# Mistakes in Aviation



## Flyboy2 (Mar 20, 2008)

Ok so I'm just a little curious to see everybody else's opinion. What where some great planes that should have entered service but didn't, and why would they have been so good?


----------



## Njaco (Mar 21, 2008)

On the Luftwaffe side, there can be good arguments for the He 100/112, the Do 335, the Ju 390, the Me 264, the Ju 488 and the BV 155 come to mind.


----------



## DonL (Mar 21, 2008)

One of the biggest mistakes of the Luftwaffe was the FW 187!

Because it was a true multirole plane; the fastet fighter till early 1943, a long range fighter and an very good nightfigher till 1943. 
It could have buillt as single or twin seater and perhaps it had solved the problem of the Luftwaffe at high altidude fights between 1943 and 1944.


----------



## marshall (Mar 21, 2008)

I think that killing the Lockheed L133 project was a mistake. It could have been a first jet fighter and already a very good one.


----------



## B-17engineer (Mar 21, 2008)

Me-390, but can this be from any era?


----------



## SoD Stitch (Mar 21, 2008)

Njaco said:


> On the Luftwaffe side, there can be good arguments for the He 100/112, the Do 335, the Ju 390, the Me 264, the Ju 488 and the BV 155 come to mind.



Along that same line of thinking, the Go 229 would certainly have been a _wunderkraft_, assuming they didn't encounter any stability issues with it; the design was far ahead of it's time, but I can't help thinking there would have been directional stability problems since it had no vertical surfaces.


----------



## Flyboy2 (Mar 21, 2008)

I am defienatly in agreement about the Fw 187. But maybe its a good thing it didn't enter service, I wouldn't want any of our pilots going up against it.


----------



## DonL (Mar 21, 2008)

We had a big discussion about the FW 187 in a german Forum; for all guys who understand german can go to this link: Die Focke - Wulf FW 187 Falke

Our discussion was on two points: When make it sense for the Fw 187 to enter production and so on service and is it possible for an evolution FW 187 to solve the problems of the Luftwaffe at high altitudes fights betweenn 1943 - 1944.

For point 1, our agreement was that the FW 187 enter production after BoB cause of the weakening of the BF 110. So it could enter service at the end of 1941.

For point 2 we had calculated a FW 187 with two DB 605 as a pure Fighter at the basis of the FW 187 V6 flight and the data sheets of the FW 187 in comparison with the BF 110.

FW 187 1942 calculated:

engines: two Daimler-Benz DB 601A each with 1.100 PS
weights: 6.000 kg (full loaded)
wing surface area: 197 kg/m²
calculated Vmax: 650km/h
armament: four 7,92 mm-MG 17 and two 20 mm-MG FF/M

FW 187 1943 calculated:

engines: two Daimler-Benz DB 605A each with 1.475 PS
weights: 6.500 kg (full loaded)
wing surface area: 214 kg/m²
calculated Vmax: 725 km/h (at 7500m) 
armament: four 7,92 mm-MG 17 and two 20 mm-MG FF/M


----------



## Glider (Mar 21, 2008)

For the British I think the MB V was a missed chance. It was designed, tested, accepted and ready for production, but the orders were not placed.

For the Germans I also go for the FW187

For British Mistakes from a different angle. Why did we waste so many resources building such useless aircraft as the Both, Albermarle, Defiant, Roc and Blenhiem V. Its hard to think of any other country who wasted so much effort.


----------



## Denniss (Mar 21, 2008)

Was your calculation of the DB601A-engined Fw 187 based on 1100PS or on 990PS ? If on 1100PS then it's wrong as this power was only to be used for take-off and only for one minute. 990PS is the real take-off and Emergency power of this engine, comparable to the 1475PS of the 605A.

Better recalculate the speed figures maybe using the improved DB601AA (1175PS for one minute, 1050PS for 3-5 minutes).

VMax of the 605-engines version sounds a bit off as it's too high. Bf 109 with the same engine had their max speed at about 6500m, no idea why a Fw 187 with the same engine should have max speed at 2km above rated altitude.


----------



## DonL (Mar 21, 2008)

@ Denniss

your statement about the DB 601A isn't accurate.

The DB 600 without fuel injection had an output performance of 990 PS, the DB 601A with fuel injection had an output performance of 1100 PS and the DB 601N had an output performance of 1300 PS.

We have calculated the Vmax of the evolution FW 187 1943 as a high altitude fighter with evolution air cooler and optimized for high altitudes.
The best outputperformance (Volldruckhöhe) of the DB 605 was 7200m for the ME 109G, so the 725km/h Vmax was a realistic value.


----------



## Flyboy2 (Mar 21, 2008)

I defienatly agree about the MB 5! That would have kicked the Germans where it hurt!


----------



## kool kitty89 (Mar 22, 2008)

The He 280... Could likely have been in service eralier than the 262, though stillinferior ovrall. (even earlier if converted to except 590 kp HeS-6 -most powerful engines from '39 'till HeS-30, improoved HeS-8, and 004A in late '41- large diameter engine would be mounted mid-wing ala Meteor)

The HeS-30 is another missed opertunity in its self. For an overview: Heinkel HeS 30 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And the HeS-8 probably shouldn't have been canceled either.

The He 100 was good too. (469 mph max in testing)


Iv'e read through it and, while amazingly advance and very foresightful of Lockheed, the L133 just wasn't practical or possible within 10 years of it's design. The engines were also prooved to be too advanced and problematic, even by the early 1950's. By that time other engine designs were beating the L-1000 in thrust weight and size for the same class (ie J34) and with a much simpler design, albeit at a somewhat lower fuel efficiency. On a side note: the XJ-37 was built and tested and still exists, currently residing at Planes of Fame in Chino no less!


Forget about the longer range of the Fw 187 or He 100: How about just configuring drop tanks for the Bf 109E's for the BoB!

A good site on this kind of stuff: Hot tip aircraft page


Also there's the Westland Whirlwind, substitute Merlins early on and it might have even been ready by the BoB! And make an excellent interceptor. (note that early Merlins weren't much larger or heavier than the Whirwind's Peregrines) With increased fuel capacity and plumbing for drop tanks it could have made a good escort fighter as well.
An improoved Whirlwind vs. a proper Fw 187 (single seat with DB 601 engines) would have been a sight to see!

I also wonder if the Fw 187 could have used Jumo 211 engines, not too much larger or heavier than the 601, and with more power (generally). Though the lack of pressurized cooling on most models limited high alt performance. But it wouldn't cut into the engine supply for the 109 or He 100 like the Bf 110 did, though it would cut in on bomber engines. (albeit the Jumo 211 was cheaper and in greater supply)



Most of this has been discussed before on the "what aircraft (any side) would you develop further" and "what plane do you whish had sawservice" threads, but it's nice to see a new topic on it, and with a fresh introductory question as well.


----------



## red admiral (Mar 22, 2008)

Lockheed's L133 just isn't practical, mainly due the engines, which never actually worked and most likely wouldn't work with today's technology.

The Martin-Baker MB.5 was too late, in 1944 it was a real dog, like Martin's other planes. The good comments on performance come from tests done in 1946 when all the problems were fixed.

The Fw-187 was too small for an extra crewman and would really need to be a bit bigger to comfortably accommodate the pilot.

Supermarine 324 and 325 twin engined fighters would have been awesome, 450mph in 1940 with heavy armament and nice large wings to cope with later weight increases.

Cancelling the high altitude Napier Sabre variants was a bit of a mistake, as such it limited the Tempest to low altitude regimes (where it reigned supreme) but with around 2400hp available at 32,000ft would have had excellent performance. Then with later versions with uprated boost, giving 3750hp continuous and 5500hp maximum at 45lb boost (though that last one is post-war)


----------



## Flyboy2 (Mar 22, 2008)

Just curious, 
How did the He-100/112 stack up against the Me-109?


----------



## SoD Stitch (Mar 22, 2008)

Flyboy2 said:


> Just curious,
> How did the He-100/112 stack up against the Me-109?



IIRC, my understanding is it was in many ways a superior aircraft to the Bf 109, but Heinkel rubbed somebody's feathers the wrong way (Milch? Udet?) and lost the contract to Willy, partly for political reasons (another instance of Nazi Germany's "crony favoritism").


----------



## Glider (Mar 22, 2008)

red admiral said:


> The Martin-Baker MB.5 was too late, in 1944 it was a real dog, like Martin's other planes. The good comments on performance come from tests done in 1946 when all the problems were fixed.



If the MB5 was a dog then I would like to know how good an aircraft would have to be to be considered half decent.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Mar 22, 2008)

The only disadvantage of the He 100 to the 109 would have been turning ability and room for growth in weight, bith caused by the fairly small wing area and lack of LE slats. The smaller frame of the He 100 would hve offered better power loading though which would compensate somewhat. It would likely have been more than a match for the P-51 as well.

Feom what I've read Heinkel was known for not liking the Nazi regime and was particularly unhappy about loosing his Jewish workers and engineers. The RLM was also unhapy with Heinkel's "playing around" with private fighter projects as well as his jet and rocket programs when he was supposed to be focusing on development of the He 177 bomber and other bomber developments. (the 177 its self being flawed by the RLM mistakes) On a similar note Hans Von Ohain didn't much like the Nizis either and left his flying club after it came uner Nazi control.

I doubt Udet would have opposed the He 100 or Fw 187 as he didn't seem to share the same bias as many others. 

And though Focke Wulf wasn't as antagonized as Heinkel, they still seemed to be marginalized by Messersmitt in the RLM's eyes.



> The Fw-187 was too small for an extra crewman and would really need to be a bit bigger to comfortably accommodate the pilot.


It would still be roomier than the Bf 109 though, and it wasn't designed as a destroyer, but a single seat twin engined fighter, a contemproary of the P-38 and Whirlwind (albeit the P-38 was designed more as an interceptor) It could have made a good heavy fighter too, with plenty of room for nose armament, but it shouldn't have been a destroyer. A good miltirole fighter: interceptor, escort, fighter-bomber, support, but not a 2-seat destroyer! (and it would have been about as difficult to make a nightfighter as the P-38 due to lack of room for radar or radar operator)


----------



## kool kitty89 (Mar 22, 2008)

Agree on the MB.5



Another iron and interesting fact is that the first county to take a serious interest in gas turbine aircraft engines was also the last of the major powers in WWII to test one and the last to fly one. 
The Soviets had been seriously working on turbojet and turboprop designs since the 1920's and in the early 30's thy received government funding to construct prototypes. The first Lyulka jet design was suposed to be ready along with a testbed (likely similar to the Gloster G.40 or He 178 ) by the end of 1940. But when Germany invaded the turboprop project and team was captured and Lyulka and the turbojet team were forced to evacuate. This set them back nearly 3 years and it wasn't untill early 1943 that their engine ran. (albeit somewhat improoved) By the time they evacuated Lyulka's team had tested several centrifugal compressor layouts and a 2-stage axial compressor with 1.25 compression per stage along with combustion and turbine testing. (all designed to run at fairly low temp to allow the use of available materials with production in mind)

See: Russian Aviation Page: Russian Jet Technology 1937-45

And also a nice article on the L133 and L-1000: Lockheed L-133 by Tom Conte (Scratchbuilt 1/72)


----------



## Flyboy2 (Mar 22, 2008)

Yeah I saw a documentary about the Russian design ideas and they defienatly where far ahead of everybody elses aircraft designs in the 1930's. They flew that huge airplane over the North Pole and landed it in America. If Stalin didn't hate aircraft so much, who knows what they would have done.

The German's defienatly did not have their head screwed on right when it came to some aerospace projects. Especially those by Heinkel. I'm thinking of the He-219 right now. That was possibly the best night fighter of the war.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Mar 22, 2008)

Alot of the designers were on the right track or ahead of their time (Heinkel with jets for example) but the RLM had some crazy mindsets. Like no real contingency for defensive weapons and heavy bombers which doubled as dive bombers! (hence the He 177)

And Heinkel may not have been that well liked by the RLM, but it was his projects that jump started jet development and led to independent projects at Jumo, Junkers, BMW, Diamer Benz, (engines) and Messersmitt.(Me 262)


----------



## Flyboy2 (Mar 22, 2008)

Yeah, but imagine what would have happened if his good designs saw more widespread use (He-219)


----------



## kool kitty89 (Mar 23, 2008)

I'd thought so too, but check some of the Nightfighter threads. The He 219 isn't all as good as it seems on paper.

The Ju 88 was probably the most practical and effective all around night fighter. Almost as fast as the Mossie, a prooven design long in use. Multiple roles. Beter than the Bf 110 IMO.

In fact if you've got the Ju 88 and the Fw 187, there's nothing the Bf 110 can compete with.


----------



## Watanbe (Mar 23, 2008)

hmmm although it did see some limited service, i reckon the Westland Whirlwird should have been given more of a chance. Although to be fair its hard to argue that it was a mistake because other excellent planes filled its intented role and performed very well. The plane wasnt really needed but it could have been a ripper!


----------



## red admiral (Mar 23, 2008)

Here is a quote from the early trials of the Martin-Baker MB.5 in 1944;

"Greensted[test pilot] however remembered very clearly his first flight in the MB5, and he recalled ; "Right from the very beginning I suppose you could say that it was a badly designed aircraft because it didn't work in the sense that it was directionally unstable. It was an absolute swine to fly because it wouldn't keep itself straight."..."I still don't understand why the thing wasn't right when I first flew it. After all, the theory of design of aircraft at that stage was pretty advanced and I don't understand how he could make a mistake about the directional stability..."

Hardly praise of the MB.5

The Heinkel He 100 was too late to compete with the Bf 109. Even the He 112 was too late to compete with it in the early versions. Maybe the He 100 could be produced in lieu of the Fw 190, but I'm not sure thats a good swap.

The Lyulka turbojets were a good achievement for the Russians, but were very large and very heavy. The RD-1 having a 1:1 thrust:weight ratio. The later TR-1 was better, with 1300kg thrust from 885kg weight, but a bit late, first running in 1944.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Mar 23, 2008)

Totally agree that the MB.5 was no good.

The Whirlwind may have been a bit unnecessary, but considder this: if they'd redesigned it to use Merlins very early on (in the prototype stage) which is plausible seeing the lack of Peregrines, it could have been available much sooner and in larger numbers with better performance. It also could easily have been developed into a capable long-range fighter with an increased fuel capacity and plumbing for drop tanks on it's wng racks. This could have allowd Bomber command to perform sucessful daylight precision bombing to be performed instead of switching to night bombing. Also it could have made long range fighter sweeps into Germany and perform long range recon similar to the Mossie, but earlier on. Considder that the early (single stage) Merlins weighed about 200 lbs more than a Peregrine each and increase with other changes adds another 800 lbs loaded. So 1000 lbs heavier, but with 1,280 hp in place of ~880 hp. With loaded weight going from ~10,300 to ~11,500 lbs power/weight would still go from a decent .17 hp/lb to an amazing .22+ hp/lb! And with much better altitude performance.



The He 112 was a complex mess of parts and compound curves and was outperformed by the 109. The He 100 was a bit late but much easier to produce. It should not replace the 190 though IMO. If posible the He 100 would replace the 109 as the standard fighter (once there were enough) with the 190 still as a heavy interceptor and multi-role fighter. But the He 100 really wouldn't have helped alot over the 109 either. It was fast and fuel efficient due to the sleek lines, which would be important with the fuel limitations. However, it's only practical if it can be produced in a similar manner as the 109.

THe Fw 187 would have been a better interceptor though. In single seat configuration. It would have similar multi-role capabillities as the 190, but with better performance (especially at altitude) in all except roll. It was around early enough to be developed on the same time scale as the Bf 109 was.

With the Fw 187 and Ju 88 there would be no need for the Bf 110 either, both being more capable in all the useful aspects of the 110. (the 187 being too narrow to carry proper radar, but could do everything else and didn't have use for or ability to carry a gunner, the Ju 88 was a competent Nightfighter and multirole craft as well)


Other than production of the Bf 109, Messersmitt could put more focus on its advanced projects like the Me 262 earlier on. And not focus on further developments of the 209-II, 309, 109Z etc.


