# Zyzygie’s Mumbles and Rambles



## Zyzygie (Dec 17, 2015)

The V2 was meant to counter the Allied bombing offensive. With roughly 6000 built, and each with a one tonne high explosive warhead, that equates to 6000 tonnes.. Say double that to allow for the kinetic energy of the rocket as it hits, that's 12,000 tonnes round figures. Compare that with RAF bomber command:
​*In total 364,514 operational sorties were flown, 1,030,500 tons of bombs were dropped and 8,325 aircraft lost in action. * 

That's a ratio of 85 to 1. And then there was the USAAF figures to factor in as well.

For an expenditure 50% greater than the Manhattan project, I'm sure a lot of folk (including Werner von Braun), in the German war machine realised that they were wasting their money. 

On the other hand it was no doubt fun to design the rockets...


----------



## Zyzygie (Dec 17, 2015)

tomo pauk said:


> The German engineers were trying to come out with weapons and weapon systems that German military wanted. Under the term 'German military' we can toss in Hitler, Goering, Doenitz etc. So when RLM orders a big bomber that can dive bomb, and there is *a ~3000 HP engine in pipeline*, what you do? come out with a bomber that can do what is wanted, on 2 such engines, hence the He 177. RLM/Goering/Hitler wants a jet propelled bomber? Produce it.
> 
> _"...For the He 177, Günter decided to employ two of the complex Daimler-Benz DB 606 "power system" setups for propulsion. He had already employed these engines on the record breaking Heinkel He 119 reconnaissance aircraft prototypes. They consisted of a pair of DB 601 liquid-cooled 12-cylinder inverted-vee inline engines mounted side by side in a nacelle – for the He 119, centrally within the fuselage, just behind its heavily glazed cockpit enclosure – driving one propeller. The two engines were inclined inwards by 30°, so that the inner cylinder banks were disposed almost vertically. A common gear-housing connected the front ends of the two crankcases, with the two crankshaft pinions driving a single airscrew shaft gear.[6] The starboard DB 601 had to be fitted with a mirror-image version of its mechanically driven centrifugal supercharger, drawing air from the starboard side of the engine. Two of the DB 606s, each of which initially developed 2,600 PS (2,564 hp, 1,912 kW) for take-off and weighing some 1,515 kg (3,340 lb) apiece, were to power the He 177. The DB 606 — and its eventual replacement, the Daimler-Benz DB 605-based "DB 610" — were to be the only two production German aviation powerplants designed to surpass 1,500 kW of power, something that the Germans had considerable challenges in developing during the war into production-ready, combat-reliable aviation engines..."_
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinkel_He_177
> ...


----------



## Zyzygie (Dec 17, 2015)

tomo pauk said:


> _"...Just how big the need for nickel is on the U-boot or on a tank?? If one does not have ample amounts of rare metals, why we should start accusing them for sabotage? As for the 'failure to develop' - let's accuse the Napier's engineers for Sabre's early troubles, Wright for R-3350 problems, BMW for BMW 801 problems, Klimov for VK-106/107/108 problems._


_

... Such a jet could be built with the Jumo 004A engine utilizing the 9-10,000 tons of Krupp cemented armor used by the KM on massive artillery emplacements of the Atlantic Wall which were of little real value anyway. Instead this combination could be used to produce thousands of Jumo-004A with the high nickel chrome alloys needed for turbine blades.

Just to be clear each ton of Krupp cemented armor used 3.4% Nickel and 2.4% Chrome, so each ton of installed KC steel amounted to 34kg of nickel and 24kg of Chrome. Failing that each ton of Krupp Non Cemented armor had 2.3% Chrome and ~ 1% Nickel. So if each Jumo OO4A engine does in fact need 88kg of Nickel - then each Engine would need these alloying agents from 3 tons of KC armor or 10 tons of NC. General Warship construction is done with STS 52 steel which needs no Chrome or Nickel alloy agents. So each ton of armored steel lost can still be used as 1 ton of general warship construction. STS is the main steel used in U boat construction.

Heavy KC installed for coastal artillery. 
1941 1,800 tons 
1942 2,300tons 
1943 2,800tons 
1944 3,100 tons

Regular NC installed Naval use. 
1941 2,100 tons 
1942 12,000tons 
1943 11,700tons 
1944 9,800 tons..."_
See How many jets to have a decisive impact on the war? - Page 5 - Axis History Forum

There were about 2000 Tiger tanks produced averaging around 50 tonnes each. 
Around 6500 Panthers of 45 tonne each.
Assuming 40% is armour plate, that is 157,000 tonnes. At 3.4% nickel, that's 540 tonne. If the JUMO 004 requires 88 kg of nickel, that amounts to 6000. Then add the armour on the Atlantic wall above.

That should be plenty.

By the way, the Russians only used 1% nickel content on their tank armour, but they cleverly sloped it to increase its effectiveness against kinetic energy rounds.


----------



## GregP (Dec 18, 2015)

This, although interesting, is running quite far afield of the Meteor versus Me 262 in one-on-one combat, don't you think?


----------



## stona (Dec 18, 2015)

Not a single word posted above by Zyzygie himself supports his original contention that :

*"I believe that German engineers and scientists probably worked willingly for Hitler initially, but later deliberately sabotaged the Nazi war effort." *

Many German programmes sabotaged themselves by over ambition and incompetent management, _despite_ the best efforts of the scientists and engineers to make them work.

There was certainly sabotage in the German war effort, but it wasn't carried out by German engineers and scientists. The sabotage was generally fairly simple material sabotage carried out (at great risk) on the production lines by workers and forced labour, usually not German.

Cheers

Steve

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 18, 2015)

Zyzygie, tell us your point...

Look, the early Meteor was no match for the Me 262.

Later versions of the Meteor were good aircraft - they weren't a match for the MiG-15 or F-86.

So please, spare us with all this cut and paste information


----------



## Zyzygie (Dec 18, 2015)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Later versions of the Meteor were good aircraft - they weren't a match for the MiG-15 or F-86.



OK, we have some agreement...


----------



## Magnon (Mar 7, 2016)

See Why the Germans Failed to Accomplish a Nuclear Bomb

...There are many arguments as to why Nazi Germany was unable to develop an atomic bomb during World War II.Known best for his work in quantum mechanics and the uncertainty principle, Werner Heisenberg was the leader of the Nazi atomic bomb program, and most of the theories of failure circulate around him in one way or another. 

Did Heisenberg sabotage the program from within? Or, did he try his best to construct a nuclear bomb and simply failed?...


----------



## GrauGeist (Mar 8, 2016)

Magnon said:


> Did Heisenberg sabotage the program from within? Or, did he try his best to construct a nuclear bomb and simply failed?...


Evidence indicates that Heisenberg did intentionally "drag his feet" with the program's development.

There were certain expectations regarding an eventual weapon, but in the end, the program was never given a high priority.


----------



## fastmongrel (Mar 8, 2016)

GrauGeist said:


> Evidence indicates that Heisenberg did intentionally "drag his feet" with the program's development.
> 
> There were certain expectations regarding an eventual weapon, but in the end, the program was never given a high priority.



There is no evidence Heisenberg dragged his feet, unless you consider his daughters hagiography as evidence. There were German physcists capable of building a working bomb but Heisenberg wasnt one of them. His theoretical knowledge was flawed and his practical knowledge was lacking. He knew that which is why he wanted to recruit Nils Bohr to help him.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## parsifal (Mar 8, 2016)

I think it is possible at least that Hausenberg dragged his feet, but the failure of the Nazi nuclear program has far more to do with mismanagement at levels above him. it is significant I think that direct funding was withdrawn from November 1941, following his meeting in Copenhagen with Bohr, thereafter placed under the direction of Goring no less.

mismanagement and a lack of resources was the reason for the german failure more than anything else


----------



## GrauGeist (Mar 8, 2016)

fastmongrel said:


> There is no evidence Heisenberg dragged his feet, unless you consider his daughters hagiography as evidence. There were German physcists capable of building a working bomb but Heisenberg wasnt one of them. His theoretical knowledge was flawed and his practical knowledge was lacking. He knew that which is why he wanted to recruit Nils Bohr to help him.


This has been an ongoing debate since the end of the war, and I suppose it depends on which account a person listens to in forming an opinion.

However, the meeting between Heisenberg and Bohr was to obtain information of extracting Protactinium 233 from Thorium since Bohr was an expert in that field and had published papers on his work before the war, for the transmutation process. 

One of the reasons people say he was incompetent, was because he preferred the Heavy Water process. However, a Heavy Water reactor is much less complex in it's design/construction than a Graphite dampened reactor and it does not need enriched Uranium to function. So the process to create Heavy Water is far less involved than the creation of enriched Uranium.

Additionally, he pursued Plutonium as a fissile material over Uranium because he didn't feel that Uranium would produce the best chain reaction.

So here in lies the puzzle...his choices were obviously well thought out, not the ramblings of an idiot. This program could have produced results if it were a priority, but it inched along, bit by bit.

And for the record, Heisenberg wasn't the key figure in the German Atomic Weapon development program, it was Professor Kurt Deibner, who worked for the Heerwaffenamt and their secret program.

I could go into more specifics overall, but I don't want to derail the thread too much!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Mar 9, 2016)

GrauGeist said:


> And for the record, Heisenberg wasn't the key figure in the German Atomic Weapon development program, it was Professor Kurt Deibner, who worked for the Heerwaffenamt and their secret program.



Diebner ran the programmes but he was no Oppenheimer. Like any major scientific undertaking there was a team of scientists and technicians involved, minute in Germany compared to the USA. 
The failure of the German project, specifically the design of a bomb, was to a very large extent a result of a fundamental mistake made by Heisenberg.
If he had made that mistake, working in the Manhattan project, it would certainly have been discovered by his peers. In the limited German project peer review, a fundamental principle of any scientific endeavour, wasn't exactly a strong point. Heisenberg and the others didn't drag their feet, they just didn't get it right.
Cheers
Steve


----------



## fastmongrel (Mar 9, 2016)

GrauGeist said:


> This has been an ongoing debate since the end of the war, and I suppose it depends on which account a person listens to in forming an opinion.



This debate hasnt been going on since the war Heisenberg was totally shocked when told of the 2 A bombs dropped in Japan as he didnt think it was possible to make a fission device capable of being lifted by a plane. He was under discreet interrogation by British Intelligence at the time at Farm Hall MI6s main interrogation house Operation Epsilon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia and everything he said was recorded. It took Heisenberg, Otto Hahn and Kurt Diebner two weeks to work out how the Manhattan project had done it. Impressive but then they were all brilliant physicists.

The first time anyone came up with the Good NotNazi Heisenberg was iirc in 1966 when his daughter wrote a biography. Heisenberg himself never claimed he dragged his feet probably because he knew peers would have called him out for it. Another source for the Good NotNazi Heisenberg theory is David Irving a man whos published work I wouldnt spit on if it was on fire.


Heisenberg never got over the embarresment of getting things so badly wrong, in physics circles it was like claiming a belief in Phlogiston Theory the day after Rutherford split the Atom. Heisenberg was a brilliant physicist but he was no Oppenheimer.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zyzygie (Mar 18, 2016)

It seems that even in the US, there was some degree of sabotage of the atomic bomb program. Lyman Briggs had hidden the British MAUD committee findings in his safe! :
_“…Mark Oliphant helped goad the American program over the top. “If Congress knew the true history of the atomic energy project,” Leo Szilard said modestly after the war, “I have no doubt but that it would create a special medal to be given to meddling foreigners for distinguished services, and Dr. Oliphant would be the first to receive one.” "
"Conant in his 1943 secret history thought the “most important” reason the program changed direction in the autumn of 1941 was that “the all-out advocates of a head-on attack on the uranium problem had become more vocal and determined” and mentioned Oliphant’s influence first of all. Oliphant flew to the United States in late August— he considered the Pan-American Clipper through Lisbon too slow and usually travelled by unheated bomber— to work with his NDRC counterparts on radar. But he was also charged with inquiring why the United States was ignoring the MAUD Committee’s findings. “The minutes and reports . . . had been sent to Lyman Briggs . . . and we were puzzled to receive virtually no comment. . . . I called on Briggs in Washington, only to find that this inarticulate and unimpressive man had put the reports in his safe and had not shown them to members of his Committee.” Oliphant was “amazed and distressed.” He met then with the Uranium Committee. Samuel K. Allison was a new committee member, a talented experimentalist, a protégé of Arthur Compton at the University of Chicago. Oliphant “came to a meeting,” Allison recalls, “ . . . and said ’bomb’ in no uncertain terms. He told us we must concentrate every effort on the bomb and said we had no right to work on power plants or anything but the bomb. The bomb would cost twenty-five million dollars, he said, and Britain didn’t have the money or the manpower, so it was up to us.” Allison was surprised. Briggs had kept the committee in the dark. “I thought we were making a power source for submarines.” In desperation Oliphant reached out to the most effective champion he knew in the United States. He wired Ernest Lawrence: “I’ll even fly from Washington to meet at a convenient time in Berkeley.” At the beginning of September he did. Lawrence drove Oliphant up the hill behind the Berkeley campus to the site of the 184-inch cyclotron where they could talk without being overheard. Oliphant rehearsed the MAUD Report, which Lawrence had not yet seen. Lawrence in turn proclaimed the possibility of electromagnetic separation of U235 in converted cyclotrons and the virtues of plutonium. “How much I still admire the way in which things are done in your laboratory,” Oliphant would write him after their meeting. “I feel quite sure that in your hands the uranium question will receive proper and complete consideration.” Back in his office Lawrence called Bush and Conant and arranged for Oliphant to see them. From Oliphant he collected a written summary of the secret British report. In Washington Conant took Oliphant to dinner and listened with interest. Bush met him in New York and gave him a barely courteous twenty minutes. Neither administrator admitted to knowledge of the MAUD Report. “Gossip among nuclear physicists on forbidden subjects,” Conant characterizes Oliphant’s _
peregrinations in his secret history.
_
Oliphant also stopped by to talk to Fermi. He found the Italian laureate more cautious than ever, “non-committal about the fast-neutron bomb and not altogether happy about the Bohr-Wheeler theory of fission…”

See more at _Rhodes, Richard (2012-09-18). *Making of the Atomic Bomb*. Simon & Schuster. Kindle Edition.


----------



## stona (Mar 19, 2016)

How does this amount to sabotage?

You should at least have put these events into some kind of context to support an explanation of the contention that the programme 'changed direction' in the autumn of 1941. It's far too vague though it certainly did change later in 1941 and the reason is far less conspiratorial and rather obvious.
The British urgency and American lack of it might both be more rationally explained by the facts that Britain was already at war and had been for two years when Oliphant flew to the States in August 1941. The Americans were not at war yet, but they soon would be. 

Briggs had graduated in the 19th century, was old and incompetent, maybe a decent administrator but not at or near the cutting edge of nuclear physics. He was a Presidential appointment and a man whose previous work in other government departments was known to the administration. Incompetence and lack of understanding do not equate to sabotage.

Conant was an organic chemist (as was I once upon a time) and his understanding of the new science surrounding nuclear processes and the separation of isotopes would have been limited at best. That puts his comment in some context.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## Zyzygie (Mar 21, 2016)

stona said:


> How does this amount to sabotage?
> 
> You should at least have put these events into some kind of context to support an explanation of the contention that the programme 'changed direction' in the autumn of 1941. It's far too vague though it certainly did change later in 1941 and the reason is far less conspiratorial and rather obvious.
> The British urgency and American lack of it might both be more rationally explained by the facts that Britain was already at war and had been for two years when Oliphant flew to the States in August 1941. The Americans were not at war yet, but they soon would be.
> ...



Well OK.

But if it was incompetence, I'd characterize it as incredible incompetence.

The MAUD report is available at The MAUD Report, 1941 | Historical Documents | atomicarchive.com 

Cheers


----------



## stona (Mar 22, 2016)

Incompetence, a lack of understanding and a lack of urgency (the US was not at war, why should it embark on military rather than civil atomic projects?).
To be fair there were many physicists who were not entirely convinced that a bomb would work in the way the British believed, and many more who were concerned at the difficulty of producing enough of the required nuclear materials. Then there were the administrators who balked at the proposed costs, which in the end would be far exceeded in any case.
The idea that producing an atomic bomb in 1940/41 amounted to an open goal for the European/American scientific community is, I'm afraid, the result of hindsight. We know that it worked. 
Cheers
Steve

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## fastmongrel (Mar 22, 2016)

I prefer the cock up rather than conspiracy theory. Briggs might simply have forgotten about the file or just not understood it's importance


----------



## stona (Mar 22, 2016)

fastmongrel said:


> I prefer the cock up rather than conspiracy theory. Briggs might simply have forgotten about the file or just not understood it's importance



Almost certainly the latter. He was not a young man and no longer exactly at the cutting edge of his own discipline, never mind the relatively new science of nuclear physics. There were plenty better qualified than him who might have made the same mistake.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 27, 2016)

GrauGeist said:


> When the engines start, you have to watch the pyrometers (exhaust temp) stabilize and then bring the engine RPMs up to level.


When that occurs, you're only looking at about 30 seconds. After that you're good to go, unlike a recip where you may have to wait several minutes for oil temps and pressures to come up before you could even taxi.

Great flick!


----------



## fastmongrel (Apr 27, 2016)

FLYBOYJ said:


> When that occurs, you're only looking at about 30 seconds. After that you're good to go, unlike a recip where you may have to wait several minutes for oil temps and pressures to come up before you could even taxi.
> 
> Great flick!



How did the Spitfires and Hurricanes scramble so quickly during the BoB if the engine needed to warm up first. Were the engines kept warm by being fired up regulary.


----------



## kool kitty89 (May 5, 2016)

FLYBOYJ said:


> In many if not most turbine engines, there is little "warm-up" time needed unlike a recip. Cool down during shut down - different story.
> 
> This is from Zeno - the POH developed by the AAF for captured Me 262 operation. Although there is a paragraph about "warm up" and ground test, there is no specific warm up parameter, the only requirement was ensuring the exhaust temp didn't exceed 650 C.





GrauGeist said:


> For fuel conservation
> 
> 
> When the engines start, you have to watch the pyrometers (exhaust temp) stabilize and then bring the engine RPMs up to level.
> ...


Additionally, I'd imagine the slow spool up and down times made towing faster and more reliable in a number of cases, not to mention less wear on the tires and wheel breaks.

I also recall Jumo 004B start-up procedure including use of high volatility gasoline for initial start and warm-up, followed by dilution with kerosene/diesel (J2) as the combustion chambers warmed up.

Given that several other early turbojets (including the Nene and Derwent V post-war) had dedicated engine-start fuel lines independent of the main fuel lines, this sort of operation doesn't seem that unusual. (I'm not sure if the Derwent/Nene used special fuel or just pre-heated kerosene or something else, but the dedicated starter-fuel line seems indicative of something special going on)

Heinkel/Ohain's jet engines used hydrogen for their initial warm-up to avoid fouling of the vaporizer jets. (later versions during HeS 8 development may have switched to atomized burners allowing cold start on liquid fuel, but I suspect a more likely solution would have been adapting some more convenient volatile, smokeless liquid fuel like methanol -Ohain's burners operated like that of a blow lamp, requiring preheating and ending up a horrible sooty mess if gasoline/kerosene was used for this)


----------



## Zyzygie (Oct 21, 2016)

kool kitty89 said:


> Additionally, I'd imagine the slow spool up and down times made towing faster and more reliable in a number of cases, not to mention less wear on the tires and wheel breaks.
> 
> I also recall Jumo 004B start-up procedure including use of high volatility gasoline for initial start and warm-up, followed by dilution with kerosene/diesel (J2) as the combustion chambers warmed up.
> 
> ...



The JUMO had a two-stroke starter:
_"...Riedel studied mechanical engineering and worked in the 1930s, first with Ardie and then at Victoria. During the Second World War, he developed a starter engine ("Riedel starter") for the first German jet engines. The starter system, which consisted of a Riedel 10 hp (7.5 kW) two-strokeflat engine hidden in the intake, essentially functioned as a pioneering example of an auxiliary power unit (APU) for starting a jet engine. A hole in the extreme nose of the centrebody contained a manual pull-handle which started the piston engine, which in turn rotated the compressor. Two small petrol tanks were fitted in the annular intake.[1] The engine was considered an extreme short stroke (bore / stroke: 70 mm / 35 mm = 2:1) design so it could fit in the hub of the turbine compressor. For reduction it had an integrated planetary gear. It was produced in Victoria in Nuremberg and served as a starter for the operational German Junkers Jumo 004 and BMW 003 jet engines, placed on the centreline of each of these..."
Norbert Riedel - Wikipedia_​
Does this mean that they had to have three different fuel systems? Not likely.
I think the gasoline requirement was probably only for the two-stroke starter

The Meteor of course used an electric starter.


----------



## Denniss (Oct 22, 2016)

Yes, three types of fuel were carried although very limited amount of the starter fuels
Riedel engine used A3 fuel (3 liter pe engine) - AFAIR 82 Oktan, standard low-grade AV fuel also used by Fi 156, Fw 189
Jet engine starter fuel was B4 (17 liter per engine) - 87 Oktan, standard AV fuel, used by most Bf 109
Per manual tanks were located near or within the jet engines, starter fuel sufficient for ~4 start attempts; starter fuel was just for start/ignition but not for warming-up


----------



## Zyzygie (Nov 11, 2016)

Denniss said:


> Yes, three types of fuel were carried although very limited amount of the starter fuels
> Riedel engine used A3 fuel (3 liter pe engine) - AFAIR 82 Oktan, standard low-grade AV fuel also used by Fi 156, Fw 189
> Jet engine starter fuel was B4 (17 liter per engine) - 87 Oktan, standard AV fuel, used by most Bf 109
> Per manual tanks were located near or within the jet engines, starter fuel sufficient for ~4 start attempts; starter fuel was just for start/ignition but not for warming-up


No wonder then that the Luftwaffe had so much hassle getting more than about 30 to 40 Me 262s into the air on any given day. They only had to have a shortage of any ONE of the three fuels to rule it out.
As General Omar Bradley famously said: *“Amateurs talk strategy. Professionals talk logistics.”*

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## lapin-red (Dec 9, 2016)

FLYBOYJ said:


> I could agree with that!


WRONG

Both were bomber interdiction straight line fighters. Very fast but turning circles were awful so a dogfight would have been virtually impossible - which is why they never happened, plus of course the Meteor was banned from flying over mainland Europe until the war was virtually over. What a stupid question.

Reactions: Dislike Dislike:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 9, 2016)

lapin-red said:


> WRONG
> 
> Both were bomber interdiction straight line fighters. Very fast but turning circles were awful so a dogfight would have been virtually impossible - which is why they never happened, plus of course the Meteor was banned from flying over mainland Europe until the war was virtually over. What a stupid question.



What a stupid answer...

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## fastmongrel (Dec 9, 2016)

lapin-red said:


> WRONG
> 
> Both were bomber interdiction straight line fighters. Very fast but turning circles were awful so a dogfight would have been virtually impossible - which is why they never happened, plus of course the Meteor was banned from flying over mainland Europe until the war was virtually over. What a stupid question.



Wow thats a good way to start what will probably be a very short stay on this forum.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 9, 2016)

And a bit lacking in fact/s





Granted a Meteor might not be able to hold a circle for very long but the early Meteors had a big wing (374sq ft) and rather low wing loading (35-36lbs/sq ft at full gross). The poor thrust means that as speed bleeds off in a turn it is harder to recover, (accelerate once the turn is loosened or stopped) so a tight turn may not be a good tactic. 
The 262 had a wing about 2/3rds the size and went about 1000lbs more at take-off. Both planes burned fuel at a horrendous rate compared to piston engine planes so weight at point of engagement would be significantly less but the Meteor should always have an advantage in turn (even if not roll which was poor on the early Meteors))

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Dec 9, 2016)

Someone needs to look up the meaning of the word 'hypothetical'. Actually don't bother, I'll save you the time and provide you with one.

"Imagined or suggested but not necessarily real or true"

Everyone here knows that the two never actually met, nor were they likely to. It's not the point.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 9, 2016)

lapin-red said:


> WRONG
> 
> Both were bomber interdiction straight line fighters. Very fast but turning circles were awful so a dogfight would have been virtually impossible - which is why they never happened, plus of course the Meteor was banned from flying over mainland Europe until the war was virtually over. What a stupid question.



An arm chair aviator! It's amazing that you even know how to respond considering your single digit IQ.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## BiffF15 (Dec 9, 2016)

Shortround6 said:


> And a bit lacking in fact/s
> 
> 
> 
> ...




SR6,
Great chart! I wonder how much difference there really is? I doubt the "steps" in size were as even as depicted.
Cheers,
Biff


----------



## pbehn (Dec 9, 2016)

BiffF15 said:


> SR6,
> Great chart! I wonder how much difference there really is? I doubt the "steps" in size were as even as depicted.
> Cheers,
> Biff


If the diagram is to scale then it seems the Spitfire can out turn my car at speeds over 40 MPH

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Magnon (Dec 10, 2016)

pbehn said:


> If the diagram is to scale then it seems the Spitfire can out turn my car at speeds over 40 MPH


The diagram is OK, but I don't know about whether it would be wise to dogfight with a Spitfire...
The Meteor could theoretically out-turn a Tempest, but the Tempest roll rate was much better, so it could quickly evade the Meteor.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zyzygie (Dec 15, 2016)

"...The first operational unit, Kommando Nowotny, led by 258-kill air ace Walter Nowotny, had high attrition rates and never resolved the Me 262’s teething troubles. Nowotny was killed in a Nov. 7, 1944 action while engaging American B-24 Liberators. A new unit under Galland fared better, but *the Me 262 was difficult to handle by even the most experienced pilots*..."

"...Galland said that persistent allied attacks on Axis *fuel supplies also hindered Me 262 operations.* Toward the end of the war, Me 262s were often towed to the end of the runway by draft horses in order to conserve fuel. In addition, many airframes sat idle waiting for engines that never arrived..."
The Messerschmitt Me 262 Jet Fighter | Defense Media Network​


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 16, 2016)

Zyzygie said:


> A new unit under Galland fared better, but *the Me 262 was difficult to handle by even the most experienced pilots*...



*I'll call 100% BS on that statement as well as the article. * Robert Dorr was a long time aviation author and had many books published under Osprey (par for the course). Although he had a long and distinguished career in the US military, as a diplomat and as a writer, I don't think he was a rated pilot and doesn't provide any reference to back up that statement.

This is from Zeno's site, "Summary of debriefing German pilot Hans Fey on operational performance & late
war deployment of the Me 262 jet fighter."

From the document:

"Fay says that this aircraft is easier to fly than the latest types of Fw 190 or Me 109- In fact, he feels *any Me 109 pilot is qualified to fly the Me 262 after one hour's instruction."*

http://www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com/Images/Me262/ME262PILOTDEBRIEF.pdf

*"After Brown took off, he thought the airplane was easy—a pleasure, even—to fly: The controls were responsive, there were no vibrations and compared to a piston-engine fighter it whispered." *

*Lt. Roy Brown ATI USAAF, 1944*

Watson's Whizzers - Saving the Me-262 | HistoryNet

And a quote from another Brown;

"After his flight, Eric had the highest praise for the 262, the world’s first operational jet fighter, calling it, “the most formidable combat aircraft to evolve in World War II.”

Jörg “Czyp” Czypionka on Eric Brown's evaluation of the Me 262.

Jorg Czypionka

Eric Brown's own words (starts at 4:00)


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zhVp0dvwr68_


There were some flight test reports that were critical of the Me 262, while not perfect by any means, I think some of these reports were agenda driven IMO. Form your own opinions but consider your sources, especially those who actually FLEW the aircraft!

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Dec 16, 2016)

I thought the only real problem with the 262 was engine life, this isnt a problem of aircraft design or even the engine design just a shortage of very exotic metals. Some pilots were much better than others at prolonging engine life (I read somewhere on this forum). Hardly a surprise, it was the first jet to go into combat service so everyone was learning.

I am sure the first meteor pilots had the same experience learning rapidly from hard lessons what the do's and don'ts are certainly the F80 had its problems but went on to be produced in large numbers


----------



## GrauGeist (Dec 16, 2016)

There is the occasional mention of a team draft horses being used to bring up the jets from the ramp to the line, but it was the Kettenkrad that was most often used in this role and not only for the Me262, but the Ar234 as well.


----------



## pbehn (Dec 16, 2016)

I would have thought towing the early jets out to the end of the runway was a great idea even if you were awash with fuel, the fuel on board the aircraft was limited and the engines burned it at a high rate.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Dec 16, 2016)

Agreed...

Perhaps the only exception to this would be the units (KGs and JVs) operating from the forest alongside the Autobahn - it would make better sense to tow them out onto the line unless it was an alarm-start.


----------



## pbehn (Dec 16, 2016)

I dont know if meteors and lightnings were towed to the end of the runway or not but maybe they should have been because quite a few ran out of fuel in peacetime.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 16, 2016)

If you're operating in dire straights, have limited fuel or have a mission profile that forces you to operate your aircraft at the maximum extent of it's endurance, then towing them to the runway will work. If you have an operating control tower with other aircraft operating near by, this could present issues. Fuel burn during start up and taxi is usually minimal, where the issue presents itself is if you taxi out and have to wait on a taxi way or run way with an idling engine(s).

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 16, 2016)

pbehn said:


> I thought the only real problem with the 262 was engine life, this isnt a problem of aircraft design or even the engine design just a shortage of very exotic metals. Some pilots were much better than others at prolonging engine life (I read somewhere on this forum). Hardly a surprise, it was the first jet to go into combat service so everyone was learning.
> 
> I am sure the first meteor pilots had the same experience learning rapidly from hard lessons what the do's and don'ts are certainly the F80 had its problems but went on to be produced in large numbers



I think many authors sensationalize this whole discussion about early jet engine life. It's real simple;

1. Don't exceed EGT on start up
2. Avoid rapid throttle movments
3. Don't exceed the maximum power limitations in the POH

That simple


----------



## GrauGeist (Dec 16, 2016)

A book I would strongly suggest reading, is "The Me262 Stormbird" by Colin Heaton and Anne-Marie Lewis which has a great deal of information and excellent interviews of the 262 pilots themselves.

In this book, the reader will get a sense of day to day operations and they'll also find that nearly all of the pilots interviewed were impressed with the Me262's performance. There is also mention by many pilots in this book, about how dive-brakes (a common discussion here in the forums) were not useful to their mission.


----------



## fastmongrel (Dec 16, 2016)

How did the general drop off in quality control that afflicted German industry from late 44 affect the 262. Was the 262 treated as a special case and kept pre 44 standards. I have read that late Bf109s could have wildly varying performance between aircraft from the same batch.


----------



## Zyzygie (Dec 17, 2016)

fastmongrel said:


> How did the general drop off in quality control that afflicted German industry from late 44 affect the 262. Was the 262 treated as a special case and kept pre 44 standards. I have read that late Bf109s could have wildly varying performance between aircraft from the same batch.


The 262s were put together by slave labour. If they had a chance of sabotaging them without getting caught, they did:

"...A_s early as March 1944 slave labor was considered for production of the Me-262 but it wasn't until AFTER the July 20, 1944 bomb plot on the Fuhrer's life that the Me-262 eventually fell under control of the SS and their underground super assembly plant plans; still, a large percentage of the late 1944-1945 Me-262s were produced by slave labor. .."_​
Re: me 262 jets sabotaged by slave labor
​


----------



## Zyzygie (Dec 17, 2016)

FLYBOYJ said:


> *I'll call 100% BS on that statement as well as the article. * Robert Dorr was a long time aviation author and had many books published under Osprey (par for the course). Although he had a long and distinguished career in the US military, as a diplomat and as a writer, I don't think he was a rated pilot and doesn't provide any reference to back up that statement.
> 
> This is from Zeno's site, "Summary of debriefing German pilot Hans Fey on operational performance & late
> war deployment of the Me 262 jet fighter."
> ...




The materials in the engine and its relatively sensitive axial flow compressor were such that operating them was like "treading on eggshells." With stainless steel turbine blades and mild steel flame tubes, there was no room for error in throttle operation. See attachment. Also:
"...Abrupt throttle changes or rapid maneuvering often resulted in a flameout, or worse, a complete compressor failure..."
Me 262 PROJECT TECHNICAL DATA​


----------



## Frankenerd (Dec 17, 2016)

Friendly Fire said:


> Assume that the GM's pilot was somewhat less experienced but more knowledgeable about the enemy aircraft than the 262 pilot (an allied jet fighter arriving with no warning would've be a shocker). Both of them meet each other at the same altitude shortly after the 262's dive on a B-17 Flying Fortress during an allied bombing run, who would win?


This has little to do with aerodynamic performance and everything to do with weapons systems! The Me-262 had 4X 30 MM Mk-108s and could not hit a maneuvering target with them. That is why prop fighters shot down many more jet fighters than vice verse. The 4X 20s in the GM had a flat trajectory and it was easy to get hits with them.
The 262 can run, but not win and the GM can win, but not catch the 262!
So, it all boils down to the geometry of the intercept. In a head on pass, the 262 looses almost every time! Also to P-38s and P-39s! But as the Angle off goes past the 3-9 line, the 262 pilots has to step on his **** to loose. Chasing any target, the 262 has such huge problems getting any hit at all that it is all a matter of luck and if he chooses to fight the dog, the other guy will get a shot in sooner or later.
So it's any other plane before the 262.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Optimistic Optimistic:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zyzygie (Dec 17, 2016)

For information, from :
*The Me 262 Stormbird: From the Pilots Who Flew, Fought, and Survived It*
By Colin D. Heaton


----------



## Zyzygie (Dec 17, 2016)

Me 262 dogfighting strategy see attached excerpt:

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Dec 17, 2016)

Frankenerd said:


> This has little to do with aerodynamic performance and everything to do with weapons systems! *The Me-262 had 4X 30 MM Mk-108s and could not hit a maneuvering target with them. That is why prop fighters shot down many more jet fighters than vice verse. *The 4X 20s in the GM had a flat trajectory and it was easy to get hits with them.
> The 262 can run, but not win and the GM can win, but not catch the 262!
> So, it all boils down to the geometry of the intercept. In a head on pass, the 262 looses almost every time! Also to P-38s and P-39s! But as the Angle off goes past the 3-9 line, the 262 pilots has to step on his **** to loose. Chasing any target, the 262 has such huge problems getting any hit at all that it is all a matter of luck and if he chooses to fight the dog, the other guy will get a shot in sooner or later.
> So it's any other plane before the 262.


You can't be serious with this statement...

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Dec 17, 2016)

Zyzygie said:


> The 262s were put together by slave labour. If they had a chance of sabotaging them without getting caught, they did:
> 
> "...A_s early as March 1944 slave labor was considered for production of the Me-262 but it wasn't until AFTER the July 20, 1944 bomb plot on the Fuhrer's life that the Me-262 eventually fell under control of the SS and their underground super assembly plant plans; still, a large percentage of the late 1944-1945 Me-262s were produced by slave labor. .."_​



Whilst it is true that the Me 262 (and many other German aircraft) was built to a greater or lesser extent by forced and slave labour the author quoted, with his reference to the SS, shows a breathtaking ignorance of how labour was organised in the Third Reich, and the role of the SS in supplying some of it.

The Me 262 project was always under RLM control (unlike, say, the Ba 349 'Natter') and labour was supplied in the same way as to any other priority industry.

Millions of foreign workers, most of whom had nothing to do with the SS or its camps, died in Nazi Germany. Exonerating others and blaming the SS for all of this is the worst and most dangerous type of revisionism.

Not really relevant to the thread, but it needed saying.

Cheers

Steve

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 17, 2016)

Zyzygie said:


> For information, from :
> *The Me 262 Stormbird: From the Pilots Who Flew, Fought, and Survived It*
> By Colin D. Heaton



Again, more distorted facts - your original post quoted a post from an individual stating that the Me 262 was "difficult to fly," and again I call BS - there's not a shred of evidence to support this. There were operating variances that a pilot had to be fully aware of when operating early jets and they were all basically the same - Watch EGT on start up, avoid rapid throttle movements, keep airspeed up during final approach, don't let the jet "get ahead of you." Once a pilot was over these the Me 262 was probably easier to fly than any recip of the day, but like ALL early jets, they had their problems.

I have about 30 hours flying the L29 and there are a lot of similar characteristics found this in 1950s/60s trainer that you found in early jet fighters - No abrupt throttle movements, anticipate and prepare for slow engine spool up, on take off hold the nose down when first lifting off, build up airspeed then begin to climb. The big advantage flying the L29 when compared to early jets were speed brakes. More to come...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 17, 2016)

Frankenerd said:


> This has little to do with aerodynamic performance and everything to do with weapons systems! The Me-262 had 4X 30 MM Mk-108s and could not hit a maneuvering target with them. That is why prop fighters shot down many more jet fighters than vice verse. The 4X 20s in the GM had a flat trajectory and it was easy to get hits with them.
> The 262 can run, but not win and the GM can win, but not catch the 262!
> So, it all boils down to the geometry of the intercept. In a head on pass, the 262 looses almost every time! Also to P-38s and P-39s! But as the Angle off goes past the 3-9 line, the 262 pilots has to step on his **** to loose. Chasing any target, the 262 has such huge problems getting any hit at all that it is all a matter of luck and if he chooses to fight the dog, the other guy will get a shot in sooner or later.
> So it's any other plane before the 262.



Was that taken from a preamble from a flight simulator program? You state "geometry of the intercept. In a head on pass." Please tell us what that has to do with establishing a firing solution, lead or deflection shooting.


----------



## fastmongrel (Dec 17, 2016)

FLYBOYJ said:


> The big advantage flying the L29 when compared to early jets were speed brakes. .



And Ejection seats lots of early jet jockeys ended up at the bottom of a smoking hole

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Dec 17, 2016)

So it seems, in retrospect, that the Me262 was a dismal failure and that the Germans could not have possibly ushered in a new age of aviation - this was only reserved for the Allies.
We also see that the Me262 was just a fat, sitting target, unable to beat it's way out of a wet paper bag.

Here's a short list of "maneuvering targets" that oddly enough, the Me262 was able to shoot down (or damage beyond repair) with it's inferior Mk108 cannon:
Mosquito - Lt. Schreiber, 26 Jul 1944
Spitfire - Lt. Schreiber, 2 Aug 1944
Mosquito - Fw. Weber, 8 Aug 1944
Spitfire - Ofw. Baudach, 24 Aug 1944
Spitfire - Lt. Schreiber, 26 Aug 1944
Mosquito - Ofw. Reckers, 26 Aug 1944
Spitfire - Lt. Schreiber, 26 Aug 1944
Mosquito - Ofw. Gobel, 6 Sep 1944
P-51 - Ofw. Baudach, 11 Sep 1944
Mosquito - Lt. Weber, 14 Sep 1944
Mosquito - Lt. Weber, 18 Sep 1944
P-38 - Hpt. Eder, 6 Oct 1944
P-51 - Oblt.Bley, 10 Oct 1944
P-51 - Ofw. Lennartz, 12 Oct 1944
Mosquito - unknown pilot of Ekdo Lechfeld, 13 Oct 1944
P-51 - Oblt. Schall, 28 Oct 1944
P-38 - Lt. Schreiber, 28 Oct 1944
P-38 - Lt. Schreiber, 29 Oct 1944
P-47 - Fw. Buttner, 29 Oct 1944
P-47 - Ofw. Gobel, 29 Oct 1944
P-51 - Ofw. Banzhaff, 1 Nov 1944
P-51 - Fw. Buttner, 2 Nov 1944
P-47 - Fw. Buttner, 2 Nov 1944
P-47 - Ofw. Baudach, 2 Nov 1944
P-47 - Ofw. Gobel, 4 Nov 1944
P-47 - Oblt. Schall, 6 Nov 1944
P-47 - Oblt. Schall, 8 Nov 1944
P-47 - Oblt. Wegmann, 8 Nov 1944
P-51 - Oblt. Schall, 8 Nov 1944
P-51 - Oblt. Schall, 8 Nov 1944
P-51 - Maj. Nowotny, 8 Nov 1944
P-51 - Htp. Eder, 8 Nov 1944
P-51 - Hpt. Eder, 8 Nov 1944
P-51 - Hpt. Eder, 8 Nov 1944
P-51 - Hpt. Eder, 9 Nov 1944
P-51 - Hpt. Eder, 9 Nov 1944
P-51 - Lt. Weber, 23 Nov 1944
P-38 - Fw. Buttner, 24 Nov 1944
P-51 - Ofw. Gobel, 24 Nov 1944
P-38 - Ofw. Baudach, 4 Nov 1944
P-51 - Hpt. Eder, 25 Nov 1944
P-38 - Maj. Sinner, 26 Nov 1944
P-38 - Ofw. Buchner, 26 Nov 1944
Mosquito - Lt. Muller, 26 Nov 1944
Spitfire - Ofw. Lennartz, 27 Nov 1944
P-38 - Lt. Weber, 2 Dec 1944
P-38 - Fw. Buttner, 23 Dec 1944
P-51 - Fw. Buttner, 23 Dec 1944
P-51 - Fw. Bockel, 23 Dec 1944
Mosquito - Ofw. Buttner, 31 Dec 1944
Mosquito - Ofw. Baudach, 31 Dec 1944
P-15 - Ofw. Baudach, 31 Dec 1944

and this LONG list continues right up to the very end of the war:
YaK-9 - Oblt. Strehle, 8 May 1945

And for the record, these are air-to-air, daytime encounters. The short portion I posted above excludes probables, bombers and night-fighter action.
So tell me again about how the Me262 was unable to hit maneuvering targets with it's inferior Mk108 cannon?

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## fastmongrel (Dec 17, 2016)

GrauGeist said:


> with it's inferior Mk108 cannon?



Meeehh the Mk108 vastly over rated I got shot by one once and it didnt even hurt I just pressed reset ordered another 16inch pizza and carried on with the game.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Funny Funny:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Dec 17, 2016)

fastmongrel said:


> Meeehh the Mk108 vastly over rated I got shot by one once and it didnt even hurt I just pressed reset ordered another 16inch pizza and carried on with the game.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Glider (Dec 17, 2016)

Frankenerd said:


> This has little to do with aerodynamic performance and everything to do with weapons systems! The Me-262 had 4X 30 MM Mk-108s and could not hit a maneuvering target with them. That is why prop fighters shot down many more jet fighters than vice verse. The 4X 20s in the GM had a flat trajectory and it was easy to get hits with them.
> The 262 can run, but not win and the GM can win, but not catch the 262!
> So, it all boils down to the geometry of the intercept. In a head on pass, the 262 looses almost every time! Also to P-38s and P-39s! But as the Angle off goes past the 3-9 line, the 262 pilots has to step on his **** to loose. Chasing any target, the 262 has such huge problems getting any hit at all that it is all a matter of luck and if he chooses to fight the dog, the other guy will get a shot in sooner or later.
> So it's any other plane before the 262.


I would appreciate your views on the tactics the allies had to use to try and shoot down the 262. Where they had to try and get them on landing and take off because they were almost invulnerable to interception when up to speed. This entailed flying down huge aa traps because the Germans had very effective aa guns. According to your belief all the allies had to do was wait for the Germans to come to them, indulge in a bit or aerobatics because the Germans couldn't hit them and eventually shoot the 262's when it was time for tea.

PS still waiting for your comments and evidence on the best aero engine thread.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Magnon (Dec 17, 2016)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Again, more distorted facts - your original post quoted a post from an individual stating that the Me 262 was "difficult to fly," and again I call BS - there's not a shred of evidence to support this. There were operating variances that a pilot had to be fully aware of when operating early jets and they were all basically the same - Watch EGT on start up, avoid rapid throttle movements, keep airspeed up during final approach, don't let the jet "get ahead of you." Once a pilot was over these the Me 262 was probably easier to fly than any recip of the day, but like ALL early jets, they had their problems.
> 
> I have about 30 hours flying the L29 and there are a lot of similar characteristics found this in 1950s/60s trainer that you found in early jet fighters - No abrupt throttle movements, anticipate and prepare for slow engine spool up, on take off hold the nose down when first lifting off, build up airspeed then begin to climb. The big advantage flying the L29 when compared to early jets were speed brakes. More to come...



And further to that, Black is the new White...
_*"...Post*-*truth* politics (also called *post*-factual politics) is a political culture in which debate is framed largely by appeals to emotion disconnected from the details of policy, and by the repeated assertion of talking points to which factual rebuttals are ignored..."
_​Thanks for the reference to *The Me 262 Stormbird: From the Pilots Who Flew, Fought, and Survived It*


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 18, 2016)

fastmongrel said:


> And Ejection seats lots of early jet jockeys ended up at the bottom of a smoking hole


Yes - and BTW the L29s I flew didn't have hot seats. No way I would leave the aircraft unless I saw a wing falling off


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 18, 2016)

Magnon said:


> And further to that, Black is the new White...
> _*"...Post*-*truth* politics (also called *post*-factual politics) is a political culture in which debate is framed largely by appeals to emotion disconnected from the details of policy, and by the repeated assertion of talking points to which factual rebuttals are ignored..."
> _​Thanks for the reference to *The Me 262 Stormbird: From the Pilots Who Flew, Fought, and Survived It*


*And you choose to ignore the references of those posted earlier who stated that the 262 WAS NOT a difficult aircraft to fly?!?!?!?*

So tell me, putting political culture aside - do you have any TECHNICAL talking points to back up your rant???


----------



## Zyzygie (Dec 18, 2016)

Settle down flyboy

Don't lower yourself to his level...

In the meantime:
_...While very fast, the Me 262 was not without drawbacks and problems. The novel Jumo 004 engines were short-lived and unreliable, prone to flaming out and catching fire. Of course, the Me 262 was a twin-engined aircraft (a very good idea!) and it could fly well enough with just one working engine. Landing was a different matter; asymmetric thrust made landings very tricky. The jet could not accelerate very quickly, requiring extra-long airstrips for take-off. Nor could it decelerate quickly, and 'go-arounds' on landings were impractical. It could not turn well, and lost a lot of speed on hard turns, critical drawbacks in aerial combat. Handling was very challenging, and only for experienced, skillful pilots. While the Me 262 could fly like Hell and was heavily armed, that was it..._
_Messerschmitt Me 262 - World's First Jet Fighter_​Yes the Me 262 was very fast and great as a bomber destroyer. Just a pity about the reliability, that's all.

​


----------



## GrauGeist (Dec 18, 2016)

Zyzygie said:


> Settle down fly boy
> 
> Don't lower yourself to his level...
> 
> ...


Just for the record, NO first generation jet could accelerate quickly. The technology was in it's infancy and no jet engines at the time were rock-solid performers. And in regards to the turning reference, the Me262 could turn far better than many people assume. It was capable of sharp turns and by virtue of it's design, it turned well. But as with any aircraft, a sustained turn bled off speed and the Me262's engines weren't able to respond as quickly to this situation as a piston-powered aircraft.

Refer to the list of fighter kills posted earlier and see how many Allied fighters underestimated the Me262's ability to stand and fight.

The reference to twin-engined aircraft was rather odd, as most jet aircraft of the day were multiple engined:
Gloster Meteor, Bell P-59, Heinkel He280, Nakajima Kikka, Horton Ho.IX, Lockheed P-80, Bell XP-83 and so on - the Ar234 had two and later, four (Ar234C).
This is due to the low thrust of the early engines, taking into account of not only the airframe's weight, but the weight of the engine(s) as well.

Only three early jets successfully (and reliably) flew with a single engine: He178, Gloster E.28/39 and the He162 and all had compact, lightweight airframes that allowed a single engine's thrust to provide the necessary power to keep them airborn.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zyzygie (Dec 18, 2016)

GrauGeist said:


> Just for the record, NO first generation jet could accelerate quickly. The technology was in it's infancy and no jet engines at the time were rock-solid performers. And in regards to the turning reference, the Me262 could turn far better than many people assume. It was capable of sharp turns and by virtue of it's design, it turned well. But as with any aircraft, a sustained turn bled off speed and the Me262's engines weren't able to respond as quickly to this situation as a piston-powered aircraft.
> 
> Refer to the list of fighter kills posted earlier and see how many Allied fighters underestimated the Me262's ability to stand and fight.
> 
> ...



The P 80 was single engined (Allison J33). The Vampire was single engined (de Havilland Goblin). 
In terms of roll rate, that was the way to go then if you could, as to try and fit two of the first generation engines into the fuselage was not possible.

The acceleration of the Me 262 with its JUMO 004 *was* chronic, due to: 
- the inferior metals used in its hot components 
- the tendency for the then axial flow compressors to surge, causing damage to the flame tubes and/or turbine blades
- recall what the man said : don't try to touch the throttle if possible at altitude or you'll likely get a flameout ​Yes, the ME 262 could get kills by "hit and run" ambush, but trying to dogfight was "suicidal."


----------



## stona (Dec 18, 2016)

Anyone care to hear what someone who had extensive experience on the Meteor thought of the Me 262 when he had a chance to fly it?
Flight Lieutenant Clive Gosling of 616 Squadron picked up an Me 262 from Fassberg and enjoyed a flight in it. Here are his conclusions.

_"Now, what was the Me 262 like in comparison to the Meteor? It was 80 kph faster, the critical Mach number was higher and the rate of climb roughly similar. The rudder balance was smooth and the view from the cockpit was definitely not so good. It was rather more difficult to fly and the turbines were less reliable. I had flown two hundred hours in the Meteor with only one engine failure. The armament was essentially heavier than the Meteor, the rate of turn less good and, with this one short flight and the few manoeuvres I had attempted, the amount of fuel remaining led me to believe that the consumption was much higher than the Meteor and that the Me 262 could have had only a short combat radius and would have to return to base much earlier."_

Most here will be familiar with Eric Brown's assessment, but his conclusion supports Gosling's and is worth repeating.

_"It was a pilots' aeroplane that had to be flown and not just heaved into the air. Basically under powered and fitted with engines sufficiently lacking in reliability to keep the adrenaline flowing, it was thoroughly exciting to fly, and particularly so in view of the lack of an ejector seat."
_
As for the Me 262's effect on the war, Erich Rudorffer (the last Kommandeur of I./JG 7) summed it up succinctly.
_
"The aircraft was the best we had at the end of the war, but we had too few of them and too few good pilots left for the jet Staffeln."_

Cheers

Steve

Reactions: Like Like:
5 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 18, 2016)

Zyzygie said:


> Settle down flyboy
> 
> Don't lower yourself to his level...



No problem there - if he has an issue, he and i will deal with it


Zyzygie said:


> In the meantime:
> _...While very fast, the Me 262 was not without drawbacks and problems. The novel Jumo 004 engines were short-lived and unreliable, prone to flaming out and catching fire. Of course, the Me 262 was a twin-engined aircraft (a very good idea!) and it could fly well enough with just one working engine. Landing was a different matter; asymmetric thrust made landings very tricky. The jet could not accelerate very quickly, requiring extra-long airstrips for take-off. Nor could it decelerate quickly, and 'go-arounds' on landings were impractical. It could not turn well, and lost a lot of speed on hard turns, critical drawbacks in aerial combat. Handling was very challenging, and only for experienced, skillful pilots. While the Me 262 could fly like Hell and was heavily armed, that was it..._
> _Messerschmitt Me 262 - World's First Jet Fighter_​Yes the Me 262 was very fast and great as a bomber destroyer. Just a pity about the reliability, that's all.
> 
> ​



Reliability aside - asymmetric issues during landings are common in just about any twin, again this contradicts what many pilots thought about the aircraft and again I don't buy this unless you're talking about putting a pilot in the cockpit with less then 100 hours with no multi engine experience


----------



## BiffF15 (Dec 18, 2016)

The interesting vein, to me, in this thread is the engine discussion. The T-37 had very reliable engines, able to eat turkey vultures with little to no damage (or at least that was the reputation). However the idle to military power time was long enough to require "flying" the engine on certain approaches. The surging that accompanied an idle to mil movement was impressive to say the least. The T-38 had much better response, no surginging but was extremely sensitive to ice, and did not like big throttle movements when at altitude. Flameouts at altitude occurred enough to be noticeable. The early version of the Eagles motors, F-100-100s had great throttle response, but would bang, blow out, or not light. Rule of thumb, (ROT) was don't light the burners if your airspeed was below your altitude. If it blew out while fighting, you went back to mil on the engine for three seconds, then try it again. To light the burner the engine had to be stabilized in mil. Enter the F-100-220 with a FADEC on it and things changed (circa 1985). The engine became almost bullet proof in reliability. You could be in a tail slide at 45k, slam the throttles from idle to max afterburner (AB), and you would get 2 of the 5 stages of AB right now (prior to mil), and when able it would give you the rest. Very close to throttle by wire. The idle to mil time went down, thrust was up and did not degrade over the life of the engine. All good from both the driver and mechanics point of view.
My point is jet engines have required TLC until modern times.

Cheers,
Biff

Reactions: Like Like:
5 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Dec 18, 2016)

Zyzygie said:


> The P 80 was single engined (Allison J33). The Vampire was single engined (de Havilland Goblin).
> In terms of roll rate, that was the way to go then if you could, as to try and fit two of the first generation engines into the fuselage was not possible.
> 
> The acceleration of the Me 262 with its JUMO 004 *was* chronic, due to:
> ...


I did foul up and had the P-80 in there when it shouldn't have been, which is the result of too many things going on (I suck at multi-tasking).

And it was the experienced 262 pilots who picked the time and place to engage Allied fighters and many did so with success. That short list I posted were not all kills based on ambush, unless one wants to assume that the Allied airforces had that many pilots who were oblivious to their surroundings. There was even one recollection by a P-47 pilot who encountered two Me262s coming head on, he stayed his course and was counting on the two Germans to break at the last second - they didn't waver and passed him on either side with perhaps 20 feet to spare. We can see from this account that the Me262 pilots were not timid.

In regards to the Jumo004, there were several advances in the engine between the 004A and the 004B that gave it better reliability and performance. While this was little comfort to the pilots and the ground crew, it does point directly back to the RLM's lack of full support until Germany's situation was dire and jet engine development and production suddenly became a full priority.

And perhaps we should be grateful that the RLM chose this path because this meant that the He280, Me262 and other types never did realize their full potential.


----------



## stona (Dec 18, 2016)

As far as the fighting ability of the Me 262, perhaps the voice of John Wray, who flew Tempests as the Wing Leader of 122 Wing, and was the only RAF pilot to destroy two Me 262s would bear some weight.

_"The Me 262s we met were used principally in the bombing role. They were used to drop anti-personnel bombs on our airfield causing damage to both personnel and aircraft.
The aircraft had a very short endurance and obviously, the more power that was used, the shorter that became.Our radar picked the jets out fairly easily because the 'blip' was travelling so much faster than the others. They operated from only two airfields in our sector, Achmer and Rheine, both near Osnabruck. So far as I recall, this was due to fuel and spares problems.
We tried to deal with them in two ways. Firstly by intercepting them and secondly by patrolling their bases in order to make it difficult for them to take-off or land. German AA was both accurate and pretty lethal, and they spared no effort in defending their airfields. So the second tactic had its drawbacks!
No Allied fighter had the speed or acceleration to deal with the Me 262 in level flight and so advantage had to be taken of height and surprise. This allowed us to build up sufficient speed to get into firing range and hold the target long enough either to kill him or slow him down so that a further attack could be carried out. Unless one could get close enough without being seen, his acceleration was usually sufficient to get him away safely.
Unless one was airborne at the time and in the vicinity of the jet, interception was not easy. Their sorties rarely lasted more than some thirty minutes or so, therefore they were exposed to us over our own territory for a very short time. So, interceptions were largely a matter of chance. The American experience was possibly slightly different because they, additionally, had the jets attacking their escorted bombers and therefore offered themselves more easily as targets.
One tactic that was used - rather in desperation - was to try to make the jet 'weave' by firing at him even if he was out of range. If he knew you were firing, and particularly if tracer was used, he would often start to make evasive manoeuvres which, in turn, slowed him down. It depended on how close one was at the time and what the speed differential was.
I was also interested in the head on attacks by the '262s. The Germans were already using this form of attack with their '109s and '190s when the US fighter escorts became so large and were able to get to their target and back. 
The problem was always to get far enough in front of the target to get in position to launch a successful attack, which often meant the attacker not being able to see the target, thus arriving at an angle."_

An interesting postscript on the head on tactic comes from Wray's post war experience.

_"After the war, we tried to perfect the head on attack, using Meteors against USAF B-29s, but we were being positioned by radar, so one was lined up and on the right course. However, the closing speed was such that the attacks were 'hairy' in the extreme, bearing in mind that this was peacetime and mid-air collisions were not acceptable! Finally, a Meteor clipped the top of the fin of a Superfort and that was the end of that. Even though little damage was done to either aircraft, I suspect bowels were loosened a bit!"_

Cheers

Steve

Reactions: Like Like:
5 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Dec 18, 2016)

This:


stona said:


> ..._Even though little damage was done to either aircraft, I suspect bowels were loosened a bit!"_


Was the same impression I got from the P-47 pilot's encounter!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## davparlr (Dec 18, 2016)

BiffF15 said:


> The interesting vein, to me, in this thread is the engine discussion. The T-37 had very reliable engines, able to eat turkey vultures with little to no damage (or at least that was the reputation). However the idle to military power time was long enough to require "flying" the engine on certain approaches. The surging that accompanied an idle to mil movement was impressive to say the least. The T-38 had much better response, no surginging but was extremely sensitive to ice, and did not like big throttle movements when at altitude. Flameouts at altitude occurred enough to be noticeable. The early version of the Eagles motors, F-100-100s had great throttle response, but would bang, blow out, or not light. Rule of thumb, (ROT) was don't light the burners if your airspeed was below your altitude. If it blew out while fighting, you went back to mil on the engine for three seconds, then try it again. To light the burner the engine had to be stabilized in mil. Enter the F-100-220 with a FADEC on it and things changed (circa 1985). The engine became almost bullet proof in reliability. You could be in a tail slide at 45k, slam the throttles from idle to max afterburner (AB), and you would get 2 of the 5 stages of AB right now (prior to mil), and when able it would give you the rest. Very close to throttle by wire. The idle to mil time went down, thrust was up and did not degrade over the life of the engine. All good from both the driver and mechanics point of view.
> My point is jet engines have required TLC until modern times.
> 
> Cheers,
> Biff


Back in the day, I remember the ruggedness of the T-37 engine which you could almost fly through a waterfall without disturbing it. Also, I remember waiting forever for that engine to spool up from idle to generating some sort of thrust. I don't remember any surging, maybe I was judicious in application, maybe the engines were newer. I also remember flying final with everything hanging, speedbrake and thrust attenuators. RPM had to be very high if you had to go around. I don't remember any problems with throttle movement on the T-38, I thought the engine response was great, instant go-power, well at least compared to the T-37. I did not do any acro above 20k so I was probably not exposed to the large throttle movement at high altitude situation. The J-85 is a great engine and theT-38 is a great plane, the very aircraft I flew 46 years ago are still shooting touch and goes at Vance AFB, Oklahoma, incredible.

If I remember correctly, the F-100 was a troubled engine that seemed not to be thoroughly developed when deployed. I think many F-16 were lost due to engine failure before the AF started running engines in the F-15 before putting them in the F-16. I do know the TF-33 were great engines easily accepting abuse including exceeding EPR settings. Four years of my experience flying the C-141 in heavy use in Vietnam and Yom Kippur War support, I heard of only one engine failing in flight and it had over 9900 hr. of operating. I don't know about the performance of the J-79 or the J-75. Perhaps there are some old sticks on the site that have F-4, F-105, or F-106 time who can comment on the performance and idiosyncrasies of those engines.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## BiffF15 (Dec 18, 2016)

Davparlr,

Yes, the T-38's are still flying, and they changed the intakes a few years ago (along with a glass cockpit, GPS, HUD), and new wings (again). 

I too went to Enid, America for UPT. Approach to Kremlin check on RTB to the Tweet pattern (or flying up to Kagelman Aux Field, AKA Dogface), or 9 section lines north of Owen K. Garriot to find the entry point to 17R on the 38 side. 89-12.

The F-100-100 was a big leap over the J-65 (I think) in the Phantom. The early Viper losses were much more than just motor problems, and yes they got the "better" F-100 cores. A big problem was the difference between how the engineers were told the engines would be used, and how they were actually used. I know we did stuff with the Eagle that was never planned for, from split throttles, stomping on rudders, cross controlling, to smacking the stick off the HSI. In the end it always brought me home so no complaints here on either the design or the MX. Would have liked more thrust though...

Cheers,
Biff

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## soulezoo (Dec 19, 2016)

davparlr said:


> I do know the TF-33 were great engines easily accepting abuse including exceeding EPR settings. Four years of my experience flying the C-141 in heavy use in Vietnam and Yom Kippur War support, I heard of only one engine failing in flight and it had over 9900 hr. of operating. QUOTE]
> 
> I recall many times having to jump out at engine start to go open a cover on the cowling to beat on a stuck starter valve or linear actuator... and the look on the faces of the space A pax as I run out with a hammer and speed handle and watch as I bang away at the engine. That was priceless.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Fighterguy (Dec 19, 2016)

Define "win." The Meteor pilot causing the ME 262 to disengage from attacking B-17's (preventing enemy objective) would be considered the winner. The ME pilot still downing or severely damaging B-17's, because the Meteor was ineffective, would be the winner.
In any of these theoretical engagements, other factors need to be considered. Is this a "classic" merge, does the Meteor bounce a preoccupied 262, etc.,?
As usual, these theoretical (fantasy) engagements don't hold to operational realities. An attacking ME 262 is going to be moving fast in order to retain energy for a climb out. The Meteor would be hard pressed to catch him. ME 262 flight controls were difficult to move at higher speeds, preventing quick reversal and turning into a pursuing opponent. The focus for Luftwaffe pilots was the bombers. Neither pilot would be a lone wolf. Rule #1 is always stay with your wingman. There's a greater chance that the Luftwaffe pilot, flying over home turf with his airfield nearby, in all likelihood, would be alone because his wingman separated due to mechanical problems. The Meteor pilot would be part of a flight, or an element at the minimum, over enemy territory. If a Meteor pilot runs into mechanical problems preventing mission continuance, his return to base will be accompanied by his wingman. With this in mind, the Luftwaffe pilot will be contending with two Meteors. The smart decision for the German is to disengage from the area.


