Messerschmitt ME262 'Schwalbe'

UKworkshop.co.uk

Help Support UKworkshop.co.uk:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

Kittyhawk

Established Member
Joined
30 Apr 2021
Messages
557
Reaction score
1,162
Location
New Zealand
A few construction pictures first for Clogs who asked to see the models under build.

The fuselages, the one in the background just spokeshaved, the one in the foreground has had a quick lick with 240 grit. Always interesting to carve using templates and seeing the shape develop. The 262 is quite triangular in cross section.
20220221_173319.jpg


And with the tails on..
20220224_114604.jpg


Next step, the wings and engines. Still struggling with the engines as they are slightly elliptical and are a puzzle to turn for a lathe amateur.
20220228_160503.jpg


But it went OK, and now just the finishing.
20220306_092816.jpg


And all done.
Not sure what I think about them. They are accurate and to my normal 40:1 scale, but the need for speed in late war fighters means a streamlined shape without protuberances, ie engine and radiator air intakes, oil coolers etc and its those little bits that make a model interesting. And it needs a propellor.
20220312_160739.jpg

20220312_160859.jpg
20220312_161004.jpg

20220312_161036.jpg

20220312_161403.jpg
 
Very, VERY nice work. I have seen an Me 262 for real and this looks spot on to me. The new owner is going to be delighted (and the engine nacelles look great to me). Congratulations.
 
Thank you for your comments, but here's a question. Was the ME.262 any good?
Firstly, accepting that the aircraft was cutting edge technology my research indicates that it was not very maneuverable, and that the pilot had to be extremely careful with the throttle. To much enthusiasm with it and the engines would flame out - a bit awkward to say the least. So with these known faults the 262 was used as a bomber interceptor rather than a dog fighter, but this brought with it a different problem.
I found some interesting written articles from pilots that flew the 262. The ME.262 was around 180mph faster than the allied bombers and although this provided the German pilots with a substantial degree of protection from the bombers gunners, it also meant (for the attacking 262) that the time from getting within gunnery range to over flying the target was around one second so not much time for the pilot to shoot. You would need darned good reflexes which I assume is why a few pilots were very lethal in the 262 but the majority, not so much.
 
Last edited:
They are lovely :)
Have you experimented much with colours to see how that affects your perception of such convoluted shapes?
I had read that fighter pilots of the time generally had about a second to fire, maybe what a second actually is in those circumstances varies a bit? :)
 
@Kittyhawk: I too have read quite a bit about the Me 262. My own conclusions, based on all that reading/watching, are as follows:

1. Technically - FAR ahead of it's time in terms of the swept wing AND the axial flow engine technology. Apparently "easy" to handle once the speed was up, AND once the pilot got used to handing the throttles (a very significant lag in spooling up, plus no slipstream over the controls due to no propeller made ground and close to ground handling VERY "carefull" - or else). Also a VERY low engine TBO (time between overhauls) due to, by today's standards, not very advanced metallurgy, especially in the engine hot section. And you're right, "rough" handling of the throttles would indeed produce a flame out (but apparently, no more/less so than with Meteors - see below).

But a big advantage for the 262, it was very heavily armed for it's day - better than anything else on the Allied side, as indeed German aircraft were generally, apart from rare exceptions. AND from looking carefully at a Me 262 in the metal (in Münich), there's very good access to ammo stores, fuel, oxygen, etc, meaning very quick turn-rounds in the field (IF they could get fuel, which in this context is another story of course - aircraft being dragged out of their hides by harnessed cows to save fuel is a common story for example).

OTOH, the Gloster Meteor, the only Allied jet fighter example, had somewhat cruder and less powerful engines (very stall-prone centrifugal compressor, more so than the 262's axial compressor), so also needing VERY careful throttle handling of engines with very similar short life between overhauls - and for similar reasons to the above it seems (in the latter stages of WWII my Dad was working on early prototype jet engines, and the necessary Nimomic "super alloys" were apparently as rare as hen's teeth).

