PDA

View Full Version : ME-262 can't fly with one engine



XyZspineZyX
07-23-2003, 08:16 AM
and this is _correct_!

Apologies if this has been reiterated to oblivion and I missed it, but I remember in the beginning people complaining about the inability of the ME-262 to keep flying with one engine, and how that's wrong.

But, I very recently saw a documentary on TV where they also reported about the ME-262 and the American project where they try to build a few of them from scratch. And in that documentary they clearly stated that the ME-262 could not keep flying with just one engine.

I.e., in this respect, IL2-FB seems to be correct!

I'm just reporting this as information, apologies if it's redundant.

XyZspineZyX
07-23-2003, 08:16 AM
and this is _correct_!

Apologies if this has been reiterated to oblivion and I missed it, but I remember in the beginning people complaining about the inability of the ME-262 to keep flying with one engine, and how that's wrong.

But, I very recently saw a documentary on TV where they also reported about the ME-262 and the American project where they try to build a few of them from scratch. And in that documentary they clearly stated that the ME-262 could not keep flying with just one engine.

I.e., in this respect, IL2-FB seems to be correct!

I'm just reporting this as information, apologies if it's redundant.

XyZspineZyX
07-23-2003, 08:36 AM
AchimT wrote:

- I.e., in this respect, IL2-FB seems to be correct!
-
- I'm just reporting this as information, apologies if
- it's redundant.
-
-

Save for the fact that the 262 won't exceed 350kph in a screaming dive from 10,000m with one engine out or will decelerate like a brick with one engine turned off, allowing "Storch-like" short landings.

That's where FB got it wrong. The intention was there but the implementation is flawed.

<center>
Read the <a href=http://www.mudmovers.com/sturmovik_101/FAQ.htm>IL2 FAQ</a>
Got Nimrod? Try the unofficial <A HREF=http://acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=4&sid=4870c2bc08acb0f130e5e3396d08d595>OT forum</A>

XyZspineZyX
07-23-2003, 08:58 AM
Historically the Me-262 could fly on one engine at a considerable speed, and carry out shallow turns and climbs as well. There is more than enough thrust on one engine to keep the plane aloft, be sure.

In fact the Me-262 manual states that, in addition to single engine flight, it is possible to abort a landing and go around on one engine.

This is fixed in the patch. The braking effect of a failed engine has been removed, and the Me-262 will fly properly on one engine, and glide properly with no engines.



Message Edited on 07/23/0302:27AM by StG77_Fennec

XyZspineZyX
07-23-2003, 10:40 AM
I don't want to get into an argument over this, but that documentary stated what I said very clearly. And that American group who's rebuilding the ME's seemed to be pretty much convinced of this as well.

Well anyway, I just wanted to contribute, if I was wrong, I apologize.

XyZspineZyX
07-23-2003, 10:55 AM
Did you read "The big show", by Pierre Clostermann ?

There is a detailed description in the book of a combat between Clostermann's Tempest and a Me-262, and he describes how he took out one of the Me's engines before his guns jammed.

The Me continued to fly, and he followed it for a some time, hoping it would crash, as they (the RAF pilots) had been told it would, but it flew back home, and he came back to base, furious against the one who had written this report about the Me-262 not being able to fly on one engine only.

I know pilot's accounts are not always the most reliable documents but this one seems interresting and the whole book is quite objectively written.

XyZspineZyX
07-23-2003, 11:48 AM
Probably that documentary had used the same sources that pilot's intelligence had been based upon /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

XyZspineZyX
07-23-2003, 11:49 AM
In real life, the 262 COULD fly on a single engine!

It could fly more than 2,5 hours at 450-500 km/h on a single engine. But a strict procedure should be applied: start at 7600 meters before shutting down an engine. Then back under 3000 meters to start again this engine. Possible also to land with a single engine,but it was dangerous!

