# The first real jet engine



## Duske (Jan 4, 2018)

Sir Whittle and the German Franz von Oheim did develop the first so called jet engine but which did not lead us into the jet age at all.

No airliner of today is using the radial jet engine of Whittle and von Oheim !

Both developed the radial jet engine at the same time by not knowing of each other. After WW 2 both became friend.

At the end the radial one was no more increaseable in power - due to it`s single compressor. The only compressor had to be huge so we received the wide-body jet engine of 

the Meteor and the MIG 15. The MIG 17 could increase speed only by using the first afterburner - disigned by the Junkers Factory/Germany in 1944.

The start of the real jet age: It began in 1939 in Germany. The BRAMO-Factory near Berlin producing the Siemens-Radial engine since long for light aircraft.

was forced into the production of a very new jet engine, as BMW and Junckers too, the axial jet engine. The one which drives every airliner of today. It is called the straight-air-through jet engine. While the radial one of Whittle and von Oheim was just a try - no more. By having captured the first Me 262 in 1945 Rollce Royce

stopped the production of the radial one immediately - and did copy further on the German axial jet engine. At least it`s proved by historian. 



Reason of all till the change to the axial jet engine of today: Willy Messerschmitt was the founder of the real jet engine of today as he needed for his Me 262 a narrow jet engine with a diameter of no more then 60 cm. The wide body radial engine of Franz von Oheim would not fit under the wings of his Me 262.

BRAMO (Brandenburgische Motorenwerke) agreed by designing a 12 stage compressor to the front of the burning chambers. The axial jet engine was born and is still in the 

use of every todays airliner. Rolls-Royce and Russia had to increase the compressor diameter only for getting a more powerful engine - reaching Mach 2 and more.

Reactions: Dislike Dislike:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Jan 4, 2018)

What a load of utter tripe.


A.A.Griffith wrote a paper, _An Aerodynamic Theory of Turbine Design_, on using aerodynamic principals for the design of an axial compressor in 1926
The late 1920s and early 1930s A.A.Griffith did research into multi-stage axial compressors, including a counter rotating compressor design
In the mid 1930s Metropolitian Vickers, a steam turbine manufacturer, began design of a turboprop based on a compressor designed by A.A.Griffith
After the early testing success of the Whittle engine, Metrovicks redesigned their engine to become a pure jet.
In 1939 A.A. Griffith joined Rolls-Royce to work on axial flow jets
In 1941 Armstrong-Siddeley were instructed to abandon the Deerhound, and larger planned derivatives, and instead concentrate on the design of an axial flow jet
The Metrovicks F2 (second pure jet engine) first ran in November 1941. It was a year later than the BMW 003 and Jumo 004 in running, but was significantly more powerful at that stage of development. Initial thrust was more than the thrust of the production BMW 003 or Jumo 004.
The Metrovicks F1 flew in 1943 slung under a Lancaster. The F2 flew in a prototype Meteor in November 1943.
The Armstrong Siddeley ASX ran for the first time in 1943. This series of engines would be abandoned after the war and the company took over the development of the F9 Sapphire from Metrovicks.
The Jumo 004 was not designed to fit under the Me 262. The Me 262 was designed around two Jumo 004s.

Reactions: Winner Winner:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## Peter Gunn (Jan 4, 2018)

How many times are you going to start this thread of bovine fecal matter?


----------



## Duske (Jan 4, 2018)

Why then was the first Jet equiped with the Whittle radial so week that it could hardly carry on ammunition ?
The BMW 003 and Jumo 004 were the first functinonal axial Jet engines ever - designed by BRAMO.
Gerhard Neumann called "Herrman the German" worked with BRAMO and later on became the director of General-Electric as he developed the J 79
mainly. Can`t see any British within this game.

Why did Rollce-Royce change production of the Whittle one in 1945 by having copyed the German axial one? Just guess ! We are talking only about who was the first and not about what others had within their paper-work before.


----------



## Duske (Jan 4, 2018)

Looks like that you know much better than every historian. At least many US-Aviation Expert did agree into my Explanation.


----------



## wuzak (Jan 4, 2018)

The Armstrong Siddeley Sapphire was a direct development of the Metroviks F2 that was started ~1940. It was produced under licence by Wright as the J65.

The Rolls-Royce Avon started development in 1945, under Sir Stanley Hooker, based on design concepts by A.A. Griffith. It was produced under licence in Sweden and a scaled down version was made by Westinghouse in the US.

The Soviets did pick up jet technology from Germany after the war, but I believe they were the more advanced concepts rather than the BMW 003 and Jumo 004.


----------



## buffnut453 (Jan 4, 2018)

Duske said:


> Why then was the first Jet equiped with the Whittle radial so week that it could hardly carry on ammunition ?



Because the E.28/39 was specifically ordered as a test aircraft for the Whittle engine. It was never intended to be an operational combat aircraft, as evidence by the lack of a radio or any form of cockpit heating. Yes, drawings exist showing how guns "might" be installed but those ideas came later and were never seriously considered. It was a testbed airframe, nothing more.

Note that the first operational RAF jet aircraft, the Meteor, had 2 Whittle engines, just as the Me262 had 2 Jumo/BMW engines.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 4, 2018)

An early version was running in 1941. 





first flew on 13 November 1943 powered by early versions of the above engine. 




US Westinghouse engine, design started in 1942 and first engines delivered to the Navy in 1944. Too small to power manned aircraft.

That is just two projects that had nothing to do with German designs.
Sorry but any "historian" who claims that modern jet engines are descended from German roots only should find another field to work in. 
One where it is harder to check up on "made up facts".


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 4, 2018)

Duske said:


> Why then was the first Jet equiped with the Whittle radial so week that it could hardly carry on ammunition ?
> The BMW 003 and Jumo 004 were the first functinonal axial Jet engines ever - designed by BRAMO.
> Gerhard Neumann called "Herrman the German" worked with BRAMO and later on became the director of General-Electric as he developed the J 79
> mainly. Can`t see any British within this game.



The He 178 didn't carry any guns or ammo. Guess we can discount it from any discussion about jet aircraft?
Simple thing of sticking black crosses on fuselage and wings would've done miracles for both early jets.



> Why did Rollce-Royce change production of the Whittle one in 1945 by having copyed the German axial one? Just guess ! *We are talking only about* who was the first and not about what others had within their paper-work before.



(my bold)
Giving orders already?


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 4, 2018)

Duske said:


> Looks like that you know much better than every historian. At least many US-Aviation Expert did agree into my Explanation.



Says who?


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 4, 2018)

Hmmmm,




Heinkel 178, where are the guns???????
The Gloster first flew on May 15st 1941
first flight of Me 262 with jet engines was July 18th 1942. 
Not sure first prototypes had guns either, the one with Jumo piston engine in the nose sure didn't


----------



## Marcel (Jan 4, 2018)

What's this? 2 exactly the same threads?

