Me 262 vs. early postwar jets

Had German aircraft used hydraulically-boosted controls in this time frame? This makes more sense than an extensible control column.

The 262's flight controls were conventional (direct linkage) only the flaps were equipped with an emergency compressed air boost feature.

swampyankee said:

Had German aircraft used hydraulically-boosted controls in this time frame? This makes more sense than an extensible control column.

Click to expand...

A lot of German aircraft used servo tabs, generally called Flettner tabs. Technically they were spring servo tabs. I believe the Dornier 335 had hydraulically boosted controls, maybe the Ju also 290. In "Messerschmitt Secret Projects" some design evaluation reports are cited that say that hydraulic controls are probably necessary for the new jets.

Servo tabs are of course different to hydraulic controls.

It is said that the Fw 190D13 had provision for hydraulic boost. I've read one claim on the Greg Goebel article that the He 162 used them to prevent lockup. (I would be surprised but flight test reports say they were too light)

The Me 262 had provision for servo tabs but they were usually locked in place and its said never implemented but you can see the hinge arms for it.

The Me 109 also had provision, shown in drawings, but its controversial as to if it was ever implemented. All those IL-2 players would dearly love to double their Kurfurst's roll rate in the game,

Spring Servo tabs can be finicky to setup for high speed aircraft as the tab becomes increasingly effective as speed goes up and can give the pilot too much authority with too little force feed back plus they can flutter.

The late war, 1944, versions of US Navy fighters (Hellcat, Corsair) had NACA geared spring tabs in which the deflection of the tab was reduced at speed. These fighters had much higher roll rates and bank rates than their earlier variants though they suffered a reduction in low speed roll rate. It was the NACA invention of these geared spring tabs that made servo tabs useful over a wide range of speeds suitable for fighters. The Hawker Tempest also had NACA geared servo tabs. The Germans seem to have had trouble in this area, not sure why.

The P38 received hydraulic boosted controls and the roll and bank rate of the aircraft went from slow to about the fastest of the war. The P80 received this technology.

Post war supersonic aircraft didn't use hydraulically boosted controls, they used 100% irreversible hydraulic controls with artificial feel provided from pitot static tube pressure and bob weights on the control column. This is because of the danger of pilot coupled oscillations and flutter getting into the control system.

Airliners such as the DC8, B707 used spring tabs.

After WW2, Eric Brown was asked to fly a surviving Bv 222 because the control system was of interest to the designers of the Bristol Brabazon. I found some details via Google books High Hulls and Wings on My Sleeve.

cherry blossom said:

After WW2, Eric Brown was asked to fly a surviving Bv 222 because the control system was of interest to the designers of the Bristol Brabazon. I found some details via Google books High Hulls and Wings on My Sleeve.

Click to expand...

Bristol Brabizon went with all hydraulic controls in the end. This seems to have become a feature of most British post war airliners such as the Britannia, VC10 whereas the US perfected geared spring servo tabs. In T tailed aircraft it better since it ensures that in the event of with disrupted airflow over the stabiliser/elevator the elevator in the so called super stall it is not dependant on the tab. I don't think I can recall a report by Eric Brown on a German aircraft in which he doesn't write that the servo controls were too light, not so sure anyone else did.

I imagine the big Japanese flying boats used something similar.

FLYBOYJ said:

And include the toxic cockpit fumes, the extreme heat or cold, sitting on a lumpy seat while restrained with belts that almost cut through your soaking wet flight suit and have a 300 pound woman sit on you everytime you pull Gs - oh while breathing smelly oxygen through a face mask that smells like a prophylactic.

Yea, there's few on here that don't take toy flight sims too seriously...

Click to expand...

Explain to me how any of this is replicated by matching statistics and graphs.

In many of the flight sims you can replicate the length of the mission, the lumpy seat, red out, black out. You could have someone tie you very tight to your chair and throw dirty water on you. If you are flying in VR the headset is pretty smelly and if you wanted to you could put on an oxygen mask and hire a 300 lb woman or man to sit on you. Extreme heat or cold would be no problem. I don't think I would mess with the toxic fumes but you could cook some cauliflower or broccoli.

