockwaves, &
c) structural failure from buffeting & flutter also associated with shockwaves

The empirical evidence is that most WW2 aircraft couldn’t overcome all of these hurdles while in a dive.  As to the Me-262 being propeller-less, solving (a) seems possible given enough altitude, but I’m dubious to it overcoming (b) and (c) given the following from:

Aerospace.org: Me-262 and the Sound Barrier

“Also important to note are the findings of Willy Messerschmitt who had designed the Me 262. Messerschmitt conducted a detailed series of wind tunnel and flight tests to determine the maximum speed his creation could achieve. Flight tests included a series of dives similar to that experienced by Hans Mutke. Messerschmitt concluded that the Me 262 could not exceed Mach 0.86 without becoming completely uncontrollable. Any higher Mach number would generate a nose-down pitch so strong that the pilot would not be able to overcome it. This pitch would constantly increase the plane's dive angle to the point that the aircraft would disintegrate under the negative g-loads. The Royal Aircraft Establishment in the United Kingdom later confirmed these findings during Britain's evaluation of the Me 262 after the war. The RAE found that the maximum safe speed that could be attained was Mach 0.84, and any higher speed would result in a fatal, uncontrollable dive from which recovery was not possible.”
Tango / Tango412 412th FS Braunco Mustangs
"At times it seems like people think they can chuck bunch of anecdotes into some converter which comes up with the flight model." (Wmaker)

Offline dtango

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1702
Re: Me262 question: Did it have WEP?
« Reply #32 on: May 19, 2011, 02:55:51 PM »
You can't really make a judgement just from watching the video since we don't know what speed they were lifting off at. 

Not to mention we don't know what weight they were at as well as what flap configuration etc.  Watching the vids is anecodatal flight modeling all over again :).
Tango / Tango412 412th FS Braunco Mustangs
"At times it seems like people think they can chuck bunch of anecdotes into some converter which comes up with the flight model." (Wmaker)

Offline dtango

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1702
Re: Me262 question: Did it have WEP?
« Reply #33 on: May 19, 2011, 03:06:14 PM »
I think the nacelles would be the biggest problem - it isn't like they had a full-size transonic wind tunnel to test shapes and airflow.  Besides the drag of having a couple of fat nacelles under the wing, I'd think that supersonic air being rammed into those engines would probably screw things up pretty badly given the warnings about throttling them up slowly to avoid turbulence in the compressor stages.  If you managed to get it up over Mach 1 in a dive from high altitude and she held together, I think you would end up with a flame out as you came back under Mach 1 (if not a catastrophic engine failure of some kind from the use of sheet metal turbine blades).  

Good point about the nacelle drag.  Regarding the engine inlet however, turbojet inlets are designed to slow the air down to feed the compressor.  We have this problem in spades for modern turbojets for aircraft that go supersonic.  Supersonic airflow in engines is bad juju so all a lot care is taken to figure out how to slow the airflow down to the compressor inlet even with the airplane travels at mach 1 or above.

As to the slow throttle up recommended, I believe that's to avoid compressor surge when the increase in pressure in the combustion chambers from fuel-air combustion occurs quicker than the compressor can increase the air pressure which leads to pressure back-flow in an engine or surge.
Tango / Tango412 412th FS Braunco Mustangs
"At times it seems like people think they can chuck bunch of anecdotes into some converter which comes up with the flight model." (Wmaker)

Offline RTHolmes

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8260
Re: Me262 question: Did it have WEP?
« Reply #34 on: May 19, 2011, 04:34:37 PM »
Did the Me-262 have WEP?
Technically no.  WEP is a specific capability for supercharged piston aircraft engines to temporarily increase power output by increasing maximum allowed air compression through Anti-Detonant Injection (ADI) such as water injection.  The main limit to the length of WEP is the amount of ADI available.

etc.

sorry but thats all wrong. WEP (in both AH and WW2 pilot notes for various aircraft) refers to time-limited higher engine power settings. ADI is just one example, afterburner or higher boost and/or rpm settings or NOS would alse be classified as WEP.