I merged the threads because the starter posts were exactly the same.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Peter Gunn (Jan 4, 2018)

Duske said:


> Why then was the first Jet equiped with the Whittle radial so week that it could hardly carry on ammunition ?
> The BMW 003 and Jumo 004 were the first functinonal axial Jet engines ever - designed by BRAMO.
> Gerhard Neumann called "Herrman the German" worked with BRAMO and later on became the director of General-Electric as he developed the J 79
> mainly. *Can`t see any British within this game*.
> ...



Wait, what now?

Am I misreading this or are you saying the British weren't in on jet engine development?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 4, 2018)

Tails Through Time: The L-1000: Lockheed's Own Jet Engine

_"Probably one of the most obscure yet fascinating episodes in the history of jet engine development stemmed from Lockheed's innovative jet-powered L-133 fighter design that was submitted to the USAAF in March 1942. While the fighter design boasted advanced features like a canard and a blended wing-body, the Army Air Forces were more interested in the proposed engines of the L-133 which were to be two axial-flow jet engines designed by Lockheed itself designated L-1000. The engine had a multi-stage turbine to increase compression which translated into a greater thrust output. At a meeting at Wright Field in Dayton (where the USAAF's Power Plant Laboratory was located) in August 1942, military researchers and Lockheed engineers reviewed the L-1000's design- it was only 24 inches in diameter, 139 inches long, and weighed 1,235 lbs. Lockheed estimated that at full takeoff thrust, the L-1000 could develop 6,700 lbs of thrust. Despite the reservations of the Power Plant Laboratory, they felt there were enough features in Lockheed's jet engine that had potential that made it worth funding further development.

By comparison, that same year General Electric was working on their version of Frank Whittle's British W.1X centrifugal flow engine. GE first ran their I-A (which would later be designated the J31) on 18 April 1942, making it the first jet engine to operate in the US. It was 41.5 inches in diameter, 72 inches long, and weighed 865 lbs. At full thrust it developed only 1,250 lbs of thrust. At the time, Allied jet development had been focused primarily on centrifugal flow jets as that was the what was furthest along in terms of engineering and development compared to axial flow jets. The only other axial flow jet in development in 1942 was the Junkers Jumo 004 in Germany. It was already at the flight hardware stage that year and it was 152 inches long, 32 inches in diameter, weighed approximately 1,600 lbs and the early versions then being tested developed just under 2,000 lbs of thrust.

By comparison to the working jet engines of the day, the Lockheed L-1000 engine would have been quite a leap in performance in an axial flow engine that was smaller than the Jumo 004. Despite the potential, some officials in the USAAF were less than pleased with the idea of an airframe manufacturer developing its own jet engine, even though Northrop at the time was working on its own Turbodyne turboprop engine for its flying wing bomber designs. It was felt that airframe manufacturers lacked the expertise and facilities for the development, testing and production of jet engines.

Regardless of the objections of some officials in the USAAF, a contract was finally signed with Lockheed for good (there had been some dispute over intellectual property rights) on 31 July 1944 for approximately $1.2 million. A year later, Lockheed requested a one year extension as the pressures of wartime production had left it without sufficient engineering resources to devote to the L-1000, just as some in the military had predicted a few years earlier. As a result, Lockheed subcontracted 60% of the project to the Menasco Manufacturing Company. The Army acquiesced to this arrangement as long as Lockheed remained ultimately responsible for the engine. Menasco was allowed to manufacture the engine but under Lockheed's own engine patents. In the summer of 1946, the USAAF appropriated an additional $1.9 million to the L-1000 project by which time it would receive the designation J37. Lockheed assured the USAAF that production could begin as early as 1947.

Initial delays were due to manufacturing pressures at Menasco which was providing high-precision parts to the aircraft manufacturers of Southern California including Douglas, Convair, as well as Lockheed for the war effort. But with the cancellation of a good number of military production contracts with the Japanese surrender, Menasco was able to devote additional resources to the J37 project. Despite this, however, progress remained slow with the USAAF steadily losing patience with Lockheed. In late 1946, the J37 project was handed off to Wright Aeronautical Corporation, but by that time, Wright was more interested in its own developments and the GE/Allison J33 engine that was developed from Whittle's designs was a proven and mature powerplant already powering the Lockheed P-80 (later redesignated F-80) Shooting Star fighter.

The GE/Allison J35 engine would be the first axial-flow jet engine for the USAF and it had already made its first flight powering the Republic P-84/F-84 Thunderjet in February 1946 and would eclipse the centrifugal flow J33 engine in its performance. And even more powerful and successful development of the J35 was already being tested that year, the J47 engine. Lockheed quietly abandoned its efforts in developing a powerplant and all that exists of the L-1000 today is a mockup at the Planes of Fame Museum in Chino, California."_

Reactions: Winner Winner:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 4, 2018)

"Sir Whittle and the German Franz von Oheim did develop the first so called jet engine but which did not lead us into the jet age at all."

Rubbish - 

Centrifugal compressor configuration turbines were not only produced well after WW2 but were the make up of many powerplants that powered HELICOPTERS. The axial flow compressor was also acknowledged well before WW2.

From Wiki

_Early axial compressors offered poor efficiency, so poor that in the early 1920s a number of papers claimed that a practical jet engine would be impossible to construct. Things changed after A. A. Griffith published a seminal paper in 1926, noting that the reason for the poor performance was that existing compressors used flat blades and were essentially "flying stalled". He showed that the use of airfoils instead of the flat blades would increase efficiency to the point where a practical jet engine was a real possibility. He concluded the paper with a basic diagram of such an engine, which included a second turbine that was used to power a propeller.

Although Griffith was well known due to his earlier work on metal fatigue and stress measurement, little work appears to have started as a direct result of his paper. The only obvious effort was a test-bed compressor built by Hayne Constant, Griffith's colleague at the Royal Aircraft Establishment. Other early jet efforts, notably those of Frank Whittle and Hans von Ohain, were based on the more robust and better understood centrifugal compressor which was widely used in superchargers. Griffith had seen Whittle's work in 1929 and dismissed it, noting a mathematical error, and going on to claim that the frontal size of the engine would make it useless on a high-speed aircraft.

Real work on axial-flow engines started in the late 1930s, in several efforts that all started at about the same time. In England, Hayne Constant reached an agreement with the steam turbine company Metropolitan-Vickers (Metrovick) in 1937, starting their turboprop effort based on the Griffith design in 1938. In 1940, after the successful run of Whittle's centrifugal-flow design, their effort was re-designed as a pure jet, the Metrovick F.2. In Germany, von Ohain had produced several working centrifugal engines, some of which had flown including the world's first jet aircraft (He 178), but development efforts had moved on to Junkers (Jumo 004) and BMW (BMW 003), which used axial-flow designs in the world's first jet fighter (Messerschmitt Me 262) and jet bomber (Arado Ar 234). In the United States, both Lockheed and General Electric were awarded contracts in 1941 to develop axial-flow engines, the former a pure jet, the latter a turboprop. Northrop also started their own project to develop a turboprop, which the US Navy eventually contracted in 1943. Westinghousealso entered the race in 1942, their project proving to be the only successful one of the US efforts, later becoming the J30.