It would have been better to focus on developing unguided interceptor rockets (R4M) earlier on than waste things on things like SAM's. Work on proximity fuze, improoved radar, lead gunsights, and improoved guns would be more important.

As for the jet engines, all work should have focused primarily on class-I designs and maybe some class-II designs once the class-I's were well established. (the HeS-30/006 and HeS-8/001 shouldn't have been cancelled)

Jets were not a waste of reasourses IMO, it it had been handeled better, even moreso. One major thing to considder is that German jets ran on J2 (bascicly diesel fuel) wihich was in ample supply even at the war's end. (albit with the no way to distribute it with the German transportation system bombed to hell)


----------



## Denniss (Mar 23, 2008)

DonL said:


> @ Denniss
> 
> your statement about the DB 601A isn't accurate.
> 
> ...



You should check your sources, no Bf 109G speed graph shows 7500m as having max speed, they always have max speed in the area of 6400 to 6700m. Volldruckhöhe (static) for the 605A was 5700m, with RAM effect at about 6200m.

The DB601A/Aa take-off power is as I gave you - the 1-minute rating was only intended for take-off and even blocked in the Bf 109. Most DB601A-1 power graphs have the 1-min line topping at about 1.5 km with 1150PS, the 601Aa tops at ~1250PS at 1km. The DB 601N had 1175 PS take-off power (5-min rating) topping out at ~1260 PS at just above 2.1km, this 5-min rating was blocked in most DB 601N engines below Volldruckhöhe. There's no serious graph providing 1300PS for the 601N or are you mixing it with the 1350PS DB601E?


----------



## delcyros (Mar 23, 2008)

> You should check your sources, no Bf 109G speed graph shows 7500m as having max speed, they always have max speed in the area of 6400 to 6700m. Volldruckhöhe (static) for the 605A was 5700m, with RAM effect at about 6200m.



Dennis, it appears that both, the DB 605AS and ASM do have a rated altitude of 7.800m and the DB-605D2 has even 8000m rated altitude. The DB-605AS/ASM was extensively used in late Bf-109G5/G6 and Bf-109G14. Check the following link:



> The Luftwaffe page , Daimler-Benz DB 605



best regards,
delc


----------



## kool kitty89 (Mar 24, 2008)

Delcyros, 

Now that you're on here, what do you think of the mounting of HeS-6 engines on the He 280 with altered wings in a Gloster Meteor style mid-wing mounting? Obviously not the most efficient layout, but it could have made a good intrim measure as the HeS-6 wasn't too much heavier than the HeS-8 and produced thrust in late '39 that the HeS-8 wasn't making until 1941.

And how about using HeS-3's (in standard mounting) for the initial testing of the 280, as the airframe was ready nearly a year before the HeS-8 was and at that time the HeS-8 was making the HeS-3's thrust. The HeS-3 was only modestly greater in diameter (~6 in or 15 cm) Certainly better than glider tests and the leaking HeS-8 prototypes couldn't use cowling and thus added alot of drag.


----------



## Denniss (Mar 24, 2008)

delcyros said:


> Dennis, it appears that both, the DB 605AS and ASM do have a rated altitude of 7.800m and the DB-605D2 has even 8000m rated altitude. The DB-605AS/ASM was extensively used in late Bf-109G5/G6 and Bf-109G14. Check the following link:
> best regards,
> delc



I'm fully aware of the AS and D variants but as they were not specifically mentioned I assumed DonL talked about the standard 605A.


----------



## red admiral (Mar 24, 2008)

Instead of developing the Whirlwind, it would most likely have been easier to put more tanks into the Spitfire to increase the range. It was done historically but there was no need for mass production of the variant as bomber command had already switched to night bombing. Really, I think the bombers are going to be shot down in droves at this stage in the war no matter how many fighters are put up alongside them. By 1944 when the 8th AF joined in properly losses are still marginal even with hordes of escorts and a weakened Luftwaffe. Spitfire Mk III with better altitude performance, cleaned up for more speed and with clipped wings for better roll rate.

The mid-wing engine mounting like the Meteor is actually more efficient than the underslung method, but structural considerations are more important. It would depend on the dimensions of the HeS engines and the location of the wing spars as to whether it would fit.


----------



## Marcel (Mar 24, 2008)

Flyboy2 said:


> Just curious,
> How did the He-100/112 stack up against the Me-109?



The He112 lost to the Bf109 in a direct comparisment. The A version lost because it was clearly an inferior A/C (open cockpit and too complex). The B version was quite good, but never received the DB engines and kept stuck with low power Jumo engines. It performed reasonably well with the Hongarian and Spanish airforces but was obsolete during [email protected] as it was never developed further as the Bf109.
The He100 was a potential very good aircraft. Major probem was the cooling system of the engine. Heinkel used an evaporation cooling but it was too complex. Gave the He100 a good topspeed (400+ mph, even with a DB601), though and a longer range than the contemporary Bf109E. Could have been useful in the BoB. The intended production model used a normal radiator, don't know the performance of that plane.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Mar 24, 2008)

The He 100 was also much easier to build than the He 112.


I know the mid-wing mounting is more aerodynamically efficient, but it requires a curved spar with exra reenforcement to be as strong as an underwing mount, adding some weight. Wing-root or fusalage mounted engines would be the best though. But the underwing mounting on both the 280 and 262 (as well as the He 162's mount) allowed a wide variety of engines to be acomedated with the only restriction being diameter. (for ground clearance) And all the class I engines in development could be acomedated. (the 004 being the largest in diameter iirc) In the case of the Meteor all the engines tested were about the same diameter, save for the Metrovic F.2/1's. The Goblins were longer and heavier but not significantly larger in diameter than the W.2 type engines, and the Derwent I was slightly smaller in diameter than the Welland as well.

The mid-mounting would need a redesign to the wing, certainly. It should also be noted that the HeS 6 engines were only about 39 in (~1.0 m) in diameter, a bit smaller than Whittle's designs (which stayed about the same diameter from the W.1 to the W.2/700, abeit gaining weight) though they were a bit heavy. (420 kg, similar to the Derwent)


----------



## SoD Stitch (Mar 24, 2008)

kool kitty89 said:


> The He 100 was also much easier to build than the He 112.
> 
> 
> I know the mid-wing mounting is more aerodynamically efficient, but it requires a curved spar with exra reenforcement to be as strong as an underwing mount, adding some weight. Wing-root or fusalage mounted engines would be the best though. But the underwing mounting on both the 280 and 262 (as well as the He 162's mount) allowed a wide variety of engines to be acomedated with the only restriction being diameter. (for ground clearance) And all the class I engines in development could be acomedated. (the 004 being the largest in diameter iirc) In the case of the Meteor all the engines tested were about the same diameter, save for the Metrovic F.2/1's. The Goblins were longer and heavier but not significantly larger in diameter than the W.2 type engines, and the Derwent I was slightly smaller in diameter than the Welland as well.



Yes, I have heard that the under-slung nacelles turned out to be a blessing in disguise; more FOD to worry about, but servicing and changing an engine was a lot easier with it only a foot or two off the ground. And, also, as you pointed out, redesigning the nacelle (and the engine attachment points) was much easier with the under-slung design, which is why it was so easy to convert the -262 to the Junkers Jumo 004 engine in place of the BMW 003.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Mar 24, 2008)

The Metor was licky enough to have multiple centrifugal designs of similar diameter. While the further Whittle W.2 derivitives (eg, Welland, Derwent, Derwent V) were all specifically made to be of similar diameter, it was lucky that the Goblin also fit. Without the Goblin the Meteor would have flown even later. (thanks largely to Rover's incompetence)


----------



## Evil_Merlin (Mar 24, 2008)

SoD Stitch said:


> IIRC, my understanding is it was in many ways a superior aircraft to the Bf 109, but Heinkel rubbed somebody's feathers the wrong way (Milch? Udet?) and lost the contract to Willy, partly for political reasons (another instance of Nazi Germany's "crony favoritism").



Two fold I think.

1.) Heinkel was a pain in the ass.
2.) The He 100 used the same engine as the Bf 109. This is one of the primary reasons the Fw 190 made it into production.


The He 100 was the fastest prop driven plane until the Corsair F4U hit.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Mar 25, 2008)

Not so much Heinkel was a pain in his own right, but he wasn't hapy with the Nazi establishment and they werent happy with his private projects.

The RLM also tended not to like a/c that weren't built for a specification. The !09 had already beaten the He 112 and the He 100 was late competition that wasn't realy made by RLM request iirc. 

Similar with the Fw 187, a privately initiated project presented to the RLM and then forced into a destroyer configuration which it wasn't really meant for. It still outperformed the Bf 110, but there was no reason for the 2nd crewman. They also forced Jumo 210 engines on it. But Fw wasn't a "pain" to the RLM as Heinkel, but Messersmitt had a virtual monopoly on fighters at the time and it took considderable effort to break the RLM of this.

As said the main reason the 190 managed to get through is that it used a different engine.

Udet, who wasn't realy one for politics was often supportive of Heinkel's projects and showed an intrest early on with his jet developments, particularly the He 280:



> During contract negotiations with theRLM, Udet, who was supportive of Heinkel and who had recog-nized that Heinkel needed engine manufacturing capability andskilled manufacturing manpower to compete with the establishedengine companies, made Heinkel a gentlemen’s agreement that ifthe He 280 succeeded in flying before April 1941 Heinkel couldbuy the Hirth Motoren company in Stuttgart.By the end of 1939 the HeS 30 progress was very slow andHeinkel, concerned of the adverse impact on the He 280 program,approached Dr. von Ohain to develop a backup solution. Dr. vonOhain’s solution, designated the HeS 8A, was a design based onthe HeS 3B but with an axial diffuser and a straight through flowcombustor. The engine program was done under a RLM contractgiving the engine the first RLM designation of a German turbojetthe 109-001. It was not without risks because the specification ofthe aircraft limited the engine diameter and therefore the axialdiffuser function and efficiency together with the straight throughcombustor became very critical. Luckily for Heinkel, von Ohain’sHeS 8 engine managed to meet the minimum requirements andwas ready in time for the first flight of the He 280 which tookplace in late March 1941. The He S 30 program still sufferedseveral problems including a mismatch between the compressorand turbine. Thus, it is thanks to von Ohain’s HeS 8 that the He280 flew on schedule and the RLM allowed Heinkel to purchaseHirth Motoren company which could then give the Mueller teamsupport with the HeS 30 program.



But of course Messersmit and the RLM weren't quite so hapy with this and political disputes delayed the transaction and hampered development of the HeS-8 and HeS-30.


> After the demonstration flight of the He 280 Heinkel finallyreceived permission to purchase Hirth–Motoren21which was areputable manufacturer of reciprocating aero engines and turbo-chargers located at Zuffenhausen near Stuttgart. This acquisitionwas fraught with politics, with Heinkel’s rival Messerschmitt re-portedly delaying the acquisition for several months.22With theacquisition of Hirth, Heinkel had access to the engineering capa-bilities and manufacturing know-how of this small but wellknown engine company.



from: Using ASME format


----------



## Burunduk (Mar 25, 2008)

In USSR in my opinion was a mistake to abandon Polikarpov I-185 (as before very progressive I-17 was abandoned and I-200 was transferred from Polikarpov to Mikoyan).

Also, stopping production of Tu-2 in 1942 was a mistake.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Mar 25, 2008)

I believe that was caused by politics too.


----------



## red admiral (Mar 25, 2008)

kool kitty89 said:


> Without the Goblin the Meteor would have flown even later. (thanks largely to Rover's incompetence)



But squadron service wouldn't have been changed. The Goblin Meteor was an interesting footnote, but not important, similar to the post-war Meteors with Nene and Sapphire engines. Rover managed to delay the in service date of the Meteor by two years - quite an achievement.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Mar 25, 2008)

Yes, and the Goblin was better used for the Vampire as well. (it was probably good that DH kept their Goblins, save for those sent to the XP-80 project) If there'd been more intrest the Vampire by the Air ministry it may have seen servise sooner.

The Vampire was a better design IMO as it could do more with less thrust/weight and was all-around better in terms of practicality and performance. Of course, the Meteor would have been 2 years ahead in development if it weren't for Rover...

Both England and Germany made some stupid mistakes like that with their jet programs. (ie canceling Heinkels class I engines)
On the other hand the US jet program went rather smoothly, albeit more than 2 years late in the game and getting a head start with Whittle's design. However, if we look a little further back we can see that the US made on of the BIGGEST mistakes of all: somewhat like the Soviets, the US had a number of jet/rocket reasearch project in the 1930's, in particular a NACA program which progressed to about 1939 and then was abandoned as "impractical." Another jet/rocket program was also started, but focused primarily with small designs for RATO/JATO. And thus the US lost any chance at getting into the feild nearly as early as others. In fact the NACA was still favoring ducted fan/motorjet designs with the new development projram in 1941. (the only real development from this program was with Westinghouse and Became the J30, the first all American turbojet engine to run, and also one of the best performing engines of the War with excelent thrust for its size: 1600 lbf at 19 in diameter and under 700 lbs weight)


----------



## maut9r (Apr 13, 2008)

One of the biggest errors in the US effort was never getting Merlin's in the P-38. Several groups of Merlin P-38's sure could have helped things out over Europe until the P-51B arrived.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Apr 13, 2008)

What do merlins have to do with anything?

The problems were with the engine occling system, sometimes becoming overeffective or with radiator flaps jamming. (the overcooling caused the coolant and oil to circulate too slowly and the engine could overheat or seize)

There were also problems with the cocpit heatin. (lack therof) And problems with the intercoolers (inside the outer wings' leading edge) being inadequate and vulenerable.
Then there's the compressibility problems at .68 mach... But a good pilot could avoid these and even dive after an enemy if he kept speed well regulated. (throttle back) The dive flaps solved this but still limited speed to .68 mach.
Roll rate was also mediocre, and poor at high speed.

Most of these problems were solved with the P-38J and all the improvements 
were present in the late production J models, including dive flaps and boosted ailerons. (with compeditive roll at low-medium speeds and excelent roll at high speed)


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 13, 2008)

maut9r said:


> One of the biggest errors in the US effort was never getting Merlin's in the P-38. Several groups of Merlin P-38's sure could have helped things out over Europe until the P-51B arrived.


A myth....

The fact remains the brass in the ETO did not like the P-38 and Merlins or not it wouldn't of changed things much....


----------



## Freebird (Apr 14, 2008)

maut9r said:


> One of the biggest errors in the US effort was never getting Merlin's in the P-38. Several groups of Merlin P-38's sure could have helped things out over Europe until the P-51B arrived.



No, the mistake was foolin' around with the prototype in a PR stunt and crashing it before proper tests could be done, set the program back at least a year....


----------



## V-1710 (Apr 14, 2008)

FLYBOYJ said:


> A myth....
> 
> The fact remains the brass in the ETO did not like the P-38 and Merlins or not it wouldn't of changed things much....



I agree. the Merlin would not have add much if anything to the P-38's performance. In other aircraft, the advantage the Merlin had over the Allison was it's 2 stage supercharger. Since the Allisons in the P-38 were turbocharged (as the Allison was designed for), they didn't suffer from poor high altitude performance as the single stage Allison did in the P-39 or P-40, for example.


----------



## V-1710 (Apr 14, 2008)

I think the Luftwaffe should have incouraged development of the He. 277. The He. 177 was a fine airframe rendered nearly useless by poor engines.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Apr 14, 2008)

The 177 also had a lot of extra weight needed for the dive bomber requirement, granted this gave it a very strong airframe, but it limited performance, range, and load capacity.

Similar things limited the Ju 88's ability as a fast bomber. (originally a max sustained speed of 320 mph was obtainable on the V5 with standard 3-gun armament and 2000 kg payload, top speed of the unarmed V1 prototype was ~360 mph, iirc this was with 900 ps DB 600 engines) Additions for dive bombing and other RLM pet projects limited it to ~280 mph on production models when loaded. (and ~300-320 top speed after dropping bombs)

The other additions also slowed development and deployment somewhat.


----------



## model299 (Apr 14, 2008)

I'm assuming we can talk about any era. If not, let me know and I'll pull this post.

Say what you will about the politics of the move, nearly fifty years after the fact, the abrupt decision to cancel the Avro Canada CF-105 Arrow remains hotly controversial to this day in Canada.

