PDA

View Full Version : No Gloster Meteor???



Grand_Armee
08-19-2007, 02:17 AM
OK...I gotta ask...why not? Granted, compared to the 262 it was a pig. But the yp-80... 'flew' it for the first time last night...now there's a pig! The only thing I could get out of it was slow turns to keep the other jet pilots from cooking my goose. Just when I finally got it to 500KPH, I figured I'd open the trottles all the way (kept overheating earlier) and get some good speed... Hah! Engine: Overheat every time I went above 85% for more than a few seconds.

The only time I got any kind of speed at all when I was diving hard on some me-163 trying to get him before he could claim the safety of his airstrip.

But in a sim with fantasy/real Russian jets that never flew before the Kommies captured some Junkers motors and kidnapped some Junkers technicians...I just gotta say that the western Allies got ripped off.

Grand_Armee
08-19-2007, 02:17 AM
OK...I gotta ask...why not? Granted, compared to the 262 it was a pig. But the yp-80... 'flew' it for the first time last night...now there's a pig! The only thing I could get out of it was slow turns to keep the other jet pilots from cooking my goose. Just when I finally got it to 500KPH, I figured I'd open the trottles all the way (kept overheating earlier) and get some good speed... Hah! Engine: Overheat every time I went above 85% for more than a few seconds.

The only time I got any kind of speed at all when I was diving hard on some me-163 trying to get him before he could claim the safety of his airstrip.

But in a sim with fantasy/real Russian jets that never flew before the Kommies captured some Junkers motors and kidnapped some Junkers technicians...I just gotta say that the western Allies got ripped off.

stathem
08-19-2007, 02:34 AM
Oleg mentioned at SimHQ that he would have wanted to include the Meteor, but that the model wasn't finished to spec, and they ran out of time.

Shame, but that's the way it is.

Waldo.Pepper
08-19-2007, 02:42 AM
Asked and answered, multiple times. Isn't the search feature handy?

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/166...661080535#1661080535 (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/1661080535?r=1661080535#1661080535)

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/26310365/m/274...741036964#2741036964 (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/26310365/m/2741036964?r=2741036964#2741036964)

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/146...461058792#1461058792 (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/1461058792?r=1461058792#1461058792)

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/897...971007904#8971007904 (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/8971007904?r=8971007904#8971007904)

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/801...=801105452#801105452 (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/801105452?r=801105452#801105452)

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/63110913/m/709...091042245#7091042245 (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/63110913/m/7091042245?r=7091042245#7091042245)

DD_crash
08-19-2007, 04:44 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

Grand_Armee
08-19-2007, 10:58 PM
Thanks for answering guys. BTW, Herr Pepper...I noticed/used the search feature for the first time just yesterday...but not on this question.

Xiolablu3
08-20-2007, 12:45 AM
Meteor held the Official World Airspeed record in late 1945 and broke it again in 1946.


Quote :- 'High Speed Flight
The first attempt by a Meteor F4 on the World Speed Record took place on 7. November 1945, over Herne Bay (EE454 flown by Group Captain Willie Wilson). The record was successfully raised by to 975.845 km / hr, although the previous official record of 754.97 km / hr had stood since 1939, frozen because of the hostilities.
On 14. June 1946, the RAF High Speed Flight was re-formed, at Tangmere with six Meteor F4s. On 7. September of the same year, a new world record of 990.971 km / hr was set (by EE549), flying over a 3 km. course between Rustington and Angmering in Sussex. '

The early versions were pigs because it was built for the future, using very large wings and body to compensate for future growth into the late 1940's.

SO I have been reading anyway.

The early 1944 Meteors that went into service witht he RAF were built more for safety and experimentation, whereas the Germans went all out for 'here and now' performance with the Me262 (engines which catch fire when you throttle up quickly) and ME163.

Danger to the pilots didnt seem so serious when Germany was about to be overun by the Red Army.


The Meteor did fly in combat from July 1944 (7 days before the first Me262's went operational), shooting down V1's, and also tangled with Me109's and FW190's, having to withdraw when Spitfires and Tempests arrived on the scene and started shooting at them mistaking them for Me262's.

M_Gunz
08-20-2007, 01:10 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Grand_Armee:
OK...I gotta ask...why not? Granted, compared to the 262 it was a pig. But the yp-80... 'flew' it for the first time last night...now there's a pig! The only thing I could get out of it was slow turns to keep the other jet pilots from cooking my goose. Just when I finally got it to 500KPH, I figured I'd open the trottles all the way (kept overheating earlier) and get some good speed... Hah! Engine: Overheat every time I went above 85% for more than a few seconds. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You need to get much more speed than 500kph to really open up the early jets.
Prop develop most power at very low speed and it decreases in linear as speed increases.
Jets develop more power with speed.