As Griffith had originally noted in 1929, the large frontal size of the centrifugal compressor caused it to have higher drag than the narrower axial-flow type. Additionally the axial-flow design could improve its compression ratio simply by adding additional stages and making the engine slightly longer. In the centrifugal-flow design the compressor itself had to be larger in diameter, which was much more difficult to "fit" properly on the aircraft. On the other hand, centrifugal-flow designs remained much less complex (the major reason they "won" in the race to flying examples) and therefore have a role in places where size and streamlining are not so important. For this reason they remain a major solution for helicopter engines, where the compressor lies flat and can be built to any needed size without upsetting the streamlining to any great degree._

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## michaelmaltby (Jan 4, 2018)

Lockheed L-133 - Wikipedia

Superb design ...

Reactions: Dislike Dislike:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 4, 2018)

michaelmaltby said:


> Lockheed L-133 - Wikipedia
> 
> Superb design ...



Lots of things look good on paper but if you can't get it to actually work, or if you can't produce it, then they aren't much good. It depends on what you may be able to apply to other things.


----------



## Duske (Jan 4, 2018)

wuzak said:


> The Armstrong Siddeley Sapphire was a direct development of the Metroviks F2 that was started ~1940. It was produced under licence by Wright as the J65.
> 
> The Rolls-Royce Avon started development in 1945, under Sir Stanley Hooker, based on design concepts by A.A. Griffith. It was produced under licence in Sweden and a scaled down version was made by Westinghouse in the US.
> 
> The Soviets did pick up jet technology from Germany after the war, but I believe they were the more advanced concepts rather than the BMW 003 and Jumo 004.



Sorry for my bad English but I`ll try my best..
The Soviets did capture some Me 262 as more than 1400 units were build. 350 were used in combat. Within the Luftwaffe the Me 262 had a TMO of only 2 hours. (time of overhaul) due to melting compressor shovel blades.There was a great lack of metal ingredients like mangan and kobalt for making the shovels heat resisting. Germany did send U-Boots toward Indonesia were does ingredients could be found on the sea ground. Almost all U-Boots were sunk. This was not known by the Soviets as they tested the Me 262. Many planes crashed. Unable to fix this problem the Soviets did build the Whittle Jet engine in license for the MIG 15. Due to the Whittle one could not reach Mach 1 they connected the first afterburner to that engine, developed by Junkers.
Called then the MIG 17.

The Avon was a copy of the Jumo 004 and BMW 003, no doubt about that as it was done in 1945.
When the British had something equal why then did they send such a week Whittle one into the air ? 

A radial Jet engine used within helycopters is not a jet engine we are talking about.
None of your named axial Jet engines reached ever production as you said.

My intension was only finding out who was the first creating the first fully operatinal axial Jet engine. No doubt about that !


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 4, 2018)

Duske said:


> A radial Jet engine used within helycopters is not a jet engine we are talking about.


 It is still a centrifugal flow turbine engine produced after WW2.
.
BTW, the Lockheed F-94 had a centrifugal flow engine was was capable of reaching mach 1 in a dive. The MiG-15 couldn't do it due to aerodynamic issues (critical mach number)

No doubt the Germans produced the first practical axial flow turbine engines used in production aircraft, but the Centrifugal engine was still a player until centrifugal engines were made more efficient and reliable and that didn't happen until after WW2

I don't believe the Avon was a copy of any German engine as it was being developed in 1945


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 4, 2018)

The Germans may have had the first operational jet engine. That does NOT mean that all others were copied from it.
It took 3-6 years to bring an engine (even big piston ones) from initial design to operational use.
Nobody took a captured engine, copied it , and put it into service in a year. 

let alone modified one to make 2-4 times the power in one to two years after seeing a captured engine.

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


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 4, 2018)

The German axial flow compressors were actually not very good, having pressure ratios of under 4 to 1. Many of the centrifugal jets could match that and few exceeded it. 
For the axial engine to really beat the centrifugal engine it needed to use a higher pressure ratio, this actually took several more years after WW II to get any significant advance (5 to 1 in not that much better than 4.1 to 1.) The Axial engines, while thinner were often much heavier for similar amounts of power. 

The axial engine _promised _more power and better fuel economy, it took until the early 50s to fulfil that promise.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Duske (Jan 4, 2018)

FLYBOYJ said:


> It is still a centrifugal flow turbine engine produced after WW2.
> .
> BTW, the Lockheed F-94 had a centrifugal flow engine was was capable of reaching mach 1 in a dive. The MiG-15 couldn't do it due to aerodynamic issues (critical mach number)
> 
> ...






Good to hear. No doubt about that the Whittle radial engine was a great design - due to it`s very simple construction by needing less parts as a real
axial one. That`s why North Korea is still using the MIG 17. It seems that nothing can ruin a radial Jet engine. More or less we are talking about a few working parts within the radial one..

Rollce-Royce had the Whittle one in full production - by not knowing anything about the German axial engine.
Right after the war they changed to the axial one - same chape. It`s a kind of funny - or ?
Unless you are telling me which Britisch axial Jet engine was available at that time ! NON - you bet

When visiting the RAF-Museum at Handon both engines were placed side by side. The Whittle one
was discribed as the first and best Jet engine ever. I got angry. Then a simple guard told me: The German
axial engine was the better one. So you better come down from your high nosed opinion.
The guard did know why - because he is confronted day by day with the same Problem.


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 4, 2018)

Duske said:


> Sorry for my bad English but I`ll try my best..
> The Soviets did capture some Me 262 as more than 1400 units were build. 350 were used in combat. Within the Luftwaffe the Me 262 had a TMO of only 2 hours. (time of overhaul) due to melting compressor shovel blades.There was a great lack of metal ingredients like mangan and kobalt for making the shovels heat resisting. Germany did send U-Boots toward Indonesia were does ingredients could be found on the sea ground. Almost all U-Boots were sunk. This was not known by the Soviets as they tested the Me 262. Many planes crashed. Unable to fix this problem the Soviets did build the Whittle Jet engine in license for the MIG 15. Due to the Whittle one could not reach Mach 1 they connected the first afterburner to that engine, developed by Junkers.
> Called then the MIG 17.
> 
> ...



Your statements disagree with last two sentences, and it is not about language.
British have had axial jet engines in development before 1945, as provided by members that have proven track record here. Avon could not be a copy of both Jumo 003 and BMW 003, but just one of them. What one, and where is a proof?
No engine was called MIG 17.


----------



## pbehn (Jan 4, 2018)

From what I have read a centrifugal compressor is best for low rates of flow and lower compression ratios, which describes early jets pretty well. Until the problems of stable axial compressors and stable combustion were solved a centrifugal compressor was just as good as an axial one. Most technologies advance step by step and an axial compressor was fairly well known from engine superchargers.