By all reports, it was a superb aircraft for its class with tremendous potential.


----------



## HoHun (Apr 14, 2008)

Hi Don,

>FW 187 1942 calculated:
>engines: two Daimler-Benz DB 601A each with 1.100 PS

>FW 187 1943 calculated:
>engines: two Daimler-Benz DB 605A each with 1.475 PS

Interesting concept! Below some quick calculations I prepared from data in Hermann/Petrick's "Focke Wulf Fw 187".

My version of the DB601A-1 engined Fw 187 is powered by the early variant of this engine, which had a 4 km full throttle height. The improved version with 4.5 km already saw use in the Battle of Britain and would have given slightly better speed, and probably have been more accurate for the 1942 data point you're interested in. I really chose the older engine for convenience reasons only  My speed curve is based on the drag of the V-4, which was the A-0 series prototype. You'd probably have to add some drag for larger radiators, so it's a slightly optimistic curve. I chose 5500 kg as reference weight, slightly less than your 6000 kg.

The Fw 187C is also called Fw 187 Kampfzerstörer or Fw 187 neu, and it is calculated for 6620 kg mean flying weight with no external bombs, but external bomb carriers in place. It's not powered by the DB605A but by the DB605A-C with a different propeller reduction gear so that it can use 3.4 m diameter propellers. It also has a slightly different wing (span/area) according to the data in the book I'm using. The speed data is for 1.3 ata/2600 rpm, with the 1.42 ata/2800 rpm setting the speed obviously would be somewhat higher. The drag of the Kampfzerstörer is up quite a bit and the external bomb carriers probably play a role in that, as well as the enlarged canopy. With the drag of the V-4, it would have achieved more than 720 km/h according to my estimate.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## maut9r (Apr 14, 2008)

Glad to see you guys don't take it easy on the newbie! 

I agree the PR stunt on the XP-38 was a huge blow to the program. Cockpit heat was awful at best as well and the P-38 didn't seem to be well liked in ETO, but was that because of all the engine problems? Did the P-38 have the same problems in other theaters too with overcooling? (I don't know just furthering the discussion) I still think that a more dependable engine package would have done a lot to improve the P-38 in Europe and maybe a passable escort fighter earlier than the Merlin Mustangs. But then that would have had to start this development pretty early in the war or before, at which time no one knew of the problems in Europe........Hmm I seem to have talked myself out of my answer!


Model299 good call on the CF-105! If you want to get a Canadian fired up quickly mention that plane. A potentally great plane that died from pretty sketchy causes!


----------



## kool kitty89 (Apr 15, 2008)

The overcooling problems (along with heating) were not much of a problem in the warmer PTO and MTO where they were more sucessful, plus these tended to take place at medium altitude, lessening the temperature problems further and reducing the compressibility problems. (speed of sound higher in denser air at low alt, plus the speed in general was lower at low alt)

I don't know a whole lot on this, but I think the P-38 did better in N. Africa as well.


----------



## HoHun (Apr 27, 2008)

Hi Koolkitty,

>The overcooling problems (along with heating) were not much of a problem in the warmer PTO and MTO where they were more sucessful

Hm, I think it was Clay Tice who told me that his unit (flying P-38s) never managed to intercept the Dinah reconnaissance aircraft that overflew their bases because they had to level-off every now and then during a high-performance climb to avoid overheating their engines.

>plus these tended to take place at medium altitude, lessening the temperature problems further and reducing the compressibility problems. (speed of sound higher in denser air at low alt, plus the speed in general was lower at low alt)

Generally correct, but from PTO P-38 pilot MF Kirby I heard that they would never follow a Japanese fighter in a split-S because the risk of overspeeding when trying to follow with the P-38 was considered too high. Apparently, the split-S was not a common manoeuvre for the Japanese pilots either, perhaps because of similar concerns for overspeeding, but Kirby remarked that they could have evaded the attacking P-38s more easily if they had known of its restriction.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## HoHun (Apr 27, 2008)

Hi again,

>Below some quick calculations I prepared from data in Hermann/Petrick's "Focke Wulf Fw 187".

Here some photographs of the Fw 187 model in the Luftfahrtmuseum Hannover-Laatzen ...

(I'm going to post them separately to avoid the display problem for Opera users described here.)


Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## HoHun (Apr 27, 2008)

#2


----------



## HoHun (Apr 27, 2008)

#3


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 27, 2008)

Nice model. How large is it?


----------



## renrich (Apr 30, 2008)

This has been discussed in other threads but in my opinion the War Department of the US in 1940, when the XF4U became the first single engined fighter in the US to exceed 400 mph in level flight, should have: (1) Canceled the P47 and P38 programs and told Republic and Lockheed to take the Corsair design and adapt it for use by the AAF. (2) Phased out the P39 and P40 programs. (3) Continued the development of the P51 by North American and told Curtis to assist.(4) Told Grumman to collaborate with Vought to build Corsairs for the USN and Marines and cancel the work on the Hellcat. (5) Cancel the Curtis program on the Helldiver and make the Corsair the dive bomber to replace the Dauntless. The US would have wound up with two fighters eventually, the F4U and P51. With the mixture of ideas and resources of several companies developing and manufacturing the two different models, the advanced models of both AC would have come online much faster and the costs of the two AC would have dropped considerably. Concentrating on only two fighter engines would have had large benefits in manufacturing and in maintenance.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Apr 30, 2008)

At that time the P-51 was still a paper design and needed alot of work, plus it took a complicated chain of events to result in the P-51 
being powered by the Merlin 60 series engine and being accepted as an escort fighter by the USAAF.

Initially the AAF hadn't liked the Mustang early on one reason being that it was an independant company design, not ordered into development 
by the AAF.

(as a land based fighter, carrier operations asside)
And why is the P-47 worse than the F4U? The Corsair could turn and climb a bit better below 20,000 ft, but that's about it. Comparing the early 
paddle bladed P-47D to the F4U-1, the F4U would have an advantage up to 20,000 ft, the P-47 above 25,000 ft. The P-47 had better foreward 
vivability, and all-around with bubble-top. Both were tough, with an edge to the P-47 due to the F4U's oil coolers, and to a lesser extent the 
partial fabric and wood construction. (which did have some advantages)

Or by the same logic, why build the P-51 at all, it had a bit of a speed advantage over the F4U-1 (less in the P-51D), but that was about it, 
both hat critical altitudes of ~24,000 ft. Again the P-51 had better visibility. Their range/radius was about the same with the F4U's LE wing 
tanks. And since the longer ranges were necessary the wing tanks wouldn't be eliminated as they'd been on later Navy F4U's. They might have 
even been fitted with self sealing instead of just the CO2 pressurization for fire supression.


The P-38 had some development problems, excess cost and with hindsight didn't have significant advantages to merit it, the P-47 and F4U being 
capable multi-role a/c. The P-38 was introduced earlier, but still ad alot of problems, less so in the PTO. It was a good a/c though.

Despite the F4U first flying almost a year before the P-47 it didn't enter service until after the P-47.


And since there was a much larger infrustructure for the V-1710 already in place, why not just build a turbocharged P-51? The main reason this 
wasn't encorporated into the original design was that the British hadn't wanted it. And it was simpler to convert the existing design to the Merlin 
than to add a turbocharger. (probably in a ventral position similar to the P-47)


Of course, in any case focusing on a single new design isn't wise, there should always be a couple competing designs in case one fails.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 30, 2008)

kool kitty89 said:


> The P-38 had some development problems, excess cost and with hindsight didn't have significant advantages to merit it, the P-47 and F4U being capable multi-role a/c. The P-38 was introduced earlier, but still ad alot of problems, less so in the PTO. It was a good a/c though.


You're very wrong! The P-38 WAS a very good multi role aircraft - 1000 pounds of bombs or rockets easily - while the advantage of the radial engine is apparent, the P-38 was a true multi role aircraft - Droop Snoot, night fighter and recon aircraft, the only thing it really had going against it were "single engine fighter pilots" who couldn't handle a little extra work and some brass in the ETO who preferred Mustangs...


----------



## kool kitty89 (May 1, 2008)

I think the P-38 was a very good multi-role a/c. (in the top 5 of the war if not the top 3) The crasing of the XP-38 delayed things by about a year though... But if you look at overall capabilities the F4U could do about the same. The F4U-1D and later models could cary 4,000 lbs of bombs and dive bomb very accurately the range of the F4U (on Reinarch's figures, with wing tanks) was better than the pre J p-38. This switched when the P-38 got the wing tanks.

I kind of mis spoke though, and that statement was a bit wrong, but the Early P-38 (Pre-J) had alot more problems than the P-47 or F4U of the same period. I was just trying to think in Renrich's case. It had it's advantages and overall ended up a more capable than almost any other single seat fighter. (it could level bomb, te Corsair didn't, the F4U could dive bomb the P-38 didn't...) But that discussion belongs more on the most versitile a/c thread. Plus there was that F4U vs P-51 vs P-38 vs P-47 thread iirc.


But Why jump on me when Renrich mentioned it first! He said the P-38 and P-47 and the F6F in the Navy should be replaced by the F4U due to the performance of the XF4U, with Republic, Lockheed, Grumman etc license bulilding the Corsair. And the only other fighter to use

Which I don't think is true even with hindsight, and certainly not at the time. (kind of an all eggs in one basket situation)


----------



## kool kitty89 (May 1, 2008)

Blech I read that quote a little more carefully and that's not right at all...

I was trying to think form Renrich's post PoV and it screwed it up.

What I should have said that in the case of the P-38 it was a good a/c with excelent multirole capabilities, but the P-47 and F4U were as well, and they cost less and were roughly as capable. (the bomb loads and ranges were very close) For long ranges in warmer temperatures (PTO, MTO, N Africa) even the early models were manageable. And the lack of torq would make long range flight a bit easier on the pilot.

The only real problem (besides the extra cost and maintenence) was the compressibility issues. (dive flaps adressed this but held speed to .68 mach which was well below the competition, ~.82 on the P-47) And on the cockpit, though the heating problems were solved and it was comfortable enough, the instrument layout was a bit complecated, much more crouded than the other single seaters. (though some of this would obviously be necessary due to the 2x engines)


----------



## kool kitty89 (May 1, 2008)

We kind of had that discussion going on in the best PTO fighter thread. (P-38 vs Corsari, not the build the corsair instead one)


----------



## renrich (May 1, 2008)

Vought was a very small company. For instance, after Boone Guyton came on board he, one pilot, did all the test flights for the Corsair. The development program went slowly because the performance of the Corsair was so cutting edge and because Vought was getting the bugs out of a new engine and a new prop as well as the air frame. A development program for a land based version by Lockheed and or Republic would have advanced the program much faster. The first design change for a version without carrier capability would have meant deleting the tail hook and wing fold. How much weight and drag would go away from that change? Structural changes may have been made because the AC would no longer have to endure the controlled crash of carrier landings. How much weight savings there? The airplane was optimised for performance from sea level to around 25000 feet where sea warfare took place. The later F4U4 and 5 had very good high altitude performance with bigger and better superchargers. By the way, the F4U5 was all metal. The big advantage the Corsair in 42-43 had over the P47 was in range. The F4U1 had a capacity of 361 gallons of internal fuel and could carry drop tanks too. How nice would it have been to have escort fighters in the 8th in 42-43 with a combat radius of a couple of hundred miles further? Bubble canopies, some Corsairs had them. The reason the P51 would have been desirable as a stable mate for the Corsair was that it combined very long range but retained good fighting qualities.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 2, 2008)

kool kitty89 said:


> But Why jump on me when Renrich mentioned it first!


Because i read your post first! 


kool kitty89 said:


> He said the P-38 and P-47 and the F6F in the Navy should be replaced by the F4U due to the performance of the XF4U, with Republic, Lockheed, Grumman etc license bulilding the Corsair. And the only other fighter to use


Actually look at the XF4U performance - it was great but the developing fighters had the some potential and it wasn't till the F4U-4 where it started walking away from the "competition" for the most part.


kool kitty89 said:


> Which I don't think is true even with hindsight, and certainly not at the time. (kind of an all eggs in one basket situation)


Agree....


----------



## kool kitty89 (May 2, 2008)

I wonder how much faster development would have been for the P-38 had the XP-38 not crashed.

Obvioulsy further testing could have the discovery of some problems earlier on, but there were fundemental differences between the XP-38 and the YP-38's and subsequent production a/c. The construction was very different, and the XP-38 was made largely of stainless steel and much heavier construction. There may have benn structural differences as well and the XP-38 was basicly hand built with some very tight tolerances iirc.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 2, 2008)

kool kitty89 said:


> I wonder how much faster development would have been for the P-38 had the XP-38 not crashed.
> 
> Obvioulsy further testing could have the discovery of some problems earlier on, but there were fundemental differences between the XP-38 and the YP-38's and subsequent production a/c. The construction was very different, and the XP-38 was made largely of stainless steel and much heavier construction. There may have benn structural differences as well and the XP-38 was basicly hand built with some very tight tolerances iirc.



The XP-38 was hand built - stainless steel? Maybe on the firewall!


----------



## kool kitty89 (May 3, 2008)

Hmm, Lockheed XP-38 Lightning



> it was the first to make extensive use of stainless steel



And it's all over google XP-38 stainless - Google Search

but none seems to be more specific to the usage of stainless steel other than it was "used extensively in its structure" so what is that about???


There's also claims that the crash of the XP-38 delayed the program by 2 years. P-38 Lightning



> That first XP-38 proved to be capable of a level speed of 413 m.p.h., and had a terrific climb rate. In fact, throughout the war, the P-38 remained one of the fastest climbing American fighters. Unfortunately, the first prototype lasted only 16 days. The testing program had barely begun when the Army decided to use it in a record setting cross-country flight that ended with a landing short of the runway, which wrote off the prototype. Tony LeVier (Lockheed Chief Test Pilot) later estimated that disaster set the program back nearly two years. It also probably cost many brave American aviators their lives when their inferior and obsolescent planes came up against advanced Axis fighters like the Zero and ME 109.




One thing that I didn't know was taht not only was the prototype not designed for mass production, but the original plan and specification didn't include it either! P-38 Lightning



> It started in January of 1937, when the Army Air Corps circulated to aircraft manufacturers a specification for a new pursuit plane for the "interception and attack of hostile aircraft at high altitude". They wanted a max. speed of 360 m.p.h. at 20,000 ft., and climb from takeoff to 20,000 ft. in 6 minutes. There were other details, but the point is that the demand was for a high performance interceptor. The government anticipated on order for a maximum of 50 planes, so suitability for mass production was not a consideration. Lockheed was one of the companies that entered the competition to design and build the new fighter. ... As alluded to earlier, the P-38 was not designed for mass production. In fact, it was intended to virtually build each of the 50 originally anticipated aircraft by hand. Many, many production problems had to be solved before the Lightning could be produced in quantity. As well as some serious engineering problems.


----------



## KrazyKraut (May 3, 2008)

red admiral said:


> The Heinkel He 100 was too late to compete with the Bf 109. Even the He 112 was too late to compete with it in the early versions.



I agree. The Bf 109 beat the He 112 fair and square. Politics sure played their part but especially in this case they swing both ways: Messerschmitt had some LW staff on his side, but, far more important, he had Milch against him. Milch hated Messerschmitt with a passion.

The He 112 simply wasn't as good as the Bf: The 109 with Jumo outperformed the equally powered He 112 and that in the end won Messerschmitt the competition. Even then Udet was smart enough to ask Heinkel for a zero series for further analysis. Some of these were tested against the already procured 109 over a period of ~5 months... and they were simply not as good. After reading up on the trial process, in my personal opinion, there was nothing dodgy about the decision.

The He 100 is a different matter: While it showed some superiority over the contemporary 109s, it also had a very novel and unproven cooling system. Also the performance estimations by Heinkel proved to be far too optimistic after armament etc. was installed. I still have to read up on the subject, but my first impression is, that it simply wasn't worth replacing the 109 (whose production was just gearing up) with an only marginally better, unproven design.


----------



## evangilder (May 3, 2008)

I think we only need to take a look at the success of the 109 to see that the proper decision was made on the choices. I have read similar things about the 112/109 debate and seen the same conclusions. The 109 was simply better.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 3, 2008)

kool kitty89 said:


> And it's all over google XP-38 stainless - Google Search
> 
> but none seems to be more specific to the usage of stainless steel other than it was "used extensively in its structure" so what is that about???