2. Tactically: As you say, both the 262 (and the "Meatbox") were MILES faster than anything else (once off the ground) and in both cases needed the aircrew to make significant adjustments to their previous anti-bomber tactics. Basically, my understanding is that you're right, the higher speeds meant MUCH larger turning circles, and neither a/c had much in the way of air brakes to slow down quickly (not at the start of their service lives anyway, and of course the Me 262 never got airbrakes - the designers got "overtaken by events"! The Korean War Meteor Mark F8 is a different story however).

But the better pilots on the 262 (don't forget, good experienced air combat pilots were becoming thin on the ground in Germany by the time the 262 entered service) quickly did adjust to the 262's high speed. It seems that the main tactics were to approach the bomber formations from the sides or in front and a bit above, dive down on a pre-selected bomber target, then use the speed to zoom-climb up out of reach of both the bombers' combined gunners and escorting fighters after just one guns firing pass. Having used the subsequent climb to bleed off their speed, the 262 pilot would then turn tightly and come in for another go at the bomber formation in a single pass, as described above.

In all the above I stress I am not now, and never was, a jet fighter pilot. I'm just a retired aircraft engineer with a lot of interest in aviation history.

As I've tried to outline above, there are MANY factors which come into the overall assessment, but my opinion is that the 262 was "better" all round than the "Meatbox" produced at the same time, and that ONCE OFF THE GROUND - WITH THE "RIGHT" PILOT - AND WITH ENOUGH FUEL - the 262 was most probably not only far ahead of it's time but was also better overall than anything the Allies could field at the same time.

HTH, but please note, the above is simply my own opinion, albeit based on a fair amount of "study".

And once again Kittyhawk, a superb model Sir.

Edit for a P.S: A very useful source is "Wings on my Sleeve" by Eric "Winkle" Brown. VERY experienced WWII Test Pilot who, amongst a huge number of types (including many German) flew both the Me 262 and your previous FW 190 "Butcher Bird". Highly recommended, on Amazon (both as hard copy and e-book) and numerous other places.
 
Last edited:
Have you experimented much with colours to see how that affects your perception of such convoluted shapes?
No, the only thing I do is to use black paint for the canopy of course, and also inside bits like air intakes etc. The reason for not painting anything is firstly my accepting the fact that I am a really terrible painter and secondly from observing and listening to women. And from this observations it is apparent that whilst men generally like painted plastic model aeroplanes, women don't. And from what my customers tell me polished wooden models bridge the gap. For the man it is a scale model aircraft, for the woman its a sculpture, oddly shaped but acceptable more or less.
@Kittyhawk: I too have read quite a bit about the Me 262. My own conclusions, based on all that reading/watching, are as follows:

1. Technically - FAR ahead of it's time in terms of the swept wing AND the axial flow engine technology. Apparently "easy" to handle once the speed was up, AND once the pilot got used to handing the throttles (a very significant lag in spooling up, plus no slipstream over the controls due to no propeller made ground and close to ground handling VERY "carefull" - or else). Also a VERY low engine TBO (time between overhauls) due to, by today's standards, not very advanced metallurgy, especially in the engine hot section. And you're right, "rough" handling of the throttles would indeed produce a flame out (but apparently, no more/less so than with Meteors (see below).

But big advantage for the 262, it was very heavily armed for it's day - better than anything else on the Allied side, as indeed German aircraft were generally, apart from rare exceptions. AND from looking carefully at a Me 262 in the metal (in Münich), there's very good access to ammo stores, fuel, oxygen, etc, meaning very quick turn-rounds in the field (IF they could get fuel, which in this context is another story of course - aircraft being dragged out of their hides by harnessed cows to save fuel is a common story for example).