----------



## swampyankee (Jan 4, 2018)

Centrifugal compressors are, in many applications, both more robust _and more efficient_ than axial-flow units. Creare and NREC both have modern centrifugal compressor designs for gas turbines with stage pressure ratios of ten and more with acceptable efficiency -- polytropic efficiencies of about 0.8 -- and range of operation. Most engines under about 20 lbm/sec will use mixed axial-centrifugal compressors because axial stages start getting too susceptible to FOD, cost too much to manufacture, and start having problems with range of operation.

So, yes, modern engines are being built with centrifugal compressors. 

Some history: Early Gas Turbine History. Aurel Stodola was also not German.

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


----------



## Duske (Jan 4, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> The German axial flow compressors were actually not very good, having pressure ratios of under 4 to 1. Many of the centrifugal jets could match that and few exceeded it.
> For the axial engine to really beat the centrifugal engine it needed to use a higher pressure ratio, this actually took several more years after WW II to get any significant advance (5 to 1 in not that much better than 4.1 to 1.) The Axial engines, while thinner were often much heavier for similar amounts of power.
> 
> The axial engine _promised _more power and better fuel economy, it took until the early 50s to fulfil that promise.




Today we are talking of a jet-engine thrust of 120 kN. The Me 262 did show only 8 kN. It was the very beginning of a real axial Jet engine.
But with this one the Me 262 was 160 ml faster than any piston engine driven fighter.


----------



## Duske (Jan 4, 2018)

pbehn said:


> From what I have read a centrifugal compressor is best for low rates of flow and lower compression ratios, which describes early jets pretty well. Until the problems of stable axial compressors and stable combustion were solved a centrifugal compressor was just as good as an axial one. Most technologies advance step by step and an axial compressor was fairly well known from engine superchargers.




It`s so simple: With the Whittle radial Jet engine the compressed air had to be transfered around some Corners until reaching the burning Chambers.
This did slow down the air flow. An axial Jet engine Shows a straight through air flow - nothing better than that. By having only one compressor the radial one reached it`s end very fast - by beeing unable reaching Mach 1. After the war all had just to encrease the Diameter of the compressor for getting a most powerful axial Jet engine - till today.


----------



## pbehn (Jan 4, 2018)

Duske said:


> It`s so simple: With the Whittle radial Jet engine the compressed air had to be transfered around some Corners until reaching the burning Chambers.
> This did slow down the air flow. An axial Jet engine Shows a straight through air flow - nothing better than that. By having only one compressor the radial one reached it`s end very fast - by beeing unable reaching Mach 1. After the war all had just to encrease the Diameter of the compressor for getting a most powerful axial Jet engine - till today.


Yes I know, the early days of jet planes were full of stories about flame outs and compressor stalls, these were the problems that had to be solved with axial flow engines on both sides of the channel and indeed both sides of the Atlantic.


----------



## Duske (Jan 4, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> The Germans may have had the first operational jet engine. That does NOT mean that all others were copied from it.
> It took 3-6 years to bring an engine (even big piston ones) from initial design to operational use.
> Nobody took a captured engine, copied it , and put it into service in a year.
> 
> let alone modified one to make 2-4 times the power in one to two years after seeing a captured engine.




What`s wrong about a well running German axial Jet engine captured and opened by Rollce-Royce within a few hours,
Guess it would have taken them only a few month to copy this one and drive it to the first Rollce-Royce axial engine ever - as shown.


----------



## pbehn (Jan 4, 2018)

Duske said:


> What`s wrong about a well running German axial Jet engine captured and opened by Rollce-Royce within a few hours,
> Guess it would have taken them only a few month to copy this one and drive it to the first Rollce-Royce axial engine ever - as shown.


Because by the time there was a captured 262 to look at the British already had their own axial flow engines, I have no doubt they looked with interest at the design but the concept was already in testing before a 262 went into service.


----------



## buffnut453 (Jan 4, 2018)

pbehn said:


> Because by the time there was a captured 262 to look at the British already had their own axial flow engines, I have no doubt they looked with interest at the design but the concept was already in testing before a 262 went into service.



Burn the heretic! How dare you suggest that any nation had ANY technological parity with Germany, let alone superiority.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
3 | Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 4, 2018)

Perhaps I misunderstood you. I thought you (or the historians you set store by) were claiming that the British and Americans copied or developed German designs after the war?
there is no question that things have advanced in the over 70 years since the end of WWII but there is also no doubt that both the Americans and British were working on axial flow compressors well before they ever got a look at the two German ones.
There is also little doubt that the compressors to beat in post war periods were the Allied centrifugal compressors and not the German ones.
The Compression ratio of the Junkers 004 B4 engine was 3.0 to 1 with a mass airflow of 43lbs/sec
The Compression ratio of the BMW 003 A2 engine was 3.1 to 1 with a mass airflow of 42.5lbs/sec
The Compression ratio of the JE J-33(I-40) engine was 4.1 to 1 with a mass airflow of 79lbs/sec
The Compression ratio of the DH Goblin II engine was 3.6 to 1 with a mass airflow of 60lbs/sec
The Compression ratio of the Derwent I engine was 3.9 to 1
The Compression ratio of the Metrovick F2/4 engine was 4.0 to 1 and it produced 3500lbs of thrust for a weight of 1750lbs (ony 120lbs more than the Jumo 004)

The Germans may have been the first to have an "operational" but that certainly does NOT mean that modern jets are descended from those engines except in the very loosest of terms.

You might want to check the speed of some of those piston engined planes too. The 262 lucky to be 160kph faster than the last of the piston engine planes not 160 mph

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 4, 2018)

Duske said:


> What`s wrong about a well running German axial Jet engine captured and opened by Rollce-Royce within a few hours,
> Guess it would have taken them only a few month to copy this one and drive it to the first Rollce-Royce axial engine ever - as shown.



Are you stipulating that Rolls Royce copied a 'well running German jet engine'?


----------



## Duske (Jan 4, 2018)

pbehn said:


> Yes I know, the early days of jet planes were full of stories about flame outs and compressor stalls, these were the problems that had to be solved with axial flow engines on both sides of the channel and indeed both sides of the Atlantic.





pbehn said:


> Yes I know, the early days of jet planes were full of stories about flame outs and compressor stalls, these were the problems that had to be solved with axial flow engines on both sides of the channel and indeed both sides of the Atlantic.




Correct ! Herrman the German did design the J 79 engine of General-Electric. The most famous axial Jet engine ever - even used in the B 52 and in all other fighters of the USAF. But then he made a mistake by disigning an oversized afterburner which did lead to 15o crashes of the F 104 Starfighter and 126 killed German pilots.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 4, 2018)

Duske said:


> It`s so simple: With the Whittle radial Jet engine the compressed air had to be transfered around some Corners until reaching the burning Chambers.
> This did slow down the air flow. An axial Jet engine Shows a straight through air flow - nothing better than that. By having only one compressor the radial one reached it`s end very fast - by beeing unable reaching Mach 1. After the war all had just to encrease the Diameter of the compressor for getting a most powerful axial Jet engine - till today.




Hmmm, guess those guys who designed multiple stage engines using centrifugal compressors really screwed up. Like the RR Dart 
and the *Garrett TPE331*





*over 13,500 built.*
Granted not a supersonic engine but sometimes common wisdom isn't so wise.