----------



## davparlr (Dec 20, 2016)

> soulezoo


I couldn't help but laugh when I read you post. It certainly took me back in time. We were getting ready to launch out of Elmendorf (Alaska) after a RON (remain over night) on a very cold day. The plane looked like it was on life support with multiple ground equipment wired in and big yellow tubes pumping hot air into the crew entrance door. As we were starting the engines No. 3 (IIRC) refused to turn over, our engineer instructed ground personnel to take a rubber mallet and beat on the air valve. Once that was done, we got an OK from ground, no luck. My engineer got up and said "Let me take a look" and left. A couple of minutes later, he got on the intercom and said to give it a try. The engine responded immediately. The engineer came back grumbling "the guy was beating on the generator!" You just had to love engineers (most of the time  ).

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zyzygie (Dec 21, 2016)

An extract from *"Early Jet Engines and the Transition from Centrifugal to Axial Compressors" *may be of some interest
_"Other observers on the scene in the early 1950's made nearly the same observations as Moult and Brodie. Geoffrey GSmith, Editorial Director for the journals Flight and Aircraft Production, noted the higher efficiency and smaller frontal area of the axial-flow engines, but concluded that they were "touchy." The centrifugal units, on the other hand, cost less to develop, produce, and maintain; lasted longer; and could achieve efficiencies in the area of 80 per cent (which Smith apparently considered high enough). He also noted that the civil airliners then flying under power of gas turbine engines (both turbojet and turboprop)--the de Havilland Comet, the Avro Jetliner, and the Vickers Viscount--all used centrifugal-flow engines. An anonymous supporter of the centrifugal design denied that the axials held any advantage at all. He claimed differences in methods of measuring the efficiency accounted for the supposed superiority of the axial engine. He also asserted that engineers needed to pay less attention to frontal area and more to the greater production difficulties and higher first cost of the axial-flow engines. In his mind, it came down to a question of having a few engines of high performance versus more engines of slightly lower performance. He preferred the latter, in the belief that more research and development work on the centrifugal design would yield significant improvements._​
_Here again, critics of the axial engine might not have had the benefit of knowledge of the latest developments in axial compressors. Undeniably, the centrifugal design had some strong points in its favor. The centrifugal impeller was truly simple and sturdy, and after the manufacturers solved some early production problems (the impeller posed a complex task for the machinist) it was also relatively easy to make. The intensive research which Whittle, Rolls Royce, and others conducted during the war, combined with many hundreds of hours of flying time, provided a great deal of experience. This experience made the centrifugal design more of a known quantity than the axial, hence some of the uncertainty about the latter. With the end of the war, however, continued development of the axial units exposed a great potential, and the axial-flow engine designers could argue quite forcibly for that design. _​
_Critics of the axial engine's _​
_· "touchiness" (a reference to its narrower operating range)_
_· expense_
_· difficulty in manufacturing,_
_· service life, etc.,_
_apparently viewed the axial engine's development as static. This was far from the truth, however, since continued work yielded significant advances. In other words, the opponents of the axial engine appeared to neglect, either out of ignorance or self-interest, the axial compressor's potential. Proponents of the axial design aired their views at the Aircraft Gas Turbine Engineering Conference sponsored by General Electric in mid-1945. Participants at the meeting in Swampscott, Massachusetts included representatives of the U.S. Army Air Forces, the U.S. Navy, the Royal Air Force, the Royal Navy, the U. S. National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics, every major American engine and airframe manufacturer, and several English manufacturers. The conference covered a wide range of topics, including the performance, installation, and control of turbojets and turboprops, and a comparison of the two types of compressors._​
_Alan Howard, a General Electric engineer, discussed the characteristics of axial flow units in his paper, "Aircraft Gas Turbines With Axial Compressors."_​
_In a side-by-side comparison of axial and centrifugal compressors, he pointed out that the axial had 
· a lower fuel consumption rate,
· a smaller frontal area_
· _ and often a simpler installation due to its inlet design. _​
_The smaller frontal area and simpler installation of the axial engine reflected an important feature of its design: the straight through flow path. Without any major bends in the flow path of the air, the designers could keep the diameter to a minimum. This not only resulted in a smaller frontal area for a given thrust, it also made the installation simpler because the intake duct could guide the air directly into the engine. On centrifugal engines, the air usually had to go around the accessory equipment clustered about the forward end of the shaft. Even without any accessories in the way, the necessity of a smooth entry into the impeller dictated that the air enter in a radially inward direction. This latter feature also prevented the centrifugal engine from taking full advantage of the ram effect (the extra compression gained when air "rammed" into an axial engine at high speeds). _​
_ To be fair, Howard admitted the obvious: the axial engine was longer and heavier (per pound of thrust) than the centrifugal engine, and it operated in a much narrower range. A narrower operating range implied a slower acceleration rate, a propensity to either choke or surge, and greater difficulty in starting (when the rotational speed and mass flow would be extremely low). Clearly, these characteristics could be dangerous in certain situations, whether a fighter aircraft in a dogfight or an airliner trying to avoid a mid-air collision. To counteract these hazardous tendencies, Howard suggested that designers incorporate a wider operating range by adding more stages. Unfortunately, this entailed an increase in weight, given the state of materials and methods at the time."_​
Also, attached, a graph which shows that arguably the centrifugal had an edge with regard to thrust, and certainly thrust to weight ratio until at least 1947.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Ascent (Dec 21, 2016)

I will preface this post with saying that my experience with gas turbines is maintaining the RB199 which is a much later generation of engine than the ones we're discussing.

I think the Allies were right to go with centrifugal compressors to start with. There is no denying that in the longer term axial flow were going to be the one to go for in high speed applications but the centrifugal compressor was a known quantity, effectivley that is what they were using in all those superchargers and turbo chargers on the piston engines.
This freed up the engineering resources that would be needed to develop the axial flow and could now be directed at other areas.

Yes the Germans got the axial flow compressors working but how much resources were used up on that? What about the resources used in manufacturing those more complex components? Would it not have been better to put those into the turbines and combustion chambers where they were having real problems? The engines may not have been as powerful, may have had slightly higher drag but they would have been available in greater numbers and when they were needed.

How many 262's were sat on the ground waiting on engines? Surely it would have been better to maybe have less powerful engines rather than not have more powerful engines.

Did the Germans develop any centrifugal compressors? And if they did how did they compare to the allied ones? With the work Stanley Hooker did on superchargers being directly applicable I would have thought that the allies would be able to produce more efficent ones.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zyzygie (Dec 21, 2016)

Ascent said:


> I will preface this post with saying that my experience with gas turbines is maintaining the RB199 which is a much later generation of engine than the ones we're discussing.
> 
> I think the Allies were right to go with centrifugal compressors to start with. There is no denying that in the longer term axial flow were going to be the one to go for in high speed applications but the centrifugal compressor was a known quantity, effectivley that is what they were using in all those superchargers and turbo chargers on the piston engines.
> This freed up the engineering resources that would be needed to develop the axial flow and could now be directed at other areas.
> ...


Yes. They used a centrifugal compressor for Ohain's engine. By the way it also had a radial turbine!
They were also working on a hybrid centrifugal/axial - the Heinkel Hes 011 had a "diagonal" compressor.


----------



## GrauGeist (Dec 21, 2016)

Zyzygie said:


> Yes. They used a centrifugal compressor for Ohain's engine. By the way it also had a radial turbine!
> They were also working on a hybrid centrifugal/axial - the Heinkel He's 011 had a "diagonal" compressor.


The HeS 006 (HeS 30) also had a unique design, and held a great deal of promise. And it should have been a priority - but once again, the RLM shoots itself in the foot.


----------



## Zyzygie (Dec 22, 2016)

GrauGeist said:


> The HeS 006 (HeS 30) also had a unique design, and held a great deal of promise. And it should have been a priority - but once again, the RLM shoots itself in the foot.



There are a lot of "might have beens " in this saga, The German engineers made the greatest mistake by not developing the centrifugal in parallel with the axial compressor, as the British (and hence US) did.
They also should have developed Nimonic. Without that, jet engines were not going to be viable. The Soviets, who were also definitely no technological slouches, couldn't crack it themselves:
From *Wikipedia*
_By 1946, Soviet designers were finding it impossible to perfect the German-designed HeS-011 axial-flow jet engine, and new airframe designs from Mikoyan were threatening to outstrip development of the jet engines needed to power them. Soviet aviation minister Mikhail Khrunichev and aircraft designer Alexander Sergeyevich Yakovlev suggested to Joseph Stalin that the USSR buy advanced jet engines from the British. Stalin is said to have replied: "What fool will sell us his secrets?"[1] However, he gave his assent to the proposal and Artem Mikoyan, engine designer Vladimir Klimov, and others traveled to the United Kingdom to request the engines. To Stalin's amazement, the British Labour government and its pro-Soviet Minister of Trade, Sir Stafford Cripps, were perfectly willing to provide technical information and a license to manufacture the Rolls-Royce Nene centrifugal-flow jet engine, a move which even Russian sources have mocked. This engine was reverse-engineered and produced as the Soviet Klimov RD-45 jet engine, subsequently incorporated into the MiG-15.[1] (Rolls-Royce later attempted to claim £207 million in license fees, but without success.)[citation needed]_​


----------



## Ascent (Dec 22, 2016)

Criminal charges should have been brought against someone for that stupidity.

I still can't believe the government allowed it.


----------



## Juha2 (Dec 22, 2016)

GrauGeist said:


> So it seems, in retrospect, that the Me262 was a dismal failure and that the Germans could not have possibly ushered in a new age of aviation - this was only reserved for the Allies.
> We also see that the Me262 was just a fat, sitting target, unable to beat it's way out of a wet paper bag.
> 
> Here's a short list of "maneuvering targets" that oddly enough, the Me262 was able to shoot down (or damage beyond repair) with it's inferior Mk108 cannon:
> ...



In fact those were claims, the first one, the Mossie on 26 July wasn't even hit but lost outer part of its door because of hard evasing manoeuvres, it landed safely in Italy and was eventually lost in 1950 off Malta.


----------



## Zyzygie (Dec 22, 2016)

Juha2 said:


> In fact those were claims, the first one, the Mossie on 26 July wasn't even hit but lost outer part of its door because of hard evasing manoeuvres, it landed safely in Italy and was eventually lost in 1950 off Malta.



I think I read about this incident, but I thought it lost about a metre of its wing on the initial attack.
But I would guess that the Mosquito was probably an unarmed reconnaissance version, in which case, the ME 262, if had any claims to being a dogfighter, should have eaten it for breakfast. On the contrary, the Mosquito evaded several more attack passes and eventually lost itself in some cloud cover.


----------



## Juha2 (Dec 22, 2016)

The Mossie was 544 squadron Mosquito PR XVI MM273

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Dec 22, 2016)

Zyzygie said:


> I think I read about this incident, but I thought it lost about a metre of its wing on the initial attack.
> .



It was a No.544 Squadron PR Mosquito flown by Flt.Lt. A E Wall, with Plt.Off. A S Lobban as his navigator. It left RAF Benson on a sortie to Munich and the incident with Schreiber's Me 262 occurred in the target area near Munich at about 29,000 feet.

Wall evaded no fewer than five attacks from astern before Schreiber changed his tactic and delivered a climbing attack from below. This allowed Wall to dive for the clouds, and it was at this time that a loud bang from the underside of the Mosquito was heard. The outer hatch had been torn off, confirmed by Lobban. Unsure of the extent of the damage Wall headed for friendly territory, eventually landing at Fermo airfield in Italy. Here it was discovered that the hatch had torn free and struck the port tailplane as it went. There is no reported damage to the wings.

Alfred Schreiber claimed the Mosquito as Ekdo. 262's first combat success, but like many claims on all sides it was incorrect.

The well flown Mosquito had succeeded in out manoeuvring the jet on several occasions, probably because Schreiber lost the element of surprise when he did not engage the Mosquito on his first pass. Wall assumed he was making sure that he identified his potential target correctly, but we will never know for sure.
The Mosquito is certainly NOT the most manoeuvrable of Allied aircraft !!!!

There are any number of accounts of piston engine fighters evading attacks from Me 262s, sometimes more than one. The Me 262 simply could not manoeuvre with them whilst keeping its one advantage, speed. It's speed allowed it to re-position for attack at will, but once the element of surprise was lost a well flown adversary could repeatedly avoid successive attacks.

Cheers

Steve

Incidentally Schreiber's August 2nd Spitfire claim is just that, a claim. Maybe he had a 'sore throat'.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zyzygie (Dec 22, 2016)

stona said:


> It was a No.544 Squadron PR Mosquito flown by Flt.Lt. A E Wall, with Plt.Off. A S Lobban as his navigator. It left RAF Benson on a sortie to Munich and the incident with Schreiber's Me 262 occurred in the target area near Munich at about 29,000 feet.
> 
> Wall evaded no fewer than five attacks from astern before Schreiber changed his tactic and delivered a climbing attack from below. This allowed Wall to dive for the clouds, and it was at this time that a loud bang from the underside of the Mosquito was heard. The outer hatch had been torn off, confirmed by Lobban. Unsure of the extent of the damage Wall headed for friendly territory, eventually landing at Fermo airfield in Italy. Here it was discovered that the hatch had torn free and struck the port tailplane as it went. There is no reported damage to the wings.
> 
> ...



There is a good account of the Mosquito incident at British airmen’s first encounter with a jet aircraft – 26 July 1944 | Abroad in the Yard

_"...Not only had the enemy aircraft stayed with them, it came closer still. And then it began firing its cannons. Tracers streaked past the Mosquito, inches above the cockpit canopy.

“Break!” yelled Lobban.

Wall backed off the throttles, and swung left. The attacker flashed by, and as it did, they got their first good look at it.

“The bloody thing’s got no props!” Lobban exclaimed.

Indeed it hadn’t. The enemy aircraft was a low-winged monoplane with two large engine pods, and a configuration unlike any they had seen before.

The strange aircraft was now turning towards them. It didn’t seem to be all that manoeuvrable, perhaps because of its enormous speed. At least, it seemed to require a great amount of space to turn about.

Wall knew that if he could turn more tightly than the other aircraft, he might be able to keep it from getting a clean shot at them. He added power and reversed course, heading directly towards it.

The two aircraft began closing on each other at a combined speed of nearly 1,000 mph. It was like flying towards a screaming bullet. The enemy aircraft fired again, but was not lined up well enough to hit them. At the last possible moment, Wall flicked the ailerons and sent the Mosquito past the attacker. Then he continued to turn hard, G-forces pushing him deeper into his seat.

As he’d hoped, it took longer for the enemy aircraft to swing around. Again, Wall headed directly towards it. And again he flew by before fire from its guns could strike the Mosquito. But on the next pass his opponent made a smart move, beginning his turn only a fraction of a second after Wall began his. Then he dove, and climbed toward the British aircraft from underneath, firing his canons as he came.

There was a loud bang and the Mosquito lurched and shuddered. Wall struggled to maintain control, but the aircraft was still flying. The only response he could think of was to try another dive. He pushed the stick forward, and as he did, he caught sight of cloud cover below.

He raced downward, and an instant later was inside the cloud’s solid white sanctuary.

Wall then began circling, so as to remain inside the protective vapour. There was considerable turbulence, but it was infinitely preferable to explosive cannon shells punching more holes in the aircraft...."_​


----------



## stona (Dec 22, 2016)

There's god and then there's good. This caught my attention.

_"There was considerable turbulence, but it was infinitely preferable to explosive cannon shells punching more holes in the aircraft."_

As far as I can tell from the contemporary reports the Mosquito was not hit by any cannon shells 

A Mosquito could survive being hit and return home. After the loss of several PR machines suspicions grew that the new German jet was indeed operational and being used as a fighter. On 8th August 1944 a Mosquito of No. 60 (SAAF) Squadron, flown by Captain Saloman Pienaar with his navigator Lieutenant Archie Lockhart-Ross was despatched from San Severo, Italy, to photograph the airfield at Leipheim. As they made the first photographic pass over the airfield (capturing an Me 262 taking off) they were attacked by another Me 262, being hit in the port wing, the strike blowing the aileron away. A second attack also scored hits. Despite the damage Pienaar evaded another 10 attacks over the next 30 minutes when the Me 262, presumably short of fuel, broke of the engagement. Pienaar managed to fly the Mosquito using just the rudder and full starboard aileron, the port engine being uncontrollabe, the 400 miles back to San Severino.
During the engagement the Mosquito's cameras had been running and the developed film revealed a clear shot of the Me 262 turning below and ahead of the Mosquito, confirming that the type was being use in a fighter role by the Luftwaffe.
Pienaar and Lockhard-Ross both received DFCs for their exploits.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## Peter Gunn (Dec 22, 2016)

Ascent said:


> Criminal charges should have been brought against someone for that stupidity.
> 
> I still can't believe the government allowed it.



The stupidity of politicians has never ceased to amaze/ me, not to mention how gullible they can be. What were these guys thinking? "Hey, let's give this technology to the Soviets, it'll never come back to bite us in the a$$..."

Well, if nothing else, it gave the F-86's plenty of things to shoot at a few years later.


----------



## GrauGeist (Dec 22, 2016)

Juha2 said:


> In fact those were claims, the first one, the Mossie on 26 July wasn't even hit but lost outer part of its door because of hard evasing manoeuvres, it landed safely in Italy and was eventually lost in 1950 off Malta.


Yes, I did include the first verified encounter between an Allied type and a Me262 to start the timeline. It also showed that the operation learning curve for the Me262 pilots was just starting and would improve as time went by. To add to that, the first operational Me262s were based out of Ekdo 262, which was a test and training unit. It wouldn't be until October 1944, that Kommando Nowotny would be established as an operational unit, but even still, a pilot with Ekdo Lechfield even managed to score a victory shortly after Kdo Nowotney went operational.

If you go back and read my list, I stated that these "claims" were for downed or damaged beyond repair (except for the Mossie on 6 July 1944) excluded bombers, ground kills and probables in order to show that the Me262 wasn't just a sitting duck or dedicated solely to intercepting "unmoving targets".

The list I sourced was from Colin Heaton's works and not just a list I pulled out of my hat.

I find it very interesting that the general consensus seems to be that the Me262 was a pile of garbage and didn't pose an actual threat to Allied aircraft (of any sort).


----------



## Glider (Dec 22, 2016)

GrauGeist said:


> I find it very interesting that the general consensus seems to be that the Me262 was a pile of garbage and didn't pose an actual threat to Allied aircraft (of any sort).



Count me out of that consensus. The 262 and the Arado 234 posed a very serious threat to the allies for obviously different reasons. With a little more time to sort out the reliability and get the numbers up, life would have got very interesting very quickly.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Dec 22, 2016)

We have the luxury of sitting back, 70 years later and making observations and picking which type "was the best, worst", etc. but when the Me262 first appeared over the skies of Europe, the Allies were extremely concerned.

When the Me262 attacked bombers with devastating results, it literally scared the sh!t out of them. It moved too fast to train the defensive armament on them, it's cannon shells ripped the aircraft apart and they were at a loss to figure out a way to counter this new threat.

It would take a little time to discover and exploit it's weaknesses, which we have the ability to pick up a book and read about - they didn't have this information at the time.

That some people can make claims that the 30mm cannon weren't effective or that it couldn't turn a tight circle or it didn't have enough range, flight time or whatnot stands in stark contrast to how the Allies viewed this machine in 1944.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Dec 22, 2016)

GrauGeist said:


> I find it very interesting that the general consensus seems to be that the Me262 was a pile of garbage and didn't pose an actual threat to Allied aircraft (of any sort).



I don't believe that at all. The Me 262 was a formidable aircraft. It would have made a bomber destroyer par excellence if deployed in numbers. It could have been a great reconnaissance aircraft. It could also have made an effective fighter bomber, eventually, not bombing from 4,000m as was tried around D-Day.
*What it could never have been was a dog fighter*, and I disagree with any claim that it could have been. It could and did destroy piston engined fighters, usually, like everyone else, by using surprise. Even with the ability to engage and disengage a target at will, it still struggled to shoot down a well flown adversary. Whilst that adversary could avoid the attacks of the Me 262, it is important to remember that it had almost no chance of itself getting a shot at the Me 262, unless the pilot of the jet made a bad mistake. In many encounters of this type the factors that saved the piston engined aircraft were usually luck, as in finding cloud in which to hide, or the chronically short endurance of the Me 262, which was soon forced to break off the engagement and head for home.
The Allies would not have been aware of just how severe a limitation the Me 262s range was when it first appeared, nor would they have been aware of the engine problems. They soon discovered its vulnerability on take off and landing though.
It was not invulnerable, many were shot down, even Galland was hit and very nearly shot down, making a forced landing at Riem to finish what became his last flight of the war.
Cheers
Steve

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## soulezoo (Dec 22, 2016)

Zyzygie said:


> Yes. They used a centrifugal compressor for Ohain's engine. By the way it also had a radial turbine!
> They were also working on a hybrid centrifugal/axial - the Heinkel Hes 011 had a "diagonal" compressor.


In the latest edition (Jan 2017) of Air Force Magazine, there is an article regarding rounding up the German engineers. Hans J.P. von Ohain was at the top of that list. His first ever engine was installed and flew in a He 178 in 1939. Von Ohain remained a U.S. government employee working as chief scientist of the Aero Propulsion Lab at Wright-Patterson AFB until he retired in 1975.


----------



## soulezoo (Dec 22, 2016)

GrauGeist said:


> I did foul up and had the P-80 in there when it shouldn't have been, which is the result of too many things going on (I suck at multi-tasking).
> 
> And it was the experienced 262 pilots who picked the time and place to engage Allied fighters and many did so with success. That short list I posted were not all kills based on ambush, unless one wants to assume that the Allied airforces had that many pilots who were oblivious to their surroundings. There was even one recollection by a P-47 pilot who encountered two Me262s coming head on, he stayed his course and was counting on the two Germans to break at the last second - they didn't waver and passed him on either side with perhaps 20 feet to spare. We can see from this account that the Me262 pilots were not timid.
> 
> ...



In the AF magazine article I referenced in my last post, they discussed the Me262 being the top priority in capturing and bringing back to the States (Operation Lusty). One pilot that did so, Bob Strobell (who retrieved Me262's from Lechfeld air base), mentioned that one of the greatest qualities of the Me262 was ease of maintenance and that he "knew for a fact" that a jet engine could be changed in one half hour in a Me262.


----------



## Juha2 (Dec 22, 2016)

GrauGeist said:


> Yes, I did include the first verified encounter between an Allied type and a Me262 to start the timeline. It also showed that the operation learning curve for the Me262 pilots was just starting and would improve as time went by. To add to that, the first operational Me262s were based out of Ekdo 262, which was a test and training unit. It wouldn't be until October 1944, that Kommando Nowotny would be established as an operational unit, but even still, a pilot with Ekdo Lechfield even managed to score a victory shortly after Kdo Nowotney went operational.
> 
> If you go back and read my list, I stated that these "claims" were for downed or damaged beyond repair (except for the Mossie on 6 July 1944) excluded bombers, ground kills and probables in order to show that the Me262 wasn't just a sitting duck or dedicated solely to intercepting "unmoving targets".
> 
> ...



Istill doubt that they are claims, IIRC the first loss to Me 262 confirmed by Allied data was the 8 Aug 44 Mossie, the 3rd on the list. I don't have time to go through your list but when you combared it to the info given by Drgondog 7 years ago, they definitely seems to be claims, see: Which fighter brought the biggest new advantage when introduced? and his following two messages.

Juha


----------



## Graeme (Dec 22, 2016)

Zyzygie said:


> _(Rolls-Royce later attempted to claim £207 million in license fees, but without success.)[citation needed]_



It certainly "flamed-out" for Rolls-Royce.
According to James Hamilton-Paterson ("Empire of the Skies" 2010 pp 157) _*it was Rolls-Royce*_ in 1945 who made the "extraordinary request" for permission to sell their engines to the Russians. 

One engineer totally opposed to the sale was Rod Banks...

Francis Rodwell Banks - Wikipedia


----------



## yulzari (Dec 22, 2016)

Re the Nene sale to the Soviet Union. From memory so definitely 'IIRC' the Soviets were offering a large pile of foreign currency of which Britain was desperately short (hence the civilian food ration having been reduced to below the wartime level).

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Magnon (Dec 23, 2016)

Some useful data? can it be right?
_
...Loss figures from III./EJG 2, KG 51, and JG 7 were comparable. A comprehensive technical report by the technical officer of III. Gruppe, Oberinspektor Grote, compiled on March 3, 1945, listed the following causes for 42 aircraft losses:

pilot error 13
technical faults 19
enemy action 10_​
See p.89
Manfred Boehme. *JG 7: The World's First Jet Fighter Unit 1944/1945*. Schiffer Publishing, 1992.

This is an old note which I can't verify. It could be suspect.


----------



## stona (Dec 23, 2016)

Juha2 said:


> Istill doubt that they are claims, IIRC the first loss to Me 262 confirmed by Allied data was the 8 Aug 44 Mossie, the 3rd on the list. I don't have time to go through your list but when you combared it to the info given by Drgondog 7 years ago, they definitely seems to be claims, see: Which fighter brought the biggest new advantage when introduced? and his following two messages.
> 
> Juha


Schreiber's second claim for a Spitfire can't be confirmed from the Allied side. Maybe he had a 'sore throat'. 
Cheers
Steve


----------



## stona (Dec 23, 2016)

yulzari said:


> Re the Nene sale to the Soviet Union. From memory so definitely 'IIRC' the Soviets were offering a large pile of foreign currency of which Britain was desperately short (hence the civilian food ration having been reduced to below the wartime level).



Exactly.

At the time, or shortly thereafter, concerns were raised about the sales, but the government response was that the engines were not secret and that the sale was a commercial transaction between Rolls Royce and the Soviet Union. See this extract from Hansard.

Jet Engines (Foreign Sales) (Hansard, 22 November 1948)

It might seem incredible to us, but, once again, we have a hindsight not afforded to the decision makers of the time.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## Juha2 (Dec 23, 2016)

Magnon said:


> Some useful data? can it be right?
> _
> ...Loss figures from III./EJG 2, KG 51, and JG 7 were comparable. A comprehensive technical report by the technical officer of III. Gruppe, Oberinspektor Grote, compiled on March 3, 1945, listed the following causes for 42 aircraft losses:
> 
> ...



Nothing wrong in your note, exactly as in the book.

Ps. but the text continued (Boehme's text): "Evaluation of surviving damage reports shows that in many cases the technical faults and resulting flyng accidents must be seen as direct results of improper handling by the pilot...


----------



## Zyzygie (Dec 23, 2016)

The JUMO 004 was arguably still on a steep development curve when it was forced to enter service with the Me 262:
_“In principle, development has now reached a stage where functionally the various parts of the engine are in order. However, due to the haste with which this development was carried out it is impossible to claim that there will be no more difficulties and that development is concluded. The difficulties we still have involve individual components of the engine and I would like to select only two from this group. One is the turbine. Recently we have had certain difficulties with the turbine wheel, with unexpected failures in the turbine blades due to vibration. The second component is the control system, and here I will touch on the problem of opening and closing the throttles, which was raised by the Reichsmarschall. I mentioned in Regensburg that we had things under control up to 8 km. Beyond that we are still somewhat unsure. But we have already flown to over 11 km. However it cannot be guaranteed with certainty that we will have the problem at upper altitudes rectified by the time series production begins, so that the pilot will be able to open and close the throttles without worrying about a flame-out.”

In fact Junkers failed to eliminate this shortcoming before the engine entered production. Controlling the engine remained the great weakness of the 004 until the end of the war.”_​
See p.37-38
Manfred Boehme. *JG 7: The World's First Jet Fighter Unit 1944/1945*. Schiffer Publishing, 1992

I believe that they did eventually solve the main turbine vibration problem:
_"Later in 1943 the 004B version suffered turbine blade failures which were not understood by the Junkers team. They focussed on areas such as material defects, grain size and surface roughness. Eventually, in December, blade-vibration specialist Max Bentele was once again brought in during a meeting at the RLM headquarters. He identified that the failures were caused by one of the blades' natural frequencies being in the engine running range. His solution was to raise the frequency, by increasing the blade taper and shortening them by 1 millimeter, and to reduce the operating speed of the engine[6] from 9,000 to 8,700 rpm."_
Wikipedia​Although hollow pressed metal blades operating in a hot environment would have an inherent problem, no matter how well balanced it was initially:
_"The second was the turbine blades. These were, on production models, made from hollow folded ... alloy steel and spot welded. This means they [were liable] to warp slightly in use leading to imbalance of the turbine and wiping the bearings in operation. While a fairly ingenious method of cooling (passing air through the hollow blade space), it is also problematic and led to reduced engine life."_​_How many jets to have a decisive impact on the war? • Axis History Forum_​

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zyzygie (Dec 23, 2016)

Juha2 said:


> Nothing wrong in your note, exactly as in the book.
> 
> PS. but the text continued (Boehme's text): "Evaluation of surviving damage reports shows that in many cases the technical faults and resulting flyng accidents must be seen as direct results of improper handling by the pilot...


If that is right, then enemy action was literally the *least* of their worries on any given sortie.


----------



## Zyzygie (Dec 23, 2016)

Zyzygie said:


> Although hollow pressed metal blades operating in a hot environment would have an inherent problem, no matter how well balanced it was initially:
> _"The second was the turbine blades. These were, on production models, made from hollow folded manganese alloy steel and spot welded. This means they [were liable] to warp slightly in use leading to imbalance of the turbine and wiping the bearings in operation. While a fairly ingenious method of cooling (passing air through the hollow blade space), it is also problematic and led to reduced engine life."_​_How many jets to have a decisive impact on the war? • Axis History Forum_​



*See attached*

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Fighterguy (Dec 24, 2016)

Centrifugal compressors for gas turbine engines were a borrowed design from turbo-superchargers, a simple re-purposing and expansion of known technology. Axial compressors are far more efficient with a higher compression ratio, and higher temperatures, but required completely new and untried production methods. This is an example of existing manufacturing techniques and processes unable to meet new concepts. Seems the Germans plagued themselves with this often. Developing technologically advanced and unproven weapons programs, without the luxury of being a continent away, helped lead to their undoing.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 24, 2016)

Actually the early axial compressors were not more efficient than the centrifugal compressor. In theory they may have been but in actual practice it took until the late 40s for an axial compressor to get past a 4;1 compression ratio in service form. 
It wasn't just manufacturing techniques but actual compressor design. It is easy to say "just add stages until the desired pressure ratio ratio is reached" It is a lot harder to actually get the compressor disks/blades and stator blades to play well together. A Centrifugal compressor had one stage to deal with (at least in the beginning) The German jets were using 8 stages or 8 sets of compressor blades and 7-8 sets of stator blades, all different. get one set wrong and it screws up the entire set. 
During testing some companies (not German) found that a particular set of blades actually lowered the pressure ratio rather than increased it. Any set of blades that went into stall condition choked the entire assembly.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Fighterguy (Dec 24, 2016)

Shortround6 said:


> Actually the early axial compressors were not more efficient than the centrifugal compressor. In theory they may have been but in actual practice it took until the late 40s for an axial compressor to get past a 4;1 compression ratio in service form.
> It wasn't just manufacturing techniques but actual compressor design. It is easy to say "just add stages until the desired pressure ratio ratio is reached" It is a lot harder to actually get the compressor disks/blades and stator blades to play well together. A Centrifugal compressor had one stage to deal with (at least in the beginning) The German jets were using 8 stages or 8 sets of compressor blades and 7-8 sets of stator blades, all different. get one set wrong and it screws up the entire set.
> During testing some companies (not German) found that a particular set of blades actually lowered the pressure ratio rather than increased it. Any set of blades that went into stall condition choked the entire assembly.


Correct! That was my point. The theoretical application couldn't be matched by contemporary production knowledge and materials. The British gas turbine engines used existing technology, whereas the Germans started from scratch in a sense.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Magnon (Dec 24, 2016)

Shortround6 said:


> Actually the early axial compressors were not more efficient than the centrifugal compressor. In theory they may have been but in actual practice it took until the late 40s for an axial compressor to get past a 4;1 compression ratio in service form.
> It wasn't just manufacturing techniques but actual compressor design. It is easy to say "just add stages until the desired pressure ratio ratio is reached" It is a lot harder to actually get the compressor disks/blades and stator blades to play well together. A Centrifugal compressor had one stage to deal with (at least in the beginning) The German jets were using 8 stages or 8 sets of compressor blades and 7-8 sets of stator blades, all different. get one set wrong and it screws up the entire set.
> During testing some companies (not German) found that a particular set of blades actually lowered the pressure ratio rather than increased it. Any set of blades that went into stall condition choked the entire assembly.


In the beginning the centrifugals were arguably
- Simpler
- Much more robust in terms of battlefield damage
- Much more resistant to surge
- Higher pressure ratio
- Higher thrust to weight ratio
Against that, they had a higher frontal area and hence drag, but the Meteor designers compensated for that by burying the engine in the wing.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zyzygie (Dec 24, 2016)

Fighterguy said:


> Correct! That was my point. The theoretical application couldn't be matched by contemporary production knowledge and materials. The British gas turbine engines used existing technology, whereas the Germans started from scratch in a sense.


This extract from Welcome to the Frank Whittle Website may be relevant:
_Whittle nevertheless filed the first patent for a turbo-jet on 16th January 1930... showing a 2 stage axial compressor feeding a single-sided centrifugal compressor. By the time he embarked on building an engine he had decided to simplify this to a single, double-sided centrifugal compressor. 

Which was best? An axial compressor could achieve a higher efficiency under ideal conditions. It would have a smaller diameter, resulting in lower frontal area, lower blade tip speeds and the opportunity for an annular combustion chamber. Against this, it would be mechanically less robust and aerodynamically much more sensitive to both intake conditions and downstream pressure changes, such as those induced by rapid throttle movements. Both these could lead to blade stalling and resulting surges, which could in turn produce catastrophic blade failures. Pressure increase per row of blades was low, requiring at least 8 rows with intermediate stator blades. A centrifugal compressor would be simpler and cheaper to produce, would be more rugged and much more tolerant of the varying intake conditions and throttle changes encountered by a flight engine. It would need to run at higher speeds but there was the extensive experience of small centrifugal compressors developed as aero-engine superchargers, whilst there was little prior art on axials. _​


----------



## Zyzygie (Dec 26, 2016)

*For what it's worth, some relevant data for the Derwent, JUMO 004 and BMW 003:

Derwent*

· *Overall pressure ratio**:* 3.9:1

· *Turbine inlet temperature:* 1,560 °F (849 °C)

· *Specific fuel consumption**:* *Derwent IV* 1.17 lb/lbf/hr (119.25 kg/kN/hr), *Derwent V* 1.02 lb/lbf/hr (103.97 kg/kN/hr)

· *Thrust-to-weight ratio**:* *Derwent IV* 2.04 lbf/lb (0.0199 kN/kg), *Derwent V* 3.226 lbf/lb (0.0316 kN/kg)

· *Military, static:* *Derwent IV* 2,000 lbf (8.90 kN) at 16,600 rpm at sea level, *Derwent V* 3,500 lbf (15.57 kN) at 14,600 rpm at sea level

· *Cruising, static:* *Derwent IV* 1,550 lbf (6.89 kN) at 15,400 rpm at sea level, *Derwent V* 3,000 lbf (13.34 kN) at 14,000 rpm at sea level

· *Idling, static:* *Derwent IV* 120 lbf (0.53 kN) at 5,500 rpm at sea level, *Derwent V* 120 lbf (0.53 kN) at 5,500 rpm at sea level


*JUMO 004*

· *Maximum **thrust**:* 8.8 kN (1,980 lbf) at 8,700 rpm

· *Overall pressure ratio**:* 3.14:1

· *Specific fuel consumption**:* 1.39 N/(N·hr)

· *Thrust-to-weight ratio**:* 1.25 (12.2 N/kg)


*BMW 003*

· *Maximum **thrust**:* 7.83 kN (1,760 lbf) at 9,500 rpm at sea level for take-off

· *Overall pressure ratio**:* 3.1:1

· *Turbine inlet temperature:* 770 °C (1,418 °F)

· *Specific fuel consumption**:* 142.694 kg/kN/hr (1.4 lb/lbf/hr)

· *Thrust-to-weight ratio**:* 12.5 N/kg (1.282 lbf/lb)

· *Normal, static:* 6.89 kN (1,550 lbf) / 9,000 rpm / sea level

· *Military flight:* 6.23 kN (1,400 lbf) / 9.500 rpm / 2,500 m (8,202 ft) / 900 km/h (559 mph; 486 kN)

· *Normal, flight:* 2.85 kN (640 lbf) / 11,500 rpm / 11,000 m (36,089 ft) / 900 km/h (559 mph; 486 kN)

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Magnon (Jan 2, 2017)

GrauGeist said:


> Even if the Luftwaffe had 1,000 Me262s fully equipped with all the fuel they needed, endless ammo supply, all the qualified pilots to fly them and an endless supply of parts, the Allies still would have overwhelmed them with the 1,000 plus bomber stream and hundreds of fighters on escort rotation and the rest on CAP missions.
> 
> And this was each day...



_“I’ll never change an opinion I’ve expressed often, that with just 300 Messerschmitt Me 262 jet fighters we could have on any day shot down a minimum of 200 bombers,” said Galland. “If this could have continued for even a fortnight, then the day bombing would have had to be halted.” Galland called the “blitz bomber” idea “a typical Hitler error.”

The idea of making the Me 262 a bomber had genuine consequences and possibly owes less to Hitler than to engineer-planemaker Wilhelm E. “Willy” Messerschmitt, whose company created the jet, although Messerschmitt himself had no role in designing it. On Sept. 7, 1943, granted a rare audience with the Fuehrer, Messerschmitt expressed mixed feelings about the jet and repeated his longstanding request that top priority be accorded to the Me 209-II propeller-driven fighter_.
The Messerschmitt Me 262 Jet Fighter | Defense Media Network
https://fighterba.se/portfolio/messerschmitt-me-262a-1-schwalbe/​


----------



## stona (Jan 2, 2017)

Galland is hardly a reliable witness, far more concerned after the war with distancing himself from the regime and blaming everyone but himself for the failings of the force he commanded. He usually blamed men who are dead, and therefore not in a position to defend themselves.
Actually, facing invasion, the use of the Me 262 as a fast bomber seems perfectly reasonable to me, as it did to other senior Luftwaffe figures apart from Galland.
There are many reasons so few Me 262s were produced and why they were so late, most can be laid firmly at Messeschmitt's door.
Cheers
Steve


----------



## Zyzygie (Jan 2, 2017)

stona said:


> Galland is hardly a reliable witness, far more concerned after the war with distancing himself from the regime and blaming everyone but himself for the failings of the force he commanded. He usually blamed men who are dead, and therefore not in a position to defend themselves.
> Actually, facing invasion, the use of the Me 262 as a fast bomber seems perfectly reasonable to me, as it did to other senior Luftwaffe figures apart from Galland.
> There are many reasons so few Me 262s were produced and why they were so late, most can be laid firmly at Messeschmitt's door.
> 
> ...


Steve,
Galland KNEW that the Me262 was useless as a bomber. The location of the cockpit in the middle of the fuselage over the wings meant that they could not even see the target land a bomb in the right zip code, let alone do any real damage.
Cheers


----------



## Denniss (Jan 2, 2017)

It makes no sense to produce a thousand more Me 262 if you don't even have sufficient engines to power the historically built ones.
The bomber idea by Hitler/Mtt had no influence on production as the engines were not ready - either not mass-producable due to lack of strategic materials or by far not reliable enough (alternative version with less stragic mats)


----------



## stona (Jan 2, 2017)

Zyzygie said:


> Steve,
> Galland KNEW that the Me262 was useless as a bomber. The location of the cockpit in the middle of the fuselage over the wings meant that they could not even see the target land a bomb in the right zip code, let alone do any real damage.
> Cheers



Like the Typhoon, P-47, Hurricane, Spitfire, F4U, Fw 190 etc. etc.?

It was useless as a level bomber from 3,000m, as it was used around D-Day, mainly because it was still supposed to be secret, but as a fighter bomber it may have been far from useless. 
There are plenty of British accounts of attacks by the Me 262s of KG 51 which were sometimes effective and always caused consternation. The RAF Wing that moved forward to the airfield at Grave (No. 125 Wing), in October 1944, was so harassed by the fighter bomber Me 262s that it was forced to withdraw to Melsbroek, nearer Brussels, three weeks later.
Cheers
Steve

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zyzygie (Jan 3, 2017)

stona said:


> Like the Typhoon, P-47, Hurricane, Spitfire, F4U, Fw 190 etc. etc.?
> 
> It was useless as a level bomber from 3,000m, as it was used around D-Day, mainly because it was still supposed to be secret, but as a fighter bomber it may have been far from useless.
> There are plenty of British accounts of attacks by the Me 262s of KG 51 which were sometimes effective and always caused consternation. The RAF Wing that moved forward to the airfield at Grave (No. 125 Wing), in October 1944, was so harassed by the fighter bomber Me 262s that it was forced to withdraw to Melsbroek, nearer Brussels, three weeks later.
> ...


All those aircraft had an engine in front. 
They had no choice of putting the cockpit forward... 
No jet fighter designer since has been stupid enough to copy the ME 262 model.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Jan 3, 2017)

Zyzygie said:


> All those aircraft had an engine in front.
> They had no choice of putting the cockpit forward...



True, but not the point. It didn't prevent them from being effective fighter bombers, and it didn't stop the Me 262 being one either.

Does the position of the Me 262 cockpit relate to the armament? Bear in mind that compared to more modern aircraft it is small, the fuselage is quite shallow (put one next to a Meteor!)

Cheers

Steve


----------



## Milosh (Jan 3, 2017)

The 262 had C/G problems. If the cockpit had been moved forward then the fuel tank in front of the cockpit would have had to be moved to behind the cockpit further messing up the C/G.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 3, 2017)

Yak-17 First flight June 1947, developed from the Yak-15 and developed into 




Yak-23 First flight July 1947 over 700 built between the two. 

Not sure where this falls in cockpit location.




View over the nose is dismal no matter if cockpit is judged midship or forward. 





less said the better.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## soulezoo (Jan 3, 2017)

The Russians have certainly had their share of dismal designs, no?


----------



## fastmongrel (Jan 3, 2017)

Comrade Stalin has decided that Good Communist pilots do not need to see where they are going


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 3, 2017)

Just because you stick the cockpit in the nose doesn't mean you have it right either. 










So fast you don't need to see what's behind you?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 3, 2017)

The Yak-23 was a good little aircraft, it served well. 

The fact that the 262 had the cockpit directly over the wing is subjective. You target straight ahead. A simple bank can give you the view you're looking for but in the end you want a good field of vision.

Another aircraft where the cockpit was directly over the wing...

http://www.aviastar.org/pictures/usa/grumman_wildcat.gif

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## KiwiBiggles (Jan 3, 2017)

Milosh said:


> The 262 had C/G problems. If the cockpit had been moved forward then the fuel tank in front of the cockpit would have had to be moved to behind the cockpit further messing up the C/G.


I would have thought that having the fixed mass (i.e. the cockpit) forward and the variable mass ( i.e. the fuel) over the centre of lift would have been hugely preferable. Also from an ongoing development perspective, you can be fairly sure that the cockpit mass won't greatly change over the lifetime of the design, whereas the fuel requirements probably will.


----------



## Milosh (Jan 3, 2017)

There was 2 fuel tanks in the 262, one in front of the cockpit and one behind the cockpit.


----------



## stona (Jan 3, 2017)

Milosh said:


> The 262 had C/G problems.



It certainly did when used as a fighter bomber. There was never an option for it to be anything else. Generally people, including Galland and his clique, bang on about how it was forced into a fighter bomber role rather than being developed as an out and out fighter, completely ignoring that long before it entered production there was a requirement (actually a Fuhrer Befehl) that ALL future fighters should be capable of operation as fighter bombers.

Protokoll Nr.9 4th *March 1943.*
_
"... as per the Fuhrer Befehl, every fighter must henceforth be capable of performing in the fighter bomber role. An installation capable of carrying 500 Kg of bombs is foreseen for the Me 262, according to drawing Nr.II/141."
_
On 17th *April 1943* Wolfgang Spate flew the V2 and made a report to Galland. he was obviously aware of this protocol, as he included the following in his report.
_
"As a fighter bomber, and carrying bombs, the aircraft would still be faster than any enemy aircraft."_

But why let historical facts get in the way of a good aviation myth?

Cheers

Steve

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 3, 2017)

And the only reason why the Me 262 had a swept wing was to address the C/G issue.

From Wiki - They reference Christopher, John. _The Race for Hitler's X-Planes_ (The Mill, Gloucestershire: History Press, 2013)

_"Plans were first drawn up in April 1939, and the original design was very different from the aircraft that eventually entered service, with wing root-mounted engines,[12] rather than podded ones, when submitted in June 1939.[12] The progression of the original design was delayed greatly by technical issues involving the new jet engine. Because the engines were slow to arrive, Messerschmitt moved the engines from the wing roots to underwing pods, allowing them to be changed more readily if needed; this would turn out to be important, both for availability and maintenance.[13] Since the BMW 003 jets proved heavier than anticipated, the wing was swept slightly, by 18.5°, to accommodate a change in the center of gravity."_


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 3, 2017)

Shortround6 said:


> Just because you stick the cockpit in the nose doesn't mean you have it right either.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I would hate to eject from that thing.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zyzygie (Jan 3, 2017)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I would hate to eject from that thing.



Or THIS:




But this was arguably one reason why the Germans were the first to develop ejection seats, no?

*Heinkel 162 Ejection Seat*



Thanks to Ludo Kloek, a reader from Belgium who sent me these photos of the He-162 Salamander (or Volksjager) ejection seat displayed in the Deutches Museum. This is one of the earliest seats in service in the world. The seat had the parachute stored in the seat pan, and was cartridge fired hence the name 'Schleudersitz Heinkel-Kartusche'. The Kartusche refers to cartridge. Other early German seats were powered by compressed air.

The Germans were the first nationality to use ejection seats in aircraft. They were used first in developmental aircraft, then in certain operational aircraft. By the end of World War II, over 60 aircrew had used ejection seats in combat.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 3, 2017)

Yeap, the 162 was the first operational military jey with an ejection seat. 

Still would not like doing it...lol

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jan 3, 2017)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I would hate to eject from that thing.


Seems like that wasn't a new idea...lol

This had an ejection seat:




This didn't:

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zyzygie (Jan 20, 2017)

*Meteor vs. Tempest

For information -*


_…During comparative trials with a Tempest V, the Meteor III demonstrated a clear superiority in terms of top speed.

This varied slightly with height as follows: 
_
*Height ft------Meteor------ Tempest------ Difference*
_
1,000---------- 465---------- 381--------- 84 mph

15,000--------- 471 ---------- 416---------- 55

30,000 -------- 465 ---------- 390 ---------- 75


Although the Tempest possessed an initial advantage in accelerations from 190 mph IAS due to the slow pick-up of 
the Meteor’s Derwent engines, after approximately thirty seconds, and with the speed approaching 300 mph IAS, 
the Meteor was beginning to draw away quite rapidly, and it was out of range (600 yards) after ninety seconds. The 
Meteor was also superior at decelerating if its airbrakes were deployed; indeed, these were so effective that they 
had to be retracted once again after moving behind the Tempest to avoid dropping out of range. Zoom climbs were 
attempted with a pull-out from a dive at 500 mph IAS into a forty-degree climb. Initially there was little difference 
between the two aircraft until the nose of the Meteor came up to the horizon, when it started to pull away rapidly.

By the time it had reached its best climbing speed (225 mph) the Meteor was approximately 750 ft above and 600 
yards ahead of the Tempest. It was also found that by increasing the angle of zoom, the Meteor could gain even 
more of a height advantage. These tests were carried out at various heights with the same results. During dives with 
the throttles closed there was nothing to choose between the Meteor and the Tempest. With throttles open, 
however, the Meteor was 500 yards ahead by the time that its limiting speed of 500 mph IAS was reached in a dive 
from 12,000 ft. Due to its lower wing loading, the Meteor was also superior at turning circles and could turn inside 
the Tempest under all conditions and get on its tail in four turns. However, this was offset as the Meteor was at a 
disadvantage in initiating manoeuvres, since the Tempest could out-roll it easily at all speeds. A well-flown Tempest 
could thus be an extremely difficult target for a Meteor if its pilot used frequent turn reversals. 

Despite the fact that the Meteor was superior in nearly all respects, the outcome of any dogfight was far from 
certain. Although the Tempest had no performance advantage, its crisp handling characteristics, especially in the 
rolling plane, were in marked contrast to the Meteor’s heavy ailerons and gave it plenty of opportunity to keep the 
jet-powered machine at bay… _​
Peter Caygill, *Meteor from the Cockpit: Britain’s First Jet Fighter *. Casemate Publishers.​_…When powered by the W. 2B/ 37 units rated at 2,000 lb Static Thrust the performance of the Meteor III increased markedly, with a sea level speed of 465 mph, rising to 476 mph at 10,000 ft, 483 mph at 20,000 ft, 484 mph at 30,000 ft, then dropping to 466 mph at 40,000 ft. Rate of climb was also largely increased over that of the Meteor I and W. 2B/ 23 powered Meteor III’s, with a sea level climb rate of 3,975 ft per minute, dropping to 3,250 ft per minute at 10,000 ft, 2,500 ft per minute at 20,000 ft, 1,700 ft per minute at 30,000 ft and 750 ft per minute at 40,000 ft. However, the early Derwent I engines were rated at considerably less than the 2,000 lb static thrust. Development of the early Derwent I’s was pushed to give 1,800 lbs static thrust, corresponding to a sea level sped of 435 mph, rising to 465 mph at 30,000 ft. As can be seen from these various engine and performance figures, the first of the Derwent I powered Meteor III’s were not capable of producing the 2,000 lb thrust that is often quoted.
Correspondingly they were capable of 435 mph at sea level and 465 mph at 30,000 ft, significantly lower than the speeds of 450 + mph at sea level and 493 mph at 30,000 ft often quoted. In the weeks following the end of the war in Europe, the performance of the Meteor was significantly increased as more powerful Derwent engines became available. The increased thrust of the Derwent I was pushed to 2,200 lb allowing a sea level speed of 485 mph, increasing to 503 mph at 30,000 ft. This was increased again to 2,400 lb giving a sea level speed of 505 mph, rising to
520 mph at 30,000 ft. However, the original short engine nacelles of the Meteor I/ III, subjected these aircraft to a speed limitation of 500 mph (indicated up to a height of 6,500 ft), reducing proportionately to 300 mph (indicated) at 30,000 ft…
…Although they never met in combat, it is inevitable that the Meteor III is compared to its wartime rival, the Me. 262. The Meteor III had a higher profile drag compared with that of the Me. 262. This was principally caused by the Meteors higher wing drag, in turn caused by the Meteors lower wing loading, which corresponded to lower maximum speeds compared to the Me. 262. After a series of trials with the Me. 262 at RAE Farnborough in 1945, it was determined that with engines of equal thrust the Meteor III would be 20 mph slower than the Me. 262. On the plus side for the Meteor III, the lower wing loading gave it better take off performance, including a shorter take off run, and better manoeuvrability compared with the Me. 262. 

Harkins, Hugh (2013-12-11). *RAF Meteor Jet Fighters in World War II*, An Operational Log. Centurion. Kindle Edition._​


----------



## Zyzygie (Apr 18, 2017)

The site 
_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JSIgldbu5QU_
has a good analysis of the Me 262's problems.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pinehilljoe (Apr 18, 2017)

fastmongrel said:


> Comrade Stalin has decided that Good Communist pilots do not need to see where they are going



He also said "it takes a very brave man to be coward in the Russian Army"

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Koopernic (Apr 19, 2017)

Zyzygie said:


> Or THIS:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




German ejection seats came out of the desire to allow Stuka crews to emergency bailout during an attack dive. They became standard on test aircraft. The early ejection seats used compressed air. Heinkel retained overall responsibility for all ejection seats. That rocket sled you see archival footage of in US tests is war booty taken from Heinkes facility and moved to the USA.

The ejection seats used in the Heinkel He 219, Dornier Do 335 used compressed air. This required periodic maintenance in the form of a pressure check. They were also a little heavy. The seat used in the Heinkel He 162 jet used pyrotechnical charges. It was much lighter and essentially maintenance free.

The crew of the tricycle undercarriage He 219 sat ahead of the propellers, like the bombardier of the B-26, and a crew bailing out could get mangled in windmilling propellers that hadn't been feathered. Hence the ejection seat greatly helped. The Do 335 rear propellers presented a similar problem. In that case explosive bolts could detach the upper and lower tail fin as well as the propellor at the roots. Prior to use of the Ejection seat, detachable fins system Dornier had tested a Drogue Paraschute that would slow the aircraft to a point that slipstream was not a problem. Such a system was in fact used in the Me 163 rocket fighter.

For a folk that is presented as suicidal in propaganda and Hollywood and supposed to be suicidal robotic maniacs the Germans put more effort into ingenious escape systems than any other nations air force. Ju 88 could jettison its whole canopy as well as lower gondala, Fw 190 had explosive bolts to blow of the canopy, the Me 109 canopy might have hinged for normal ingress/egress but was jettisoned in emergencies. The Ju 288 was being developed with a jetisonable crew cabin, F-111 style, with a parachute for the whole cabin.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Milosh (Apr 20, 2017)

The Fw190 had the a 20mm round that severed the rod because the canopy could not be jettisoned otherwise due to air pressure.

Where was this drogue parachute stored in the Me163?


----------



## Zyzygie (Apr 20, 2017)

According to 
_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nR0r7yrowhU&t=601s_
there was generally a problem in servicability of German aircraft vs.Allied (~50% vs 75%). The Me 262 vs Meteor statistic was arguably far worse than this. Maybe too many men were drafted into the military front line.

Around 18 million men are reported to have gone through the Wehrmacht.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## parsifal (Apr 21, 2017)

Oh here comes a total can of worms.. there has never been total agreement on the total losses suffered by the german armed forces, and the records of the time do their darndest to hide such statistics.

Here is a starting table on total manpower used in the military and in essential war industries:

*Manpower in Germany in World War II (Thousands)*






Total population of "Greater Germany" at the time was about 80 million (some sources place the total German population at around 85 million). The Non-Combatants include Operation Todt workers. The above chart is from German and Soviet Replacement Systems in World War II, page 18. (HERO). 

Now, to the prickly question of casualties and the related issue of replacement rates.

*Losses and Replacements, German Field Army*






The above chart is from German and Soviet Replacement Systems in World War II, page 52. (HERO) (If you are interested in this subject, I would highly recommend purchasing the report from the DuPuy Institute, *http://www.dupuyinstitute.org/*)


The first thing that should be quite obvious from looking at the above chart is that the Germans always had enough manpower to cover their losses. According to the research done by the DuPuy Institute, it looks like the only times the Germans came up short on manpower was during the fall of 1943 and 1944. Otherwise, over the course of the entire 12 months for 1943, and 1944 their replacments were technically enough to cover their losses. But, Hitler had other ideas. He took many of the replacements/convelescents and sent them to form new divisions instead (Stalin was guilty of this as well). The result of this policy left many of the infantry divisions of the Germans (and the Soviets) understrength. Was it the correct policy to build new units instead of focusing on keeping your existing units at full strength? I tend to think it was a bad policy. But there are exceptions of course. I think it was prudent to form new motorized and panzer units, but it was highly unadvisable to keep forming new infantry formations-- especially the Luftwaffe infantry divisions. That manpower was sorely needed within the Heer at the time. 







Source: Organizational Brance, General Staff, #1/17867/44, 2 July 1944; T-78, Roll 411

The above chart is from German and Soviet Replacement Systems in World War II, page 54. (HERO)

I would add to that analysis that until 1942, the general draft that the germans applied had very few exceptions, with the result that many skilled workers were drafted in as grunts for the heer. However from 1943 there were exceptions applied such that specialist workers were often exempted from the general draft.

The main reason for lower serviceability rates in the LW stem from two basic reasons. Firstly, the rate of spare parts to whole airframe manufacture was deliberately kept low, because of Hitlers obsession with numbers. He was not interested in how many spare engines were being carried, but he was interested in the total numbers of aircraft available on a given front. Similarly he had only the most basic interest in serviceability rates. Less spares equates to lower serviceability rates.

Despite the above, manpower rates were stretched in the LW and the time spent in the repair workshops tended to be longer as a result. Additionally, the Germans pressed their formations more mercilessly than the allies, with the result that formations that really should be resting and recuperating often were not.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Apr 21, 2017)

Ascent said:


> Criminal charges should have been brought against someone for that stupidity.
> 
> I still can't believe the government allowed it.



I've read somewhere that its sale was part of a deal that had been put together during WW2, not a post-war deal. On the other hand, the UK economy was a mess, with no foreign currency reserve, and incredible overseas debt, some of it to a country that had been less than forgiving, at least from the rhetoric of powerful is parts politicians, about debt from an earlier war. The UK was probably at the selling-a-kidney state of financial straits.


----------



## swampyankee (Apr 21, 2017)

soulezoo said:


> The Russians have certainly had their share of dismal designs, no?


The most similar design to a single piston-engined fighter possible. Soviet designers were probably more conservative than American or British ones; being sent to the Gulag was worse than being fired for a mistake. It's kind of akin to the old saw "nobody from IT ever got fired for buying IBM[updated to Microsft]."

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 21, 2017)

swampyankee said:


> I've read somewhere that its sale was part of a deal that had been put together during WW2, not a post-war deal. On the other hand, the UK economy was a mess, with no foreign currency reserve, and incredible overseas debt, some of it to a country that had been less than forgiving, at least from the rhetoric of powerful is parts politicians, about debt from an earlier war. The UK was probably at the selling-a-kidney state of financial straits.




you are correct. See: Rationing in the United Kingdom - Wikipedia

And this article says nothing about the import tariffs on manufactured goods or Britain's desperate scramble for export goods to pay for food and repay loans.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Apr 21, 2017)

Shortround6 said:


> you are correct. See: Rationing in the United Kingdom - Wikipedia
> 
> And this article says nothing about the import tariffs on manufactured goods or Britain's desperate scramble for export goods to pay for food and repay loans.


My mother still had her ration cards in the sixties in case they brought it back.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zyzygie (Apr 23, 2017)

swampyankee said:


> I've read somewhere that its sale was part of a deal that had been put together during WW2, not a post-war deal. On the other hand, the UK economy was a mess, with no foreign currency reserve, and incredible overseas debt, some of it to a country that had been less than forgiving, at least from the rhetoric of powerful is parts politicians, about debt from an earlier war. The UK was probably at the selling-a-kidney state of financial straits.



That's part of the story. The other part is that the US was "keeping its cake and eating it too."
The British could act as the US first line of defence while the US made big money selling them the equipment to do it. Britain with 48 million people spent about the same on the war as the US with 120 million. The lend lease war debt of US$50 billion was equivalent to over a trillion now.

At the same time the US got free access to technology like computers and radar and the jet engine and nuclear weapons, which acted to set the US up as a superpower after the war.
The US has had a "golden age" for the last 70 years, but maybe the chickens are now starting to come home to roost?

"Take what you want and pay for it..."
― Spanish Proverb​


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 23, 2017)

British information on radar was certainly a help, however the US was also not staggering around in the dark.






Photo taken on late 1938 or early 1939. The New York was the 2nd US ship fitted with experimental radar and the radar was used in fleet exercises in Caribbean in early 1939 with enough success for orders for additional out fits to be placed.

Information from Britain certainly speeded up a number of projects but since many of them are extensions of natural phenomenon a number of people/teams around the world were working on similar projects at the same time. Some just made faster progress than others.


----------



## swampyankee (Apr 23, 2017)

Zyzygie said:


> That's part of the story. The other part is that the US was "keeping its cake and eating it too."
> The British could act as the US first line of defence while the US made big money selling them the equipment to do it. Britain with 48 million people spent about the same on the war as the US with 120 million. The lend lease war debt of US$50 billion was equivalent to over a trillion now.





Zyzygie said:


> At the same time the US got free access to technology like computers and radar and the jet engine and nuclear weapons, which acted to set the US up as a superpower after the war.
> The US has had a "golden age" for the last 70 years, but maybe the chickens are now starting to come home to roost?
> 
> "Take what you want and pay for it..."
> ― Spanish Proverb​



I think the US had to pay licenses. HOWEVER, do note that:

Radar: several countries, _including the US_, had radar systems in service before the US entered WW2 or even got any significant, direct government technology transfer from the UK. 

Computers: the basic bombe used at Blatchley Park was actually derived from work by Polish codebreakers. In any case, the history of the digital computer is _very_ complex. People who are serious students of the history of the computer should chime in, but I believe that active development of digital computers was in progress in both the US and UK before any kind of technology transfer agreement.

Jet engine: Yep, the US got a lot of help from the British here. 

Nuclear weapons: you have read the history of their development, haven't you? Major contributors were scientists that the antisemitic, bloodthirsty psycopath in charge of Germany forced out of his country, his allies' countries, and the countries he invaded, mostly so he could murder Jews and enslave Slavs.

Aircraft: despite the nonsense about Germany inventing every advance in aircraft since da Vinci, US aviation technology was not behind anybody else's: US airfoils were used on many aircraft, including those of the Third Reich, and US aircraft were very well designed, and its transport aircraft were easily the best. (what did the Germans have? the Ju52? yea, a fixed gear flying airbrake like that is going to have a chance to actually make money for an airline) In any case, there was a great deal of international cooperation in aerodynamics well into the 1930s.