OTOH, the Gloster Meteor, the only Allied jet fighter example, had somewhat cruder and less powerful engines (very stall-prone centrifugal compressor, more so than the 262's axial compressor), so also needing VERY careful throttle handling of engines with very similar short life between overhauls - and for similar reasons to the above it seems (in the latter stages of WWII my Dad was working on early prototype jet engines, and the necessary Nimomic "super alloys" were apparently as rare as hen's teeth).

2. Tactically: As you say, both the 262 (and the "Meatbox") were MILES faster than anything else (once off the ground) and in both cases needed the aircrew to make significant adjustments to their previous anti-bomber tactics. Basically, my understanding is that you're right, the higher speeds meant MUCH larger turning circles, and neither a/c had much in the way of air brakes to slow down quickly (not at the start of their service lives anyway, and of course the Me 262 never got airbrakes - the designers got "overtaken by events"! The Korean War Meteor Mark F8 is a different story however).

But the better pilots on the 262 (don't forget, good experienced air combat pilots were becoming thin on the ground in Germany by the time the 262 entered service) quickly did adjust to the 262's high speed. It seems that the main tactics were to approach the bomber formations from the sides or in front and a bit above, dive down on a pre-selected bomber target, then use the speed to zoom-climb up out of reach of both the bombers' combined gunners and escorting fighters after just one guns firing pass. Having used the subsequent climb to bleed off their speed, the 262 pilot would then turn tightly and come in for another go at the bomber formation in a single pass, as described above.

In all the above I stress I am not now, and never was, a jet fighter pilot. I'm just a retired aircraft engineer with a lot of interest in aviation history.

As I've tried to outline above, there are MANY factors which come into the overall assessment, but my opinion is that the 262 was "better" all round than the "Meatbox" produced at the same time, and that ONCE OFF THE GROUND - WITH THE "RIGHT" PILOT - AND WITH ENOUGH FUEL - the 262 was most probably not only far ahead of it's time but was also better overall than anything the Allies could field at the same time.

HTH, but please note, the above is simply my own opinion, albeit based on a fair amount of "study".

And once again Kittyhawk, a superb model Sir.

Edit for a P.S: A very useful source is "Wings on my Sleeve" by Eric "Winkle" Brown. VERY experienced WWII Test Pilot who, amongst a huge number of types (including many German) flew both the Me 262 and your previous FW 190 "Butcher Bird". Highly recommended, on Amazon (both as hard copy and e-book) and numerous other places.
I am indebted to you AES for your succinct explanations on the operation of the 262. Theoretically all one needs to do is convert the plane's original plans into working drawing for construction in wood and then build the model, but I have a need to know, and you have satisfied this need very well.
My little hobby goes under the name AircraftArt and I would like to offer you the newly created position of Technical Advisor.:). I'm afraid it doesn't pay anything but I, and I'm sure other forum members will appreciate your continued input.
 
Well firstly thanks for the honour Kittyhawk. I hope that you will appreciate that in fulfilling my "honorary duties" in future, my inputs will NOT be based on personal experience, just a fair bit of "research", as per the above!

BTW, even if only "honoray", does this new position enable me to discuss terms for a model of the EE Lightning (but it MUST be a Mark F2, NOT a Mark F2A - and definitely NOT any other of the follow-on Marks like the "orrible" F3 - though we COULD talk about the first 2 seat trainer version, the T4 I 'spose)!

But seriously, that aeroplane is SO far away from what you so obviously enjoy making, AND considering the (IMO) VERY low prices you charge, we should and will forgot that thought (even though I did have the "pleasure" of working on F2s and T4s). So we'll leave that out of any future discussions!

Regarding "Aircraft Art" and your reply about painting to hairy, FWIW I completely agree with your approach to these models.