----------



## pbehn (Jan 4, 2018)

Please don't forget that there was actually a war on. This war meant that projects like jet engines were put on the back burner in UK in 1939/40 due to the imminent threat at hand. By the same token it was given increased priority in Germany as an answer to daylight massed bomber raids. When discussing "operational" "reliable" and "in service" they were completely different concepts in 1944 for the RAF and LW.


----------



## Duske (Jan 4, 2018)

tomo pauk said:


> Are you stipulating that Rolls Royce copied a 'well running German jet engine'?




Yes !


----------



## pbehn (Jan 4, 2018)

Duske said:


> Correct ! Herrman the German did design the J 79 engine of General-Electric. The most famous axial Jet engine ever - even used in the B 52 and in all other fighters of the USAF. But then he made a mistake by disigning an oversized afterburner which did lead to 15o crashes of the F 104 Starfighter and 126 killed German pilots.


Who are you discussing?


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 4, 2018)

Duske said:


> Yes !



Where is your proof?


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 4, 2018)

Duske said:


> Correct ! Herrman the German did design the J 79 engine of General-Electric. The most famous axial Jet engine ever - even used in the B 52 and in all other fighters of the USAF. But then he made a mistake by disigning an oversized afterburner which did lead to 15o crashes of the F 104 Starfighter and 126 killed German pilots.




where are you getting this crap from????

The B-52 used Pratt and Whitney engines (of several different models) never a J-79 unless an experimental model or for engine development. 

The over-sized afterburner had little or nothing to do with crashes. An approach speed of over 225mph with a dead engine did. Plane used blown flaps with bleed air tapped off the engine. Flying low level in bad weather in plane that glided like a brick meant very few engine failures weren't going to end in a crash/


----------



## Duske (Jan 4, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> Hmmm, guess those guys who designed multiple stage engines using centrifugal compressors really screwed up. Like the RR Dart
> and the *Garrett TPE331*
> View attachment 478052
> 
> ...







Shortround6 said:


> Hmmm, guess those guys who designed multiple stage engines using centrifugal compressors really screwed up. Like the RR Dart
> and the *Garrett TPE331*
> View attachment 478052
> 
> ...




At does days they did not notice yet the overwelming Performance of an axial Jet engine - by having a straight trough air flow .


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 4, 2018)

Duske said:


> Correct ! Herrman the German did design the J 79 engine of General-Electric. The most famous axial Jet engine ever - even used in the B 52 and in all other fighters of the USAF. But then he made a mistake by disigning an oversized afterburner which did lead to 15o crashes of the F 104 Starfighter and 126 killed German pilots.



First off Gerhard Neumann Had absolutely nothing to do with German turbine engine development in WW2. The rest of your post is non-sense.


----------



## buffnut453 (Jan 4, 2018)

Duske,

You're making some pretty bold claims and yet you consistently refuse to provide any evidence to back them up. Where is the evidence that Rolls Royce copied any German jet engine technology to enable testing of an axial flow jet engine before the end of WW2?

The title of this thread is "first real jet engine" and yet you are focused solely on German axial-flow engines which, although operational, were hardly robust nor were they significantly advanced, technically, from other developments elsewhere.

Please start backing up your claims with something other than your own opinion.

Many thanks,
The Rest of Us

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


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 4, 2018)

I think you are missing the point.
An axial flow engine is not automatically better just because it uses axial flow than straight through 
Literally tens of thousands of engines using two stage centrifugal compressors have been built *after *the designers had seen the axial flow straight though engines.

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


----------



## fubar57 (Jan 4, 2018)

buffnut453 said:


> Duske, You're making some pretty bold claims and yet you consistently refuse to provide any evidence to back them up. Please start backing up your claims with something other than your own opinion.
> Many thanks,
> The Rest of Us



QUOTE="Duske, post: 1375443, member: 73718"] Then a simple guard told me: The German
axial engine was the better one. So you better come down from your high nosed opinion.
The guard did know why - because he is confronted day by day with the same Problem.[/QUOTE]


----------



## Duske (Jan 4, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> where are you getting this crap from????
> 
> The B-52 used Pratt and Whitney engines (of several different models) never a J-79 unless an experimental model or for engine development.
> 
> The over-sized afterburner had little or nothing to do with crashes. An approach speed of over 225mph with a dead engine did. Plane used blown flaps with bleed air tapped off the engine. Flying low level in bad weather in plane that glided like a brick meant very few engine failures weren't going to end in a crash/




Sorry to tell. The GE J 79 was the base - since today. At least during the last 50 years this one was the basic one.
At the end of all crashed F 104 GE stated the mistake. During air combat at low Level for escaping the Pilot activated the afterburner.
After less of one Minute he did shut off the afterburner. This did lead to a flame out - as the engine was not at full power - no Chance ever. As you may know at high altitude you have only one Chance left to restart a engine. I am a Pilot since 60 years.


----------



## Duske (Jan 4, 2018)

pbehn said:


> Please don't forget that there was actually a war on. This war meant that projects like jet engines were put on the back burner in UK in 1939/40 due to the imminent threat at hand. By the same token it was given increased priority in Germany as an answer to daylight massed bomber raids. When discussing "operational" "reliable" and "in service" they were completely different concepts in 1944 for the RAF and LW.




You are completly right ! England missed the Chance to create an axial Jet engine. Germany was forced to do so.
The Germany of does days was a misled Nation and a Herr Hitler was an Idiot. But we have shown better by now.


----------



## Peter Gunn (Jan 4, 2018)

Sorry to tell, but the B-52 used the Pratt & Whitney *J57, *not the GE J79 which was used in B-58 and F-104 just to name a few. Neither one of those engines traces its lineage to the German issue of WWII.

I'm still confused that you stated that there were no British engines "in the game". The hell does that even mean?


----------



## Duske (Jan 4, 2018)

fubar57 said:


> QUOTE="Duske, post: 1375443, member: 73718"] Then a simple guard told me: The German
> axial engine was the better one. So you better come down from your high nosed opinion.
> The guard did know why - because he is confronted day by day with the same Problem.


[/QUOTE]


Where is your problem - by just naming facts


----------



## Duske (Jan 4, 2018)

Peter Gunn said:


> Sorry to tell, but the B-52 used the Pratt & Whitney *J57, *not the GE J79 which was used in B-58 and F-104 just to name a few. Neither one of those engines traces its lineage to the German issue of WWII.
> 
> I'm still confused that you stated that there were no British engines "in the game". The hell does that even mean?




The GE J 79 I catched from Wikipedia. But you are right it was the GE J 57 - constructed by the German Neumann as I said, the director of
General Electric of does days. Well known in the States as Herrmann the German. He became director of GE because the J 57 he designed became so famous. Some air-museum museum in Germany are named after him. So the J 57 traced ist lineage to the German axial Jet engine as Neumann was one of the heads of BRAMO. Just ask Hanns to learn more about


----------



## pbehn (Jan 4, 2018)

Duske said:


> You are completly right ! England missed the Chance to create an axial Jet engine. Germany was forced to do so.
> The Germany of does days was a misled Nation and a Herr Hitler was an Idiot. But we have shown better by now.