How are you doing with "the ball"? You have the twisty stick now?

Real sorry we don't have the Meteor as from reading it seems the engines were more reliable
and not so finicky about throttle even if the jet was not so fast. Different approach, the
first time Adolph Galland went to fly a 262, it caught fire on the runway!

Beaufort-RAF
08-20-2007, 02:03 AM
http://www.raf.mod.uk/downloads/wallpapers/1945/meteor3s800.jpg
http://www.raf.mod.uk/downloads/wallpapers/1944/meteor3800.jpg
http://www.raf.mod.uk/downloads/wallpapers/1946_1949/meteorspeed800.jpg

OD_
08-20-2007, 02:34 AM
Well spotted.

HuninMunin
08-20-2007, 02:47 AM
What a beauty...
I'd pay 20 for a Meteor and Vampire addon. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/heart.gif

Waldo.Pepper
08-20-2007, 03:06 AM
I uploaded some stills of an early Meteor prototype. Also some video of the Gloster E28 and an early Meteor being pushed around on the ground.

http://img177.imageshack.us/img177/3903/01glostermeteorprototypwh0.jpg

http://img177.imageshack.us/img177/3289/01glostermeteorprototypkl8.jpg

http://img177.imageshack.us/img177/1175/01glostermeteorprototypaq0.jpg

http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=8543374466110683718

As for the game... 500 is not fast. Also you could be confusing the difference between Indicated air speed (IAS) and true air speed. (TAS)

http://img228.imageshack.us/img228/4162/grab0000gm3.jpg

10000m IAS = 330km/h

http://img228.imageshack.us/img228/9559/grab0002wq5.jpg

However TAS = 588

http://img168.imageshack.us/img168/3608/grab0005dk7.jpg

After a while she reaches 709 TAS.

http://img228.imageshack.us/img228/9137/grab0006iz4.jpg

In a dive 1050 km/h. A new personal best.

http://img382.imageshack.us/img382/5853/grab0007ag7.jpg

Off the scale.

http://img382.imageshack.us/img382/6803/grab0008hp9.jpg

Managed to squeeze another 4 km/h out of her.

http://img228.imageshack.us/img228/4570/grab0009df3.jpg

Fast down low over the aerodrome.

They take a while to get up to speed. But it is worth it.

Bremspropeller
08-20-2007, 06:27 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The early 1944 Meteors that went into service witht he RAF were built more for safety and experimentation, whereas the Germans went all out for 'here and now' performance with the Me262 (engines which catch fire when you throttle up quickly) and ME163.

Danger to the pilots didnt seem so serious when Germany was about to be overun by the Red Army. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


BS, they just didn't have the materials to build engines that would last forever. Thatswhy the engines needed to be overhauled after 10h and were dumped after 25 hours.

Catching fire was primaryly not caused by hamfisting the throttles. Doing so caused the engine to stall.
Not shutting the fuel valves allowed fuel to be spilled onto the hot combustion-chamber walls and turbine-blades.
That's what causes the fire.

You can pretty much light an engine-fire that way today. Just takes you a bit of luck b/c engines won't stall that easyly today.

BTW: which option would you choose?
Employing a weapon-system that is not entirely safe or refrain from doing so, because it was "dangerous" to it's pilots?

Xiolablu3
08-20-2007, 06:45 AM
Not BS at all.

If you are winning the war easily with the weapons you already have you certainly wouldnt give pilots a plane where the engines would catch fire as often as the Me262's did. What would be the point?


The Allies had absolutely no need to introduce a dangerous plane to its pilots.

Are you saying that the Me163,He162 and Me262 would be deployed as they were, in any other than a situation of pure desperation?


The Me262 would wait until it had proper materials for its engines. The first time Galland got in one the engine set on fire.

The Me163 would doubtful have ever been used at all, so dangerous to its pilots.

The He162 was so rushed into service that the planes fell apart from faulty glue.


If Germany had been winning hte war, there would have been no need to rush these dangerous planes into service. They were desperatly trying to find the 'wonder weapon' and get it into serive as soon as possible.

Phil_K
08-20-2007, 07:29 AM
IIRC, although the early Meteors were inferior to the 262 in speed, they had better range and ceiling.

I think the reason why the Meteor engines were more reliable than the 262's was down to them being centrifugal rather than axial turbojets, which expose the blades to lower temperatures. Therefore the Meteor's engines could be made from lower-quality materials with less risk of damage.

The 262's engines were the more advanced design, tho'.

Xiolablu3
08-20-2007, 07:31 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Phil_K:
IIRC, although the early Meteors were inferior to the 262 in speed, they had better range and ceiling.

I think the reason why the Meteor engines were more reliable than the 262's was down to them being centrifugal rather than axial turbojets, which expose the blades to lower temperatures. Therefore the Meteor's engines could be made from lower-quality materials with less risk of damage.