The US was lucky in that the US was physically isolated from the fighting, but it also entered the war with what may have been the largest national economy in the world: the figures I've seen was that the US, pre-World War II, was responsible for 25% of the World's industrial production.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zyzygie (Apr 24, 2017)

_Tacit repayment of Lend-Lease by the British was made in the form of several valuable technologies, including those related to radar, sonar, jet engines, antitank weaponry, rockets, superchargers, gyroscopic gunsights, submarine detection, self-sealing fuel tanks, and plastic explosives as well as the British contribution to the Manhattan Project. Many of these were transferred by the Tizard Mission. The official historian of the Office of Scientific Research and Development, James Phinney Baxter III, wrote: "When the members of the Tizard Mission brought the cavity magnetron to America in 1940, they carried the most valuable cargo ever brought to our shores."_
_Lend-Lease - Wikipedia

Also:
*The Tizard Mission: The Top-Secret Operation That Changed the Course of World War II *
by Stephen Phelps (Author)

*Tizard mission*
Main article: Tizard Mission
In August 1940, a British mission, led by Tizard and with members that included Cockcroft, was sent to America to create relations and help advance the research towards war technology with the Americans. Several military technologies were shared, including advances in radar, antisubmarine warfare, aeronautical engineering and explosives.[75] The American radar programme in particular was reinvigorated with an added impetus to the development of microwave radar and proximity fuses. This prompted the Americans to create the MIT Radiation Laboratory, which would later serve a model for the Los Alamos Laboratory. The mission did not spend much time on nuclear fission, with only two meetings of the subject, mainly about uranium enrichment. In particular, Cockcroft did not report Peierls' and Frisch's findings. Nonetheless, there were important repercussions. A barrier had been broken and a pathway to exchange technical information between the two countries was developed. Moreover, the notion of civilian scientists playing an important role of the development of military technologies was strengthened on both sides of the Atlantic.[76]

*Oliphant's visit to the United States*




Australian physicist __Mark Oliphant__ played a key role in starting both the British and American atomic bomb projects
The MAUD Committee reports urged the co-operation with the United States should be continued in the research of nuclear fission. Charles C. Lauritsen, a Caltech physicist working at the National Defense Research Committee (NDRC), was in London during this time and was invited to sit in on a MAUD meeting.[77] The committee pushed for rapid development of nuclear weapons using gaseous-diffusion as their isotope separation device.[78] Once he returned to the United States, he was able to brief Vannevar Bush, the director of the Office of Scientific Research and Development (OSRD), concerning the details discussed during the meeting.[78]

In August 1941, Mark Oliphant, the director of the physics department at the University of Birmingham and an original member of the MAUD Committee, was sent to the US to assist the NDRC on radar.[79] During his visit he met with William D. Coolidge. Coolidge was shocked when Oliphant informed him that the British had predicted that only ten kilograms of uranium-235 would be efficient to supply a chain reaction effected by fast moving neutrons.[80] While in America, Oliphant discovered that the chairman of the OSRD S-1 Section, Lyman Briggs, had locked away the MAUD reports transferred from Britain entailing the initial discoveries and had not informed the S-1 Committee members of all its findings.[79]

Oliphant took the initiative himself to enlighten the scientific community in the U.S. of the recent ground breaking discoveries the MAUD Committee had just exposed. Oliphant also travelled to Berkley to with meet with Ernest Lawrence, inventor of the cyclotron. After Oliphant informed Lawrence of his report on uranium, Lawrence met with NDRC chairman James Bryant Conant, George B. Pegram, and Arthur Compton to relay the details which Oliphant had directed to Lawrence.[78] Oliphant was not only able to get in touch with Lawrence, but he met with Conant and Bush to inform them of the significant data the MAUD had discovered. Oliphant’s ability to inform the Americans led to Oliphant convincing Lawrence, Lawrence convincing Compton, and then Kistiakowsky convincing Conant to move forward with nuclear weapons. These actions from Oliphant resulted in Bush taking this report directly to the president.[81]
Tube Alloys - Wikipedia
_
There is much more along these lines outlined in 
*The Making of the Atomic Bomb *
by Richard Rhodes (Author)

_Twenty-five years after its initial publication, *The Making of the Atomic Bomb* remains the definitive history of nuclear weapons and the Manhattan Project. From the turn-of-the-century discovery of nuclear energy to the dropping of the first bombs on Japan, Richard Rhodes’s Pulitzer Prize-winning book details the science, the people, and the socio-political realities that led to the development of the atomic bomb.
_
*The MAUD Comittee Report*
The MAUD Report, 1941 | Historical Documents | atomicarchive.com

*The Cavity Magnetron*
The US, like Germany and Japan had developed very primitive radar, but the critical element to an effective modern radar was the cavity magnetron. That they didn't have, or at least not a design which was anywhere near powerful enough for use in radar: 
_The cavity magnetron tube was later improved by John Randall and Harry Boot in 1940 at the University of Birmingham, England.[3] The high power of pulses from their device made *centimeter-band *radar practical for the Allies of World War II, with shorter wavelength radars allowing detection of smaller objects from smaller antennas. The compact cavity magnetron tube drastically reduced the size of radar sets[4] so that they could be more easily installed in night-fighter aircraft, anti-submarine aircraft[5] and escort ships.[4]_

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Apr 24, 2017)

While in the area of anti submarine warfare the Americans refused to learn anything from the British and learned the painful lessons themselves.


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 24, 2017)

There is a difference between " At the same time the US got* free access to technology *like computers and radar and the jet engine and nuclear weapons, which acted to set the US up as a superpower after the war." 

and "........._form of several valuable technologies, *including those related *to radar, sonar, jet engines, antitank weaponry, rockets, superchargers, gyroscopic gunsights, submarine detection....."
_
The first rather implies the US had *NO* exiting technology of it's own in those fields while the second does not. The second quote can be taken as meaning the British contributed to, or added to the existing knowledge in the US and thus speeded up the development of those areas of technology. There may have been areas where the British were offing things the US had none of or they were offering improvements to what the US had. 

In the case of sonar for instance the US had eight destroyers equipped with sonar in 1933 and all active US destroyers had sonar at the outbreak of the war. Now it might not have been as good as the British sonar at the time but claiming the British _gave _the US sonar is really stretching things. Both countries advanced faster by co-operating but there seems to be an undercurrent that somehow the US built it's post war dominance on the back of British inventions while the British starved.


----------



## stona (Apr 24, 2017)

All this ignores the fundamental problem Britain in particular, but also the U.S. were facing.
German victories in 1940 had completely altered the balance of power in Europe in every imaginable way. If it had been possible to preserve economic activity in the newly established German economic bloc at pre-war levels, then it would have comprised an economy with a GDP greater than the United States or the entire British Empire. The Anglo-Americans HAD to cooperate, and the transfer of some technology was a miniscule price for the British to pay to buy the United States' production potential. By 1941 the United States, a nation still at peace, was producing as much weaponry as either Germany or Britain and at the same time enjoying the first sustained increase in civilian consumption since the 1920s. This is what Britain was buying with its cavity magnetron. Britain's willingness to carry on the fight against Germany was predicated on the understanding that the United States would supply her with massive material aid, and the understanding that this would come at a price, and not just a price in dollars (by the end of the war the British would owe the equivalent of a trillion of those in today's money).
Cheers
Steve


----------



## Zyzygie (Apr 24, 2017)

The British had sonar in the First World War. It would be remarkable if the U.S. didn't have it by 1930...


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 24, 2017)

America was the proverbial sleeping giant in the late 1930s with a lot of it's potential manufacturing capability under utilized. However it takes time (years) to bring that potential up to full output. Population of the US in 1940 was 132 million compared to the UKs 48 million. 
The US was also in a much better position in regards to natural resources and arable land. These facts have nothing to do with how smart a people are or how hard working or any other personal characteristics. 
Post-war it is only natural that a much larger and richer (in terms of natural resources) country would take-over the leadership role that Britain had enjoyed. 
Britain's post-war economy was not helped by some in government/the services not seeing the hand writing on the wall and continuing development of some weapons/aircraft in a manner not unsimilar to what was done before the war which meant that a lot of mistakes were repeated. And, unfortunately, some new ones brought in. Way too much money was spent on research/development that either didn't pan out or took to long to compete on the world stage. 
Some projects did turn out well, and certainly the US had it's share of turkey's in the post war era, but then the US could afford some mistakes, the British could afford fewer.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zyzygie (Apr 24, 2017)

The Computer
*“Colossus”*
Colossus was the name of a series of computers developed for British codebreakers in 1943-1945 to help in the cryptanalysis of the German highest level code. Colossus used thermionic valves (vacuum tubes) and thyratrons to perform Boolean and counting operations. Colossus is thus regarded as the world's first programmable, electronic, digital computer.
Colossus was designed by the engineer Tommy Flowers to solve a problem posed by mathematician Max Newman at the Government Code and Cypher School (GC&CS) at Bletchley Park. Alan Turing's use of probability in cryptanalysis contributed to its design. It has sometimes been erroneously stated that Turing designed Colossus to aid the cryptanalysis of the Enigma.
Turing's machine that helped decode Enigma was the electromechanical Bombe, not Colossus.

Front view of the Colossus rebuild showing, from right to left (1) The "bedstead" containing the message tape in its continuous loop and with a second one loaded. (2) The J-rack containing the master control panel and jack field. (3) The K-rack with the large "Q" switch panel and sloping patch panel. (4) The double S-rack containing relays and, above the image of a postage stamp, five two-line counter displays. (5) The electric typewriter in front of the five sets of four "set total" decade switches in the C-rack
Colossus computer


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 24, 2017)

Zyzygie said:


> The British had sonar in the First World War. It would be remarkable if the U.S. didn't have it by 1930...



They both had prototypes/test rigs in WW I. Neither country had asdic/sonar in service in WW I. Experiments date to 1906 if not before. 

They both had hydro-phones which are not the same thing. Hydro-phones are the ancestor to _passive _sonar. They listen to existing sounds in the ocean. Asdic/sonar added a sound transmitter to emit the beloved _ping _of submarine movies. This allowed for accurate measuring of range to target and allowed for searching for quite/slow moving targets rather than depending on the subs to make enough noise to reveal themselves. Of course without the _ping _the sub also had no idea what the search vessel was doing if it was stationary or slow moving. In fact some WW I flying boats would land in the water and lower a hydro-phone to listen for subs. 

British were _not_ fitting ALL new destroyers with asdic even in the late 20s.


----------



## Zyzygie (Apr 24, 2017)

See attached PDF presentation.


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 24, 2017)

Oh boy, what a mish mash of fact and bovine excrement. 

Have only gotten as far as the tanks and already they have used two wrong photographs and made a total hash of the entry on the Bf 109.


----------



## Zyzygie (Apr 24, 2017)

Shortround6 said:


> Oh boy, what a mish mash of fact and bovine excrement.
> 
> Have only gotten as far as the tanks and already they have used two wrong photographs and made a total hash of the entry on the Bf 109.



I'd appreciate your feedback, Shortround.
Most of the data has come direct from Wikipedia in this area, so maybe you can undertake to update Wikipedia at the same time...


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 24, 2017)

Lets see,
Picture of a 50mm Pak 38 used to illustrate entry on the 37mm AT gun. even wiki didn't get that one wrong.
Entry on the 109 uses a picture of the "E" model (1939-41) . list armament of the G-6 or later (Feb 1943) , makes claim that the 109 was best fighter in 1937. I have no idea where the performance figures came form and can't be bothered to figure them out. again, wiki did a much better job.
MK III tank picture is of a verison using the 50mm L/42 gun and not the 37mm gun in the specifications.
While the photo and data seem to have been cribbed from Wiki they didn't either copy all of it or didn't bother to read captions. The caption on wiki properly identifies the tank in the picture and the data section lists the proper guns to the versions of the tank.

Entry on the T-34 tank lists the 76.2mm F-34 gun as best in the world at the beginning of the war. I guess that depends on when somebody counts the war as beginning. The F-34 gun wasn't installed on production tanks until 1941. Early T-34s (and KVs) used the shorter L-11 gun. The KVs went through in intermediate F-32 gun before getting the F-34. The difference really wasn't all that great but it shows sloppy research.

Section on the Ju-87 is also a bit off, repeats the old refrain about the Ju-87 and the Blitzkrieg. In Poland the Germans had 336 Ju-87B-1s available of which 288 were serviceable on Sept 1st. The Ju-87s only worked in good weather and during the daytime. Credit to the German artillery which was vastly superior to the Polish (and French) artillery in numbers, size and ammunition supply is rarely given.

If somebody can't even copy and paste from wiki correctly I don't need to update Wikipedia but I certainly have little respect for the research or effort that went into that presentation.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zyzygie (Apr 25, 2017)

Shortround6 said:


> Lets see,
> Picture of a 50mm Pak 38 used to illustrate entry on the 37mm AT gun. even wiki didn't get that one wrong.
> Entry on the 109 uses a picture of the "E" model (1939-41) . list armament of the G-6 or later (Feb 1943) , makes claim that the 109 was best fighter in 1937. I have no idea where the performance figures came form and can't be bothered to figure them out. again, wiki did a much better job.
> MK III tank picture is of a verison using the 50mm L/42 gun and not the 37mm gun in the specifications.
> ...


Thanks Shortround, I am appropriately humbled, cowed, squashed, deflated and flattened by your remarks...

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zyzygie (Apr 25, 2017)

Also along these lines, see http://nypost.com/2015/09/27/the-trunk-containing-britains-secrets-that-saved-the-world/


----------



## Old Wizard (Apr 25, 2017)




----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 25, 2017)

Hmmm, New York Post, an ex Rupert Murdoch newspaper that claims this as one of their best headlines.






Everything in that article may well be true but if the New York Post said the sun was going to rise in the east tomorrow I would want a 2nd opinion.


----------



## pbehn (Apr 25, 2017)

we just have this as news






They reported that it had disappeared the following Sunday.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zyzygie (Apr 25, 2017)

Sorry Shortround.
I'd assumed this newspaper would be your sort of thing...


----------



## pbehn (Apr 25, 2017)

Zyzygie said:


> Sorry.
> I'd assumed this newspaper would be your sort of thing...


Sorry old chap, wrong banter. Who is your post directed at?


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 25, 2017)

I tend to prefer facts that can be backed-up and/or checked. 
Not sensationalism or conspiracy theories.


----------



## pbehn (Apr 25, 2017)

As a British national I dont see the position of the Brits as much different to the Polish sharing their knowledge of enigma and other secrets. If the UK was over run in 1940 I would want anything that could help the USA and any other nation to carry on the fight to be handed over along with all the people involved. The USA may have profited from the war as a nation but there were thousands of American young men who shed blood in the battle, the same goes for Canada Australia New Zealand the whole of the commonwealth and other occupied nations.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zyzygie (Apr 25, 2017)

Shortround6 said:


> I tend to prefer facts that can be backed-up and/or checked.
> Not sensationalism or conspiracy theories.


Good. We can agree.
I think we've otherwise got well off track.


----------



## Koopernic (Apr 26, 2017)

Zyzygie said:


> Steve,
> Galland KNEW that the Me262 was useless as a bomber. The location of the cockpit in the middle of the fuselage over the wings meant that they could not even see the target land a bomb in the right zip code, let alone do any real damage.
> Cheers



The claim that the Me 262 couldn't bomb accurately is another myth that needs dispelling.

The Me 262 bombers were to be fitted with the TSA-2D toss bombing bomb sight. KG51 were evaluating them and they probably saw combat use. I've seen the test data from a series of trials conducted by two pilots.

There was also the two blind bombing systems the Luftwaffe used; EGON-I and ZYCLOPS both of which could be used with single engined fighter bombers. EGON-I used a modified Freya radar with a boosted Erstling IFF to fly a free form curved approach that was tabulated on cards, ZYKLOPS was a beam riding system that also used the boosted Erstling IFF to calculate the distance along the beam, in concept it was similar to the X-Geräte of the BoB night bombing campaign but the antenna was much smaller, two x two wheeled trailers. There was also the more accurate EGON-II that used two Freya's like the British Oboe and the unjamable Nachtfee system to communicate the course corrections.

The new Luftwaffe IFF system, that was replacing Erstling was called Neuling. It incorporated blind bombing capability as standard and some Me 262 were fitted.

To conduct an attack with the TSA-2D toss bombing sight the pilot lined up the target in a dive of any angle. The bomb sight computer took in data from a gyroscope, the altimeter and variometer. If a Fug 101a radar altimeter had been fitted that could be used instead. When the bombsight computer had acquired a bomb release solution the pilot received a flashing light and a buzz in his headphones. He then conducted a pull up up with his finger on the bomb release. As he did so a stop cock blocked of the chamber to the aneroid capsule of the altimeter to "record" it. From then on the altitude was tracked by integrating an accelerometer. The bombs were released automatically during the pull-up.

The bombsight actually worked better on the Me 262 than the Fw 190 because the piston engine on the latter disturbed the accelerometer slightly. Most of the bombs fell in a 20m x 70m area that was cross shaped and about half of that within half that distance. The bombsight also gave a little standoff range since it could toss the bombs upwards from the flight path.

There was an earlier TSA bombsight that worked on a similar concept but it was decided to wait for the TSA-2D. Probably a bad decision considering the bombsight would be needed for the invasion.

Apart from tossing SC250 bombs the Germans had cluster bombs with both hollow charge and anti personnel submunitions. The standard anti shipping attack involved the "turnip" method in which the bomb was given a 5.3 second time delay. If the bomb hit 20m ahead of the waterline of a ship it would travel under water to a point 20m below sea level below the ship, detonate and break the ship in two. Me 109s damaged battleships and cruisers this way.

The anti shipping weapon that was supposed to stop the allies was the BT series of Torpedo Bombs e.g. BT1000. These highly elongated weapons were meant to spear into the water and travel several hundred meters under water under the ships hull. A proximity fuse was to be fitted. It consisted of a two coil metal detector similar to that used on German torpedoes from 1943 onward would then detonate under the ship. I think the BT250 could fit on the Me 262. It's certainly shown in illustrations. Obviously a direct hit would be welcome. The ability to sink a ship even if the bomb hit 100m or so ahead of the waterline considerably enhances the pK.

If there were 1000 Fw 190 in France at the right time they might have caused some hurt especially if they had the TSA-2D and the BT250. With sufficient Me 262 bombers with this bombsight I'd say Hitler would have had his "Blitz Bomber" and it would have worked I argue.

The Jump 004 went through 3 versions.

Jumo 004B1 with solid tinidur blades used on Ar 234A which overflew Normandy without fault.
Jumo 004B4 with hollow air cooled tinidur blades from October November onwards.
Jumo 004B4 with hollow air cooled "nickel free" cromadur blades used concurrently from Feb 1945 onwards.

The development of the "acceleration valve" that measured airflow and adjusted fuel flow had been completed and mass production was to reach front line units in April 1945. The existing fuel control system used a centrifugal governor only and it tended to over and under dose. This was a big part of the Jumo 004 reliability problem.


----------



## Koopernic (Apr 26, 2017)

Zyzygie said:


> That's part of the story. The other part is that the US was "keeping its cake and eating it too."
> The British could act as the US first line of defence while the US made big money selling them the equipment to do it. Britain with 48 million people spent about the same on the war as the US with 120 million. The lend lease war debt of US$50 billion was equivalent to over a trillion now.
> 
> At the same time the US got free access to technology like computers and radar and the jet engine and nuclear weapons, which acted to set the US up as a superpower after the war.
> ...




The land lease war debt was essentially cancelled. Equipment that was leant and not returned was charged at about 10% of its production cost. If it was destroyed by enemy action the US charged nothing of course British could either return it or destroy it and pay nothing. Lend lease essentially gave Britain free weapons (lend) in return for the lease of some fairly unimportant Caribbean naval bases.

The UK did require US loans after WW2 and those debts were not forgiven. The UK did receive masses of Marshall aide, more than any other country and much more than Germany. Things were better in communist East Germany for people than in the western controlled west Germany. People were dying of lung infections, malnourished, living in cellers under bombed out buildings.

British rationing to some extent was designed to help alleviate hunger in Europe, including Germany.

The bigger part of the problem may simply have been the socialist style command economy in the U.K, class warfare.

Economically Germany did much better than Britain up untill recently. This was because the Germans had to float their currency and because they had a better industrial relations system and less class warfare.

Note also Britain had help from Australia, Canada, New Zealand as well as other commonwealth nations.


----------



## pbehn (Apr 26, 2017)

The 262 was useless as a bomber simply because it cost more than any target it could hit. If every 262 made scored 10 direct hits on allied tanks it would have made no difference to the war at all.


----------



## stona (Apr 26, 2017)

Koopernic said:


> The UK did require US loans after WW2 and those debts were not forgiven. The UK did receive masses of Marshall aide, more than any other country and much more than Germany. .



A very complicated topic, the Marshall Plan. There were so many different schemes and systems involved that just looking at the raw numbers is pretty meaningless. I have tried to understand it, but I'm not an economist!
Cheers
Steve


----------



## stona (Apr 26, 2017)

pbehn said:


> The 262 was useless as a bomber simply because it cost more than any target it could hit.



You could say the same for every fighter bomber that flew in WW2, but that didn't make them useless as a weapon.

Aircraft are an expensive option, the only aspect of German war production that even came close to the cost of the Luftwaffe's aircraft (even briefly exceeding it in mid 1940) was the production of ammunition. 

There are reasons that the German aircraft production consumed such vast sums, not least the need for aircraft to match US production. As early as May 1940, long before the USA were officially a belligerent, Roosevelt had put before Congress a plan to produce 50,000 aircraft per year, the sort of figure that would have made heads spin at the RLM. Nonetheless, aircraft are expensive and consumers of considerable resources. 

Cheers

Steve


----------



## pbehn (Apr 26, 2017)

stona said:


> You could say the same for every fighter bomber that flew in WW2, but that didn't make them useless as a weapon.


Or almost every bomber made. The British and USA invested massive resources in equipment to bomb Germany and the Axis nations mainly because there were few other options and the USA had the capacity to do it. It is a trade off between what it costs you and the damage it does to the enemy. An Me262 with its pilot represented a huge investment for Germany, using it to try to knock out tanks or other battlefield equipment was a waste. If you use its speed you decrease the chance of hitting the target if you dont use its speed it is extremely vulnerable to men with machine guns.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 26, 2017)

Fighter bombers rarely traded one fighter for one "ground" target destroyed. Sometimes you lost several fighters for not much result and other times a number of trucks, wagons, guns or railroad cars were destroyed without loosing any attacking aircraft. One might well quibble that railroad locomotives were not cheap either. 

Attacking road or railroad bridges is also good cost benefit ratio. 

Nobody's fighter bombers were actually much good against tanks so blaming the Me 262 for not being very good against them seems to be picking on it a bit.

The 262s speed does count against it a bit as with most fighter bombers, the faster you go the less time you have to aim or correct aim. This doesn't mean the jet is useless, see Korean war.  
This varies with altitude, plane at 1000ft has more time to identify target and aim than a plane at 500ft. for instance. 
Terrain also plays a part. Fighter that works well over flat land may have trouble trying to hit targets in valleys in rolling hills/low mountains. 

Each type of aircraft needs a bit different attack profile to get the most out it. 

However claiming that the 262 would have been a good bomber _IF _equipped with special bombsight XXX in large numbers (which never happened?) is pushing things too far the other way. Bomb-sights coming into use in late 1944/45 have very little to do with the decision to use the 262 as a bomber or fighter-bomber in late 1943 or early 1944.


----------



## pbehn (Apr 26, 2017)

SR the point I was making wasnt just about tanks, the 262 had two jet engines that cost a fortune and lasted about 25 hours it used a lot of fuel and needed an expert pilot. If you take an M4 Sherman as a high value target, the USA made almost 50,000 of them dodge produced more than 250,000 light trucks, they were almost considered disposable anyway.


----------



## pbehn (Apr 26, 2017)

Shortround6 said:


> . One might well quibble that railroad locomotives were not cheap either.
> 
> .


If present day re build costs are compared a big steam loco costs about the same as a WW2 fighter, I would think it was the same then, repair shops were full of damaged locos in 1944 France.


----------



## stona (Apr 26, 2017)

pbehn said:


> An Me262 with its pilot represented a huge investment for Germany, using it to try to knock out tanks or other battlefield equipment was a waste. .



The Germans didn't think so, but then their choices were limited in a way which those of the Allies never were.
It was a question of meeting the greater threat, and, in the west, the greater threat was the D-Day landings, the air war had already been lost in any case. In order to use what air power was available against the invading forces, with no strategic bombing force, and no meaningful tactical/medium bombing force operational, meant that it was perfectly logical that the RLM should require ALL fighter aircraft to be capable of carrying a bomb load and operating in a 'jabo' role. It is often ignored that this requirement did not just pertain to the Me 262.
Cheers
Steve


----------



## soulezoo (Apr 26, 2017)

pbehn said:


> we just have this as news
> 
> 
> 
> ...


It's hard to tell for me, but that appears to be a B-26... if so, then it wins hands down for both altitude and combat radius!!


----------



## pbehn (Apr 26, 2017)

soulezoo said:


> It's hard to tell for me, but that appears to be a B-26... if so, then it wins hands down for both altitude and combat radius!!


The problem with joke articles is that people do take them seriously, I remember explaining why a bomber cannot fly to the moon when that was published.


----------



## pbehn (Apr 26, 2017)

stona said:


> It is often ignored that this requirement did not just pertain to the Me 262.
> Cheers
> Steve


I was not ignoring that, there was a requirement for the Spitfire and Hurricane to be day and night fighters tat does not mean that Spitfires should have been sent up at night regardless of their chance of success in battle or crashing on landing.


----------



## Koopernic (Apr 26, 2017)

pbehn said:


> SR the point I was making wasnt just about tanks, the 262 had two jet engines that cost a fortune and lasted about 25 hours it used a lot of fuel and needed an expert pilot. If you take an M4 Sherman as a high value target, the USA made almost 50,000 of them dodge produced more than 250,000 light trucks, they were almost considered disposable anyway.




The Jumo 004B4 required just under 800 man hours to build, which is actually less than a piston engine. It took about 8 man hours to remove and replace both the Engines on an Me 262. Each engine could be refurbished about 4 times with 150 indirect hours in parts and Labour each time. Roughly 100 hours of flight time required 1500 hours of labour i.e. 15 hours per flight hour. I doubt an engine would last that long before combat or other damage. These numbers almost certainly would have to improved but they compare favourably with piston engines. So long as the engine could be made dependable over its 25 hour interval the numbers are ok.

It sometimes takes time for little things to grow into big things. Me 262 with toss bombing sights and cluster bombs would make a plausible tank killer. That's what NATO planed to use post war.

The Me 262 could carry 24 5.5cm. R4M rockets intended for air to air use and a variant of this fitted with an improved version of the 3.5 inch 88mm panzershrek "bazooka" could also in theory be carried. They were known as panzerblitz-II. The Germans were first exposed to air launched rockets when the Soviets used them but seemed to dismiss them unlike the British who sought Soviet advice to develop theirs. The Germans used guns, cluster bombs or generally simply slid a bomb into the enemy tank with a time delay fuse by flying a Fw 190 over the tank. It was an accurate method.

The dispersion of these rockets produces an CEP of 8m radius at 1000m. If you launch 8 rockets only 4 will be within a 8m radius subtending an area of 200sq meters. Imagine trying to hit a shipping container of say 6m x 2.2 (area about 15 sq meters. The probability is only 7.5% for a hit for one rocket and about 26.8% that one of the 4 will hit. In practice the hit rates were maybe 20-100 times worse.

By trebling the number of rockets fired the Germans roughly trembled their chance of a hit, although with a smaller warhead, theoretically to 85% with 24 rockets. Obviously worse in real life.

The Luftwaffe became interested in larger air launched rockets only because of the stand off ranges that became neccesary due to improving AAA. Those rockets, which never saw service, look like copies of the Soviet ones. They differed in having hollow charge cluster submunitions. 7 for the smaller rocket and 22 for the larger. There is a photo in Fleischers German air dropped weapons.

The Me 262 was a completely new system. It needed toss bombing bomb sights, lead computing gyro sights with radar ranging built in FuG 248, probably Revolver guns. Without these the speed was almost unusable in attack.

The purpose of tank killing is less about attrition than about delaying a tank breakthrough long enough for ground forces to plug the breech.


----------



## parsifal (Apr 26, 2017)

Thinking of military aircraft in terms of what it actually hit as to its military effectiveness is a dumb idea, and a total misunderstanding about how airpower effectiveness should be measured. This whole argument goes to whether airpower alone can win wars on its own.


Facts are that airpower alone cannot win wars, and the casualties caused by airpower alone are fairly minimal. Despite all the effort poured into the allied air campaign, whether strategic or tactical 9ie over France), even under the most optimistic estimates, airpower might account for 5-10% of total battle casualties and maybe 20-30% of strategic war making capacity. On the face of it, airpower could be argued as a lost cause.


Yet anyone who argued along those lines would be sadly misinformed. There has not been a single war won by a modern western style army since 1918 without the control of the air being in the possession of that winning side. For both sides in WWII, from Poland through to the fall of Berlin, every side on the receiving end of an airpower campaign would comment on its effects. We can talk about the strategic wars separately, buyt in terms of battlefield experiences, there is no doubt that air power was a decisive force multiplier to the side that possessed air superiority. This is regardless of whether the aircraft could hit anything or not.


Dupuy has done the most work on this subject, and just operating from memory, his studies, as I recall, suggest that the combat multipliers are massively affected . Dupuy uses an index based on the “typical German field division of 1943. Such a division is assigned a value of 100. A 1942 Allied infantry division without effective airpower was calculated by Dupuy, whilst operating in Europe in temperate conditions to have a rating of 260 if air superiority was not present, and 135 if supported by air supariosity. 260, means that in order to do the same thing as the 100 rated german formation, you would need 260 allied ground troops to do the same job. With airpower supporting, these same troops had significantly closed the gap. In 1944, allied effectiveness without airpower had basically just about caught up with the Germans without air support and by late 1944, were ahead of them.


The reason it can be argued the me 262 was not effective as a fighter bomber, has nothing to do with the aircraft or accuracy at all. My opinion is that the 262 was as accurate as any fighter bomber. The real issue leading to the calim it was ineffective relates to the german loss of air superiority. Pinprick attacks here and there is not going to slow down or downgrade allied performance on the ground as much as putting the 2622 over the heads of the germans to put a roof over their heads.


And before anyone starts spruiking about the effectiveness of Ju-87s, they too were not immune to this cold reality. After Kursk, the heavily outnumbered stukas on the eastern front were largely irrelevant to the outcomes of battles. That doesn’t make them a bad bomber. Its just that the measure of aircraft effectives is as much linked to the air state, as anything.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 26, 2017)

Without new launch racks the number of anti-tank R4Ms goes way down.













Possible rack for the anti-tank rockets?

I would note that a steady gun platform (no snaking or porpoising) was _desired _for ground attack along with good aileron control. High role rate wasn't needed so much as quick response (although they often go together) and a fairly light effort on the stick to make corrections in aim without over correcting. 
Obviously you use what you have but some minor things explain why some planes were favored over others.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 26, 2017)

Parsifal makes some good points. Ground attack _was_ found to be effective, a reason that it continuous today. Not even the most rabid flyboys could keep it going for almost 80 years if it didn't work. 

BUT the ground attack aircraft have to be survivable. That is to say have _acceptable _losses per mission. You can have the most accurate aircraft/bomb in the world but if the enemy air defense shoots down large numbers of the attack aircraft every time they flew it is a loosing game very quickly. See JU 87 over Britain in 1940. 
Replaced by Bf 109 and Bf 110 fighter bombers. Less accurate but much more survivable in hostile airspace. And still accurate enough to get the job down most of the time.

For the Germans in 1944 it is a question of using the 262s in pinprick attacks _or _blunting the Allied air attacks, and this may not have been a good idea either as it brings the 262 down to low level. While still fast it doesn't climb as well as some of the piston engine fighters and if flying at low level it can be bounced from above.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Apr 27, 2017)

pbehn said:


> I was not ignoring that, there was a requirement for the Spitfire and Hurricane to be day and night fighters tat does not mean that Spitfires should have been sent up at night regardless of their chance of success in battle or crashing on landing.



The British didn't use the Spitfire as a night fighter for many reasons, not least its importance as the best day fighter available in 1940/41. Why waste time training the pilots of your best day time aircraft to operate at night? Defiant crews had already been doing so even before the BoB, and the Hurrricane was verging on obsolescence as a front line day fighter in 1941. These other types, like the Defiant and Hurricane, were used in that role despite the limited chances of success and risks. This was a perfectly rational decision.The British did not have their backs to the wall facing the night time Luftwaffe bombing in the same way as the Germans did facing the Anglo-American offensives after D-Day and the Soviet advances in the east. Desperation can lead to attempts at radical solutions (just look at the 'natter') and that is why all German fighters were required to be capable of operating as fighter bombers. The reasons none were effective have little to do with the aircraft per se and much to do with the way they were used. An Me 262 or Fw 190 could have been just as effective as a Typhoon or P-47, just as the Bf 109 could have been as effective as the Spitfire in this role.
Cheers
Steve


----------



## Zyzygie (May 8, 2017)

Uh Oh... just lucky there was a spare strip.

*Vampire Rips up runway at Halfpenny Green*

_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gX3_mQZ4gY8_


The ME 262 also had to have special concrete surfaces because of the closeness of the engines to the ground:

"The Me-262 was highly vulnerable on takeoff and landing, since the JUMO engines took a long time to throttle up; since the engines tended to set asphalt runways on fire, the Me-262 was restricted to operations at airfields with concrete runways, which were more easily targeted by the Allies than dispersed dirt airfields. On 7 October two were shot down on takeoff by Lieutenant Urban L. Drew of the USAAF, flying a P-51 Mustang. The Luftwaffe eventually assigned FW-190s, when they were available and had fuel, to fly air patrols around the air bases to protect the Me-262s, and the airfields were ringed by heavy flak defenses. The flak installations were a mixed blessing, however, since they were often staffed by poorly-trained and nervous troops who were just as likely to fire on friends as foes..."

The Messerschmitt Me-262 Schwalbe / Sturmvogel

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Milosh (May 8, 2017)

> I doubt an engine would last that long before combat or other damage. These numbers almost certainly would have to improved but they compare favourably with piston engines.



The 8th AF changed the engines out of their bombers and fighters after every second long range mission?


----------



## Zyzygie (May 10, 2017)

Zyzygie said:


> Uh Oh... just lucky there was a spare strip.
> 
> *Vampire Rips up runway at Halfpenny Green*
> 
> ...




This is the whole sorry Vampire incident story:


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=90KOh_0wPOs_

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Old Wizard (May 11, 2017)




----------



## Zyzygie (May 27, 2017)

Here's a good documentary about the development of the MiG 15 which touches on the transfer of critical British jet technology to the Soviet Union:

_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7C538uFtamw_


----------



## Old Wizard (May 28, 2017)




----------



## Peter Gunn (Jun 2, 2017)

pbehn said:


> we just have this as news
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I remember a scandal rag here in the States back in the '90's had the same headline, but the pic was of a B-32 Dominator.


----------



## Peter Gunn (Jun 2, 2017)

Zyzygie said:


> See attached PDF presentation.



Not to mention quoting quite possibly one of the most disingenuous, poorly researched piece of sh!t "history" books ever written, belton coopers "death traps". No, I will not even dignify him or his offal with capital letters.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Jun 3, 2017)

One thing to remember is that some of those technology transfers were agreed when the length and outcome of the war against the nazis was more in doubt. I don't know if jets were one of the items on the list.


----------



## stona (Jun 3, 2017)

swampyankee said:


> One thing to remember is that some of those technology transfers were agreed when the length and outcome of the war against the nazis was more in doubt. I don't know if jets were one of the items on the list.



Jet transfer was post war....when we needed the money. 25 Rolls-Royce "Nene I" and 30 "Derwent V" engines were sold to Russia in 1947.

Questions were asked in 1949, in parliament, about future sales. From Hansard.

_"78 and 79. *Mr. Donner*
asked the Minister of Supply (1) whether, in view of the sale of the Rolls-Royce "Nene" jet engine to the U.S.S.R., he will now give an undertaking that the De Havilland "Goblin" turbo-jet engine will not be sold or presented to that country;

(2) whether, in view of the sale of the Rolls-Royce "Derwent V" jet aero-engine to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, he will give an undertaking that the Rolls-Royce "Avon" and "Tay" jet engines, the De Havilland "Goblin II" and the "Goblin IV" and "Ghost," the two latter now under development, will, in no circumstances, be sold to Russia or any satellite country. 


§ *Mr. G. R. Strauss*
There is no intention of selling any of the engines mentioned, or any other type of jet aero-engine, to Russia or to any other country in Eastern Europe. 


§ *Mr. Donner*
In view of that reply, will the right hon. Gentleman say why these engines were sold, since apparently he now takes the view that it was an unfortunate thing to do? 


§ *Mr. Strauss*
I think that that is the hon. Gentleman's next Question. 


§ 80.* Mr. Donner*
asked the Minister of Supply what types of jet engine were included among the 55 sold to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics in 1947; what were the numbers of each; and why the licences permitting such sales were issued by him. 


§ *Mr. G. R. Strauss*
Twenty-five Rolls-Royce "Nene I" and 30 "Derwent V" engines were sold to Russia. In answer to the second part of the Question, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary on 6th December last. 


§ *Mr. Donner*
Did the Minister consult the Dominions before the sale, or was he in too great a hurry to facilitate Russian rearmament?"_


Cheers

Steve


----------



## swampyankee (Jun 3, 2017)

It seems that the pre-war excessive fear of the red menace was exchanged for its opposite: the post-war USSR was _much _more of an existential threat to the UK than the pre-war one, as it had a much more competent military.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zyzygie (Apr 17, 2018)

Zyzygie said:


> Here's a good documentary about the development of the MiG 15 which touches on the transfer of critical British jet technology to the Soviet Union:
> 
> _View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7C538uFtamw_





_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tKQdY6ST1KA_

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zyzygie (Nov 10, 2019)

Me262 on Mosquito :


----------



## Admiral Beez (Nov 10, 2019)

The intended opponent of the 262 was heavy bombers. What was the intended opponent of the Meteor? Insufficient range to escort bombers over Europe and no bombers to shoot down. I get the sense that the Meteor was built because the technology was there, and having a jet fighter seemed like a prudent idea, rather than it having a purpose like the interceptor 262.

This seems akin to a F-106 vs a MiG-21.


----------



## glennasher (Nov 10, 2019)

Ya gotta start someplace, the RAF started with the Meteor. IIRC, they did use it to chase V-1s (along with Tempests and Spitfires). You can't do it all on paper or now, computers, sooner or later you have to bend aluminum and attach engines to something, and see if it works.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 10, 2019)

Admiral Beez said:


> What was the intended opponent of the Meteor? Insufficient range to escort bombers over Europe and no bombers to shoot down. I get the sense that the Meteor was built because the technology was there, and having a jet fighter seemed like a prudent idea, rather than it having a purpose like the interceptor 262.


Have you read the RAF design specification of the Meteor (Specification F.18/40 ) and what it was originally designed for? Have you considered the improvements to the design?


----------



## fastmongrel (Nov 10, 2019)

Admiral Beez said:


> The intended opponent of the 262 was heavy bombers. What was the intended opponent of the Meteor? Insufficient range to escort bombers over Europe and no bombers to shoot down. I get the sense that the Meteor was built because the technology was there, and having a jet fighter seemed like a prudent idea, rather than it having a purpose like the interceptor 262.
> 
> This seems akin to a F-106 vs a MiG-21.



I dont think Britain was designing an aircraft for the hell of it in 1940/41 not when it was being attacked daily by the Luftwaffe.


----------



## Admiral Beez (Nov 10, 2019)

fastmongrel said:


> I dont think Britain was designing an aircraft for the hell of it in 1940/41 not when it was being attacked daily by the Luftwaffe.


Yes, like I said, having a jet fighter seemed like a prudent idea.

I looked for the spec, but found nothing beyond it being a fighter. Was it intended, like the Me262 to shoot down the bombers you refer to from 1940/41? If interceptor was the intended role we should judge the Meteor as such, but was it, by 1944 intended to combat the German jets?


----------



## Greyman (Nov 10, 2019)

I think the idea at it's core was to make a fighter with a high performance. Everything else was incidental.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Admiral Beez (Nov 10, 2019)

Greyman said:


> I think the idea at it's core was to make a fighter with a high performance.


Did the Meteor have the performance to stop the twin and four engine Arado Ar 234? 







That seems to be the Meteor’s natural opponent.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 10, 2019)

Admiral Beez said:


> Yes, like I said, having a jet fighter seemed like a prudent idea.
> 
> I looked for the spec, but found nothing beyond it being a fighter. Was it intended, like the Me262 to shoot down the bombers you refer to from 1940/41? If interceptor was the intended role we should judge the Meteor as such, but was it, by 1944 intended to combat the German jets?


The original spec called for a twin engined night fighter, the air ministry pursued further development beyond that. During it's design no one was able to fathom or intend that it was going to go up against the Me262. Had the war progressed I think we would have seen it develop much more rapidly (like all allied jets of the day) and while lagging a bit behind the 262 in some performance envelopes, "would have" been able to compete with the 262 with superior numbers (same could be said for the P-80) There's a lot of "what ifs" in this, but to answer your original question, "What was the intended opponent of the Meteor?" My answer would be "anything it encountered."

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Greyman (Nov 10, 2019)

Admiral Beez said:


> Did the Meteor have the performance to stop the twin and four engine Arado Ar 234?



Possible but I think it would take some very skilled fighter control from the ground.


----------



## fubar57 (Nov 10, 2019)

Ar 234C-3 - First Jet Bomber of Luftwaffe
Meteor F. Mk.1 415MPH
Arado B-2 458MPH

EDIT: Changed link

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## PAT303 (Nov 10, 2019)

Admiral Beez said:


> The intended opponent of the 262 was heavy bombers. What was the intended opponent of the Meteor? Insufficient range to escort bombers over Europe and no bombers to shoot down. I get the sense that the Meteor was built because the technology was there, and having a jet fighter seemed like a prudent idea, rather than it having a purpose like the interceptor 262.
> 
> This seems akin to a F-106 vs a MiG-21.



The meteor was a first generation jet fighter similar to the Spit Mk1 and Me109 were first generation all metal piston engined monoplanes, technology has to start somewhere.


----------



## Admiral Beez (Nov 10, 2019)

fubar57 said:


> Ar 234C-3 - First Jet Bomber of Luftwaffe
> Meteor F. Mk.1 415MPH
> Arado B-2 458MPH
> 
> EDIT: Changed link


So.... if I’m chasing an Arado B-2 I want to to be flying a 450 mph Tempest VI or Spitfire Mk.21


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 10, 2019)

Admiral Beez said:


> So.... if I’m chasing an Arado B-2 I want to to be flying a 450 mph Tempest VI or Spitfire Mk.21



So would I, but something that's always missed here - when we have discussions like this, many will post the top speed of an aircraft, it doesn't mean it was always flown at its maximum speed, especially early jet aircraft.


----------



## fubar57 (Nov 10, 2019)

Only if you are also in possession of a Wayback machine




​"The Tempest Mk.VI fitted with a Sabre V engine first flew on May 9th, 1944 with production fully ramping up in the proceeding months. With special consideration given to Middle Eastern usage, the Tempest Mk.VI’s cooling mechanisms were further modified to cope with the hotter temperatures experienced there, resulting in the installation of an extra oil cooler in the starboard wing’s leading edge (much like the Tempest II). After flight trials which lasted until February 1946, the Tempest VI was finally cleared for operational usage and equipped five RAF squadrons in the Middle East along with four in Germany"
Hawker Tempest Mk.VI​

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Nov 10, 2019)

Admiral Beez said:


> So.... if I’m chasing an Arado B-2 I want to to be flying a 450 mph Tempest VI or Spitfire Mk.21



The Tempest VI wasn't available until after the war and its maximum speed altitude wasn't at the altitude that the Ar 234 would be flying.

The Spitfire would have more of a chance, but still slim.

Only 20 Meteor Is were built. They were superseded by the Meteor III which used more powerful Derwent I or IV engines, except the first 15 which used the Wellend, the same engine as the Mk I.

Meteor Mk III.
Statistics (most with Derwent IV engines)
Engine: Two Derwent I or Derwent IV engines
Thrust: 2,000lb (Derwent I) or 2,400lb (Derwent IV)
Span: 43ft
Length: 41.4ft
Gross Weight: 13,342lb
Maximum level speed at sea level: 486mph
Maximum level speed at 30,000ft: 493mph
Rate of climb at sea level: 3,980ft/ min
Ceiling: 46,000ft
Cruise Range at normal load: 504 miles
Armament: Four 20mm cannon in nose and two 1,000lb bombs or sixteen 90lb rocket projectiles under the wings

From Gloster Meteor F Mk.III 

Also, http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/meteor/meteor3ads.jpg

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 10, 2019)

Admiral Beez said:


> Did the Meteor have the performance to stop the twin and four engine Arado Ar 234? That seems its primary opponent.



You have to get a handle on the timelines. Unless your spies (intelligence) is very, very, very good no airplane in WW II was designed to counter any enemy airplane (modifications like jamming a the Griffon into an existing Spitfire excepted).
Initial Design work on both the Meteor and the Arado 234 started in 1940 with first flights in 1943 but actual operations didn't start until late summer of 1944. Operations of both types might best be described as sporadic. First Luftwaffe use of the Arado 234 being some of the prototypes or A series with the skid landing gear for recon. Production of 4 engine Arado 234s with real landing gear was a total of 14 in the spring of 1945, many more airframes were built but the engines were diverted to the Heinkel 162 program. 

The Meteor went through several different engines and the modifications to the engine nacelles increased speed by up to 60mph using the same engines. 
No 616 Squadron had gone into service with Meteor Is in July of 1944 (first V-1 kills Aug 4th) but re-equipped with MK III Meteors in Jan 1945. MK III Meteors came with a variety of 
engines. However see:
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/meteor/meteor-chart-8june45.jpg 
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/meteor/meteor-29sept44.pdf 



Admiral Beez said:


> So.... if I’m chasing an Arado B-2 in 1945, I want to to be flying a 450 mpg Tempest VI.



Might depend in which month in 1945

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zyzygie (Nov 11, 2019)

*http://etd.ohiolink.edu/send-pdf.cgi/Pavelec Sterling Michael.pdf?osu1082396007*

"...Furthermore, the fundamental conception of turbojet engine technology was different between the Germans and the Allies. The Germans considered the engines peripheral within the entire aircraft system. The engines were the prime movers but the aircraft itself was the focus. This is evidenced by the importance of the aircraft designers themselves – Messerschmitt and Heinkel, as well as others – who were given the contracts for jet aircraft and later shopped for engines. Ample funding was given to Junkers Motorenbau (Jumo) and BMW for development, but the airframes were the focus, the engines were secondary. Thus, the RLM records reflect the ongoing debate in Germany over the airframes and development at Heinkel and Messerschmitt rather than more than a cursory mention of the concurrent engine programs. In Germany, the engines were less important than the airframes; the axial-flow engine was developed because it promised the best performance. The Germans were interested in developing the most capable aircraft possible under the constraints of war and time.
The Allies, on the other hand, focused on the engines. The British, led by Whittle’s developments, and the Americans, building directly on the British turbojet program, continued development of the centrifugal-flow type. The Allies made the engine the center of attention and developed airframes around the powerplant. Developmental funding and effort went into improvements in the engine; airframes were an afterthought. In all three Allied wartime turbojet programs, Gloster’s _Meteor _as well as Bell and Lockheed, the airframe designers were given engine specifications and told to develop airframes around the powerplants. Centrifugal-flow engines were improved during the war, but the Americans and British considered the turbojet aircraft superfluous to the war effort..."


*https://www.456fis.org/ME-262.htm* 

"...The Me-262 had no real effect on the course of the war, though it would provide the Allies with plenty of inspiration in the postwar period. It was well in advance of anything the Allies had or had plans to build. Adolf Galland flew British Gloster Meteors in Argentina after the war and felt that if the Meteor's reliable engines had been mated to the Me-262's advanced airframe, the result would have been the most formidable of the first-generation jet fighters..." 

*The Perfect is the enemy of the Good:*
*https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_is_the_enemy_of_good* 

*Perfect is the enemy of the good*, or more literally *the best is the enemy of the good*, is an aphorism which is commonly attributed to Voltaire, who quoted an Italian proverb in his _Dictionnaire philosophique_ in 1770: "_Il meglio è l'inimico del bene_".[2] It subsequently appeared in his moral poem _La Bégueule_, which starts[3]
_Dans ses écrits, un sage Italien_
_Dit que le mieux est l'ennemi du bien._

(In his writings, a wise Italian
says that the best is the enemy of the good)​Aristotle, Confucius, and other classical philosophers propounded the principle of the golden mean, which counsels against extremism in general.[4] The Pareto principle or 80–20 rule explains this numerically. For example, it commonly takes 20% of the full time to complete 80% of a task while to complete the last 20% of a task takes 80% of the effort.[5] Achieving absolute perfection may be impossible and so, as increasing effort results in diminishing returns, further activity becomes increasingly inefficient.
Robert Watson-Watt, who developed early warning radar in Britain to counter the rapid growth of the Luftwaffe, propounded a "cult of the imperfect", which he stated as "Give them the third best to go on with; the second best comes too late, the best never comes."[6]


----------



## Admiral Beez (Nov 11, 2019)

FLYBOYJ said:


> "...The Me-262 had no real effect on the course of the war, though it would provide the Allies with plenty of inspiration in the postwar period.


I've often through the Me.262 was a design dead end. 






With few exceptions, like the above Yak-28, everyone quickly moved away from underwing engine pods, instead emulating the inboard engines of the Heinkel He 178, Horten Ho 229 and the Napkinwaffe's Blohm & Voss P 197.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 11, 2019)

Admiral Beez said:


> I've often through the Me.262 was a design dead end.
> 
> With few exceptions, like the above Yak-28, everyone quickly moved away from underwing engine pods, instead emulating the inboard engines of the Heinkel He 178, Horten Ho 229 and the Napkinwaffe's Blohm & Voss P 197.



You're comparing a design to a configuration - two different animals.


----------



## swampyankee (Nov 11, 2019)

To a great extent everyone -- outside of the military-- designs aircraft for engines and even the military pays a great deal of attention to the engine designers' plans for the next generation. It's become pretty imperative now, as engines cost more to develop than airframes (the costs for military aircraft are now dominated by the electronics and by the need to integrate everything. Considering that some recent aircraft don't have functional guns because of software issues, one may wonder whether there is a serious conceptual problem...). High speed aircraft also need a great deal of engine:airframe integration.

Regarding underwing engine mounts, there are a lot of advantages to having the engines as close to the fuselage as possible, especially in case of engine loss. On the other hand, too closely mounted engines have their own downsides. At least one F-18 was lost when one engine failed and the resulting debris fod'd the other.


----------



## swampyankee (Nov 11, 2019)

cimmex said:


> Why a more bulky Centrifugal compressor engine with around the same thrust? In my opinion it would be a step back in the evolution.
> cimmex



For one, the technology of centrifugal compressors was more mature at the time. Centrifugal compressors are still used in new engines, especially in smaller sizes, as they scale down better.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zyzygie (Nov 11, 2019)

swampyankee said:


> For one, the technology of centrifugal compressors was more mature at the time. Centrifugal compressors are still used in new engines, especially in smaller sizes, as they scale down better.



Also the contemporary jets were susceptible to “surge,” or effectively stall of the compressor blades. This problem wasn’t really finally overcome in axial flow engines until the 60s. The centrifugal compressor was much less susceptible and hence was the pragmatic way to go at the time.


----------



## swampyankee (Nov 11, 2019)

Zyzygie said:


> Also the contemporary jets were susceptible to “surge,” or effectively stall of the compressor blades. This problem wasn’t really finally overcome in axial flow engines until the 60s. The centrifugal compressor was much less susceptible and hence was the pragmatic way to go at the time.



Surge is a problem in both centrifugal and axial flow compressors, but it's significantly easier to deal with in a centrifugal unit. Usually, though, modern axial flow engines will have significant variable geometry, such as inlet guide vanes, and anti-surge bleeds to deal with it. 

I


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 11, 2019)

Zyzygie said:


> Also the contemporary jets were susceptible to “surge,” or effectively stall of the compressor blades. This problem wasn’t really finally overcome in axial flow engines until the 60s. The centrifugal compressor was much less susceptible and hence was the pragmatic way to go at the time.



Care to quantify your statement that was painted with a brush as wide as a 4 lane highway?


----------



## Zyzygie (Nov 11, 2019)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Care to quantify your statement that was painted with a brush as wide as a 4 lane highway?



The centrifugal was much more robust, not only for resisting surge, but also for ingesting Canadian ducks and 50mm Swiss hailstones! 
See attachment.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 11, 2019)

Zyzygie said:


> The centrifugal was much more robust, not only for resisting surge, but also for ingesting Canadian ducks and 50mm Swiss hailstones!
> See attachment.


You're blowing smoke - what specific engines? When? How many? Yes, a centrifugal compressor is much more robust, but to generalize with little specifics is nonsense as that clip you posted.


----------



## GrauGeist (Nov 11, 2019)

Admiral Beez said:


> The intended opponent of the 262 was heavy bombers.


The original concept of the Me262 was to be a true fighter.
When the 262 was first put to paper, Messerschmitt had virtually no idea about how a jet aircraft would perform versus the known qualities of piston powered aircraft (other than the performance data gleaned from Heinkel's He178 and He280), and thus designed the 262 around what little was known about high-speed flight.


----------



## Zyzygie (Nov 12, 2019)

FLYBOYJ said:


> You're blowing smoke - what specific engines? When? How many? Yes, a centrifugal compressor is much more robust, but to generalize with little specifics is nonsense as that clip you posted.



I assume that you haven't read the attachment. I tried to open it with my iPhone with no luck, but it's fine from my computer...

Also, apart from the advantage in terms of surge resistance, the Derwent had a higher pressure ratio and operating temperature than the JUMO.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 12, 2019)

GrauGeist said:


> The original concept of the Me262 was to be a true fighter.
> When the 262 was first put to paper, Messerschmitt had virtually no idea about how a jet aircraft would perform versus the known qualities of piston powered aircraft (other than the performance data gleaned from Heinkel's He178 and He280), and thus designed the 262 around what little was known about high-speed flight.


 And the He 280 offered darn little to the _design_ of the Me 262. The He 280 flying for the first time under power in March of 1941 and the 262, using a Jumo 210 in the nose flying the next month. it would be another year before the 262 flew with jet engines, it was at the end of 1942 that the 3rd He 280 flew. 
Both programs were running at the same time and development of both was slow due to a lack of flyable engines so I don't really see a whole lot of back and forth between the programs.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 12, 2019)

Zyzygie said:


> I assume that you haven't read the attachment. I tried to open it with my iPhone with no luck, but it's fine from my computer...
> 
> Also, apart from the advantage in terms of surge resistance, the Derwent had a higher pressure ratio and operating temperature than the JUMO.


I have - and you're only talking about specific early engines, basically cherry picking. 

"contemporary jets were susceptible to “surge,” or effectively stall of the compressor blades. This problem wasn’t really finally overcome in axial flow engines until the 60s."

J-35? J-47? Orenda? RR Avon?


----------



## GrauGeist (Nov 12, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> And the He 280 offered darn little to the _design_ of the Me 262. The He 280 flying for the first time under power in March of 1941 and the 262, using a Jumo 210 in the nose flying the next month. it would be another year before the 262 flew with jet engines, it was at the end of 1942 that the 3rd He 280 flew.
> Both programs were running at the same time and development of both was slow due to a lack of flyable engines so I don't really see a whole lot of back and forth between the programs.


Agreed.
The 262's wing was even "swept" back during development not for performance, but to adjust the CoG with the change in engines.
On the otherhand, the He280 with it's elliptical wing, offered far better performance in a "turning fight" situation than the Me262.


----------



## Admiral Beez (Nov 12, 2019)

GrauGeist said:


> Agreed.
> The 262's wing was even "swept" back during development not for performance, but to adjust the CoG with the change in engines.
> On the otherhand, the He280 with it's elliptical wing, offered far better performance in a "turning fight" situation than the Me262.


I'd like to see a well-built and sorted Heinkel He 162 Volksjager vs. a Meteor. I imagine the 162 offers a much tighter dogfighting ability over the 262.


----------



## Zyzygie (Nov 12, 2019)

FLYBOYJ said:


> I have - and you're only talking about specific early engines, basically cherry picking.
> 
> "contemporary jets were susceptible to “surge,” or effectively stall of the compressor blades. This problem wasn’t really finally overcome in axial flow engines until the 60s."
> 
> J-35? J-47? Orenda? RR Avon?



OK - a few instances:

*Powerplant:* 1 × Pratt & Whitney J57-P-21/21A turbojet:

However, the Super Sabre's extremely high accident rate—typically caused by compressor stalls, wing fractures, and persistent yaw instability—was even deadlier. More than 889 F-100s were lost in accidents out of 2,294 built, killing 324 pilots.
*Rolls-Royce Avon engine:Edit*

The Rolls-Royce Avon turbojet engine was affected by repeated compressor surges early in its 1940s development which proved difficult to eliminate from the design. Such was the perceived importance and urgency of the engine that Rolls-Royce licensed the compressor design of the Sapphire engine from Armstrong Siddeley to speed development.
The engine, as redesigned, went on to power aircraft such as the English Electric Canberrabomber, and the de Havilland Comet and Sud Aviation Caravelle airliners.
*Olympus 593:Edit*

During the 1960s development of the Concorde Supersonic Transport (SST) a major incident occurred when a compressor surge caused a structural failure in the intake. The hammershock which propagated forward from the compressor was of sufficient strength to cause an inlet ramp to become detached and expelled from the front of the intake.[4] The ramp mechanism was strengthened and control laws changed to prevent a re-occurrence.[5
*U.S. Navy F-14 crashEdit*

A compressor stall contributed to the 1994 death of Lt. Kara Hultgreen, the first female carrier-based United States Navy fighter pilot. Her aircraft, a Grumman F-14 Tomcat, experienced a compressor stall and failure of its left engine, a Pratt & Whitney TF30turbofan, due to disturbed airflow caused by Hultgreen's attempt to recover from an incorrect final approach position by executing a sideslip; compressor stalls from excessive yaw angle were a known deficiency of this type of engine. 
]


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 12, 2019)

Zyzygie said:


> OK - a few instances:
> 
> *Powerplant:* 1 × Pratt & Whitney J57-P-21/21A turbojet:
> 
> ...


Still meaningless - compare those handful of instances to the amount of fleet flight hours and at the end that will tell you if this was truly an issue. The F-100 for example, did have a high attrition rate but you do not show compressor stalls compared to the rest of the aircraft lost. I think you'll find with the F-100, many of the crashes involved "C" models which had no wing flaps.


----------



## pinehilljoe (Nov 12, 2019)

fastmongrel said:


> Only if the Royal Navy built HMS Habakkuk





Admiral Beez said:


> The intended opponent of the 262 was heavy bombers. What was the intended opponent of the Meteor? Insufficient range to escort bombers over Europe and no bombers to shoot down. I get the sense that the Meteor was built because the technology was there, and having a jet fighter seemed like a prudent idea, rather than it having a purpose like the interceptor 262.
> 
> This seems akin to a F-106 vs a MiG-21.




I don't think the Meteor had an intended target, it was an effort to get some form of jet powered aircraft operational as soon as possible.


----------



## Admiral Beez (Nov 12, 2019)

pinehilljoe said:


> I don't think the Meteor had an intended target, it was an effort to get some form of jet powered aircraft operational as soon as possible.


I guess what I am getting at, was the Meteor optimized for maneuverability or speed? Is it set up to fight the 262? The armament seems ideal for dog fighting.


----------



## nuuumannn (Nov 12, 2019)

Maaan, there are so many things I'd like to add to this thread... Firstly though, the specification that the meteor was built to, F.9/40, dated 14/11/40. Here is text lifted directly from it:

"The DTD requires the development of a single-seat fighter utilising the Whittle system of jet propulsion. The salient advantage of this system of propulsion is the possiblity of speeds particularly at high altitudes which it would not be possible to obtain by the orthodox arrangement of engine and airscrew. To make full use of the possibilities available a small aeroplane is essential.It is vital for the success of he project that every item of service equipment which is not absolutely essential should be eliminated. This specification is issued to cover the design and construction of a twin engined single-seat fighter to develop the application of jet propulsion to a service aeroplane.

Performance: The maximum speed at 30,000ft shall not be less than 430mph. When taking off from a grass surface with full fuel and military load the aircraft shall be capable of crossing a 50ft screen within a distance of 600 yards in stillair. On landing the aircraft should come to rest in not more than 700 yards, with full fuel and military load."

The rest goes into armament, "six 20mm cannon guns each with 120 rounds, or with four guns, 150 rounds per gun is required.", engine type and radio equipment. That's it. A jet fighter, no less.

The Me 262 evolved from two initial design studies, the Messerschmitt P 65 and P 1065, powered by two BMW P.3304 engines. Both were straight winged aircraft of the same configuration as the 262 and in the latter, the triangular cross section of the 262's fuselage, the 'dreiecke Rumpfform', imposed by the drawing office owing to concerns about undercarriage stowage by Voigt was in place. Messerschmitt himself wanted the 'ovale Rumpfform' of the P 65, but it seems the former won the day in the end.

Discussions for a single-seat jet fighter within Messerschmitt staff began in October 1938 and the Technical Office of the RLM offered a requirement on 4 January 1939, titled Vorlaufige technische Richtlinien fur schnelle Jagdfluzeuge mit Stahltriebwerk (Preliminary technical criteria for a high speed fighter aircraft with a jet engine). I don't have a direct quote from the spec, but what is outlined in books on the 262 is that two versions were proposed, one for a high-speed pursuit and the other for target defence. This is translated from the spec, however:

"Operational Deployment (for operations against aerial targets) a) High speed Fighter b) Intercept Fighter [Heimatschutzer]
Number and type of powerplant: One turbojet engine (make unspecified)"

The rest goes into armament, radio and performance: "Maximum speed 900km/h (559mph) Landing speed: possibly not over 120km/h (75mph)". In the text the initial design considerations were for a twin tail boom fighter like the Focke Wulf Flitzer or the DH Vampire. Voigt assessed that a twin engined design was more practicable and work began on the P 1065 on 1 April 1939. The first incarnation of a swept wing appeared on the P 65 in February 1940.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Nov 12, 2019)

For fear of turning this into a wall of text, regarding the centrifugal versus axial argument, its worth noting that prototype Meteors were fitted with de Havilland jet engine, or Halford H.1 after its designer, the brilliant Frank Halford, also responsible for the Napier Sabre and de Havilland Gipsy engines (some portoflio!) and a Metrovick F.2 axial flow engine. The H.1 powered prototype DG206/G was in fact the first Meteor to fly, on 5 March 1943. The first Metrovick F.2 powered Meteor, DG204/G first flew on 13 November 1943. The first Whittle engined Meteor, DG202/G powered by two Rover W.2Bs first flew on 24 July 1943.