England does not exist in the discussion it is the UK. It didn't "miss a chance" it was developing engines of both axial and centrifugal types.

Reactions: Dislike Dislike:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Jan 4, 2018)

Where is your problem - by just naming facts[/QUOTE]

How about you answer the question that's been asked at least 3 times now...what evidence do you have that Rolls Royce copied German jet technology during WW2? If the UK wasn't aware of axial technology, as you're claiming, surely it would take more than a few months for RR to reverse engineer the German engine AND then enhance it to provide better thrust. So where's your evidence of such events?


----------



## fubar57 (Jan 4, 2018)

Maybe the conversation with the simple guard never got that far

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


----------



## Peter Gunn (Jan 4, 2018)

Duske said:


> The GE J 79 I catched from Wikipedia. But you are right it was the GE J 57 - constructed by the German Neumann as I said, the director of
> General Electric of does days. Well known in the States as Herrmann the German. He became director of GE because the J 57 he designed became so famous. Some air-museum museum in Germany are named after him. So the J 57 traced ist lineage to the German axial Jet engine as Neumann was one of the heads of BRAMO. Just ask Hanns to learn more about



Uh... Gerhard Neumann did work at General Electric and helped design the J79, *again, the J57 in the B-52 was a Pratt & Whitney design*. Also, you do know that Gerhard Neumann never worked on German jet engines during the war right? He was in China when the war started and ended up working for the U.S.A.A.F.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jan 4, 2018)

Peter Gunn said:


> Uh... Gerhard Neumann did work at General Electric and helped design the J79, *again, the J57 in the B-52 was a Pratt & Whitney design*. Also, you do know that Gerhard Neumann never worked on German jet engines during the war right? He was in China when the war started and ended up working for the U.S.A.A.F.


He was in China solely because he did not want to be in Germany. I wonder if Gerhard liked being called "Herman the German".


----------



## soulezoo (Jan 4, 2018)

fubar57 said:


> Maybe the conversation with the simple guard never got that far



Maybe because that guard was Sgt. Schultz?

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


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 4, 2018)

Duske said:


> Sorry to tell. The GE J 79 was the base - since today. At least during the last 50 years this one was the basic one.
> At the end of all crashed F 104 GE stated the mistake. During air combat at low Level for escaping the Pilot activated the afterburner.
> After less of one Minute he did shut off the afterburner. This did lead to a flame out - as the engine was not at full power - no Chance ever. As you may know at high altitude you have only one Chance left to restart a engine. I am a Pilot since 60 years.



Website with list of German F104 crashes.
916 Starfighter

after reading over 40 of them less than 25% are engine related at all, let alone afterburner related.

Reactions: Winner Winner:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 4, 2018)

soulezoo said:


> Maybe because that guard was Sgt. Schultz?


 Couldn't be, Sgt. Schultz "Knew Nothing"


----------



## Duske (Jan 4, 2018)

Peter Gunn said:


> Uh... Gerhard Neumann did work at General Electric and helped design the J79, *again, the J57 in the B-52 was a Pratt & Whitney design*. Also, you do know that Gerhard Neumann never worked on German jet engines during the war right? He was in China when the war started and ended up working for the U.S.A.A.F.




Gerhard Neumann was a German, born in Germany. He worked with BRAMO till 1939 by receiving the knowlegde of constructing jet engines. At that time BRAMO did produce the radial one of von Oheim. In october 1938 Messerschmitt received order building a Jet. Messerschmidt had worked on that project long before - it received the order number P 1065. He then contacted BRAMO for a slim Jet engine.
Neumann was a part of it.
Thats why he was able constructing within a short time the J 57. He did not help constructing the J 57 - he was the leader of the J 57 programm. Due to the great success he reached with the J 57 he became the director of General Electric. His last visit to Germany he made in 1997 by being invited opening up 2 air.museum under his name. In China he worked for the US on radial egines only.
Everyone in US-Aviation knows about Hermann the German regardless whether you like it or not. I did live in the States for six years.

Why did you people send the week Whittle one to the US when having a good running axial Jet engine in spare ? NONSENSE !


----------



## fubar57 (Jan 4, 2018)

Odd that his biography doesn't mention P&W....

The newlyweds drove across Asia in a Jeep that Neumann had cobbled together from two wrecked vehicles. Still restless, they departed on a 10,000-mile journey to the Holy Land and the Middle East.
Neumann mailed an application to G.E.. What followed has become aviation industry legend. Neumann devised ways to make GE aircraft engines stronger and more efficient. He subscribed to the “dirty fingernails” school in which all engineers must physically delve into their engines. Jets were his passion and he spent hours studying how air passed through an engine’s fan blades. His management style was frequently described as precise and uncompromising, and he was known to berate employees he deemed incompetent while frustrating his superiors with his freewheeling antics.


----------



## wuzak (Jan 4, 2018)

The J57 was a development of the Pratt & Whitney XT45 (PT4) turboprop engine that was originally intended for the Boeing XB-52. As the B-52 power requirements grew, the design evolved into a turbojet, the JT3. *The prestigious Collier Trophy for 1952 was awarded to Leonard S. Hobbs, Chief Engineer of United Aircraft Corporation, for "designing and producing the P&W J57 turbojet engine"*.[3] On May 25, 1953, a J57-powered YF-100A exceeded Mach 1 on its maiden flight. The engine was produced from 1951 to 1965 with a total of 21,170 built.

One XT57 (PT5), a turboprop development of the J57, was installed in the nose of a JC-124C (BuNo 52-1069), and tested in 1956.[

Pratt & Whitney J57 - Wikipedia


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 4, 2018)

Duske said:


> Gerhard Neumann was a German, born in Germany. He worked with BRAMO till 1939 by receiving the knowlegde of constructing jet engines. At that time BRAMO did produce the radial one of von Oheim. In october 1938 Messerschmitt received order building a Jet. Messerschmidt had worked on that project long before - it received the order number P 1065. He then contacted BRAMO for a slim Jet engine.
> Neumann was a part of it.
> Thats why he was able constructing within a short time the J 57. He did not help constructing the J 57 - he was the leader of the J 57 programm. Due to the great success he reached with the J 57 he became the director of General Electric. His last visit to Germany he made in 1997 by being invited opening up 2 air.museum under his name. In China he worked for the US on radial egines only.
> Everyone in US-Aviation knows about Hermann the German regardless whether you like it or not. I did live in the States for six years.
> ...



By May of 1939 he was in Hong Kong. How long did it take him to get there? 
How many jet engines did Bramo Make in 1939?
Or in 1938? and what type?
I worked at P & W for four years, doesn't mean I can design any kind of jet engine. 

I also never knew the P-40s he worked in in china had radial engines.





Must have been a very clever disguise. 

Unfortunately almost everything you say is not true and it is getting very hard to ferret what, if anything, is true in your posts.