I suspect that was an exaggeration - I could see stainless being used on the firewalls and forward nacelles. The Budd RB-1was the first all stainless steel aircraft and that wasn't started until 1942 or 43 if I remember right. Stainless steel could be used for a good aluminum replacement for the most part but it is expensive. I'd bet areas around major structural components were stainless, the rest were aluminum.


kool kitty89 said:


> There's also claims that the crash of the XP-38 delayed the program by 2 years. P-38 Lightning


Yes it did - there were a lot of plans for the P-38 that Lockheed wanted to recommend to the government - although we always hear about the "Merlin Myth" I personally think it was more of a study than anything else. you see, when the government ordered the YP-38s they dictated certain pices of equipment and one of those were the engines, so after the prototype stage Lockheed was stuck by contract with the Allison. I was also told that Kelly Johnson looked in replacing the yoke with a stick.



kool kitty89 said:


> One thing that I didn't know was taht not only was the prototype not designed for mass production, but the original plan and specification didn't include it either! P-38 Lightning


That is true. People who I worked with at Lockheed who were there at that times also thought that the prototypes were going to be the only "production" P-38s built. They too were also hand built.


----------



## HoHun (May 3, 2008)

Hi Flyboyj,

>The Budd RB-1was the first all stainless steel aircraft and that wasn't started until 1942 or 43 if I remember right. 

Hm, it's my impression that it was pre-empted in 1915 by the Junkers J 1, the world's first all-metal cantilever monoplane aircraft. It was not a success due to being too heavy for the engines available at the time, but it still was 30 km/h faster than the contemporary Fokker Eindecker.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## evangilder (May 3, 2008)

The Junkers J1 was made mostly of duraluminum, not stainless steel.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 3, 2008)

HoHun said:


> Hi Flyboyj,
> 
> >The Budd RB-1was the first all stainless steel aircraft and that wasn't started until 1942 or 43 if I remember right.
> 
> ...



Aluminum - not stainless steel.


----------



## kool kitty89 (May 3, 2008)

I don't think the Merlins would have been much of an advantage over the turbocharged Allisons. (they jst needed to wok out the bugs with the system, particularly the intercooler problem, iirc there were some problems with the turbos ceasing at high alt as well)

Another problem was that until late war there weren't Models of the Merlin developed for "hande"/counter rotating props for twins. Opposed to the Allison design where this was realitively easy to do. 


> Another feature of the V-1710 design was its ability to turn the output shaft either clockwise or counter-clockwise by assembling the engine with the crankshaft turned end-for-end, by installing an idler gear in the drive train to the supercharger and accessories and by installing a starter turning the proper direction. So, there was no need to re-arrange the ignition wiring and firing order, nor the oil and Glycol circuits to accommodate the direction of rotation.


Throughout the war the power output levels were similar for both engines as well.


The only real limitation for the P-38's development compared to the contemporary P-51 and (especially) P-47 was the realatively low Mach limit (.68 with dive flaps) and it would have taken a redesign of the wing to fix it. (entire new airfoil) 
And as often stated, the P-38's problem was particularly bad since it was a very clean design and could easily exceed the limit in a dive above 20,000 ft and not slow fast enough once it had reached denser air. (and the P-38L could come very close to the limit in level flight)

Kind of like the F-84G Thunderjet, a very clean design, such so that even with similar thrust to the F-80C, and at ~25% more weight (25% thrust/weight) it could exceed its critical mach of .8 at SL (entering pitch up stall), the airfoil again being the limit. (and the P-80 actually haveing a high critical mach number, ~.84 iirc, with limit of .82)


----------



## HoHun (May 3, 2008)

Hi Evan,

>The Junkers J1 was made mostly of duraluminum, not stainless steel.

Steel is correct for the J 1 of 1915 vintage. It took Junkers about two years to come up with an all-metal light alloy aircraft, and I'm sure you are thinking of the Junkers J-I - the former was the Junkers-internal designation, and the latter was the Fliegertruppen designation in which the "J" did not stand for "Junkers", but for "Infanterieflugzeug" (ground attack plane - "J" was habitually substituted for an initial "I" in German typesetting tradition). According to the Junkers count, the J-I was the J 4, but it was a completely different aircraft from the J 1. You're right that it was mostly a duraluminium aircraft, it was only the armour tub for engine and crew that was from steel.

Velius posted a short description of the type (complete with photograph) here:

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/aircraft-technological-firsts-13099.html

Though I'm not a Wikipedia fan, here the link to the article on the J 1:

Junkers J 1 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Here the article on the J.I - the picture is interesting as it highlights the completely different layout compared to the J 1:

Junkers J.I - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The J 1 due to its prototype nature is not a well known type, but was quite a milestone in aviation - it even hat a jet radiator with diffusor and jet nozzle to exploit what was later termed the "Meredith effect".

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## Graeme (May 3, 2008)

Hi HoHun.

My understanding is that the Junkers J1 (aka the "Tin Donkey") was made with sheet iron over an iron tube framework. No aluminium.

From the site you posted...
_
"Junkers had to use sheets of heavier electrical steel instead for his first all-metal aircraft designs, similar to the types of ferrous sheet metals used in laminated-core AC electrical transformers". 
_
Turner and Nowarra in their book "Junkers" state that at the time aluminium was so "precious", that he could not acquire any for his project and that many thought the all-metal design as "frivolous".

(edited. Apologies, re-read your post, this is actually your point. J1 confusion!)


----------



## pbfoot (May 3, 2008)

I know that in the early 1900's aluminium was a rare metal I've heard it was up to several hundred dollars a pound .One of the reasons being that few places had the electric power able to supply large quantities for the refining/smelting of Aluminium.


----------



## evangilder (May 3, 2008)

Good catch Henning. I misread that same Wikipedia article, and swore I read that it was made of duraluminum. After re-reading, I see that is not the case.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 3, 2008)

Yes indeed, but remember, we were talking about stainless steel, a little different animal.


----------



## HoHun (May 4, 2008)

Hi Flyboyj,

>Yes indeed, but remember, we were talking about stainless steel, a little different animal.

Seems you're right ... I had assumed the J 1 was from stainless steel, but "electrical steel" appears to be something else!

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## Graeme (May 4, 2008)

FLYBOYJ said:


> we were talking about stainless steel, a little different animal.



Joe, you strike me as a knowledgeable man on many matters, including aviation metallurgy.
My eldest brother is a metallurgist (with Alcoa in Moscow) and he once told me that 'pure' stainless steel is non-magnetic. I don't know what he meant by pure, but I'm guessing that there are many grades of stainless steel. I've tried a magnet on artery forceps and other surgical stainless steel, and it sticks hard, but no adherence to stainless steel plumbing fixtures.

Why don't magnets work on some stainless steels?: Scientific American

I remember reading that the Bristol 188 and XB-70 were of stainless steel construction and required new welding techniques. Is this because there's no ferrous content in the stainless steel used in aviation? Apart from heat and water resistance, what other advantages would stainless steel have in aviation? Would the Valkyrie have been magnetic?



Now this is way off track, but I have to ask, (and may regret it) what's meant by "If it's red or dusty, don't touch it!" above your siggy? I've been meaning to ask you for some time now and have always assumed that it's related to OH&S in the aircraft maintenance industry? 

But after watching this film...





...there could be a completely non-aviation meaning to "don't touch the red dust"...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 4, 2008)

Graeme said:


> Joe, you strike me as a knowledgeable man on many matters, including aviation metallurgy.
> My eldest brother is a metallurgist (with Alcoa in Moscow) and he once told me that 'pure' stainless steel is non-magnetic. I don't know what he meant by pure, but I'm guessing that there are many grades of stainless steel. I've tried a magnet on artery forceps and other surgical stainless steel, and it sticks hard, but no adherence to stainless steel plumbing fixtures.
> 
> Why don't magnets work on some stainless steels?: Scientific American
> ...



Thanks for the complement Graeme. Yes, Stainless steel is non-magnetic. The biggest advantage in using it in aircraft is its anti corrosive properties. It is weldable but it requires a "technique." I actually did some stainless steel welding when I was in A P school many years ago, and lastly aircraft like the B-70 and Bristol 188 were probably non-magnetic. Keep in mind that several other alloys would of been used in their construction.

No my siggy - yes, it applies to aviation. This refers to being in the cockpit with out a full grasp of all the instruments and controls. If one sees something red, its assumed it for an emergency - if someone sees something dusty its assumed it hasn't been used for a while, hence the "red or dusty" warning.


----------



## Graeme (May 4, 2008)

FLYBOYJ said:


> If one sees something red, its assumed it for an emergency - if someone sees something dusty its assumed it hasn't been used for a while, hence the "red or dusty" warning.



Gotcha! Makes perfect sense now. Thanks.


----------



## evangilder (May 4, 2008)

Speaking of that, they color code the items in the B-25s that fly today like that. When climbing in, they tell you "Grab the yellow, not the red handles" . Same idea. They are very near each other if you are going in the door near the front of the airplane too.


----------



## Kruska (May 4, 2008)

Hello FLYBOY,

You seem to be very versed on flight topics, therefore I would like to forward the following question to you, even if it might sound dumb  to you and this thread could also be the wrong one:

How did the Allied Bomber crews prevent shooting down or at their own bombers? If I imagine 20-40 machineguns firing at a Luftwaffe a/c that dived through their formation, was there a regulation like; no fire at less than 200 or 400m range? 

Off course I don’t mind any other forum member to help me on this question. 

Regards
Kruska


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 4, 2008)

Kruska said:


> Hello FLYBOY,
> 
> You seem to be very versed on flight topics, therefore I would like to forward the following question to you, even if it might sound dumb  to you and this thread could also be the wrong one:
> 
> ...



Thanks Kruska!

And thank you for the compliment...

I've asked to question to a few B-17 and B-24 gunners I've met over the years. For the most part they told me it was actually pretty easy to avoid hitting another aircraft while in formation as gunners were taught to fire in very short burst. A gunner could expend all the ammo from his position in a matter of seconds so everything was done short and sparingly. Additionally radio communication was critical as well so the "box" knew when they were being attacked and from what direction.


----------



## Kruska (May 4, 2008)

Hello Flyboy,

Thank you very much for your „rapid“ reply. 

Yes short, disciplined and concentrated bursts make sense, also the awareness in regards to direction. Must have been quite a professional training behind the gunners.

Regards
Kruska


----------



## kool kitty89 (May 4, 2008)

And stainless steel can be ferromagnetic depending on the type.

Both Iron and Nickel are ferromagnetic in pure form, Chromium is not, but certain alloys of iron (in this case with nickel) can form the non-ferro-magnetic austenitic iron matrix. Austenite - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 
The most produced stainless steels are austenitic, but many common stainless alloys are magnetic, and even the austenitic alloys may be very weakly ferromagnetic due to the nickel content. Most high quality stainless cutlery will be nonmagnetic, but often cheaper types will be magnetic and often more prone to corrosion. Stainless steel used on appliances is also often magnetic as are stainless steel plate/sheet often found in hardware stores. Must stainless steel used for knives and cutting tools will also be ferro-magnetic.

See: Stainless steel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 4, 2008)

kool kitty89 said:


> And stainless steel can be ferromagnetic depending on the type.
> 
> Both Iron and Nickel are ferromagnetic in pure form, Chromium is not, but certain alloys of iron (in this case with nickel) can form the non-ferro-magnetic austenitic iron matrix. Austenite - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> The most produced stainless steels are austenitic, but many common stainless alloys are magnetic, and even the austenitic alloys may be very weakly ferromagnetic due to the nickel content. Most high quality stainless cutlery will be nonmagnetic, but often cheaper types will be magnetic and often more prone to corrosion. Stainless steel used on appliances is also often magnetic as are stainless steel plate/sheet often found in hardware stores. Must stainless steel used for knives and cutting tools will also be ferro-magnetic.
> ...




Stainless steels I seen used on aircraft ARE NOT magnetic.


----------



## buzzard (May 4, 2008)

I worked as a machinist for a company that made equipment for the fishing and food processing industries, so we used a lot of various grades of stainless steel (SS) and aluminum. The various alloys have differing properties, including hardness, malleabilty, toughness, corrosion resistance, etc. The non-magnetic SSs are generally more corrosion-resistant and higher priced.

The most common welding techniques for both metals are known as TIG (Tungsten Inert Gas) and MIG (Metal Inert Gas). Both metals will burn at high heat levels, so an inert gas (usually argon) is sprayed over the welding focus to exclude oxygen. With TIG, the welding rod is hand-held, while MIG guns contain a roll of wire which feeds automatically. TIG is for more delicate work.

Incidentally, I have my great-grandfather's Model '95 (Made in '98 ) Winchester in .35 caliber...and it's stainless nickel steel. 110 years, and no rust yet!


----------



## Graeme (May 4, 2008)

Hi buzzard,

Been stick welding for years (backyard) and have always been frustrated with burning 'holes' in thin metal despite using low amps and even 1.6mm rods. I have been procrastinating about buying a small a MIG welder for some time now but know next to nothing about them. I can't justify a huge expenditure but my question is when there around 100amps is there much 'quality' in them?

Or is my arc welding technique the problem? (self taught).

Looking at something like this. How many amps do you need to weld aluminium?





(PS, tick the "disable smilies in text" - will solve your problem above)


----------



## kool kitty89 (May 4, 2008)

You might want to think of using Flux-cored arc welding. (also called "innershield welding" Uses a set-up like MIG, but uses flux cored wire without the need for sheilding gas, so the set-up is a bit simpler. You will have to chip away slag, and there's quite a bit of spatter like with stick welding though. It's also cheaper and small 110 V machines are common.

Another thing for stick welding is not only the amparage and size of rod, but also the type of rod and current. A low penetration (fast fill, or dummy rod) rtype rod (generally touched to the surface instead of held just above) will help, and make a cleaner, nicer looking weld. (and is easier to use) Also if you have a DC set-up you could use a low penetration arrangement with the ground as the - lead and the electrode +. (thus the arc will be "eating" into the sitick rather than the plate)

But neither is as good as MIG for thin plate, and MIG is also a lot better than them for stainless or aluminum welding)

MIG vs. Flux-Cored: Which Welding Process Is Right for You? | Lincoln Electric

and some welding rod info http://www.mylincolnelectric.com/Catalog/consumableseries.aspx?browse=104|2030| WELDING ELECTRODES


----------



## buzzard (May 5, 2008)

I wish I could help you, Graeme, but I was a machinist. I played around with MIG and TIG, but the welders set it up for me, so what I wrote is pretty much the extant of my welding knowledge. It looks like KK89 would be much more help than me...

I have known a few people who bought small Mig/TIG machines, and seemed happy with them, but that was a few years ago, and I don't remember the details. Geez, I'm no help at all 

Thanks for the 'disabling' info.

JL


----------



## kool kitty89 (May 5, 2008)

I took an ROP welding class my Jr year in high school (2 years ago), I mostly worked with stick arc welders (we usually just called "arc" welding, opposed to MIG or TIG). That's what I got a cirtificate for. I also got some info from my middle school shop teacher.

Also TIG set-ups tend to be expensive, and require a bit more skill to operate. (uses an arc torch held in one hand and operated with a foot pedal to heat metal, while you feed a welding rod in by hand, somewhat like gas welding, but it produses very high quality welds and can be used on almost any metal well, steels, stainless, high alloy steels, copper, nickel, magnesium, aluminum, bronze/other coper alloys)

But another thing, for welding relatively thin steel you might want to consider a gas welding (oxy-acetylene or oxy-MAPP/Propylene) which small set-ups are reasonably priced and work well on such thin metals, but it is a slower process and again requires more technique than "Arc" or MIG (or innershield). And there's the gas refill costs.



But we've gone way off topic.


----------



## buzzard (May 6, 2008)

How about mistakes that prevented a great plane from being even better?

Udet said that the aerodynamic and weight penalty incurred by modifying the Ju88 for the dive-bomber role, made it fly like "a barn door". Considering how well it did as a 'barn door', what might it achieved without the weighty burden of the Luftwaffe dive-bomber dogma.