The DH engined Meteor flying first took place because of the political nonsense between Power Jets Ltd, Whittle's firm, and Rover, with whom he had contracted to build the W.2 jet engine. After Rolls-Royce got involved ("Don't worry, we'll design the simplicity out of it" - Ernest Hives of RR after being told by Whittle of its design concept), before the Meteor's first flight, at this stage still known as the Gloster F.9/40 after the spec laid out to build it, the firm manufactured the W.2 Welland to go into the Meatbox.

Fitting the axial flow engines to the Meteor was not overly successful as it was slower, but not because of the engines themselves, but the installation on the wing. The centrifugal engines sat in front of the main spar, whereas the F.2 had to sit below the spar, which led to a longer undercarriage installation. DG204/G was lost in an accident in January 1944 owing to a compressor failure during aerobatic manoeuvres. Performance losses over the centrifugal Meteors were not excessive, but were notable,, top speed was 25mph below the others and rate of climb was 15 percent less - profile drag of the underslung nacelles was more than predicted.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Nov 12, 2019)

At this stage its worth considering how each aircraft handled from a pilot's standpoint and who better to offer this information than our favourite forum test pilot (!), the Late Eric 'Winkle' Brown. There's no better choice for this since he flew both types at around the same time in an official capacity as a test pilot, so his recollections are worthy of adding here.

Brown flew most variants of the Meteor, including specialised post-war variants, such as the prone-pilot Meteor and first turbo-prop aircraft, a Meteor with RR Trent propeller installations, which he commented very favourably on, as well as the F.8, which we won't include in our discussion owing to its post-war pedigree, but what he does say is that the RR Derwent installation utterly changed the Meteor's performance decidedly for the better.

"Soon after my arrival at R.A.E. I flew Meteor EE214/G, ths becoming the first naval pilot ever to fly a jet aircraft. Exciting as that event was for me, it could not conceal the fact that the Meteor I was a rather mediocre aeroplane from the handling standpoint. Besides being underpowered, it had heavy ailerons, suffered from directional instability, and had terrible forward view in rain."

Brown doesn't have much more to say about the early incarnations of the jet, merely to comment on the tests he carried out that were cautious research into behavioural characteristics of jet powered airframes. This is his conclusion in Wings of the Weird and Wonderful (Airlife, 1983) on the Meteor chapter and is worth reading from a comparison with the '262 standpoint:

"The Meteor was a worthy holder of the title of Britain's first operational jet aeroplane and because of its amazing adaptability survived in service in various forms for 25 years. At the outset it was hardly in the same class as Germany's counterpart, the Messerschmitt Me 262, but it improved to become a very snappy performer although even at its peak, never reaching the apex of the Me 262. It was the aircraft on which many of Britain's service pilots got their first taste of jet flying, but it was hardly a docile trainer for it had an Achilles heel - a high single-engine safety speed because its two powerful engines were too widely separated. This characteristic cost lives and gave the Meteor the reputation of an aircraft that had to be flown with respect."

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Nov 13, 2019)

Now, the Me 262. Brown has enormous praise for this aircraft (that bias that people bang on about here at work, perhaps), and the chapter on the Me 262 in Wings of the Luftwaffe (MacDonalds and Janes, 1977 - Hikoki reprint) is far more extensive and thus revealing than that of the Meteor in Wings of the Weird and Wonderful, so I won't be going into every detail; you guys are gonna have to buy these books for that stuff.

"If asked to nominate the most formidable combat aircraft to evolve in WW2, I would unhesitatingly propose Messerschmitt's Me 262. I say 'unhesitatingly' advisedly, despite having flown the Spitfire in virtually all of its variants, the Mosquito, the Lancaster, the Mustang and even Mitsubishi's Zero-Sen; all warplanes that might be considered as contenders for this accolade."

"I was immediately struck by its beautiful, yet sinister lines, which reminded me vividly of those of a shark."

"The take-off run was long and the aircraft gave one the feeling that it was underpowered, as indeed was the Meteor I."

"Our interest in the Me 262 at RAE Farnborough was threefold. Firstly, we were intrigued to discover if the performance really did match the capabilities claimed by the Germans; secondly we were anxious to discover the behaviour of the swept-wing configuration at high mach numbers, and thridly we wanted to know if this aircraft provided a good gun platform. We soon ascertained that the German figures were by no means extravagant, but the high mach performance must, of course, be related to the contemporary state of art."

"The important thing, however was that I had ascertained the tactical usability of the Me 262 up to Mach.82, and this capability had undoubtedly endowed Messerschmitt's fighter with a marked advantage over every other operational aircraft of WW2."

Brown then goes into directional snaking, which is of course interesting reading, but I'm not gonna transcribe the whole article. His closing is full of admiration for the jet.

"It was in my view unquestionably the foremost warplane of its day; a hard hitter which outperformed anything we had immediately available but which, fortunately for the Allies, was not available to the Luftwaffe in sufficient numbers to affect drastically the course of events in the air over Europe. It was a pilot's aeroplane, which had to be flown and not just heaved into the air. Basically underpowered and fitted with engines sufficiently lacking in reliability to keep the adrenaline flowing, it was thoroughly exciting to fly, and particularly so in view of its lack of an ejector seat. I was reminded vividly of this aircraft when I first flew the F-4 Phantom some 20 years later."

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## Admiral Beez (Nov 13, 2019)

The modern-day replica Me 262 is a wonder to see. With these reliable engines, I wonder how it would do against the Meteor.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## fubar57 (Nov 13, 2019)

I think even with the original engines it would be all over the Meteor

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Admiral Beez (Nov 13, 2019)

fubar57 said:


> I think even with the original engines it would be all over the Meteor


What was the first British jet that you think could match a well-built and piloted Me 262?

Per Wikipedia, the Me 262 has a top speed of 900 km/h (560 mph, 490 kn), faster than the Meteor and Vampire, but 30 mph slower than the Supermarine Attacker, first flown in 1946. By the time the Attacker is sorted, the faster Meteors should be ready.


----------



## GrauGeist (Nov 13, 2019)

Admiral Beez said:


> What was the first British jet that you think could match a well-built and piloted Me 262?
> 
> Per Wikipedia, the Me 262 has a top speed of 900 km/h (560 mph, 490 kn), faster than the Meteor and Vampire, but 30 mph slower than the Supermarine Attacker, first flown in 1946. By the time the Attacker is sorted, the faster Meteors should be ready.


The Germans had other jets in the works, including the 262's successor, the HGII/III series - and if I recall right, the P-80 was perhaps the closest match to the Me262's performance by early 1945.


----------



## nuuumannn (Nov 13, 2019)

The Attacker was an unlikely fighter that suffered drag issues in development, but might have been able to defeat the 262, owing to its reliable engine, I say _might_ cautiously though. it had a faster climb rate and better ceiling, but speed wise there was little between them - the 262 could probably accelerate faster. It was a tail dragger, which made it an odd choice for a carrier fighter, and its performance was not startling, even for its time. It was certainly no match for the MiG-15 with the same engine, the RR Nene, by which the MiG-15 prototype was powered. One wee historical side note was that the Attacker was the first fighter to enter service with a flight data recorder.

The Meteor F.8 would be able to take advantage of better performance and power than early variants, but a top Me 262 pilot might be able to win the day in a dog fight at low to medium height, save for the Meteor pilot waiting for the Me 262's unreliable engines to fail, otherwise I'd put money on the F.8 being able to outperform the Me 262 at height. The F.8 had the same Mach number as the 262 (.82) and had a faster climb rate, level speed and higher ceiling than the 262.

Britain missed the opportunity to exploit the increased power of the RR Nene engine that went into the Attacker and Sea Hawk - Hawker built a swept wing variant of that, the P.1052 which had excellent characteristics and it should easily have been able to defeat the 262, and it might have been an equal to the MiG-15, but the RAF didn't want this aircraft, it wanted an axial flow engine powered variant Hawker called the P.1067, which eventually became the Hunter. The delays in getting the Avon to breathe without massive compressor surge also made the early incarnations of the Hunter terribly unreliable, but the airframe was excellent. All of this did mean that Britain got left behind slightly because they had to hold onto the Meteor for longer than was necessary. RAAF Meatboxes in Korea were completely outclassed by the MiG-15s, although an Aussie pilot did shoot one down.

As a result of this gap in Britain's capabilities, the French, the Russians and the Americans were introducing the first generation truly supersonic fighters into service; the Super Mystere, the MiG-19 and the F-100 and the Brits had to swan about with the subsonic Hunter and Javelin until the EE Lightning, although that was very much a big middle finger to everything else in terms of all-out performance. Sorting the Avon meant improving the compressor by mating the forward section from an AS Sapphire engine, an unsung and far more reliable design than the early incarnations of the Avon, to the Avon hot section. That made it ready for the Lightning.


----------



## wuzak (Nov 13, 2019)

Supermarine Attacker first flies in July 1946.
Hawker Sea Hawk first flies in September 1947.
Meteor F.8 first flight in October 1948.

These are the aircraft that will beat the Me 262 in 1945? Or is it expected that the Me 262 will not improve over the 1-3 years for those opponents to appear? Nor will its engines get more powerful and reliable?

The most likely Me 262 adversaries would be the Meteor F.3, Meteor F.4, Vampire I and P-80. Of those, the Meteor F.4, first flight August 1945, would appear to be the best match for the Me 262.

*Long Span*
Engine: Two Rolls-Royce Derwent V engines
Thrust: 3,500lb each
Span: 43ft
Length: 41ft
Gross Weight: 13,900lb
Maximum level speed at sea level: 583mph
Maximum level speed at 30,000ft: 570mph
Rate of climb at sea level: 7,900ft/min
Cruise Range at normal load: 510 miles
Cruise Range with external tanks: 713 miles
Armament: Four 20mm cannon in nose and two 1,000lb bombs or sixteen 90lb rocket projectiles under the wings

*Short Span: As above apart from*
Span: 37.2ft
Gross Weight: 15,175lb
Maximum level speed at sea level: 590mph
Rate of climb at sea level: 7,350ft/,in
Ceiling: 44,500ft

Gloster Meteor F Mk.IV


----------



## Admiral Beez (Nov 14, 2019)

nuuumannn said:


> Brits had to swan about with the subsonic Hunter and Javelin until the EE Lightning, although that was very much a big middle finger to everything else in terms of all-out performance.


The Javelin was such a slug that its designer Richard Walker should have retired after his Meteor was finished.

And......... bringing us back to the Whirlwind thread, the Lightning and the Whirlwind were both designed by W. E. W. Petter. Sir Sydney Cam got his Knighthood, but only Petter managed to navigate the maze of government and defence ministry policy and strategy changes to get an all-British supersonic fighter into service.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Nov 15, 2019)

Admiral Beez said:


> the Lightning and the Whirlwind were both designed by W. E. W. Petter



Yup, Teddy Petter was one of the more 'adventurous' designers out there - he was also responsible for the Lysander, Canberra and the Folland Gnat.


----------



## Admiral Beez (Nov 15, 2019)

nuuumannn said:


> Yup, Teddy Petter was one of the more 'adventurous' designers out there - he was also responsible for the Lysander, Canberra and the Folland Gnat.


If there was a Petter only museum, I'd go.


----------



## nuuumannn (Nov 15, 2019)

Admiral Beez said:


> If there was a Petter only museum, I'd go.



The RAF Museum perhaps? Has a Lysander (currently on restoration at Cosford), Canberra, Lightning and Gnat at Hendon. Sadly no Whirlwind or Welkin, but then neither survive. And as a bonus, there is an Me 262 at Cosford, and there you can make direct comparison with a Meatbox. 





Me 262 

For added weirdness, at Cosford is also the prone pilot Meteor that Brown flew.




Prone Pilot Meteor


----------



## Admiral Beez (Nov 15, 2019)

nuuumannn said:


> For added weirdness, at Cosford is also the prone pilot Meteor that Brown flew.
> 
> View attachment 560909
> Prone Pilot Meteor


How does that POS survive but no Whirlwind?!


----------



## nuuumannn (Nov 15, 2019)

Admiral Beez said:


> How does that POS survive but no Whirlwind?!



It's post-war? It's probably more of a travesty that no de Havilland Hornet survives, rather than no Whirlwind, but they are going to build a Hornet from original parts in New Zealand.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Admiral Beez (Nov 15, 2019)

I'd like to see the replica Me 262 fly with a Meteor. That would be worth the price of admission to any air show.


----------



## Thos9 (Nov 15, 2019)

Siegfried said:


> Probably the Me 262 as in most cases they were still being flown by experienced fighter pilots and the Me 262 was substantially faster.
> 
> The question depends to some extent on which Meteor
> Meteor I with Welland engines, good for around 417mph, actually slower than FW 190D-9's and Me 109K-4's except for maybe sea level.
> ...





Siegfried said:


> Meteor III's addition of speed brakes made it more able to exploit a dive. Messerschmitt could probably add speed brakes of a similar kind as the dive brake used on the Me 410.



In May 1942 it was decided to equip the Me 262 with air brakes. However in May 1943, before any machine was so fitted, that decision was reversed (as also was one to fit an ejector seat). Both reversals were unfortunate for aircraft and pilots.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## ThomasP (Nov 15, 2019)

Hey Thos9,

Did your source give the reason for not fitting brakes?


----------



## Thos9 (Nov 15, 2019)

davebender said:


> What was the endurance of a Gloster Meteor during April 1945? I suspect no better then a Me-262.



Rather less. The 262's engines were thirstier (sfc) but the Meteor's airframe was draggier. However the Meteor's fuel capacity was 325 Imp gal and the 262's was 565 (both clean).


----------



## Greyman (Nov 15, 2019)

Basic figures I have (still air range, no extra tanks):

Me 262 - 650 miles
Meteor III - 580 miles


----------



## GrauGeist (Nov 16, 2019)

Greyman said:


> Basic figures I have (still air range, no extra tanks):
> 
> Me 262 - 650 miles
> Meteor III - 580 miles


The 650 miles figure is CAP range with no combat - if the 262 had to intercept/engage, that range dropped dramatically.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thos9 (Nov 16, 2019)

Greyman said:


> Basic figures I have (still air range, no extra tanks):
> 
> Me 262 - 650 miles
> Meteor III - 580 miles



The 262 figure of 650 miles relates to 396 gal in main tanks only. Other internal tanks held 169 gal. The Meteor III could carry an external jettisonable tank of 180 gal, adding range and drag.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## fubar57 (Nov 16, 2019)

Range given here is 652 miles...https://www.militaryfactory.com/aircraft/detail.asp?aircraft_id=108
Fuel capacity 1800l, 395.9 imperial gallons here....Me 262 PROJECT TECHNICAL DATA


----------



## fubar57 (Nov 16, 2019)

Here are the internal fuel tanks: #33 Forward Main Tank - 198 imp gal/900l...#18 Aft Aux. Fuel Tank - 132 imp gal/600l...#58 Forward Aux Fuel Tank - 37 imp gal/170l. My math (see another thread) = 367 imp gal. Where were the other internal tanks?


----------



## Thos9 (Nov 16, 2019)

ThomasP said:


> Hey Thos9,
> 
> Did your source give the reason for not fitting brakes?


Unfortunately no: "Jet Planes of the Third Reich" by Smith and Creek. I suspect an ill-advised simplification.


----------



## Thos9 (Nov 16, 2019)

The aft main tank of 198 gal was between the cockpit and the aft auxiliary tank, as shown in the drawing.


----------



## Greyman (Nov 16, 2019)

Looks like this is the set up:
*198 imp gal forward main*​*37 imp gal forward auxiliary *​*198 imp gal rear main*​*132 imp gal aft auxiliary*​​565 total






Looking at Eric Brown's book there's a lot more granularity in regard to altitude:

Range (with 396 imp gal):
- 298 miles at 0 ft
- 528 miles at 19,685 ft
- 652 miles at 29,530 ft

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## fubar57 (Nov 16, 2019)

#18 in the drawing is the aft aux fuel tank. Kind of small to be holding 132 gallons


----------



## fubar57 (Nov 16, 2019)

From...


----------



## fubar57 (Nov 16, 2019)

For what its worth
b)Schmierstoff - lubricant
c)Zündkraftstoff - ignition fuel
d)I have no idea


----------



## GrauGeist (Nov 16, 2019)

"D - Riedel Kraftstoff" is the fuel tank for the two Riedel starters located at the engine"s intake.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Nov 17, 2019)

GrauGeist said:


> "D - Riedel Kraftstoff" is the fuel tank for the two Riedel starters located at the engine's intake.



Yup, this is the right hand intake of the RAF Museum's '262 and you can see two rectangular doors on it; the right hand one was the fuel filler cap for the Riedel starter motor and nominally had the typical yellow triangle pointing to it that stated the type of fuel to be used - 87 octane petrol. The starter motor was located in the shock cone in the centre of the intake. Other markings within the triangle on different Me 262s include "B4 mit 3% Schmierstoff", which indicates B4 fuel with 3% lubricant added. This served two purposes, to lubricate the motor and also as an anti-corrosive agent, because B4 was jet fuel.




Riedel starter 

This is a cutaway of a BMW 003 engine from an He 162, but shows the same Riedel starter motor in the shock cone. The Riedel was a compact two-cylinder, two-stroke, horizontally opposed piston engine and in this picture the cutaway cylinder head can be seen. Note also the means by which the Riedel was started - the pull handle in the front of the shock cone. This was the same on the '262, and was how the Riedel was started in the absense of ground power. Nominally however, the Riedel was started through the pilot's ignition process in the cockpit. There were two buttons on the right hand side of the cockpit near the pilot's elbow, which when switched energised the Riedel electrically. In the picture above, the starter motor ring is absent from the shock cone, but in the cutaway Jumo 004 in the background, you can just make out the cord dangling from the cone. The Riedel is also visible inside the cutaway cone.




Front BMW 003

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Nov 17, 2019)

Now I know y'all are gonna go looking through your pictures of Me 262s for that wee handle in the front of the shock cone! I did when I first learned this!

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zyzygie (Nov 17, 2019)

See  for dispelling some myths re the combat readiness of the me262.


----------



## Zyzygie (Nov 17, 2019)

It was seriously claimed that the Arado 234 could out-turn the Me 262...? 
And was considered for use as a fighter?

Incredible...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 17, 2019)

This was all documented in Walter Boyne's book Messerschmitt, Arrow to the Future.


----------



## Zyzygie (Nov 17, 2019)

Wow. That’s even MORE incredible... 🙂


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 17, 2019)

Zyzygie said:


> Wow. That’s even MORE incredible... 🙂



What's even more incredible the book was written in 1980...


----------



## Denniss (Nov 17, 2019)

Drawing from manual showing the tanks in a Me 262

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Greyman (Nov 17, 2019)

Seems like a much more accurate representation of the aft auxiliary tank, understandably.


----------



## Zyzygie (Nov 17, 2019)

FLYBOYJ said:


> What's even more incredible the book was written in 1980...



Fantastic.


----------



## Zyzygie (Nov 18, 2019)

Logistics problems in converting from the Me109 to the Me262:

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## fubar57 (Nov 18, 2019)

*what?????*


----------



## GrauGeist (Nov 18, 2019)

Uh...


----------



## Zyzygie (Nov 21, 2019)

Thos9 said:


> Unfortunately no: "Jet Planes of the Third Reich" by Smith and Creek. I suspect an ill-advised simplification.



On the advisability of airbrakes on the Me 262.

Also see :
*The Me 262 Stormbird: From the Pilots Who Flew, Fought, and Survived It*

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Snautzer01 (Nov 21, 2019)

Thos9 said:


> Unfortunately no: "Jet Planes of the Third Reich" by Smith and Creek. I suspect an ill-advised simplification.



Time. It would have taken more time to produce and test it and to get it right. Also pressurized cockpit was deleted as was ejection seat. Simplify and win time.


----------



## Dan Fahey (Nov 21, 2019)

Interesting?
The Meteor at 415 mph was as fast as the Bell P-59 

Were the Bell P-59 engines reasonably reliable?


----------



## wuzak (Nov 21, 2019)

Dan Fahey said:


> Interesting?
> The Meteor at 415 mph was as fast as the Bell P-59
> 
> Were the Bell P-59 engines reasonably reliable?



*Meteor I*
Engine: Two Rolls-Royce W.2B/23 Welland I turbojets
Thrust: 1,600lb/ 7.1kN each
Span: 43ft
Length: 41.4ft
Gross Weight: 11,775lb
*Maximum level speed at sea level: 411mph
Maximum level speed at 30,000ft: 446mph*
Rate of climb at sea level: 2,155ft/min
Ceiling: 43,000ft
Cruise Range at normal load: 530 miles
Armament: Four 20mm cannon in nose

Gloster Meteor F Mk.I

Note, only 20 Mk Is were built.

*Meteor III*
Statistics (most with Derwent IV engines)
Engine: Two Derwent I or Derwent IV engines
Thrust: 2,000lb (Derwent I) or 2,400lb (Derwent IV)
Span: 43ft
Length: 41.4ft
Gross Weight: 13,342lb
*Maximum level speed at sea level: 486mph
Maximum level speed at 30,000ft: 493mph*
Rate of climb at sea level: 3,980ft/ min
Ceiling: 46,000ft
Cruise Range at normal load: 504 miles
Armament: Four 20mm cannon in nose and two 1,000lb bombs or sixteen 90lb rocket projectiles under the wings

Gloster Meteor F Mk.III

*Bell P-59*
Only the first twenty of the P-59A order were actually completed as P-59As. Serials were 44-22609/22628. Most of these P-59As were powered by a pair of 1650 lb. s.t. General Electric J31-GE-3 turbojets, although the last few were powered by uprated 2000 lb. st. J31-GE-5 turbojets. The J31-GE-5-powered P-59A had a maximum speed of *413 mph at 30,000* feet and *380 mph at 5000 feet*. Range on internal fuel was 240 miles, and range with two 125-Imp. gall. drop tanks was 520 miles. An altitude of 10,000 feet could be reached in 3.2 minutes, and 20,000 feet in 7.4 minutes. Weights were 7950 pounds empty, 10,822 pounds loaded, 12,700 pounds maximum. Dimensions were wingspan 45 feet 6 inches, length 38 feet 10 inches, height 12 feet 4 inches, and wing area 385.8 square feet. Armament consisted of one 37-mm cannon and three 0.50-inch machine guns, all mounted in the nose. In addition, two 1000-pound bombs or eight 60-pound rockets could be carried on underwing racks.

Bell P-59 Airacomet 


*General characteristics*


*Crew:* one
*Length:* 38 ft 10 in (11.84 m)
*Wingspan:* 45 ft 6 in (13.87 m)
*Height:* 12 ft 4 in (3.76 m)
*Wing area:* 386 sq ft (35.86 m²)
*Empty weight:* 8,165 lb (3,704 kg)
*Loaded weight:* 11,040 lb (5,008 kg)
*Max. takeoff weight:* 13,700 lb (6,214 kg)
*Powerplant:* 2 × General Electric J31-GE-5 turbojets, 2,000 lbf (8.9 kN) each
*Performance*


*Maximum speed:* 413 mph (359 knots, 665 km/h) at 30,000 ft (9,140 m)
*Cruise speed:* 375 mph (326 knots, 604 km/h)
*Range:* 375 mi (326 nm, 604 km)
*Service ceiling:* 46,200 ft (14,080 m)
*Climb to 30,000 ft (9,140 m):* 15 min 30 s
*Armament*


*Guns:*
1x 37 mm cannon
3x .50 cal (12.7 mm) machine guns

*Rockets:* 8× 60 lb (30 kg) rockets
*Bombs:* 2,000 lb (910 kg) bombs
Bell P-59 Airacomet - Wikipedia

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zyzygie (Nov 21, 2019)

Dan Fahey said:


> Interesting?
> The Meteor at 415 mph was as fast as the Bell P-59
> 
> Were the Bell P-59 engines reasonably reliable?



The Bell P59 has some problems, but engine reliability doesn’t seem to be remarkable either way:

“...The XP-59A would be powered by two General Electric I-A, centrifugal turbojets with a statutory thrust of 1,250 lbs. On September 12, 1942, the first XP-59A was sent to Muroc Army Air Field in California for testing where it was flown for the first time on October 2, 1942 by Robert Stanley, Bell's chief test pilot. Flight evaluation uncovered a multitude of problems as the XP-59A tended to yaw and sway. Other problems were poor engine response and insufficient lateral stability during rolls...”

General Electric I-A - Wikipedia


----------



## Macandy (Nov 23, 2019)

The one Allied fighter the Luftwaffe specificaly warned its 262 pilots to respect was the Tempest V. It was very fast, had excellent acceleration, good firepower and was very agile even at high speed.
The RAF tested the Tempest V against the Meteor, the Meteor could best the Tempest with ease.

262? pffft! 
If jumped, and the a Meteor always had the advantage of altitude, an attempt to rapidly accelerate away has a good chance of causing a flame out...it dies.
it can’t turn for toffees, so if it tries to mix it with a plane that can best the supremely agile tempest...it dies.
and the much vaunted 30mm guns! Slow firing things with short barrels and a low muzzle velocity, basically little more than a 30mm mortar. allied pilots often had no problem simply dodging the lumbering rounds As they came in on the slow, arcing lobbed trajectory. Meanwhile, the meteor packed 4 fast firing and very effective 20mm cannon.

and finally, the pilots......

You could put an average pilot in a Meteor and he was good to go.
the 262? It was a pig avd a handfull even for the best pilots the Luftwaffe fitted them with. Average pilots had a very short life in a 262.

the 262 was ‘so good’, the Russians briefly toyed with the idea of copying them, but decided they were a pig and designed something better.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Dislike Dislike:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Nov 24, 2019)

Post #607...

Where did all that nonsense come from??

Pilots dodging cannon rounds traveling over 1,750 feet per second?

The Meteor being "jumped"? Aside from strafing Axis airfields and destroying V-1s, the closest it ever came to combat was when a flight of Ar234s bombed 616 sqd's airfield.

The 262 was anything but a "pig", it was dangerous, one the the heaviest armed aircraft of the war and pilots who flew it (both Axis and Allied) had high praise of it's flight characteristics.

As far as other countries using the Me262, it saw service with the Czech Air Force as the Avia-99 and the Soviets did toy with the idea of producing the Me262 as the Su-9, Su-11 and Su-13, but they had difficulties reproducing the 004 and didn't have adequate enough engines to replace the 004.

Realistically, jet technology was advancing fast enough even by war's end, that the 262's replacement was in the works. Post war, much newer types were well advanced over the Me262, Meteor and P-80...

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
3 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Dimlee (Nov 24, 2019)

Macandy said:


> the Russians briefly toyed with the idea of copying them, but decided they were a pig and designed something better.


This "brief toying" continued for almost 2 years. Production was planned on two factories and it was cancelled only because Alexander Yakovlev has managed to persuade Stalin that Me 262 project was a waste of resources. Mr.Yakovlev was not just a Stalin's favourite at that time and one of the main decision-makers in the aircraft industry but also the designer himself with at least one jet fighter prototype ready to tests and in fierce competition with Mikoyan.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Nov 24, 2019)

Dimlee said:


> This "brief toying" continued for almost 2 years.


Didn't the Su-13 project continue through 1948?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 24, 2019)

Macandy said:


> The one Allied fighter the Luftwaffe specificaly warned its 262 pilots to respect was the Tempest V. It was very fast, had excellent acceleration, good firepower and was very agile even at high speed.
> The RAF tested the Tempest V against the Meteor, the Meteor could best the Tempest with ease.
> 
> 262? pffft!
> ...



The late Eric “Winkle” Brown was a test pilot from Great Britain who had many stories to tell. In his time he flew almost 500 aircraft and went down in history as the most decorated pilot in Royal Navy history. Among the planes, he flew many of them were captured Luftwaffe aircraft and the learned many of their secrets.

*Eric Brown considered the Me-262 to the most formidable fighter of WWII, with its speed and performance, unlike any other plane. Flying in a captured Me-262 he had nothing but praise for the advanced jet except for one thing, the unreliability of the engines. *

**

*So please, before you rant, do a little research and **substantiate** your **gibberish** because after your post I feel you're acting like a pigeon trying to play chess...*

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
4 | Winner Winner:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Dimlee (Nov 24, 2019)

GrauGeist said:


> Didn't the Su-13 project continue through 1948?



Yes, but I mean their work with original Me 262

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Nov 24, 2019)

Dimlee said:


> Yes, but I mean their work with original Me 262


Ahh...ok.
To be honest, it's been a while since reading up on late/post war Soviet jet development, so I wasn't completely sure.


----------



## fastmongrel (Nov 26, 2019)

Never mind the planes what about the pilots. In a Meteor the pilot would be very experienced with say a thousand hours total flight time and 100 hours in a Meteor under his belt versus a guy who did much of his training in a glider and is running on a mix of romantic fascist bullcrap and fear of Russian reprisals.


----------



## GrauGeist (Nov 26, 2019)

If you take it into context from that angle, then the Me262 must have had some merit as a "pilot's plane", since most of the pilots lacked proper schooling in twin engined jet aircraft...

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Nov 26, 2019)

fastmongrel said:


> Never mind the planes what about the pilots. In a Meteor the pilot would be very experienced with say a thousand hours total flight time and 100 hours in a Meteor under his belt versus a guy who did much of his training in a glider and is running on a mix of romantic fascist bullcrap and fear of Russian reprisals.



Weren't the pilots that flew Me 262s very experienced experten, at leas early in the Me 262's career?


----------



## GrauGeist (Nov 27, 2019)

wuzak said:


> Weren't the pilots that flew Me 262s very experienced experten, at leas early in the Me 262's career?


Some were early on, but they were also drawing from pilots who had twin engined experience, like bomber and transport pilots and eventually, anyone they could get their hands on.

One of the Me262 aces was an Unteroffizier - basically a senior Corporal and there was even a Gefreiter (basically a PFC) that was a successful pilot.


----------



## Thos9 (Nov 28, 2019)

Snautzer01 said:


> Time. It would have taken more time to produce and test it and to get it right. Also pressurized cockpit was deleted as was ejection seat. Simplify and win time.


Not time. The pacing item was production turbojet availability. Airframe simplification saved no time. Cost, maybe

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Snautzer01 (Nov 29, 2019)

No time in developing the plane. Not production.


----------



## Zyzygie (Nov 29, 2019)

Thos9 said:


> Not time. The pacing item was production turbojet availability. Airframe simplification saved no time. Cost, maybe



Agreed:
"...Galland said that persistent allied attacks on Axis fuel supplies also hindered Me 262 operations. Toward the end of the war, Me 262s were often towed to the end of the runway by draft horses in order to conserve fuel. In addition, *many airframes sat idle waiting for engines that never arrived*."

"Although it was the first by a considerable margin, the Me 262 was not the best jet of its era. Britain’s Gloster Meteor, which used more reliable centrifugal-flow turbojet engines, joined the Royal Air Force in 1944. The first practical U.S. jet fighter, the P-80 Shooting Star, reached Europe by May 1945, but saw no combat in World War II..."
The Messerschmitt Me 262 Jet Fighter | Defense Media Network


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 30, 2019)

Zyzygie said:


> Agreed:
> "...Galland said that persistent allied attacks on Axis fuel supplies also hindered Me 262 operations. Toward the end of the war, Me 262s were often towed to the end of the runway by draft horses in order to conserve fuel. In addition, *many airframes sat idle waiting for engines that never arrived*."
> 
> "Although it was the first by a considerable margin, the Me 262 was not the best jet of its era. Britain’s Gloster Meteor, which used more reliable centrifugal-flow turbojet engines, joined the Royal Air Force in 1944. The first practical U.S. jet fighter, the P-80 Shooting Star, reached Europe by May 1945, but saw no combat in World War II..."
> The Messerschmitt Me 262 Jet Fighter | Defense Media Network



Beating a dead horse -

In terms of performance, the *1944* Gloster Meteor and P-80 were both inferior to the Me 262 despite the -262's engine reliability issues, compare all 3 aircraft (in their 1944 configuration) and this is quite evident. You could speculate all you want what would have been the final outcome if they met in combat. In the post war both the Meteor and the P-80 still had some development before they both became an effective weapon platform.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zyzygie (Nov 30, 2019)

*Engines : The Heart of Aircraft Performance*

“It is noteworthy that with very few exceptions, almost all improvements in aircraft speed and load-carrying capability during World War II came from increased engine power and not from aerodynamic, structure, or system improvements in airframes...”

“...Jet engine development was accomplished by teams led by Anselm Franz of Junkers , Stanley Hooker of Rolls-Royce and Hermann Oestrich of BMW. At General Electric, Donald F. Warner, Dale Streid, Glen Warren and Alan Howard pioneered, and later Gerhard Neumann would become prominent.”

“Engine development always took longer than airframe development, and aircraft designers usually received more public acclaim than engine designers. Yet aircraft designers would be the first to recognize the absolute necessity of having good engines to obtain good performance...”

_This article was first published in_Aviation 100: Celebrating a Century of Manned, Powered Flight.

The Aircraft Engines of World War II | Defense Media Network


----------



## GrauGeist (Nov 30, 2019)

I'm trying to figure out how the author of this statement:


Zyzygie said:


> "Although it was the first by a considerable margin, *the Me 262 was not the best* jet of its era. Britain’s Gloster Meteor, which used more reliable centrifugal-flow turbojet engines, joined the Royal Air Force in 1944. The first practical U.S. jet fighter, the P-80 Shooting Star, reached Europe by May 1945, but saw no combat in World War II..."


has come to that conclusion.
The Me262 certainly downed more Allied aircraft than the Meteor and Shooting Star combined.

And the Meteor and P-80 certainly had their share of issues - the P-80 even killed Major Bong and a handful of test pilots...

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 30, 2019)

Zyzygie said:


> *Engines : The Heart of Aircraft Performance*
> 
> “It is noteworthy that with very few exceptions, almost all improvements in aircraft speed and load-carrying capability during World War II came from increased engine power and not from aerodynamic, structure, or system improvements in airframes...”
> 
> ...


And your post don't match the final outcome. You do realize that you're doing nothing but cut and pasting comments to try to support your already debunked argument? A waste of cyberdata.


----------



## Zyzygie (Nov 30, 2019)

“...Britain had the luxury to evaluate, develop and refine the Meteor, but as the war progressed, the Meteor became less urgent. The Luftwaffe was being drained maintaining a defense on the Russian front and the Hawker Typhoon was proving itself against the Focke-Wulf Fw 190 at low altitude. By the end of the war, the Me 262 and Meteor were leagues apart in safety and reliability. The Meteor’s engines could operate 180 hours before overhaul, while the Me 262's Jumo 004engines were required to be overhauled after only 10 hours.1 And more than a hundred Me 262s were lost in air-to-air combat against enemy piston-engine fighters, whereas not a single Meteor was lost to enemy action...”


“...The F.Mk I was used to familiarize the USAAF bomber crews with jet fighter tactics before No. 616 Squadron moved to RAF Colerne to re-equip with F.Mk IIIs in December 1944. Four aircraft were detached to Melsbroek in Belguim. They later moved to Gilze-Rijen where they were joined with the rest of the squadron. Thereafter, they were limited to the air defense role so as not to be shot down in enemy-held territory. (_The Brits were wary_ _of the Germans getting hold of their Nimonic technology, which was the key factor in making a viable gas turbine_). Four Meteors engaged Focke-Wulf Fw 190s, but were forced to break off after being intercepted by Spitfires and Tempests. On May 2, 1945, a single Meteor forced down a Fieseler Storch and then destroyed it on the ground. By the end of the war, Meteors destroyed 46 German aircraft through ground attack...”

Gloster Meteor

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## fubar57 (Nov 30, 2019)

Zyzygie said:


> “And more than a hundred Me 262s were lost in air-to-air combat against enemy piston-engine fighters, whereas not a single Meteor was lost to enemy action...”



Kind of hard to be lost against enemy action when you are forbidden to fight enemy aircraft. The only time the Meteor had a chance at another jet was when an AR 234 attacked their airfield in Mar. '45

Gloster Meteor during the Second World War

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 30, 2019)

Zyzygie said:


> And more than a hundred Me 262s were lost in air-to-air combat against enemy piston-engine fighters



And how many aircraft did the -262 shoot down?


Zyzygie said:


> whereas not a single Meteor was lost to enemy action.


It's easy not to lose when you don't play!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 30, 2019)

"*The Me 262 was a more capable aircraft than the wartime versions of the Meteor.* Its top speed of 540mph was* 50mph faster than even the Derwent IV equipped version of the Meteor III.* However by the end of the war the Meteor IV was *almost ready*, and had the speed to match the German jet. On the plus side the Meteor was much more reliable than the Me 262, which suffered from famously unreliable engines."

Gloster Meteor during the Second World War

"Almost" counts in nuclear wars and hatchet fights...

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 30, 2019)

FLYBOYJ said:


> "Almost" counts in nuclear wars and hatchet fights...



You forgot horseshoes and handgrenades 

However the two quotes in post #625 also explain what was going on if the ready looks past just the parts that support his argument. 

One squadron of 12-16 planes operating over allied controlled territory was seldom going to encounter German aircraft. 

"*No. 616 Squadron* moved to RAF Colerne to re-equip with F.Mk IIIs in December 1944. *Four aircraft* were detached to Melsbroek in Belguim. They later moved to Gilze-Rijen where they were* joined with the rest of the squadron.* Thereafter, they were* limited to the air defense role* so as not to be shot down in enemy-held territory. "



The Germans had several hundred 262s deployed (lots of arguments about actual numbers) and from Dec 44/Jan 45 there were few areas of Germany (and increasingly none) that were safe from Allied piston engine fighters. 

trying to compare the operational history of the Meteor and the 262 when the numbers involved are so far off and the conditions they operated in were so different is not going to prove anything.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 1, 2019)

using the argument that the Meteor was never shot down in combat in WW2 as evidence of its superiority is pretty funny.

It never faced combat with another aircraft.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Dana Bell (Dec 1, 2019)

In post-war tests the Army Air Forces discovered the Me 262 was superior to the P-80 and P-84 in most performance capabilities. Washington was displeased and demanded explanations and improvements.

Cheers,



Dana


----------



## Zyzygie (Dec 1, 2019)

Zyzygie said:


> “...Britain had the luxury to evaluate, develop and refine the Meteor, but as the war progressed, the Meteor became less urgent. The Luftwaffe was being drained maintaining a defense on the Russian front and the Hawker Typhoon was proving itself against the Focke-Wulf Fw 190 at low altitude. By the end of the war, the Me 262 and Meteor were leagues apart in safety and reliability. The Meteor’s engines could operate 180 hours before overhaul, while the Me 262's Jumo 004engines were required to be overhauled after only 10 hours.1 And more than a hundred Me 262s were lost in air-to-air combat against enemy piston-engine fighters, whereas not a single Meteor was lost to enemy action...”
> 
> 
> “...The F.Mk I was used to familiarize the USAAF bomber crews with jet fighter tactics before No. 616 Squadron moved to RAF Colerne to re-equip with F.Mk IIIs in December 1944. Four aircraft were detached to Melsbroek in Belguim. They later moved to Gilze-Rijen where they were joined with the rest of the squadron. Thereafter, they were limited to the air defense role so as not to be shot down in enemy-held territory. (_The Brits were wary_ _of the Germans getting hold of their Nimonic technology_) Four Meteors engaged Focke-Wulf Fw 190s, but were forced to break off after being intercepted by Spitfires and Tempests. On May 2, 1945, a single Meteor forced down a Fieseler Storch and then destroyed it on the ground. By the end of the war, Meteors destroyed 46 German aircraft through ground attack...”
> ...



The fact that the Meteors were looking at dogfighting with Focke-Wulf 190s is interesting.
The Me 262 pilot would be very foolish to deliberately seek to tangle with a Spitfire or Mustang.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Dec 1, 2019)

Zyzygie said:


> The Me 262 would be very foolish to deliberately seek to tangle with a Spitfire or Mustang.


There were a number of Allied fighters downed by the Me262...it was not a turn-n-burn fighter, but it could (and did) bring the fight if in the hands of an experienced pilot.


----------



## fubar57 (Dec 1, 2019)

Zyzygie said:


> The fact that the Meteors were looking at dogfighting with Focke-Wulf 190s is interesting.
> .


A pilot in a Sopwith Camel would look to fight a 190. That’s a pilots job

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Dec 1, 2019)

fubar57 said:


> A pilot in a Sopwith Camel would look to fight a 190. That’s a pilots job


That would be a hellova fight to see.


----------



## Zyzygie (Dec 1, 2019)

GrauGeist said:


> That would be a hellova fight to see.




*Did I read somewhere that a Gloster Gladiator biplane actually shot down a Me109 or a Zero monoplane during WWII?*

American volunteer in the Chinese air force, John ‘Buffalo’ Wong, flying a Gloster Gladiator shot down a Mitsubishi A5M in 1938, the direct predecessor of the famous Mitsubishi A6M "Zero".

Sergeant Kristian Fredrik Schye and Kaptein Dag Krohn flying Gladiators for the Norwegian air force shot down two Me Bf 110 heavy fighters. Although reportedly one of them was only damaged by air to air and was finished off by ground fire.
On May 11, 1940 several Belgian Air Force Gladiators became involved in a dogfight with eight to twelve German Me Bf 109s from I/JG1. During this dogfight, Sergent Winand claimed a damaged Me Bf 109 and Sergent Rolin was credited with one Me Bf 109 probable damaged. He didn't see if his victim dived away or crashed because right after this he was shot down and taken prisoner.

For the RAF, Lewin Fredman had one inconclusive (He 111?) damage/kill on May 10th while in a Gladiator. The Malta defense also had many many kills against the Italian air force, but no gladiator kills on 109’s or 110’s.

Did I read somewhere that a Gloster Gladiator biplane actually shot down an Me 109 or a Zero monoplane during WWII? - Quora


----------



## Admiral Beez (Dec 1, 2019)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Beating a dead horse -
> 
> In terms of performance, the *1944* Gloster Meteor and P-80 were both inferior to the Me 262 despite the -262's engine reliability issues, compare all 3 aircraft (in their 1944 configuration) and this is quite evident. You could speculate all you want what would have been the final outcome if they met in combat. In the post war both the Meteor and the P-80 still had some development before they both became an effective weapon platform.


I’ve never understood this POV. Sure, a fully functional, reliable and fueled Me 262 would hypothetically beat the Meteor (and P-80), but that’s not the accurate comparison. If they met, the Meteor would be facing a Me 262 with dangerously unreliable and limited stress engines, reducing the German’s advantages. This is the comparison we need to make.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 1, 2019)

Admiral Beez said:


> I’ve never understood this POV. Sure, a fully functional, reliable and fueled Me 262 would hypothetically beat the Meteor (and P-80), but that’s not the accurate comparison. If they met, the Meteor would be facing a Me 262 with dangerously unreliable and limited stress engines, reducing the German’s advantages. This is the comparison we need to make.



The engines on the 262 may have *reduced* the advantages of the 262, they did not *eliminate* the advantages. 

There is also a difference between short life/time between overhaul and unreliable. 
I am also afraid that the 180 hour life of the engines in Meteor may be a bit exaggerated in real life. Most American and British jet engines had a lot of trouble meeting their suggested overhaul times at the end of the war and just after.


----------



## Zyzygie (Dec 1, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> The engines on the 262 may have *reduced* the advantages of the 262, they did not *eliminate* the advantages.
> 
> There is also a difference between short life/time between overhaul and unreliable.
> I am also afraid that the 180 hour life of the engines in Meteor may be a bit exaggerated in real life. Most American and British jet engines had a lot of trouble meeting their suggested overhaul times at the end of the war and just after.




The time between FAILURE of the Me262s undergoing trials in the US after the War was documented as around 3 hours.

Admittedly this was using maintenance engineers who were not trained on the type, although they had comprehensive maintenance manuals.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 1, 2019)

Zyzygie said:


> *Did I read somewhere that a Gloster Gladiator biplane actually shot down a Me109 or a Zero monoplane during WWII?*
> 
> American volunteer in the Chinese air force, John ‘Buffalo’ Wong, flying a Gloster Gladiator shot down a Mitsubishi A5M in 1938, the direct predecessor of the famous Mitsubishi A6M "Zero".
> 
> ...



So let me guess you believe the Gladiator was a better fighter?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 1, 2019)

Admiral Beez said:


> I’ve never understood this POV. Sure, a fully functional, reliable and fueled Me 262 would hypothetically beat the Meteor (and P-80), but that’s not the accurate comparison. If they met, the Meteor would be facing a Me 262 with dangerously unreliable and limited stress engines, reducing the German’s advantages. This is the comparison we need to make.


 That "Me 262 with _*dangerously unreliable and limited stress engines*_" managed to shoot down many fully functional allied aircraft. Additionally the early Meteor (or P-80) wasn't exactly "reliable" either.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 1, 2019)

Zyzygie said:


> The Me 262 pilot would be very foolish to deliberately seek to tangle with a Spitfire or Mustang.



They have and did - you don't need to dogfight to shoot down an opponent. Most of the time the aircraft shot down never saw their opponent. Too many people on here assume that the turning, twisting dogfight was the norm of all aerial combat during WW2.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
2 | Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Dec 1, 2019)

Many an F-5 or Mossie never saw the 262 come up from behind and if one takes the time to go through the Me262 experten list, they'll discover quite a few victories over Allied single-engined types.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Admiral Beez (Dec 1, 2019)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> So let me guess you believe the Gladiator was a better fighter?


Now, Gladiator vs. Me 262, that would be something.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Dan Fahey (Dec 2, 2019)

Zyzygie said:


> “...Britain had the luxury to evaluate, develop and refine the Meteor, but as the war progressed, the Meteor became less urgent. The Luftwaffe was being drained maintaining a defense on the Russian front and the Hawker Typhoon was proving itself against the Focke-Wulf Fw 190 at low altitude. By the end of the war, the Me 262 and Meteor were leagues apart in safety and reliability. The Meteor’s engines could operate 180 hours before overhaul, while the Me 262's Jumo 004engines were required to be overhauled after only 10 hours.1 And more than a hundred Me 262s were lost in air-to-air combat against enemy piston-engine fighters, whereas not a single Meteor was lost to enemy action...”
> 
> 
> “...The F.Mk I was used to familiarize the USAAF bomber crews with jet fighter tactics before No. 616 Squadron moved to RAF Colerne to re-equip with F.Mk IIIs in December 1944. Four aircraft were detached to Melsbroek in Belguim. They later moved to Gilze-Rijen where they were joined with the rest of the squadron. Thereafter, they were limited to the air defense role so as not to be shot down in enemy-held territory. (_The Brits were wary_ _of the Germans getting hold of their Nimonic technology, which was the key factor in making a viable gas turbine_). Four Meteors engaged Focke-Wulf Fw 190s, but were forced to break off after being intercepted by Spitfires and Tempests. On May 2, 1945, a single Meteor forced down a Fieseler Storch and then destroyed it on the ground. By the end of the war, Meteors destroyed 46 German aircraft through ground attack...”
> ...



The ME-262 would have been decidedly formidable if it had better engine materials. I know Blade/Vane modelling and manufacturing very well. Worked with Garret Engines developing a new generation of engines in Orlando in the mid 80's? Also later with ship/boat propeller modelling in the 90's. Stemming from a major panic for the US Navy. The Juno Jet Engines were a very sound compact design. The original Blade and Vane designs came out of the electric power generation industry. 

The British Meteor IMHO were barely competitive against Propeller Aircraft. Plus took a while to get decent reliability but then again the Germans were not bombing British Petroleum, Mining and Processing Facilities. Aerodynamically both planes were sound designs. The slight swept wing Me 262 would have had a higher Mach Limit. 

During the Korean War the Meteor did not do well against the Mig 15. Not much better than the F-80 or F-84. The flight characteristics were challenging because of spooling up or powering down for landing. Today's turbine engines do not have the response of a piston engine, unless a turbo prop.


----------



## Admiral Beez (Dec 2, 2019)

Dan Fahey said:


> During the Korean War the Meteor did not do well against the Mig 15.


For a jet pioneering country it is disappointing for the UK that the only Commonwealth fighter that could match the MiG-15 was the Canadair CL-13. Swept wing Sea Hawks should have made an earlier appearance.


----------



## Zyzygie (Dec 2, 2019)

Admiral Beez said:


> Now, Gladiator vs. Me 262, that would be something.


Make that a Gladiator with sidewinders... 😐

Reactions: Friendly Friendly:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Dec 3, 2019)

Gloster Meteor

There's a few sweeping statements in this article that are not exactly true, such as the one that says the Me 262 was dangerous to fly. According to whom? Earlier in this thread I posted quotes by a British test pilot carrying out official performance trials who says nothing of the sort. Stating that the Meteor was the better airplane? Hm, highly subjective and not entirely accurate. The 262 had greater performance and a higher Mach Number than the Welland powered Meatboxes and yes, it was rushed into service and yes, its engines were less reliable, but it was by no means an inferior aircraft. It was an exceptionally well designed machine.

Also, the claim the centrifugal flow gas turbine is largely forgotten? tell that to Pratt & Whitney Canada and every aircraft operator that flies aircraft with PT-6, and PW100 series engines.

Then there's the statement that not one Meteor was lost to enemy action as an example of why the 262 was inferior because it was lost in action in larger numbers? In the following paragraphs the author then describes why the Meteor never saw action against enemy aircraft! Not the most inspired piece of writing. C Minus. Try harder to avoid hyperbole.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Dec 3, 2019)

Zyzygie said:


> Make that a Gladiator with sidewinders... 😐


Absolutely, who needs swept wings when you've got sidewinders.


----------



## Zyzygie (Dec 3, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> Absolutely, who needs swept wings when you've got sidewinders.



It would be great to be able to go back to the air war over Belgium in 1940 with a Gladiator equipped with sidewinders...
But then again, maybe there is some limit placed by Nature on the amount of fun that any one person can have in a given time.
That’s probably an argument against the possibility of time travel. 😕

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zyzygie (Dec 3, 2019)

Kryten said:


> the Mig15 used a radial flow engine, as did the P80 I believe?
> 
> axial flow is the better option with modern materials and manufacturing but in ww2 the radial was the better option!



The MiG 15 used a Rolls-Royce Nene knock-off. There’s plenty of sources relating to how they managed that. After the end of the Cold War, Rolls-Royce asked for back payment of royalties, without any success.

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Dec 3, 2019)

Centrifugal compressors are used in most smaller engines, as a) their efficiency doesn't fall off as quickly with size, b) they tend to be more robust in smaller sizes and c) they reduce the parts count, as a centrifugal stage can pretty easily manage a stage pressure ratio of eight or so. (Prototype centrifugal stages have managed over 14).

Gas turbines with centrifugal compressors aren't dead; they're just limited to smaller sizes. Today's smaller sizes provide more thrust than, say, the most powerful jet engines in service in 1950.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Dec 3, 2019)

Zyzygie said:


> The MiG 15 used a Rolls-Royce Nene knock-off. There’s plenty of sources relating to how they managed that.



Indeed, as did the MiG-17, which was, to all intents and purposes, highly successful. Britain kept the centrifugal engines for the Attacker and Sea Hawk, but pursued the axial Avon and Sapphire and aircraft that were powered by it with mixed results; the Hunter, whilst a fine fighter had issues initially because the early Avons had breathing problems, but finally appeared in reliable form when the supersonic F-100, Dassault Super Mystere and MiG-19 were established in service. The Supermarine Swift was not a happy fighter and only one unit used it and its awkward Fairey Fireflash AAMs before it became a dedicated recon platform. The Gloster Javelin, whilst a credible all-weather interceptor, with its sophisticated radar and Firestreak missile combination, was not nicknamed the 'Harmonious Dragmaster' because of its stirling performance and even during its evolution, Gloster realised its limitations and worked on a supersonic variant that eventually got shot down as a concept by a serious intent to buy Avro Canada's CF-105.

The decision to skip evolving the high powered Nene and go straight to the Avon and Sapphire (in its early incarnation was a more reliable powerplant than the RR product, but was not placed in the kind of airframe that could have taken advantage of this) meant that Britain lagged behind in airframe development and did not have a suitable indigenous superior match for the MiG-15 and 17 and had to borrow F-86 Sabres from the Canadians, because of the issues with the Hunter and Swift, and therefore was stuck with the Meatbox for too long. Not until the EE Lightning did the RAF finally have a fighter that could better its Soviet contemporaries in outright performance, after WW2's first generation jets.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Admiral Beez (Dec 3, 2019)

nuuumannn said:


> Gloster realised its limitations and worked on a supersonic variant that eventually got shot down as a concept by a serious intent to buy Avro Canada's CF-105.


Britain should have bought the Arrow, or collaborated with Canada to make something that worked for both the RAF and RCAF. Avro Canada was a wholly owned subsidiary of Britain’s Hawker-Siddeley, after all.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Dec 3, 2019)

Admiral Beez said:


> Britain should have bought the Arrow, or collaborated with Canada to make something that worked for both the RAF and RCAF. Avro Canada was a wholly owned subsidiary of Britain’s Hawker-Siddeley, after all.


The RAF needed a fast climbing interceptor, the Lightning, Canada a patrol interceptor, the FAA a patrol interceptor. So the Canadians get the Voodoo, we get the Phantom eventually, but back to the forties, we get the Meteor with two Derwents, which in its F8 form has as much thrust as the Avon in the early Hunters. In other words a fast climbing interceptor to shoot down enemy bombers as opposed to an air superiority fighter like the Sabre.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 3, 2019)

Zyzygie said:


> The MiG 15 used a Rolls-Royce Nene knock-off. There’s plenty of sources relating to how they managed that. After the end of the Cold War, Rolls-Royce asked for back payment of royalties, without any success.


It was more than a knock off, it was copied.

The UK did sell the Soviets a number of Nene engines. Although not given a license, the Soviets were able to figure out some metallurgical data by being allowed tours of RR. "Engineers" wore rubber soled shoes and made sure they walked by some of the lathes and milling machines picking up metal chips in their shoes. These chips were collected and brought back to the Soviet Union for evaluation.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Dec 3, 2019)

Admiral Beez said:


> Britain should have bought the Arrow, or collaborated with Canada to make something that worked for both the RAF and RCAF. Avro Canada was a wholly owned subsidiary of Britain’s Hawker-Siddeley, after all.



Hm, the reason why it wasn't pursued was because the specification F.155T promised a higher performing aircraft than the CF-105. Obviously its cancellation put paid to any further development, but the decision not to continue with it was made well before threats of cancellation. This was before the 1957 Defence White Paper that cancelled F.155T.


----------



## Zyzygie (Dec 3, 2019)

Admiral Beez said:


> For a jet pioneering country it is disappointing for the UK that the only Commonwealth fighter that could match the MiG-15 was the Canadair CL-13. Swept wing Sea Hawks should have made an earlier appearance.



Britain was financially devastated by World War 2. The National Debt was about 250.% of GDP. Much worse than Greece during the GFC.
The supersonic Miles M52 research project had to be scrapped, and the first batch of 100 Meteor F4s went to Argentina to pay off a debt incurred by the purchase of beef during the War.

Miles M.52 - Wikipedia

Google Image Result for https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/81y6xLFqE6L.jpg

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Dec 3, 2019)

Zyzygie said:


> and the first batch of 100 Meteor F4s went to Argentina to pay off a debt incurred by the purchase of beef during the War.



And then some. Argentina also received Avro Lancasters and Lincolns, DH Doves, Bristol Freighters, Percival Prentices and Vickers Vikings around that time, all going a long way to modernising the FAA as South America's most modern and capable air force. 





Lincoln

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zyzygie (Dec 11, 2019)

The significance of the Me262


----------



## Admiral Beez (Dec 11, 2019)

Zyzygie said:


> Britain was financially devastated by World War 2. The National Debt was about 250.% of GDP.


It’s too bad Britain couldn’t follow Russia’s example with Alaska and clear government dept by selling territory. Post-war Britain sells Burma to China or Newfoundland to the USA, for instance. Britain has no interest or ability to keep these places postwar anyway, so might as well leverage their remaining value.

Reactions: Disagree Disagree:
1 | Dislike Dislike:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Dec 11, 2019)

Admiral Beez said:


> It’s too bad Britain couldn’t follow Russia’s example with Alaska and clear government dept by selling territory. Post-war Britain sells Burma to China or Newfoundland to the USA, for instance. Britain has no interest or ability to keep these places postwar anyway, so might as well leverage their remaining value.



Somebody with some knowledge of British law would have to chime in, but I wouldn't be surprised if Newfoundland _couldn't _ be sold as it wasn't owned by Britain. Could the US, operating in the way of a business selling poorly performing divisions sell Alabama? I think not.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 11, 2019)

Gents - let keep away from global politics and stay on subject. Thank you.


----------



## Admiral Beez (Dec 12, 2019)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Gents - let keep away from global politics and stay on subject. Thank you.


Fair enough. And I don't think a lack of cash made development of better aircraft impossible for Britain. Instead it was poor choices and design work failures that drive them to the back of the pack.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zyzygie (Dec 12, 2019)

swampyankee said:


> Somebody with some knowledge of British law would have to chime in, but I wouldn't be surprised if Newfoundland _couldn't _be sold as it wasn't owned by Britain. Could the US, operating in the way of a business selling poorly performing divisions sell Alabama? I think not.



_"...Newfoundland joined Canada on March 31, 1949. Union with Canada has done little to reduce Newfoundlanders' self-image as a unique group. In 2003, 72% of residents responding identified first as Newfoundlanders, secondarily as Canadians..." _


----------



## GrauGeist (Dec 12, 2019)

Thread-drift: Grand Theft Auto style


----------



## BiffF15 (Dec 13, 2019)

Zyzygie said:


> _"...Newfoundland joined Canada on March 31, 1949. Union with Canada has done little to reduce Newfoundlanders' self-image as a unique group. In 2003, 72% of residents responding identified first as Newfoundlanders, secondarily as Canadians..." _



I have known a few Newfies, good people.

Biff

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zyzygie (Dec 23, 2019)

Walter Krupinski’s commentary on the Me262:


----------



## Zyzygie (Dec 25, 2019)

Galland and other interviews:


----------



## Zyzygie (Dec 25, 2019)

Move the throttle lever very S-L-O-W-L-Y... son...

...the carbon steel flame tubes have zero tolerance for any error in air/fuel ratio...


----------



## Zyzygie (Jan 1, 2020)

"..._Taking off and landing, as I have said, were the most tense moments for a 262 pilot, as the plane built up speed slowly, and you could stall out easily if you pushed the throttles forward too quickly, which caused a flameout. This happened several times…and we finally learned how to throttle up slowly without killing ourselves."
"I flamed out once when I was in transition training. I was used to pushing the throttle full to increase takeoff power. This was a great error in the jet. I know that many of the pilots who were killed flying the jet probably died due to stalling out this way. The 262 was a very heavy aircraft when compared to the 109 and 190, and at low speed I would equate it to flying a brick..."_

_Walter "Graf" Kuprinski_

Me-262: Harbinger of a New Era


----------



## Zyzygie (Jan 1, 2020)

“...By then Junkers had developed the Jumo 004, which was tested at 2,200 pounds of thrust. Two 004s were installed on the third Me-262 prototype, and Wendel made a successful 20-minute flight on July 18, 1942. Even after plane and engine went into full production, however, the Jumo 004 would be an Achilles’ heel for the Me-262. Germany lacked adequate supplies of chromium and nickel, essential for the production of steel alloys necessary to operate at a jet engine’s high temperatures, and substitute metals, such as ordinary steel with a spray coating of aluminum, were prone to burning. At the end of the war the average Me-262 engine required an overhaul after 10 hours of use, and outright replacement after only 25 hours...”

Me-262: Harbinger of a New Era

In fact, Germany had committed large quantities of nickel to the Atlantic Wall as armour plate. Bad resource allocation...

After Normandy, the Allies just bypassed the other 99% of the Wall.


----------



## swampyankee (Jan 1, 2020)

Zyzygie said:


> “...By then Junkers had developed the Jumo 004, which was tested at 2,200 pounds of thrust. Two 004s were installed on the third Me-262 prototype, and Wendel made a successful 20-minute flight on July 18, 1942. Even after plane and engine went into full production, however, the Jumo 004 would be an Achilles’ heel for the Me-262. Germany lacked adequate supplies of chromium and nickel, essential for the production of steel alloys necessary to operate at a jet engine’s high temperatures, and substitute metals, such as ordinary steel with a spray coating of aluminum, were prone to burning. At the end of the war the average Me-262 engine required an overhaul after 10 hours of use, and outright replacement after only 25 hours...”
> 
> Me-262: Harbinger of a New Era
> 
> ...



Shades of the Maginot Line!

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zyzygie (Jan 1, 2020)

"...One of many Allied pilots who got to evaluate the Me-262A after the war, Royal Navy Captain Eric Brown said the cockpit had “a complex but neat layout.” Starting the jet was an involved affair, and its slow acceleration revealed how underpowered it was. But once it built up some speed, Brown said it was “a very responsive and docile aeroplane, leaving one with a confident impression of both a first-class combat aircraft for both fighter and ground attack roles.” He reported a pleasant harmony of controls, but noted the “landing run was long and was always accompanied by that unpleasant suspicion of fading brakes that one had with all German aircraft of the period.” Overall, though, he considered the 262 “in my view unquestionably the foremost warplane of its day...."

