plenty of pilots and plenty of planes, no fuel........end of story and this prolonged thread
?????...
![Shock :shock: :shock:](/forum/images/smilies/icon_eek.gif)
OK if you say so... shut down the thread... Rip it off!!!
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
plenty of pilots and plenty of planes, no fuel........end of story and this prolonged thread
I am after his nomination for a fighter development during the war that was in his opinion a success.
?????...
OK if you say so... shut down the thread... Rip it off!!!
What I am doing, is agreeing with you...
That is not what he is saying. Just answer everyone's questions. You keep skirting away from them al, by just saying it was a debacle.
outsiders will be able to judge for themselves whether participants are making "weisenheimer" remarks just for the sake of scoring points...![]()
Magnon
The discussion so far has been interesting, but you you need to step back and coll off just a little.
Quite common design technique in WW2 German fighter aircraft, actually, the seating position being designed to resist G-loads better with the legs situated high...
Some adjustment would have been very handy...
And in any case the Me 262 with its high wing loading wasn't designed for high G-loads. In its role as an interceptor it certainly didn't need to pull high Gs and it would be well advised to use speed to disengage with Allied fighters rather than to get into a turning duel with them. That would be extremely unwise...
The Me 262 cockpit was placed over the wing, exactly where the fuel tank needed to be. As a result, fuel stowage took place all around the cockpit. There has never been another jet to follow that example. The comparison between the design of the Me 262 Schwalbe and that of the Meteor in this regard is enlightening.
Magnon
I dont know much about aerodynamics but I read that the 262 originally (as a prototype) had a propellor at the front "just in case" could that be why the cockpit and fuel were in the centre?
Actually the main reason the Me 262 had a piston engine at first was because the jet engines were not ready in time to start flight testing. The piston engine remained for safety purposes for the first few flights with jet engines.
They did not plan to put the engine in the front it was a stop gap method to get over the delay of the engine. The piston engine replaced the guns so it wasn't a major problem.Thanks, thats what I read (admittedly on wiki) but it with regard to cockpit position and fuel they must have had the idea to put an engine on the front from the start (i would have thought) putting the pilot and fuel behind.
It wasn't unusual to put fuel in front and behind the pilot, the Spitfire was a prime example. At the end of the day the Me 262 was a lot faster than the Meteor III as operational during the war. Both aircraft were well armed and likely to inflict fatal damage to the other so the important factor is which was most likely to get their guns onto target.having read how much fuel the 262 pilot had in front behind and underneath ...I take the meteor thanks
They did not plan to put the engine in the front it was a stop gap method to get over the delay of the engine. The piston engine replaced the guns so it wasn't a major problem.
I would choose the one thats approx 40-50mph in level flight and 100mph faster in a dive.
The engine need not have been unreliable. The Germans allocated many times the nickel requirement to their tank program. The jets SHOULD have been given far higher priority than the tanks. This looks to be an example of a Wehrmacht-centric mindset by the Germans. Nobody seems to question this.
Or maybe it was just a complete and utter stuff-up.
SoI dont think it was a shortage of nickel that was the problem (if it was then I apologise) but knowing exacly how much nickel chromium molybdenum or whatever other alloying elements were required
It was a matter of both - they did need nickel during the alloying process and also had to determine the right composistion that would provide the required heat resistance.I dont think it was a shortage of Nickel that was the problem (if it was then I appologise) but knowing exacly how much nickel chromium molybdenum or whatever other alloying elements were required.
So
a bit like doping in silicon manufacture, there is one ratio and one ratio only that will work in the alloying process for critical components in jets/turbines?
So
a bit like doping in silicon manufacture, there is one ratio and one ratio only that will work in the alloying process for critical components in jets/turbines?