Kinda' ironic, given Udet's influential role in creating that obsession...

JL


----------



## kool kitty89 (May 7, 2008)

Yesit did, in fact the Ju 88 would probably have done well in a Mossie like configuration. (no defensive armament) As that added more performance and eliminated crewman lost if it went down, pluss the Ju 88's defensive armament wasn't that good anyway. (one interesting idea would be to put nose guns on it as it could probably have some opertunity to fight it's way out, being fairly agile like the Mossie, also good for strafing)

In testing the V1 (iirc) with DB 600 engines (~900 hp) managed 360 mph with internal load and guns. Another early prototype managed a sustauned 320 mph with 2000 kg external load with early Jumo 211's . The Jumo 211's of early production models making ~1,100 hp. And lets not get into the BMW 801's or later Jumo 211's.

I think the best thing would leave it as is, but probably remove the gunners and flexible mounts, imptove streamlining thusly, further improveing performance. Maybe clip the wings for added speed and better roll. (and less wingloading would still likely be allot better in this config. than it ended up with) Then there's the nose armament possibilities. (in that config it may be a more capable fighter than the Bf 110) The guns could be under the foreward fusalage as to not alter the nose and bombadier station.

The added "pet projects" also lengthened the development time of the Ju 88 and delayed production.

an overview from wikipedia:


> The aircraft's first flight was made by the prototype Ju 88 V1, which bore the civil registration D-AQEN, on 21 December 1936. When it first flew, it managed about 580 km/h (360 mph) and Hermann Göring, head of the Luftwaffe was ecstatic. It was an aircraft that could finally fulfill the promise of the Schnellbomber, a high-speed bomber. The streamlined fuselage was modeled after its contemporary, the Dornier Do 17, but with fewer defensive guns because the belief still held that it could outrun late 1930s-era fighters. The fifth prototype set a 1,000 km (620 mile) closed-circuit record in March 1939, carrying a 2,000 kg (4,100 lb) payload at a speed of 517 km/h (320 mph).[3] However, by the time Luftwaffe planners had had their own "pet" features added (including dive-bombing), the Ju 88's top speed had dropped to around 450 km/h (280 mph).





But for the biggest mistake that could have advanced the jet designs and made great designs greater the cancellation of the HeS-30 (-006) engine has to be on top. 


Again for an overview: Heinkel HeS 30 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The best class I engine and possibly most advanced engine to run durring the war and quite practical as well.

Realative lack for support of Heinkel's jet projects in general didn't help either, and the RLM's whole political conundrum on support for advanced designs. With some supporting it, Udet for one was very interested in Heinkels jets (though he adamently opposed the He 176 due to the dangers of rockets, well founded in light of the Me 163) In fact Udet made a deal with Heinkel that if the He 280 flew under its own power by early 1941 (april iirc) he would allow Heinkel to aquire Hirth engine company somthing other members of the RLM in combination with Messersmitt actively hindered. And the HeS 8 shouldn't have been cancelled either, and would have been further along as well without the political problems. IMO the emphesis should have been on class I desing untill they were working well in production conditions, with maybe some work on class II designs, but not more, plus many of the class I's were developing into the performance range of the Class II design. (the 004D 930 kp normal 1050 overrev; 004E 1000 kp normal 1,200 AB, and 003D 1,200 kp with much higher efficiency in this case of the 003D due to use of reaction bladed compressor like the HeS-30 used)

Hirth itsself seemed content with merging with Heinkel, and Ohain received some good help with his development there.

One good way to sum it up is


> Although the RLM seemed indifferent to the He-178, the ministry was nonetheless actively pushing German industry to develop turbojets. In hindsight, it seems that the left and right hands of the RLM were not in agreement, which summarizes most of the Third Reich's attempts to develop advanced weapons.


 Messerschmitt Me-262 Schwalbe / Sturmvogel


----------



## kool kitty89 (May 7, 2008)

And as said before there were similar political situations in Britain limiting development. Whittle's Power-Jets Ltd. horrible team-up with Rover delayed development (including the Metoer's) by 2-years. It also postponed the flight and subsequent testing of the E.28/39.

So much so that the Halford H.1 design (inspired by Whittle's 1930 patent, which had long since lapsed) at De Havilland which had been initiated later and at lower prioorety as a private design began to overtake the Rover developments and with 2x early prototype Halford H.1's downrated to 1,500 lbf for safety were the first engines to power the Meteor. Several months later Rover jets finally flew on a meteor. Development was so lagging that only weeks after the Rover jets flew the De havilland Spider Crab (Vampire), also originally a private lower priorety project flew with a full powered Halford H.1 engine. (capable of 2,700 lbf, a more robust but heavier redesigned H.1A, the dimentions stayed the same, and progressively the H.1B produced 3,000 lbf at 10,500 rpm on the bench)

Once Rolls Royce got with Power Jets things really took-off though.




The US had political problems too but a bit different, in the 1930's the NACA did a study on jet and rocket propulsion but by the late 1930's it was dying and they'd concluded that the most promising uses would be for assisted take-off and rockets would be preferred in that case anyway. By 1940 the study was dead. Back in the late 30's lockheed had proposed their almost insanely advanced L-133 project and L-1000 engine, but that went nowhere. (lack of intrest and we now know the basic design was impractical with the engine complex by modern standards) The engine did idle along on a low priority contract in 1942 as the XJ-37 and was built and moved around through several companies into the early 50's, but never bared any fruit. (it was a 16-stage axial flow unit wih 4 turbines)

When the US got the Whittle design in 1941 the NACA basickly got caught with it's pants down and began a new stude with a group of manufactures to work with the design, ironically the NACA own pet project for the study was a troubled and doomed ducted-fan/motorjet design known as "Jakes Jeep," the only company in the study to get anywhere was Westinghouse which resulted in the 10-stage axial-flow 19 in diameter 1,600 lbf ~660 lb J30 tested in 1944, and the post war J34.

Simultaneously GE was working on the Whittle design, and were gaining ground over the troubled Rover arragement, and 1,250 lbf I-A (development of W.1) engines were flown on the XP-59A in october of 1942 ~2.5 months after the Me 262's first sucessful jet powered flight and 5 months before the Meteor's with Halford engines. The I-A gave way to the I-14 used on later XP-59A's and then the I-16 which became the J31 producing 1,600-2,000 lbf. A further development of the Whittle design of course resulting in the 4,000 lbf I-40 becoming J33 being moved to Allison for production. And GE was working on it's own original designs, notably the TG-100 turboprop developed into the TG-180 turbojet becoming the J-35 produced again mainly by Allison.



And while the XP-59 program didn't suffer the same kind of political problems as the British or German a/c it nevertheless was lrestricted by outside limitations. While Gen. "Hap" Arnold was generally a huge boost to the US jet program and the procurment of the Whittle engine he made some decisions that were some of the main reasons for the P-59's poor performance. In order to maintan secrecy he forbit any cooperation with or advice form the NACA or use of wind tunnels. Eventually allowing limited use of low speed tunnel (at Wright field iirc). This resulted in poor streamlining ad particularly problems with the intakes and nacelle-wing interaction. Little data on the engine was availableto Bell either resulting in a very conservative and overengeneered design. With oversized (45.5 ft span 386 ft^2 area) fairly thick as well with 14% at root 12 at tip, in production versions which had clipped wingtips the 14% was constant. (compared to 12.5 at root and 10% at tip for the Meteor I with a 376 ft^2~43' span wing at 13,780 lbs loaded) albeit it was a laminar flow wing. And for a fairly light aircraft at 10,800 lbs loaded the wing loading was ~28 lbs/ft^2, that's comparable to the Hurricane IIB!

But one thing's for sure the P-59A was not underpowered compared to its contemporaries, at ~10,800 with 2x 2,000 lbf J31-GE-5 engines giving it a thrust/weight of .37. (higher than the He 162 with overrev, or the He 280 with 004 engines)

The prototypes powered by the 1,250 lbf I-A's would have been underpowered, less so with the 1,400 lbf I-14's and similar to contemporaries with 1,650 lbf.


----------



## Graeme (May 7, 2008)

buzzard said:


> I have known a few people who bought small Mig/TIG machines, and seemed happy with them





kool kitty89 said:


> you might want to consider a gas welding (oxy-acetylene or oxy-MAPP/Propylene) which small set-ups are reasonably priced and work well on such thin metals



Thanks for your advice gentlemen.


----------



## kool kitty89 (May 7, 2008)

And I'm pretty sure the large wings of the P-59, in addition to the conservative and unrefined design, was to allow a high ceiling. It was aimed at (and invisioned by Whittle's original concept) to cruise at 500 mph at 50,000 ft. Ironically the wing proved to have too low of a mach limit to allow this, with a very narrow margin between shock stall and normal stall above 46,000 ft. It did manage to set an unofficial altitude record of 47600 ft.


----------



## Waynos (May 18, 2008)

I think one major mistake in WW2 was Heinkel NOT following Avro's example and replacing the coupled engines of the He 177 with 4 individual engines as in the Manchester - Lancaster.

This would have yielded a strategic bomber that actually worked for the Luftwaffe. Also, who's idea was it to make the He 177 a dive bomber anyway?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 18, 2008)

Heinkel did not have a choice. They were told to develop the aircraft as a dive bomber by the RLM.

If they had developed the aircraft with 4 single engines it would not have been capable of divebombing.


----------



## Waynos (May 18, 2008)

Interesting. How did the coupled engines affect this?

The He 177 and the Avro Manchester are quite similar in philosophy (there was a requirement for the Manchester to be capable of dive bombing too but this was 'relaxed' quite early on). When you look at how this evolved into the Lancaster it has to be said that Heinkel (ok then, the RLM really, Heinkel were no fools) missed a trick.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 18, 2008)

My understanding is that oil and grease build up would catch fire easier in these configurations.


----------



## Waynos (May 18, 2008)

Never heard that before, but I'm no engineer. Thank you, something new for me to look into


----------



## Njaco (May 18, 2008)

Heinkel did make one with 4 seperate DB 603A engines - in secret. It was the He 277 and didn't advance beyond prototype stage. The RLM would have strung him up if they knew. The Japanese also considered building a 4 engine version under license but never happened.


----------



## Waynos (May 18, 2008)

Is the He 277 one that was completed and flown in France after the war? That idea just popped into my head from somewhere.


----------



## Graeme (May 18, 2008)

Waynos said:


> Is the He 277 one that was completed and flown in France after the war? That idea just popped into my head from somewhere.



That would be the He 274, Waynos.

Heinkel He 274 - bomber


----------



## kool kitty89 (May 18, 2008)

And the fire problem was exascerbated by constant overheating problrms. In addition to gear box problems.

The increased weight required for the divebombing capabilities also hampered performance.


There were similar issues that deteriated the Ju 88's performance and capabilities.


----------



## Waynos (May 19, 2008)

Thanks Graeme, I see that fits the idea pretty well too.


----------



## Negative Creep (May 19, 2008)

The RAF made a big mistake in not pursing the idea of jet aircraft with more interest. If they'd built more Meteors and committed more to the front line, it could have even helped shorten the air war, or at least helped reduce casualties


----------



## kool kitty89 (May 19, 2008)

They did, and for a time thy were within weeks of developments in germany, the WU ran within days of the HeS-1, and futher developments went fairly smoothly, the war slowed things down a bit, but after the BoB things picked up again. The first Gloster E.28/39 was ready in early 1941, but by then there was another problem.

Powere Jets' team up with Rover was poor to say the least. These ongoing problems delayed the first flight of the test a/c somewhat but it stalled the entire Whittle jet development program, and the Metoer, by about 2 years. So much so that the Metoer first flew with Halford (Goblin) engines due to ongoing problems with Rover.

Once Rolls Royce picked up the Whittle designs progress was very rapid, and if this had been the initial arrangement instead of with rover, it would be conceivable that the Meteor could first fly by early '42. And the progress in development would have been much faster, initial operations possibly by early '43 and improvements in the design much quicker than hisorically.


----------



## Negative Creep (May 19, 2008)

Whittle's engine was first tested in 1937 and seeing as most of the development was during wartime you'd have thought they'd have rushed it through. Weren't the air minnsitry rather hostile to Whittle and his design?


----------



## kool kitty89 (May 19, 2008)

On and off, and somewhat devided, quite similar in some ways to the RLM's reception of Heinkel's jets.

But by late 1940 things were looking fairly good for Whittle, but then they got teamed up with Rover and the whole thing came to a virtual standstill.

There were ongoing political problems with the Air Minisry tward the jets, but the biggest hindrance was Rover.

Here's somthing on Whittle: A TRIBUTE TO A CAMBRIDGE ENGINEERINGSTUDENT

I'll try to find the article that sheds more light on the Rover problems.
For an overview there's Frank Whittle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

also some here Frank Whittle and the P-59A American turbojet

red admiral should have some good info on this too.


----------



## Haztoys (May 19, 2008)

Negative Creep said:


> The RAF made a big mistake in not pursing the idea of jet aircraft with more interest. If they'd built more Meteors and committed more to the front line, it could have even helped shorten the air war, or at least helped reduce casualties



America also...The jet was on its way to being ready pre war ...But they just dragged there feet on it..


----------



## kool kitty89 (May 19, 2008)

And some more: 
EnginesUK

and a good one The Gloster Meteor


----------



## kool kitty89 (May 19, 2008)

The situatio in the US was a bit mixed, the NACA blew it in a pre war study.

But on the part of the Lockheed L-133 and L-1000 engine (if you were thinking that) it was way too complex to work, and even by 1950's standards impractical. And despite continual development as the XJ37 it never amounted to more than some testbed examples, and never worked in a practical fassion. (a contra-rotating twin spool 16-stage engine with 4 turbines) 

They didn't get going again untill work was spurred bu the Arrival of the Whittle engine. (both developments of it, or original projects: ie GE TG-100 turboprop becoming TG-180/J35 jet, and the Westinghouse J30-first orignial us design to run- all being axial designs)

There were some earlier preliminary studies at GE of turbine engines based on their turbocharger experience though.

a good overview: ch3


----------



## red admiral (May 20, 2008)

For Whittle, the best source is "The Whittle Story" by John Golley.

Pairing up with RR or Bristol instead of Rover would result in saving about 2 years of develop and give better engines as well due to the available testing facilities. Power Jets had little space, equipment or money to properly test their components and improve their efficiency. Most of the early work went into trying to sovle the combustion problems. Past that stage and things really take off in the UK because the knowledge is made available to a number of companies. de Havilland take Whittle's basic design, change the arrangement slightly and scale it up to produce the H.1 which is powerful and works fine.

The least said about developments in the US the better. I doubt that the L-1000 would work even today. Theres more chance of Griffith's 32-spool contra-rotating double reverse flow turbofan working, mostly because RR actually got the core running during 42-43.


----------



## TheBadger (May 20, 2008)

Westland Whirlwind , Alternate engines should have been tried.


----------



## Kruska (May 21, 2008)

kool kitty89
and a good one [url=http://www.vectorsite.net/avmeteor.html said:


> The Gloster Meteor[/url]



Hello kk89,

I do not favor the 262 very much, but I think the Meteor MKI couldn’t touch a 262 (with non flaming engines) at all.

Quote: For the production Meteor F.1, the engine was switched to the Whittle W.2 design, by then taken over by Rolls-Royce. The contemporary W.2B/23C turbojet engines produced 7.56 kN of thrust each, giving the aircraft a maximum speed of 417 mph (670 km/h) at 3,000 m.

According to the above quote it would had difficulties to cope with a Fw190D-9/11 or Ta152 or 109K. Probably it would have lost straight out to the above Lw fighters.

Are there any accounts of air victories, besides shooting down “helpless” V1’s which a Spit, Typhoon or a Mossie could do just the same. 

It was to become a very good a/c from the 50’s onward but in 44 and 45?

Regards
Kruska


----------



## kool kitty89 (May 21, 2008)

Where did i say the Meteor Mk.I was even close to the Me 262?

Well the Mk. I certainly had problems, but it did have one advantage over prop fighters, the top speed of ~410-420 mph was achieved at low level and thus gave it a good advantage there. (it would have been very successful against the V-1's if not for the jamming guns caused by flawed case ejection chutes) Granted the Me 262 in any operational for was greatly superior to the Mk I.