Ground attack? Not according to Adolf Galland:

"...Göring had already discussed the question with Messerschmitt, and replied, "Yes my Führer, theoretically yes. There is enough power to spare to carry 1000 pounds [of bombs], perhaps even 2000 pounds." This was a carefully formulated answer which objectively could not be disputed. Among aviators this reply would have created no disturbance. Because any expert knew it was purely hypothetical. The ME-262 possessed no fixtures for releasing bombs and no bombsights. According to its flying properties and its safety conditions it was highly unsuited for an aimed-bomb release; diving or gliding were out of the question because of the unavoidable excess of the permissible top speed [no air brakes]. At speeds of over 600 mph the aircraft became uncontrollable. At low altitudes the fuel consumption was so high that the operative range became unprofitably small; therefore low-level attacks, too, were out of the question. There remained high-altitude bombing, yet here the given target had to be at least the size of a large town to be hit with certainty under the given conditions..."

Galland, Adolf. *The First and The Last*. David Rehak. Kindle Edition.


----------



## Zyzygie (Jan 4, 2020)

Meteor Versus MiG — Appraisal

“The MiG-15 used during the Korean War by the Communist forces was generally superior in performance to the Meteor Mk.8 which was operated by 77 Squadron. This was particularly so at high altitudes, the levels at which most of the combat took place. While a Meteor had to be 'nursed' at heights of 40,000 feet or so, the MiG seemed to thrive at even greater altitudes. Added to this was the height advantage which the MiGs enjoyed by climbing to 50,000 feet or more over neutral Manchuria prior to diving down to engage UN aircraft. Another great advantage which the MiG displayed was its spectacular rate of climb. In this important area the Russian aircraft significantly outperformed the Meteor at all altitudes by as much as 3,000 ft/minute, an enormous advantage. The MiG's speed was much greater than the Meteor by approximately 70 miles per hour. The MiG's 37 mm cannon was a slow-firing but powerful weapon. This was backed up by a pair of 23mm cannons. Nevertheless, the concentrated firepower of the Meteor's four 20 mm cannons gave the British aircraft some advantage under certain circumstances. While the 37mm weapon was most effective against a huge bomber, it was not so useful against a smaller and more nimble target.”

“At altitudes of 20,000 feet and below the MiG lost some of its advantage. The Meteor could, at these levels give a good account of itself with regard to tight turning and diving. The MiG could encounter control difficulties in a high speed dive, a problem which did not afflict the Meteor. However, once again, if the MiG should climb the Meteor could not follow. Undoubtedly this British WWII jet fighter was outclassed in certain vital areas by the much more modern swept-wing designs such as the MiG-15 and the North American Sabre...”

https://www.raafansw.org.au/docPDF/77SQN_KOREA_1950-53_COL_KING.pdf

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Admiral Beez (Jan 4, 2020)

Zyzygie said:


> Meteor Versus MiG — Appraisal
> 
> “The MiG-15 used during the Korean War by the Communist forces was generally superior in performance to the Meteor Mk.8 which was operated by 77 Squadron. This was particularly so at high altitudes, the levels at which most of the combat took place. While a Meteor had to be 'nursed' at heights of 40,000 feet or so, the MiG seemed to thrive at even greater altitudes. Added to this was the height advantage which the MiGs enjoyed by climbing to 50,000 feet or more over neutral Manchuria prior to diving down to engage UN aircraft. Another great advantage which the MiG displayed was its spectacular rate of climb. In this important area the Russian aircraft significantly outperformed the Meteor at all altitudes by as much as 3,000 ft/minute, an enormous advantage. The MiG's speed was much greater than the Meteor by approximately 70 miles per hour. The MiG's 37 mm cannon was a slow-firing but powerful weapon. This was backed up by a pair of 23mm cannons. Nevertheless, the concentrated firepower of the Meteor's four 20 mm cannons gave the British aircraft some advantage under certain circumstances. While the 37mm weapon was most effective against a huge bomber, it was not so useful against a smaller and more nimble target.”
> 
> ...


It‘s too bad the Hunter didn’t make it to Korea, or any swept wing jet fighter for that matter. The Meteor is a generation behind. How would a Mk.2 Me 262 compare to the MiG-15?


----------



## swampyankee (Jan 4, 2020)

Admiral Beez said:


> It‘s too bad the Hunter didn’t make it to Korea, or any swept wing jet fighter for that matter. The Meteor is a generation behind. How would a Mk.2 Me 262 compare to the MiG-15?



A Mk 2 Me262 was the same generation as the Meteor. It would do no better than, say, the P-80.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zyzygie (Jan 4, 2020)

“...In early May 1951 an F-86A Sabre from the USAF was detached to Iwakuni to fly a series of performance comparisons between itself and the Meteor to help determine the role to which the Meteor was best suited, ground attack or interceptor. After two days of testing the Meteor had proved it had a superior rate of climb and turn, even though it was generally slower than the Sabre. Unfortunately, the Meteor had also shown one major deficiency in that it lacked maneuverability at high altitude. An argument erupted between the Australians and the Americans as to how the Meteor was to be employed, with Cresswell and Scannell arguing that although the Meteor had shortcomings, it should be used as an interceptor. After discussions with US 5th Air Force Headquarters, it was decided to try the Meteor as an interceptor and on 2 June the Squadron was ordered back to Korea...”


----------



## Zyzygie (Jan 4, 2020)

swampyankee said:


> A Mk 2 Me262 was the same generation as the Meteor. It would do no better than, say, the P-80.



Something both the Meteor and the Me 262 had to their detriment as dogfighters was having their engines outboard of the fuselage. Their roll rate was relatively slow, a big disadvantage compared to the Sabre or MiG.


----------



## Admiral Beez (Jan 4, 2020)

Zyzygie said:


> Something both the Meteor and the Me 262 had to their detriment as dogfighters was having their engines outboard of the fuselage. Their roll rate was relatively slow, a big disadvantage compared to the Sabre or MiG.


Does a WW2-era Vampire or early postwar Attacker have a better chance with their inboard engine?

Did the FAA have any jets in Korea? The Supermarine Attacker entered fleet service in 1951. The USN at the time was operating equally straight wing jets in Korea.


----------



## Zyzygie (Jan 4, 2020)

Admiral Beez said:


> Does a WW2-era Vampire or early postwar Attacker have a better chance with their inboard engine?
> 
> Did the FAA have any jets in Korea? The Supermarine Attacker entered fleet service in 1951. The USN at the time was operating equally straight wing jets in Korea.



The Vampire had that advantage, but the power to weight ratio and hence acceleration and climb rate of the Meteor was unrivalled at the time, so there were “swings and roundabouts.”


----------



## Admiral Beez (Jan 4, 2020)

Looking the Meteor’s configuration leads me to wonder how similarly outfitted Wally aircraft would do in Korea. Such as the Avro CF-100 Canuck (entered RCAF service 1952) and the English Electric Canberra (entered RAF service 1951). We’d need to get both aircraft into service a little earlier for them to make Korea.

Not that, with no gun and truck-like agility, I’d want to be flying the Canuck in Korea. Maybe as HA recon.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jan 4, 2020)

The Me262 HGII would have been no better than the A1/a as it still had the engines underslung on the wings. The HGIII *may* have performed better, as it's engines were moved onboard with the intakes at the wing-root - but still called for the 004 (or 003) engines, so any benefit gained by the redesign would still be negated by the troublesome engines.


----------



## Zyzygie (Jan 5, 2020)

Rockets

“...We normally carried eight or sixteen high-explosive heads on our rocket strikes. These were fired in salvo and packed a tremendous punch — said to be like a broadside from a six-inch cruiser. Fortunately the armament section did an efficient job in ensuring the reliability of our weapons. Cannon stoppages were infrequent. Rockets were reliable although we did occasionally return with 'hang-ups' — those which refused to leave the wing racks when fired. These were a hazard and could add a touch of interest to the approach and landing. Firstly we could never trust these temperamental and uncooperative missiles that refused to budge when the button was pushed. Could these fickle devices change their minds at an inconvenient moment, for example on touchdown...”

“..."I was leading four Meteors on a rocket strike against a target at Sariwon, in northwest Korea. As we attacked out of the sun, I could see enemy troops firing from gun positions near the target area. Immediately after my rocket release there was a terrific explosion behind the starboard side of the cockpit. A vision of my mother was before me and I realized I was in mortal danger. I slammed on port rudder, skidding sideways, hoping to confuse the gunners about my actual direction of travel. I released the ventral fuel tank as it was always considered a hazard once the aircraft had been hit. I flew low over damp paddy fields checking for any reflection of a fire, which would prompt me to climb and eject immediately. Fortunately there was no sign of fire and soon I was able to receive confirmation from Bob Strawbridge, who flew beside me, that there was no visible damage. Back at base I elected to land last in case some defect should cause a crash landing which could block the runway. I knew there had been some substantial damage somewhere in the aircraft.”
"Inspection of my Meteor revealed: Three 40mm shells had hit the engine housings. One 40mm had blown a few inches off the tail plane. A 75/80mm shell had penetrated the starboard side of the aircraft, hit the underside of the lead platform supporting the two starboard 20mm cannons, and split this mechanism in two as it exploded. The remnants of the exploding shell then entered the cockpit. I was presented with the remains of this 'trophy' which had accompanied me home in the cockpit. One half was missing. It was eight inches long and the pointed head was flattened by one inch. It took two hands cupped together to measure the base. This was my 313th mission. The Commanding Officer told me I was finished, and would be going home...”

https://www.raafansw.org.au/docPDF/77SQN_KOREA_1950-53_COL_KING.pdf

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Koopernic (Jan 5, 2020)

Admiral Beez said:


> It’s too bad Britain couldn’t follow Russia’s example with Alaska and clear government dept by selling territory. Post-war Britain sells Burma to China or Newfoundland to the USA, for instance. Britain has no interest or ability to keep these places post war anyway, so might as well leverage their remaining value.


Russia sold Alaska not to clear debt but to prevent the British from attacking and taking it into their possession. They lacked the navy and resources to hold it as the British had Canada as a nearby Colony already. They were glad to give it to the Americans than to inevitably loose it to a British Colonial war.


----------



## Koopernic (Jan 5, 2020)

Zyzygie said:


> "...One of many Allied pilots who got to evaluate the Me-262A after the war, Royal Navy Captain Eric Brown said the cockpit had “a complex but neat layout.” Starting the jet was an involved affair, and its slow acceleration revealed how underpowered it was. But once it built up some speed, Brown said it was “a very responsive and docile aeroplane, leaving one with a confident impression of both a first-class combat aircraft for both fighter and ground attack roles.” He reported a pleasant harmony of controls, but noted the “landing run was long and was always accompanied by that unpleasant suspicion of fading brakes that one had with all German aircraft of the period.” Overall, though, he considered the 262 “in my view unquestionably the foremost warplane of its day...."
> 
> Ground attack? Not according to Adolf Galland:
> 
> ...



Galland, as Germanys chief fighter pilot, was of course a big champion of getting the Me 262A1 into production as a fighter interceptor designed to clear German airspace of Allied Bombers he loathed the strategy of using it as a bomber. Galland's version is now seen as biased and incomplete by some Historians. Galland had some rather testy personal battles.

Hitler wanted to have it as a bomber that could break through allied fighters screans and attack allied shipping during the upcoming allied invasion. He also wanted a Blitz bomber to take the bombing back to allied factories and towns. Hitler's interested in the Me 262 ensured it was well supplied with resources and only accelerated its development.
When the invasion came not only was the Me 262 not ready to attack and stop allied shipping, no practical preparations had been made to test it as a bomber. It said Hitler allowed no work on the design for around a month and would not talk about it, he was grievously hurt by this. A particularly empathetic and respected colonel was sent to break him out of his upset.
Lets breakdown Galland's negative claims:
1 "At 600mph the aircraft was uncontrollable". This is saying the aircraft was uncontrollable at Mach 0.91 at 36000ft or Mach 0.86 at 25,000ft. This isn't bad and more than the early Meteor III and P80A which were about 0.78 though the P80A could go beyond this and be recovered due to its air brakes. Both aircraft developed higher Mach limits (P-80B/C with compressibility strips Meteor III/IV with extra extra extended nacelles) but only after the war though both had air brakes. Me 262 Mach limit was Mach 0.81 but could be controlled up to Mach 0.85.
2 "Highly Unsuited to Bomb Aiming". The Bombsight to be used for the Me 262A2 (A2 = bomber version) was to use the TSA 2 or more specifically the TSA 2D Toss bombing sight. It was very well tested, worked well and was undergoing combat evaluation with KG51 during operation Nordwind. To use this bomb sight the pilot would line up the target in his normal Revi gun sight. A computer took in airspeed, dive angle, altitude, descent rate from the variometer and if available used the FuG 101a radar altimeter. The pilot then heard a buzz in his headphone and receives a flashing light. He pulled up. The pullup locked the altitude chamber for the altimeter/variometer and a accelerometer took over tracking. The bomb was released automatically in the arc. Accuracy was good. It was intended for Me 262, Ar 234, Fw 190 etc. worked better on jets due to the lower vibration levels. Also suitable for rockets.
3 "There remained high-altitude bombing, yet here the given target had to be at least the size of a large town to be hit with certainty under the given conditions..."
The Me 262 could use all of the German blind bombing aids such as the beam riding Zyklops system, the Oboe like Freya based EGON II and the new Neuling system. Neuling was the new IFF replacing Erstling IFF and had an in built ability to conduct blind bombing with Oboe like accuracy. I think 6 aircraft at once.
4 The Me 262A2 received Wikingerschiff bomb racks so called because they looked like "Viking Ships". These provided for a clean way for the bombs to detach and also a way of carrying drop tanks.

So the Me 262 was suitable for bombing.

Air brakes would be nice. Range was limited at low altitude but it still had a useful range at sea level. Fuel would last about 35 minutes at full thrust (510mph) at sea level.

Reality was that the engines were the real bottleneck. The Jumo 004B engines would have become a useful engine from April 1945 when the 'acceleration control valve' was to enter service. Called Beschleuniguns Ventile in German. The Jumo 004 used a governor that was set by the pilots throttle to control thrust by engine RPM. The new acceleration control valve added a differential pressure sensor across the compressor to effectively measure the air mass flow and dose in accordance to mass flow as well as RPM. This prevents over dosing causing overheating and under dosing causing stalls. It was a no brainer and no worse than multi point fuel injection but the need had been underestimated so it was late (US and Brits had same problem). Something called duplex nozzles that used a different outlet at low fuel flows to get proper fuel dispersion were also planed at some point.

If the Me 262 could have been ready as a reconnaissance aircraft in numbers before the Normandy landings it would have provided the German high command with accurate information of he invasion fleet before it reached the beaches. It might even have helped them estimate the timing of the invasion. The Germans estimated 2 weeks late.

Erhard Milch said the war was lost unless the Me 262 was in service by end of 1943. He was of course right. Had Me 262 been available when it was impractical for the allies to use their most effective tactic, patrolling above their bases it might have worked. It was about 10 months too late.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zyzygie (Jan 5, 2020)

Some good information Koopernic. But arguably a lot of good stuff left out:

1. Galland was writing well after the War, when Luftwaffe politics had been left far behind. He had every reason to be telling the truth.

2. The statement “air brakes would be nice” should be “air brakes would be needed” for ground attack. The last thing you would want is speed running away on making a bombing or straffing run.

3. The ‘acceleration control valve’ was never going to fix the engine problem. Carbon steel flame tubes and what is essentially stainless steel turbine blades were hopeless.

3. I wouldn’t go down the “if only” track. The Allies can do that too:

“...Performance characteristics shown in table I give a maximum speed for the Gloster Meteor F. Mk. 4 of 570 miles per hour, or a Mach number of 0.81, at 20000 feet. One source (ref. 162) indicates that at high speeds the Meteor experienced large trim changes, high aileron stick forces, and a tendency toward snaking. Snaking may be described as a self-sustained yawing oscillation; it plagued many of the earlier jet fighters [including the Me262]. According to reference 188, numerous modifications were tried in an effort to cure the problem on the Meteor - none of them were entirely successful. (Later research indicated that the problem was probably related to incipient flow separation from the relatively thick airfoil sections used in the tail.) Climb performance of the aircraft was outstanding. The sea-level rate of climb was 7500 feet per minute, and an altitude of 30 000 feet could be reached in 5 minutes. Clearly, the performance of the Meteor F. Mk. 4 was much superior to the performance of the Messerschmitt Me 262A for which data are given in table V. To put this comparison in proper perspective, however, the Meteor F. Mk. 4 did not fly until after the end of World War II and had a thrust-to-weight ratio of 0.47 as compared with 0.28 for the earlier German aircraft. The author's analysis of the physical and performance characteristics of the two aircraft suggests that the superior performance of the Meteor was due to the higher thrust of its engines and not to any inherent superiority in aerodynamic design...”

“...Although a strictly subsonic aircraft, the Meteor did have high performance for a straight-wing fighter; it was rugged, versatile, and capable of being readily adapted to various missions...”

RE the ME262 air brakes:

“...The stabilizer angle could be varied with an electric motor activated by the pilot to provide rapid changes in trim with speed. This highly desirable feature was used on many later jet fighters. A deficiency in the aircraft was the lack of a speed brake, which is important for speed control in high-performance aircraft...”

Pioneer Jet Fighters 

ch11-2


----------



## Zyzygie (Jan 6, 2020)

*The Me 262 Stormbird: From the Pilots Who Flew, Fought, and Survived It*
By Colin D. Heaton et al.

The Me 262 Stormbird

"The Me262 was a great beast when handled correctly. But if you lost control, especially at low altitude, it was very unforgiving."
Johannes Steinhoff
Luftwaffe Ace and Me262 pilot.

Refer the attached excerpt for a brief assessment of some Me 262 flight characteristics.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zyzygie (Jan 6, 2020)

Zyzygie said:


> *The Me 262 Stormbird: From the Pilots Who Flew, Fought, and Survived It*
> By Colin D. Heaton
> 
> The Me 262 Stormbird
> ...



“...Unexpected breakdowns and surprises cropped up in the conversion courses, primarily among the youngest pilots and those with little or no combat experience. The manipulation of the throttle lever was the major pitfall. From previous flying experience sitting behind a piston engine it was known that there had been no restrictions on moving the gas lever. Coming in to land too fast or too high one throttled back and went round for another try. To adjust position in formation you corrected by giving more or less gas. In practice, when dog-fighting you alternated between full throttle and feathering the motor as suited the situation. The Otto piston engines were always obliging, and if sometimes the engine choked on it, that was mostly harmless – a few splutters and then it burst back into life. But if you were anything robust about the way you pushed forward the throttle levers of the Me 262 jet turbines, they cut out and probably caught fire. Taking off, in the air, when landing. They caught fire if the throttle was advanced too quickly because more fuel came into the chambers than the engine could handle. It stopped the drive and the excess fuel then burnt off. If that happened before take-off, the airfield fire brigade or ground staff could quickly extinguish the fire once the jet was at a standstill. There would then be no further problem. At altitude an engine fire was dangerous, at low level usually fatal. At the outset of training especially it was a frequent occurrence, because pilots failed to observe the operating instructions from habit, inattentiveness or reacting in panic to an emergency...”

‘Mein Führer, every child can see that that is a fighter and not a bomber!’ - Hitler's Jet Plane: The ME 262 Story

Repeat:

“The Me262 was a great beast when handled correctly. But if you lost control, especially at low altitude, it was very unforgiving”

Johannes Steinhoff
Luftwaffe Ace and Me262 pilot.

Repeat:

"I flamed out once when I was in transition training. I was used to pushing the throttle full to increase takeoff power. This was a great error in the jet. I know that many of the pilots who were killed flying the jet probably died due to stalling out this way. The 262 was a very heavy aircraft when compared to the 109 and 190, and at low speed I would equate it to flying a brick..."

Walter "Graf" Kuprinski


“...’Tis a Pity She’s a Whore...”

Title of a tragedy written by John Ford
ca 1626.

But in the hands of highly experienced pilots she was good at one important thing: taking out bombers. A good “bombenjaeger.”


----------



## Koopernic (Jan 6, 2020)

Zyzygie said:


> Some good information Koopernic. But arguably a lot of good stuff left out:
> 
> 1. Galland was writing well after the War, when Luftwaffe politics had been left far behind. He had every reason to be telling the truth.
> 
> ...



A point on the _Meteors_ *high speed snaking*. This was a problem with all the early jet aircraft (Me 262, Meteor, P80).

It really has only one solution, the *yaw damper*.

It can be regarded as a problem with all jet aircraft and particular with swept wing aircraft. It can lead to a nasty Dutch roll developing as one wing generates more lift on the side opposite to the yaw. This is complicated but one reason it is a problem in jet aircraft is the absence of a propeller which provided a gyroscopic force. The other, and main one, is inertia coupling. Jets tend to have mass distributed in such a way that the aerodynamic restorative forces are less compared to the moment of inertia of the aircraft. The Dornier Do 335 initially had a bit of a snaking problem due to the mass of the engines at the nose and tail distributing the mass like a dumbbell. Jets look more like a Do 335 than say a Spitfire or Me 109 since the aerodynamic force on these single engine piston aircraft looked like big mass followed by a wing and tail on a long tail moment arm. I daresay the P.39 had some interesting stability issues. The other is airframe tolerances. If one wing is slightly different to the other it will reach critical Mach ahead of the other and cause stability issues. Precision and high tolerances is essential in jets as are airfoils that have a high critical mach.

The first yaw damper was developed by Dr. Karl Doetsch in Germany in 1942. After the war he went to work with the RAE and helped develop a yaw damper that was installed on a Meteor. I believe it found its way into the Meteor F8 as standard.

"A electronic yaw damper had been developed that took gyro rate information and used the derivative to kick opposite rudder. The Hs 129 yaw damper was developed by Dr. Karl Doetsch over the period 1942- 1944 at Berlin-Aldershot. Later "due to the bombing" he was transferred to Travemunde near Lubeck, where the Fighter Development Station was formed, and here he finished the work around January 1945, on what became the world's first series coupled yaw damper. Doetsch first thought of the idea after observing the effect of a misuse of the simple rudder course controllers. If a heading change of more than 30° was dialled into these systems the demand limited and the system became just an angular rate control, giving a damping effect about the yaw axis. He first tested the concept himself in an Fw 190 and later in an Me262. He was interviewed by British scientists, joined the RAE and a similar device was installed in the meteor."

If you look at this reference it seems that a simple version of Dr. Karl Doetsch's *yaw damper* may have been used as standard on the Hs 129 anti tank aircraft
http://www.icas.org/ICAS_ARCHIVE/ICAS1980/ICAS-80-0.4.pdf
See page 2 first paragraph:

"A new use of automatic control in aircraft occurred in the early 1940's with the invention of the *yaw damper*. Dr. Karl Doetsch developed a gyro operated bang-bang servomechanism that drove an aerodynamic tab on the rudder to damp out yawing oscillations(U. It was first applied to a German Henschel He 129 attack bomber (Figure 4). The Hs 129 had a small vertical fin and high yaw inertia due to extensive armour plating which resulted in low aerodynamic damping. Dr. Doetsch's yaw damper provided artificial damping to improve its flying qualities."

The Snaking on the Me 262 could develop above 480mph. With much effort it could often be gotten rid of by repeated flights and ground adjustment of balance and trim tabs. Factory test pilots for the Me 262 said some could fly at 560mph without a problem due to have a well built airframe and having good engines. Many Me 262 were made in forest factories without jigs.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zyzygie (Jan 7, 2020)

Zyzygie said:


> Rockets
> 
> ”...Back at base I elected to land last in case some defect should cause a crash landing which could block the runway. I knew there had been some substantial damage somewhere in the aircraft.”
> "Inspection of my Meteor revealed: Three 40mm shells had hit the engine housings. One 40mm had blown a few inches off the tail plane. A 75/80mm shell had penetrated the starboard side of the aircraft, hit the underside of the lead platform supporting the two starboard 20mm cannons, and split this mechanism in two as it exploded. The remnants of the exploding shell then entered the cockpit. I was presented with the remains of this 'trophy' which had accompanied me home in the cockpit. One half was missing. It was eight inches long and the pointed head was flattened by one inch. It took two hands cupped together to measure the base. This was my 313th mission. The Commanding Officer told me I was finished, and would be going home...”
> ...



The Meteor was nothing if not rugged...


----------



## Zyzygie (Jan 8, 2020)

The report *EVALUATION OF THE ME-262* was prepared by *TECHNICAL INTELLIGENCE (T-2 AMC)*. It tells a somewhat negative story in terms of the ME 262 handling characteristics:

*https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a800524.pdf* 

*FLIGHT CHARACTERISTICS*​*Handling and control at various speeds
The handling characteristics were poor at all speeds above 350mph. The airplane would not make a very satisfactory gun platform because of a tendency to hunt directionally, which resulted in snaking at speeds above 400 mph IAS.*

*CONCLUSIONS*​*The handling characteristics of the Me-262 airplanes tested were very poor. However, it is believed that, with the exception of the directional hunting or yawing, they would have been considerably improved if the aileron and elevator servo tabs had been connected. *

The report was not negative overall re the Me262, but the point is that this section is very much at odds with the report from Royal Navy Captain Eric Brown, who said that once it built up some speed, it was “a very responsive and docile aeroplane, leaving one with a confident impression of both a first-class combat aircraft for both fighter and ground attack roles.” 

This may be explained by the fact that there is anecdotal evidence of a big variation in build quality between individual Me 262 aircraft, partly as has been mentioned due to the conditions under which they were built (without jigs), but also to deliberate sabotage:

*"...The Allied bombing raids were also causing a shortage in parts and fuel and delaying production and deployment even further. Production of aircraft, parts and engines had to be dispersed to smaller factories, forests and even underground! The Nazi regime also resorted to using forced labour to produce aircraft – a dubious undertaking on a moral level at the best of times but also a major risk of deliberate poor workmanship and sabotage!.." 

"...Me 262 losses were reported as only 100 in air to air combat but up to 1,200 Me 262’s were destroyed on the ground and in accidents – on April 10th, 1945 a formation of 55 Me 262’s went up to attack Allied bombers and by the end of the day 27 of them had been lost mainly to accidents!.."*

https://prism.ucalgary.ca/bitstream/handle/1880/25239/Pavelec.pdf?sequence=1


----------



## GrauGeist (Jan 8, 2020)

What the report didn't cover, was that the Me262s evaluated by the US were cobbled together, with high-time engines/airframes and maintained by AAF mechanics.

Brown's test flight was with a newer airframe and had assistance from Luftwaffe personnel.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Snautzer01 (Jan 8, 2020)

GrauGeist said:


> What the report didn't cover, was that the Me262s evaluated by the US were cobbled together, with high-time engines/airframes and maintained by AAF mechanics.
> 
> Brown's test flight was with a newer airframe and had assistance from Luftwaffe personnel.


Amercans had german ground staff and pilot also. The 262 were not cobbled together. Watson was a very abel pilot/officer and there was plenty to choose from.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jan 8, 2020)

I don't have my books available at the moment, but the Me262 tested in the US were rebuilt from several aircraft. There were virtually no pristine aircraft available by war's end - the 10 Me262s that were selected for testing, were pieced together from about 30 aircraft.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zyzygie (Jan 8, 2020)

GrauGeist said:


> I don't have my books available at the moment, but the Me262 tested in the US were rebuilt from several aircraft. There were virtually no pristine aircraft available by war's end - the 10 Me262s that were selected for testing, were pieced together from about 30 aircraft.



I think that for whatever the reason, high build quality for the Me262 was going to be the exception rather than the rule. As Koopernic says:

“...The other is airframe tolerances. If one wing is slightly different to the other it will reach critical Mach ahead of the other and cause stability issues. Precision and high tolerances is essential in jets as are airfoils that have a high critical Mach.”

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zyzygie (Jan 8, 2020)

The Meteor had the luxury of being able to build in relatively safe environments, and the work was dispersed over a large number of contractors, so rigorous standardisation had to be enforced:

“...From the outset, each Meteor was constructed from several modular sections or separately produced units, a deliberate design choice to allow for production to be dispersed and for easy disassembly for transport.[77] Each aircraft comprised five main sections: nose, forward fuselage, central section, rear fuselage and tail units; the wings were also built out of lengthwise sections.[78] The forward section contained the pressure cabin, gun compartments, and forward undercarriage. The centre section incorporated much of the structural elements, including the inner wing, engine nacelles, fuel tank, ammunition drums, and main undercarriage. The rear fuselage was of a conventional semi-monocoque structure. Various aluminium alloys were the primary materials used throughout the structure of the Meteor, such as the stressed duralumin skin.[79]”

“Across the Meteor's production life, various different companies were subcontracted to manufacture aircraft sections and major components; due to the wartime workload on producing fighter aircraft such as the Hawker Hurricane and Hawker Typhoon, neither Gloster nor the wider Hawker Siddeley Group were able to internally meet the production demand of 80 aircraft per month.[22] Bristol Tramways produced the forward fuselage of the aircraft, the Standard Motor Company manufactured the central fuselage and inner wing sections, the Pressed Steel Company produced the rear fuselage, and Parnall Aircraft made the tail unit.[80] Other main subcontractors included Boulton Paul Aircraft, Excelsior Motor Radiator Company, Bell Punch, Turner Manufacturing Company, and Charlesworth Bodies; as many of these firms had little or no experience producing aircraft, both quality and interchangeability of components were maintained by contractually enforced adherence to Gloster's original drawings...”

It was mainly due to this rigorous standardisation that the upgraded engine intakes could be retrofitted to the F3s in the field in Belgium.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zyzygie (Jan 8, 2020)

From “Watson’s Whizzers – Saving the Me-262”

Watson's Whizzers - Saving the Me-262

“...“This is all we know about the Me-262,” he barked. “I want you to draw field gear and go to Lechfeld, Germany. I want you to train pilots to fly it and crew chiefs to maintain it.” He’d already arranged for German mechanics and test pilots to help out. Watson spun around and left...”

“...One week after receiving orders from Watson, and less than three weeks after the German surrender, Strobell landed at that airfield and fell asleep alone on the floor of a shot-up barracks littered with glass, gripping a .45, after tying a string of cans across the building’s entrance. The next morning he got his first close-up look at the Me-262s strewn around the field and hidden among the trees. German troops had damaged some on the way out, while Allied troops damaged others on the way in. Some lacked instruments and other parts that had been liberated by people roaming the countryside looking to salvage anything they could trade for a meal. Some had engines and some didn’t; a few had a five-pound block of TNT strapped beneath the seat—a fine how-do-you-do for any pilot. The black list called for 15 in flying condition. Strobell scraped together 30-odd airplanes, from which to resurrect the 15...”

“...Anspach heard that intelligence wanted pilots to test-fly captured aircraft. No other details emerged, except that the pilots who got the assignment would be sent home quicker. He and Captain Fred Hillis were interviewed and picked. Same for Lieutenant Roy Brown, who was young, craved action and liked the secret detail because it sounded like it involved lots of flying time. Three other pilots made the cut: Captain Kenneth Dahlstrom and Lieutenants William Haynes and James K. “Ken” Holt. All flew to Lechfeld except Haynes, who joined them later. They formed the core of the 54th Air Disarmament Squadron, with Strobell in command. In addition to the pilots there were 10 American crew chiefs and 28 German mechanics.”

“Days after their arrival, Watson himself landed and briefed the pilots. They were to fulfill the black list, then fly the rebuilt airplanes to Cherbourg, France, where the 262s would be loaded onto an aircraft carrier and shipped Stateside for a further shakedown. Watson had already gathered the Messerschmitt factory mechanics who’d worked on the jets, and chose six Messerschmitt test pilots to instruct the Americans. Among them: Ludwig “Willie” Huffman, who before the war had set several world glider records, and Karl Baur, Messerschmitt’s chief test pilot, who knew more about the 262 than anyone alive, and more than he would confess to any Americans...”


----------



## Koopernic (Jan 9, 2020)

Zyzygie said:


> Some good information Koopernic. But arguably a lot of good stuff left out:
> 
> 1. Galland was writing well after the War, when Luftwaffe politics had been left far behind. He had every reason to be telling the truth.
> 
> ...



I'll quickly handle your responses.
1 Galland was spending a lot of time flying combat missions in Me 262A1 fighters he championed. He was certainly not keeping an eye on development in the Me 262A2 bombers such as TSA 2D toss bombing sights or integration of radar based blind bombing he had strenuously argued against and that led to his demotion. He had a side to take and he is interested in finding and emphasising the worst. He was right at the time, wrong in the long run.

2 Neither the Meteor I nor the XP80A had air brakes. Split flap style Air Brakes were introduced with the Meteor III which entered service in Jan 1945 We had to wait for conversion from Welland to Derwent Engines, from the release of the Derwent from thrust restrictions and no less than two engine nacelle upgrades (more to come). for the Meteor to be combat ready The P-80A was much the same as the YP-80A which preceded it, differing only in minor details. The P-80A introduced under-fuselage dive brakes which opened forward at the wing join.

Hence Dive Brake, eg Me 410 style split dive brakes, could have been fitted to the Me 262 as they were to the P80 and Meteor. As it stands sustained dives of greater than about 20-25 degrees were probably problematic but this was within the capability of the TSA.

3 You said " The ‘acceleration control valve’ was never going to fix the engine problem. Carbon steel flame tubes and what is essentially stainless steel turbine blades were hopeless. *I wouldn’t go down the “if only” track. *_*The Allies can do that too:*_

_You realise that all of the data and information you are providing relates to the Meteor IV or Meteor F8. The Meteor IV missed the war entirely. It missed 1945 entirely. It didn't fly till 1946 and wasn't in service till 1947 (in Argentina not the UK). What the UK had at the end of the war was the Meteor III with nacelles modified yet again and derated Derwents. The speed was *495mph*. Before the nacelles were modified speed was 480mph. After the war the derating was lifted and speed improved to 515. *So by all means keep this entirely before May 1945 because the Me 262A1 will be 45mph or 72km/hr faster with 2-3 times the roll rate than the Meteor III.*_

_I'm keeping it to developments which were running but had not seen service._

Below is the entry to the diary of the Chief Luftwaffe Technical Intelligence officer for March 16 1945. It says the accelerator cotrol valves were expected in early April 1945 which is 3 weeks before he was writing the diary and 6 weeks before the war ended.

_KTB-TLR part 8_
*109 - 004* *(ie Jumo 004, koopernic)*
*Vorschau am Monatsanfang 1000, am Monatsende 900, geliefert 876. (planed production previous month 1000, actually delivered 876, koopernic)*

*Mehrfache Forderung eines Einbaues eines Beschleunigungsventils, **(= intensive expedition of accelerator control valve) ** welches die Aufgabe hat, unzulässige Überheizung des Triebwerks bei plötzlichem Gas geben zu vermeiden. **(=which has the purpose of preventing impermisable overheating of the jet propulsion system during acceleration, koopernic)** Einführung bei der Truppe und soweit vorhanden in der Serie bis Anfang April 1945 vorgesehen.* *(=Introduction to the troops scheduled in the begining of April 1945, koopernic)*

*Fehlen von Ersatzteilen 004 macht sich bei der Truppe störend bemerkbar. General Kammler befiehlt, daß Ersatzteile unmittelbar zum Klarmachen von Einsatzflugzeugen, ohne Rücksicht auf Serienbelange, zu liefern sind. **(=Missing spare parts deliveries to the troops are notably disruptive, General Kammler inists that in service aircraft are to be prioritised)*

*Me-262: Future in light of engine development*

_Here some observations from Eric Brown:_

_Regarding the brakes he wrote on page 245 :"After lining up the aircraft on the runway, the engines were opened up to 8500 rpm on the brakes, and a check was made that the Zwiebel (onion), as the exhaust cone had been dubbed, was protruding from each orifice._

_Full power of 8700 rpm was then applied and a quick check was made on the jet pipe temperature, burner pressure, and fuel pressure." _

_Regarding handling characteristics he wrote on page 252:" The normal range of flight characteristics from aerobatic manoeuvres to the stall revealed the Me 262 as a very responsive and docile aeroplane, leaving one with a confident impression of a first class combat aircraft for both fighter and ground attack roles. *Harmony of controls was pleasant, with a stick force per 'g' of 2.72 kg (6lb) at mid-CG position and a roll rate of 360 degrees in 3.8 seconds at 645 km/h (400 mph) at 1525m (5000 ft)."*_

_Regarding the 'snaking' he wrote that the German engineers managed it better to tame it, during the war, than i.e. Gloster engineers with the Meteor I, which had the same problems._

So we have, for the Me 262 a roll rate of 360 degrees/3.8 seconds or *95 degrees second at 400mph*. This is quite fast, Faster than the very fast rolling P-51B/D which at that 400mph speed rolled at 85 degrees per second and faster than the 80 degrees second of the long wing Meteor F.4 (I am assuming the normal British/US practice of 60lbs stick force, I do not have short wing meteor F.4 roll rate). The Me 262 had a telescoping joy stick to allow more leverage of the joy stick. I've seen turn rate charts which show that Me 262 turned faster (in degrees/second) than the P-51 though the P-51 could still turn inside the Me 262.

The poor handing refers to snaking at 350mph IAS. At 25000ft 350 mph IAS = 305 knots IAS which becomes 457 knots TAS or *525 mph TAS!*. Hardly an impediment considering the P-80, Meteor III barely reached this speed. I have variously heard that the onset of snaking was 460mph, 480 mph or that it could be cured by methodical trim tab adjustments.

In other words the Me 262 was 45mph faster than the Meteor III and rolled faster than the Meteor IV hence it was vastly faster than the Meteor III which was very bad in this area.

Manoeuvring begins with rolling. An Me 262 jumped by a Meteor III would use its superior roll rate to jink or out turn the Meteor and then use its speed to escape. About 50 seconds gets it 1000m away.

Note, the link https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a800524.pdf you provided to an aircraft is clearly in bad shape. Its listed as having a maximum speed of 460mph. I think we can discount it.

4 “...The stabilizer angle could be varied with an electric motor activated by the pilot to provide rapid changes in trim with speed. This highly desirable feature was used on many later jet fighters. A deficiency in the aircraft was the lack of a speed brake, which is important for speed control in high-performance aircraft...”

Speed brakes are essential for jets. No argument there. However the Me 262 was useable without air brakes.

The proper solution to the Mach Tuck problem required some electronics. A Mach Meter needed to be installed with an electronic output. When the aircraft reaches critical Mach, say M0.8 the electric all moving stabiliser is progressively moved. For instance 0.1 degrees at Mach 0.81 and 0.5 degrees at Mach 0.85. This ensures the aircraft allways has enough pitch authority and also ensures the aircraft wont overstress as it slows down. These were in development.

Further to the engines the Germans had 4 relatively quick ways forward
1 the accelerator control valve to stop fuel overdosing
2 the Me 262 had thermocouples to measure EGT exhaust gas temperature. These thermocouples needed some electronics and to operate a bypass valve if the temperature became too high but also to damp down its rate of temperature increase. Easy for electronics to do.
3 the Jumo 004 had automatic control for the exhaust gas nozzle. Its purpose was to keep the pressure in the system (turbine, combustion chamber, compressor) approximatluy constant. It needed some improving.
4 duplex nozels to atomise fuel at low flow rates. A standard feature on the HeS 011 and planed for the Jumo 004.

The Me 262 does have a problem developing at the end of 1945 because both the US and UK are introducing 4000lb to 5000lb thrust engines. To this the Germans can answer only with 3000lbs.

Jumo 004B4 880kg (1980lbs)
Jumo 004C 950kg (2095lbs) some sources claim 1000kg
Jumo 004D (1030kg) 2270lbs) some sources claim 1100kg
HeS 011A 1300kg (2900lbs) (benching 1153kg in Feb 1945, meant to be ready for Ta 183 first flight in June 1945)
HeS 011B 1500kg
HeS 011C 1700kg

All these engines could be fitted to the Me 262
Development of an 1800kg/4000lb thrust Jumo 004H had started as a scaled down Jumo 012 with parts or mock-up beginning.

With some aerodynamic refinement eg the area ruling humps in my other post a 1945 Me 262 should be able to propel itself to 560mph Mach 0.85 and remain controllable as well as accelerate at high speed.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jan 9, 2020)

In all honesty, there was never a need for the Me262 to carry bombs (i.e.: "schnellbomber"), the Luftwaffe had the Ar234 for this mission profile and Galland was essentially correct, Willy was simply appeasing "Der Fuhrer" when asked if it could carry bombs - the 262 was NOT originally designed for that option and it should have never been adopted.

The Ar234 and Hs132 would have filled that role perfectly, allowing the 262 to continue on in it's intended role unhindered.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Jan 9, 2020)

Zyzygie said:


> I think that for whatever the reason, high build quality for the Me262 was going to be the exception rather than the rule. As Koopernic says:
> 
> “...The other is airframe tolerances. If one wing is slightly different to the other it will reach critical Mach ahead of the other and cause stability issues. Precision and high tolerances is essential in jets as are airfoils that have a high critical mach.”



Germany’s use of maltreated, underfed slave labor did little to improve build quality, but treating the peoples of invaded countries well was contrary to nazi ideology.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Jan 9, 2020)

swampyankee said:


> Germany’s use of maltreated, underfed slave labor did little to improve build quality, but treating the peoples of invaded countries well was contrary to nazi ideology.


I believe the top speed of the Me 262 ranged from 485 to 540 mph depending on build quality.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zyzygie (Jan 9, 2020)

Koopernic said:


> I'll quickly handle your responses.
> 1 Galland was spending a lot of time flying combat missions in Me 262A1 fighters he championed. He was certainly not keeping an eye on development in the Me 262A2 bombers such as TSA 2D toss bombing sights or integration of radar based blind bombing he had strenuously argued against and that led to his demotion. He had a side to take and he is interested in finding and emphasising the worst. He was right at the time, wrong in the long run.
> 
> 2 Neither the Meteor I nor the XP80A had air brakes. Split flap style Air Brakes were introduced with the Meteor III which entered service in Jan 1945 We had to wait for conversion from Welland to Derwent Engines, from the release of the Derwent from thrust restrictions and no less than two engine nacelle upgrades (more to come). for the Meteor to be combat ready The P-80A was much the same as the YP-80A which preceded it, differing only in minor details. The P-80A introduced under-fuselage dive brakes which opened forward at the wing join.
> ...



Many thanks for keeping it brief Koopernic.
I don’t think I could have digested the full version...

Your deep conviction on the matter brought to mind aphorism #630 in Friedrich Nietzsche’s “Human, All Too Human”...


----------



## Zyzygie (Jan 9, 2020)

Re Galland and the idea of the "Schnellbomber," we'll have to agree to disagree. But Messerschmit seemed to think the ideal configuration for a bomber should be nearer the Meteor in terms of cockpit location:







*Re the automatic throttle, you may be interested:*










*The German jets were extremely heavy, and hence had low thrust to weight ratios. This wasn't going to change with further development.*






*The proposed future development JUMO engines all had a thrust to weight ratio of 1.4 to 1. Half that of the Derwent V.*





*Re maneuverability:*














*The Meteor had a much higher service ceiling than the Me 262: 13,000 vs. 11400 metres.*


----------



## Snautzer01 (Jan 10, 2020)

not to bad or as good ad the Fw190

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jan 10, 2020)

Zyzygie said:


> The German jets were extremely heavy, and hence had low thrust to weight ratios. This wasn't going to change with further development


The Jumo 004 series were heavy, others like the BMW 003A were lighter at 1,375 pounds with a max. thrust of 1,760 lbf., HeS8 at 838 pounds with a max. thrust of 1,300 lbf. and the HeS30 at 860 pounds with a max. thrust of 1,896 lbf.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zyzygie (Jan 10, 2020)

GrauGeist said:


> The Jumo 004 series were heavy, others like the BMW 003A were lighter at 1,375 pounds with a max. thrust of 1,760 lbf., HeS8 at 838 pounds with a max. thrust of 1,300 lbf. and the HeS30 at 860 pounds with a max. thrust of 1,896 lbf.



*Very interesting. But unfortunately just more "if only" sagas. Also apart from the HeS 30, fairly low thrust to weight ratios:*
_"...Helmut Schelp, in charge of engine development at the RLM, refused to give Heinkel a production contract, an event Hans von Ohain claims brought Ernst Heinkel near tears. Schelp noted that while the design was excellent, BMW and Jumo were so far ahead they simply did not need another "Class I" engine – something that would prove ironic in another two years when both of those engines were still not operational. It also appears he had some misgivings about the compressor arrangement, but if this was the case it was never official. He also cancelled von Ohain's Heinkel HeS 8 at the same time."
"Instead of yet another Class I engine, Schelp asked Heinkel to continue work on a Class II engine of about 1,300 kg thrust, which would be needed for reasonably sized single-engine fighters, and as a useful addition to twin-engine bombers. Thus work on the HeS 30 and HeS 8 ended, and Heinkel turned, grudgingly, to the Heinkel HeS 011, which would not enter production before the war ended. The remains of Müller's team were then moved to the Heinkel-Hirth plants to work on the new engine..." Wikipedia_

It looks like it held some promise, but never got beyond the prototype stage. We don't have any details of performance in combat conditions: What was it like in terms of durability? Reliability? Controllability? Specific fuel consumption? Surge resistance?

*All of these were the Derwent's strengths.*


*JUMO bench tests - deterioration with time:*

Creep was inevitable with the alloys they were using.






*The development of Nimonic was crucial to making gas turbines practical:*









*Corrosion was also a big problem. Mild steel highly stressed and exposed to hot (~ 700C) oxidizing gas was not going to last long. That was medium cherry red hot.*

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jan 10, 2020)

Zyzygie said:


> Very interesting. But unfortunately just more "if only" sagas. Also apart from the HeS 30, fairly low thrust to weight ratios:


However, the of the Jumo engine list you posted, only the 004, 004A and 004B were ever used the rest were either in the test phase or they were paper projects.

The HeS8 as not allowed to be developed, like the HeS30 and keep in mind that they didn't have remarkable thrust, but they weighed a fraction of a 004, greatly reducing the weight penalty.

The He280 performed remarkably well as a fighter with the HeS8 and would have been relentless with the HeS30...when they installed 004s on it, the He280 could barely get off the ground...


----------



## Zyzygie (Jan 11, 2020)

GrauGeist said:


> However, the of the Jumo engine list you posted, only the 004, 004A and 004B were ever used the rest were either in the test phase or they were paper projects.
> 
> The HeS8 as not allowed to be developed, like the HeS30 and keep in mind that they didn't have remarkable thrust, but they weighed a fraction of a 004, greatly reducing the weight penalty.
> 
> The He280 performed remarkably well as a fighter with the HeS8 and would have been relentless with the HeS30...when they installed 004s on it, the He280 could barely get off the ground...



Hmmm... sorry, but this looks like another "if only" story:

"...The German Air Ministry eventually forced airplane makers towards the newer, more advanced HeS 011 series turbojet engine due to ongoing issues with the HeS8 and HeS 30 turbojet models. However, the advanced nature of this new engine was equally problematic for engineers. This is where pulsejets allowed at least some further development to take place regarding the He 280 prototypes. Similarly, the BMW 003 and Junker Jump 004 turbojets were options."

"Due to all of its inherent limitations, the Messerschmitt Me 262 "Schwalbe" twin-jet-powered fighter was selected ahead of the He 280 to become Germany's first jet fighter in the war. As such, the He 280 was canceled in full on March 27th, 1943, and Heinkel was forced to concentrate on German bomber production and development for the remainder of the war..."

https://www.militaryfactory.com/aircraft/detail.asp?aircraft_id=220

I note that the Germans were also working on a sort of hybrid *centrifugal-axial* engine? The Heinkel HeS 011. 
It would be interesting to see what their rationale was there...

*General characteristics*

*Type:* Turbojet
*Length:* 3450 mm (11 ft 3¾ in)
*Diameter:* 875 mm (34½ in)
*Dry weight:* 950 kg (2,094 lb)
*Components*

*Compressor:* Diagonal + three stage axial
*Combustors:* 16 chambers
*Turbine:* Two stage axial.
*Performance*

*Maximum thrust:* 12.7 kN (2,900 lbf) at 11,000 rpm.
*Thrust-to-weight ratio:* 1.29
Heinkel HeS 011 - Wikipedia


----------



## Koopernic (Jan 11, 2020)

Kevin J said:


> I believe the top speed of the Me 262 ranged from 485 to 540 mph depending on build quality.



Lockheed P-80 Shooting Star vs. de Havilland Vampire

Walter J Boyne's book "The Best of Wings" quotes Me 262 test pilot Gerd Lindner pilot as saying it could achieve 565mph at 16,400ft (that would have been 925kmh at 5000m). He was a professional test pilot, not a factory acceptance pilot or a fighter pilot. He's paid to be technically accurate. Smooth surface, maybe filled in, well aligned airframe, well aligned engines, good pair of engines.

Lindner also notes he nursed a pair of engines to 60 hours on the wing. The official Jumo MTBO was 25 hours and on the basis of spare parts production the Germans expected 4 x 25 hours life out of the engines. The Luftwaffe maintenance crews, the blackbirds were possibly pulling them early to be safe. It is also important to note that the more reliable hollow air-cooled blades of the Jumo 004B4 only reached the front in December 1944 or so and so air cooled blades were likely quite rare.

Poor Airframe build tolerances & quality was not due to the quality of the labour, which was quite capable, but the fact that Me 262 were being built in the open air in Forrest factory lines on wooden rails without jigs. The Jumo 004 also suffered from unauthorised martial substitution.

The 25 hour overhaul involved replacing the 6 carbon steel combustion chamber cans and the turbine. Turbine was to be inspected at 25 and run till 37.5 if ok, I thunk this was seldom done.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jan 11, 2020)

"If only"?

The He280 was further developed than the Me262, flying under it's own power roughly two years ahead of the Me262 - it was the slow development of the engines (ALL makes) that plagued the jet fighter program.

The HeS8 and HeS30 were not allowed to be developed further like the 004 and 003 were - both of which were never fully developed by war's end and the HeS series were less problematic than the Jumo/BMW engines.

Instead of looking at their total thrust output, look closely at their _Thrust to Weight ratio._
HeS8: 1.61
HeS30: *2.20*
Jumo004B: 1.25
BMW003A: 1.13


----------



## Zyzygie (Jan 11, 2020)

Koopernic said:


> Note, the link https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a800524.pdf you provided to an aircraft is clearly in bad shape. Its listed as having a maximum speed of 460mph. I think we can discount it.



I don’t follow...

It gave a normal CRUISE speed of 465 mph?

As I read it, the maximum measured speed was 568 mph at 20,000 ft.

Hans Fey gave the following:






*As for roll rate:*


----------



## Kevin J (Jan 11, 2020)

Zyzygie said:


> I don’t follow...
> 
> It gave a normal CRUISE speed of 465 mph?
> 
> ...


IIRC, according to Kurfurst, the performance tolerance of new production German fighters at the end of WW2 was +-5%. So if median speed was 510mph then for Me 262, say 484-535mph, then a cleanup that you wouldn't do in the field should give you maybe an extra 5%. So max speed 562mph?


----------



## Zyzygie (Jan 11, 2020)

Zyzygie said:


> *Very interesting. But unfortunately just more "if only" sagas. Also apart from the HeS 30, fairly low thrust to weight ratios:*
> _"...Helmut Schelp, in charge of engine development at the RLM, refused to give Heinkel a production contract, an event Hans von Ohain claims brought Ernst Heinkel near tears. Schelp noted that while the design was excellent, BMW and Jumo were so far ahead they simply did not need another "Class I" engine – something that would prove ironic in another two years when both of those engines were still not operational. It also appears he had some misgivings about the compressor arrangement, but if this was the case it was never official. He also cancelled von Ohain's Heinkel HeS 8 at the same time."
> "Instead of yet another Class I engine, Schelp asked Heinkel to continue work on a Class II engine of about 1,300 kg thrust, which would be needed for reasonably sized single-engine fighters, and as a useful addition to twin-engine bombers. Thus work on the HeS 30 and HeS 8 ended, and Heinkel turned, grudgingly, to the Heinkel HeS 011, which would not enter production before the war ended. The remains of Müller's team were then moved to the Heinkel-Hirth plants to work on the new engine..." Wikipedia_
> 
> ...



Myth Busting the Me-262 - Kaiserslautern American

*Mythbusting the Me 262 - Kaiserlautern American*

"The prototype Galland flew was powered by the first model of the Jumo 004, the Jumo 004A. This engine had been constructed with the highest quality materials available — notably nickel, cobalt and molybdenum — and as a result functioned reasonably well."
"Unfortunately, it was impossible to produce the Jumo 004A in large quantity because Germany did not have enough of these raw materials, and the production version, the Jumo 004B, was built with inferior materials."
"All of the “hot section” components were changed to aluminum-coated steel, and the turbine blades were also produced from different materials than those used in the Jumo 004A. The engine was easier to mass produce, but it was much less reliable and it required a complete overhaul every 10 hours. It also required delicate throttle movements in flight — difficult in combat."


----------



## Zyzygie (Jan 12, 2020)

Junkers JUMO 004 B


----------



## Zyzygie (Jan 12, 2020)

Gas turbine fuel flow control:


----------



## Zyzygie (Jan 12, 2020)

Kevin J said:


> IIRC, according to Kurfurst, the performance tolerance of new production German fighters at the end of WW2 was +-5%. So if median speed was 510mph then for Me 262, say 484-535mph, then a cleanup that you wouldn't do in the field should give you maybe an extra 5%. So max speed 562mph?



Hans Fey stated that they were only allowed 10-15 minutes at maximum speed.

*Higher speeds than normal could sometimes be achieved but at the expense of overheating the engine hot components. Hence a correspondingly much higher risk of incurring catastrophic engine failure.*






*IIRC the engines were required to be overhauled if taken above full load for more than 10 minutes.*





*Extract from The Jet Race and the Second World War.*





*Extract from **The Messerschmitt Me 262 Jet Fighter | Defense Media Network*





*The Me 262 Stormbird: From the Pilots Who Flew, Fought, and Survived It*
By Colin D. Heaton

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zyzygie (Jan 13, 2020)




----------



## Koopernic (Jan 13, 2020)

Zyzygie said:


> Hmmm... sorry, but this looks like another "if only" story:
> 
> "...The German Air Ministry eventually forced airplane makers towards the newer, more advanced HeS 011 series turbojet engine due to ongoing issues with the HeS8 and HeS 30 turbojet models. However, the advanced nature of this new engine was equally problematic for engineers. This is where pulsejets allowed at least some further development to take place regarding the He 280 prototypes. Similarly, the BMW 003 and Junker Jump 004 turbojets were options."
> 
> ...



The HeS 011 had a 4 stage compressors. Stage 1 is the interesting stage. It is often referred to as a diagonal flow compressor or a mixed flow compressor. On the surface it looks like a centrifugal radial compressor but the key difference is a carefully curved design that directs the outgoing air in the axial direction instead of radial. The air is directed on to a stator vane which achieves considerable compression. This is followed by 3 normal axial stages, an annular combustion chamber and a two stage air-cooled turbine.

The mixed flow (centrifugal/axial) first stage compressor ensured combat ruggedness and the ability to ingest turbulent air. Hence aircraft concepts with the HeS 011, such as the Me 262 HG III often are shown with the engines in the wing root area or even buried in the wing rood ingesting air through slits in the leading edges.

The first German jet engines not only had radial single sided compressors they had radial inflow turbines which are just radial compressors running in reverse. von Ohain chose these because they tend to self balance the compressor and turbine.

In order to keep the diameter down (which the von Heinkel and Ohain worried about more than Whittle Rover RR) von Ohain added a single stage fan ahead of the radial compressor (without stator). Because they couldn't get enough compression and airflow to achieve performance goals they started to add axial stages after the radial compressor. This eventually evolved into the HeS 011A.

Part of the reason was that although the German air ministry had bet on axial jets they wanted to keep developing centrifugal gas turbines.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zyzygie (Jan 13, 2020)

Koopernic said:


> The HeS 011 had a 4 stage compressors. Stage 1 is the interesting stage. It is often referred to as a diagonal flow compressor or a mixed flow compressor. On the surface it looks like a centrifugal radial compressor but the key difference is a carefully curved design that directs the outgoing air in the axial direction instead of radial. The air is directed on to a stator vane which achieves considerable compression. This is followed by 3 normal axial stages, an annular combustion chamber and a two stage air-cooled turbine.
> 
> The mixed flow (centrifugal/axial) first stage compressor ensured combat ruggedness and the ability to ingest turbulent air. Hence aircraft concepts with the HeS 011, such as the Me 262 HG III often are shown with the engines in the wing root area or even buried in the wing rood ingesting air through slits in the leading edges.
> 
> ...



Sometimes contemporary turbines use centrifugal in series with axial compressors, but always put the centrifugal *after *the axial as it's more effective at the high pressure end. On the other hand, as you say, the centrifugal gave "combat ruggedness and the ability to ingest turbulent air." In a combat situation, straightforward technical considerations may be less important than resistance to damage from flying shrapnel or other loose battlefield material. The Russians have taken that very seriously, see Foreign object damage - Wikipedia 
"...The Russian Mikoyan MiG-29 and Sukhoi Su-27 fighters have a special intake design to prevent the ingestion of FOD during take-off from rough airfields. The main air intakes could be closed with mesh doors and special inlets on the top of the intakes temporarily opened. This would allow enough airflow to the engine for take-off but reduced the chances of the engine sucking up objects from the ground..."


----------



## Koopernic (Jan 13, 2020)

Zyzygie said:


> Sometimes contemporary turbines use centrifugal in series with axial compressors, but always put the centrifugal *after *the axial as it's more effective at the high pressure end. On the other hand, as you say, the centrifugal gave "combat ruggedness and the ability to ingest turbulent air." In a combat situation, straightforward technical considerations may be less important than resistance to damage from flying shrapnel or other loose battlefield material. The Russians have taken that very seriously, see Foreign object damage - Wikipedia
> "...The Russian Mikoyan MiG-29 and Sukhoi Su-27 fighters have a special intake design to prevent the ingestion of FOD during take-off from rough airfields. The main air intakes could be closed with mesh doors and special inlets on the top of the intakes temporarily opened. This would allow enough airflow to the engine for take-off but reduced the chances of the engine sucking up objects from the ground..."



Just a note as to why the first Whittle Engines had such a large diameter. Whittle was very concerned by shaft alignment and vibration and wanted the turbine disk and shaft fabricated in one piece. He was a very good engineer. Therefore he used double reverse flow combustion chambers to keep the distance between turbine and compressor short. This was the one idea von Ohain copied from Whititles patent thought he used an annular reverse flow combustion chamber for the HeS 003. When Rolls Royce became involved they got rid of the reverse flow feature to reduced the engine diameter and used their resources to ensure there was no shaft alignment issue.

The diameter issues disappeared by making outsized engine nacelles, as engines became more compact overall and of course the Americans fixed it by just putting a big engine inside the P80. In a way deHaviland did the same with the Vampire/Goblin.

In some photographs (Anthony Kay’s book) has a photograph of a sort of bird cage basket over Jumo 004 engined intakes. These were to protect ground crew but it was found that flight was uneffected and combat missions were conducted with no effect on performance with the baskets on. They were flown in combat to protect against combat FOD. All up the Jumo handled intake disturbance better than they expected. Kay’s book has a photo of a Jumo 004 with a 10ft stove pipe intake extension to simulate an air intake duct for the Messerschmitt P1011. It worked well with only 3% loss in thrust.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zyzygie (Jan 13, 2020)

German jet rivalry - *Flight*


----------



## Zyzygie (Jan 13, 2020)

Koopernic said:


> Just a note as to why the first Whittle Engines had such a large diameter. Whittle was very concerned by shaft alignment and vibration and wanted the turbine disk and shaft fabricated in one piece. He was a very good engineer. Therefore he used double reverse flow combustion chambers to keep the distance between turbine and compressor short. This was the one idea vin Ohain copied from Whititles patent thought he used an angular reverse flow combustion chamber. When Rolls Royce became involved they got rid of the reverse flow feature to reduced the engine diameter and used their resources to ensure there was no shaft alignment issue.
> 
> The diameter issues disappeared by making outsized engine nacelles, as engines became more compact overall and of course the Americans fixed it by just putting a big engine inside the P80. In a way Dehviland did the same with the Vampire/Ghost.
> 
> In some photographs (Kay’s book) has a photograph of a sort of birdcage basket over Jumo 004 engined intakes. These were to protect ground crew but it was find that flight was uneffeced and combat missions were conducted with no effect with the baskets on. They were flown in combat to protect against combat FOD. All up the Jumo handled intake disturbance fairly well. Kay’s book has a photo of a Jumo 004 with a 10ft stove pipe extension to simulate an air intake duct for the Messerschmitt P1011. It worked well with only 3% loss in thrust.



*Further to ruggedness of military jets. An extract from Flight 1950:*


----------



## BiffF15 (Jan 13, 2020)

Zyzygie said:


> "...The Russian Mikoyan MiG-29 and Sukhoi Su-27 fighters have a special intake design to prevent the ingestion of FOD during take-off from rough airfields. The main air intakes could be closed with mesh doors and special inlets on the top of the intakes temporarily opened. This would allow enough airflow to the engine for take-off but reduced the chances of the engine sucking up objects from the ground..."



I’m very familiar with the MiG-29s system to include the louvers on top of the fuselage (have fought these guys many times) however not the Su-27s version. Do you have any sources you could pass / post?