Cheers,

XyZspineZyX
07-23-2003, 11:51 AM
Fennec, if they've fixed this, then it is GREAT news. I didn't see it specifically mentioned in the official patch thread. Where did you find out that this has been fixed?



Message Edited on 07/23/0304:49AM by Stecher_3.-JG51

XyZspineZyX
07-23-2003, 12:01 PM
" On one of his night intercept missions, Czypionka suffered a flameout caused by low fuel while on landing approach. At an altitude of only 600 meters, he was able to get a re-light and make a successful landing in a situation that almost always led to a fatal crash. "To tell you the truth, I can't remember exactly what I did," he says. "There was a specified procedure, and I was very familiar with all the flight procedures for the airplane, and I did it very quickly." It is stories like this that emphasize Czypionka's modesty about his flying achievements; he is perhaps the only Me 262 pilot ever to do that successfully, and he's certainly the only one who ever did it at night."

Czypionka flew 262 NFs in NJG11.

His 'story' can be found at http://www.flightjournal.com/fj/articles/wilde_sau/wilde_sau_1.asp


-------

from L.Dv.T-2262 A-1 and A-2

As for re-lighting the stopped engine:

- only possible under 4000m
- as the turbine blades are still turning the Riedel starter is not required
- speed must be reduced to between 300 and 350kph
-switch on ignition and when the engine has risen slowly, move the throttle lever to the "idling" position

Single engine flight and landing instructions are given.

http://www.stenbergaa.com/stenberg/crandall-stormclouds2.jpg

XyZspineZyX
07-23-2003, 12:40 PM
Fennec, if they've fixed this, then it is GREAT news. I didn't see it specifically mentioned in the official patch threat. Where did you find out that this has been fixed?

Its in beta 07. Engine relighting is still impossible; I'm hoping thats in the release version.

Then on the second day, it was made bug free, and He saw that it was good.

XyZspineZyX
07-23-2003, 06:57 PM
Correct is: It couldn't take off on one engine.
Wrong is : It couldn't fly on one engine.

Another bug: AI tries to take off on one engine. Still annoying...../i/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

http://www.bmlv.gv.at/images/flagge.gif


http://www.metalforum-austria.net/vbb/attachment.php?s=&postid=15243

XyZspineZyX
07-24-2003, 03:52 AM
You can lose an Me262 engine in FB up at 2000+ meters and nurse it back to base and land, though at the very last moments in My case, I Did have to goose the left engine just a bit when it looked like I was about to stall/tip the right wing, just as I was nearing touchdown. I DID think I was a dead Man for a few moments....
http://imagehost.vendio.com/preview/wi/wileycoyote2/262landOneEngine.gif


<center>Wiley</center><center><font color="#FF0000";font size="3pt">Click HERE to visit Wiley'sWWIIGunCameraWorld (http://people.ee.ethz.ch/~chapman/flightsims/oberstguncam/Frameset/)</center>
<center>http://imagehost.auctionwatch.com/preview/wi/wileycoyote2/IwoJimatiny2.gif (http://people.ee.ethz.ch/~chapman/flightsims/oberstguncam/Movies/SandsOne.WMV) </center>
<center><font size ="2pt">Click Flag-Raising for the Full-Size(4.2Mb) Version</center>

XyZspineZyX
07-24-2003, 02:43 PM
StG77_Fennec wrote:
- In fact the Me-262 manual states that, in addition
- to single engine flight, it is possible to abort a
- landing and go around on one engine.
-


Now that sounds like quite a trick. I ain't saying it can't be done. I'd just hate to be in a position where I had to do it.

XyZspineZyX
07-25-2003, 12:10 AM
I think some of the references say that the problem is the small rudder barely having enough authority at low speed <250kmh to correct for a flameout and the "sudden" assymteric thrust.

If you trimmed for the engine out or flying at reduced throttle you should still be able to fly at even lower speeds though control may be difficult and recovery impossible if you stall.