But remember the improvements in the Meteor III, the long chord nacelles (introduced after initial production, but also retrofitted) greatly improved compressibility problems and added ~75 mph to top speed even with the Welland (1,700 lbf) engines giving a top speed of ~495 mph, increased to ~520 mph with Derwent Mk. I engines. (and there were also Derwent II -2,200 lbf, and IV -2,450 lbf- but I don't know if they were used operationally)

Granted the Meteor III had the ailerons wired heavy to limit wing stresses and allow it to be cleared for aerobatics, resulting in a rather poor roll-rate.

The Meteor III was coming closer to the Me 262's performance, but still at a significant disadvantage in performance (except in a turn). And even in the F-4 meteor, the compressibility problems were significant, with bad snaking around .8 Mach and buffeting, exceeding the limiting Mach number (limited by the tail on these models) could result in violent shock-stalls sometimes with irrecoverable loss of control or structural failures. These were eventually addressed with a new tail on the F-8, allowing full control up to critical Mach with better characteristics when hitting crit Mach and a limit of ~.82 Mach.

The improvements to the Meteor came rater late in the war, but had there not been the problems from the horrible Rover arrangement the Meteor's development could have been nearly 2 years further along, and engine developments more so.

With either W.2/700 or Derwent IV engines (2,450 lbf) an improved Meteor should have been available much sooner, with improved airframe allowing full combat ability.(clipped and strengthened wings)

Not quite as the F-4 (with 2x 3,500 lbf engines) and still with Mach limitations of the tail, but probably somewhat lighter as well.


----------



## i-kil-you (May 21, 2008)

i'd say the corsair because it was built for ww2, but was made just afterwards so it didn't get in.


----------



## Haztoys (May 21, 2008)

i-kil-you said:


> i'd say the corsair because it was built for ww2, but was made just afterwards so it didn't get in.



  ...???...I "think' the Corsair was in WW11.. ..Or I'm reading this wrong....???


----------



## kool kitty89 (May 21, 2008)

??? You mean the F4U-5? Otherwise that makes no sense.

And the F2G "Super Corsair" turned out to be a failure.


----------



## Haztoys (May 21, 2008)

I know one of the heels of the Me-262 was you could not spool up or down the engines very fast ...I can see were this would be a real problem in combat ... Could the Meteor engines be spooled up and down fast...

Or were all jet engines of the time that way...???


----------



## buzzard (May 21, 2008)

Despite the avatar, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt. Maybe he meant the Bearcat.

As I understand it, ALL the early jet engines were very sensitive to throttle changes.


----------



## Haztoys (May 21, 2008)

kool kitty89 said:


> And the F2G "Super Corsair" turned out to be a failure.



KK....What makes you say it was a "said failure"...????...I was thinking do to the time it was made...It was just not needed and never put into production...Not saying your wrong ...I know dick ...Just wondering...


----------



## kool kitty89 (May 21, 2008)

Yes and no, in the case of the 262's Jumos, once you got above ~7,000 rpm rapid throttle movements weren't much of a problem. However basicly all early turbojets had rather slow throttle response and could suffer, flameout, compressor stall, or total failure. (sometimes with combustor rupture and engine fire) This is included on the Welland, Derwent I-IV, Goblin, J31, and J33 post war these were improved somewhat.

The Jumos and BMW 003's had fuel limiting devices to prevent dumping too much fuel at once, the problem was that at low speeds the 004B's wasn't yet functioning adequately, this was greatly improved on the 004D/E.

One additional problem with the German engines was since the turbines had to be air cooled, spooling up too rapidly had an additional problem: too much fuel entered the combustion chamber before the compressor had spooled up enough to supply the necessary cooling air and the combustors and turbine could overheat, and the turbine could be softened and warped.


----------



## kool kitty89 (May 21, 2008)

The Super Corsair's performance was no better than the F4U-5, and there were considerable control/stability problems iirc.


Back to the Jets:
Early jet engines


> One problem with early engines was the control of injection of fuel and
> temperature. In the Junkers Jumo 004B-4 the fuel flow was partialy
> determined by a Barmag gear pump whose flow depended upon both engine
> RPM. There was also a centrifugal governor that was set by the
> ...



There's a lot of interesting info on that thread.

and: Anselm Franz and the Jumo 004


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 21, 2008)

kool kitty89 said:


> Yes and no, in the case of the 262's Jumos, once you got above ~7,000 rpm rapid throttle movements weren't much of a problem. However basicly all early turbojets had rather slow throttle response and could suffer, flameout, compressor stall, or total failure. (sometimes with combustor rupture and engine fire) This is included on the Welland, Derwent I-IV, Goblin, J31, and J33 post war these were improved somewhat.
> 
> The Jumos and BMW 003's had fuel limiting devices to prevent dumping too much fuel at once, the problem was that at low speeds the 004B's wasn't yet functioning adequately, this was greatly improved on the 004D/E.
> 
> One additional problem with the German engines was since the turbines had to be air cooled, spooling up too rapidly had an additional problem: too much fuel entered the combustion chamber before the compressor had spooled up enough to supply the necessary cooling air and the combustors and turbine could overheat, and the turbine could be softened and warped.


 Combustors? Combustion cans or chambers perhaps?

One of the problems attributing to this were the design and construction of early fuel control units which had a series of bellows and diaphragms metering the fuel to the combustion chamber. Although brilliant in their design, some of the materials used in their construction were inferior, especially rubber seals and diaphragms. These components couldn't take rapid throttle movement and would sometimes split and tear within a few hours of operations. Additionally they also did not allow an accurate metered fuel flow to the combustion chamber, again contributing to flame outs. Early fuel controls were basically mechanical computers with kerosene running through them.

Another sore spot was during the start process where careful attention had to be given to ensure the turbine inlet temperature didn't exceed it's design limits. This was sometimes difficult during start as the only control of this in early jets were the already described inferior fuel control units. As far as i know in some early jets there was a "fuel c0ck" which metered fuel during the start process and was adjusted accordingly during the start process. One had to ensure there was enough fuel getting to the combustion chamber to ensure a "light" (and avoid a hung start) but at the same time control fuel flow enough so you didn't get an over temp.


----------



## kool kitty89 (May 21, 2008)

Combustor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Combustor - Burner


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 21, 2008)

kool kitty89 said:


> Combustor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Combustor - Burner


Ask most A&Ps what a combustor is and they'll tell you it's part of their gas barbecue.


----------



## kool kitty89 (May 21, 2008)

And I guess "burner" would be even worse in that context.  
(personally I've never heard a gas barbecue or stove burner referred to as a combustor though)

And that second link is a NASA page.

I guess the "combustor" term is used fairly extensively on the technical/developmental/experimental area of turbine engines. Results: combustor

(it also seems the term is used only for gas turbine engines' combustion chambers; interestingly the wikipedia Combustion chamber - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia page doesn't even mention gas turbines)


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 22, 2008)

kool kitty89 said:


> And I guess "burner" would be even worse in that context.
> (personally I've never heard a gas barbecue or stove burner referred to as a combustor though)


The same way most people who actually worked on jet engines won't refer to the combustion chamber, cans, etc., as a combustor.



kool kitty89 said:


> And that second link is a NASA page.
> 
> I guess the "combustor" term is used fairly extensively on the technical/developmental/experimental area of turbine engines. Results: combustor
> 
> (it also seems the term is used only for gas turbine engines' combustion chambers; interestingly the wikipedia Combustion chamber - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia page doesn't even mention gas turbines)


Only a term an engineer or Wikipedia would endure - for the most part it's a combustion chamber, combustion can(s) or burner can(s) to those who have to maintain and repair these things...


----------



## Kruska (May 22, 2008)

kool kitty89 said:


> Where did i say the Meteor Mk.I was even close to the Me 262?
> 
> The improvements to the Meteor came rater late in the war, but had there not been the problems from the horrible Rover arrangement the Meteor's development could have been nearly 2 years further along, and engine developments more so.



Hello kk89,

Off course you never said that, neither did I  

You wrote the Meteor was a good a/c, and I just forwarded that IMO the Meteor of 44, 45 wasn’t a good a/c, but started to develop into such in the 50th.

The reasons that delayed the Meteor are just as valid as those regarding the 262, but nevertheless IMO the 262 was far better in 44,45 then its opposite the Meteor. Imagine the German industry would not have been so extremely limited on precious resources-metals and would have possessed a more or less intact industry such as England, the technological gap between both a/c would have been even greater in 44/45 in favor for the 262 despite its almost 2 year delay.

If Germany would not have been so lacking on the above mentioned issues, probably in 1945 the adversary of the Meteor would not have just been a 262 but also a Me P1101.

Regards
Kruska


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 22, 2008)

BTW a "simple" fuel control from a helicopter turbine engine.


----------



## kool kitty89 (May 22, 2008)

On the materials for German engines issue I pretty much agree, but even without them the engines were producing much more than the initial design thrust (004D with 930 kp normal and up to 1050 kp thrust overrev w/out AB at 10,000 rpm and TBO of over 60 hr, and 1000 kp normal for the 004E 1,200 kp AB) with improvements. (and the 003E's annular combustion chamber had a life of over 300 hr in testing, made largely of mild steel!)

The transition to nonstrategic materials didn't so much limit performance, it just delayed development of the engines.

I do think that things would have gone better if development of the 001 (HeS-8 ) 006 (HeS-30), 004, and 003 had been focused on and any larger (and more problematic) designs left on the drawing board.

In particular the HeS-30 (006) would have been excellent on the 262, power levels equal or greater than the 004m at half the weight and at ~24 in diameter roughly 1/2 the frontal area. (in addition to being much shorter) And with much lower fuel consumption. (using a reaction type 5-stage axial compressor, achieving similar performance to the jumo's 8-stage impulse bladed compressor at a high efficiency) And much better operating characteristics and engine life.

Range, speed, climb, roll rate, turning ability, and spool-up performance all increased dramatically. (and weight reduced to ~12,500 lbs with full internal load, compared to 14,100 lbs)


And as to the need of more powerful engines for the larger single engined fighters like the P.1101 (or improving the He 162) even without the class II engine designs (HeS 011A rated for 1,300 kp, while weighting roughly 900 kg) developments of the 004 and 003 were sufficient (not to mention possibilities for the 006) with the 004E producing 1,200 kp with afterburner (possibly more with overrev to 10,000 rpm) weighing roughly 700 kg and the smaller 003D (redesigned reaction type compressor) producing 1,200 kp dry weighing only ~550 kg.


----------



## red admiral (May 23, 2008)

> You wrote the Meteor was a good a/c, and I just forwarded that IMO the Meteor of 44, 45 wasn’t a good a/c, but started to develop into such in the 50th.



The Meteor I, II and III were all prototypes rather than actual fighters with the Meteor IIIs being rushed into service to shoot down V-1s because they were fast at low level. The Meteor IV from the middle of 1945 was the first real fighter version with a considerable excess in performance over the Me 262. The Mach limit with the longer nacelles was increased to M0.81 before control problems started to occur. Speed and rate of climb massively jump up to better the Me 262's figures.

Most of the new jet aeroplanes in the pipeline for the Luftwaffe were only likely to "work" in 1946-47 and even then, there are considerable flaws with the designs most likely to be produced. Take the Ta 183 for example, which was produced in Argentina post war by FMA as the Pulqui with a massively more powerful and reliable engine. It was still a dog to fly. Most of the Luft 46 designs pin their hopes on the HeS 011 which never came close to making it's designed thrust in postwar development.


----------



## Kruska (May 23, 2008)

Hello red admiral,

I don’t quite agree to your posting.

The first F 4 prototype flew on 17 May 1945, and went into production in 1947. So it wouldn’t be a fitting match for the 1944/45 Me262.

Also the comparison to a Pulqui doesn’t fit since Argentina had no previous a/c industry to back such a project. However the FW team in majority was taken into Russian “hospitality”, so that the MiG15 for sure incorporated a major share of these engineers knowhow.
The wing design is an absolute match to the previous FW design plans. From what I read the Meteor F4 and the later Korean versions FR9 or NF11 was no match for a MiG15.

In most publications referring to the Meteor, it shows that despite a vast range of mission roles and models, the Meteors mostly were used in the Ground Attack role, due to non satisfying performance as a fighter.

But my main point of view would be the fact that the Me262 could never proof or show its true potential due to non existing – extremely limited – metals/alloys and a totally out powered industry. Other forum members are far more knowledgeable then me in regards to the engine/turbine design of the German jets, but for what I conclude the problem was the usage of inferior materials – not the jet design itself. 

Regards
Kruska


----------



## red admiral (May 23, 2008)

> The first F 4 prototype flew on 17 May 1945, and went into production in 1947. So it wouldn’t be a fitting match for the 1944/45 Me262.



There was no rush to produce the F.4 postwar, in any scenario where war rolls on then they start on the production line in late 45 but probably without the clipped wings.

The design team on the Pulqui II was lead by Kurt Tank and most of the FW design team in Argentina. The MiG-15 had absolutely minimal input from German designs, this myth being debunked back in the 80s. The argument of "it looks the same" i.e. it is single engined and has a swept wing is fairly ridiculous compared to the hard data showing its evolution from earlier Soviet projects such as the MiG-9.

The Meteor was used mostly for ground attack as by Korea it was outmatched by the 2nd generation of jet fighters. It became a two-seat night fighter instead given the lack new design for this requirement (eventually Sea Vixen and Javelin)

The problem with the German jets was the design itself (especially the 004) rather than any materials problems. The materials limit turbine entry temperature, which the Germans got around mostly from air cooled blades. The TETs of the Allied jets were only about 50K higher at most giving very slight advantages in specific thrust and fuel consumption (around 5%). With the Jumo 004, the German designers managed to design a jet that offered similar thrust to the Whittle designs, fuel consumption about 50% worse, chronic unreliability from surge problems with the axial compressor, and that weighed twice as much. Most of the problems came from the axial compressor, which weighed loads, had a very low pressure ratio, poor reliability (mostly surge from quick throttle movements) and had poorer efficiency than the supposedly inferior centrifugal compressors.


----------



## Glider (May 23, 2008)

I think its worth remebering that the later Meteor III had the changes to the Nacells which significantly improved the speed of the aircraft making it a match in speed at least to the 262. 
Also had the war continued I am confident the Mk IV would have been in production well before 1947. The basic design was very similar and no real difficulties would have been expected. 

There is no doubt that the lack of suitable raw materials hindered the production of reliable engines for the 262 or any other German jet.


----------



## Kruska (May 23, 2008)

Hello red admiral,

Unfortunately I do not have my Kurt Tank book with me, but I do recall the figure of about 1300 scientists, researchers, engineers and skilled workman from FW were entertained by the Russians, compared to about 25 in Argentina.

I also do not think that it has much to do with just copying existing German features (maybe to a small fraction) but having the extensive research protocols and evaluations of those features by a/c manufacturers which in turn had a significant impact on the timeline of the future development of a/c in any of the allied countries for the period of 10-15 years after the war. 

E.g. variable geometry wing design wasn’t even dreamt about in any country besides Germany before 1944. That the US managed to modify and improve on it is understood since Germany didn’t exist for the next 4 years and had to rebuild its ruins for another 10 years.

So indeed I could forward that the F-111 is based on the experience and data collected through a XF-10F and Bell X-5 via a Me P1101. After all Bell had 6 years time to improve the Me P1101 developing an in-flight "variable-geometry" platform. 


Regards
Kruska


----------



## KrazyKraut (May 23, 2008)

Pfft, by the time the F.4 had been with combat units (late '45 at earliest), one of the HG versions of the 262 would've been ready. Even without improved engines it would've been a match and with newer versions of either jumo 004 or bmw 003 who knows how capable it would've been. The airframe was competetive until the late 40s at least and it's not like airframe development would've stopped.

BMW 003s were not only used in the MiG-9 but also were also developed into the Atar, which still powers the aircraft of several airforces to this day, so yeah there was tremendous potential. The Meteor was simply inferior.