----------



## Graeme (Jan 4, 2018)

Duske said:


> Why did you people



You could also research another German to add to your anglophobic stance...

Google Translate

..who helped the French in jet engine technology (The ATAR 101).


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 4, 2018)

Oh, c'mon you people. GE, P&W, radial or axial or V12 -it does not matter - you have bad intention of ruining a story with facts.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Graeme (Jan 4, 2018)

Duske said:


> ! We are talking only about who was the first and not about what others had within their paper-work before.



Flawed in ways - but it was the _first _- with centrifugal jet engines...

de Havilland Comet - Wikipedia


----------



## buffnut453 (Jan 4, 2018)

Duske said:


> Why did you people send the week Whittle one to the US when having a good running axial Jet engine in spare ? NONSENSE !



And still you refuse to answer my straightforward question...but I'll answer yours for you. The Tizard Mission which took the Whittle jet technology to the US was in September 1940. Exactly how many operational jet aircraft existed ANYWHERE at that time?

You need to look more closely at the timelines for the events you're discussing. You're mixing up events from 1940 and 1945 without clearly identifying the point you're trying to make.

PLEASE will you stick to a single story and timeline and pay the common courtesy of backing up your comments about British jet engine development with some facts rather than just your own opinions.


----------



## KiwiBiggles (Jan 4, 2018)

The fact that Duske repeatedly refers to someone called "Franz von Oheim", where he (presumably) means Hans Pabst von Ohain, makes me think that everything he writes comes from a very dusty memory, completely unresearched.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jan 4, 2018)

Duske, the basis of your argument seems to be that until 1944 the British were producing centrifugal type jets then shortly after that they produced axial flow jets, so the British must have reverse engineered the Jumo 004. Well the Russians were experts at reverse engineering. They reverse engineered the Nene and the Jumo 004. The Nene as the Klimov VK-1 and its derivatives went on to power 18,000 Mig 15s and 10,000 Mig 17s. The Jumo 004 as the Klimov RD 10 powered 280 Yak 15s. 

Reverse engineering a jet engine is not easy, it is easy to copy the dimensions, the problem is the metallurgy and other technologies like lubricants and operating parameters/conditions. It took the Russians as long to reverse engineer the Nene as it took them to do the same to the B 29. This was mainly because the metallurgy of creep resistant high strength turbine blades is very, very special, getting hold of one is one thing, it doesn't tell you how to make it.

The British had no need to copy a Jumo 004 (as others have pointed out), they had an axial flow jet, the Metropolitan Vickers F2 which ran in 1941, and while this was not adopted it was eventually developed into the Sapphire which powered the Hawker Hunter, HP Victor and Gloster Javelin. Talk of speeds over Mach 1 in relation to the Jumo 004 is beyond fantasy,

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Jan 4, 2018)

pbehn said:


> The British had no need to copy a Jumo 004 (as others have pointed out), they had an axial flow jet, the Metropolitan Vickers F2 which ran in 1941, and while this was not adopted it was eventually developed into the Sapphire which powered the Hawker Hunter, HP Victor and Gloster Javelin. Talk of speeds over Mach 1 in relation to the Jumo 004 is beyond fantasy,



Thanks for this input, pbehn. How on earth did the Jumo 004 influence a British design that first ran in 1941? It's pure fantasy. I'm also confused by Duske's continued reference to the "week" (Sp...presume he means weak) Whittle engine. Looking at the tables below and it seems to me that the W-2 spanks the Jumo 004B in pretty much every category that is directly comparable:

*Jumo 004B Performance*

*Maximum thrust:* 8.8 kN (1,980 lbf) at 8,700 rpm
*Overall pressure ratio:* 3.14:1
*Thrust-to-weight ratio:* 1.25 (12.2 N/kg)

*Power Jets W-2 Performance*

*Maximum thrust:* 2,485 lbf (1,127 kgf) at 16,500 rpm
*Overall pressure ratio:* 4:1
*Thrust-to-weight ratio:* 2.6:1

Now, the W-2 may well have lacked development potential but as an operational jet engine dating from the early 1940s, I know which one I'd say was "weak"...and it's not the W-2!


----------



## pbehn (Jan 4, 2018)

buffnut453 said:


> Thanks for this input, pbehn. !



The input was the result of a whole five minutes on google, searching, starting with A.A. Griffith Jumo 004 and RR Nene, hardly the sign of deep knowledge.


----------



## pbehn (Jan 4, 2018)

wuzak said:


> The J57 was a development of the Pratt & Whitney XT45 (PT4) turboprop engine that was originally intended for the Boeing XB-52. As the B-52 power requirements grew, the design evolved into a turbojet, the JT3. *The prestigious Collier Trophy for 1952 was awarded to Leonard S. Hobbs, Chief Engineer of United Aircraft Corporation, for "designing and producing the P&W J57 turbojet engine"*.[3] On May 25, 1953, a J57-powered YF-100A exceeded Mach 1 on its maiden flight. The engine was produced from 1951 to 1965 with a total of 21,170 built.
> 
> One XT57 (PT5), a turboprop development of the J57, was installed in the nose of a JC-124C (BuNo 52-1069), and tested in 1956.[
> 
> Pratt & Whitney J57 - Wikipedia


Pratt sounds Teutonic
Whitney probably from Saarland
Hobbs were a toy making family originating near Dortmund
Collier famous Stuttgart dynasty
Boeing were cattle traders in Bremen before going to USA.
Griffith's were potato pickers from Lower Saxony while the Whittles were street sweepers in Dusseldorf.


----------



## BiffF15 (Jan 4, 2018)

I think someone is yanking your collective chains...

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jan 4, 2018)

BiffF15 said:


> I think someone is yanking your collective chains...


Possibly, but in my many years in Germany I did meet one young man who was convinced Prussia had invented everything and that once they were free from the shackles of Germany they would rule the world again.


----------



## swampyankee (Jan 4, 2018)

Duske said:


> Correct ! Herrman the German did design the J 79 engine of General-Electric. The most famous axial Jet engine ever - even used in the B 52 and in all other fighters of the USAF. But then he made a mistake by disigning an oversized afterburner which did lead to 15o crashes of the F 104 Starfighter and 126 killed German pilots.



The B-52 used Pratt&Whitney engines. So did the F-100, F-101, F-102, F-106, F-8 Crusader, F4D Skyray, later models of the A-4, the F9F Panther and Cougar, the C-135, the 707, the DC-8 ....

The first twin-spool engine, the JT3C is probably more famous.

Gerhard Neuman -- "Herman the German" -- emigrated from Germany before WW2. See, for example, Gerhard Neumann - Wikipedia, and Neumann, Gerhard - National Aviation Hall of Fame. Had he stayed he Germany, he probably would have been murdered as his parents were Jewish.


----------



## Koopernic (Jan 4, 2018)

Duske said:


> Sir Whittle and the German Franz von Oheim did develop the first so called jet engine but which did not lead us into the jet age at all.
> 
> No airliner of today is using the radial jet engine of Whittle and von Oheim !
> 
> ...