Cheers,
Biff


----------



## Zyzygie (Jan 13, 2020)

*The Swallow in the forest:*

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zyzygie (Jan 13, 2020)

*The de Havilland Goblin of “hailstone gobbling”
fame:*


----------



## Zyzygie (Jan 13, 2020)

*Graph of theoretical specific fuel consumption (SFC) vs pressure ratio relationship, superimposed with actual values for the Derwent and JUMO 004. The JUMO figure was probably affected by the need to bleed off some air for blade cooling.*

*Parasitical losses if you like.*


----------



## Zyzygie (Jan 14, 2020)

BiffF15 said:


> I’m very familiar with the MiG-29s system to include the louvers on top of the fuselage (have fought these guys many times) however not the Su-27s version. Do you have any sources you could pass / post?
> 
> Cheers,
> Biff



Sorry Biff, only modeller sites seem to reference intake grills for the Flanker:


----------



## Zyzygie (Jan 14, 2020)

*Me 262 - new detailed original commentary, Clean film footage*


----------



## Zyzygie (Jan 14, 2020)

Allied jets of World War 2:


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 14, 2020)

Zyzygie said:


> *Further to ruggedness of military jets. An extract from Flight 1950:*
> 
> View attachment 566619


You've posted a lot of good links and information on here but having worked on a few turbine engines, I think the above comments about birds and being ingested into an engine and causing no damage is completely false. Back in the day there may have been some who "thought" no damage was sustained but then again there was little guidance to address these types of occurrences and what to do in the aftermath.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zyzygie (Jan 14, 2020)

FLYBOYJ said:


> You've posted a lot of good links and information on here but having worked on a few turbine engines, I think the above comments about birds and being ingested into an engine and causing no damage is completely false. Back in the day there may have been some who "thought" no damage was sustained but then again there was little guidance to address these types of occurrences and what to do in the aftermath.



This may be a case of "how long is a piece of string?" The question in this case is "how big is the bird."

"Patrick Smith, a US pilot and author of the book Cockpit Confidential, adds: “As you'd expect, aircraft components are built to tolerate such impacts. You can see web videos of bird carcasses being fired from a sort of chicken-cannon to test the resistance of windshields, intakes, and so forth.” "

" “I've personally experienced several strikes, and the result was, at worst, a minor dent. When a bird flies, or is sucked into, the engine of a plane, the poor critter usually disintegrates. However, in incidents with larger birds there can be extensive damage to the engine..."

How common are bird strikes – and could they bring down a passenger jet?

I take on board your point that there may be no *apparent* damage on visual inspection, but when properly checked out with state of the art crack detection methods, it may be a very different story. Back in those days they didn't have the technology to do that.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 14, 2020)

Zyzygie said:


> How common are bird strikes – and could they bring down a passenger jet?





Zyzygie said:


> I take on board your point that there may be no *apparent* damage on visual inspection, but when properly checked out with state of the art crack detection methods, it may be a very different story. Back in those days they didn't have the technology to do that.



Exactly - I would also go on to say that many of these early stories hardly ever follow up to say if the engine made TBO or what was found when the engine was finally torn down.


----------



## Zyzygie (Jan 14, 2020)

*F2 Meteor fitted with Metrovick axial jets.*

“...[The Metrovick F2] axial flow jet first powered a Gloster Meteor in November 1943, outperforming contemporary models from Power Jets. In spite of this excellent start, it was considered unreliable and never saw use during the war. In the post-war era, a number of engines provided much higher performance, and interest in the F.2 waned.”

“The potential of the engine and the investment did not go to waste, however; the design was passed from Metropolitan-Vickers (MetroVick) to Armstrong Siddeley when MetroVick left the gas turbine business. Armstrong Siddeley produced a larger version as the successful Sapphire...”

Wikipedia


----------



## Zyzygie (Jan 14, 2020)




----------



## Zyzygie (Jan 15, 2020)

Me 262 replica testing.


----------



## Ascent (Jan 15, 2020)

I used to work on the RB199 in the RAF and if you were lucky something small like a sparrow going down the bypass instead of the core would do no damage. But even a small bird, even if it did no physical damage to the blades, could clog cooling holes on the turbine blades causing blade failure.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zyzygie (Jan 15, 2020)

Melancholia... Lacrimosa

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zyzygie (Jan 15, 2020)

Early “tail dragger ” Me 262 prototypes:


----------



## Zyzygie (Jan 15, 2020)

The legacy of war


“...While in the United States the Boeing B-17 Stratofortress and the B-29 bombers were still assembled by riveting individual shaped sheet metal parts together, Germany made light and strong magnesium and aluminium structural components. To produce these components, the Third Reich engineers built a 33,000-ton hydraulic press and two smaller 16,500-ton machines to produce the first Messerschmitt Me 262 jet fighters. The latter two machines were requisitioned by the United States, while the first ended up in the hands of the Soviet Union. Fearing that this technological disadvantage would result in a military disadvantage, the US launched the Heavy Press Program with the intention of building the world’s largest forging presses...” 

The world's largest hydraulic presses | Gasparini Industries

Reactions: Like Like:
 1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zyzygie (Jan 15, 2020)

Ascent said:


> I used to work on the RB199 in the RAF and if you were lucky something small like a sparrow going down the bypass instead of the core would do no damage. But even a small bird, even if it did no physical damage to the blades, could clog cooling holes on the turbine blades causing blade failure.



Thanks Ascent. 

It worries me a little that we have designed and built weapons systems that are so dependent on operating in a pristine environment. A war environment is inevitably one of chaos and one helluva big mess. 

I hope I’m wrong.


----------



## Koopernic (Jan 15, 2020)

Zyzygie said:


> The legacy of war
> 
> 
> “...While in the United States the Boeing B-17 Stratofortress and the B-29 bombers were still assembled by riveting individual shaped sheet metal parts together, Germany made light and strong magnesium and aluminium structural components. To produce these components, the Third Reich engineers built a 33,000-ton hydraulic press and two smaller 16,500-ton machines to produce the first Messerschmitt Me 262 jet fighters. The latter two machines were requisitioned by the United States, while the first ended up in the hands of the Soviet Union. Fearing that this technological disadvantage would result in a military disadvantage, the US launched the Heavy Press Program with the intention of building the world’s largest forging presses...”
> ...




Junkers had designed the Ju 288 wing spars to be forged, taper and all, in giant forging presses. The big upsurge in German munitions production in 1942 came from investments in tooling and factories made years earlier.

Normally the German WW2 aircraft suspended their engines of magnesium forgings. The Designer of the Me 410 however fearful that the presses would become targets for bombs designed suspension frames that were welded. He happened to be a welding expert. (that was in Rudiger Kosins book "The German Fighter". ) Kosin was the aerodynacist for the Ar 234.

Arado actually made complete experimental wings for the Arado 234 out of cast magnesium. There was no spars or structure. Just a caste solid hollow wing that functioned as a fuel tank.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Koopernic (Jan 15, 2020)

Ascent said:


> I used to work on the RB199 in the RAF and if you were lucky something small like a sparrow going down the bypass instead of the core would do no damage. But even a small bird, even if it did no physical damage to the blades, could clog cooling holes on the turbine blades causing blade failure.



I think I saw a YouTube video of a engine core, may have been LEAP or PW1000G that had diverter valves that bypassed foreign objects at the intermediate compressor.


----------



## swampyankee (Jan 15, 2020)

If I remember — it’s been a few years — for a large bird, the engine just has to demonstrate an orderly shutdown, no fire, no shed parts, no over stressing the engine mounts. For smaller birds, they have to provide some fraction of full thrust. Military engines have different rules. It’s also not unknown for companies to cheat; GE did so with the CF6 used on early DC-10s,with the result that a DC-10 lost all three engines on takeoff from LaGuardia


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 15, 2020)

Zyzygie said:


> View attachment 566714



That B-17 WAS NOT destroyed by an Me 262. 

WW2 Casualties Database | Military Records Research | WW2 Research Inc


----------



## Zyzygie (Jan 15, 2020)

FLYBOYJ said:


> That B-17 WAS NOT destroyed by an Me 262.
> 
> WW2 Casualties Database | Military Records Research | WW2 Research Inc



Thanks for the clarification.


----------



## Zyzygie (Jan 16, 2020)

Koopernic said:


> Junkers had designed the Ju 288 wing spars to be forged, taper and all, in giant forging presses. The big upsurge in German munitions production in 1942 came from investments in tooling and factories made years earlier.
> 
> Normally the German WW2 aircraft suspended their engines of magnesium forgings. The Designer of the Me 410 however fearful that the presses would become targets for bombs designed suspension frames that were welded. He happened to be a welding expert. (that was in Rudiger Kosins book "The German Fighter". ) Kosin was the aerodynacist for the Ar 234.
> 
> Arado actually made complete experimental wings for the Arado 234 out of cast magnesium. There was no spars or structure. Just a caste solid hollow wing that functioned as a fuel tank.



They’ll probably be able to 3D print that sort of thing before too long.


----------



## Zyzygie (Jan 16, 2020)

Now instead of metal pressing, why didn’t the Germans invent 3D printing?

Gas turbine blades can be 3D printed | Engineers Australia


----------



## Koopernic (Jan 16, 2020)

Zyzygie said:


> Now instead of metal pressing, why didn’t the Germans invent 3D printing?
> 
> Gas turbine blades can be 3D printed | Engineers Australia



There were programs in Germany during the Second World War to produce ceramic and cremet gas turbines blades as well as another to produce water cooled turbines. In 1947 Siemens obtained permission from the western allied powers to start building turbines again and in 1948 commissioned a stationary power gas turbine that ran of blast furnace gas at a steel works. It used the standard Jumo 004 compressor, a large ceramic vertical combustion chamber, ceramic turbine nozzles and a 5 stage water cooled turbine. Sometime after that the British allowed them to use nimonic and the this no longer necessary to develop this technology. Ceramics have always been viable but high end metals have always remained a step ahead. Water cooling is effective as well with staleness steel type blades, the cooling requirements are not onerous and one could use the wing leading edge, a steam radiator to generate some thrust. Aluminium blades work as well but they are so conductive massive cooling is required.

the problem with 3D printing has always been that the alloy grain structure is not as good as that obtained by other methods.

in WW2 the germans made their blades out of sheet metal whereas the british were casting them and then machining them.

Shortly after the war the British sent intelligence teams to investigate German engine development. The one to Germany was headed by Roy Fedden (Bristol Sleeve Valve chief engineer). He produced an article in Flight Global of his interview of BMWs Hermann Oestrich. Österlich mentions that one of the German mistakes was neglecting fuel control system design for jets. He also mentions that BMW was considering water cooled turbines.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zyzygie (Jan 17, 2020)

Koopernic said:


> the problem with 3D printing has always been that the alloy grain structure is not as good as that obtained by other methods.



It seems that with gas temperatures of 1250C, tensile loading of 10 tonnes and rotational speed of 13,000 rev/minute, the blade material must be of high quality.


----------



## Zyzygie (Jan 17, 2020)

Koopernic said:


> Österlich mentions that one of the German mistakes was neglecting fuel control system design for jets. He also mentions that BMW was considering water cooled turbines.



Arguably a very big mistake was to not develop high temperature nickel alloys for use in gas turbines. Without that, the concept of the gas turbine was “a pie in the sky.” Something that would be good to have, but frankly not going to happen.
“...The German industry had been aware that in any possible war, nickel would be one of the key metals in short supply. Consequently, even before the war, efforts had been made to develop alternatives and R&D on nickel-heavy alloys was curtailed: e.g. Krupp works did not introduce an improved Tinidur alloy with 60% instead of 30% Ni because of the anticipated shortage, even though the high temperature advantages were known (Meher-Homji 1997). One of the areas in which this awareness manifested itself was in superchargers, which were the first applications of hollow turbine blades: a BMW turbo-supercharger ran successfully at 900°C in 1938, using internally air-cooled blades...”
Early German gas turbine development

Air-cooled and ceramic blades were interesting and innovative, but not going to be practical given wartime conditions and shortages of time and resources.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zyzygie (Jan 18, 2020)

The mechanism of compressor stall:


----------



## Zyzygie (Jan 19, 2020)

An interesting source on *He-162*

"...The call for a Volksjager (people’s ﬁghter) is an astonishing late-war accomplishment that went from drawing board to ﬂight in only three months. This very hurried project (code-named “Salamander”) managed to produce the Heinkel 162, “unique in the history of aviation as the only aircraft in which development, pre-production prototypes and main production lines were started almost simultaneously and proceeded in parallel.” Curious in the design is the location of the jet engine, mounted on top of the fuselage directly above and behind the cockpit; this motivated the installation of a simple ejection seat, reﬂecting that the pilots were more highly valued than the aircraft itself."

"The aircraft itself was very effective as a ﬁghter interceptor, equalling the Me-262. In some ways it was superior: “The BMW engine proved to be far less sensitive to throttle movements than those of the Me 262, though still prone to ﬂameouts. This allowed the He 162 to be ﬂown up to the limits of the pilot’s conﬁdence in the aircraft, unlike the Me 262 whose engines restricted much in the way of maneuvers.” It was very fast and well-armed. However, it had a problem of having a very short ﬂight time of 30 minutes, and many operational losses were due to running out of fuel."

"Despite its rapid development and excellent qualities, it was another case of too little too late for the Luftwaffe. The production program was planned to put out 4,000 aircraft per month, but only a few hundred were in fact produced because of the success of the Allied bombing campaign. Although a very few He-162s did see action over Germany in April 1944, the ﬁghter essentially had no impact on the war..."

​


----------



## Zyzygie (Jan 20, 2020)

JUMO 004 Turbine Blading:






"Contrary to popular belief, the 004A was a fairly sound performer when premium steels were used, and early versions were known to achieve a 200-250 hour service life. However, the diversion of critical materials into U-boat production and other projects late in the war forced _Junkers_ to produce the 004B model with only 1/3 of the high-grade steel that had been used in the 004A. It was to be a disastrous concession for the Me 262."

"The introduction of inferior metals compounded an already problematic situation with the turbine blade design. These blades were rigidly mounted, contributing to severe root stress relief problems. The weaker metals simply could not withstand this kind of abuse and regular compressor failures were an inevitable consequence."

Me 262 PROJECT TECHNICAL DATA


----------



## Admiral Beez (Jan 21, 2020)

Could the Meteor or P-80 be modified as a long range escort fighter to counter the Me 262 over Germany?

The postwar F-8 carried drop tanks.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zyzygie (Jan 22, 2020)

Admiral Beez said:


> Could the Meteor or P-80 be modified as a long range escort fighter to counter the Me 262 over Germany?
> 
> The postwar F-8 carried drop tanks.
> 
> View attachment 567399


What about the ventral tank?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Admiral Beez (Jan 22, 2020)

Zyzygie said:


> What about the ventral tank?


What range did that provide? Can the Meteor thus equipped fly from England to Germany and back? How about both ventral and wing tanks?


----------



## Zyzygie (Jan 23, 2020)

No way

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Jan 23, 2020)

Zyzygie said:


> No way


Not 'no way' just one way.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zyzygie (Jan 24, 2020)

Russia Built Their MiG-15 Fighter Jet Thanks to This American Ally


----------



## Zyzygie (Jan 24, 2020)

*Gloster Meteor Mk 8 A77-368*

“...On display in the Australian War Memorial is one of the most war weary of aircraft, Gloster Meteor Mk 8 jet fighter, Ex RAAF serial number A77-368. This aircraft flew with the RAAF in Korea performing no less than 485 operational missions and flying time in theatre of 484 hours. Very few aircraft in the RAAF can claim that level of utilization in any conflict...”

"...A77-368 was constructed by Glosters (The Gloucestershire Aircraft Company Limited) of Cheltenham UK as an F.8 Fighter and allotted an RAF serial WA952, however it never served with the RAF and was instead sent to Korea as part of an allocation of Meteor’s to the RAAF to replace the 77 Sqn North American P51 aircraft which were by then outdated. Even the Meteor as a WWII era aircraft was not a competitive fighter any longer and as such it was relegated to ground attack duties after a period of difficult engagements in the fighter role, as with the P51 before it. The Meteor was nonetheless an excellent ground attack aircraft and the 77 Sqn aircraft performed extremely well with an enviable record of 15,000 missions in Meteors, five MiG-15s and destroying 3,700 buildings, 1,408 vehicles, ninety-eight railway engines and carriages, and sixteen bridges. The cost was very severe however with 40 Meteors lost and 25 RAAF pilots killed..."

*The 77 Squadron was awarded a Korean Presidential Citation for its service in the Korean conflict:*

"...Probably its most profound accolade was the Korean Presidential citation awarded in late 1951. However from an Australian perspective, praise from one's own countrymen is always highly valued. The Battalion 2 IC and later Commanding Officer of the 3rd Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment (3RAR), Major (later Lieutenant Colonel) I.B. (Bruce) Ferguson praised the provision of close air support to 3RAR by 77 Squadron in a major attack it carried out near Pakchon on 5 November 1950."

"3RAR had called for preparatory bombardment of Chinese positions on a line of hilltops overlooking the Pakchon–Sinanju Road in the Taeryong Valley, before 3RAR launched their attack. No. 77 Squadron was the squadron on call and responded, firing rockets and dropping napalm on the Chinese positions, before following up with strafing runs against Chinese troops fleeing their positions. After several hours of close fighting, 3RAR gained their objectives."

Major Bruce Ferguson later described No. 77 Squadron’s close air support as “_the closest I have ever seen_” and commented, “I_t was an all Australian show … the boost to morale was amazing when we recognised the planes of 77 Squadron overhead._”

*No. 77 Squadron RAAF - Wikipedia*

"...Following the signing of the Korean Armistice Agreement on 27 July 1953, the squadron remained in South Korea on garrison duties—initially at Kimpo, later at Kunsan—until transferring to Iwakuni on 12 October 1954.[16][115] It departed for Australia on 19 November and arrived in Sydney on 3 December, having been based overseas for eleven years, a record for an RAAF unit.[116] Its performance in the early days of the war has been cited as a factor in the United States' decision to ratify the ANZUS treaty in September 1951.[117] The squadron's casualty rate in Korea was twenty-five percent killed or captured.[118][119] Forty-one pilots died, thirty-five from the RAAF and six on exchange from the Royal Air Force.[118][120] A further seven pilots became prisoners of war.[109][121] Aircraft losses totalled almost sixty, including over forty Meteors, mostly to ground fire.[118][122] The squadron flew 18,872 sorties, including 3,872 in Mustangs and 15,000 in Meteors.[109][123] It was credited with shooting down five MiG-15s and destroying 3,700 buildings, 1,408 vehicles, ninety-eight railway engines and carriages, and sixteen bridges.[118][124]..."

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zyzygie (Jan 25, 2020)

"During the Korean War, the RAAF’s No 77 Squadron was the sole unit within the United Nations Command which operated the British-built Gloster Meteor Mk 8 jet fighter. In April 1951 the squadron withdrew its P-51 Mustangs from operations to re-equip with the Meteor, returning to Korean skies in July, and remaining until the armistice was signed on 27 July 1953. During this period, the Meteor flew in the air-to-air, bomber escort, combat air patrol and ground attack roles. Its performance in the air-to-air role, in which it was pitted against the Russian-built MiG-15 flown by the Chinese Air Force, is a controversial subject that bears critical assessment..."

"...In the first three combats, between 29 August and 26 September, a single MiG-15 was claimed as damaged, for the loss of one Meteor and three others damaged. This was taken to show that the RAAF aircraft was outclassed in the fighter combat role. A further large-scale clash on 1 December 1951 appeared to reinforce this belief: the success ratio was 3:2 in favour of the MiG-15. The next day, after discussions between the CO of 77 Squadron and the Director of Operations, USAF Fifth Air Force, the aircraft was withdrawn from fighter sweeps into ‘MiG Alley’ and reassigned to bomber escort and combat air patrol over Allied fighter-bombers. This decision has been the basis of considerable contention ever since, with even some of the pilots concerned later asserting that the change was made with undue haste and that, if the combat pilots had been given the standard of fighter combat instruction that was later applied, the Meteor could have been more successful in the air-to-air role.In the context of the fighter pilot training scenario of the early 1950s, those making such criticisms appear to have a point. In the years immediately following World War II the RAAF had paid little attention to air combat training, and it was not until March 1952 that No 2 Operational Conversion Unit was raised to address training shortfalls that were recognised in Korea..."

"...Also appearing to support the contention that the RAAF might have been too quick to bail out of the air-to-air role with the Meteor are the final shoot-down statistics. These show that in total 77 Squadron only lost four Meteors to the MiG-15, all of them on or before the aircraft was pulled from unrestricted air combat on 1 December 1951, against five MiGs confirmed as destroyed—all after that same date..."

"...One 77 Squadron pilot who actually accounted for a MiG-15 later had the opportunity to practice in the Meteor against Sabres while on exchange with the Meteor Mk 8 RAF in Europe. Based on his observations, he remains convinced to this day that at lower altitudes (up to 6000 metres) an aggressively flown Meteor could out-turn and out-accelerate the Sabre. Another 77 Squadron pilot had earlier expressed the view that the Meteor’s manoeuvrability meant that no RAAF pilot should have been shot down by a MiG-15 below 9000 metres unless he made a mistake..."

"...Lack of air combat training and tactics quite probably did limit the ability of 77 Squadron pilots to initially achieve success against the MiG-15. But the contention that extra time spent in the air-to-air role would have enhanced the ability of the pilots still seems questionable. The operational lessons and a critical assessment of the performance of the Meteor and MiG-15 make it obvious that an unacceptably high attrition rate in aircraft and pilots could have been expected if air-to-air operations had continued. Compared to the Meteor, the MiG-15 was far superior in performance. The initial climb rate of the Russian aircraft was 2900 feet per minute faster than the Meteor, and it was 73 miles per hour faster in level flight; the comparative power to weight ratio (based on empty weight) was 1.76:1 for the MiG-15 and 1.45:1 for the Meteor. These latter figures support the assumption that the MiG-15 would have faster acceleration than the Meteor. Another performance figure that clearly identifies the difference between the two fighters was their critical Mach number. The Meteor was rated at 0.87, after which it developed compressibility problems, a phenomenon that was not so evident in the MiG-15.The basic difference between the two aircraft was that the Mark 8 Meteor was the ultimate single-seat fighter development of an obsolescent design incorporating the technology of the early 1940s, while the MiG-15 belonged to an entirely new generation of design considerations. The Meteor’s twin-engine layout recognised the low power of the pioneer turbojet engines with which it was fitted, and its wings were straight and thick, whereas the MiG-15 (and the Sabre) incorporated later German thin swept wing technology..."

"...The MiG-15 formations tactically controlled air combat over Korea. They initiated combat on their terms, and the performance of the MiG-15 enabled them to break contact in a like manner. No matter how well trained the Australian pilots may have been, the performance of the Meteor always placed it at tactical disadvantage in the air-to-air role. Analysis of the individual actions when MiGs were shot down by Meteors strongly suggest that these were simply situations where Chinese pilots made the mistakes..."

http://airpower.airforce.gov.au/APDC/media/PDF-Files/Pathfinder/PF009-Meteors-Versus-MiGs.pdf

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## BiffF15 (Jan 25, 2020)

Zyzygie said:


> "During the Korean War, the RAAF’s No 77 Squadron was the sole unit within the United Nations Command which operated the British-built Gloster Meteor Mk 8 jet fighter. In April 1951 the squadron withdrew its P-51 Mustangs from operations to re-equip with the Meteor, returning to Korean skies in July, and remaining until the armistice was signed on 27 July 1953. During this period, the Meteor flew in the air-to-air, bomber escort, combat air patrol and ground attack roles. Its performance in the air-to-air role, in which it was pitted against the Russian-built MiG-15 flown by the Chinese Air Force, is a controversial subject that bears critical assessment..."
> 
> "...In the first three combats, between 29 August and 26 September, a single MiG-15 was claimed as damaged, for the loss of one Meteor and three others damaged. This was taken to show that the RAAF aircraft was outclassed in the fighter combat role. A further large-scale clash on 1 December 1951 appeared to reinforce this belief: the success ratio was 3:2 in favour of the MiG-15. The next day, after discussions between the CO of 77 Squadron and the Director of Operations, USAF Fifth Air Force, the aircraft was withdrawn from fighter sweeps into ‘MiG Alley’ and reassigned to bomber escort and combat air patrol over Allied fighter-bombers. This decision has been the basis of considerable contention ever since, with even some of the pilots concerned later asserting that the change was made with undue haste and that, if the combat pilots had been given the standard of fighter combat instruction that was later applied, the Meteor could have been more successful in the air-to-air role.In the context of the fighter pilot training scenario of the early 1950s, those making such criticisms appear to have a point. In the years immediately following World War II the RAAF had paid little attention to air combat training, and it was not until March 1952 that No 2 Operational Conversion Unit was raised to address training shortfalls that were recognised in Korea..."
> 
> ...




Zyzygie,

Counter point: Do you have a laydown of squadrons in theater at the time the Meteors were pulled? Or in other words, did the 5th AF DO make the right call based on assets available with the training they already have? It would be nice to take time out while in theater to go from not prepared for air to air combat to being prepared for such. It's usually based on academic lectures, training by IP's (Instructor Pilots) who are actually proficient at the training objective, and time. The last in a combat theater, where you should be contributing is something you don't have enough of. 

A combat squadron must produce enough flyable jets to accomplish it's tasking. After those jets are done, and with enough data points on reliability one may then fly extra sorties for the purpose of training. If one must stand down their squadron in order to be trained, then either the whole war must take a time out, or a decent sized shift in ops that may or may not focus on the Commanders objectives. In other words what the heck are you doing here if you aren't trained?

Cheers,
Biff

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Dimlee (Jan 25, 2020)

Commander of 64th IAK General Lobov in his memoirs boasted the operation planned by him and conducted by MiG-15s of 176th GIAP on 1st December 1951. According to Lobov, Meteors of RAAF were ambushed with losses of 12 from 16. Russian historians in subsequent researches lowered that number down to 9 Meteors. RAAF accepted 3 losses on that day, 1 KIA, 2 POW (No.77 Squadron).
Taken from my current reading:
https://amzn.to/2tPfsYN
The book is heavily biased in many parts but this battle is given more or less fair description.
Also in Wiki:
Battle of Sunchon (air) - Wikipedia
3 Meteors lost in one mission, probably the worst day for RAAF?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zyzygie (Jan 25, 2020)

BiffF15 said:


> Zyzygie,
> 
> Counter point: Do you have a laydown of squadrons in theater at the time the Meteors were pulled? Or in other words, did the 5th AF DO make the right call based on assets available with the training they already have? It would be nice to take time out while in theater to go from not prepared for air to air combat to being prepared for such. It's usually based on academic lectures, training by IP's (Instructor Pilots) who are actually proficient at the training objective, and time. The last in a combat theater, where you should be contributing is something you don't have enough of.
> 
> ...



They were originally a ground attack squadron flying Mustang P51s.
They then moved over to Meteors while in Korea. They were not retrained as specialist fighter pilots during the changeover.

If you read the background in the hyperlinks it will make much more sense.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zyzygie (Jan 25, 2020)

Dimlee said:


> Commander of 64th IAK General Lobov in his memoirs boasted the operation planned by him and conducted by MiG-15s of 176th GIAP on 1st December 1951. According to Lobov, Meteors of RAAF were ambushed with losses of 12 from 16. Russian historians in subsequent researches lowered that number down to 9 Meteors. RAAF accepted 3 losses on that day, 1 KIA, 2 POW (No.77 Squadron).
> Taken from my current reading:
> https://amzn.to/2tPfsYN
> The book is heavily biased in many parts but this battle is given more or less fair description.
> ...





Yes it was definitely highly biased. If you take Russian claims at face value, they had a multiple kill ratio in their favour against the Sabre. The bottom line is that the 77 squadron lost 40 aircraft in Korea, with the vast majority of losses during their ground attack operations. That makes sense.

Another thing which has to be taken into account is that the MiGs were always in a substantial majority in the dogfights. That would be a big disadvantage for the Meteors from the start.

“...On 1 December 1951, over Sunchon, at least twenty Soviet-piloted MiGs from the 176th Guards Fighter Air Regiment (_176 GvIAP_) attacked a formation of fourteen Meteors. Both sides apparently overestimated the scale of the battle and the damage inflicted to their opponents: three Meteors—one flown by Pilot Officer Vance Drummond—were lost, but Soviet pilots claimed nine destroyed; Australian pilots claimed one MiG shot down and another damaged, from a formation of at least forty, though Russian sources suggest that all the MiGs returned to base and less than twenty-five were available to _176 GvIAP_ at the time.[101][102...“
No. 77 Squadron RAAF - Wikipedia

Again, the fact that they received the Presidential Citation indicates that they were performing a highly valuable service. The Americans had abandoned their heavy bombing program due to unsustainable losses incurred from MiG attack. That made the light bombing operations of the Meteor all the more important.

For the MiGs to counter the Meteor ground attack operations, they had to come down below the 20,000 feet level where the Meteor was competitive. Most of the kills against the MiGs took place during this phase of the Meteor’s war.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zyzygie (Jan 25, 2020)

“...The Meteor will be forever remembered as the first British jet fighter to enter squadron service and the only jet-powered Allied fighter to see action in the Second World War. Subsequent development was limited as a result of its relatively conventional airframe, but with its powerful Rolls-Royce Derwent 8 engines, a well-flown F.8 was quite capable of causing an upset if a Sabre pilot attempted to mix it in mock combat below 20,000 ft. The Meteor was also immensely strong, and many pilots owe their lives to its rugged construction...”

Meteor From the Cockpit

Meteor from the Cockpit


----------



## Zyzygie (Jan 25, 2020)

“...We had more fun in the ‘unofficial’ engagements, which were usually against the early Sabres...” “...Above 25,000 ft the Sabre was totally superior because all it had to do was take advantage of its greater speed range and dive away. If the Sabres were above you to start with, your only defence was to execute a hard break towards the attack. Each time you carried out such a defensive manoeuvre at height you lost energy and became progressively slower and more vulnerable, while the Sabres (if they knew what they were about) zoom-climbed back above you for another attack. On the other hand, if you managed to find F-86s below you and they were tempted to try and ‘mix it’, the Meteor could give them a very nasty fright. At 20,000 ft or below, the Meteor could out-turn, out-accelerate and out-climb a Sabre. It also had much more effective airbrakes...”

Meteor from the Cockpit

The bottom line is that the Meteor was not suitable for bomber escort duty at high altitude, but was eminently capable in the fighter-bomber role, where they could look after themselves if MiGs tried to come down to mess with them.

The MiG had a service ceiling of 50,000 feet, which was better than any Allied aircraft. Its climb rate was also better (5 minutes to 30,000 feet as against 5.8 minutes for the Meteor). That meant they could easily employ the strategy mentioned for the Sabre outlined above at altitudes above 6,000 metres (20,000 feet).

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zyzygie (Jan 26, 2020)

Grumman Panther vs. Russian MiGs:










It seems that at least some Panther versions had the Rolls Royce Nene, similar to the MiG. It also had four 20mm cannons, arguably much superior to that of the Sabre with its .5 inch Brownings.

It also seems that the Panther has a similar history to the Meteor. It was diverted away from direct confrontation with the MiGs -
“...This didn’t mean Panther pilots were out of danger. Most of the eighty-seven thousand sorties flown by Panthers over Korea were ground-attack missions targeting bridges or logistical centers. The F9F-2 was modified to lug up to two thousand pounds of bombs and 127-millimeter rockets on six outer-wing pylons and two racks under the fuselage, though lighter loads were usually carried.
These raids met withering antiaircraft fire—but the Panther proved exceptionally tough, a quality that saved the lives of numerous pilot that would make an indelible mark on American history...”

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zyzygie (Jan 30, 2020)

The Panther and the Meteor may both have been rugged, but they were not in the same league as this 18-engined flying truck:

Tomorrow’s Wings - Plane & Pilot Magazine


----------



## Zyzygie (Feb 3, 2020)

W.G.Carter on jet design philosophy:








The Meteor F4 thrust to weight ratio was 0.5 and the claimed time to 30,000 ft was 5 minutes.

The philosophy of the Meteor F4 with two 3600 lb. thrust Rolls Royce Derwent 5s.
The fastest-climbing jet fighter until the arrival of the MiG 15 coming into service in 1949, and even then it was still close.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zyzygie (Feb 8, 2020)

A commentary on Nazi war projects in _*Flight*_, September 1945:


----------



## Zyzygie (Feb 9, 2020)

About Adolf Galland: German World War II general and fighter pilot (1912-1996) - Biography and Life

"...During his time with the Argentine Air Force (FAA) he flew the British Gloster Meteor. Galland commented, mindful it was a contemporary to the Me 262, that it was a fine aircraft. He claimed that if he could have fitted the Meteor engines to the Me 262 airframe he would have had the best fighter in the world..."

Los Gloster Meteor en acción!



It seems from the video that the roll rate was about 5 seconds/360 degrees at takeoff (say 150 knots) at sea level, as against 3.8 seconds at 400 mph and 5000 ft. reported by Eric Brown for the Me 262.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zyzygie (Feb 9, 2020)

From *Flight*, July 1946. The Me 262 as bomber:


----------



## GrauGeist (Feb 10, 2020)

The Hs132 was a dedicated dive-bomber, where the pilot was in the prone position.

Still curious about the Me262 "Schnellbomber II" part, stating 2 hours of flight time. The Me262 (all versions) had just enough fuel onboard to allow for a max. flight time of 90 minutes, but typically 30 minutes if it were engaged in combat.


----------



## Zyzygie (Feb 10, 2020)

From *Flight* 







*It looks like the second version may be fatter and slightly longer in order to increase internal fuel stowage as well as accommodate the bomb?*


----------



## nuuumannn (Feb 10, 2020)

Zyzygie said:


> "...During his time with the Argentine Air Force (FAA) he flew the British Gloster Meteor.



Argentina was the first export customer of the Gloster Meteor. Very interesting video, Avro Lincolns there too. A Meteor Mk.IV outside the Fuerza Aerea Argentina HQ in BA.




Meteor Buenos Aires

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zyzygie (Feb 10, 2020)

The state of British jet engines in 1946.

*Flight*:


----------



## Zyzygie (Feb 10, 2020)

"...*Throughout the Hispano’s life, fine-tuning of installations was required to make it reliable in wing mountings. Guns mounted in the much more rigid fuselages of such aircraft as the Whirlwind, Beaufighter and Mosquito caused far fewer problems. Once working properly, the big cannon was a formidable weapon. Compared with the MG-FF it was slightly faster-firing at 10 rps, and its much bigger cartridge cases generated a considerably higher muzzle velocity, which improved both hit probability and penetration.*"

*"While the Allies never introduced the Minengeschoss technology, so their shells only carried half the HE/Incendiary (HEI) load, the heavy Hispano shells’ better penetration meant they could inflict considerable damage. The Hispano soon changed from a 60-round drum magazine (as mounted in Spitfire Mk. IIB and Mk. VB – Ed.) to a belt feed (Mk. VC and later) giving much greater ammunition capacity, which the MG-FF never had, other than in an obscure night fighter installation. The penalty was that the Hispano was almost twice as long as and double the weight of the German gun; unwelcome features for wing-mounted weapons."*

"*RAF fighters carried a mixture of HE or HEI and plain steel “ball” (practice) rounds (which had good penetration) until the emergence of the semi-armour piercing incendiary (SAPI) in 1942, after which the standard loading was 50/50 HEI and SAPI. The German cannon were not exclusively loaded with Minengeschoss, but used them mixed with older-type HEI-T shells (retained because, unlike the M-Geschoss, they could carry a tracer) and later some API rounds as well, in varying proportions.*"

"The Germans were not satisfied with the MG-FFM, which had been adopted as an interim measure pending the development of a purpose-designed cannon. This duly emerged as the Mauser MG 151, which gradually took over from 1941. Initially, the Mauser had been designed to use a high-velocity 15 mm cartridge, but it saw relatively little service in this form. Wartime experience led to the cartridge case being modified to accept the 20 mm shells from the MG-FFM, surrendering muzzle velocity and penetration in the interests of far greater destructive effect. The 15 mm version was available with HE shells, but they were considered too small. The resulting MG 151/20 was intermediate in size, weight and muzzle velocity between the MG-FFM and the Hispano, but was faster-firing at 12 rps. It was a superb design which the Americans later tried to copy, producing some 300 guns in .60 inch (15.2 mm) calibre, designated T17, but they never adopted it."

"Later in the war, various new German guns emerged with calibres of up to 50 mm. *Their use was really prompted by the difficulty the Luftwaffe was experiencing in shooting down USAAF B-17 bombers. The most significant ones were the Rheinmetall-Borsig MG 131, MK 103 and MK 108."*

"The MG 131 was a 13 mm HMG intended to replace the RCMGs in both fixed and movable mountings, and therefore kept as small and light as possible, making it the least powerful HMG to see service. The other guns were both in 30 mm calibre but otherwise very different. The MK 103 was a huge, high-velocity slow-firing gun, while *the MK 108 fired much smaller, low-velocity cartridges at a very creditable 10 rps, and was only half the size and weight. Their 30 mm M-Geschoss HEI shells were highly effective, containing four times as much HE as the 20 mm version, and three or four hits with these could bring down a bomber, compared with 20 hits with 20 mm ammunition*..."

Cannon or Machine Gun? – The Second World War Aircraft Gun Controversy — Variants & Technology | history | Reference

20mm Hispano vs 30mm MK 108:


----------



## Zyzygie (Feb 12, 2020)

From *Flight Global* archives:

German jet developments.

The writer remarks on the fact that all German engine manufacturers settled on axial flow compressors. The British went mainly for centrifugal compressors, with a parallel development project for an axial flow compressor engine. The biggest problem with the centrifugal was that it had to be spun much faster (nearly twice as fast) as the axial. Because centrifugal force is a function of the square of the rotational speed, that meant an extremely creep resistant alloy was needed for the turbine blades. They achieved this through the development of the new high nickel-chrome alloy “Nimonic” (typically consisting of around 50% nickel and 20% chromium with additives such as titanium and aluminium).

The centrifugal was much more robust and reliable for an early development engine, but the axial was the way to go in the long run for thrusts above about 2000 lb.f.


----------



## Zyzygie (Feb 14, 2020)

Reminiscences of a now old (but then very young) He 162 pilot:


----------



## Zyzygie (Feb 14, 2020)

The He 162 was very much “too little too late“, but was claimed to have shot down a Hawker Tempest late in the war:


----------



## MikeMeech (Feb 14, 2020)

Zyzygie said:


> The He 162 was very much “too little too late“, but was confirmed to have shot down a Hawker Tempest late in the war:




Hi

Exactly when was that? I can't at present locate any Tempest loss to the He 162, more detail would be useful.

Mike


----------



## Zyzygie (Feb 14, 2020)

MikeMeech said:


> Hi
> 
> Exactly when was that? I can't at present locate any Tempest loss to the He 162, more detail would be useful.
> 
> Mike



Mike, go to time 3:12 on the video.
The date reported was April 19, 1945.


----------



## MikeMeech (Feb 15, 2020)

Zyzygie said:


> Mike, go to time 3:12 on the video.
> The date reported was April 19, 1945.


Hi

This is a problem as two Tempests were lost that day, to Flak. SN 190 of No. 33 Sqn. and EJ 883 of No. 222 Sqn. (pp. 173-174 of 'RAF Fighter Command Losses of the Second World War' by Norman Franks, this includes 2nd TAF losses). The book '2nd Tactical Air Force', Volume 3 by Shores and Thomas, (pp. 497-498) do have a Tempest and He 162 'incident'. However, it was the He 162 that was shot down, killing Fhj. Fw Gunther Kirchener of 3./JG 1. The German report (from Lt. Gerhard Stiemer) was that they were attacked by Thunderbolts but this appears to be a mis-identification (not unusual) as none were in the area. The Tempest (SN 185) involved was from No. 222 Sqn. flown by Flt. Lt. G. Walkington, who could not identify the type but identified it as 'enemy' by its camouflage and markings. he had been involved in attacks on German airfields when he noticed the two unidentified enemy aircraft which he went after (with difficulty), but got several bursts of gunfire in from about 1,000 yards.

From this we appear not to have a loss of a Tempest to the He 162 but a loss of a He 162 to a Tempest! The video just appears to make a statement rather than details of the incident, if anyone has further information of a loss of a Tempest to the He 162 it would be of interest.

Mike


----------



## MikeMeech (Feb 15, 2020)

Hi

Endeavouring to find a He 162 claim for a 'Tempest', the closest I can come to at present is the 4th May 1945. This was Tempest V JN 877 of No. 486 (RNZAF) flown by F/O M Austin, who became a POW, however, it is down as crash landing due to engine failure near SATRUP. This has been associated with a claim for a Typhoon shot down west of BARSINGHAUSEN by a pilot of JG1 flying a He162. (p. 180, RAF Fighter Command losses). It is also mentioned in Shores/Thomas (p. 536) which, on this incident, mentions that:

"There may be a possibility that this may have been the only 2nd TAF aircraft to fall to an He 162 jet, Lt. R. Schmitt of I./JG 1 claiming a Typhoon shot down on this date; however, Austin had been experiencing engine trouble with his Tempest before this exploded, forcing him down. There is no corresponding Typhoon losses."

So again a bit problematic.

Mike

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zyzygie (Feb 16, 2020)

Dr Reinhard Opitz - Me 163 pilot


----------



## Zyzygie (Feb 16, 2020)

I count five seconds for a barrel roll from 1:40 - 1:45.


----------



## Zyzygie (Feb 16, 2020)

I think they may be wrong in their claim that they have the last airworthy Meteor. Martin Baker use two as platforms for testing their ejection seats:

Why does Martin-Baker use a Gloster Meteor as a testbed for ejection seats?


> Aviation week did a bit on the plane last year





> "In spite of its considerable vintage, the sturdy British attack aircraft has all the attributes required for a stable, high-speed test platform" says Andy Gent, Martin-Baker’s head of flying and chief pilot. “From a test perspective the Meteor is ideal. The tail boom is fairly long and the fin is not very high. The engines are also spaced out a fair way out along the wing, so the efflux from the ejection test and exhaust from the gun and rocket motor isn’t potentially going down the engine intakes,” he says.


​

> Based at Martin-Baker’s Chalgrove, England, test facility, the fleet is made up of two Meteors, WA638 and WL419, both of which have been with the company since the 1960s. “They are doing the job so why would you ever go through the heartache of getting another aircraft?” says Gent


.​


> In short, it does not fly all too much, it gets the job done and its well built. Similar reason most older aircraft are still flying these days.
> 
> The article goes on to say that they have little intention of changing this any time soon:





> Marketing Director Andrew Martin notes the company is one of only a handful that performs airborne ejection tests, and that the Meteor will continue to be used for the foreseeable future. “It is a tough thing to evaluate, and right now while we have these phenomenal assets we are not going to really think about a replacement in great detail,” he says. With the final retirement of the last Royal Air Force (RAF)-operated aircraft in the target towing role in the early 1980s, Martin-Baker acquired a large stock of spares and Rolls-Royce Derwent 8 turbojets. Because of that and the ample remaining airframe life, the company is no rush to find a successor.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 16, 2020)

There are five airworthy Meteors left. 

Two F.8's, and one NF.11 in the UK. One F.8 in Australia, and one T7 in the USA.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zyzygie (Feb 16, 2020)

Zyzygie said:


> Dr Reinhard Opitz - Me 163 pilot




The Me 163 concept, and Dr Lippisch, were very influential in the development of the the Saunders Roe SR 177:

The Rise and Fall of the British Rocket Jet Fighter - The SR-177 - Curious Droid

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zyzygie (Feb 17, 2020)

The Volksjaeger He 162:


----------



## nuuumannn (Feb 17, 2020)

Martin Baker's working Meteor.





MB Meteor 

I do have to ask though, Zyzgie, the SR.177 and the He 162 don't really fall into this thread, which is about the Me 262 vs the Meteor, so it might be prudent to put this stuff elsewhere.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zyzygie (Feb 18, 2020)

The War in the West - A New History

Eric Brown was a germanophile. He was a personal friend of Ernst Udet. He spoke fluent German and was living in Germany at the time of the outbreak of the War.

_“...In 1936, the 17-year-old Brown was taken by his father to see the Berlin Olympics. The existence of the Luftwaffe, the German air force, had only recently been acknowledged at the time, and Brown was taken by his father to meet a number of the key members of the organisation, including [Hermann Göring and] Ernst Udet, a World War One fighter ace. On discovering Eric's love of flying, Ernst Udet took him up as a passenger in a two-seat Bücker Jungmann and treated him to a vigorous display of aerobatics...”_
Captain Eric Brown: Biography on Undiscovered Scotland

He maintained his friendship with Udet, who helped him find work as a student instructor in the Schule Schloss Salem in southern Germany.

His comments on the Me 262 should be looked at in this context.


----------



## Greyman (Feb 18, 2020)

Mods, I'm gunna need a bigger eyeroll emoji than that provided by this forum.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Graeme (Feb 18, 2020)

Zyzygie said:


> I think they may be wrong in their claim that they have the last airworthy Meteor.



I believe the museum's claim is that they're flying the last airworthy Gloster Meteor* F.8*.
The Martin Baker machines are late model T.7s - as I understand it.



Zyzygie said:


> I count five seconds for a barrel roll from 1:40 - 1:45.



Sounds reasonable considering the pilot is flying the last airworthy specimen of the Gloster Meteor F.8.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zyzygie (Feb 18, 2020)

The Meteor was arguably in the design tradition of the Typhoon fighter bomber. A rugged, all round fighter and ground attack aircraft. In fact Gloster was the main centre for Typhoon production during the War.

The German infrantrymen and tank crews in WW II had every reason to fear the Typhoon, as would the Chinese soldiers in Korea the Meteor:

_"The British had their Typhoon aircraft which we called the ‘Schreckliche Jabo’ (‘the terrifying fighter-bomber.’) This aircraft fired a mix of high explosive and napalm rockets from under the wings. This Typhoon was like the British version of our old Stuka, it put fear into the hearts of honest soldiers! The rockets would shoot down into the engine decks of our panzers, exploding in the grille vents, and blow up the engine, causing fires that in the Panther could set off the 75mm ammunition stored in the sponsons adjacent to the engine bay; or the rockets would explode on the thinner armor plate on top of the turret. Some Panther crews even fitted extra armour plate on the grilles and turret top to try to counteract this..."_

SS Panzer SS Inferno (Eyewitness panzer crews) Book 2: Normandy to Berlin . Sprech Archives Media and Publishing. Kindle Edition.

_"...As suddenly as it began, the barrage ended, and the fighter-bombers swept in. A group of seven Typhoons headed for Braun’s position next to a stone wall. ‘Flashes of light rippled along their wings as they fired,’ the senior NCO recalled."_

_"He continued: Instantly, several of our vehicles, parked out of sight in a sunken road, went up in flames, marking our positions for the enemy with columns of jet-black ascending smoke. Hell broke loose. Machine-gun bursts mingled with the screeching of rockets. We lay huddled here, pulses beating, while the ricochets went chirping through the bushes, or hit with a crack against the stone walls. Then the bombs came whistling down, nearly bursting our eardrums, and men, weapons and fragments of shattered vehicles were thrown into the air. Explosive rockets came howling away from under the wings of some of them. They burst on the ground, brightly-glaring as a lightning flash, leaving behind a spray of a thousand splinters. For an eternity of minutes, the screaming of my wounded comrades and the terrified roaring of mortally-wounded cattle which had been grazing in the fields, was mingled with the chaotic sound of the low-level air attack..."_

Hargreaves, Richard. THE GERMANS IN NORMANDY . Pen and Sword. Kindle Edition.


----------



## nuuumannn (Feb 18, 2020)

Zyzygie said:


> His comments on the Me 262 should be looked at in this context.



No, they shouldn't - don't be ridiculous. Brown was no more a German sympathiser than Churchill was. Yes, he admired their technical prowess - _we_ do! Besides, if you read Wings of the Luftwaffe you will note that he has a lot of less than complimentary stuff to say about a lot of German aircraft.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 18, 2020)

Greyman said:


> Mods, I'm gunna need a bigger eyeroll emoji than that provided by this forum.



Working on that...


----------



## Graeme (Feb 18, 2020)

Zyzygie said:


> His comments on the Me 262 should be looked at in this context.



Zyzygie - Another Brit who preferred the Me 262...

Spitfire pilots and aircraft database - Flt lt Reginald C Gosling RAF

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zyzygie (Feb 19, 2020)

Graeme said:


> Zyzygie - Another Brit who preferred the Me 262...
> 
> Spitfire pilots and aircraft database - Flt lt Reginald C Gosling RAF
> 
> View attachment 570397



"...The first confirmed Allied air combat with an Me 262 occurred on July 26th, 1944 when Luftwaffe Me 262 test unit _Erprobungskommando_ 262 (EK 262) pilot Lt. Alfred “Bubi” Schreiber targeted a high flying de Havilland Mosquito photo reconnaissance aircraft from RAF No. 544 Squadron over Munich. The RAF pilot Flight Lieutenant A.E. Wall saw a German aircraft approaching and increased his speed to leave the enemy behind (as would normally happen) but was surprised that the German was suddenly alongside him to confirm the aircraft was Allied!"

*"Schreiber quickly changed position to attack the Mosquito but the British aircraft could turn more quickly and was able to get out of his line of sight. Schreiber used his speed advantage to get back into position and opened fire but was unsuccessful in doing serious damage. This continued back and forth four more times before Schreiber attempted an attack from beneath the Mosquito. Wall evaded again and dived at full speed into clouds below, escaping the attack and getting safely back to Italy. This encounter signalled that high flying Allied reconnaissance missions were no longer invulnerable*_!"_

See: The Survivors: Messerschmitt Me 262 – Germany’s Jet Fighter

The Mosquito was known for its speed, not maneuverability. The Meteor was never tested against a Mosquito in terms of maneuverability, but was against the far more agile Hawker Tempest, and was judged to have beaten it in virtually all respects but roll rate.

Checking the Me 262 vs the He 162, again a similar story:
_*"...The aircraft itself was very effective as a ﬁghter interceptor, equalling the Me-262. In some ways it was superior: “The BMW engine proved to be far less sensitive to throttle movements than those of the Me 262, though still prone to ﬂameouts. This allowed the He 162 to be ﬂown up to the limits of the pilot’s conﬁdence in the aircraft, unlike the Me 262 whose engines restricted much in the way of maneuvers.” It was very fast and well armed. However, it had a problem of having a very short ﬂight time of 30 minutes, and many operational losses were due to running out of fuel..."*_

From *He 162 Spatz* Miroslav Bilous, Miroslav Bouli

Even though Eric Brown criticised the Me 262 JUMO engines, he skipped over it in about one line, referring to the "adrenaline" effect of trying to deal with the highly sensitive engine throttle control:
*"Flying in a captured Me-262 he had nothing but praise for the advanced jet except for one thing, the unreliability of the engines."*

Royal Navy's Most Decorated Pilot Reveals The Me-262's Fatal Flaw

See post 704 for comments by a Luftwaffe pilot re this problem.


----------



## Zyzygie (Feb 19, 2020)

_"...Me 262 losses were reported as only 100 in air to air combat but up to 1,200 Me 262’s were destroyed on the ground and in accidents – on April 10th, 1945 a formation of 55 Me 262’s went up to attack Allied bombers and by the end of the day 27 of them had been lost mainly to accidents! The jet age had come and changed air combat forever but it was all too late to help the battered Luftwaffe turn the tide of the air war over occupied Europe and Germany..."_
The Survivors: Messerschmitt Me 262 – Germany’s Jet Fighter

Now who needs enemies when you have a reliability record like that? 

Suffice to say that those "accidents" were often fatal, as the aircraft was difficult to bail out of, (impossible at low altitude) and it had "the glide angle of a brick”:

"I flamed out once when I was in transition training. I was used to pushing the throttle full to increase takeoff power. This was a great error in the jet. I know that many of the pilots who were killed flying the jet probably died due to stalling out this way. The 262 was a very heavy aircraft when compared to the 109 and 190, and at low speed I would equate it to flying a brick..."

Walter "Graf" Kuprinski


----------



## Zyzygie (Feb 19, 2020)

German Jet rivalry - (from *Flight* September 1945):


----------



## Zyzygie (Feb 19, 2020)

The Gloster Meteor (*Flight* October 1945)


----------



## Zyzygie (Feb 20, 2020)

Turbine engine activity at Ernst Heinkel Aktiengesellschaft: 

The interesting He S 011 was a hybrid axial/centrifugal engine spinning at around 13500 rev/min. The stress in the turbine blades is a function of the rotational speed squared, hence around 2.4 times that in the JUMO 004 blades running at 8700 rev/min, all other factors being equal.

https://www.cdvandt.org/CIOS-XXIII-14.pdf

Turbine stress and creep were problematic in the JUMO, so it’s hard to see how the Heinkel could have worked without radically improved turbine materials.


----------



## Zyzygie (Feb 21, 2020)

Zyzygie said:


> Turbine engine activity at Ernst Heinkel Aktiengesellschaft:
> 
> The interesting He S 011 was a hybrid axial/centrifugal engine spinning at around 13500 rev/min. The stress in the turbine blades is a function of the rotational speed squared, hence around 2.4 times that in the JUMO 004 blades running at 8700 rev/min, all other factors being equal.
> 
> ...



Errata: The quoted speed of 13500 rpm applies to the He S 10. The He S 11 is rated at 11000. The resultant stress multiplier is around 1.6.

Still much too high.


----------



## Zyzygie (Feb 22, 2020)

*Eric Brown - The Me 262 was a bomber destroyer, not a dogfighter:*


----------



## Zyzygie (Feb 22, 2020)

Drag statistics of the Meteor vs. that of some contemporary aircraft, including the Me 262:

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zyzygie (Feb 22, 2020)

A detailed review of the JUMO 004 in *Aircraft Engineering* January of 1946:










*Yes. To consider using a centrifugal compressor operating at 16,000 rev/min, the Germans would have needed Nimonic turbine and flame tube materials to resist the temperature and resulting creep.





An understatement: 9000 rpm is totally inadequate for a centrifugal compressor. The discharge pressure is a function of the square of the impeller speed.




*


----------



## Zyzygie (Feb 24, 2020)

Zyzygie said:


> Drag statistics of the Meteor vs. that of some contemporary aircraft, including the Me 262:



Critical Mach number:

Critical Mach number - Wikipedia

Performance characteristics shown in table I give a maximum speed for the Gloster Meteor F. Mk. 4 of 570 miles per hour, or a Mach number of 0.81, at 20000 feet.

ch11-2


https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipe...rns.svg/800px-Transonic_flow_patterns.svg.png


----------



## bada (Feb 28, 2020)

Interessant flow of archives Zyzygie, but when comparing the 262, you can't go higher than the MKIII for the meteor. everything beyond that Mark is like what-if/Luft46 stuff...
And the RAe report tell us the MKIII sucked badly in combat maneuvers as it's rollrate was inferior compared to a C5 Galaxy fully loaded
A combat plane unable to execute combat maneuvers is not a combat plane, it's a flying platform.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zyzygie (Feb 28, 2020)

*“...Now who needs enemies when you have a reliability record like the Me 262?...” 😳*

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Feb 28, 2020)

Zyzygie said:


> *“...Now who needs enemies when you have a reliability record like the Me262?...” 😳*


Considering that the Germans had:
· No suitable raw materials for the engines
· No safe manufacturing facilities
· No skilled labor workforce
· No reliable supply of fuel and rubber
· No large numbers of experienced pilots
· No secure airfields to operate from

*IF* even one of those items listed above were available in abundance, the Me262 would have been far more than a nuisance...

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Feb 28, 2020)

GrauGeist said:


> Considering that the Germans had:
> · No suitable raw materials for the engines
> · No safe manufacturing facilities
> · No skilled labor workforce
> ...


IMO what the Luftwaffe needed in 1943 was the He 280 with centrifugal flow engines and the Me 262 in 1944 as a fighter bomber.


----------



## Zyzygie (Feb 28, 2020)

Kevin J said:


> IMO what the Luftwaffe needed in 1943 was the He 280 with centrifugal flow engines and the Me 262 in 1944 as a fighter bomber.



IMO what the Luftwaffe needed as a bomber destroyer was the Me 262 with Rolls Royce Derwent engines. But hold it, didn’t Adolf Galland say something like that down the track? And, as Eric Brown said, it should have had air brakes...

The Meteor F4 would do just nicely as a dogfighter. *🙂*


----------



## Zyzygie (Feb 28, 2020)

bada said:


> Interessant flow of archives Zyzygie, but when comparing the 262, you can't go higher than the MKIII for the meteor. everything beyond that Mark is like what-if/Luft46 stuff...
> And the RAe report tell us the MKIII sucked badly in combat maneuvers as it's rollrate was inferior compared to a C5 Galaxy fully loaded
> A combat plane unable to execute combat maneuvers is not a combat plane, it's a flying platform.



You betcha: from Hans Fey:

http://zenoswarbirdvideos.com/Images/Me262/ME262PILOTDEBRIEF.pdf






From Me 262 Pilot's Handbook:

http://www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com/Images/Me262/262PilotHandbook.pdf







The Meteor vs the Tempest V:










Initial maneuvers...

But OK. As Eric Brown said, the Me 262 *was* a fine bomber destroyer, *not* a dogfighter.


----------



## Zyzygie (Feb 28, 2020)

Zyzygie said:


> IMO what the Luftwaffe needed as a bomber destroyer was the Me 262 with Rolls Royce Derwent engines. But hold it, didn’t Adolf Galland say something like that down the track? And, as Eric Brown said, it should have had air brakes...
> 
> The Meteor F4 would do just nicely as a dogfighter. *🙂*



See an assessment of performance attached. Unfortunately the Me 262 isn't included:


----------



## GrauGeist (Feb 29, 2020)

The Me262 was not a dogfighter, it was an interceptor (read: "heavy fighter") where the He280 was.

The perfect pairing would have been the He280 flying top cover for the Me262 on Jabo missions - the Ar234 didn't need an escort.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zyzygie (Feb 29, 2020)

GrauGeist said:


> Considering that the Germans had:
> · No suitable raw materials for the engines
> · No safe manufacturing facilities
> · No skilled labor workforce
> ...



Maybe, but maybe not...

When the Russians captured the German engineering teams who designed the Messerschmitt and Heinkel aircraft, they had access to whole Me 262 including engines. They had *plenty* of raw materials to build them properly. Even with a proverbial gun at their heads the German designers decided to give the German axial flow designs a miss and go straight for a copy of the Rolls Royce Nene.

On the other hand they *did* mix the powerful, rugged and reliable Nene with advanced aerodynamics to create the excellent MiG 15...


----------



## GrauGeist (Feb 29, 2020)

The Me262 was originally designed to use the BMW003, not the Jumo004.

The 004 never had the thrust to weight ratio like the 003. And both did not have the performance profile that the Hirth engines produced.
I understand that many people out there are fans of the Rolls Royce engines, but if Heinkel was allowed to fully developed the HeS8 engines (008, 011, etc. which had a superior thrust to weight ratio) then the BMW and Junkers engines would have taken a back seat to history...


----------



## Zyzygie (Feb 29, 2020)

GrauGeist said:


> The Me262 was originally designed to use the BMW003, not the Jumo004.
> 
> The 004 never had the thrust to weight ratio like the 003. And both did not have the performance profile that the Hirth engines produced.
> I understand that many people out there are fans of the Rolls Royce engines, but if Heinkel was allowed to fully developed the HeS8 engines (008, 011, etc. which had a superior thrust to weight ratio) then the BMW and Junkers engines would have taken a back seat to history...



This is just wishful thinking GrauGeist. The key was always the specific alloy Nimonic. The major engine manufacturers - British, American, French, German and Russian - all exclusively used Nimonic hot end components after the War, at least until the 80s. And it’s *still* used extensively.

The alloy had to not only resist corrosion, high stress, but more importantly creep. At such combinations of high stress and high temperature, most materials will slowly elongate. This is obviously a problem for a turbine blade which has to run with minimal end clearance.

See:
https://www.magellanmetals.com/nimonic-75

“...Nimonic alloys are made up of nickel and chromium. These alloys are characterised by their high-temperature low-creep and high performance. Additives like titanium and aluminium are used for enhancing the strength of the alloy...”

“...Nimonic 75 is an 80/20 nickel-chromium alloy containing titanium and carbon as additives. Nimonic 75 was first introduced for use as turbine blades during the 1940s. Nimonic 75 is readily fabricated and welded. Nimonic 75 alloy exhibits good corrosion resistance, mechanical properties and heat resistance...”


----------



## Zyzygie (Feb 29, 2020)

GrauGeist said:


> The Me262 was originally designed to use the BMW003, not the Jumo004.
> 
> The 004 never had the thrust to weight ratio like the 003. And both did not have the performance profile that the Hirth engines produced.
> I understand that many people out there are fans of the Rolls Royce engines, but if Heinkel was allowed to fully developed the HeS8 engines (008, 011, etc. which had a superior thrust to weight ratio) then the BMW and Junkers engines would have taken a back seat to history...



The He S 8 was planned to spin at 13,500 rpm. No German alloy could have withstood the combination of stress and temperatures at that speed, even with air cooling. (Which by the way had the downside of sapping a lot of power from the engine.)

Just read my previous posts in this regard...

*He S 8 Performance*

*Maximum thrust:* 6 kN (1,300 lbf) delivered; 7 kN (1,600 lbf) at 13,500 rpm planned.
*Overall pressure ratio:* 2.7:1
*Thrust-to-weight ratio:* 1.61 (delivered); 1.89 (planned).

*Wikipedia*

The Derwent 1 thrust to weight ratio was 2.04. The Derwent 5 was 3.2.


----------



## Zyzygie (Feb 29, 2020)

“...one thing that had puzzled me was the frequent claim that nickel shortages had "caused" the development of the hollow turbine blades. Several scholars in the field of technology & innovation studies (e.g. Gibbert & Scranton 2009) have claimed that Ni shortage "induced" this "radical innovation" that put the German jet engine designers several years ahead of the Allies and caused them to "invent" a technology that is in use even now.”

“However, this version of the events seems a bit problematic when one considers the actual nickel usage and Germany's nickel situation. According to figures for Ni usage per engine in Kay's "German Jet Engine and Gas Turbine Development 1930-1945" (2002), the entire production run of Jumo 004 engines, for example (some 6010 engines) used approximately 40 metric tons of nickel. This is not an insignificant amount, but compared to 1944 Ni supplies (10900 tons), consumption (9500 tons), or stocks (7900 tons) (U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey), the needs amount to little more than rounding error...” 

“...Even if the wildly optimistic turbojet production plans, calling for ca. 39 000 BMW 003 and 44 000 Jumo 004 engines to be built by January 1946 had materialized, the nickel use would have been only some 250 tons. And even if the hollow blade designs - which, at best, saved some two thirds of nickel per engine compared to solid Tinidur blades - had not succeeded, the nickel consumption would have been only about 820 tons...”

