Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Many of the Me-262 pilots were also inexperienced, and flying an aircraft with performance greater than any operated before would have been a challenge to more professional aviators. Hitting Allied bombers while streaking through a formation at high speed was difficult, and if an Me-262 pilot slowed down to take more careful aim, he became a good target for the bombers' defensive fire and escorting Allied fighters.
The Messerschmitt ME 262
THE 456th FIGHTER INTERCEPTOR SQUADRON
QUOTE]
As against the problems of German pilots in coming to terms with the Me 262, the Meteor was argualbly relatively benign and easy to master:
By July 1944, the first Meteor Is were delivered to No. 616 Squadron. This unit included two members of the Royal Canadian Air Force—flying officers William H. McKenzie and Jack Robert Ritch.
No. 616 Sqdn. had flown Spitfires before converting, and the pilots had been assigned to twin-engine training on Oxford aircraft. Unaware that this was leading to the Meteor, they feared they were being prepared for something less exciting than their beloved Spits. Once the pilots met their new aircraft, the switch proved remarkably easy. The Meteor I had excellent cockpit visibility, helped by the presence of a tricycle undercarriage and the absence of a piston engine up front. There was no dual instruction; pilots simply taxied the Meteor for several minutes and then took off. McKenzie recalled that the most difficult thing was to get accustomed to jet flight. "It was very quiet because you were up in front of the engines. All I could do was sit there looking at the holes where the props should have been, and thinking, 'I see it, but I don't believe it! What's holding me up?'"
http://www.aviation.technomuses.ca/assets/pdf/e_shield.pdf
magnon,
please, stop, it becomes ridiculous. next post will be what? the switch for the electricals was badly placed on the 262? (to an english pilot opinion off course, those who didn't liked the lean position in german planes).
You always come back with the meteor turn, but there is someting you don't seem to understand: to initiate a turn, you apply stick on the ailerons! if the ailerons are HARD and low responsive at medium and high speed, how will you start the turn?
simply admit the meteor was a bad plane without maneuvrability, with a bad cockpit layout (in1946!) and tiring to fly( in combat, where each maneuvre starts with AILERONS), yes it had a "reliable" engine but that's all.
and forgot: those plane(262)s werent' build to last, they were tools. the airframe of a 109 in 45 has something like a 10h life from factory fresh to the end of life moment, sowhat if the 004 engines were able to be used 20h max? who cares?
magnon,
and forgot: those plane(262)s werent' build to last, they were tools. the airframe of a 109 in 45 has something like a 10h life from factory fresh to the end of life moment, sowhat if the 004 engines were able to be used 20h max? who cares?
magnon,
simply admit the meteor was a bad plane without maneuvrability, with a bad cockpit layout (in1946!) and tiring to fly( in combat, where each maneuvre starts with AILERONS), yes it had a "reliable" engine but that's all.
Dragondog:
I don't think the design of the SR 71 fuselage is particularly relevant to the Me 262... that is unless the German aircraft designers had some strange priorities or were prescient about hypersonic flight?
Lockheed F-12/SR-71 Wing/body blending on this aircraft consists of the use of a fuselage chine (Fig 154) which extends from the extreme nose. Operating as a very-low-aspect-ratio wing, it produces lift as a function of the square of the angle of attack which acts well ahead of the CG (i.e. as a destabiliser). This helps to offset the large rearward movement of aerodynamic centre with Mach number, which is particularly large for a delta wing. It thereby reduces what would otherwise be a very large static margin at Mach 3, together with the trim drag that this would generate. The influence of the chine on the neutral point is shown in Fig 155. To further reduce trim drag the nose of the aircraft just forward of the canopy is cranked up 2° so that it operates at a higher AOA than the wings. This produces a further positive increment in Cm0 which collectively halves the bending moment on the very long forebody.
The chine also has a strong influence on directional stability, and Fig 154 shows how the side-force was reduced by the addition of the chine. In elongating the forebody's cross-section, the chine allows an ordered crossflow instead of the separated region that exists behind a circular cross-section. Without the chine, the long, slender forebody displays a marked decrease in directional stability with increasing AOA. With forebody side-force reduced, however, directional stability increases with AOA. The chine's impact on directional stability is discussed further in Chapter 5.
Regards,
Magnon
I didn't see the data (on the Me 262) and my comments are strictly anecdotal...as are all of the google research presented on the 262 so far in this thread.
On the other hand, if you have access to first-hand analytical design and test data, particularly aerodynamic and structural for the airframes, and thermodynamic design and testing of the engines, all the better. With your background in Computer Aided Design of advanced aircraft, I will be very interested to see the material along with your analysis as it comes through.
I will try to contribute some very modest effort from this end.
Regards,
Magnon
If we can't quote anecdotal material, things are going to be very quiet here. As far as I am concerned the material from sources such as Meteor-CFE, the Me 262 Project, NASA, Kerosene in the Blood, Design for Air Combat, AeroNotes, Spiritus Tempus, ME262 PIlotDebrief, ME262 Wendell, RAE German Jets, ME262 Airframe, ME262 Engine, Me262 Pilot Handbook etc., is extremely worthwhile.
At no time did I say they weren't worthwhile - I did say what you presented here is anecdotal and you haven't made clear why you accept anecdotal references to such quantifiable topics as Drag. Wind tunnel results are useful in these discussions as well as accepted computer models with reasonable boundary conditions. The latter are available today - presumably the former are available from German sources but they haven't been entered into this discussion as Exhibit A.
Let me help you out with my problems with your references.
E.G. The Quote "The effect of sweep with the Me 262 wing was 'negligible'."
The question to be asked, and answered in context, is: Would the Me 262 had the same achievable dive speed with a straight wing - same airfoil/same thickness spanwise and same AR". From my background I strongly suspect the answer is 'NO' - but neither your selected references, nor your quoted selections from those references shed light on this subject.
When I ask you what the definition of 'negligible' is, and you have no answer - then it begs the second question. What is negligible in terms of say, Mach no at critical mach with or without sweep? was it 3%, 1%, 0.1% ??
Extrapolated further, if Mcr for the Me-262 was only .8M in a dive, it was within the envelope of a pursuing Mustang - and that would not be 'insignificant'.
If you care to go back into the threads re: Me 262 you will find references to recent computer modelling and results on the Me 262 - check them out. They may not change your mind but they will offer more insight to your deliberations.
Quote:
If you care to go back into the threads re: Me 262 you will find references to recent computer modelling and results on the Me 262 - check them out. They may not change your mind but they will offer more insight to your deliberations.
Sorry DragonDog,
I've been back through the posts in the thread and haven't seen any results of recent computer modelling posted. Can you point me to the post number?
Regards,
Magnon
Magnon - IIRC the high speed snaking was pronounced with full fuel in aft fuselage tank (extreme limit aft cg) but I will have to look up the Wright Pat reports from 1946. At any rate as a gun platform it was just fine in a speed range of 90% (50+ mph faster) than any Allied conventional fighter.
What I am saying is that for me, I remain agnostic on your representations from the sources you have quoted, for the above reasons - and ask you why you accept the same anecdotal claims if the data from wind tunnel results are in existance or computer models are in existance.