The 262's engines were the more advanced design, tho'. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Yeah I believe the Centrifugel flow of the the Meteor were eventually a dead end as far as Jet engines were concerned werent they?

I'm sure I have read that all jets nowadays are Axial flow.

The Centrifugel flow powered some monster planes however, the Mig 15, for one.

Axial Flow engines :-

'Real work on axial-flow engines started in the late 1930s, in several efforts that all started at about the same time. In England, Haine Constant reached an agreement with the steam turbine company Metropolitan Vickers (Metrovick) in 1937, starting their turboprop effort based on the Griffith design in 1938. In 1940, after the successful run of Whittle's centrifugal-flow design, their effort was re-designed as a pure jet, the Metrovick F.2. In Germany, von Ohain had produced several working centrifugal engines, some of which had flown including the worlds first jet aircraft (He 178), but development efforts had moved on to Junkers (Jumo 004) and BMW (BMW 003), which used axial-flow designs in the worlds first jet fighter (Messerschmitt Me 262) and jet bomber (Arado Ar 234). In the United States, both Lockheed and General Electric were awarded contracts in 1941 to develop axial-flow engines, the former a pure jet, the latter a turboprop. Northrop also started their own project to develop a turboprop, which the US Navy eventually contracted in 1943. Westinghouse also entered the race in 1942, their project proving to be the only successful one of the US efforts, later becoming the J30.

By the 1950s every major engine development had moved on to the axial-flow type.'

Phil_K
08-20-2007, 07:35 AM
I think the centrifugal principle is still used for helicopter engines.

But yes, axial flow became the dominant type. I think most modern engines are the axial-derived turbofan type, though someone may be able to correct me.

SUPERAEREO
08-20-2007, 07:39 AM
AFAIK all modern jet engines are basically axial-flow or a combination of centrifugal and axial. Purely centrifugal engines in the end proved not to be as efficient as axial-flow ones.

Bremspropeller
08-20-2007, 07:55 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The Me262 would wait until it had proper materials for its engines. The first time Galland got in one the engine set on fire.

The Me163 would doubtful have ever been used at all, so dangerous to its pilots.

The He162 was so rushed into service that the planes fell apart from faulty glue.


If Germany had been winning hte war, there would have been no need to rush these dangerous planes into service. They were desperatly trying to find the 'wonder weapon' and get it into serive as soon as possible. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


First of all, flying military planes was and is dangerous ever since.
Casualty rates in the 50s were so high, operational flying was considered even more dangerous than flying during wartime.

Than again, Germany suffered a lack of resources. Of course the 262 as is would never have taken off in an operational unit if they had better materials around back then. But then again they would have built them in.

The 262 was not particualry bad regarding engine burns. It was the pilots that transitioned from piston-planes with highly responsive throttles.
You just can not yank the throttles around in early jets, fact. Disreagarding that will get you killed in no time - no matter if you were flying 262s, P-80s or Meteors.


The 163 was never in full-scale production and was pretty much an experiment. of course it was a desperate attempt to counter the daytime-raids, but OKL soon percieved it was not effective enough and thus the programme was not anymore favored.
The 163 proved to be a decent plane, yet it's engine was troublesome.
The DH.108 was quite the opposite of it http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

Talking of the 162:
One crashed due to faulty glue. Others were produced with a higher graded glue.
But then again, they were never intended to last for years. They were intended to be used as stop-gap fighters, yet they flew circles around the Meteor http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

luftluuver
08-20-2007, 08:34 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SUPERAEREO:
AFAIK all modern jet engines are basically axial-flow or a combination of centrifugal and axial. Purely centrifugal engines in the end proved not to be as efficient as axial-flow ones. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Early centrifugal engines had a turbine section to drive the compressor stage.

http://www.gasturbine.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Nene1.jpg

WOLFMondo
08-20-2007, 09:33 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:

I'm sure I have read that all jets nowadays are Axial flow.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Probably with the exception of the Martin Baker test aircraft...two centrifugel powered Meteors. The oldest working jets and engines in the world. Still used becuase there more reliable than axial flow engines, even todays.

Daiichidoku
08-20-2007, 01:01 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:

I'm sure I have read that all jets nowadays are Axial flow.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Probably with the exception of the Martin Baker test aircraft...two centrifugel powered Meteors. The oldest working jets and engines in the world. Still used becuase there more reliable than axial flow engines, even todays. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

lotsa T-33s still about http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

249th_Maico
08-20-2007, 01:09 PM
YP-80 in game is a cruel joke. Engine cuts out a lot and it accells like a three legged pig. Against 262 it can barely hold its own. Still it was the first Allied Jet in the sim. So I flew it a lot and tried to like it. Maybe a later P-80 Shooting Star Version will be in the works for the future. Maybe they give us this when we get the F-86 and the Mig-15. And maybe men will colonize mars. I think I will marry Eva Mendez before we get a Meteor. But it would be nice to have one for a Korea scenerio. BTW, they did not fare too well there according to what I read.