The scary thing for the ME262 pilot was that just after liftoff engine failure was very common with the early engines and suddenly your at <100m, <250kph, fully fueled, heavy and going into a spin. Bit different if an engine is taken out in a fight, your lighter, have altitude and speed.

The statement that the "ME-262 can't fly with one engine" is just wrong. Any plane can fly without engines including B17's and Space Shuttles. Perhaps the correct statement is "ME-262 can't manouvre or climb at low speed with one engine".

Chuck Yeager claims in his book he could successfly dogfight an F86 in the X1 as it flew unpowered after a test. Now there is a reference you can believe.

XyZspineZyX
07-25-2003, 02:37 PM
Perhaps the correct statement is "ME-262 can't manouvre or climb at low speed with one engine".


That is not the correct statement. The Me-262 can fly level, perform sustained climb, turn and reach a level speed of about 500km/h (perhaps someone ha exact number?) on one engine.

900 kg of thrust is more than enough to keep the plane flying in all regimes, although it is of course a less than stellar fighter at that point.

The severe yawing action has also been dealt with, and the assymetric thrust can be easily countered with a small amount of rudder.

Then on the second day, it was made bug free, and He saw that it was good.

XyZspineZyX
07-25-2003, 03:39 PM
I really don't want to get into an argument over this as I am certainly not an expert. And I know that you've quoted the manual and other sources. But personally, I can't discard the fact that the guys who said in the documentary that it couldn't fly on one engine also appeared to know what they're talking about.

They've been working on building ME-262's for a few years, and according to that report they're handmaking most every little part themselves. I.e., they must have done some seriously profound and thorough research.

I don't know what's right or wrong, but personally, I'm not uninclined to believe what the documentary said. After all, those were very early jet engines. I wouldn't expect miracles from them either?

XyZspineZyX
07-25-2003, 04:18 PM
Me-262 could fly happily on one engine at ~470mph and climb up to about 4km.

Note: This is for 5.8tons, for about 2/3-3/4 of max. fuel load.

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/Me-262Einmotorenflug.jpg


http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/FB-desktopweb.jpg
'Only a dead Indianer is a good Indianer!'

Vezérünk a Bátorság, K*sérµnk a Szerencse!
(Courage leads, Luck escorts us! - Historical motto of the 101st Puma Fighter Regiment)

Flight tests and other aviation performance data: http://www.pbase.com/isegrim

XyZspineZyX
07-25-2003, 04:25 PM
I saw a documentary on TV about the Me262 resurrection project. The engeneer they interviewed sayd they could not take the original engines because they don't have enough thrust to take off on one engine but laws say a plane must be able to do this. Maybe you got this statement wrong?! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

http://www.bmlv.gv.at/images/flagge.gif


http://www.metalforum-austria.net/vbb/attachment.php?s=&postid=15243



Message Edited on 07/25/0306:41PM by FliegerAas

XyZspineZyX
07-25-2003, 06:11 PM
I don't think so, but of course, it's possible that I just misunderstood what they said.

XyZspineZyX
07-25-2003, 09:14 PM
RAAF-IL2_Casper wrote:
- Any plane can fly without
- engines including B17's and Space Shuttles.

I don't think the B-17 can fly without engines, it glides as a stone would do.

XyZspineZyX
07-31-2003, 09:08 AM
I'll guarantee a B17 will glide better than a rock. In fact without bombs it would have a very light wing loading and probably glide pretty well.

Every time you land with your throttle cut your flying without engine power or gliding. Maybe you would prefer the statement "No powered flight is possible without engines" I'll accept that. Gliding is flying ask any bird or Paraglider pilot.

Back to the original question and yes the 262 can fly with one engine but not with acceptable saftey margins by todays standards.

nicli wrote:
-
- RAAF-IL2_Casper wrote:
-- Any plane can fly without
-- engines including B17's and Space Shuttles.
-
- I don't think the B-17 can fly without engines, it
- glides as a stone would do.
-
-
-
-
-