Early German gas turbine development


----------



## GrauGeist (Feb 29, 2020)

As I recently poated in another thread, the thrust to weight ratio of an engine is certainly a key factor, but most overlook the weight of the aircraft they are being installed in and most importantly, the weight of the engines themselves.

The HeS8 weighed roughly 840 pounds and the Jumo004 weighed aboit 1,585 pounds - nearly twice the weight for less thrust.


----------



## Zyzygie (Feb 29, 2020)

GrauGeist said:


> As I recently poated in another thread, the thrust to weight ratio of an engine is certainly a key factor, but most overlook the weight of the aircraft they are being installed in and most importantly, the weight of the engines themselves.
> 
> The HeS8 weighed roughly 840 pounds and the Jumo004 weighed aboit 1,585 pounds - nearly twice the weight for less thrust.



I don’t follow. The He S 8 had a thrust of 1300 lb, as against 1980 for the JUMO 004..?


----------



## GrauGeist (Feb 29, 2020)

Zyzygie said:


> I don’t follow. The He S 8 had a thrust of 1300 lb, as against 1980 for the JUMO 004..?


And the HeS8 weighed half the dry weight of the Jumo004.

So while the T-t-W ratio is better in the 004, the doubled weight of those engines gave the He280 half the performance that it had with the HeS8.


----------



## Zyzygie (Feb 29, 2020)

*An excerpt from Flight International of October 1947 on the importance of Nimonic.*

*Without this alloy, the gas turbine was arguably just a "pie in the sky" concept. If Germany had stocks of 7,900 tonnes of nickel in 1944, it should have been prioritised for jet engines. Tanks and submarines should have been absolutely secondary. The Russians managed with about one third of the percentage of nickel in their tank armour compared to the Germans, but made up for it by strategically sloping the armour to make it more effective:*














*Stalin's Revenge: Operation Bagration and the Annihilation of Army Group Centre*

Stalin's Revenge

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zyzygie (Feb 29, 2020)

*German Strategic Metal Stocks:*


----------



## Zyzygie (Mar 1, 2020)

nuuumannn said:


> No, they shouldn't - don't be ridiculous. Brown was no more a German sympathiser than Churchill was. Yes, he admired their technical prowess - _we_ do! Besides, if you read Wings of the Luftwaffe you will note that he has a lot of less than complimentary stuff to say about a lot of German aircraft.



Although the Germans had some technical successes such as swept back wings, overall they were arguably quite thick.

Their investment of resources in the V1 and V2 weapons was a total waste. Each V2 carried only a one tonne warhead, and they only fired about four thousand during the War. That’s about equivalent to what the Allies would deliver in the bombing in one day. The story with the V1 is similar.

The cost of the V-weapon program was roughly equal to that of the Manhattan project. Now that DID have a high cost-effectiveness ratio. The Germans were complete non-starters in this technology.

They also lagged badly in terms of radar.

*The failure in terms of the development of jet engine materials is absolutely extraordinary...*

😳


----------



## Zyzygie (Mar 1, 2020)

Zyzygie said:


> “...one thing that had puzzled me was the frequent claim that nickel shortages had "caused" the development of the hollow turbine blades. Several scholars in the field of technology & innovation studies (e.g. Gibbert & Scranton 2009) have claimed that Ni shortage "induced" this "radical innovation" that put the German jet engine designers several years ahead of the Allies and caused them to "invent" a technology that is in use even now.”
> 
> “However, this version of the events seems a bit problematic when one considers the actual nickel usage and Germany's nickel situation. According to figures for Ni usage per engine in Kay's "German Jet Engine and Gas Turbine Development 1930-1945" (2002), the entire production run of Jumo 004 engines, for example (some 6010 engines) used approximately 40 metric tons of nickel. This is not an insignificant amount, but compared to 1944 Ni supplies (10900 tons), consumption (9500 tons), or stocks (7900 tons) (U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey), the needs amount to little more than rounding error...”
> 
> ...



A couple of thousand *RELIABLE* Me 262s would have completely stopped the Allied daylight bombing campaign in its tracks.

But OK, not the atomic bombs.


----------



## Zyzygie (Mar 1, 2020)

GrauGeist said:


> Considering that the Germans had:
> · No suitable raw materials for the engines
> · No safe manufacturing facilities
> · No skilled labor workforce
> ...



If the Germans had built a couple of thousand *GOOD *Me 262s, all of the above problems would have been fixed, and more, except for the first, which wasn’t a problem... 😐


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 1, 2020)

Is it just me or does it seem like one person mostly carrying on a conversation with themself in here?


----------



## nuuumannn (Mar 1, 2020)

Zyzygie said:


> If the Germans had built a couple of thousand GOOD Me 262s, all of the above problems would have been fixed,



One thing the Germans' Gotterdammerung scenario never takes into account was the fact that the Allies first became aware of the Me 262 through reconnaissance photos over a year before it entered service. When the first images of it were taken, Whittle was brought in to examine the pictures and the intelligence branches produced estimates about its performance. A crashed example recovered in France in mid 1944 was examined and from that the boffins were able to give their thoguhts on its capabilities and they were pretty close to the mark, which worried the Brits. The Me 163 was already identified as a rocket fighter and had been first photographed in 1942. A paper was produced that predicted that by the end of 1944, the Germans could have around 1,000 jet powered aircraft in service, which worried the Allies considerably. This had the result of increasing bombing campaigns against sites that were contributing to the aviation industry and increasing the pace of development of Alllied jets. 

Photo reconnaissance would have seen this production, had it taken place and actuated a plan to defeat it, had it transpired. The Allied intelligence services had a good handle on the state of Germany's secret projects, certainly better than what the Germans understood they knew. By mid to late 1944, when it was realised that the number of jets the Germans could produce in service was far lower than predicted, there was a collective sigh of relief among the British Air Staff, although the Americans were not so relieved, as it was their bombers taking the hits from jets being used as bomber interceptors.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zyzygie (Mar 1, 2020)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Is it just me or does it seem like one person mostly carrying on a conversation with themselves in here?



You betcha Adler... now why's that...?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 1, 2020)

Zyzygie said:


> You betcha Adler... now why's that...?



Mental health issues?


----------



## Zyzygie (Mar 1, 2020)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Mental health issues?



Let's just keep this civil... and on track.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 1, 2020)

Zyzygie said:


> Let's just keep this civil... and on track.



Relax nancy, I’m messing with you. Don’t get your panties in bunch.


----------



## Zyzygie (Mar 1, 2020)

*For interest: the Axis and strategic nickel supply. Obviously important for the Me 262 engine development, as well as tank armour and subs:*

The Coinage they are talking about was about 2200 tonnes. Pretty handy, but small relative to Germany’s 1944 
stockpile.


----------



## Zyzygie (Mar 2, 2020)

*I couldn't have put it better myself:*


----------



## Koopernic (Mar 2, 2020)

Zyzygie said:


> The He S 8 was planned to spin at 13,500 rpm. No German alloy could have withstood the combination of stress and temperatures at that speed, even with air cooling. (Which by the way had the downside of sapping a lot of power from the engine.)
> 
> Just read my previous posts in this regard...
> 
> ...




You yourself have cited references indicating that German metallurgists understood the effect of nickel in limiting creep and the development of a 60% nickel version of Krupp Tinidur alloy (standard was 30%) was rejected on the bases of anticipated material shortages leaving Junkers with Tinidur 30%.

Nevertheless the Heinkel HeS 30 (also known as 109-106 and HeS 006) Heinkel HeS 30 - Wikipedia achieved a thrusts to weight ratio of 2.2:1 (860KP/390KG) and a frontal area that were not bettered till 1947. Certainly as good as any allied centrifugal engine. It used an axial compressor but it was of the reaction type, not the impulse type which is both more efficient and lighter.

The issue that severely limited the first generation of allied aircraft was not thrust to weight ratio but the frontal area and the problems it created for airframe integraion. Solved neatly by the XP-80 solved in the Meteor with huge nacelles and jet pipe extensions.

German industry was rigorously assessed for usage of labour and critical materials and sometimes it seemed to produce poor decisions and trade offs in quality. For instance the combustion chamber cans and exhaust nozzles of the Jumo 004 were of mild steal and caused many problems and limited maintenance life, it didn't even need much nickel just a corrosion resitant chromium. A tradeof in combustion chamber and tail pipe alloy caused great reductions in life, quite a few failures and frequent maintenance.

The BMW 003 had the more sophisticated accelerator valve fuel control system that measured air mass flow not just engine RPM that the Jumo 004 may or may not have ever received till April 1945. One reason the 003 was delayed was due to the order to switch from standard aviation fuel to a diesel like fuel chosen by junkers. This disrupted BMW designs.

I thought US engines used Inconel, hasteoly or alloys derived from turbocharger practice?


----------



## Zyzygie (Mar 3, 2020)

Koopernic said:


> You yourself have cited references indicating that German metallurgists understood the effect of nickel in limiting creep and the development of a 60% nickel version of Krupp Tinidur alloy (standard was 30%) was rejected on the bases of anticipated material shortages leaving Junkers with Tinidur 30%.
> 
> Nevertheless the Heinkel HeS 30 (also known as 109-106 and HeS 006) Heinkel HeS 30 - Wikipedia achieved a thrusts to weight ratio of 2.2:1 (860KP/390KG) and a frontal area that were not bettered till 1947. Certainly as good as any allied centrifugal engine. It used an axial compressor but it was of the reaction type, not the impulse type which is both more efficient and lighter.
> 
> ...




I don’t know where I indicated that the German engineers had knowledge of Nimonic or its equivalent. If they did, it would have been a trivial exercise for them in the Soviet Union after the War (where they *also* had access to lots of nickel and chromium), to build a *good* JUMO 004 and put it in an Me 262. They went instead for stealing the Nimonic and copying the RR Nene with centrifugal compressor ...?

If you check the RAE figures, drag attributed to the engines is lower for the Meteor than the Me 262. Maybe due to wing/engine interference effects with the Me 262?







*Koopernic, you haven’t addressed the question of why Germany didn’t use their Nimonic knowledge when they had plenty of nickel and chrome in strategic stocks?*


----------



## Zyzygie (Mar 3, 2020)

*I've found a source relating to material selection. Maybe this is what you are referring to?*


----------



## GrauGeist (Mar 3, 2020)

The Meteor had less drag because each engine nacelle was embedded in the wing, where the Me262, He280, Ar234 and Hs132 all had an external nacelle either undersling beneath the wing or above the fuselage - it was the He178 that had the most efficient arrangement with the engine embedded in the fuselage with the intake at the nose.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zyzygie (Mar 3, 2020)

Zyzygie said:


> *I've found a source relating to material selection. Maybe this is what you are referring to?*
> 
> View attachment 572171
> 
> ...



*With 8900 tonnes of nickel and 33000 tonnes of chromium, there was no shortage: *


----------



## GrauGeist (Mar 3, 2020)

There was a shortage because the strategic materials needed for jet engines was prioritized for Tank production, gun/cannon production, U-Boat production, engine (piston) production and even stahlhelm (helmet) production, etc.

The jet engine program never reached a high priority, regardless of what some publications may claim.


----------



## Zyzygie (Mar 3, 2020)

GrauGeist said:


> There was a shortage because the strategic materials needed for jet engines was prioritized for Tank production, gun/cannon production, U-Boat production, engine (piston) production and even stahlhelm (helmet) production, etc.
> 
> The jet engine program never reached a high priority, regardless of what some publications may claim.



That was a BIG mistake. To build a U-Boat, you’ve got to stop the bombers. Even the submarine pens at Brest with 7-metre reinforced concrete roofs were not enough protection from the supersonic 10 tonne Grand Slam bombs.


----------



## GrauGeist (Mar 3, 2020)

But the U-Boats were highly effective in refusing Britain the desperately needed supplies.

Since the Kreigsmarine (surface elements) and Luftwaffe was ineffective in challenging the RN and Allied surface fleets, the U-Boat force was a much needed tool.


----------



## Zyzygie (Mar 3, 2020)

GrauGeist said:


> But the U-Boats were highly effective in refusing Britain the desperately needed supplies.
> 
> Since the Kreigsmarine (surface elements) and Luftwaffe was ineffective in challenging the RN and Allied surface fleets, the U-Boat force was a much needed tool.



The Battle of the Atlantic was well and truly over by 1944. The horse had well and truly bolted.

The Me 262 should have been the top priority.


----------



## Koopernic (Mar 3, 2020)

Zyzygie said:


> I don’t know where I indicated that the German engineers had knowledge of Nimonic or its equivalent. If they did, it would have been a trivial exercise for them in the Soviet Union after the War (where they *also* had access to lots of nickel and chromium), to build a *good* JUMO 004 and put it in an Me 262. They went instead for stealing the Nimonic and copying the RR Nene with centrifugal compressor ...?
> 
> If you check the RAE figures, drag attributed to the engines is lower for the Meteor than the Me 262. Maybe due to wing/engine interference effects with the Me 262?
> 
> ...



Two things to note about that RAE test.
First is that the Meteor III had 3 or 4 difference nacelles. Welland nacelles, extended Welland nacelles, Derwent Nacelles and extra extended Derwent nacelles. Which ones are the report about? Same with the Meteor I which had many nacelle changes. These were caused by the 'fatness of the centrifugal engines'
Second is look at the speed the test was conducted at, which is 100ft/sec (i.e. 30m/s or 108km/h or 65mph). (corrected) This is not going to tell us much about shock drag at above Mach 0.6. The Me 262 was operating at Mach 0.80. The Germans were operating several supersonic wind tunnels, the British had non of any size.

Drag of a swept wing is reduced to 1/cosine(sweep angle) which works out at about 5-6% less drag on the Me 262 but there are likely other effects such as the finer nacelles on the Jumo 004 whose skin usually had terrible construction quality. That explains some of the British test results, their tolerances were better at this stage of the war.

Regarding the failure to use sufficient refractory alloys in the Me 262. I think they simply over rationed r misjudged the importance of the supply of raw materials to the Jumo 004. As I pointed out despite already using only about 12kg on the Jumo 004B1 they went to the effort of reducing this to 6kg on the Jumo 004B4 through use of hollow turbine blades. Just using stainless steel for the combustion chamber cans. The 1900kg thrust BMW P3308, according to Kay, had a variant with a pure steal turbine of only 2 hours life, essentially a single use system. That gives an idea of the sense of urgency in reduction of chromium and nickel. And of course in 1944 the stockpiles were getting lower.


----------



## Zyzygie (Mar 3, 2020)

Koopernic said:


> Regarding the failure to use sufficient refractory alloys in the Me 262. I think they simply over rationed r misjudged the importance of the supply of raw materials to the Jumo 004. As I pointed out despite already using only about 12kg on the Jumo 004B1 they went to the effort of reducing this to 6kg on the Jumo 004B4 through use of hollow turbine blades. Just using stainless steel for the combustion chamber cans. The 1900kg thrust BMW P3308, according to Kay, had a variant with a pure steal turbine of only 2 hours life, essentially a single use system. That gives an idea of the sense of urgency in reduction of chromium and aluminium. And of course in 1944 the stockpiles were getting lower.



I have to shake my head... this is exactly the way to lose a War. Big Time.

Hauling up a white flag when you still have stocks of well over a year’s supply... 😕

26 months’ supply for nickel and 10 months’ for chromium in place in 1944. Much less chromium was required than nickel for the JUMO. The Me 262 Assessment was right about German governmental incompetence.


----------



## Zyzygie (Mar 3, 2020)

“Second is look at the speed the test was conducted at, which is 100ft/sec (ie 30m/s or 50km/h or 30mph). This is not going to tell us much about shock drag at above Mach 0.6. The Me 262 was operating at Mach 0.80.”

Have you looked at the Cd charts I posted?
See post 808.

Do you accept that the Me 262 was not a dogfighter?

Do you deny the gross incompetence of the German government in hoarding strategic metals needed for the jet fighters which were the only defence against the bombers destroying Germany?

1400 Me 262s we’re built and only about 20-40 could get into the air on a given day. Adolf Galland said that if he had had a couple of hundred he could have stopped the bombing.


----------



## Zyzygie (Mar 3, 2020)

The Miles M 52 undergoing supersonic testing in RAE wind tunnel in 1946:

Royal Aircraft Establishment - Wikipedia






That Mach 1.3 aircraft was canceled after the War due to shortage of funding and the fact that it was just a research project.

A scale model was tested at Mach 1.38.


----------



## Koopernic (Mar 3, 2020)

Zyzygie said:


> “Second is look at the speed the test was conducted at, which is 100ft/sec (ie 30m/s or 50km/h or 30mph). This is not going to tell us much about shock drag at above Mach 0.6. The Me 262 was operating at Mach 0.80.”
> 
> Have you looked at the Cd charts I posted?
> See post 808.
> ...



Whats a good dog fighter? If it means a tight turning radius at low speed it was not. The Me 262 possessed a high turning rate (ie measured in degrees per second or time to complete a 360 degree circle) said the be better than a P-51 at height. Is the Griffon Spitfire a dog fighter? Apparently it wasn't a good idea to loop in it nor was it a good idea to loop in an Me 262.
The Me 262 possessed speed, good climb rate and excellent turn rate even if it could not turn in a tight radius.

The Me 262 was an interceptor, designed to intercept bombers and get through fighter screens to do so. I doubt it would have come of second best compared to a Meteor III so long as the Me 262 pilot played to his aircraft strengths which was about 12.5% speed. It certainly would have come of second best compared to the Meteor IV but then what could the Germans have achieved with the Me 262 by 1946? By that time there were advanced versions of the He 162, the Ta 183 and Arado 234C. Possibly with swept or scimitar wings.

My late 1945 I would have expected Me 410 style air brakes on the Me 262 and maybe 'area rule' bulges over the wings. 30,37,45 degree sweep versions were proposed. I don't know if the Germans would keep up with the rapid pace of Derwent development but they had a few more powerfull engines getting ready.


----------



## Zyzygie (Mar 3, 2020)

Koopernic said:


> Second is look at the speed the test was conducted at, which is 100ft/sec (ie 30m/s or 50km/h or 30mph).



I make 100 ft/s = 109.7 km/hr.

The bottom line though, I guess, is that Germany wasn’t designing a Mach 1.3 aircraft in the middle of the War.

I do have to admit my admiration for a considerable number of German technological advances, but also look with disbelief at some of the idiotic stuff.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Koopernic (Mar 3, 2020)

Zyzygie said:


> I make 100 ft/s = 109.7 km/hr.
> 
> The bottom line though, I guess, is that Germany wasn’t designing a Mach 1.3 aircraft in the middle of the War.
> 
> I do have to admit my admiration for a considerable number of German technological advances, but also look with disbelief at some of the idiotic stuff.



The Metallurgical work in developing nimonic was brilliant. It seems Junkers went to Krupp and BMW to Bohler and picked their best heat resistance steal sheet stock and improved on that. Somehow Britain went with a tailor made alloy (it came out of electrical heating wire). Nickel, chromium and about 0.1% zirconium, which was a very important addition. Furthermore Whittle developed fir tree roots. The British blades were cast and then machined at great expense. I would be interesting to see how cromadur, tinadur or sciromal would perform with whittle style machined fir tree roots. He had intended to water cool the disk.

The Germans did pioneering work on air-cooling and heat and corrosion resistant coating and they would have succeeded with ceramics (they latterly did in 1946 design and in 1947 commission a power turbine that used the Jumo 004 compressor, ceramic inlet nozzles and water cooled turbine). Incidently J79 used ceramic turbine blades for the LP stage.

Eventually they would have gravitated towards fir tree roots but the moment they captured a Derwent theyd absorb the information very quickly.

The Germans were designing a supersonic aircraft in mid war. There was of course the manned V2 based reconnaissance rockets with their ram jet return, the Sanger Silverbird and the DFS 346 reconnaissance aircraft.

The German approach to supersonic flight was a high T tail aircraft to keep the horizontal tail out of the shock wave. The aircraft were designed as 'flying wings' with the horizontal tail there only for trimming purposes. The all flying tail developed for the Miles M.52 of course has become the standard though a few modern aircraft have used the high T tail approach. A refined Ta 183 might conceivably have gone supersonic in a dive. The Americans started out with V tails.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zyzygie (Mar 3, 2020)

*On the development of Nimonic:*
It seems that the alloy was first developed to meet high temperature exhaust valve application! 














https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/pdf/10.1098/rsbm.1972.0016

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zyzygie (Mar 4, 2020)

Koopernic said:


> The Metallurgical work in developing nimonic was brilliant. It seems Junkers went to Krupp and BMW to Bohler and picked their best heat resistance steal sheet stock and improved on that. Somehow Britain went with a tailor made alloy (it came out of electrical heating wire). Nickel, chromium and about 0.1% zirconium, which was a very important addition. Furthermore Whittle developed fir tree roots. The British blades were cast and then machined at great expense. I would be interesting to see how cromadur, tinadur or sciromal would perform with whittle style machined fir tree roots. He had intended to water cool the disk.
> 
> The Germans did pioneering work on air-cooling and heat and corrosion resistant coating and they would have succeeded with ceramics (they latterly did in 1946 design and in 1947 commission a power turbine that used the Jumo 004 compressor, ceramic inlet nozzles and water cooled turbine). Incidently J79 used ceramic turbine blades for the LP stage.
> 
> ...



The dreaded Starfighter used the high T tail...
But that’s hardly an exemplar to follow:

The Tragic Reason Why Germany Hated Its F-104 Starfighters

As I understand it, at high angles of attack, the tail will possibly be in the turbulent wake of the main wing such that it tends to “stall” and lose lift.


----------



## GrauGeist (Mar 4, 2020)

The F-104 was literally a manned rocket intended to climb and intercept Soviet bombers. It wasn't a fighter in the true sense, just as the Me262 was not a fighter, either - both were _interceptors_.

The fact that Germany had such an atrocious operational record doesn't necessarily fall on Lockheed, but rather how the Germans (out of all other nations) were operating their Starfighters.

Other nations that had the F-104 in their inventory had a far lower attrition rate, Italy even operating the Star fighter into the new century.


----------



## Zyzygie (Mar 4, 2020)

GrauGeist said:


> The F-104 was literally a manned rocket intended to climb and intercept Soviet bombers. It wasn't a fighter in the true sense, just as the Me262 was not a fighter, either - both were _interceptors_.
> 
> The fact that Germany had such an atrocious operational record doesn't necessarily fall on Lockheed, but rather how the Germans (out of all other nations) were operating their Starfighters.
> 
> Other nations that had the F-104 in their inventory had a far lower attrition rate, Italy even operating the Star fighter into the new century.



_Well OK GrauGeist. I'll take your word for it, but I did do a check which threw up this:_

*"...Aircraft with very short wingspans were susceptible to something called "inertia coupling". This was a problem encountered at high roll rates where the plane would yaw and pitch violently. To counter that, the Starfighter's horizontal stabilizer was mounted high up on the tail. In case you were wondering why they stuck it up there."
"In aircraft design, everything is a trade-off. At high angles of attack, that T-tail could be blanked out by the fuselage, causing a violent pitch-up and stall. The F-101 also had this problem. To warn the pilot that his F-104 was approaching the limit, it had a "stick shaker" similar to what airliners are equipped with. If he ignored the "shaker" he got the "kicker" which would forcibly push the stick forward. Since nothing is foolproof to a sufficiently talented fool, the kicker could be overridden by the pilot and hilarity would ensue..."*
The not quite right stuff - F-104 Starfighter

_But this is getting way off topic... Sorry_


----------



## Koopernic (Mar 4, 2020)

Zyzygie said:


> The dreaded Starfighter used the high T tail...
> But that’s hardly an exemplar to follow:
> 
> The Tragic Reason Why Germany Hated Its F-104 Starfighters
> ...



The Starfighter certainly had a potential superstall problem and used a stick shaker and stick pusher to try and prevent it.

The complete test crews of a BAC 1-11 and a Trident were lost to super stall (the 1963 Crickdale Incident) and a The 1966 Felthorpe Trident crash (on a delivery acceptance test)

However aerodynamic modifications to the BAC 1-11 and Trident eliminated the super stall problems and the Ilyushin IL-62 and Vickers Super VC10 never had it. Stick shakers and pushers were famously fitted but the problem was also dealt with aerodynamically.

Aircraft with swept wings can generate a forward pitching moment from their wings tips so long as they do not experience premature trip stall from span wise flow. Premature tip stall can be prevented with slats, dog tooth leading edges (VC10, Trident) etc.

Donald Douglass had Wing Fences and Vortilons fitted to the DC9 when he heard of the British incidents, So DC9 never had the issue. 

An aspect of the super stall problem was that the engines would also stall from interrupted airflow which prevented the aircraft from powering itself out of the dive, so fences might be added to channel the airflow to the engines. BAC 1-11 and Trident had "auto light" so that the engines would automatically relight. (auto light lamps coming on were often the first indication of a stall)

However the German 'supersonic' aircraft would not have had 'super stall' because they were designed as flying wings with the tail there just for trim control. Imagine an Me 163 with a horizontal T tail.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Mar 4, 2020)

I'm not just talking out my hat...statiatics bear out that West Germany had a higher attrition rate than other nations and a high-position horizontal stabilizer is not the issue, it's the mission profile versus hardware intention that's the core of the problem. The Mig-21 had a high-mount horizontal stab and it didn't have flight profile issues, the C-5 had a high-mount horizontal stab and it didn't have flight profile issues - the list goes on...


----------



## Zyzygie (Mar 4, 2020)

“...The Germans did pioneering work on air-cooling and heat and corrosion resistant coating and they would have succeeded with ceramics (they latterly did in 1946 design and in 1947 commission a power turbine that used the Jumo 004 compressor, ceramic inlet nozzles and water cooled turbine). *Incidently J79 used ceramic turbine blades for the LP stage...*”


I suspect that this was just a ceramic coating for use in a highly corrosive marine environment:

*Marinization of The General Electric LM1500 Gas Turbine*


*“ Parts in the front end of the gas generator operating at a temperature of 450 F or less were given two coats of phenol-formaldehyde thermosetting resin coating known by the trade name of Heresite• Parts in the higher temperature regions (450 to 1000 F) were given two coats of an* *aluminum-silicone paint. Such items as gearboxes and other external low-temperature parts were given a zinc-chromate primer and two coats of black enamel The first-stage turbine nozzle and the first-stage buckets were coated with a U. S. Bureau of Standards ceramic coating known as A418.*


----------



## Zyzygie (Mar 4, 2020)

I can’t find any evidence of successful application of ceramics to turbine blading in World War 2 in Germany or anywhere else. Can you point me to it?

“...Before the Nazi regime took power in Germany, Ernst Schmidt was a leading thermodynamics researcher and academic; the dimensionless number formed by the ratio of momentum and mass diffusivities is named after Schmidt. With the war on, Schmidt led a program at the top-secret German Aviation Research Institute—which in German is compounded into _Luftfahrtforschungsanstalt_ and abbreviated LFA—to adapt ceramics to jet engine construction.”
“Schmidt quickly abandoned any effort to use ceramic rotor blades because of their brittleness in tension and problems associated with their attachment. He also considered, briefly, the construction of a turbine in which the casing rotated and the rotor was stationary, much like the WWI French Gnome rotary piston engine. In that way the rotating airfoils would be put under secure compression instead of tenuous tension.”
“The ceramic gas turbine work at LFA did lead to turbine stator development, with Degussa and Siemens Neuhaus furnishing alumina stators. Those, however, proved to be relatively sensitive to heat shock.”
*“Thus, despite the pioneering German work on gas turbine ceramics, there is no evidence that ceramics were used in the gas paths of any of the approximately 7,000 production jet engines built by Germany by the end of WWII. Turbine airfoils were made of metal alloys, and air-cooled when necessary.”*

“A ceramic formed by silicon carbide decomposes at 4,950 ̊F, well above current turbine gas path temperatures.”​





The LEAP engine.
_Photo: GE Aviation_
“The challenges involved in developing ceramic rotating parts for a gas turbine have persisted in the decades since. As David Richerson pointed out in a 2004 paper, ceramics introduce a wide spectrum of challenges in the high temperature ranges found within gas turbines. For instance, *how do you go about designing and fabricating components using these brittle materials in such high stress and possibly high impact applications? There's virtually no margin for error: a cracked rotating ceramic turbine blade can suddenly fail, taking out other blades and causing total engine failure...”*

Hot PlatesFor as Long as There have been Jet Engines, Engineers have been Trying to Perfect Ceramic Turbine Parts. If Only Ceramics didn’t Fail so Catastrophically. | Mechanical Engineering | ASME Digital Collection


----------



## swampyankee (Mar 4, 2020)

Aft swept wings tend to stall from the tips because the wing’s vortex field causes the tips to be more highly loaded than the roots; the XF-91 had that inverse taper to reduce this effect and bring the lift coefficient down at the top. 

Inertial coupling was found to happen with the F-100, although that probably wasn’t the first. Aircraft where most of the mass is carried in the fuselage are prone to some form of inertial coupling; this probably includes all modern fighters


----------



## Graeme (Mar 4, 2020)

What did American pilots think of the Meteor I ?


----------



## GrauGeist (Mar 4, 2020)

Zyzygie said:


> 1400 Me 262s we’re built and only about 20-40 could get into the air on a given day. Adolf Galland said that if he had had a couple of hundred he could have stopped the bombing.


It's been posted MANY times why the Me262 (and other Luftwaffe aircraft) were not able to operate an-masse by war's end and if you'd take time out from your CnP fest and read a bit, you'd know why.

The Luftwaffe was out of fuel, oil and tires. They were scraping the barrel for new pilots...pilots who were literally put in the cockpit after a few hours of training (also because no fuel for trainer aircraft).
The Luftwaffe was hard-pressed to get supplies and replacement aircraft to the front (both new and returns from the repair depot) because the infrastructure was being scoured by Allied fighters and bombers.

The list goes on, but the Me262 was not grounded solely on engine issues. Not even close.


----------



## Zyzygie (Mar 4, 2020)

GrauGeist said:


> It's been posted MANY times why the Me262 (and other Luftwaffe aircraft) were not able to operate an-masse by war's end and if you'd take time out from your CnP fest and read a bit, you'd know why.
> 
> The Luftwaffe was out of fuel, oil and tires. They were scraping the barrel for new pilots...pilots who were literally put in the cockpit after a few hours of training (also because no fuel for trainer aircraft).
> The Luftwaffe was hard-pressed to get supplies and replacement aircraft to the front (both new and returns from the repair depot) because the infrastructure was being scoured by Allied fighters and bombers.
> ...



If more Me 262s (like 200) were in the air, the bombing would have stopped, allowing more fuel and resources to flow through.
But a “chicken and egg” problem...


----------



## GrauGeist (Mar 4, 2020)

It would have taken far more than that to even slow the tide and they would have had to operate 24 hours a day, seven days a week to slow the US bombers by day and RAF bombers by night with the occasional Soviet bombers making an appearence.

Add to that not only the light bombers (day and night) but also the escort fighters and free-ranging fight-bombers.


----------



## Zyzygie (Mar 5, 2020)

*So the P-80 was eventually developed to a speed of 624 mph in 1947: *




















*"On 19 June 1947, it was flown by Colonel Albert Boyd to a new world speed record of 623.73 mph (1,004.2 km/h), equaling Heini Dittmar's 623 mph (1,004 km/h) unofficial record velocity in one of the Me 163A liquid-fueled rocket fighter prototypes, set on 2 October 1941 after being towed to the height for the attempt."*


----------



## Zyzygie (Mar 5, 2020)

GrauGeist said:


> It would have taken far more than that to even slow the tide and they would have had to operate 24 hours a day, seven days a week to slow the US bombers by day and RAF bombers by night with the occasional Soviet bombers making an appearence.
> 
> Add to that not only the light bombers (day and night) but also the escort fighters and free-ranging fight-bombers.




_"...During these last weeks of the War we were able to fit out some aircraft with additional weapons, which gave a greater firing power to the ME-262: R4M rockets of 3-cm. caliber, and 500-g. explosivies. A single hit from these was enough to bring down a multiengined bomber. They were fixed beneath the wing in two racks that carried 24 rockets. In a feverish hurry our mechanics and servicing crew loaded up a few jet fighters. I took off in one of them. In the district of Landsberg on the Lech I met a formation of about 16 Marauders. We called these twin-engined bombers Halbstarke. I opened from a distance of about 600 yards, firing in half a second a salvo of 24 rockets into the close flying formation. I observed two certain hits. One bomber immediately caught fire and exploded; a second lost large parts of its right tail unit and wing and began to spiral earthward. In the meantime the three other planes that had taken off with me had also attacked successfully. My accompanying pilot, Edward Schallnoser, who once over Riem had rammed a Lightning because in his excitement he could not fire, waded into the Marauders with all his rockets. That evening he reported back to his quarters, parachute under his arm and a twisted leg. Our impression of the efficiency of this new weapon was indescribable. The rockets could be fired outside the effective range of the defensive fire of the bombers. A well-aimed salvo would probably hit several bombers simultaneously. That was the way to break up formations. But this was the end of April, 1945! In the middle of our breakup, at the beginning of our collapse! It does not bear thinking about what we could have done had we had those jet fighters, 3-cm. quick-firing cannons, and 5-cm. rockets years ago—before our war potential had been smashed, before indescribable misery had come over Germany through the raids. We dared not think about it. Now we could do nothing but fly and fight and do our duty as fighter pilots to the last..."_

Galland, Adolf. The First and The Last (pp. 159-160). David Rehak. Kindle Edition. 

*It looks like 200 reliable Me 262s with R4M rockets would do quite nicely, actually...*

Reactions: Dislike Dislike:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Mar 5, 2020)

Zyzygie said:


> _"...During these last weeks of the War we were able to fit out some aircraft with additional weapons, which gave a greater firing power to the ME-262: R4M rockets of 3-cm. caliber, and 500-g. explosivies. A single hit from these was enough to bring down a multiengined bomber. They were fixed beneath the wing in two racks that carried 24 rockets. In a feverish hurry our mechanics and servicing crew loaded up a few jet fighters. I took off in one of them. In the district of Landsberg on the Lech I met a formation of about 16 Marauders. We called these twin-engined bombers Halbstarke. I opened from a distance of about 600 yards, firing in half a second a salvo of 24 rockets into the close flying formation. I observed two certain hits. One bomber immediately caught fire and exploded; a second lost large parts of its right tail unit and wing and began to spiral earthward. In the meantime the three other planes that had taken off with me had also attacked successfully. My accompanying pilot, Edward Schallnoser, who once over Riem had rammed a Lightning because in his excitement he could not fire, waded into the Marauders with all his rockets. That evening he reported back to his quarters, parachute under his arm and a twisted leg. Our impression of the efficiency of this new weapon was indescribable. The rockets could be fired outside the effective range of the defensive fire of the bombers. A well-aimed salvo would probably hit several bombers simultaneously. That was the way to break up formations. But this was the end of April, 1945! In the middle of our breakup, at the beginning of our collapse! It does not bear thinking about what we could have done had we had those jet fighters, 3-cm. quick-firing cannons, and 5-cm. rockets years ago—before our war potential had been smashed, before indescribable misery had come over Germany through the raids. We dared not think about it. Now we could do nothing but fly and fight and do our duty as fighter pilots to the last..."_
> 
> Galland, Adolf. The First and The Last (pp. 159-160). David Rehak. Kindle Edition.
> 
> *It looks like 200 reliable Me 262s with R4M rockets would do quite nicely, actually...*




The P-80 was very close to service, as was the atomic bomb. The original target was Germany.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 5, 2020)

The F-80 that set the 1947 speed records was modified. F-80R


----------



## Peter Gunn (Mar 5, 2020)

Zyzygie said:


> _"...During these last weeks of the War we were able to fit out some aircraft with additional weapons, which gave a greater firing power to the ME-262: R4M rockets of 3-cm. caliber, and 500-g. explosivies. A single hit from these was enough to bring down a multiengined bomber. They were fixed beneath the wing in two racks that carried 24 rockets. In a feverish hurry our mechanics and servicing crew loaded up a few jet fighters. I took off in one of them. In the district of Landsberg on the Lech I met a formation of about 16 Marauders. We called these twin-engined bombers Halbstarke. I opened from a distance of about 600 yards, firing in half a second a salvo of 24 rockets into the close flying formation. I observed two certain hits. One bomber immediately caught fire and exploded; a second lost large parts of its right tail unit and wing and began to spiral earthward. In the meantime the three other planes that had taken off with me had also attacked successfully. My accompanying pilot, Edward Schallnoser, who once over Riem had rammed a Lightning because in his excitement he could not fire, waded into the Marauders with all his rockets. That evening he reported back to his quarters, parachute under his arm and a twisted leg. Our impression of the efficiency of this new weapon was indescribable. The rockets could be fired outside the effective range of the defensive fire of the bombers. A well-aimed salvo would probably hit several bombers simultaneously. That was the way to break up formations. But this was the end of April, 1945! In the middle of our breakup, at the beginning of our collapse! It does not bear thinking about what we could have done had we had those jet fighters, 3-cm. quick-firing cannons, and 5-cm. rockets years ago—before our war potential had been smashed, before indescribable misery had come over Germany through the raids. We dared not think about it. Now we could do nothing but fly and fight and do our duty as fighter pilots to the last..."_
> 
> Galland, Adolf. The First and The Last (pp. 159-160). David Rehak. Kindle Edition.
> 
> *It looks like 200 reliable Me 262s with R4M rockets would do quite nicely, actually...*



Not like Galland hasn't been known to stretch the blanket a bit and not to put to fine a point on it but it does bear thinking about the regime he was fighting for (and lamenting the "indescribable misery"). I'd say ask the Jewish population of Germany what they thought but the answer is probably obvious.

Not meaning to soapbox, but I don't give a fig who says it, anytime one of the old German soldaten starts lamenting "what could have been" I REALLY want to give them five to the snot locker regardless of who they were.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Mar 5, 2020)

Zyzygie said:


> The Battle of the Atlantic was well and truly over by 1944. The horse had well and truly bolted.



The Germans couldn't have been so precient and stated that. By 1944, the Type XXI was entering production and service and promised to change the landscape - it was extraordinarily innovative, along with advanced propusion systems and other technologies, the Germans weren't yet giving up on their U-boats. Despite the material shortages, they weren't giving up.



Zyzygie said:


> If more Me 262s (like 200) were in the air,



Yeah, was never gonna happen. I read a report that the British wrote during the war and they guesstimated that at any given time, availability was very low for Me 262s based on encounters. Let's face it, after Bodenplatte, the Luftwaffe was a spent force and over enemy territory the numbers of aircraft and frequency of encounters lessened dramatically in late 1944 onwards. Over the heart of the Reich of course the interceptors were still gonna put up a fight, but in nowhere near the numbers required to overcome the Allies.

There was so much that Germany lacked by the end of '44 and early '45 that it didn't matter how many advanced aircraft or submarines they had, there wasn't any logistical support to maintaining the war machine they had created. By May 1945, the factories were full of unfinished aeroplanes, submarines etc, but so much was missing - engines, tyres, fittings, and who was gonna operate them and in what kind of environment? The Russians were surrounding Berlin in April 1945 and the combined Allied effort was at the German border at the beginning of the year.

I know this sounds like a contraditction to the text about the Battle of the Atlantic, but despite their position, there wasn't any way the Germans were going to admit to defeat, despite any material shortage.


----------



## Zyzygie (Mar 5, 2020)

*The Luftwaffe and the sad lack of strategic priority:*






*THE DEFEAT OF THE GERMAN AIR FORCE
The United States Strategic Bombing Survey*


----------



## Zyzygie (Mar 6, 2020)

*Not enough fighters was a problem! *

*One too many Fuhrers was another.*






*A REFLECTION ON THE CAUSES OF THE GERMAN DEFEAT
by GENERALOBERST LOTHAR RENDULIC *


*Summary.*

Germany lost the last war for purely military reasons:

*I. Blunders of the High Command, especially Adolf Hitler:*

1. Excessive self-confidence of Adolf Hitler. 
2. Overrating of importance of holding territory. (Wrong impressions gained from World War I.) 
3. Increasing mistrust of Generals. 
*4. Wrong ideas on air warfare. (Wrong development of the Air Force, too few fighters!)* 
5. Commanding officers of the Waffen-SS units mostly insufficiently trained and not prepared for their tasks.

*II. Wrong Employment of Manpower. No total Mobilization. Wrong Distribution of available Manpower:*

1. Disregard of the Army (neglecting the fact that the Army has to bear the main burden of all fighting). 
2. Excessive manpower used in all administrative and economic civilian offices and in the whole apparatus of the N.S.D.A.P. (especially the miscellaneous organizations of Himmler, Reich Labor Service and others). 
*3. Four completely separate components of the Armed Forces with special agencies for supply, etc.* 
4. Insufficient replacements for the Army in spite of the heavy losses. Preference given to the Air Force and the Waffen-SS, not only in quantity but also in quality.

_*["...While reflecting on the above described facts, I recall a statement in the book of the British General Fuller "Erinnerungen eines bedenksamen Soldaten" ("Memories of a Studious Soldier").* Fuller is citing Herodotus who attributes the following saying to a Persian of the 6th centuary B.C. (quoting from memory): "No one believes in warnings, no matter how true they may be. Many of us Persians know the danger, but the distress of our country compels us to follow our leader and to do everything he asks us to do. Truly, it is the greatest of all evils of man to have knowledge of many things and nevertheless have no power to act." "*_

_*"These words, more than 2500 years old, express the military tragedy of Germany..."]*_

_Lothar Rendulic was an army group commander in the Wehrmacht during World War II. Rendulic was one of three Austrians who rose to the rank of Generaloberst in the German armed forces. The other two were Alexander Löhr and Erhard Raus. Rendulic was tried at the Subsequent Nuremberg Trials in 1948._


----------



## Zyzygie (Mar 6, 2020)

*THE BEST ENEMY MONEY CAN BUY*
By Antony C. Sutton

*MIG Fighters with Rolls-Royce Turbojets*

"...In 1946 the Soviets bought fifty-five Rolls-Royce centrifugal compressor type turbojets — twenty-five Nenes and thirty Derwents. These Rolls-Royce engines, the most advanced in the world for the time, were well suited to Soviet production methods and introduced the Soviets to the use of a centrifugal turbojet. Up to 1947 Russian jets were all of the axial-flow type based on German designs. These Rolls-Royce turbines proved to be the best possible equipment for the MiG-15, which was designed by Siegfried Gunther and put into serial production under the name of the Soviet designers Mikoyan and Gurevich. Gunther was brought to Moscow and appointed chief designer in the construction office in Podberezhye.
Two versions of the Rolls-Royce engines were produced at Engine Plant No. 45 near Moscow from 1948 to the late 1950s. The plant was toured in 1956 by U.S. Air Force General Nathan Twining, who noted that it contained machine tools from the United States and Germany, and had 3,000 workers engaged in producing the Rolls-Royce Nene."

"In 1951 the American counterpart to this Rolls-Royce engine was the Pratt & Whitney J-42 Turbo-Wasp, based on the Nene, but not then in quantity production. When the Korean War broke out in 1950, therefore, the Russians had thousands of improved Rolls-Royce Nene engines in service powering MiG-15s, whereas the U.S. Air Force had only a few hundred F-86A Sabres with comparable engines. Several engines from MiG-15s captured in Korea were evaluated by the United States Air Force. Reports were prepared by engineers of Pratt & Whitney Aircraft Division of United Aircraft Corporation, the Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, and Cornell Aeronautical Laboratory. We know from these analyses that by 1951 the Soviets had two versions of the original Rolls-Royce Nene in production quantities. The first version, the RD-45 that powered an early MiG-15, was a direct copy of the original Rolls-Royce Nene and delivered 5,000 pounds of thrust. The second version of the RD-45 delivered 6,000 pounds of static thrust at sea level and 6,750 pounds of thrust with water injection. The turbine blades in the Soviet RD-45 engines were made of a stainless steel alloy of the Nimonic-80 type, while the burner liner and swirl vanes were made of Nimonic-75. Parts of the Nene sold to
Russia in 1948 were fabricated from Nimonic alloys — "Nimonic" being the registered trademark of Henry Wiggin and Company of Birmingham, England. Both Nimonic-75 and Nimonic-80 were developed by Mond Nickel about 1940, and the specifications had previously been published by the Ministry of Supply in the United Kingdom on the grounds that it was nonstrategic information."

"The RD-45 (Nene) was produced in Moscow and also at Magadan from 1951 onwards, at Khabarovsk, at Ufa Plant No. 21, and at the Kiev Plant No. 43 from 1951 until sometime after 1958..."


In the Museum: The Mystery of the MiG | History | Air & Space Magazine
*Siegfried Günther and the MiG 15:*

"...And though the MiG was ... manufactured in Russia, it has German roots. After World War II, German engineers who had been working on a jet fighter for their own government found themselves suddenly without an employer. So the Soviet Union offered several thousand engineers and technicians security and employment in exchange for their expertise. Among the German aeronautical designers exported to Russia were many who had worked for the Luftwaffe on airplanes, including noted German designer Siegfried Günther, who is thought to have worked on the MiG-15."

"Whatever its origins, the MiG-15 was a superb airplane, able to outperform any of the American-made piston-engine and first-generation jet aircraft (such as the F-80) that challenged it during the Korean War. It wasn’t until early 1953, after F-86 Sabres had been on the scene, that the United States achieved complete air superiority. The two fighters were fairly evenly matched, though the MiG had a faster climb rate, higher operating ceiling, and tighter turning rate at altitude. But the Korean and Chinese pilots who flew MiG-15s were no match for the far more experienced and better trained Sabre pilots, who started downing MiGs at a prodigious rate..."


----------



## bada (Mar 6, 2020)

Wel, this went into the fubar zone, it started with a simple aircraft duel and it ended with UsaAF47, Korea War, Material engeneering and Political opinions.
All too far from the 262...
Even if there is good stuff about the Metal engeneering, most of the stuff is OT and looks like a crusade against the 262, loosing all the credibility.
So just to get back to the initial past: 262 vs Meteor MkIII
Acceleration: Me262
Speed : Me262
Maneuvrability:Me262
Firepower (Raw Power): Me262
Ergonomics: Me262

As a Combat airframe, the 262 was ready to fulfill it's role in44/45.
the Meteor wasn't even able to do it in 46 with updated engines..

A very interesting video here:

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 6, 2020)

bada said:


> Wel, this went into the fubar zone, it started with a simple aircraft duel and it ended with UsaAF47, Korea War, Material engeneering and Political opinions.
> All too far from the 262...
> Even if there is good stuff about the Metal engeneering, most of the stuff is OT and looks like a crusade against the 262, loosing all the credibility.
> So just to get back to the initial past: 262 vs Meteor MkIII
> ...




Hense why the title changed...


----------



## Zyzygie (Mar 6, 2020)

😏


----------



## Zyzygie (Mar 6, 2020)

Zyzygie said:


> quality.
> 
> _*["...While reflecting on the above described facts, I recall a statement in the book of the British General Fuller "Erinnerungen eines bedenksamen Soldaten" ("Memories of a Studious Soldier").* Fuller is citing Herodotus who attributes the following saying to a Persian of the 6th centuary B.C. (quoting from memory): "No one believes in warnings, no matter how true they may be. Many of us Persians know the danger, but the distress of our country compels us to follow our leader and to do everything he asks us to do. Truly, it is the greatest of all evils of man to have knowledge of many things and nevertheless have no power to act." " *_
> 
> _*"These words, more than 2500 years old, express the military tragedy of Germany..."]*_



Germany had too many dummkopfs running it...

Vast expenditure on “secret weapons” (including the Me 262) that arguably cost Germany much more than it did in terms of damage to the enemy...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 6, 2020)

Zyzygie said:


> 😏



It’s nothing to be proud of. He is right about everything he said.


----------



## Peter Gunn (Mar 6, 2020)

"It wasn’t until early 19*53*, after F-86 Sabres had been on the scene, that the United States achieved complete air superiority. "

Uh... what?

Methinks the ex-nazi got his dates and info wrong, shocking.


----------



## Zyzygie (Mar 6, 2020)

Zyzygie said:


> If more Me 262s (like 200) were in the air, the bombing would have stopped, allowing more fuel and resources to flow through.
> But a “chicken and egg” problem...



*Adolf Galland:*

*I trust this guy's judgement.*







*OK, 300, not 200. My mistake...*

**


----------



## Zyzygie (Mar 6, 2020)

*So Carl Spaatz agrees with Galland...*

*I tend to trust the judgement of Carl Spaatz too. *


----------



## Dimlee (Mar 7, 2020)

Zyzygie said:


> "The RD-45 (Nene) was produced in Moscow and also at Magadan from 1951 onwards, at Khabarovsk, at Ufa Plant No. 21, and at the Kiev Plant No. 43 from 1951 until sometime after 1958..."



Magadan... It would be a really "unorthodox" decision to build a jet engine factory in Magadan. Imagine if the engines of those Meteors are delivered to the UK from St.Helena Island.
Locations in USSR where RD-45 were produced: Moscow, Perm, Samara, Ufa, Zaporozhye, Kazan.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zyzygie (Mar 8, 2020)

*An interesting introduction to some admirable German WW II aircraft design developments:*

*All they needed to get them to work was a good engine or two...*

*😐*

https://www.howfliesthealbatross.com/German Jets.pdf

germany's secret weapons in world war ii - osprey


----------



## Thos9 (Mar 9, 2020)

Koopernic said:


> The 1900kg thrust BMW P3308, according to Kay, had a variant with a pure steal turbine of only 2 hours life


Help please - Where does Kay say this?


----------



## Zyzygie (Mar 11, 2020)

A proposed 1946 Gloster Meteor development with swept wings - The Gloster P 228 night fighter.

Gloster P.228 | World of Warplanes


----------



## Zyzygie (Mar 25, 2020)

Make that climb rate 3500 ft/minute, not second... 

"...The P-47M was, essentially, developed collaterally with the XP-47J. The "J" was fitted with a high-output version of the P&W R-2800. Specifically, the R-2800-57. This engine made 2,800 hp @ 2,800 rpm at 35,000 feet. This is in War Emergency Power. The aircraft actually attained 507 mph at an altitude of 34,300 feet. 2,800 hp is 133% of rated power. At military power (100%), the XP-47J could sustain 470 mph. 435 mph was attained at 81% of its rated power (1,700 hp). All performance figures were obtained at 34,300 feet. The "J" model was an especially good climbing fighter too. It had a climb rate at sea level of 4,900 fpm. At 20,000 feet, it was still rocketing up at 4,400 fpm, and got there in 4 minutes, 15 seconds. Time to 30,000 feet was only 6 minutes, 45 seconds. Now that's an interceptor! Yet it had a usable range of 1,075 miles. Rather impressive, don't you think? No, this was not a stripped-down hotrod. It was fully armed and carried ballast in the wings equal to 267 rds per gun. The aircraft was flown to a height of 46,500 feet and was capable of a bit more."

*



* 
*The XP-47J*​ 
"Originally designed to defeat the FW-190 series fighters, the XP-47J certainly would have exceeded this requirement. In point of fact, with its critical Mach of .83, it had the potential to chase down Me-262's by utilizing a shallow dive, taking advantage of its superior service ceiling...*"*

The Republic P-47M -Tje Fastest Piston Engine Fighter In WW II


----------



## Zyzygie (Mar 26, 2020)

bada said:


> Wel, this went into the fubar zone, it started with a simple aircraft duel and it ended with UsaAF47, Korea War, Material engeneering and Political opinions.
> All too far from the 262...
> Even if there is good stuff about the Metal engeneering, most of the stuff is OT and looks like a crusade against the 262, loosing all the credibility.
> So just to get back to the initial past: 262 vs Meteor MkIII
> ...




_A whole lot of holes in this guy's understanding._

*On the other hand, an impartial NASA assessment:*

"...Performance characteristics shown in table I give a maximum speed for the Gloster Meteor F. Mk. 4 of 570 miles per hour, or a Mach number of 0.81, at 20000 feet... The sea-level rate of climb was 7500 feet per minute, and an altitude of 30 000 feet could be reached in 5 minutes. Clearly, the performance of the Meteor F. Mk. 4 was much superior to the performance of the Messerschmitt Me 262A for which data are given in table V. To put this comparison in proper perspective, however, the Meteor F. Mk. 4 did not fly until after the end of World War II and had a thrust-to-weight ratio of 0.47 as compared with 0.28 for the earlier German aircraft. The author's analysis of the physical and performance characteristics of the two aircraft suggests that the superior performance of the Meteor was due to the higher thrust of its engines and not to any inherent superiority in aerodynamic design. The first flight of the Gloster Meteor took place in March 1943, and development and refinement of the type continued for a number of years following World War II. Over 3500 Meteors were built, including versions intended to perform almost every role a fighter might be called upon to fill. For many years, it was used by the Royal Air Force, as well as by the armed forces of 15 other nations..."

"...It saw further combat in the Korean war. Although a strictly subsonic aircraft, the Meteor did have high performance for a straight-wing fighter; it was rugged, versatile, and capable of being readily adapted to various missions..."

ch11-2

The Meteor was very competitive with the MiG 15 below 20,000 ft. The Me 262 would have been eaten for breakfast...


----------



## Zyzygie (Mar 28, 2020)

From *Research on High-Speed Aerodynamics at the Royal Aircraft Establishment from 1942 to 1945.*


----------



## Zyzygie (Mar 29, 2020)

*Eric Brown on the Me 262 as dogfighter:*





*******
On the need for airbrakes:*










********
On engine reliability:




*

*https://www.rafmuseum.org.uk/documents/research/RAF-Historical-Society-Journals/Journal-53.pdf*


----------



## GrauGeist (Mar 30, 2020)

This was a good thread before it was hijacked...

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zyzygie (Apr 3, 2020)

Peter Gunn said:


> "It wasn’t until early 19*53*, after F-86 Sabres had been on the scene, that the United States achieved complete air superiority. "
> 
> Uh... what?
> 
> Methinks the ex-nazi got his dates and info wrong, shocking.



"...The introduction of the MiG challenged American superiority over Korea and drastically outclassed their American equivalent, leading to communist air superiority as far south as Sinanji and along the Chongechan river, resulting in superiority of the skies being contested for the remainder of the war..."

*"*...American air superiority was challenged but not defeated. The superiority of the MiGs in combat surprised American officials who believed that Soviet and Chinese planes were inferior because as suggested at the Wake Island Conference “We [America] are the best.” The superiority of the MiGs compared to its early counter parts such as the Shooting Star led to this challenge in American air superiority. However despite the introduction of the MiG into the Korean theatre of war, and the chronic shortage of warplanes that faced American forces the USAF was able to maintain superiority over the Korean peninsula throughout the war thus enabling American bombers to conduct their missions. However the issue of political sanctuary that the communist air forces enjoyed and the increasing presence of MiG fighters meant that even if the USAF wanted air superiority over Manchuria they would have been unlikely to achieve it..."


----------



## Peter Gunn (Apr 4, 2020)

Not sure what you're driving at, the ex-nazi got his date's way of whack, Sabre's were there well before 1953 and had wrested control of the air well before that date also. I'm not sure if you have a beef with historical facts or not, I was merely pointing out the guy's historical inaccuracies.


----------



## Dana Bell (Apr 4, 2020)

Hi Guys,

The quote about Sabres and 1953 didn't come from the ex-Nazi, it came from a writer for Air & Space Smithsonian back in 2000. I suspect he was trying to say that the Americans achieved air *supremacy *in early 1953 because of newer models of the Sabre - either way, it was a poorly written sentence.

I also loved his line about the Soviets offering jobs to all those unemployed German scientists and engineers - he made it sound more like a jobs program than virtual Soviet-style enslavement!

Cheers,



Dana

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zyzygie (Apr 5, 2020)

Dana Bell said:


> Hi Guys,
> 
> The quote about Sabres and 1953 didn't come from the ex-Nazi, it came from a writer for Air & Space Smithsonian back in 2000. I suspect he was trying to say that the Americans achieved air *supremacy *in early 1953 because of newer models of the Sabre - either way, it was a poorly written sentence.
> 
> ...




Yes. Arguably, “complete air superiority” = “air supremacy.”

Before 1953, air superiority was “contested,” and arguably localised - for instance “MiG alley,” in which the contest was highly dependent on Soviet radar ground controllers and superior MiG numbers.


----------



## nuuumannn (Apr 6, 2020)

GrauGeist said:


> This was a good thread before it was hijacked...



Yup, wasn't this originally titled Meteor versus Me 262? Didn't realise we could change the titles of threads and summarily overtake them in this manner.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zyzygie (Apr 6, 2020)

nuuumannn said:


> Yup, wasn't this originally titled Meteor versus Me 262? Didn't realise we could change the titles of threads and summarily overtake them in this manner.



I think it was something to do with Me 262s and Meteors and dogfights... 😐


----------



## Graeme (Apr 6, 2020)

Zyzygie said:


> I think it was something to do with Me 262s and Meteors and dogfights... 😐



But which Meteor? Post No.2 went into this - but you seem to have concentrated on the Mk.8 with all the MiG references. This is well beyond the scope of the thread.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Apr 6, 2020)

nuuumannn said:


> Yup, wasn't this originally titled Meteor versus Me 262? Didn't realise we could change the titles of threads and summarily overtake them in this manner.


It was originally intended to compare the Me262 and Meteor (1944-45 marks) in a hypothetical encounter - not this rambling bullshit that's taken over the thread.

Which is why the mods changed the title.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Apr 6, 2020)

GrauGeist said:


> Which is why the mods changed the title.



Ah, I see. It kinda makes it difficult for anyone wanting to search for constructive discussion on the merits of both types now the thread's been renamed.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 6, 2020)

nuuumannn said:


> Ah, I see. It kinda makes it difficult for anyone wanting to search for constructive discussion on the merits of both types now the thread's been renamed.



One person to thank for that...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 6, 2020)

Maybe when I feel better, I will remove all of his ramblings into a separate thread, and rename this one back. Then if he continues to ramble, we can deal with that accordingly.

Me 262 and Meteor (44-45 models) discussion only here, and his rambles in another. People can then choose to go in there, or avoid it.


----------



## glennasher (Apr 6, 2020)

This place has the worst "thread drift" of any of the web places I hang out, but at least I learn things, even if I am often befuddled by the way things drift off topic. Regardless, I am learning things, and that's not a bad thing, overall.
Still, I'd like it better if there was less of the thread drift, sometimes it's just silly.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
3 | Winner Winner:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 6, 2020)

glennasher said:


> This place has the worst "thread drift" of any of the web places I hang out, but at least I learn things, even if I am often befuddled by the way things drift off topic. Regardless, I am learning things, and that's not a bad thing, overall.
> Still, I'd like it better if there was less of the thread drift, sometimes it's just silly.



No disagreements from me.


----------



## nuuumannn (Apr 6, 2020)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Maybe when I feel better,



Yup, rest up mate. You got more important stuff to deal with right now.


----------



## Zyzygie (Apr 6, 2020)

glennasher said:


> This place has the worst "thread drift" of any of the web places I hang out, but at least I learn things, even if I am often befuddled by the way things drift off-topic. Regardless, I am learning things, and that's not a bad thing, overall.
> Still, I'd like it better if there was less of the thread drift, sometimes it's just silly.



Well OK. I am learning too. For instance, I thought the P47 was just a case of brute force against the Mustang’s finesse. But the P47M was faster, much more versatile (dogfighter, interceptor and ground attack) and reasonably maneuverable.

My justification in bringing it into the thread was that at 475 mph it was similar (but slightly slower) speed than the Meteor Mark 3 at 493 mph, and if anything lower maneuverability. Yet it had a 2 - 0 dogfight record against the Me 262 before they sadly ran out of a war.
(That’s not counting the taking out of Me262s on takeoff and landing.)

Both the P47M and Meteor have a significant advantage in terms of service ceiling and certainly reliability...

Also, both had high-velocity guns/cannon as against the Me262 which with low-velocity “mines” was optimised for taking out heavy bombers. (*Minengeschoss' (“mine-shell”))

As Eric Brown said, the Me262 was an interceptor not a dogfighter.


----------



## GrauGeist (Apr 6, 2020)

Even though the Me262 was a "Heavy Fighter", it could, in the right hands, prove to be deadly against an adversary.

Quite a few Allied fighter pilots discovered this the hard way.


----------



## Zyzygie (Apr 7, 2020)

Zyzygie said:


> Well OK. I am learning too. For instance, I thought the P47 was just a case of brute force against the Mustang’s finesse. But the P47M was faster, much more versatile (dogfighter, interceptor and ground attack) and reasonably maneuverable.
> 
> My justification in bringing it into the thread was that at 475 mph it was similar (but slightly slower) speed than the Meteor Mark 3 at 493 mph, and if anything lower maneuverability. Yet it had a 2 - 0 dogfight record against the Me 262 before they sadly ran out of a war.
> (That’s not counting the taking out of Me262s on takeoff and landing.)
> ...



Further to the Minengeschoss:

*"...The shorter flight time of [a high-velocity projectile], plus the larger number fired for a given weight of armament, greatly improves the hit probability of this armament by comparison with the slower-firing cannon, making shoot-downs more likely..."*

WORLD WAR 2 FIGHTER GUN EFFECTIVENESS

But this was not applicable to dealing with bombers...


----------



## GrauGeist (Apr 7, 2020)

Not sure if you're aware of what a 30mm Minengeschoß round does to it's target, but one hit to a fighter can be catastrophic and a large share of the Me262 pilots were experten and knew the RoF of the MK108 and how to land hits with deflection aiming.

Plenty of vintage guncam videos out there that show what a MK103 and MK108 can do to bombers, a fighter is not nearly as rugged.


----------



## Zyzygie (Apr 7, 2020)

GrauGeist said:


> Not sure if you're aware of what a 30mm Minengeschoß round does to it's target, but one hit to a fighter can be catastrophic and a large share of the Me262 pilots were experten and knew the RoF of the MK108 and how to land hits with deflection aiming.
> 
> Plenty of vintage guncam videos out there that show what a MK103 and MK108 can do to bombers, a fighter is not nearly as rugged.