it would be no different than the WEP setting on eg.the pony.
71 (Eagle) Squadron

What most of us want to do is simply shoot stuff and look good doing it - Chilli

Offline Krusty

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 26745
Re: Me262 question: Did it have WEP?
« Reply #35 on: May 19, 2011, 04:40:31 PM »
I believe dtango used the proper phrases for what I was thinking of, the shock waves and buffeting and the other problems that begin to build up before you even break mach1. That's what I was thinking of. Sorry for botching the terminology.


Dtango, WEP is not defined solely by an additive. I was going to type more, but Holmes spelled it out. Many planes simply ran at higher RPM and boost for a limited amount of time deemed semi-safe.


In that regard, if this is a 10minute setting for the 262, that would qualify for a WEP classification in general (not in respect to using an ADI), don't you agree?

It is a pilot operations book. It's based on captured documents and German pilot interviews. To me that seems to indicate at least some level of.... well not "reliability" but... "benefit of the doubt" perhaps is what I'm looking for.

It seems to closely match the post war testing. What seems to be a scanned hard copy of the report can be found here:
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/other-mechanical-systems-tech/me-262-manuals-5134.html

It seems to match Zeno's Warbirds file quite closely.

There's a German scan at that URL as well but I'm not up to reading that much German.

Does anybody know the scoop? Are there conflicting reports? Does HTC have some other test data? Or do they just not know about the limited time on this, or what?


[As an aside:

The films: Typical loadout was usually fully fuel, except in some cases where the aft aux tank wasn't filled all the way, probably close to 75% in AH terms. Takeoff was done with full brakes until 8400 rpm, then released and throttles advanced to full. Standard was 20degrees of flaps (AH: 2 notches?) for takeoff.]

Offline dtango

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1702
Re: Me262 question: Did it have WEP?
« Reply #36 on: May 19, 2011, 05:54:14 PM »
sorry but thats all wrong. WEP (in both AH and WW2 pilot notes for various aircraft) refers to time-limited higher engine power settings. ADI is just one example, afterburner or higher boost and/or rpm settings or NOS would alse be classified as WEP.

it would be no different than the WEP setting on eg.the pony.

You're right about WEP including more than ADI.  But riddle me this guys, how many AH aircraft with WEP are not injection related (e.g. ADI, NOS, MW50 etc. etc.)?
Tango / Tango412 412th FS Braunco Mustangs
"At times it seems like people think they can chuck bunch of anecdotes into some converter which comes up with the flight model." (Wmaker)

Offline dtango

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1702
Re: Me262 question: Did it have WEP?
« Reply #37 on: May 19, 2011, 06:19:49 PM »
Dtango, WEP is not defined solely by an additive. I was going to type more, but Holmes spelled it out. Many planes simply ran at higher RPM and boost for a limited amount of time deemed semi-safe.


In that regard, if this is a 10minute setting for the 262, that would qualify for a WEP classification in general (not in respect to using an ADI), don't you agree?

It is a pilot operations book. It's based on captured documents and German pilot interviews. To me that seems to indicate at least some level of.... well not "reliability" but... "benefit of the doubt" perhaps is what I'm looking for.

I can understand the argument for limiting the 262 or Ar234 RPM. 

But IMHO it's a modeling of engine reliability, damage, failure issue.  For instance we know engines with injection enabled WEP would probably need to be overhauled after it was used in real life to ensure engine reliabilty etc., but we don't do that in AH.  Land on the re-arm pad & away you go with current engine, refilled WEP and all :).  So if they don't model engine reliability in this case why would they limit the Jumo 004's because of reduced engine lifespan issues?