Anyone who knows the subject type can clearly recognise the type you've modelled for exactly what it is, and you haven't made the "mistake" (IMO) of trying to make a scale replica in terms of colours, insignia, access panel lines, antenna, fasteners, etc, etc. Just as you say, leave that to the - in many cases excellent - plastic scale modellers out there. "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder" and all that, and IMO you are producing pieces of "accurate sculpture" (if such a thing exists)? They all have a beauty of form in their own right, and all without falling into the trap of reproducing "everything" except all the important shapes and proportions.

As I've been invited to continue inputting I shall be delighted to continue - you must have noted by now, as I'm sure other Forum members have, that I need no 2nd invitation to rattle on at length about aircraft and their history. It's my second-favourite subject (I believe believe that my 1st choice is not within the Forum rules)! :)

Cheers mate
 
Thank you for the replies. I was more thinking of shades of stain rather than paint. I recently discovered that there is a well received Lego set that all the bricks are white to explore the art of architecture in that form, so colour won't affect your perception of shape. So since you have a set shape, how different would it look in a balsa shade compared to an ebony? A lot of work to compare a tiny detail in that way though!
 
Well firstly thanks for the honour Kittyhawk. I hope that you will appreciate that in fulfilling my "honorary duties" in future, my inputs will NOT be based on personal experience, just a fair bit of "research", as per the above!

BTW, even if only "honoray", does this new position enable me to discuss terms for a model of the EE Lightning (but it MUST be a Mark F2, NOT a Mark F2A - and definitely NOT any other of the follow-on Marks like the "orrible" F3 - though we COULD talk about the first 2 seat trainer version, the T4 I 'spose)!

But seriously, that aeroplane is SO far away from what you so obviously enjoy making, AND considering the (IMO) VERY low prices you charge, we should and will forgot that thought (even though I did have the "pleasure" of working on F2s and T4s). So we'll leave that out of any future discussions!

Regarding "Aircraft Art" and your reply about painting to hairy, FWIW I completely agree with your approach to these models.

Anyone who knows the subject type can clearly recognise the type you've modelled for exactly what it is, and you haven't made the "mistake" (IMO) of trying to make a scale replica in terms of colours, insignia, access panel lines, antenna, fasteners, etc, etc. Just as you say, leave that to the - in many cases excellent - plastic scale modellers out there. "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder" and all that, and IMO you are producing pieces of "accurate sculpture" (if such a thing exists)? They all have a beauty of form in their own right, and all without falling into the trap of reproducing "everything" except all the important shapes and proportions.

As I've been invited to continue inputting I shall be delighted to continue - you must have noted by now, as I'm sure other Forum members have, that I need no 2nd invitation to rattle on at length about aircraft and their history. It's my second-favourite subject (I believe believe that my 1st choice is not within the Forum rules)! :)

Cheers mate
I look forward to your first installment....where do we start?

Sopwith pup / camel....?!
 
Oh WOW!!


Beautiful work! :love:

I have every copy with the parts still attached of the DeAgostini Nelson's flagship 'HMS Victory' to have a go at building some time!!, A friends son collected every copy and was going to start the build when he had the full collection but then became very ill, I attended his funeral last monday :cry:

This is what itlooks like when built although it looks like the sails aren't fitted in the pic..
gyxA9S1.jpg


Can't wait to see your next build..

John (y)
 
@Jameshow: I don't think that Kittyhawk's idea was that I should just start rabetting on about just "any old" aeroplane. This is a woodwork/metalwork Forum after all! (OK, with some "general interest" stuff thrown in as well). And I doubt that the majority of members are all that interested. I have more the idea that when Kittyhawk has some questions about the "background" to a particular type then I might step in - as said IF/WHEN asked only!

There are plenty of sources for anyone really interested, both hard copy and electronic, and I guess that those members who have that interest won't be all that interested in my inputs. OR??
 
@Jameshow: I don't think that Kittyhawk's idea was that I should just start rabetting on about just "any old" aeroplane. This is a woodwork/metalwork Forum after all! (OK, with some "general interest" stuff thrown in as well). And I doubt that the majority of members are all that interested. I have more the idea that when Kittyhawk has some questions about the "background" to a particular type then I might step in - as said IF/WHEN asked only!