It's all doable and certainly more of what your looking for than putting a graph on this website.

Oh boy...

Hairog said:

Explain to me how any of this is replicated by matching statistics and graphs.

In many of the flight sims you can replicate the length of the mission, the lumpy seat, red out, black out. You could have someone tie you very tight to your chair and throw dirty water on you. If you are flying in VR the headset is pretty smelly and if you wanted to you could put on an oxygen mask and hire a 300 lb woman or man to sit on you. Extreme heat or cold would be no problem. I don't think I would mess with the toxic fumes but you could cook some cauliflower or broccoli.

It's all doable and certainly more of what your looking for than putting a graph on this website.

Click to expand...

I think what you are failing to understand (maybe I'm wrong) is you're lacking the "real stimulation" in your "artificial simulation" that would come into play during real flight, let alone actual combat. Oh, and we could also add in there the pending bowel movement that is being exasperated by the seat belts cutting through your torso.

Hairog said:

Explain to me how any of this is replicated by matching statistics and graphs.

In many of the flight sims you can replicate the length of the mission, the lumpy seat, red out, black out. You could have someone tie you very tight to your chair and throw dirty water on you. If you are flying in VR the headset is pretty smelly and if you wanted to you could put on an oxygen mask and hire a 300 lb woman or man to sit on you. Extreme heat or cold would be no problem. I don't think I would mess with the toxic fumes but you could cook some cauliflower or broccoli.

It's all doable and certainly more of what your looking for than putting a graph on this website.

Click to expand...

You do know that the scenario FlyboyJ gave you is an actual situation because he's a former combat fighter pilot, right?

GrauGeist said:

You do know that the scenario FlyboyJ gave you is an actual situation because he's a former combat fighter pilot, right?

Click to expand...

'Well I've flown in jet aircraft, never did real combat (thank god)!

FLYBOYJ said:

I think what you are failing to understand (maybe I'm wrong) is you're lacking the "real stimulation" in your "artificial simulation" that would come into play during real flight, let alone actual combat. Oh, and we could also add in there the pending bowel movement that is being exasperated by the seat belts cutting through your torso.

Click to expand...

You forgot that you also need a guy sitting behind you and that if you screw up he was going to blow you brains out with a shotgun! No pressure there.

I think what you are failing to understand (maybe I'm wrong) is you're lacking the "real stimulation" in your "artificial simulation" that would come into play during real flight, let alone actual combat. Oh, and we could also add in there the pending bowel movement that is being exasperated by the seat belts cutting through your torso.

Click to expand...

I'm not even remotely hinting that sitting in the comfort of my home is anywhere near what you've experienced in reality. I am suggesting that it is far more telling and relevant (if the flight model is accurate) than arguing statistics. Go online with a good sim and fly against your buddy and test out the turning radius or the acceleration or the climbing ability.

But I also realize that there are folks who like to compare charts, graphs and statistics. That's fine and also legitimate. I'm just suggesting that there is another way to approach the discussion and search for something that will never be possible to recreate with most of the aircraft discussed in this fine forum.

Yes, I know that you would still be missing the 300 lb person etc. But you would have essentially the same sense of situational awareness. sight lines, blind spots and simulated red out and black outs as well at that simulated shotgun pointed at you. You will never get that from charts and graphs.

Even if you could find a Me 262 and F-80 or Meteor you would never be allowed to put them through live combat maneuvers or in a mock dogfight and rightfully so. However, you could come pretty close in a good simulation.

As long as the flight model is accurate.

The only Me262 flight models that were close as possible, were the ones in Jane's WW2 Fighters and the Me262 made by the 1% crew at Mudpond for CFS3.

Not going to drop any names of "recent" combat sims, but they've been proven to be a bit biased.

Hairog said:

Go online with a good sim and play against your buddy and test out the turning radius or the acceleration or the climbing ability.

Click to expand...

Fixed the bold part for accuracy. Sorry, but an online PC sim is not flying. Not even close. If you don't leave the ground, you are not flying.

Damn, for the love of god will gamers please stop calling it flying? Yes it is a pet peeve of mine.

*I'll make an exception for full motion simulators, and approved professional training simulators. Simply because you can log instrument time in approved ones.