All that being said, in this case I don't think there's a right or wrong, but really a modeling preference of what HTC chooses to do with probablistic vs. clear deterministic events.
Tango / Tango412 412th FS Braunco Mustangs
"At times it seems like people think they can chuck bunch of anecdotes into some converter which comes up with the flight model." (Wmaker)

Offline EagleDNY

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1514
Re: Me262 question: Did it have WEP?
« Reply #38 on: May 19, 2011, 06:30:25 PM »
I think what we are finally back to is "should AH limit the 8,700rpm setting to 10 minutes by using the WEP system?".  

IMHO, I have to say no.  Nowhere in AH are we limiting rides with some notoriously unreliable piston engines from running around at full military power all the time.  Further, rides with WEP that use a tank full of something (take your pick) that is injected are not even modeled with a depleting tank of whatever is being injected, so the piston rides get essentially an endless WEP cycle.  

The 262 is fine as it is, although I'd be grateful for the ability to carry a couple of 500 Kg bombs someday.  

Offline RTHolmes

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8260
Re: Me262 question: Did it have WEP?
« Reply #39 on: May 19, 2011, 06:39:33 PM »
You're right about WEP including more than ADI.  But riddle me this guys, how many AH aircraft with WEP are not injection related (e.g. ADI, NOS, MW50 etc. etc.)?

more than use injection methods would be my guess - all the spits, hurris, mossies, typhoon, tempest, ponies, jugs (apart from M/N?), hogs (apart from -4?), P40s, P39s, P38s etc. :)
71 (Eagle) Squadron

What most of us want to do is simply shoot stuff and look good doing it - Chilli

Offline dtango

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1702
Re: Me262 question: Did it have WEP?
« Reply #40 on: May 20, 2011, 12:49:33 AM »
more than use injection methods would be my guess - all the spits, hurris, mossies, typhoon, tempest, ponies, jugs (apart from M/N?), hogs (apart from -4?), P40s, P39s, P38s etc. :)

According to Pete Law's Merlin ADI descriptions I had the mistaken notion that applied for many of the merlin engines (shame on me since I'm a P-51 aficionado!).

However the P&W R2800 family engines had them.  A quick check of AHT says F6F-5's, FM2's, F4U-1A's onward, all our models of P-47's had ADI. 
Tango / Tango412 412th FS Braunco Mustangs
"At times it seems like people think they can chuck bunch of anecdotes into some converter which comes up with the flight model." (Wmaker)

Offline Charge

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3414
Re: Me262 question: Did it have WEP?
« Reply #41 on: May 20, 2011, 02:20:52 AM »
"Messerschmitt concluded that the Me 262 could not exceed Mach 0.86 without becoming completely uncontrollable."

This is very much clear that there will be severe control problems, but also that Willy did not have too much experience of what will happen once you go past Mach 1, few did at that time. As I mentioned the mach effects build up gradually in different parts of airframe so the mach effects the pilots experienced could also be any of those, not necessarily the actual mach for the whole airframe. But theoretically the 262 was up to it aerodynamically if assisted by engine thrust (prior to flame out due to mach lock in inlet), but the structural limitations due to wing design existed too.

"Any higher Mach number would generate a nose-down pitch so strong that the pilot would not be able to overcome it. This pitch would constantly increase the plane's dive angle to the point that the aircraft would disintegrate under the negative g-loads."

Somehow I doubt this, don't you? The same problem plaqued P38 and P47 and many many other planes and it is related to wing profile design and somehow I doubt that Willy would have designed a 500mph plane with a heavily asymmetric, top heavy, profile.

Messerschmitt Me 262 Schwalbe   NACA 00011-0.825-35  NACA 00009-1.1-40

I understand that is a somewhat symmetric profile. I also understand that American planes which were noticed to have this kind of behavior, even with asymmetric profile, did not disintegrate due to neg G but exceeding the terminal velocity of the airframe and particularly wings, that is if they had time to build up enough speed before lawndarting.

"The Royal Aircraft Establishment in the United Kingdom later confirmed these findings during Britain's evaluation of the Me 262 after the war. The RAE found that the maximum safe speed that could be attained was Mach 0.84, and any higher speed would result in a fatal, uncontrollable dive from which recovery was not possible."

