Additional mounting points on Admiral Me-262

FieroDude · Post by **FieroDude** » Sat Dec 09, 2006 9:45 am

Is it just my imagination, or does it look like Admiral including mounting points (slots) for bombs or drop tanks on the nose of the Me-262. And are those mounting holes on the fuselage bottom below/behind the wing for possible rocket mounts or towed hardware?

Makes me wonder what accessories are in the works down the line... And if Admiral may offer "accessory kits" at some point for "customizing" their planes? In the meantime, anybody have any recommendations for close matches for front bombs or drop tanks before I go and make something?

Post by **aferguson** » Sat Dec 09, 2006 10:11 am

they are no doubt planning a Sturmovogel variant for their 262. So there could be provision for bomb racks under the nose. Single seat 262's didn't carry drop tanks, to my knowledge, only the 2 seaters due to loss of fuel tank space when the second seat was added.

Under wing racks for 24 folding fin rockets would be a fun mod. for them to do in future.

VMF115 · Post by **VMF115** » Sat Dec 09, 2006 2:14 pm

I was going to ask that question but you bet me to it.

I think AT can do a quite a few variants on that one also, and I think that is their plan.

I would love to see engine detail; I was looking at the AT 262 engine nacelles, and it looks like it would not be too difficult for them to add new engine nacelles with detailed jet engines. That would be sweet even the 1:48 scale models has those.

http://www.rlm.at/start.htm?cont/gal14.htm&1

VMF115 · Post by **VMF115** » Sat Dec 09, 2006 2:52 pm

aferguson wrote:they are no doubt planning a Sturmovogel variant for their 262. So there could be provision for bomb racks under the nose. Single seat 262's didn't carry drop tanks, to my knowledge, only the 2 seaters due to loss of fuel tank space when the second seat was added.

Under wing racks for 24 folding fin rockets would be a fun mod. for them to do in future.

R4M Air-to-air missile

"The 55mm R4M Orkan (Tornado) folding fin missile was a formidable weapon fitted to Me 262s late in the war. Twenty-Four R4Ms were mounted on special wooden racks mounted under the wings. Each rack held twelve missiles which were about 2 ft. 8 ins. long and weighed 8.8 lbs. When fired, the missile traveled up to 1,700 ft/sec and packed a 1.1 lb. impact fused warhead. The warhead was typically white with the rest of the body and fins being a gray or dark metallic color.

The R4Ms were usually fired in four salvos of six missiles each at intervals of 0.07 seconds from a range of 600 meters. The R4M was unguided and the pilot simply used the usual Revi gunsite for aiming. When launched, the spring loaded fins would unfolded rearward. This enabled the R4M to be extremely compact until fired when the fins unfolded to provide stabilization. Seven of the fins were kept folded in place with a spring steel wire. The eighth fin then folded to hold the wire in place. When loaded from back to front in the launcher, the eighth (top) fin was kept in place by the launch rail. Once free of the rail when fired, the top fin would spring free and release the other seven fins.

The launchers were aimed with a slight upward angle of 8 degrees. When the rockets were fired from a range of 600 meters, they had the same ballistics as the Mk 108 cannons. The warhead was a 55 mm HE shell filled with Hexogen. A single hit was all that was needed to bring down a four engined bomber." from the website http://www.stormbirds.net/tech_r4m_rocket.htm

http://www.stormbirds.net/images_technical/r4m5.jpg

http://www.stormbirds.net/images_technical/r4m3.jpg

http://www.stormbirds.net/images_technical/r4m4.jpg

http://www.stormbirds.net/images_technical/r4m2.jpg

http://www.stormbirds.net/images_technical/r4m6.jpg

Spudkopf · Post by **Spudkopf** » Sat Dec 09, 2006 3:27 pm

G'day All

Sorry to disappoint but I think the slots on the nose you are referring to are the ejection points the canon shell casings.

VMF115 · Post by **VMF115** » Sat Dec 09, 2006 5:35 pm

There are holes in the back between the engine nacelles, that’s what I was thinking about.
http://good-times.webshots.com/photo/24 ... 8193eCyrUq

Post by **aferguson** » Sat Dec 09, 2006 5:46 pm

those holes are where the wheels go when you put the undercarriage up..

VMF115 · Post by **VMF115** » Sat Dec 09, 2006 5:49 pm

aferguson wrote:those holes are where the wheels go when you put the undercarriag up..

A million out of work comedians and you want to be one.

LOL

No the very small holes in the back.

VMF115 · Post by **VMF115** » Sat Dec 09, 2006 5:57 pm

FieroDude · Post by **FieroDude** » Sat Dec 09, 2006 5:59 pm

Spudkopf wrote:G'day All

Sorry to disappoint but I think the slots on the nose you are referring to are the ejection points the canon shell casings.

Hadn't considered that possibility, since I am not used to manufacturer's taking it into account... Factor in that it looks to be very close to where the bombs were mounted on the 21c 1/32 version...

However, the hole pattern toward the rear of the plane DOES remain a mystery--I somehow doubt it represents a very symmetrical hit pattern from a .30 cal...

Spudkopf · Post by **Spudkopf** » Sat Dec 09, 2006 10:19 pm

G'day Guys

VMF115 those other holes seem to correspond to the RATO attachment points like you can see on the 21stCT version. They seem to be present in most of the drawing that I have of the 262.

FieroDude the ETC (bomb) racks were mounted inboard of the ejection chutes with the leading edge of the racks more or less inline with the rear set of chutes. Both fully fared and un-fared versions of the ETC racks were used.

On the day fighter/bomber versions apart from various bomb loads some early experimentation with two W.Gr21 mortar tubes was also carried out, however with not much success. Many of the bombers that were finally reassigned to fighter units retained their ETC racks after their transfer.

As far as drop tanks go on most A models the racks were not plumbed for the use with drop tanks unlike the B model night fighters.

One may even suggest that the X-4 air to air guided rockets may have been carried on the ETC racks had this weapon reached operational use.