M_Gunz
08-20-2007, 01:43 PM
P-80 and Meteor get eaten alive in Korea.

M_Gunz
08-20-2007, 01:56 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
Talking of the 162:
One crashed due to faulty glue. Others were produced with a higher graded glue.
But then again, they were never intended to last for years. They were intended to be used as stop-gap fighters, yet they flew circles around the Meteor http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I didn't know that there was ever a battle between 162's and Meteor! Wow!

Waldo.Pepper
08-20-2007, 02:52 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">YP-80 in game is a cruel joke. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v516/WaldoPepper/whine/grab0001.jpg

I can dive it faster than an Me-262. It got to a higher speed than the 262 quicker. At a higher altitude with less dive, and retained the speed longer.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v516/WaldoPepper/whine/grab0000.jpg

There is nothing wrong with it. It is hardly a cruel joke.

VW-IceFire
08-20-2007, 03:02 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by 249th_Maico:
YP-80 in game is a cruel joke. Engine cuts out a lot and it accells like a three legged pig. Against 262 it can barely hold its own. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
The engine cuts out only due to pilot error. Extreme high angles of attack and hamfisting the throttle (just like in the Me-262 except that you don't light on fire and you get a second or even third chance to restart). Acceleration is indeed quite average but once at speed it also retains its speed quite well...even during turns and rolls.

Bremspropeller
08-20-2007, 03:38 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I didn't know that there was ever a battle between 162's and Meteor! Wow! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


I never knew you were such a smartass.

Eric Brown concluded that.

M_Gunz
08-20-2007, 05:51 PM
Sorry, just had to do that! I think that "would have" would be appropriate.

OTOH the He-178 DID fly rings around the early FW-190 in front of official witnesses!

And yes, I had to get that one in too!

Enforcer572005
08-20-2007, 06:56 PM
As pointed out, the P-80A in the sim is a good fighter, if used to its strengths. I had a hard time to, until I get well into a cmpn project I've worked on for 5 mos now (Red Star/White Star 1947 - will be posted in a couple more mos hopefully). I wound up fighting alot of Yak-15s and Mig-9s in that thing, and I did quite well after I learned how to use it.

As mentioned above, rapid throttle movement will flame it out, and you have to keep the speed up to reduce temp. I take off using no more than 88% throttle, hold the brakes until it's wound up, then apply flaps at the end of the run.

I then put the throttle on 92% and leave it there. I keep my speed up and try to limit my turning fights to two turns and then unload the wings. If you get slow, the engine temp goes up. It's directly related to the speed of the air flow through the engine. I just point the nose to the ground and regain speed, and it drops the temp.

You can throttle up more, but it overheats really quickly. Also, gunnery is very important, since you only have a short time to shoot at these speeds.

From what I've read, this is all very realistic. The P-80 has become my favorite plane, and I can take on most anything in it. I just wish it had tip tanks and bomb racks like the production P-80As had.

Alot of research apparently went into this aspect of the sim. The Soviet jets fly similiarly, though they don't seem to be as prone to overheating, though I'm not sure about that, as my experience in them is not nearly as extensive.

M_Gunz
08-20-2007, 07:04 PM
IIRC with jets the important measures should be % rpms and EPR - Engine Pressure Ratio.
You don't really begin to make power until 92% rpms at least in newer engines.

Grand_Armee
08-20-2007, 11:03 PM
M_Gunz,
Since aquiring my Saitek Cyborg Evo force feedback stick, I can tell you that my stalling/spinning woes are over. Now all I need is that ability to look two places at once, and I'll be able to keep the ball centered. I'm better, but still pretty bad.

M_Gunz
08-20-2007, 11:23 PM
With practice you won't need to look at the ball very often, same as not needing to watch
the speedometer in a car.

mortoma
08-22-2007, 09:26 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
P-80 and Meteor get eaten alive in Korea. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Actually the P-80 was not that bad in Korea. And it was the first plane in which a pilot scored a kill against a Mig-15!!! After that the Mig did not mix it up with the P-80s very often, since they [Migs] were tasked against the bombers and Sabres at higher altitudes. The P-80 was used less as a fighter and more as a low level ground support/interdiction type, like the F-84s and Panthers.

But I'd say that down low if a Mig got into it with a P-80, he'd be in trouble if he got slow. The P-80 was far more manueverable than the Mig was any day. In a case of Mig-15 against P-80 in low/slow conditions, I'd bet on the P-80 every time. Best bet for the Mig pilot would be to use his speed/climb/both to escape the P-80 or try to B&Z it.