----------



## red admiral (May 23, 2008)

Going from P.1101 that didn't really have variable sweep wings, 10° change in angle and even then only on the ground, to the F-111 is a huge step and neglects the fact that the F-111 didn't really work very well. Another advocate of variable sweep wings was Barnes Wallis postwar with Wild Goose and Swallow projects. These were extremely advanced using only the wings as control surfaces with no tail or ailerons. The model built worked reasonably well on test flights before being cancelled from finanicial issues. Even so, variable geometry wings for such a small aircraft are a bad idea. Something slighter larger than the Tornado is the break-even point (the Tornado needing VG for landing restrictions)



> one of the HG versions of the 262 would've been ready.



The HG II and HG III performance projections are completely ridiculous, especially for the HG III. Those performances weren't achieved for another decade and even then with hugely more powerful engines and a lot less drag from research in between.

The Atar is not the BMW 003 (which was a pretty good early axial engine actually. Probably second best behind the Metrovick series of the early efforts). Theres a large step between being the same and having the same arrangement.




> The Meteor was simply inferior.



The I, II and III series of prototypes yes. The first acutal fighter version, the F.4 was superior to the Me 262 except in the rolling plane.


----------



## KrazyKraut (May 23, 2008)

So you want to seriously tell me the Atar 101 isn't a direct evolution of the 003 and essentially a scaled up version of the latter? Despite being developed by pretty much the same team of German engineers? Do you know what the R in ATAR stands for? I assume the CETME is also not a descendent of the Stg-45 then?

And the projections for the HG didn't even have to be remotely true to be competitive or superior to the F.4, especially not with a new iteration of the 004 or 003. Given the pace of evolution of aircraft and (jet) engines at the time, to think that by late '45 there would not have been a second generation of 262s (which was only in the infancy of its lifecycle) available, especially with the evidence of its progress readily available, is just kidding oneself. And late '45 is a very optimistic guess for first operational use of the F.4, too, considering the maiden flight of may that year.

The airframe of the 262 was more progressive than that of the Meteor and the underwing engines, while aerodynamically inferior, made adaption to new engines pretty easy.


----------



## kool kitty89 (May 23, 2008)

Admiral the Mk.I was the Meteor to fight V-1's (albeit somewhat unsuccessfully due to the jamming problems with the cannon)

The Mk. III was the one to go on strafing missions over Germany in the last weeks of the war. (note, initially with short nacelles only ~20-30 mph faster than the Mk I, with long nacelles it did ~520 mph with Derwnt I's)


And the advantage of the 004's axial compressor was to reduce frontal area and improve aerodynamic efficiency, not fuel efficiency. Granted it was a conservative design (kind of a conservatively advanced design) intended to reach production in the shortest possible time, however problems with switching to non-strategic materials delayed production by ~2 years. (due mostly to the vibration problems along with some development time for air cooling, not solved until the 004D, which could overrev to 10,000 rpm and produce 1050 kp alo with TBO increasing to ~60 hr)

The air cooling developments were certainly an advanced feature though. And SFC was only ~20-30% worse for the 004B-4 than the Welland or Derwent I.

The 003 was a considerably better design though (the annular combustor, made largely of mild steel, lasting over 300 hr in testing) much more compact and lighter than the 004, though heavier than the Whittle engines, and more fuel efficient than the 004. The 003E producing ~920 kp with overrev, and a redesigned 003D (featuring a reaction compressor) producing 1,200 kp with little increase in weight or fuel consumption. (and thus specific fuel consumption went way down)


And there's the HeS-30 which cancelled in possibly the worst mistake in German jet development in the war. Weighing about the same as the Welland and producing up to 910 kp in testing, it utilized the more efficient reaction type compressor (opposed to the impulse blading of the 004) and produced about the same compression ratio in its 5 stage compressor that the 004 did in its 8 stage one, with 10 can-type combustion chambers, and a diameter of ~24 in, and excellent specific fuel consumption. (overall performance compared to weight, frontal diameter, and fuel consumption not exceeded until the J34 or MetroVick F.2/4 of the late very end of the 1940's)

The only difficulty with this design was that the compressor blades required machining and rotors used thrust bearings, opposed to the simpler blading of the 004 which were made of stamped steel.



And while the performance estimates were inflated for the HG-II/III they still would have been comparable to the Korean War era a/c if fitted with uprated engines (in the 3000 lbf thrust range), I don't see why high transsonic speeds wouldn't be possible (.96 Mach at alt planned for the HG-III) as the F-86 came fairly close to that (~.92 iirc) at best altitude with relatively little thrust. It would certainly be capable of a supersonic dive. (as would the HG-II, thought the engines would flame out due to the outboard placement with intakes resulting in compressor stall due to shock wave)


----------



## red admiral (May 23, 2008)

> So you want to seriously tell me the Atar 101 isn't a direct evolution of the 003 and essentially a scaled up version of the latter?



There was quite some progess between 1943 and 1946 in addition to extra resources at SCNECMA's disposal. It would not be possible to develop the Atar for German use in the timeframe because the effort was going into making the 003 work. The 003 was a good engine, considerably better than the 004. The Metrovick series were better, offering greater reliability, more power and less weight. This engine was developed into the AS Sapphire with pretty much the same design team. The Sapphire is not the same engine as the F.2 series, coming later after the problems (not many actually) with the F series had been found.



> Given the pace of evolution of aircraft and (jet) engines at the time etc.



003 and 004 are maxing out at about 2300lbf. The new engine available in the time frame was the Hes 011 which never came close to making its designed thrust postwar. There weren't more powerful engines available for the Germans. Comparatively, the Nene and Derwent V had just been tested in the UK in addition to already more powerful Goblin. The difference in speed from the HII derivative is minimal, even going with the predicted performance. The M0.96 figure for the HG III is based on flawed data that effected all the fast Luft 46 planesThere was insufficient data for proper estimation in the transonic range, and no research to get any.

The wing sweep on the Me 262 was adopted for balance reasons, not aerodynamic. The 18° sweep puts up Mcrit by an entire 0.01. With the longer nacelles, both the Me 262 and Meteor were limited to around 0.81-0.82. The conception that the Me 262 was more advanced is flawed because all people fix on is the fact that it has swept wings. So has the C-47.



> Admiral the Mk.I was the Meteor to fight V-1's (albeit somewhat unsuccessfully due to the jamming problems with the cannon)



The Mk I fought over the UK. The Mk III fought V-1s over Antwerp and did ground strafing, being ordered not to fly over German lines.



> And while the performance estimates were inflated for the HG-II/III they still would have been comparable to the Korean War era a/c if fitted with uprated engines (in the 3000 lbf thrust range), and didn't the HG-III incorporate area rule into the design? (which would allow excellent speed with even underpowered engines, possibly supersonic with adequate engines)



I very much doubt it but as they were never built its rather hard to get a definitive answer. The early F-86 wasn't that much faster than the Meteor F.4 but the swept wings allowed for a higher Mcrit which means diving speed and more control. There was no area rule on the HG -III, it had yet to be invented. Actually, it does completely the opposite of what area ruling requires with a very large change in area because of the fuselage mounted engines. Mcrit might stay similar to the HG-III despite the extra wing sweep. The only way the design is going supersonic is vertically towards the ground or with a huge honking rocket attached.


----------



## kool kitty89 (May 23, 2008)

Yeah I edited my post on the area rule thing, however area rule did exist:


> The area rule was first discovered by Otto Frenzl when comparing a swept wing with a w-wing with extreme high wave drag [1] working on a transonic wind tunnel at Junkers works in Germany between 1943 and 1945. He wrote an inventor message on 17 December 1943, with the title “Arrangement of Displacement Bodies in High-Speed Flight”; this was used in a patent filed in 1944.[2] The results of this research were presented to a wide circle in March 1944 by Theodor Zobel at the “Deutsche Akademie der Luftfahrtforschung” (German Academy of aeronautics research) in the lecture “Basically new ways to increase performance of high speed aircraft.” [3] The design concept was applied to a variety of German wartime aircraft, including a rather odd Messerschmitt project, but their complex double-boom design was never built even to the extent of a model.



On the HG-III agree it wasn't going supersonic w/out a steep dive.

But what about the HeS-30 (006) I mentioned, and the 003 topped out at 1,200 kp (2643 lbf) in the 003D with reaction compressor. (same type as the HeS-30)

And the 004E produced 1,200 kp with afterburner (1,000 kp dry w/out overrev, in in testing with overrev 1,100 kp dry) and in post war development as the RD-10 the RD-10F (developed 004E) produced 1,100 kp thrust dry in production models.


----------



## kool kitty89 (May 24, 2008)

One other thing that I forgot to mention was that, while the Me 262's ~18.7 degree sweep was primarily for CoG issues (though it did help a little), the Me 262 did use some advanced aerodynamic features.

It used a thin (11% root 9% tip TR) low drag airfoil with full span automatic LE slats and relatively thin (somewhat swept back) tail surfaces with an electrically operated variable incedence tailplane. (for trim, also useful for recovering from dives) Giving the a/c a critical mach number of .86 in Messersmitt testing and giving excelent high speed control characteristics.

One flaw, however, was a lack of airbrakes and thus it could not regulate speed (particularly in dives) like the Meteor or P-80. (I can't remember if early Vampires featured airbrakes)


----------



## KrazyKraut (May 24, 2008)

This is obviously turning into another pointless battle of will that seem common here, so I will leave you to your opinion even though I think you base them on wishful thinking rather than trying to be objective. You are comparing an aircraft that didn't become operational until 2 years after the war to one that was available in mid to late '44 and assume that it would make it in time to be operational in numbers by late '45 (wishful thinking) and that it's potential enemy in question would've remained the exact same, eventhough evidence of its progress is plentiful. You also tell me, contrary to the all the books I have read on the subject, the developments of the 003 are in fact not (despite having the same German design team, which you continuously ignore), maybe you ought to contact some aviation historians and tell them they're all wrong.


----------



## Graeme (May 24, 2008)

Mistakes in aviation?

Big one for Fonck and Sikorsky was turning the S-35 from this...


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3gJKLpQDOKI_


----------



## Kruska (May 24, 2008)

KrazyKraut said:


> This is obviously turning into another pointless battle of will that seem common here, so I will leave you to your opinion even though I think you base them on wishful thinking rather than trying to be objective. You are comparing an aircraft that didn't become operational until 2 years after the war to one that was available in mid to late '44 and assume that it would make it in time to be operational in numbers by late '45 (wishful thinking) and that it's potential enemy in question would've remained the exact same, eventhough evidence of its progress is plentiful. You also tell me, contrary to the all the books I have read on the subject, the developments of the 003 are in fact not (despite having the same German design team, which you continuously ignore), maybe you ought to contact some aviation historians and tell them they're all wrong.



KK already forwarded my thoughts in regards to these always repeating endless discussions between Allied developments after WW2 in contrast to finished and partially in action proven German developments before 8th May 1945, endlessly referring to “if”, “when, and “could, ”would” and ending in mathematical, aerodynamically concluded statistics, stall, wing design, flaps, airbrakes and inferior burned out German jet engines. 

Allied jet a/c developments before 8th May 1945: and their numbers in action on the field

Meteor F1	(20-30)?
Meteor F3	(20-30)?1 Squadron)
Vampire MK I	( 0 )?
Airacomet	(6? Came to Italy)?
P-80 (4 a/c, 2 to England, 2 to Italy) 

German jet a/c developments before 8th May 1945: and their numbers in action on the field

Ar 234B (80?)
Ar234C ( ? )

He 162 (60?)
Me 262 (400?)
Me 163 (80?)

So this comparison discussion is based on the “experience” and “flight/combat” evaluation of approx. 50-60 allied jets in operation (who downed in air combat about (1 Fieseler Storch ?), - okay let’s not forget about the 14 V1’s, in contra to 600-700 German jets in operation that downed in air combat about (400-450?) a/c. 

So I might end my post by forwarding that the “Wasserfall”, “if” pushed, instead of the V2, “could” have devastated the Allied Air forces in conjunction with the German jets (no matter how fantastic the British jet engines where), and “would” have changed world’s history at least until August 1945.

So IMO the neglect of the “Wasserfall”, "Rheintochter" and "Enzian” are the biggest German mistakes in aviation and not it’s “inferior” jet engines.

Regards
Kruska


----------



## kool kitty89 (May 25, 2008)

Though the Me-262 HG-I was built and flown (swept tailplane, low profile canopy, and 35 degree sweep added inlay inboard of nacelles) and the HG-II was built, but not flown (destroyed iirc) featuring swept tail (V-tail origninally planned) and redesigned wings with 35 degree sweepback.

I'm not sure, but I don't think the HG series was even close to production, and I'n not sure on the considerations to produce it either. (more experimental) 

I think an improved 'standard' Me 262 with maybe minimal improvements to the airframe would have been more concevable. With 2,300-2,450 lbf 004D/E engines with improved handeling, reliability, service life, altitude performance, and fuel efficiency. (note I don't consider the afterburning versions with over 2,600 lbf) Similar to the improvements made on the P-80, Vampire, and Meteor. 



Of course there's still the HeS-30 (006) to consider as well but who knows... (in light of this as well as the problems with the 011, I think the 011 should have stayed on the Drawing board, and Heinkel-Hirth focused on the 006, possibly with the 001/ HeS-8 as an intrim/alternate)


And the BMW 003D with 1,200 kp thrust (2,645 lbf) with new compressor (reaction blading like the 006) and greatly improved specific fuel consumption. (actual consumption similar to 003A/E at similar RPM, so 20-25 % reduction in SFC) Note the 004E produced ~2030 kp with overrev. (rated for 30 sec max in combat at full overrev)

One problem with the 003A/E actually produced is that, unlike the 004, it couldn't be restarted by the pilot after a flameout. (a serious consideration, even though flameouts were somewhat less likely than on the 004B)



I don't think it's wishful thinking for the Meteor 4 or Vampire to come online before the War's end, particularly seeing the 2-year delay with rover and the relatively low priorety of the Vampire. Even as things went the Derwent V was coming on line and the Meteor 4 could have probably been in production by mid '45 if pushed. Without the Rover problems an equivelent a/c to a late model Meteor III (long nacelles) with Derwent IV (or W.2/700) engines could have been in service by late '44. (Top speed probably ~560 mph climb ~4,500 ft/min)


----------



## Kruska (May 25, 2008)

kool kitty89 said:


> I don't think it's wishful thinking for the Meteor 4 or Vampire to come online before the War's end, particularly seeing the 2-year delay with rover and the relatively low priorety of the Vampire. Even as things went the Derwent V was coming on line and the Meteor 4 could have probably been in production by mid '45 if pushed. Without the Rover problems an equivelent a/c to a late model Meteor III (long nacelles) with Derwent IV (or W.2/700) engines could have been in service by late '44. (Top speed probably ~560 mph climb ~4,500 ft/min)



Hello kk89,

I also don’t think it would be wishful thinking for the He290 and Me262 entering full operational status as front line fighters in their hundreds by Jan 1943 and thousands by Jan. 44.

Due to a far better resources situation before 1943 the engines would have shown a far better quality and due to more or less non-occurring allied bomber flights over Germany (Due to the jets) the continuation of further developments would have massively progressed.

These improved versions would have contributed massively on the eastern front since Wasserfall, Rheintochter, Enzian and Fliegerfaust would have taken over the majority of air defense against whatever allied prop. or jet a/c. 

Regards  
Kruska


----------



## red admiral (May 25, 2008)

I think we're at cross purposes between reality, best case and fantasy.

The LW could have had the He 280 in service in 1943 with large scale service in 1944. Masses of new materials and labour resources aren't going to fall from the sky. The He 280 is good enough to shoot down lots of the 8th AF but is quite limited for later development. However, it is available early and it works. I'm not sure whether 003s or 004s could fit onto the airframe but i'd expect Mcrit to be the problem at around 0.80. Not much can be done to get the Me 262 into service faster, with the introduction of the He 280 it would probably take longer to come into service, but would be better than historical with pilots more familiar with jets. The Atar is not going to suddenly spring from nowhere, uprated versions of the 003 and 004 appearing in late 44 to early 45 are the best hope giving up to 2500lbf but still with problems.

The stuff about the German SAMs is rather fanciful given that they didn't actually work. It took until 1953 to actually get a working SAM into service. You could probably get a more limited missile into service in early 1945 with the capability to hit in the middle of a 1000yd wide bomber formation buts thats about it. Even then you've got the problems of producing enough of them and having the launch sites shot up.