There are plenty of sources for anyone really interested, both hard copy and electronic, and I guess that those members who have that interest won't be all that interested in my inputs. OR??
I was only teasing!

I understand!
 
@Kittyhawk: I too have read quite a bit about the Me 262. My own conclusions, based on all that reading/watching, are as follows:

1. Technically - FAR ahead of it's time in terms of the swept wing AND the axial flow engine technology. Apparently "easy" to handle once the speed was up, AND once the pilot got used to handing the throttles (a very significant lag in spooling up, plus no slipstream over the controls due to no propeller made ground and close to ground handling VERY "carefull" - or else). Also a VERY low engine TBO (time between overhauls) due to, by today's standards, not very advanced metallurgy, especially in the engine hot section. And you're right, "rough" handling of the throttles would indeed produce a flame out (but apparently, no more/less so than with Meteors - see below).

But a big advantage for the 262, it was very heavily armed for it's day - better than anything else on the Allied side, as indeed German aircraft were generally, apart from rare exceptions. AND from looking carefully at a Me 262 in the metal (in Münich), there's very good access to ammo stores, fuel, oxygen, etc, meaning very quick turn-rounds in the field (IF they could get fuel, which in this context is another story of course - aircraft being dragged out of their hides by harnessed cows to save fuel is a common story for example).

OTOH, the Gloster Meteor, the only Allied jet fighter example, had somewhat cruder and less powerful engines (very stall-prone centrifugal compressor, more so than the 262's axial compressor), so also needing VERY careful throttle handling of engines with very similar short life between overhauls - and for similar reasons to the above it seems (in the latter stages of WWII my Dad was working on early prototype jet engines, and the necessary Nimomic "super alloys" were apparently as rare as hen's teeth).

2. Tactically: As you say, both the 262 (and the "Meatbox") were MILES faster than anything else (once off the ground) and in both cases needed the aircrew to make significant adjustments to their previous anti-bomber tactics. Basically, my understanding is that you're right, the higher speeds meant MUCH larger turning circles, and neither a/c had much in the way of air brakes to slow down quickly (not at the start of their service lives anyway, and of course the Me 262 never got airbrakes - the designers got "overtaken by events"! The Korean War Meteor Mark F8 is a different story however).

But the better pilots on the 262 (don't forget, good experienced air combat pilots were becoming thin on the ground in Germany by the time the 262 entered service) quickly did adjust to the 262's high speed. It seems that the main tactics were to approach the bomber formations from the sides or in front and a bit above, dive down on a pre-selected bomber target, then use the speed to zoom-climb up out of reach of both the bombers' combined gunners and escorting fighters after just one guns firing pass. Having used the subsequent climb to bleed off their speed, the 262 pilot would then turn tightly and come in for another go at the bomber formation in a single pass, as described above.

In all the above I stress I am not now, and never was, a jet fighter pilot. I'm just a retired aircraft engineer with a lot of interest in aviation history.

As I've tried to outline above, there are MANY factors which come into the overall assessment, but my opinion is that the 262 was "better" all round than the "Meatbox" produced at the same time, and that ONCE OFF THE GROUND - WITH THE "RIGHT" PILOT - AND WITH ENOUGH FUEL - the 262 was most probably not only far ahead of it's time but was also better overall than anything the Allies could field at the same time.

HTH, but please note, the above is simply my own opinion, albeit based on a fair amount of "study".

And once again Kittyhawk, a superb model Sir.

Edit for a P.S: A very useful source is "Wings on my Sleeve" by Eric "Winkle" Brown. VERY experienced WWII Test Pilot who, amongst a huge number of types (including many German) flew both the Me 262 and your previous FW 190 "Butcher Bird". Highly recommended, on Amazon (both as hard copy and e-book) and numerous other places.
I believe Winkle Brown reckoned that the 262 was so good that it was not improved upon until the mid 1950's.
 
