New threads and interesting conversations directly in your inbox. Sign up now and get a daily summary of the latest forum activities!
Discussion in 'Warbirds / Warbird Replicas' started by Saville, Oct 5, 2019.
Show me a picture of a 757 next to a ME-262.
I have a book around here somewhere, by a RAF pilot whose job was to fly captured Luftwaffe aircraft back to Farnborough. He said the MTBO on the engines was measured in (single digit) hours. One time him and his partner were to ferry two ME-262. His partner was to take off first, and the plane blew up on the runway. Certainly gave him a warm fuzzy feeling! I don't remember what else he said about it.
And almost all jet fighters are not copies of that configuration.
In the P-40 and P-51 you sit about eight to ten inches off the floor. Most fighters had the same space because they used a standard sizing in design. I would imagine the ME-262 had similar space. That give you similar space when scaled if you sit the pilot on the wing.
With the possible exception of the Fokker Dr.I, that has ground visibility similar to a Cassutt, ground visibility of fighters is not worse than a Pitts S-1 or many other homebuilts.
That is frequently suggested, and may have merit IFF the camera has an adequate field of view, and is used only at taxi speeds. I believe that it would not work well for takeoff and landing.
Are any WW II fighters too sensitive?
It handled extremely well and was higly manoeuvable. I don't have any links, but it was a fearsome opponent for any fighter when up to speed. It's engines were both it's one of its strongest and weakest points. Terrific speed capability, but they were fragile and power levels could not be altered quickly. It was vulnerable during takeoff and landing phase while at slow speed as the engines could not be powered up quickly. The RAF worked this out pretty quickly and sent Typhoons to jump them in the landing phase. the Luftwaffe responded with flak alleys and covering fw190s which put paid to that plan. The Typhoon was its only real opponent.
Engine life was usually double digits, if the throttle was handled gently. Owing to a shortage of metals like Chromium and Nickel, very crude alloys were used. The engines were much cheaper to buld than DB601. With the average life of a German fighter at that point, that could have made the Me262 quite an economical option.
It was probably the best bomber destroyer of the war.
I read one pirep comparing the Spitfire and Hurricane.
"The view in the Hurricane is much better, you can almost see where you are going"
The Spitfire has been decribed as "like trying to fly a butterfly". One of it's downsides was that it was a little difficult to keep it pointed at whatever it was shooting at. It flunked the NACA flying qualities tests. It does seem to have walked the controllabilty line, that helped it's superb manoeuverabilty, but it needed a skilled pilot.
From what I have read the Spitfire controls were not well harmonized. Rudder vs aileron. Ailerons responded with just a thought....rudder required large control pressures.
Yes the spitfire has very poor control harmony... the actual control ratio is very far from the ideal 1:2:4 for airleron:rudder:elevator. It does have a very good pre stall buffet.
Hurricane has instability. The pitch forces decreases with increasing pitch...
As for the nakajima kikka, it has a slightly over sensitive elevator in the pipreps.
There are some documents here.
The Hurricane had slightly negative pitch stability. But it was easier to fly than the early Spitfires with their neutral stability. The Hurricane had higher control forces. One mark of Spitfire, which might have been a V, had its cg too far back after the RAF loaded their equipment in, resulting in some unusually 'interesting' handling. Early WWII German aircraft were a lot more stable, which is one reason that they were not as good at dogfighting with either British fighter.
Thanks some remarks in the pilot notes at the site are very useful
like the statement that the aircraft stalls by falling straight ahead... a very desirable characteristic to avoid stall spin behavior.
Directional stability is good...
Remember that pilots back then knew what the rudder pedals are for.
Primary reason for asking about the measured flying characteristics is because if the original had very good behavior, then it will be easier to make a replica that doesn’t deviate too much from shape/outline and still probably fly very well and suitable for a competent GA/private pilot.
As an example the embraer Tucano flys great and the 70% replica that is sold by flying legend is easy to handle. Same goes for the P51 form. The spitfire although a beautiful shape doesn’t handle as easily, and the replicas have cartoonish dimensions.
A relatively recent pirep on the P-51 vs Spit I read said the P-51 technically flew better but there was something special about the Spit that trumped pure numbers. Much less adverse yaw than the period planes. Effortless to turn. These things are not Extras. They are all weapons of war with very specialized tasks. Who put them in the right place at the right time won. I have also noted that anyone survived war in an aircraft picks that as the best. Many stories have Spit better than hurricane and vice versa. Spit better than P-51 and vice versa. German Vs American or British or Japanese. Flavor of the day. I just met a SDB pilot. His comment was the plane was sure slow. These things all saw aerial combat. There is nuance to that that made certain planes right for that minute.
Not talking purely numbers, but all about ease of flying the aircraft, high maneuverability is not a good requirement for long cross country, nor useful in G.A context or aerobatic aircraft. Rather an aircraft with good static and dynamic stability and capable aerobatic ability will be a good combination.
Would be nice to get back to the scale me262 discussion rather than digressing on other aircrafts
I wish I could have introduced you to my grandfather then
Loved the p40
Tolerated the aircobra
Hated the hurricane
Finished the war in Lysanders.
The P-51 vs Spit thing is always limited by what mark / version of aircraft, if one looks roughly at the year of design you should be comparing P51B to MK IX and P51D to Mk XIV both points make them very different aircraft.
[QUOTE="TFF, post: 496899, member: 7387"but there was something special about the Spit that trumped pure numbers. [/QUOTE] Pure excess power. For the XIV verse P51D, something like 1000 lbs less weight and 300 hp more.
There must be quite a bit of proper flight handling assessments of the ME262 somewhere online.
I have found one, with a short drag break down
Each individual aircraft had both strengths and weaknesses. This was war, neither side had time for perfection. Good enough to win some fights was good enough for production. Tactics changed according to what was being flown to maximise its effectiveness.
There was no best plane, but there were a lot of planes that were best at one or two things. A few were very good at many things and praise was piled on.
The 262 was a specialised plane that was unusually good at some things, such as shooting down heavily defended bombers.
Willy was prewar a passenger airplane designer.
Separate names with a comma.