For the Meteor, the problem was the availability of engines because of the choice to go with the Power Jets/Rover design. Having a Power Jets/RR partnership accelerates the program by two years, proably around 18months when talking of service dates. So F.I in service in early 1943 with 1943 being a development year and shooting down a few V-1s. Then in early 1944 there are a bunch of options because of the longer nacelles improving Mcrit and the more powerful engines available;

1. Historical Meteor F.III with long nacelles and Derwent Is more than equal to He 280 and slightly inferior to Me 262
2. Meteor F.III with clipped wings improving speed
3. Meteor with Goblin engines in slightly larger nacelles giving around 560mph, 7000fpm
4. Meteor with W.2/700 engines (2500lbf) for around 550mph, 6000fpm
5. Meteor with Metrovick F.2s giving 2500lbf in underslung nacelles, around 570mph, 6000fpm

Around late 1944, early 45 there are a few more options;
6. Meteor with uprated Derwents
7. Meteor with Metrovick F.3 or F.5 turbofans giving 5000lbf. Speed limited by Mcrit so around 610mph max, 10-11000fpm rate of climb, range more than doubled


----------



## Kruska (May 25, 2008)

red admiral said:


> The stuff about the German SAMs is rather fanciful given that they didn't actually work. It took until 1953 to actually get a working SAM into service. You could probably get a more limited missile into service in early 1945 with the capability to hit in the middle of a 1000yd wide bomber formation buts thats about it. Even then you've got the problems of producing enough of them and having the launch sites shot up.



Aha, who say's they didn't work.?

The Wehrmacht ordered Rheintochter already in 1942. Starting in August 1943, 82 test firings were made. An air-launched version was also designed. Wasserfall already existed in 1943 but was not pushed. The guidance systems where in its initial stage of already working, a new system known as Rheinland was under development. Rheinland used a radar unit for tracking the target and a transponder in the missile for locating it in flight, read by a radio direction finder on the ground). A simple analog computer guided the missile into the tracking radar beam as soon as possible after launch, using the transponder to locate it, at which point the operator could see both "blips" on a single display, and guide the missile onto the target during night as during the day.

Steering during the launch phase was accomplished by four graphite rudders placed in the muzzle of the combustion chamber, and (once high airspeeds had been attained) by the four air rudders mounted on the rocket tail. Commands were sent to the missile using a modified version of the "Kehl-Strassburg" later proven by the sucessful Hs293.

Enzian could be started of from a 88 lafett mounting, and the Fliegerfaust already existed in April/May 45

Feuerlilie25/50 already got off as early as in 1941 

A 306 kg warhead from a Wasserfall would indeed have been enough destructive power even within a 1000 yards diameter. The V2 was actually a very exact weapon, it is due to misinformation and choice of targets that gave the V2 the image of a blind fired inaccurate weapon.

Ragar guided V2's actually could hit targets within a range of 20m. So the technology was there it was not fantasy it existed.

"IF" Wasserfall and Co. would have been given priority, they "would" indeed have stopped the allied bombers. No one needed a guided Missile that actually slamed into the target in 43/44 or 45 due to very low speeds (400km/h) of the bombers, a close proximity fuse at 100m with a 300kg liqiud explosive warhead would have desintigrated or blown of 2-4 bombers at ease. 

Have a look at EMW Wasserfall Luft '46 entry it is quite interesting;

Costing for a V2 was estimated at 100,000 RM/pc, a Wasserfall at 8000/pc.

Last not least, even though not a SAM, the R 4/M "Orkan" did its job perfectly and was IIRC already developed to a useful stage in 1940.

Regards
Kruska


----------



## red admiral (May 25, 2008)

> Aha, who say's they didn't work.?



Pretty much every source on the subject. Infrared guidance wasn't developed enough to be accurate. The MCLOS system mostly used could be easily jammed as with the Fritz-X guided bombs. The other guidance system was beam riding, which didn't succesfully work until the 50s with SAMs like Terrier. There were no German radar proximity fuses either, which would massively hinder any system.

The effectiveness of a system like Fliergerfaust is questionable considering the lack of trials with the system.



> Radar guided V2's actually could hit targets within a range of 20m.



You've got to be kidding. V2s were not radar guided. They were simple ballistic missiles with a primitive intertial guidance system. The CEP of the prototypes was 4.5km rising to 12km with acutal firings. The very few missiles fired with radar beam guidance managed a CEP of 2km. Please note that 2000 is a larger number than 20.



> Last not least, even though not a SAM, the R 4/M "Orkan" did its job perfectly and was IIRC already developed to a useful stage in 1940.



It was designed in 1944 not 1940.


----------



## Glider (May 25, 2008)

My understanding on German SAMS are as follows
Rheintochter
This depended on remote control from the ground a very imprecise method even with todays technology. I have seen live Seacat firings using this method and observed the problems and talked to the operators who had to use it. One simple problem was that the flare tended to blind the target to the operator and that was with a short range missile. It also depended on remote detonation of the warhead. Again very imprecise, the chances of success are limited. The weather would also be a major problem, any cloud would ruin the chances of a hit.
Wasserfall
Basically the control was similar to the Rheintochter, the development you describe was still under development. Its worth noting that the reason it was given a large warhead was because of concerns of the accuracy that could be achieved. Detonation was still remote and simlar sized explosions from air dropped bombs I believe were tried against US bomber streams with limited success.
Enzian
In some ways the more practical option for production but considered by the Germans to be even more difficult to control than the other missiles as it wasn't a line of sight weapon. Interesting to note that the warhead was 500kg but considered to have a lethal range of 45 meters, when the Wasserfall with a 300 kg warhead was supposed to have an effective range of 1000 yards. Something isn't right there.
Feuerlilie25/55
Now with this they could have been in business. The 25 was a research rocket only as it was a supersonic weapon designed to pick up technical data. The 55 was to be the weapon and its development was going very well. But and its a big but, the control of the 25 was a radio control link from an aircraft clearly not applicable in a war situation. I don't know what control method would have been chosen for the F55 but I suspect this would have been the Achilles Heal of the system.
Radar Guided V2
This I hadn't heard of before I have heard of the Leitstrahl-Guide Beam apparatus, but how it worked and what accuracy was achieved I simply don't know. I have seen blanket statements that 20 meters was possible but have seen no evidence to back that up. Normal V2's had an accuracy to London I believe of around 7 miles.


----------



## KrazyKraut (May 25, 2008)

kool kitty89 said:


> I'm not sure, but I don't think the HG series was even close to production, and I'n not sure on the considerations to produce it either. (more experimental)


No they were not. With no enemy jet aircraft in mass production development focused on testing improvements of the basic design rather then developing the next version. I merely used the HG to illustrate that the 262 was far from definitive as the A-1a and that a big potential in performance increase was left both in airframe and engines.


> I don't think it's wishful thinking for the Meteor 4 or Vampire to come online before the War's end, ...


Maiden flight was in May that year, no way the aircraft would've been operational _in significant numbers_ by new years eve. For comparison, check how long it took for the Spit Mk.IVX to go from 'maiden flight' to 'operational' to 'available in significant numbers'.


----------



## Kruska (May 25, 2008)

Glider said:


> This I hadn't heard of before I have heard of the Leitstrahl-Guide Beam apparatus, but how it worked and what accuracy was achieved I simply don't know. I have seen blanket statements that 20 meters was possible but have seen no evidence to back that up. Normal V2's had an accuracy to London I believe of around 7 miles.



Hello Glider,

Radar guided: via „beam-riding“ Radio guided: = Leitstrahl-Guide Beam apparatus, is a technique of directing a missile to its target by means of radar

Quote: particularly on batteries where Leitstrahl-Guide Beam apparatus was installed, with V-2s sometimes landing within meters of the target

RIM-2 Terrier missile that were introduced in the 1950's were "beam riders", later variants employed semi-active radar homing to improve their effectiveness

http://www.v2rocket.com/start/deployment/leitstrahl.html

(22)(webmasters note: It is generally believed that the A4/V2 was not an effective weapon because it was not accurate enough to hit an exact target. While pinpoint accuracy was not associated with the V2, it was much more accurate than generally reported. Not every batterie received or installed the Leitstrahl-Guide Beam apparatus, which, was crucial to the greater accuracy of the weapon. In the later stages of the war the accuracy improved greatly, sometimes to within meters of the target.)

http://www.v2rocket.com/start/deployment/mobileoperations.html

Regards
Kruska


----------



## Kruska (May 25, 2008)

red admiral said:


> Pretty much every source on the subject. Infrared guidance wasn't developed enough to be accurate. The MCLOS system mostly used could be easily jammed as with the Fritz-X guided bombs. The other guidance system was beam riding, which didn't succesfully work until the 50s with SAMs like Terrier. There were no German radar proximity fuses either, which would massively hinder any system.
> 
> *Well some sources state differently*
> 
> ...



Regards
Kruska


----------



## Glider (May 25, 2008)

Kruska
Thanks for the posting. The ones you mention are the ones that I had seen and considered to be blanket statements. What I hadn't seen are test reports, development papers, that kind of hard evidence. Even lists of targets that the missiles were aimed at compared to the strikes would be a good start.
Its worth remembering that no valuable propaganda targets were hit in London. From what I have read about Germanys methods St Paul’s, Downing Street, Houses of Parliament, Buckingham Palace, Tower of London, Bank of England are the sorts of target that would have been prioritised.

The history of guided missiles is littered with claims that were never matched and I try to be cautious. The well known early history of the F4 Sidewinder/Sparrow missiles I believe supports a cautious approach and that of course is by no means the only example. 

The reference to the RIM-2 Terrier missile is interesting in that my understanding was that beam riders were inaccurate at long range and largely abandoned as a practical proposition and as you say yourself the Terrier had to be developed into a semi active system. Pointing a V2 at a stationary city is very different from pointing it at a moving aircraft.


----------



## red admiral (May 25, 2008)

> Since the Wehrmacht ordered 10,000 sets plus 4 million projectiles in March 45, they might have been more convinced then you



No one proceeded with the concept postwar, preferring to go with radar guided automatic weapons instead. The system is similar to the UPs used by the UK in the early war. Release a battery of rockets towards an attacker. The system didn't work very well because the aircraft could avoid the salvoe. The fliergerfaust uses rockets with shorter range, far less destructive power and a poorer guidance system (point and shoot) against fast tracking targets at low level.



> So what would be your translation for “Leitstrahl”?



Its not beam riding as there is no radar beam to ride along given that it is a ballistic missile. The system is more similar to the Oboe blind bombing system used by the RAF. I've little doubt that some test weapons landed within metres of their target, but this isn't statisically representative. Equally the 8th AF bombing from height would drop one or two weapons next to the target with the rest spread over 5 miles around.

Rockets may have been used over Poland. I doubt that small calibre fin folding types similar to the R4M were used.


----------



## Kruska (May 25, 2008)

red admiral said:


> No one proceeded with the concept postwar, preferring to go with radar guided automatic weapons instead. The system is similar to the UPs used by the UK in the early war. Release a battery of rockets towards an attacker. The system didn't work very well because the aircraft could avoid the salvoe. The fliergerfaust uses rockets with shorter range, far less destructive power and a poorer guidance system (point and shoot) against fast tracking targets at low level.
> 
> *Because jets were developed, once Helicopters came into the picture as a threat, Stinger and others were developed, based on exactly the same idea, cheap and effective, shoulder fired - MANPADS -*
> 
> ...



Regards
Kruska


----------



## red admiral (May 25, 2008)

Missiles like Stinger and Blowpipe have a much longer range and are guided. Fliegerfaust is point in the general direction and shoot. Theres a quantum leap in effectiveness between the two.

Beam riding works as in the illustration below. The missile is launched and gathered into a narrow radar beam (which needs high frequency radars that the Germans didn't have in numbers). It then flies along the radar beam to the target which is in a straight line along the beam. This obviously procludes its use for a ballistic missile or OTH use.


----------



## kool kitty89 (May 26, 2008)

Admiral, on the He 280, I think the main reason for the relatively low Mach limit was a result of the tail, with controlls locking up at high speeds iirc. The company's figure for limiting Mach number was .79 according to Delcyros.

There were also some structural problems with the tail (similar to the He 162's?) and it needed to be redesigned to be realy ready for production/combat. I believe a single fin "normal" type tail was suggested for both improving the faults and for easier production. (not sure on that)


However, like most contemporary German jet projects it lacked air brakes. (the Ho IX/229 had brakes though, the He 280, He 162, and Me 262 did not, I don't think the Ar 234 did either)


And on the engines, anything larger than the 003 would be unsuitable, though the airframe could accept the 004 and was tested with them, the range and maneuverability was drastically reduced compared to the original HeS-8 engines, and top speed was about equal to the best obtained with the HeS-8's. The 003 was a decent fit but available a bit late.

The HeS-30 (006) was very goos and about the same weight as the HeS-8 while being only 24 in in diameter and having excelent fuel consumption and thrust output similar to the 004. Due to being cancelled it's hard to tell how soon it could have been in production, but from what I've read, likely around the same time as the 004B. And it obviously would have been very advantageous to all the jet projects' performances.


As the HeS-8 is more well documented and was reliably producing 600+ kp (1,321+ lbf) thrust in realistic flight conditions (~674 kp; ~1485 lbf in testing) before being canceled in 1942 I think it would have been good enough and available earlier than the others if produced as soon as all the major bugs had been worked out. (which it pretty much was at the time of cancelation, albeit well short of the planned thrust) Performance was acceptable and it was well matched to the He 280 (being basicly designed for the a/c). And it could probably have been deployed practically on the He 280 in the 1943 timeframe.


As I've mentioned before, it may also have been a good idea to modify the the He 280's wings in a similar manner as the Meteor was designed (with curved spar going aroung mid mounted engine) to allow the larger (~39 in diameter) HeS 6 engines to be accepted into the airframe. It would have added weight, but the HeS 6 engines were working better early on than the later HeS 8 (being developed along the HeS-3b development at the end of 1939) producing about 1,300 lbf (590 kp), however it was abandoned due to the large diameter and fairly high weight 925 lbs (420 kg), but seing the timeframe, development, and thrust output it may have been a good idea considering the later problems (at leas as an intrim measure), and the HeS-8 wasn't producing similar thrust for another 2 years.
And who knows how performance would have improved with continued development and with Hirth's help.


----------



## Kruska (May 26, 2008)

Hello red admiral,

*any* weapon, even until today is pointed straight and shoot, (except for the ingenious –round the corner- muzzle fitting of the STG 44)

Off course there is a quantum leap between a Milan or Tow missile to a Panzerfaust or Panzerschreck or any bazooka in WW2.
Fact is however that these man held AT weapons were extremely effective. So why shouldn’t 5 nine barreled Fliegerfaust (45 projectiles) not be able to hit and destroy an a/c in ww2 including a Meteor F8 in 1949?
Just because nobody else had this kind of weapon?.

Look at this ridiculous rubber band weapon named PIAT, any British soldier will swear to God, that the PIAT was a “Marvelous” weapon. A GI using a bazooka or a German using a Panzerschreck would have probably laughed his head of, but the PIAT actually did hit and even managed to destroy German Tanks.

“If” the Germans were actually using a “Leitstrahl” to guide a V2 rocket, it could only have two explanations or ways of doing this: 
I.)	A corrective beam riding during the initial starting phase, were the missiles flight path is tracked and defined by a Radar beam and corrective measures are calculated and radio transmitted to the missile.
II.)	A predetermined, calculated flight path is radio transmitted to the INS of the Missile in order to re direct the Missile after launch.

In the Pershing (Grandson of the V2) unit, option II., was done before launch via resetting the IGS ST- 120 towards north – and the PTS programmed the trajectory of the missile. Since the V2 for sure did not have a well developed IGS, and did not possess the far more stabilized launch of a Pershing, the corrective measures could only have happened after take off.

Regards
Kruska


----------



## kool kitty89 (May 26, 2008)

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/players-prolonged-war-12415.html

There was already a long discussion on a lot of this stuff there, particularly on the SAM's.


----------



## Haztoys (May 26, 2008)

Great jet and rocket info guys...


----------

