Scale ME-262

HomeBuiltAirplanes.com

Help Support HomeBuiltAirplanes.com:

Riggerrob

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2014
Messages
1,406
Location
Canada
The first Messerschmitt 262 prototype made its first flight with straight wings, a piston engine and propeller in the nose, because jet engines were not ready. It also had a tail wheel.

When they installed jet engines, they had to sweep wings to balance the airplane, especially after the piston engine was removed from the nose.

Mounting jet engines well out on the wings just followed tradition, but they soon learned that mounting them closer to the fuselage vastly reduced yaw problems after one engine quit.

Tailwheel undercarriage proved problematic with jet engines. With the thrust line below the wings, they could not dip the nose to flatten angle of attack to accelerate during take-off. Test pilots resorted to tapping brakes to bring the nose level.
Messerschmitt engineers solved the problem by installing tricycle landing gear in later prototypes and all production Me 262s.
99 percent of later jets have tricycle landing gear.
















take-off. Test
 

Speedboat100

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 8, 2018
Messages
1,011
Location
Europe
The first Messerschmitt 262 prototype made its first flight with straight wings, a piston engine and propeller in the nose, because jet engines were not ready. It also had a tail wheel.

When they installed jet engines, they had to sweep wings to balance the airplane, especially after the piston engine was removed from the nose.

Mounting jet engines well out on the wings just followed tradition, but they soon learned that mounting them closer to the fuselage vastly reduced yaw problems after one engine quit.

Tailwheel undercarriage proved problematic with jet engines. With the thrust line below the wings, they could not dip the nose to flatten angle of attack to accelerate during take-off. Test pilots resorted to tapping brakes to bring the nose level.
Messerschmitt engineers solved the problem by installing tricycle landing gear in later prototypes and all production Me 262s.
99 percent of later jets have tricycle landing gear.


take-off. Test
Wings were swept in the earliest prop version too..naturally.
 

Attachments

Urquiola

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 23, 2013
Messages
90
Location
Madrid, Spain
Me 262 b.gif DC-10.png [/ATTACH] Lockheed L-1011 TriStar.jpg And this? Me-262 vs DC-10 vs Lockheed 1011 TriStar, wing swept angle differs, but main wing plan form is very, very similar. 'There is no worse blind than those who refuse seeing' (Spanish proverb) Or you claim, same as Soviets, when accused of plagium of US Aircraft designs, that: 'Aerodynamics is same for all, thus aircraft with same purpose are similar'? Gesund +
 
Last edited:

vhhjr

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Joined
Jun 29, 2003
Messages
81
I have loaded a three view of the two place version into a CAD program. A 50% version is possible if the pilot is in a reclined seat and the canopy sill line is dropped at least 6 inches. If you don't drop the sill the canopy opening isn't wide enough to get into the cockpit. Perhaps a better scale would be closer to 60%. This makes for a good sized airplane with a 24 ft. wing span. The 50% would be doable and gives about a 20 ft span. A 50% true scale version would have about 65 ft2 of wing area so the weight would have to be minimized to keep the wing loading down. I did a restaurant placemate estimate and it's easy to see the gross approaching 1000 lbs for a WL over 15 lb/ft2.

I have looked at large EDFs (electric ducted fans) and the largest on the marked is the 250 mm Vasy fan (http://www.vasyfan.com/) that develops 125 lbs of thrust on 35 kw (46 HP) for a total of 250 lbs.. Compare this to the Subsonex with about 260 lbs of thrust. It would be a challenge to keep the weight down. Vasy also makes a 395 mm, but doesn't have any specs for it on their web site.

One could drive each 250 mm fan with something like a Hirth F-23 (http://www.recpower.com/hirth.htm) if you were comfortable with the two-stroke reliability. The 395 mm version would take something larger like a Hirth 3703 (100 HP). There's also a like of rotarys on the market with a single rotor 40 HP and two rotor 100+ HP that might fit better. See: https://www.wankelsupertec.de/pdfs/datasheets/KKM350_Datasheet.pdf

https://www.aviationpros.com/engines-components/aircraft-engines/piston-engines-parts/article/12318212/geiger-motor-gmbh-delivers-new-wankel-aviation-engines

There are certainly other high output engines that would fit into the nacelles.

Then there's the hydrid version, maybe with the engine/generator in the fuselage. That would be even a bigger development program, but would have several advantageous.

Vince Homer
 

vhhjr

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Joined
Jun 29, 2003
Messages
81
That's true, but also true if you put a small modern turbojet in the nacelle designed for the original Jumo. It doesn't matter so much with the turbojet because its power density is so much higher than a cold jet.

The cold jet has appeal because of the stupendous cost of jet engines and the FAA requirements to fly planes powered by them. At this point it's all a mental exercise anyway.

Vince Homer
 

Toobuilder

Well-Known Member
Log Member
Joined
Jan 19, 2010
Messages
4,732
Location
Mojave, Ca
Taking that mental excercise just one more step - has the IC/electric hybrid discussed here so casually as a "solution" gained acceptance in the light aircraft market lately?

Nope.

And do you want to develop this radical propulsion system at the same time as a new airframe?
 

vhhjr

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Joined
Jun 29, 2003
Messages
81
Probably not. It does introduce a whole nother development program to the project. I mentioned it only because if it were possible it does solve the problem of powering a cold fan in a nacelle.

We are currently flying an experimental aircraft with four 120 mm battery powered EDFs in addition to the normal IC engine. We're using only batteries at this time, but have been looking at the hybrid solution.

Vince Homer
 
2
Top