I hadn't heard that one (or don't remember it - I must read Brown again). But quite possible yeah, and in any case you won't find me arguing with someone like him! Certainly I believe that all the early jets (all countries) were certainly not "easy".
 
FYI
Quoting "Wings on my Sleeve" p 134, talking about Me 262 strengths and weaknesses;
"Finally, the 30mm cannon were only accurate below 650 yards range, so a 262 attacking a bomber opened fire at about 600 yards but had to break off the attack at 200 yards to avoid colliding with the target, thus giving a firing time of only two seconds."
 
Quite true I believe.

BUT since the BoB there had been a consistent argument about "canon" v "rifle-calibre" armament. The "real Q" that has to be asked is, "Within that 2 seconds how many rounds will land on the target, AND how much damage will each round do?"

German WWII aircraft were, generally speaking, more heavily armed than their Allied air forces counterparts. Some "ace" pilots on both sides had their guns harmonised at shorter ranges than that specified, AND, at least it is now generally accepted that at the start of WWII the average RAF pilot was a VERY poor shot indeed.

By the end of WWII, most air forces had come to accept that all other things being equal, the "average" pilot would be unlikely to get more than just one or two rounds on his target, so better to give him a heavier calibre (20 mm, 30 mm, sometimes more) with an explosive or semi armour-piecing head so that those one or two rounds could nearly always ensure either a kill or at least very serious damage.

That's why "cannon" of at least 20 mm are "the norm" in fighter aircraft today (except for a brief period in the late 1950s and early 60s, after the (in)famous Duncan Sandys Defence White Paper. That stated that the days of the manned/piloted fighter aircraft were over and in future only missiles would be needed)! Yeah, right.

That's why the Mark F3 Lightning (for example) had no guns, (the earlier Mark F1s and F2 had minimum 2), but by the time the Mark F6 came in, it had 2 X 30 mm Aden guns again.

Like so many other areas in life, nothing (or at least very little) is quite as simple as it seems at first sight (or should that be "site")! Sorry!
 
Quite true I believe.

BUT since the BoB there had been a consistent argument about "canon" v "rifle-calibre" armament. The "real Q" that has to be asked is, "Within that 2 seconds how many rounds will land on the target, AND how much damage will each round do?"

German WWII aircraft were, generally speaking, more heavily armed than their Allied air forces counterparts. Some "ace" pilots on both sides had their guns harmonised at shorter ranges than that specified, AND, at least it is now generally accepted that at the start of WWII the average RAF pilot was a VERY poor shot indeed.

By the end of WWII, most air forces had come to accept that all other things being equal, the "average" pilot would be unlikely to get more than just one or two rounds on his target, so better to give him a heavier calibre (20 mm, 30 mm, sometimes more) with an explosive or semi armour-piecing head so that those one or two rounds could nearly always ensure either a kill or at least very serious damage.

That's why "cannon" of at least 20 mm are "the norm" in fighter aircraft today (except for a brief period in the late 1950s and early 60s, after the (in)famous Duncan Sandys Defence White Paper. That stated that the days of the manned/piloted fighter aircraft were over and in future only missiles would be needed)! Yeah, right.

That's why the Mark F3 Lightning (for example) had no guns, (the earlier Mark F1s and F2 had minimum 2), but by the time the Mark F6 came in, it had 2 X 30 mm Aden guns again.

Like so many other areas in life, nothing (or at least very little) is quite as simple as it seems at first sight (or should that be "site")! Sorry!
Bullets just punch little holes, if they arent in anything vital the plane can keep going. There are plenty of accounts of British and German aircraft making it home despite looking like a collander, with in some cases over two hundred bullet holes. Cannon shells explode, so they tear great chunks out of something as fragile as an aircraft. Only one or two hits could easily be enough to bring down a fighter.
 
Back
Top