• Hi Guest! Forum rules have been updated. All users please read here.

Messerschmitt Me 262 HG Variants

hesham

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
25,966
Reaction score
2,933
Thank you PlanesPictures.
 

hesham

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
25,966
Reaction score
2,933
No my dear Richrad,


it's fake,please see;
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,24821.0.html
 

sgeorges4

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Oct 8, 2017
Messages
519
Reaction score
101
Can I have a original drawing for the me 262 HG 1 variant please?
< picture is here
 

hesham

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
25,966
Reaction score
2,933
sgeorges4 said:
Can I have a original drawing for the me 262 HG 1 variant please?
Hard to find this moment,but I will search,here is some drawings.

From Messerschmitt Me.262,Warbird Rech.
 

Attachments

Avimimus

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Dec 16, 2007
Messages
1,947
Reaction score
64
In the case of the P.1106 there may be reasons for such a layout with its underslung engine.
but it's a totally different aircraft. For the drawing with the top and side view, I agree with the
caption: It does not make sense !

Well, there is the previously mentioned possible benefit to area-ruling. Even if we set that aside, there are benefits from a very simplistic aerodynamic understanding: The cockpit is a rrelatively low density part of the airplane - moving it to the rear doesn't impact the center of gravity but does increase the drag towards the tail. This would increase the overall stability of the design, and in theory, allow a smaller set of stabilisers. Of course, the benefit would be pretty marginal and the vertical stabiliser might be rendered less effective at controlling the plane as a result. But if you are pushing for every marginal improvement and you can get away with it structurally - it might appeal - initially at least.

It is kindof a shame that it didn't appeal! I liked the HG.III/p.106 hybrid... but I suppose that fictional is fictional!
 

sienar

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 8, 2009
Messages
629
Reaction score
225
A big reason for it was to place large fuel tanks right over the CG.
 

Grey Havoc

The path not taken.
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
11,254
Reaction score
1,517
An attempt to get an improved Me 262 into service as fast and cheaply as possible?
 

newsdeskdan

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2014
Messages
889
Reaction score
308
An attempt to get an improved Me 262 into service as fast and cheaply as possible?
Wind tunnel tests seem to have conclusively proven by about July 1944 that the V-tail was a mistake which would result in worse performance than the conventional tail. Similarly, the HG III had a regular cockpit rather than the lowered cockpit of the HG II because lowering the entire cockpit - including the seat, controls, dashboard, pedals etc. - took a huge amount of work and the slight reduction in drag just wasn't worth it.
So the most 'advanced' version of the Me 262, the HG III, had neither the V-tail nor the lowered cockpit. I would go out on a limb to say that any drawing you see of the HG III with either feature is inaccurate.
 

nuuumannn

Cannae be ar*ed changing my personal text
Joined
Oct 22, 2011
Messages
183
Reaction score
317
So the most 'advanced' version of the Me 262, the HG III, had neither the V-tail nor the lowered cockpit. I would go out on a limb to say that any drawing you see of the HG III with either feature is inaccurate.
I agree. If you push the cockpit lower, you end up forcing the retracted wheels into the slipstream. It's impossible. This is looking into the port wheel well of the RAFM's Me 262, with forward to the left. That's the bottom of the cockpit.
 

Attachments

Top