I wonder how they came into this conclusion? By taking the aircraft to the limit or beyond that and maybe there was an actual loss of life and the conditions where this happened were recorded?

"It's based on captured documents and German pilot interviews. To me that seems to indicate at least some level of.... well not "reliability" but... "benefit of the doubt" perhaps is what I'm looking for."  Sure. If I doubt the reliability of RAE reports I guess it is fair of you to doubt what the actual pilots who took he plane to combat (and back) said of the plane.  ;)

Yeah, sorry for a slight OT but the topic is interesting and I do not see a reason to start a new thread for such light skimming through the subject.



"But riddle me this guys, how many AH aircraft with WEP are not injection related (e.g. ADI, NOS, MW50 etc. etc.)?"

As far as I know none, but that kind of arrangement is the choice of HTC and it is/was not necessary true for all planes. I have understood that initially the "restricted power" was indeed a restriction in throttle lever to prevent accidental use of excess RPM and later on as the engines became more and more boosted by charger arrangements it started to include the additives that were sprayed into intake charge to prevent detonation. So its merely a choice in game mechanics, not necessarily how it was arranged IRL. Not that I'm completely sure about this but that is the impression I've got from literature.

I agree that the extra RPM could as well be behind the WEP button in this game as the game mechanics do not allow the engine to destruct itself under the normal throttle control limits. From that we get to request for more failure mechanisms and symptoms for engines, but that belongs to Wishlist.

-C+
"When you wish upon a falling star, your dreams can come true. Unless it's really a giant meteor hurtling to the earth which will destroy all life. Then you're pretty much screwed no matter what you wish for. Unless of course, it's death by meteorite."

Offline RTHolmes

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8260
Re: Me262 question: Did it have WEP?
« Reply #42 on: May 20, 2011, 08:19:30 AM »
However the P&W R2800 family engines had them.  A quick check of AHT says F6F-5's, FM2's, F4U-1A's onward, all our models of P-47's had ADI.

my mistake on the hogs - the -8W engine was introduced from late-model -1As onwards so only AH's -1 doesnt have ADI. Only the 47M/N used ADI though, the others didnt. I havent checked any of the allied buffs, my guess none used ADI (strangely WEP is only modelled on the A-20, B-25H and TBM iirc.)

I know the Germans were keen ADI users, not sure about Japanese and Russian aircraft though. :headscratch:
71 (Eagle) Squadron

What most of us want to do is simply shoot stuff and look good doing it - Chilli

Offline Krusty

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 26745
Re: Me262 question: Did it have WEP?
« Reply #43 on: May 20, 2011, 09:11:56 AM »
Many German rides did not. There's a reason our Fw190A8/F8 have an aux tank: The MW50 system wasn't ready and widespread enough to put in, so they used that MW50 tank for gas instead. They would sometimes just inject gas itself as the cooling agent, getting more boost.

Of the 109 series, only the G14 and K4 have MW50. Of the 190 series only the dora and Ta152 have MW50. I think those 4 are the only german planes we have modeled that use a specific ADI substance. The rest just burn a lot more gas and increase the power levels temporarily. [EDIT: I mean in-game, in real life more used it, for sure]


Eagle: That's a foolish thing to say. Every WEP limit in this game was imposed for heat and damage related reasons. The reason you don't have unlimited WEP on any plane in this game is the same: There were limits put in place. Those limits were not to be exceeded per some T.O. or the pilot handbook. Here's a case of a pilot handbook. So what's the problem? What's the different between this and any piston plane's WEP limitation? HTC strives for historical accuracy, no?

Offline icepac

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6974
Re: Me262 question: Did it have WEP?
« Reply #44 on: May 20, 2011, 10:48:02 AM »
If you've ever flown a Lear 25, you would be completely aware of the "mach tuck" related by the makers of the me262.

My question is....."Who discovered this unrecoverable "tuck?".....and "Did he survive the event?"