Me 262 vs. early postwar jets

[FLYBOYJ]

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.

Remotely close - as stated you could never simulate the environmental stimulus that will affect each pilot differently, thus affecting the final outcome. You will never fully model "sight lines, blind spots and simulated red out and black outs." Throw mentioned factors in there while you and a buddy are flying your simulated dogfight and then have someone, without warning, come up behind you, light off a cherry bomb, sound off a bull horn or hit the back of your chair with a bat and you might start getting "pretty close."

 

[swampyankee]

Remotely close - as stated you could never simulate the environmental stimulus that will affect each pilot differently, thus affecting the final outcome. You will never fully model "sight lines, blind spots and simulated red out and black outs." Throw mentioned factors in there while you and a buddy are flying your simulated dogfight and then have someone, without warning, come up behind you, light off a cherry bomb, sound off a bull horn or hit the back of your chair with a bat and you might start getting "pretty close."

Of course, the German pilot would also have to worry about how the underfed, brutalized slaves who built major chunks of his plane sabotaged the parts.

 

[GrauGeist]

A friend of mine had the MS flightsims with all the bells and whistles, where you could run anything from a 747 to a Cub.
So I ran his 172 and while it was comparable in many respects, it was nothing like the hours I had flying an actual 172.

Of course, the German pilot would also have to worry about how the underfed, brutalized slaves who built major chunks of his plane sabotaged the parts.

That was later in the war, but you can also factor in aircraft damaged at the factory during bombing raids, repaired and final assembled then shipped to the front.
Add to that, cobbled together aircraft kept flying with parts cannibalize from other aircraft (which often already had cannibalized parts from other aircraft).
Plus lack of proper and timely maintenance on airframes and engines and the maintenance that was done, was performed by overworked, sleep deprived ground crew who had little or no supplies to do their job with.

Typically sim's flight models are based on flight-perfomance figures from new or capture-tested airframe data sheets. This means that virtually all the aircraft types in the air during a game will have identical values - for example: if a group of MiG-3s take off on a sweep, they will ALL have the same perfomance algorithms. No one will drop out and return to base because of mechanical issues or bad fuel, etc.

 

[Dimlee]

Remotely close - as stated you could never simulate the environmental stimulus that will affect each pilot differently, thus affecting the final outcome. You will never fully model "sight lines, blind spots and simulated red out and black outs." Throw mentioned factors in there while you and a buddy are flying your simulated dogfight and then have someone, without warning, come up behind you, light off a cherry bomb, sound off a bull horn or hit the back of your chair with a bat and you might start getting "pretty close."

Years ago, when I played Il-2 airsim endlessly, my cat did almost that. She could not lift a bat, but her claws were pretty sharp and her meow, when annoyed, was more frightening than the Stuka's siren.

 

[swampyankee]

Typically sim's flight models are based on flight-perfomance figures from new or capture-tested airframe data sheets. This means that virtually all the aircraft types in the air during a game will have identical values - for example: if a group of MiG-3s take off on a sweep, they will ALL have the same perfomance algorithms. No one will drop out and return to base because of mechanical issues or bad fuel, etc.

Those are also going to be primarily steady-state performance numbers; departure performance is likely to be qualitative, not qualitative, as is much of the dynamic performance and handling qualities.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

GrauGeist

I was not referring to you with my sim post.

 

[swampyankee]

GrauGeist

I was not referring to you with my sim post.

I was appending to your excellent post, not commenting

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I was appending to your excellent post, not commenting

And I was making sure that GrauGeist did not think my post was calling him out...

 

[GrauGeist]

No worries, I knew you weren't, I was just adding my comparison between Sims and actual stick-time.

 

[GrauGeist]

Those are also going to be primarily steady-state performance numbers; departure performance is likely to be qualitative, not qualitative, as is much of the dynamic performance and handling qualities.

When I was active with the Jane's WW2 Fighters community, we had a member who was an actual P-47 pilot (ETO) and I recall him stating one time, that he "sure as hell wished his Jug was this nice during the war."
His guns didn't jam, his engine never fouled and not once did he accidently jettison his bombs when checking the arming switch!

 

[wrenchedmyspanner]

I think DCS has done the best job of programming flight parameters into a flight sim imho (the US Air Force Academy introduces flight dynamics to cadets using DCS, though admittedly, DCS is also free), and I know a few current and ex fighter jocks who tinker with the game, going so far as to recreate the seat, use VR, rudder pedals, throttle, etc. But really, for my part, g-forces and to a lesser extent disorientation, are what separate the simulator from the real thing. I don't know how many of you know of the US Navy's Kraken at NAMRU-Dayton (on Wright-Patterson AFB).

Introduction and good overview:
Releasing the Kraken

And here's an example run:
Kraken Disorientation Research Device (or simply, "The Kraken")
From about 1:40 to 4 minutes or so is the typical flight simulator (for sake of argument, more or less) but at 4:05 is when the fun begins! Oh man I love this thing. There is a brief segment of a simulation of the simulator - you'll know what I mean when you see it.

Oh and there's one more thing simulators like DCS and Il-2 can't simulate that has been known to happen during flight, and that is hypoxia (which is thankfully rare!). The Kraken can induce hypoxia as well for extra fun.

 

[Admiral Beez]

An interesting contest would be against the Su-9 Sukhoi Su-9 (1946) - Wikipedia. My betting is on the Me 262. The 262 would also have a speed advantage against the Yak-15. More difficult to call would be against the Mig-9. Does anyone know much about the Mig-9's handling?

I'd give the Me 262 good odds against every Soviet fighter until the MiG-15.

EDIT - in fact the best pre-MiG-15 Soviet fighters to face the Me 262 may not be jets at all, but instead are the superlative Yakovlev Yak-3 and Lavochkin La-9.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

for my part, g-forces and to a lesser extent disorientation, are what separate the simulator from the real thing.

Have you ever flown or flown in a high performance aircraft and been subjected to high Gs while attempting to perform specific maneuvers? I have and although I am no way an authority on flying high performance jet aircraft (we have a few real fighter jocks on here) while doing combat maneuvers (although I have been through a few simulated dogfights in L29s and L39s), I could tell you I definitely beg to differ with your opinion.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

I'd give the Me 262 good odds against every Soviet fighter until the MiG-15.

EDIT - in fact the best pre-MiG-15 Soviet fighters to face the Me 262 may not be jets at all, but instead are the superlative Yakovlev Yak-3 and Lavochkin La-9.

YAK-23 will give an ME-262 a run for it's money.

 

[wrenchedmyspanner]

No problem - I merely meant that in addition to the experiences you listed that one is unable to experience in simulators, I included g-forces (+Gz) and spatial disorientation. G-LOC and Spatial-D are two of the most common human factor causes of death in aircrew in the USAF if not the world. Sorry for the confusion.

 

[pinehilljoe]

Are there records of post war flight testing of 262s?

 

[Snautzer01]

Yes.