When I used to run a sim in MP (multi-player), the edge I had on many, was that I actually had time.
Granted I was only VFR, but knowing real-world situations PLUS long research on the types that I was running (plus adversary types strengths/weaknesses) gave me an edge.

And for all that, a sim is still 2-dimensional. You don't encounter wind-shear, sudden cross-wind gusts, turbulence from crossing another aircraft's wake, violent drafts in cumulus formations and so on...

GrauGeist said:

When I used to run a sim in MP (multi-player), the edge I had on many, was that I actually had time.
Granted I was only VFR, but knowing real-world situations PLUS long research on the types that I was running (plus adversary types strengths/weaknesses) gave me an edge.

And for all that, a sim is still 2-dimensional. You don't encounter wind-shear, sudden cross-wind gusts, turbulence from crossing another aircraft's wake, violent drafts in cumulus formations and so on...

Click to expand...

I know it is very low hanging fruit, and I am making a mountain out of a mole hill, but to me a "simmer" saying they are flying a computer game is kind of insulting to the people who actually do fly. Again, this is just my opinion.

I put a lot of time and money into learning to to fly, and others dedicated their time and lives to become combat fliers. It just rubs me the wrong way when simmers say they are flying. As I said above, just my opinion.

Don't take me wrong. Sims are cool, and fun, but what 99% of the world is playing on their PC is a fun (but impressive ) video game.

One very real, and very serious issue with any sim, but especially sims put together by people who are a) not specialists in aerodynamics, stability, and control and b) not able to get accurate and detailed information about the aircraft involved is that not only do they not know what's wrong with the sim, but they don't even know the right questions to ask. Modern military and commercial simulators rely on very detailed knowledge of the airframe and engine behaviors over the flight envelope and beyond. This sort of information may be available for a Cessna 152 to game developers, but it's unlikely they'd be able to get sufficiently detailed information about a G550, let alone a current military aircraft, even a BAe Hawk. For an aircraft like an Me262? That sort of information is likely no longer extant, if it ever existed. An aerodynamicist with access to good drawings, a supercomputer, and high-end CFD software may be able to produce a sufficiently accurate aerodynamic model of an Me262, P-80, or Meteor given a few months, but there would still be the need for a sufficiently accurate model of the engine.

GrauGeist said:

When I used to run a sim in MP (multi-player), the edge I had on many, was that I actually had time.
Granted I was only VFR, but knowing real-world situations PLUS long research on the types that I was running (plus adversary types strengths/weaknesses) gave me an edge.

And for all that, a sim is still 2-dimensional. You don't encounter wind-shear, sudden cross-wind gusts, turbulence from crossing another aircraft's wake, violent drafts in cumulus formations and so on...

Click to expand...

swampyankee said:

One very real, and very serious issue with any sim, but especially sims put together by people who are a) not specialists in aerodynamics, stability, and control and b) not able to get accurate and detailed information about the aircraft involved is that not only do they not know what's wrong with the sim, but they don't even know the right questions to ask. Modern military and commercial simulators rely on very detailed knowledge of the airframe and engine behaviors over the flight envelope and beyond. This sort of information may be available for a Cessna 152 to game developers, but it's unlikely they'd be able to get sufficiently detailed information about a G550, let alone a current military aircraft, even a BAe Hawk. For an aircraft like an Me262? That sort of information is likely no longer extant, if it ever existed. An aerodynamicist with access to good drawings, a supercomputer, and high-end CFD software may be able to produce a sufficiently accurate aerodynamic model of an Me262, P-80, or Meteor given a few months, but there would still be the need for a sufficiently accurate model of the engine.

Click to expand...

I agree

This is like someone who builds a house for their little family in the Sims having strong opinions on pex v. copper or engineered wood v. steel. It's delusional.

RW Mk. III said:

I agree

This is like someone who builds a house for their little family in the Sims having strong opinions on pex v. copper or engineered wood v. steel. It's delusional.

Click to expand...

I'm waiting for someone to mention sex sims

gjs238 said:

I'm waiting for someone to mention sex sims

Click to expand...

Hey, you just did that.