Hi Grau, have you forgotten something?







The reason a high percentage of the Me262 pilots were experten was that anyone else was liable to have a short life expectancy...

See:
"I flamed out once when I was in transition training. I was used to pushing the throttle full to increase takeoff power. This was a great error in the jet. I know that many of the pilots who were killed flying the jet probably died due to stalling out this way. The 262 was a very heavy aircraft when compared to the 109 and 190, and at low speed I would equate it to flying a brick..."

Walter "Graf" Kuprinski (from Post #802)


----------



## GrauGeist (Apr 7, 2020)

I haven't forgotten anything.

I'm aware of the pilot allocation to the jet Jabos staffels and the majority were Experten and they were MORE than capable of defending themselves when bounced.
I am fully aware of Brown's sentiments and God knows you've posted those quotes ad nauseum, but if you researched the Me262 pilot records half as much as you posted that other crap, you'd discover that Me262s downed a considerable amount of Allied fighter types, such as P-51s, Spitfires, P-38s, Mosquitos, P-47s and so on.

YES, the Me262 was NOT a true fighter, however it was purely capable of engaging a fighter AS LONG AS THE PILOT MAINTAINED HIS SPEED ADVANTAGE.

Read about Brown's observations regarding the Me262's ability to maintain high-speed turns that piston fighters were not capable of performing.
Quite a few instances where a Me262 was ravaging bombers only to turn on a pursuing escort and shoot it down.


----------



## Zyzygie (Apr 7, 2020)

GrauGeist said:


> I haven't forgotten anything.
> 
> YES, the Me262 was NOT a true fighter, however it was purely capable of engaging a fighter AS LONG AS THE PILOT MAINTAINED HIS SPEED ADVANTAGE.



OK, so we agree... 

If an aircraft is optimised as an interceptor, you don't expect it also to perform exceptionally as a dogfighter. 

_The one is a "pit bull" and the other's a "wolfhound."_


----------



## Zyzygie (Apr 8, 2020)

"...It was originally intended to compare the Me262 and Meteor (1944-45 marks) in a hypothetical encounter..."

The Meteor F4 could fit a '45 definition:
"..._The Gloster Meteor F Mk.IV was the first post-war version of the Meteor, and was a dramatic improvement on the Meteor F Mk.III. The main reason for the improved performance of the Meteor IV was its engines. Rolls-Royce had developed a new jet engine, the Nene. This was much more powerful than the early Derwent engines used in the Meteor, but was too big to fit into the Meteor’s engine nacelles."_

_"Rolls-Royce responded by producing a scaled-down version, 85.5% of the size of the Nene, which it gave the name Derwent V. This new engine provided 3,500lb of thrust, a 50% increase on the power offered by the Derwent IV used in later Meteor IIIs. The Derwent V ran for the first time on the test bench on 7 June 1945."
Gloster Meteor F Mk.IV_

_"This new engine was then fitted to a Meteor Mk.III (serial EE360), to make the F Mk.IV prototype. This made its maiden flight on *15 August 1945*... Tests revealed that the new Meteor had much better performance than earlier models, reaching 570mph at 10,000ft, nearly 80mph more than the fastest Mk.IIIs. Acceleration was also dramatically improved. While earlier versions of the Meteor had been somewhat pedestrian, the Mk.IV would twice create new World Air Speed Records. The Mk.IV also had fully harmonised controls, making it much easier to fly..."_

From Eric Brown:

_







_

But I'm guessing that you're referring to aircraft which were _*in-service*_ in 1945 only...


----------



## GrauGeist (Apr 8, 2020)

Zyzygie said:


> OK, so we agree...
> 
> If an aircraft is optimised as an interceptor, you don't expect it also to perform exceptionally as a dogfighter.
> 
> _The one is a "pit bull" and the other's a "wolfhound."_


The problem here, that people are forgetting the basic principle of a turning fight: you lose airspeed.
If the 262's engines had functioned as originally designed, then it would have been better suited for a furball even though it was built for speed.
Trying to put it up against slower prop jobs would be like pitting a Spitfire against a Fokker D.VII - that Spit would be able to overtake the D.VII but the Fokker would easily turn inside of the Spitfire and land rounds while the Spit was turning wide.
The He280, which had a different engine design and an elliptical wing, was far better suited for a turning fight.

The Me262 also presented a steep learning curve as it was new technology and the book of "does and don'ts" for jet combat had nothing but blank pages at that point in time.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## bada (Apr 8, 2020)

Zyzygie said:


> Well OK. I am learning too. For instance, I thought the P47 was just a case of brute force against the Mustang’s finesse. But the P47M was faster, much more versatile (dogfighter, interceptor and ground attack) and reasonably maneuverable.
> 
> Both the P47M and Meteor have a significant advantage in terms of service ceiling and certainly reliability...



while we can't oppose the fact about the reliability or piston engines at the end of the war, we could also discuss the reliability of the Derwent engines....except some vague quotes about the 004, what could you post about the Derwents?
Now, for the Altitude advantage, i'd like YOU to check the RAE report : http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/meteor/Meteor-CFE.pdf , Page 29 showing The RAE being unable to perform any decent tests above 20000ft (+/-6500m) due to surging engines, those engines were from 1946 and not 1944 or 45! Meaning they had been optimised in the afterwar period but still had some predominant issues. 



Zyzygie said:


> Also, both had high-velocity guns/cannon as against the Me262 which with low-velocity “mines” was optimised for taking out heavy bombers. (*Minengeschoss' (“mine-shell”))
> 
> As Eric Brown said, the Me262 was an interceptor not a dogfighter.





Zyzygie said:


> Further to the Minengeschoss:
> 
> *"...The shorter flight time of [a high-velocity projectile], plus the larger number fired for a given weight of armament, greatly improves the hit probability of this armament by comparison with the slower-firing cannon, making shoot-downs more likely..."*
> 
> ...



It seems you haven't saw any pictures from a 108 an an airframe, One 108 hit on a fighter is a kill.



Zyzygie said:


> Hi Grau, have you forgotten something?
> 
> The reason a high percentage of the Me262 pilots were experten was that anyone else was liable to have a short life expectancy...
> 
> ...



Always the same quotes... now what do you think will happen when you slam the Derwent engine like an engine piston? ...keep it secret, don't tell anyone, otherwise the web legend could be broken: it will flame out...



Zyzygie said:


> OK, so we agree...
> 
> If an aircraft is optimised as an interceptor, you don't expect it also to perform exceptionally as a dogfighter.
> 
> _The one is a "pit bull" and the other's a "wolfhound."_



The 262 was build from the start as a fighter, a very fast one, that needed new tactics and a new way to "dogfight", it wasn't designed/build as an interceptor.
Another web legend.



Zyzygie said:


> "...It was originally intended to compare the Me262 and Meteor (1944-45 marks) in a hypothetical encounter..."
> 
> The Meteor F4 could fit a '45 definition:
> .....
> But I'm guessing that you're referring to aircraft which were _*in-service*_ in 1945 only...



No it doesn't fit the definition, to compare the meteor to the 262 you have only 2 options: MK1 or MK3.
What happend after 8May45 is NOT relevant to the discussion.

It seems you try to avoid the RAE 1946 report about the MK3 called "Tactical Trials Meteor III"
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/meteor/Meteor-CFE.pdf 

RAE (the reference establishement for aircraft trials in GB, not just a pilot's quote! ) concluded the Meteor MKIII wasn't fit for combat, and this was in 1946, with already upgraded engines. The Meteor3 was a DOG, even a COW in combat, it wasn't able to perform the basic combat maneuvres. POINT.
We could also discuss the other points that make an airplane a fighter , like the pilot position, the instruments layout, commands position, back up and emergency systems,etc...

The 262 proved it's ability to fight, the meteor proved only it could do some PR in an allied controlled airspace.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Reluctant Poster (Apr 8, 2020)

Dogfighting died with the introduction of the monoplane. Dogfighting died with the introduction of the jet. Dogfighting died with the introduction of air to air guided missiles, yet somehow it is still with us.


----------



## Peter Gunn (Apr 8, 2020)

Zyzygie said:


> Well OK. I am learning too. For instance, I thought the P47 was just a case of brute force against the Mustang’s finesse. But the P47M was faster, much more versatile (dogfighter, interceptor and ground attack) and reasonably maneuverable.
> 
> *SNIP*


Perhaps against a D model Mustang, how about the H? "much more versatile" How do you figure that?

Not sure it was more capable, but I digress, what is this thread about again?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 8, 2020)

Reluctant Poster said:


> Dogfighting died with the introduction of the monoplane. Dogfighting died with the introduction of the jet. Dogfighting died with the introduction of air to air guided missiles, yet somehow it is still with us.


Yes and no - if you look into aerial combat since the Vietnam war, many of the kills scored were done so without the traditional dogfight. When there were limited ROEs most kills were BVR. I think during the Gulf War there was only one or two VR "dogfights," one where an Iraqi pilot flew into the ground trying to evade an F-15. Even at VR, it seemed most encounters were straight forward (to coin a phrase). As I said many times, today, If you're "dogfighting" either some politician has you fighting within some rigid ROE or something went very wrong and you pissed away several million dollars of technology.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## cherry blossom (Apr 8, 2020)

glennasher said:


> This place has the worst "thread drift" of any of the web places I hang out, but at least I learn things, even if I am often befuddled by the way things drift off topic. Regardless, I am learning things, and that's not a bad thing, overall.
> Still, I'd like it better if there was less of the thread drift, sometimes it's just silly.



Try comparing it with the Naval Weapons Forum NavWeaps Forums which I suspect shows significantly more drift. For example, a thread on the Italian navy The Italian Navy in WWII: Roast It seems today to be on aircraft especially in the Far East. A thread on Battle Name for Sinking of the Bismarck also seems to have moved to aircraft. Another thread Best secondary armament for RN WW2 battleships? seems to have drifted so far into politics that the moderator locked it. Of course, this is just my attempt to cause thread drift in this thread.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zyzygie (Apr 8, 2020)

bada said:


> while we can't oppose the fact about the reliability or piston engines at the end of the war, we could also discuss the reliability of the Derwent engines....except some vague quotes about the 004, what could you post about the Derwents?
> Now, for the Altitude advantage, i'd like YOU to check the RAE report : http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/meteor/Meteor-CFE.pdf , Page 29 showing The RAE being unable to perform any decent tests above 20000ft (+/-6500m) due to surging engines, those engines were from 1946 and not 1944 or 45! Meaning they had been optimised in the afterwar period but still had some predominant issues.
> 
> 
> ...


*****

Talk about grasping at straws Bada. But maybe that's an exaggeration. _You don't even have any straws to grasp._

The tendency to surge was *far* greater in a JUMO than a Derwent.










As Adolf Galland said, the figure of 25 hours was optimistic; 12.5 hours was what was achieved in service.

See the attachment. The steep operating lines of the axial compressors (dashed) against the centrifugal (solid) mean that they have much lower flexibility in operation before surge occurs. Assuming you are capable of understanding a graph, the steep operating lines of the axial compressors mean that they have a much smaller operational window before surge occurs.

In support of this is the statement re the Jumo 004:

_“...Cavitation takes place so easily in many compressors as a result of small constructional faults or as a result of foreign bodies that they become entirely unserviceable...”_
From *Pilot Notes on Me 262* by Flug Kapitan Wendel

From *The Me 262 Project*:





From the *Me 262 Pilot's Handbook* -





The Me 262 was liable to fall apart if it tried any aerobatics:
_



_

Frankly Bada, the Me 262 would not have been allowed anywhere near service in any self-respecting Allied air force. But OK, the Luftwaffe was understandably desperate. See the section on Powerplant on the following link. But this has been confirmed many times elsewhere:

https://0201.nccdn.net/1_2/000/000/0e0/f98/Me262-Documentation.pdf

_These items have been brought up many times before._* As they say, no further correspondence will be entered into in these matters...* 

*Credit: 
The jet Engine Rolls Royce 
Gas Turbine Handbook Principles and Practices
Flight International archives*


----------



## GrauGeist (Apr 8, 2020)

Sorry, but that's cherry picking.

The workmanship on the Me262 declined due to worsening conditions and contrasted greatly from the models built in 1944.

Slave labor, sabotage, assembly disbursement and constant bombing took it's toll on the 262's quality along with many other machines being assembled, like the He162, for instance.

Unlike the Brewster F3A, which had no excuse for it poor quality...oh, but that's an Allied aircraft, so it should be perfect no matter what, I suppose.

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zyzygie (Apr 8, 2020)

GrauGeist said:


> Sorry, but that's cherry picking.
> 
> The workmanship on the Me262 declined due to worsening conditions and contrasted greatly from the models built in 1944.
> 
> ...



Well OK...
But there's a lot of cherries to pick from...


----------



## GrauGeist (Apr 9, 2020)

Understand that Hans Fay was not a combat pilot AND he was ferrying Me262s to the front late-war (read: 1945) including the one he defected in. Yes, his comments could apply to the ones he was ferrying. They were literally assembled in a forest alongside an autobahnn from components partially assembled in similar locations and trucked to the final assembly point (often being attacked by Allied ground attack) and flown to the front for immediate service AND eventually flown into combat from the very location that were final assembled.

By the way, compare Brown's assessment against Fay's and you'll see a glaring contrast.


----------



## bada (Apr 9, 2020)

Zyzygie said:


> *****
> 
> Talk about grasping at straws Bada. But maybe that's an exaggeration. _You don't even have any straws to grasp._
> 
> ...



I don't like straws, the noise they make when sipping is very annoying.

So, you only provide general Technics quotes. That's nice, this way i can also prove you my honda engine is much better than any amercian V6/V8 engine because it's better engineerd.
But is it actually better?!?
Can you provide any copies of Jumo testing showing surge that could confirm your saying? Something from Rechlin, Junkers, Rae or Naca? a real document?
And if you can't understand that combat maneuvres have nothing to do with acrobatics, further discussion is pointless.
*ALL Combat maneuvres* in an airplane start with ailerons, if those are irresponsive, you're just a sitting duck, a flying platform and not a combat airplane.
A fully loaded C5 Galaxy has a better role rate than the meteor, what means it could be a better fighter than the meteor.
Pilots don't ask the 262 or the meteor to perform a show like an extra 300, they ask to be able to execute maneuvres (changing azimuths/angles ) rapidly enough to save their life and follow the target through the whole flying enveloppe...just like the 262 flew above the bombers stream and their escorts...what was the average altitude of the B17 boxes again?


----------



## Zyzygie (Apr 10, 2020)

GrauGeist said:


> Understand that Hans Fay was not a combat pilot AND he was ferrying Me262s to the front late-war (read: 1945) including the one he defected in. Yes, his comments could apply to the ones he was ferrying. They were literally assembled in a forest alongside an autobahn from components partially assembled in similar locations and trucked to the final assembly point (often being attacked by Allied ground attack) and flown to the front for immediate service AND eventually flown into combat from the very location that were final assembled.
> 
> By the way, compare Brown's assessment against Fay's and you'll see a glaring contrast.



Well OK, but that's just how things were. Bad construction standards were a German problem, whether from field assembly or slave labour.

Fay was arguably a good, unbiased source of information on the merits and demerits of the Me 262:

_31 March 1945: Messerschmitt Aktiengesellschaft test pilot and technical inspector Hans Fay (1888–1959) defected to the Allies at Frankfurt/Rhein-Main Airfield, Frankfurt, Germany._

_He brought with him a brand-new Messerschmitt Me 262 A-1 twin-engine jet fighter._

_Fay had been waiting for an opportunity to bring an Me 262 to the Americans, but feared reprisals against his parents. When he learned that the U.S. Army controlled their town, he felt that it was safe to go ahead with his plan._

_On 31 March, Fay was ordered to fly one of twenty-two new fighters *from the Me 262 assembly factory at Schwäbisch-Hall *to a safer location at Neuburg an der Donau, as they were in danger of being captured by advancing Allied forces. His airplane was unpainted other than low visibility Balkenkreuz markings on the wings and fuselage, and standard Luftwaffe markings on the vertical fin. Fay was the fourth to take off, but instead of heading east-southeast toward Neuburg, he flew north-northwest to Frankfurt, arriving there at 1:45 p.m._

http://zenoswarbirdvideos.com/Images/Me262/ME262PILOTDEBRIEF.pdf


----------



## GrauGeist (Apr 10, 2020)

Note the date: March 1945.

That Me262 was most likely not assembled in a factory.

And German machines were manufactured with a high degree of quality until late war. Not sure where you're getting your "bad standards" from, unless your also referring to late war.


----------



## Zyzygie (Apr 11, 2020)

GrauGeist said:


> Note the date: March 1945.
> 
> That Me262 was most likely not assembled in a factory.
> 
> And German machines were manufactured with a high degree of quality until late war. Not sure where you're getting your "bad standards" from, unless your also referring to late war.



*"...Slave labor, sabotage, assembly disbursement and constant bombing took it's toll on the 262's quality along with many other machines being assembled, like the He162, for instance..."*

*GrauGeist*

Well OK, but that's just how things were. Tough, Germany... 😐


----------



## GrauGeist (Apr 11, 2020)

Now you're starting to catch on


----------



## Zyzygie (Apr 11, 2020)

See Comparitive Performance of Fighter Aircraft

Roll rate at _30 degrees per second_ is admittedly the Meteor's worst feature.

But apparently not too much worse than the Bf 109G, which seemed to be a pretty effective dogfighter?:

_The *109* was designed for combat at 180 - 280 mph and it was a bit out of its element at 350+ mph. From: Spitfire Mk I versus Me 109 E : The *Me 109E* could *roll* 45° in 1 second at 200mph... _









_Spitfire Mk I versus Me 109 E _

You win some, you lose some...


----------



## Zyzygie (Apr 11, 2020)

bada said:


> I don't like straws, the noise they make when sipping is very annoying.
> 
> So, you only provide general Technics quotes. That's nice, this way i can also prove you my honda engine is much better than any amercian V6/V8 engine because it's better engineerd.
> But is it actually better?!?
> ...



Re surge:

Wendel called it “cavitation.”

https://watermark.silverchair.com/v...S87JkXUylFqmTG70LHGKtuQXDx5vj3j55YK6bElZ861Zw

“...Some insight relating to the engine operation of the Jumo 004 engines can be obtained from a direct translation of Messersclunitt's test pilot Fritz Wendel's flight notes presented in Boyne (1980). Excerpts pertaining to the engines have been presented in the Appendix. It is interesting to note the concern relating to surge (called "cavitation" by Wendel), during engine acceleration...”


PILOTS NOTES ON ME 262 BY FLUG CAPITAN FRITZ WENDEL:
"In addition to studying the condensed instructions for airframe and engines, a thorough knowledge of these notes, preferably before the first flight in an Me 262, is essential to the pilot.
1. Taxiing
Always accelerate the engines slowly.
The gas temperature must never rise above the permitted value and the engine must not "roar" (bullern). In view of this, only take corners by using the brakes, never by using the engines. Always taxi gently and never make sharp turns, otherwise control of
the aircraft will be lost.
2. Take-off
Switch on the fuel pumps in the main tanks. Hold the aircraft stationary by applying the brakes and then slowly run up the engines, especially slowly up to 7,500 r.p.m. The brakes must be so adjusted that they will hold the aircraft stationary up to 8.500 r.p.m.
After releasing the brakes, push the throttle lever right forward and then check over the engine. The aircraft makes so little demand upon the pilot at the commencement of the take- off run that he is easily able to carry out this check. The check is done by eye and ear, the engines must not "roar" and the instruments must show the same values as they did during running up or during previous take-offs. *The gas pressure must be especially watched, and if it is more than five percent lower than previously, do not take-off. In such a case, it is most likely that cavitation has taken place in one of the compressor stages, that is, by running up too quickly, the compressor has been overloaded and the smooth flow breaks up, exactly as it does when a wing stalls.* *Cavitation takes place so easily in many compressors as a result of small constructional faults or as a result of foreign bodies that they become entirely unserviceable.* *It the take-off is continued when cavitation has occurred in the compressor, then the quantity of air flowing through is too small, the quantity of fuel injected however is the same or sometimes even larger, as a result of which, the engine is overheated."*


----------



## GrauGeist (Apr 11, 2020)

What's the date of his notes?

He was the first to fly the 262 under jet power (when the airframe was configured as a tail stagger) and it was equipped with the early 004 engine.


----------



## Zyzygie (Apr 11, 2020)

GrauGeist said:


> What's the date of his notes?
> 
> He was the first to fly the 262 under jet power (when the airframe was configured as a tail stagger) and it was equipped with the early 004 engine.



25th May 1945.

See:

http://zenoswarbirdvideos.com/Images/Me262/ME262WendeL.pdf

Look Grau, the bottom line is that both the Me 262 and the Meteor III were pretty hairy at first.

The Me 262 was by far the better interceptor and the Meteor was the better dogfighter and ground attack aircraft.

But we have to pay tribute to those engineers and technicians and airmen who risked everything by sailing into uncharted waters in the developing of the early jets and hitting the sound barrier.

The great Nietzsche says it best:

_“...We aeronauts of the spirit! - All those brave birds which fly out into the distance, into the farthest distance - it is *certain*! Somewhere or other they will be unable to go on and will perch down on a mast or a cliff-face - and they will even be thankful for this miserable accommodation! But who could venture to infer from that, that there was not an immense open space before them, that they have flown as far as one *could* fly! All our great teachers and predecessors have at last come to a stop... It will be the same with you and me! But what does that matter to you and me! Other birds will fly farther! This insight and faith of ours vies with them in flying up and away; it rises above our heads and above our impotence into the heights and from there surveys the distance and sees before it the flocks of birds, which, far stronger than we, still strive whither we have striven, and where everything is sea, sea, sea! - And whither then would we go? Would we *cross* the sea? Whither does this mighty longing draw us, this longing that is worth more to us than pleasure? Why just in this direction, thither where all the sums of humanity have hitherto gone down? Will it perhaps be said of us one day that we too, steering westward, hoped to reach an India - but that it was our fate to be wrecked against an infinity? Or, my brothers. Or?...”_


----------



## nuuumannn (Apr 12, 2020)

Nietzche never flew an Me 262, or a Meteor for that matter...


----------



## Zyzygie (Apr 12, 2020)

nuuumannn said:


> Nietzche never flew a Me 262, or a Meteor for that matter...



He may well be dogfighting in one or the other up there in Heaven...


----------



## swampyankee (Apr 12, 2020)

Zyzygie said:


> He may well be dogfighting in one or the other up there in Heaven...



He's not likely have made it there. If he's dogfighting, he'll be in a Me262 against somebody in an F-16.


----------



## GrauGeist (Apr 13, 2020)

swampyankee said:


> He's not likely have made it there. If he's dogfighting, he'll be in a Me262 against somebody in an F-16.


Doubt he'd be lucky enough to qualify for a Me262.

I'm thinking more along the lines of a F2A...


----------



## Zyzygie (Apr 16, 2020)

FYI: Hitler’s last roll of the dice.

Hitler's Jet Fighter Was a Game-Changer: Meet the Me-262


----------



## Zyzygie (Apr 17, 2020)

*Me 262 Shot Down By Allied Fighter:*

*Superior In Speed, But Not maneuverability*

*The Me 262 was the first operational jet powered aircraft in the world, designed by Messerschmitt and introduced into the war in April of 1944. Jet propulsion was explored by the Germans before the war even started, but engine and other problems prevented them from being widely used. Although their production ended at the conclusion of World War II, *

*1400 did make it off the assembly lines and managed to get over 500 kills during their short service*

Real Footage Of Me 262 Shot Down By Allied Fighter


----------



## GrauGeist (Apr 17, 2020)

Where ever you cut-n-pasted that from, they had it wrong.
Czechoslovakia continued to build and operate the Me262 as the Avia S-92/CS-92, retiring it from service by the early 50"s.


----------



## Zyzygie (Apr 17, 2020)

*Last Luftwaffe dogfights 8 May 1945*:


----------



## Zyzygie (Apr 17, 2020)

GrauGeist said:


> Where ever you cut-n-pasted that from, they had it wrong.
> Czechoslovakia continued to build and operate the Me262 as the Avia S-92/CS-92, retiring it from service by the early 50"s.



Great... thanks Grau. Some good information there. 🙂
But they only made about twelve:

*The S-92 project*​“Although no completed plane was available, the Czechoslovaks had at their disposal complete blueprints, some completed sub-assemblies, a wide variety of parts, the technical manuals, and most importantly the production jigs and tooling needed to build the Me-262.”

“...The type’s major problem was the engines.The M-04 (clone of the Jumo 004) was an axial-compression turbojet. It was started by a very small pull-start piston engine inside the intake spike.”

“...During WWII, the Jumo 004 needed to be maintained before and after every flight, and had an overall lifespan of only about 30 flight hours. *[actually less than half that]*. In Czechoslovak service, this was doubled on the M-04 to about 60 flight hours (although maintenance was still needed after every flight). This is not to imply that the Czechoslovak pilots were better than their German counterparts, rather, in peacetime the Czechoslovaks could gingerly work the throttles while taxiing and during the initial climb, whereas the Luftwaffe pilots needed to get the plane in the air as fast as possible...”

“...Finally, although there were no more crashes after the first plane, the S-92 pilots were terrified of the constant engine problems and most thought it was just a matter of time before another went down...”

“...The Avia S-92 first flew on 27 September 1946.”
“...In 1950, the S-92 was pulled from squadron service and reassigned as ground training planes. The three CS-92 trainers continued in use until 1951.”

The S-92: Czechoslovakia’s Me-262

_Hmm... why would it have such a short service life... even in peacetime?_

Not like the Swiss Air Force where they kept Vampires in reserve until 1988, and the last was retired in 1994, after having been used as a target tug.


----------



## Zyzygie (Apr 17, 2020)

bada said:


> So, you only provide general Technics quotes. That's nice, this way I can also prove you my Honda engine is much better than any American V6/V8 engine because it's better engineered.
> 
> But is it actually better?!?



Maybe the better analogy would be with something like this?

_"...The Trabant's build quality was poor, reliability was terrible, closer inspection revealed "patchy assembly quality", with an atrocious maintenance record..." _

_ Trabant - Wikipedia_

But the analogy may be justified insofar that in both cases, the bad engineering was totally the result of the incompetent leadership of the Country.


----------



## BiffF15 (Apr 17, 2020)

Zyzygie said:


> Maybe the better analogy would be with something like this?
> 
> _"...The Trabant's build quality was poor, reliability was terrible, closer inspection revealed "patchy assembly quality", with an atrocious maintenance record..." _
> 
> ...



I have driven a Trabant. All I can say is it was rough.

Cheers,
Biff


----------



## GrauGeist (Apr 17, 2020)

Zyzygie said:


> “...The type’s major problem was the engines.The M-04 (clone of the Jumo 004) was an axial-compression turbojet. It was started by a very small pull-start piston engine inside the intake spike.”


Not sure why the starter in the nose-cone of the M-04 comes as a surprise, that's the exact same location the Jumo's Reidell starter engine was.


Zyzygie said:


> Hmm... why would it have such a short service life... even in peacetime?


Because the Communists took over in 1948 and cleaned house. All the German and native-built equipment was cleaned out and replaced with Soviet equipment.
This holds true in other nations that were taken over by the Soviet Union, like Bulgaria, Romania and Hungary.


----------



## Zyzygie (Apr 18, 2020)

A bit more stuff on surge:






*The Jet Engine Rolls Royce*


----------



## GrauGeist (Apr 18, 2020)

You really should be crediting those page and graph images because of copyright law.


----------



## Zyzygie (Apr 18, 2020)

“...Because the Communists took over in 1948 and cleaned house. All the German and native-built equipment was cleaned out and replaced with Soviet equipment.
This holds true in other nations that were taken over by the Soviet Union, like Bulgaria, Romania and Hungary...”

*There were plenty of other reasons to bail out:*

_“...Of course this did not “guarantee” a certain number of hours and the M-04 engines might have problems on the first flight. A cause of breakdowns was found to be opening or slowing the throttle too fast. Another problem was the engine flaming out during a sharp maneuver. Another problem (not directly caused by the engine design itself) was asymmetrical thrust in the event of one engine failure. The S-92 could safely fly on a single engine however in a jet, this was different to the twin engine propeller planes the pilots were used to. A dead engine on a piston-powered plane can be shut down and have it’s propeller feathered. On the S-92, a dead M-04 was simply drag off the plane’s axis. It took certain skill to use the rudder and wings to keep the S-92 in the air with one engine out...”_

The S-92: Czechoslovakia’s Me-262


----------



## GrauGeist (Apr 18, 2020)

I told you why.

Pasting some bit about an engine failure in a twin-engined jet has no bearing on why the Communists made Czechoslovakia get rid of their non-Soviet hardware.

Where do you think the Israelis got their S-199s and the Syrians got their Pzkfw IV and StuG III tanks?


----------



## SaparotRob (Apr 18, 2020)

Crazy Otto’s used tank lot and shawarma stand?

Reactions: Funny Funny:
4 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zyzygie (Apr 19, 2020)

*There were plenty of other reasons to bail out:*

_“...Of course this did not “guarantee” a certain number of hours and the M-04 engines might have problems on the first flight. *A cause of breakdowns was found to be opening or slowing the throttle too fast. Another problem was the engine flaming out during a sharp maneuver.* Another problem (not directly caused by the engine design itself) was asymmetrical thrust in the event of one engine failure. The S-92 could safely fly on a single engine however in a jet, this was different to the twin engine propeller planes the pilots were used to. A dead engine on a piston-powered plane can be shut down and have it’s propeller feathered. On the S-92, a dead M-04 was simply drag off the plane’s axis. It took certain skill to use the rudder and wings to keep the S-92 in the air with one engine out...”_

*“...Once the engine hit its lifespan limit, it could be factory-rebuilt. However, the Czechoslovaks found that the M-04 suffered from a type of metal [failure] called creep, and this was inherent to the Junkers design with no fix. After 300 hours or so of total flight time, it was not possible to refurbish the engine again and it had to be scrapped...”*


----------



## Zyzygie (Apr 20, 2020)

On the face of it, the Me 262 has some problems apart from its engines in terms of general air combat. But this is well outside my area of expertise:









*WWIIaircraftperformance.org*​













*That's certainly not to denigrate in the least the prowess of the Me 262 as a bomber destroyer.*

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Apr 20, 2020)

Why do people persist in using later Meteor marks performance data against the Me262's?

The Meteor F.1 and F.3 had service ceilings comparable to the Me262. It wasn't until the F.4 and later, that the ceiling height was much improved...


----------



## Zyzygie (Apr 21, 2020)

GrauGeist said:


> Why do people persist in using later Meteor marks performance data against the Me262's?
> 
> The Meteor F.1 and F.3 had service ceilings comparable to the Me262. It wasn't until the F.4 and later, that the ceiling height was much improved...



*Meteor F3 service ceiling with 2000 lb static thrust engines - 45,000 ft (13,710 m):*


----------



## GrauGeist (Apr 21, 2020)

WOW!!
So your data shows that that F.3 actually had a higher *service ceiling* than the more advanced F.8, which was 43,000 feet (13,000m)...who knew?

Ok, yes, I'm being sarcastic. Learn to read, that says MAX. not SERVICE.
There is a slight difference...

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zyzygie (Apr 21, 2020)

GrauGeist said:


> WOW!!
> So your data shows that that F.3 actually had a higher *service ceiling* than the more advanced F.8, which was 43,000 feet (13,000m)...who knew?
> 
> Ok, yes, I'm being sarcastic. Learn to read, that says MAX. not SERVICE.
> There is a slight difference...



Read it again - it says
*Service Ceiling Maximum weight 45,000 ft
Service Ceiling Mean Weight 46,000 ft*

But OK I see now it had 2200 lb thrust engines as tested, not 2000 as was used in service.

2400 lb was not to be delivered until the autumn. My mistake.

The F4 was much lighter than the F8...

The time to climb to 30,000 ft for the F4 was 5 minutes. For the F8 it was 5.8 minutes.


----------



## Zyzygie (Apr 21, 2020)

This is the performance curve for 2000 lb thrust engines. 13,000 lb. weight. It seems the maximum ceiling was still 40,000 ft or 12,190 metres.







spitfireperformance.com


----------



## bada (Apr 23, 2020)

i like the nitpicking,
Neverthless let's go back to what really happend in46 at farnbourough while testing the 46 version of ze meteor III

Meteor MKIII CFE by the RAE, Page 29 from http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/meteor/Meteor-CFE.pdf 






this whole thread is like the monthy python's hole grail, a lost crusade...

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zyzygie (Apr 23, 2020)

For a Me 262 the time to climb to 30,000 ft was? I don’t seem to be able to find it...

Engines of Desperation: Jet Engines, Production and New Weapons in the Third Reich on JSTOR


----------



## Zyzygie (Apr 23, 2020)

bada said:


> i like the nitpicking,
> Neverthless let's go back to what really happend in46 at farnbourough while testing the 46 version of ze meteor III
> 
> Meteor MKIII CFE by the RAE, Page 29 from http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/meteor/Meteor-CFE.pdf
> ...



At the bottom of the CFE report it said the engines had to be throttled back to prevent surging between 20,000 and 37,000 ft.

Elsewhere it says 16,000 rev/min for climbing as against up to 16,600 for takeoff.

This is a couple of orders of magnitude less prone to surge compared to the JUMO, where, as Wendel says, you have to be very wary of surge while getting ready for takeoff.

Read what the CFE report says about the remedy for surge: At high altitudes “surge can be eliminated by throttling back the engines.” As I’ve shown, the Derwent with centrifugal compressor was much less prone to surge than the axial JUMOs. Surge in the JUMO was likely to result in a fire or flameout. Deadly, as many German pilots were to experience. Including the Austrian ace Walter Nawotny.


----------



## swampyankee (Apr 23, 2020)

It's been a long time since I worked with gas turbines, but multi-stage compressors are going to be more susceptible to surge, in general, as the blades in the last rows of a compressor tend to have their loading increase as a compressor operates at lower rpm. This need to rematch is why multi-stage compressors will have various forms of variable geometry, such as variable stator angles or bleed valves. P&WA fielded multi-spool engines for this reason, as the two spools made the stage matching problem much easier.

The other way is that the amount of mass flow possible through a fixed-size duct will usually drop with heat addition; this is called the Rayleigh line. Adding fuel to a gas turbine engine too fast will shift the operating line of a compressor towards it surge line, and if it's done to fast, the engine will surge. A major design issue with fuel controls was to make the engine walk the fine line between acceptable response rate (iirc, the current FARs for civil engines is no more than 8 seconds from flight idle to maximum thrust) and not surging. Sometimes they don't make it (a former co-worker told me of the time he was in a 727 which had to do an emergency go-round due to a vehicle crossing the runway. He started sweating when he heard the engines giving that unmistakable noise from going into surge.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## bada (Apr 23, 2020)

Zyzygie said:


> At the bottom of the CFE report it said the engines had to be throttled back to prevent surging between 20,000 and 37,000 ft.
> 
> Elsewhere it says 16,000 rev/min for climbing as against up to 16,600 for takeoff.



What makes the meteor an even bigger dog as it can't achieve it's full power, with already a much lower mach number than the 262, that makes it worse.



Zyzygie said:


> This is a couple of orders of magnitude less prone to surge compared to the JUMO, where, as Wendel says, you have to be very wary of surge while getting ready for takeoff.


Again, pilote's notes. Is Wendel an equivalent of the RAE. or the NACA? or the Rechlin EK?
The RAE seems to approve the German numbers for the 262 (see WWIIaircraftperformance) and the USA even more as the full test report seems to have disappeared from earth, and strangely the 262 wasn't allowed to participate in the 1946 Cleveland National Air Races 




Zyzygie said:


> Read what the CFE report says about the remedy for surge: At high altitudes “surge can be eliminated by throttling back the engines.” As I’ve shown, the Derwent with centrifugal compressor was much less prone to surge than the axial JUMOs. Surge in the JUMO was likely to result in a fire or flameout. Deadly, as many German pilots were to experience. Including the ace Walter Nawotny.



If you throttle back, you loose the thrust, you loose speed. Having such a lower speed than the 262, it's getting even worse, and gaining speed in the dive is also not permitted because of the mach limitation, so even with 5K feet advantage, the meteor will still be a dog. and unable to catch a 262 that's cruising with a higher mach than the meteor.
Again, documents from Naca/RAE or Rechlin please to prove the point about the 004 surge...


----------



## Zyzygie (Apr 23, 2020)

American raiders: the race to ... - Google Books​
Check out: 

"...*The JUMO 004 didn't like radical air intake changes. Doing a maneuver like that could have it flame out. The Me 262 was not a dogfighting airplane like the F86 was later on*..."​​And that's just referring to doing a roll... 

Trying to carry out research into engine surge on a testbed was hopeless. Feedback from combat was absolutely crucial. 

With all due respect to the staff at the research establishments, they weren’t the ones best able to evaluate an aircraft in combat... 😐


----------



## Zyzygie (Apr 24, 2020)

*Meteor F3 - CFE*






The Me 262 from their graph below had a claimed climb rate of 1000 ft/min at 25,000 ft.

*Appendix D*

View attachment 578591

_*wwiiaircraftperformance.org*_
The Meteor still had a climb rate of 1000ft/min. at 31,000 ft., because of its excellent materials of construction (particularly Nimonic 75 and Nimonic 80)

The Me 262 seems to have to finish the graph for climb rate at 20,000 ft... But extrapolates to just over 1000 feet per minute at 25,000 ft.




_*wwiiaircraftperformance.org*_

Surge (Cavitation) was far more important to the JUMO than the Derwent. When surge occurred, the airflow to the combustion chamber radically dropped, hence reducing the air-fuel ratio and consequently increasing the combustion temperature. As the JUMO was already operating arguably beyond its "red line" temperature, this was disastrous, inevitably causing engine failure, and fire if the fuel wasn't cut immediately. The JUMO flame tubes were fabricated from mild steel, the Derwent from Nimonic 75:




*Flight *





I don't have the JUMO 004 figures, but they should arguably be similar.

For a temperature of 760C, the mild steel flame tubes would be running at just under "cherry red."


----------



## Zyzygie (Apr 24, 2020)

Zyzygie said:


> *Meteor F3 - CFE*
> 
> View attachment 578590
> 
> ...



The bad situation with regards to JUMO 004 and BMW 003 materials (and hence reliability) didn’t have to be so:

“...According to figures for Ni usage per engine in Kay's "German Jet Engine and Gas Turbine Development 1930-1945" (2002), the entire production run of Jumo 004 engines, for example (some 6010 engines) used approximately 40 metric tons of nickel. This is not an insignificant amount, but compared to 1944 Ni supplies (10900 tons), consumption (9500 tons), or stocks (7900 tons) (U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey), the needs amount to little more than rounding error...”

Early German gas turbine development


----------



## Zyzygie (Apr 24, 2020)

Why does the Me 262 testing run out at 20,000 ft?
Probably because you've pretty much run out of your allowed 10-15 minutes at full power? And to go longer would be "pushing your luck"?





*Hans Fey*

*Zenos' Warbird Video Drive-in
ME262PilotsDebrief.pdf*


----------



## GrauGeist (Apr 25, 2020)

The Me262 had enough fuel for 80 minutes of cruise or 30 minutes of combat.
It also had a Rate of Climb close to 4,000 per minute. Meaning it would take it about 5 minutes to get to 20,000 feet with a full loadout.

So it appears there's an error in someone's math...

It is fun watching the vain attempts to discredit it, though - please, carry on.


----------



## Zyzygie (Apr 25, 2020)

GrauGeist said:


> The Me262 had enough fuel for 80 minutes of cruise or 30 minutes of combat.
> It also had a Rate of Climb close to 4,000 per minute. Meaning it would take it about 5 minutes to get to 20,000 feet with a full loadout.
> 
> So it appears there's an error in someone's math...
> ...



There’s big errors in someone’s maths... 😐

Let’s not go on any longer about climb rates.


----------



## Zyzygie (Apr 25, 2020)

“...As a bomber, the long nose of the Me 262 limited dive bombing by not providing an adequate view on the target. This, coupled with dangerous approach speeds, make dive bombing a harrowing - though still possible - affair. Pilots simply were taught to drop their bombs above 3,000 feet to allow for the necessary altitude to recover in a climb...”

https://www.militaryfactory.com/aircraft/detail.asp?aircraft_id=108


----------



## Zyzygie (Apr 25, 2020)

“...Where agility was a limitation in the Me 262, this was offset by its ability to generate speed either through diving or through the open throttle. The nose-mounted cannon - disastrously lethal on paper - was known to regularly jam at the feed mechanism during maneuvering which rendered the Me 262 useless. The cannons also held a low muzzle velocity which made it largely inaccurate beyond 600 meters and useless as a ground strafing weapon. Combat losses were made at the hands of enemy fighters and, on occasion, some bomber gunners. Attrition rates were also increased by accidents due to pilot error and the general unreliability of the engines...”
https://www.militaryfactory.com/aircraft/detail.asp?aircraft_id=108


----------



## GrauGeist (Apr 25, 2020)

Several years ago, I met a gentleman who was also visiting Colling's "909" B-17 at the local airport. Turns out he was the R/O and top turret gunner on a B-17 in Europe.
During the coirse if the conversation, the Me262 came up and he became emotional.
He stayed that on one mission, an Me262 appeared out of their contrail and opemed fire, the cannon could be clearly heard over the din of their bomber's engines. The 30mm rounds shredded everything in the fuselage, exploding oxygen tanks and turing the waist gunner into a pulp. It also blew the inboard engine on the statboard wing away from it's mounts and blew the tail gunner position completely out of the fuselage. He stated that his turret simply could not traverse fast enough to lead the jet. His bomber had to dump it's bombload in order to remain airworthy and they struggled to keep up with the other bombers as they continued to their target and then home. To leave the group was death.
He survived several other Me262 attacks and each one was pure terror, unlike attacks from the Bf109s, Fw190s and Me410s.

Cherry pick all the crap you want and also let me know how well the P-80 and/or Meteor did in combat over Europe.

Oh wait, never mind.


----------



## Zyzygie (Apr 25, 2020)

GrauGeist said:


> Several years ago, I met a gentleman who was also visiting Colling's "909" B-17 at the local airport. Turns out he was the R/O and top turret gunner on a B-17 in Europe.
> During the coirse if the conversation, the Me262 came up and he became emotional.
> He stayed that on one mission, an Me262 appeared out of their contrail and opemed fire, the cannon could be clearly heard over the din of their bomber's engines. The 30mm rounds shredded everything in the fuselage, exploding oxygen tanks and turing the waist gunner into a pulp. It also blew the inboard engine on the statboard wing away from it's mounts and blew the tail gunner position completely out of the fuselage. He stated that his turret simply could not traverse fast enough to lead the jet. His bomber had to dump it's bombload in order to remain airworthy and they struggled to keep up with the other bombers as they continued to their target and then home. To leave the group was death.
> He survived several other Me262 attacks and each one was pure terror, unlike attacks from the Bf109s, Fw190s and Me410s.
> ...



I’ve repeated ad nauseum that the Me262 was a formidable bomber destroyer.

This forum is about dogfighting. 😐

A big difference.

I’ve also said that I agreed with Galland that with 300 of them operating each day they could have stopped the strategic bombing campaign...

If they’d prioritised nickel for the Me262 they could have done that.


----------



## BiffF15 (Apr 25, 2020)

Zyzygie said:


> I’ve repeated ad nauseum that the Me262 was a formidable bomber destroyer.
> 
> I’ve also said that I agreed with Galland that with 300 of them operating each day they could have stopped the strategic bombing campaign...
> 
> If they’d prioritised nickel for the Me262 they could have done that.



Z,

I’m going to have to respectfully disagree with Gallands comment. Yes the 262 could be a difficult opponent, and yes it could make life hell for the heavies. However, history shows us their use was limited. If, and it’s a big if, Germany somehow could get 300 a day operational it would mean something along the lines of 600+ available PER DAY to draw spare parts from or to use. Given a higher concentration of attacks, the USAAF would have become more adept at killing them, both in the air and on the ground.

I could easily see where the bomber streams would be preceded by fighter squadrons hunting 262s on the deck or taking off. Then stack your fighters in layers above the bombers and peel off / reset as required to handle in bound jets. Also keep in reserves your hunter killers who follow them home for a big cup half inch lead poisoning. If there is one thing the Allies could do is put more metal in the air over Germany than could the Luftwaffe. 

I‘m not saying it wouldn’t be a problem, but it would be solvable.

My opine of course.

cheers,
Biff

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Useful Useful:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zyzygie (Apr 25, 2020)

BiffF15 said:


> Z,
> 
> I’m going to have to respectfully disagree with Gallands comment. Yes the 262 could be a difficult opponent, and yes it could make life hell for the heavies. However, history shows us their use was limited. If, and it’s a big if, Germany somehow could get 300 a day operational it would mean something along the lines of 600+ available PER DAY to draw spare parts from or to use. Given a higher concentration of attacks, the USAAF would have become more adept at killing them, both in the air and on the ground.
> 
> ...



I've assumed that Germany had the same access to Nimonic or equivalent as the Allies.
As you say, that is a very big *IF*... But maybe not if they'd started working on it in 1940 like the Brits...

On the other hand, if they had eked out the War for another six months they would have faced the Atomic bomb, and the Meteor F4 and Lockheed P80... 

Cheers,

Z


----------



## Zyzygie (Apr 26, 2020)

An interesting (and American-centric) article on the (inferior, straight-winged) Japanese version of the Me 262:

Could This Japanese Jet Fighter Have Won the Pacific War?


----------



## Zyzygie (Apr 27, 2020)

Forgotten airfields

Me 262 concrete runway layout

*Žatec - Czech Republic*​*(Fliegerhorst Saaz)*​​_50°22'13"N 013°35'34"E_​​_Runway: 28/10 - 2500 x 80m - concrete_​_Runway: 26/08 - 1400 x 20m - concrete_​
_Žatec airfield (Czech: letiště Žatec or Žatec-Staňkovice, also known as Fliegerhorst Saaz, ICAO: LKZC) was an airfield 65kilometers northwest of Prague._​_The airfield was originally built by the Luftwaffe in 1944 with one concrete runway measuring 1700x60m. It became the home base for the world's first operational jet fighter group: JG7 with Me-262 jet fighters. On the very last day of WWII (8 May 1945) at 15:20, I./JG 7 'Nowotny' Me-262 pilot Oberleutnant Fritz Stehle (2.Staffel) took off with his wingman and at 16:00 shot down a Soviet... fighter Yak–9. The engagement, which occurred over Freiberg, was the last aerial battle of World War II in Europe, and Stehle's victory may very well be the last aerial victory by a German fighter pilot in World War II._​​_Still during the afternoon hours of 8 May 1945, all Me-262s capable of flying took off and headed west to parts of Germany that were occupied by the Western allies to avoid being captured by Soviets. It is believed all of them landed on Kaltenkirchen (unknown), Munich-Riem (2), Luneburg (1), and Faßberg (1). A large amount of non-flyable, damaged or wrecked Luftwaffe planes of many types (including Me-262s) remained at the airfield..._​





Luftwaffe Jet Airfield Construction


----------



## Zyzygie (Apr 28, 2020)

Zyzygie said:


> Forgotten airfields
> 
> Me 262 concrete runway layout
> 
> ...



When you consider that these aircraft often had to be hauled to the runway by draft horses in order to save fuel, it gives a whole new meaning to the term "scramble."
How did they manage?


----------



## Zyzygie (Apr 29, 2020)




----------



## GrauGeist (Apr 29, 2020)

Would have been nice if you started your own thread to post this sh!t instead of ruining the original conversation...


----------



## Zyzygie (Apr 29, 2020)

GrauGeist said:


> Would have been nice if you started your own thread to post this sh!t instead of ruining the original conversation...



You never know...

I might just go away if you ask me nicely...


----------



## GrauGeist (Apr 29, 2020)

You're free to do as you will (within reason) but common courtesy on a forum is to remain on topic (as much as possible) and this thread with all of it's detailed conversation was dedicated to the intrinsics of an encounter between the Meteor and Me262.
The derailing was bad enough that the Mods changed the name of the thread - that wasn't a compliment...

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Apr 29, 2020)

Zyzygie said:


> If they’d prioritised nickel for the Me262 they could have done that.



It's going to have taken a lot more than that. The Germans needed a fair amount of unobtanium to be able to get that many fighters operational at any given time, let alone the build up of fighters at bases being kept invisible from prying Allied photo recon aircraft. As I've said elsewhere here, the build up of German jets was kept a close eye on by British and US Intelligence and the Me 262's failure at being more prolific actually lessened Allied efforts to combat the type, as far as air raids against specific airfields and factories, not to forget the pressing of Allied jet fighters into service in Europe. I'm sure that had the Me 262 and Me 163, the latter of which was revealed to the Allies before the Me 262, been more prolific, the British and US could well have fielded jet fighter squadrons with the intent of hunting the '262s. The Allies weren't going to stand about and allow something so decidedly advanced just happen.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Apr 29, 2020)

Not to mention that the US had other jets in the works besides the P-59 and P-80. There was the Ryan FR, Curtiss XF-15, McDonnel FD and the XP-83 plus Britain's Dh Vampire.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Graeme (Apr 29, 2020)

Getting back to the Meteor and that report that Bada kindly uploaded, you read this...
How then did the Mk.III become operational?

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zyzygie (Apr 29, 2020)




----------



## Zyzygie (Apr 29, 2020)

Graeme said:


> Getting back to the Meteor and that report that Bada kindly uploaded, you read this...
> How then did the Mk.III become operational?
> 
> View attachment 579288


A good answer from Kupernic in post #690: 

_“A point on the Meteor's *high speed snaking*. This was a problem with all the early jet aircraft (Me 262, Meteor, P80).”_

_“It really has only one solution, the *yaw damper*.”_

_“It can be regarded as a problem with all jet aircraft and particular with swept wing aircraft. It can lead to a nasty Dutch roll developing as one wing generates more lift on the side opposite to the yaw. This is complicated but one reason it is a problem in jet aircraft is the absence of a propeller which provided a gyroscopic force. The other, and main one, is inertia coupling. Jets tend to have mass distributed in such a way that the aerodynamic restorative forces are less compared to the moment of inertia of the aircraft. The Dornier Do 335 initially had a bit of a snaking problem due to the mass of the engines at the nose and tail distributing the mass like a dumbbell. Jets look more like a Do 335 than say a Spitfire or Me 109 since the aerodynamic force on these single engine piston aircraft looked like big mass followed by a wing and tail on a long tail moment arm. I daresay the P.39 had some interesting stability issues. The other is airframe tolerances. If one wing is slightly different to the other it will reach critical Mach ahead of the other and cause stability issues. Precision and high tolerances is essential in jets as are airfoils that have a high critical mach.”_

_“The first yaw damper was developed by Dr Klaus Doebel in Germany in 1942. After the war he went to work with the RAE and helped develop a yaw damper that was installed on a Meteor. I believe it found its way into the Meteor F8 as standard.”_

_"A electronic yaw damper had been developed that took gyro rate information and used the derivative to kick opposite rudder. The Hs 129 yaw damper was developed by Dr. Karl Doetsch over the period 1942- 1944 at Berlin-Aldershot. Later "due to the bombing" he was transferred to Travemunde near Lubeck, where the Fighter Development Station was formed, and here he finished the work around January 1945, on what became the world's first series coupled yaw damper. Doetsch first thought of the idea after observing the effect of a misuse of the simple rudder course controllers. If a heading change of more than 30° was dialled into these systems the demand limited and the system became just an angular rate control, giving a damping effect about the yaw axis. He first tested the concept himself in an Fw 190 and later in an Me262. He was interviewed by British scientists, joined the RAE and a similar device was installed in the meteor."_

_“If you look at this reference it seems that a simple version of Doebel's *yaw damper* may have been used as standard on the Hs 129 anti tank aircraft
http://www.icas.org/ICAS_ARCHIVE/ICAS1980/ICAS-80-0.4.pdf”
“See page 2 first paragraph:”_

_"A new use of automatic control in aircraft occurred in the early 1940's with the invention of the *yaw damper*. Dr. Karl Doetsch developed a gyro operated bang-bang servomechanism that drove an aerodynamic tab on the rudder to damp out yawing oscillations(U. It was first applied to a German Henschel He 129 attack bomber (Figure 4). The Hs 129 had a small vertical fin and high yaw inertia due to extensive armour plating which resulted in low aerodynamic damping. Dr. Doetsch's yaw damper provided artificial damping to improve its flying qualities."_

_“The Snaking on the Me 262 could develop above 480mph. With much effort it could often be gotten rid of by repeated flights and ground adjustment of balance and trim tabs. Factory test pilots for the Me 262 said some could fly at 560mph without a problem due to have a well-built airframe and having good engines. Many Me 262 were made in forest factories without jigs.”_

*It should also be realised that the CAE reviewer was being paid to be critical about every little deficiency he could identify. For the pilots who would fly it into combat, it was essential to iron out everything before it was put into service. *

*The Me 262 could obviously not afford that luxury. *

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zyzygie (Apr 29, 2020)




----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 29, 2020)

GrauGeist said:


> You're free to do as you will (within reason) but common courtesy on a forum is to remain on topic (as much as possible) and this thread with all of it's detailed conversation was dedicated to the intrinsics of an encounter between the Meteor and Me262.
> The derailing was bad enough that the Mods changed the name of the thread - that wasn't a compliment...



Later today when I am on my laptop, not my phone, I will waste the lil time I have today to pull out the original information from the topic and move it to a new section so that anyone that wishes to discuss the actual intent of the topic can do so again. That will leave this thread strictly to his ramblings. And you are correct, it certainly was not a compliment.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 29, 2020)

Well scratch that.

i just start moving the older threads over to a new one that was more the original intent. He hijacked this thread good. I would have to sift through every single post and pull out individual posts.

I have a full time job, two small children, and working on a school research paper. I don’t have time.

1. 
Z
 Zyzygie
use this thread only for your offtopic ramblings. Do not take it to another thread.

2. Everyone else can discuss the original content in the other thread.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zyzygie (Apr 29, 2020)




----------



## Zyzygie (Apr 29, 2020)

On the face of it, the Me 262 seems to have difficulty in terms of budgeting of its time on maximum power rating:





From CFE Report:
*Tactical Trials Meteor III - WWII Aircraft Performance*
www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org › meteor › Meteor-CFE


----------



## Zyzygie (May 1, 2020)

*A rough estimate of relative time to altitude for the Me 262 and Meteor F3:*


----------



## GrauGeist (May 1, 2020)

What Me262 was being tested in that comparison?

The Me262's service ceiling was well over 37,000 feet and a standard combat ready Me262A-1a (with a full loadout) had a RoC of 3,900 feet per minute.


----------



## Zyzygie (May 1, 2020)

GrauGeist said:


> What Me262 was being tested in that comparison?
> 
> The Me262's service ceiling was well over 37,000 feet and a standard combat ready Me262A-1a (with a full loadout) had a RoC of 3,900 feet per minute.



It might well have gone to 37,000 but that's the figures I've got from CFE testing after the war.

With a max level speed of about 530 mph it should have been in reasonable condition:









Note allowance for throttling back to 16,000 rpm on incipient surging.


----------



## Zyzygie (May 2, 2020)

Why comparing aircraft makes no sense...

when the one is an apple and the other is an orange...


----------



## Koopernic (May 3, 2020)

Zyzygie said:


> A good answer from Kupernic in post #690:
> 
> _“A point on the Meteor's *high speed snaking*. This was a problem with all the early jet aircraft (Me 262, Meteor, P80).”_
> 
> ...



I had accidentally attributed the development of he yaw damper in parts to Dr. Klaus Doebel instead of Dr. Karl Doetsch. I've fixed it in the original reference and the above requote.
Doebel was famous for tip jet powered helicopters not yaw dampers. The Yaw damper was well within the capability of WW2 technology. It wouldn't need any electronics though it would be better to use some audio grade vacuum tubes which by then were very reliable and long lived (25,000 hours). The kind of rate gyro technology was commonly used in gyro reflector sights and on the M4 Sherman's pitch stabilisation. The Yaw damper applied as a pitch damper to the Northrop YB49 flying wing would easily have dealt with its tiny pitch issue. Basically if a high yaw rate was detected a precision contact was closed and an electric motor acted on a trim tab till it stopped. The trim tab then wound back to its original position.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zyzygie (May 3, 2020)

Now that it’s no longer named “Me262 vs Meteor one-on-one dogfight,” we can open it up somewhat to make it a slightly more flexible and interesting blog. Not too broad though.

Maybe to include equipment and general technology associated with the fighters.

I’d be open to some suggestions. Make it constructive... 😐


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 3, 2020)

Hijacking a thread to the point it gets its name changed is nothing to be proud of.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zyzygie (May 3, 2020)

Zyzygie said:


> It might well have gone to 37,000 but that's the figures I've got from CFE testing after the war.
> 
> With a max level speed of about 530 mph it should have been in reasonable condition:
> 
> ...



The Meteor climb rate is limited by surge at altitudes above 15,000 ft.

There’s not enough data points in the Me 262 graph to be sure, but it looks likely that there is also a decline starting at around 10,000 ft.

That would fit in with what is known about the JUMO compressor’s tendency to surge.

However even if we were to extrapolate a straight line all the way to 30,000 ft for the Me 262, the Meteor would still come out well on top.


----------



## Zyzygie (May 5, 2020)

Graeme said:


> Getting back to the Meteor and that report that Bada kindly uploaded, you read this...
> How then did the Mk.III become operational?
> 
> View attachment 579288


From EVALUATION OF THE ME 262 by TECHNICAL INTELLIGENCE 

FLIGHT CHARACTERISTICS​Handling and control at various speeds
*The handling characteristics were poor at all speeds above 350mph. The airplane would not make a very satisfactory gun platform because of a tendency to hunt directionally, which resulted in snaking at speeds above 400 mph IAS...*


----------



## bada (May 5, 2020)

Damned, is this still going??? 

Yeah it was a bad gun platform...
so tell me : (actually i don't know if i'll read the answer as it will be some third source quoted for the nine time and unworthy of spending my time )

1-how many German grease monkeys with the sufficient knowledge about the plane/engines were keeping this plane flying? Maybe the allied GreaseMonkeys simply didn't had the knowledge to make one flyiable like the germans would have? don't you think?
2- it was such a bad plane that it has like, what, how many, confirmed aerial victories again?....hmm, i wonder, cant remember anymore...the number is blurred by the meteor's score 
Yeah it 's a silly argument, i know, just like this whole thread is.

Stop your Crusade. The meteor3 sucked. Final.

Ps: i forgot, have fun (don't know the source, it was saved on the hdd in 2006, i think it origin even from this board)


----------



## Zyzygie (May 5, 2020)

bada said:


> Damned, is this still going???
> 
> Yeah it was a bad gun platform...
> so tell me : (actually i don't know if i'll read the answer as it will be some third source quoted for the nine time and unworthy of spending my time )
> ...


Maybe if Germany hadn’t thrown in the towel so quickly, and if more than 20-30 Me 262s had managed to get into the air on any particular day, there would have been a reasonable chance of some combat...
😏
It was the Meteors hunting for the Me 262s, not the other way around.


----------



## swampyankee (May 5, 2020)

Zyzygie said:


> Maybe if Germany hadn’t thrown in the towel so quickly, and if more than 20-30 Me 262s had managed to get into the air on any particular day, there would have been a reasonable chance of some combat...
> 😏
> It was the Meteors hunting for the Me 262s, not the other way around.


Germany was pretty thoroughly beaten; they didn’t so much throw in the towel as have it pulled from around its figurative waist, followed by having it snapped against the now-naked rump.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zyzygie (May 5, 2020)

But the Me 262 was certainly a formidable bomber destroyer in the hands of an expert...


----------



## nuuumannn (May 5, 2020)

swampyankee said:


> Germany was pretty thoroughly beaten; they didn’t so much throw in the towel as have it pulled from around its figurative waist, followed by having it snapped against the now-naked rump.



Guy's sniffing the what-if stuff too hard, keeps repeating the same thing over and over again... "if the Germans had X number of Me 262, the Allies would'a lost" yada yada. He's delirious.


----------



## Zyzygie (May 6, 2020)

nuuumannn said:


> Guy's sniffing the what-if stuff too hard, keeps repeating the same thing over and over again... "if the Germans had X number of Me 262, the Allies would'a lost" yada yada. He's delirious.


I certainly wasn't meaning to denigrate the German people. They fought bravely.

The leaders were the big problem.


----------



## nuuumannn (May 6, 2020)

Zyzygie said:


> certainly wasn't meaning to denigrate the German people. They fought bravely.



Yeah, we know. Whether or not the German military fought bravely has nothing to do with what you are repeatedly claiming.


----------



## GrauGeist (May 6, 2020)

Zyzygie said:


> Maybe if Germany hadn’t thrown in the towel so quickly, and if more than 20-30 Me 262s had managed to get into the air on any particular day, there would have been a reasonable chance of some combat...
> 😏
> It was the Meteors hunting for the Me 262s, not the other way around.


As has been explained ad nauseam, the Luftwaffe did not have the fuel, rubber, spare parts or pilots in the final days, to keep their fighters (any, but Me262 included) in the air.
And when Luftwaffe fighters got airborne, there were hundreds of Allied fighters roaming the countryside scouring the earth of anything that walked or crawled.

In regards to the Meteors hunting Me262s, bullshit, they were forbidden to pass over enemy lines, so it never happened.
The closest that a jet-on-jet encounter ever happened, was when Ar234s bombed 616 sqd's airbase, nearly destroying their Meteors on the ground.

Now for reality: *IF* the Meteors jad encountered the Me262, there HAS to be several factors to take into consideration.
First of all, the Meteor and the Me262 were closely matched.
Secondly, the circumstances are a what-if, BUT he pilots of the Me262 are experienced in attacking bombers, challenging escorts and tactical flight, the Meteor pilots were experienced in intercepting V-1 cruise missiles and ground attack.
So it literally comes down to pilot versus pilot in the end.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zyzygie (May 6, 2020)

OK... I'll buy that.


----------