It may have been the Jumo 002 which became the Heinkel Hirth HeS 006.

In Germany development of jet engines began in airframe companies Heinkel and Junkers. It was the same in the USA with Lockheed’s L1000

The RLM Stripped the right of these airframe companies to develop engines. Heinkel stayed in the game by buying an engine company called Hirth at 50% over share market price where the development of von Ohains and Hahns could continue with official sanction. The Junkers Jumo 002 was abandoned but the team also went to Heinkel Hirth and resurrected the Jumo 002 as the HeS 006.

Jumo then started the Famous Jumo 004 using a new team with a turbo charger background.

The Heinkel Hirth HeS 006 was based on the Jumo 002 designed by Adolf Müller of the Airframe division of Junkers. The engine division *JU*nkers *MO*toren or *Jumo* had nothing to do with developing jet engines initially, it was the RLM that decided that airframe manufacturers shouldn't develop jet engines so Adolf Müller moved to Heinkel and the Austrian Turbo charger espert Franz Anselm started to develop the Jumo 004. Heinkel, an airframe manufacturer, faced been sidelined as well so Ernst Heinkel brought the company Hirth Motoren at 50% above market value so that he could claim to be an engine manufacturer and continue to develop the jet engine that had in fact been invented by his companies patronage of von Ohain.

Adolf Müller's Jumo 002 that became the Heinkel Hirth HeS 006 was far more capable than the Jumo 004. It used a 50% reaction compressor that was 10%-15% more efficient and required only 5 stages to achieve the same compression ratio as the jumo 004.

As a result it had 50% of the weight for the same thrust. In fact it wasn't beaten in terms of frontal area vs thrust and weight versus thrust by anyengine till 1947 and weighed only 390kg versus the 740kg of the jumo.

There are two types of axial compressor: reaction type where the pressure build up is both over rotor and stator and impulse where the stator is only a guide vane. Reaction types need machining because of tolerances instead of stamping. The Jumo 004 used impulse type HeS 006 reaction type.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 5, 2018)



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


----------



## nuuumannn (Jan 5, 2018)

Duske said:


> Sir Whittle and the German Franz von Oheim did develop the first so called jet engine but which did not lead us into the jet age at all.
> 
> No airliner of today is using the radial jet engine of Whittle and von Oheim !



Wow. This is BS, within the first two sentences there are inaccuracies - I fear what follows from this guy is utter rubbish - we've seen it all before. Fanboy comes out from under the covers and blurts out a string of unverifiable untruths that everyone will, for pages to come present evidence to disprove, to no avail - and I haven't even read through the thread. You just can't argue against these morons.

Regarding the above sentence, utter tripe, because almost all Pratt & Whitney Canada's turboprops employ centrifugal compressors, from the PT-6 to the PW100 series. Look them up to see just how many aircraft types these engines power.

Pratt & Whitney Canada PT6 - Wikipedia

Pratt & Whitney Canada PW100 - Wikipedia

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


----------



## wuzak (Jan 5, 2018)

When, in 1938, Bramo was asked to investigate jet propulsion their first response was a motorjet - a ducted fan driven by a Bramo radial engine. This actually flew in a Focke Wulf Fw 44.

A further development of this was to add afterburning. But, with poor results on the test stand, the project was cancelled.

Bramo began investigating a turbojet design in late 1938. They had a free choice for type of compressor - they could use a centrifugal, straight axial or counter-rotating axial compressor.

They chose to develop the straight axial flow turbine, this being viewed as a research engine for the counter-rotating engine. Bramo developed the compressor and added am axial turbine with air cooled blades, which had been developed by BMW using their turbocharger experience.

The counter-rotating compressor engine had the official project designation of 109-002. Individual stages of the compressor were built and tested, but it was soon realised that the concept was going to be very difficult to make work. Work was abandoned on this engine in 1942. Note that Griffith had designed, built and tested a counter-rotating axial compressor a few years prior.

Bramo was now part of BMW, and the straight axial design was to become the basis for the BMW 003.

BMW, for its part, had started its turbojet experience by designing one with a two stage centrifugal compressor and axial turbine.

Note that most turbojets, even Whittle's used axial turbines. Von Ohain's original turbojets used a radial turbine.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Peter Gunn (Jan 5, 2018)

**WHISTLE**

Sorry boys, the following will report to the penalty box for two minutes on the infraction of clouding the issue with facts:

wuzak
nuuumann
pbehn
koopernic
buffnut453
tomo pauk
Graeme
ShortRound6
fubar57 and Swampyankee

Your continued use of verifiable facts that are well documented have landed you time in the sin bin.

I'd add Flyboy but he has those intimidating "Moderator" tags, so he gets a pass...

Obviously I am exempt.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Funny Funny:
5 | Winner Winner:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Jan 5, 2018)

I notice the OP has gone ominously silent. I'm tending to align with Biff15's thinking that this was just a trolling exercise. Still, at least I learned something from those who actually provided substantiated facts...so thank you, gents, for expanding my knowledge of early jet development.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
5 | Like List reactions


----------



## Peter Gunn (Jan 5, 2018)

BiffF15 said:


> I think someone is yanking your collective chains...



Any idea on suspects? **COUGH**...biff...**COUGH**

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## soulezoo (Jan 5, 2018)

buffnut453 said:


> Still, at least I learned something from those who actually provided substantiated facts...so thank you, gents, for expanding my knowledge of early jet development.



That goes for me as well. I don't post a whole lot but am lurking nearly everyday. A lot of folks here that are a lot more knowledgeable than I so I am just soaking it all in. This was a good one.

Greatly appreciated everyone!

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jan 5, 2018)

Since we have been surrounded by jet engines most of our lives, and they have only one moving part (in theory) It is easy to think that they are simple to make, in fact the simplicity of the basic design just means more complication in the materials needed to cope with the temperatures and pressures. In the early days the difficulty wasn't producing power but stopping the engine running away and turning itself into fuel just before it explodes. 
Below is a graph of pressure velocity and temperature in a turbine from here,
What is a normal EGT range of a jet engine?

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Duske (Jan 5, 2018)

buffnut453 said:


> And still you refuse to answer my straightforward question...but I'll answer yours for you. The Tizard Mission which took the Whittle jet technology to the US was in September 1940. Exactly how many operational jet aircraft existed ANYWHERE at that time?
> 
> You need to look more closely at the timelines for the events you're discussing. You're mixing up events from 1940 and 1945 without clearly identifying the point you're trying to make.
> 
> PLEASE will you stick to a single story and timeline and pay the common courtesy of backing up your comments about British jet engine development with some facts rather than just your own opinions.




It is answered by just a few words. You are talking about what you had in construction but nothing really did work. By seeing all the send pictures
it is just ridiculous how such an so called axial Jet engine could work right - as it showed and all of them were junk more ore less - unless you are telling
which of does ones ever lift an airplane into the air - non did. As I reported my visit to the Hendon museum was a shocking one. Some arrogant militarian
are still trying telling the world that the Whittle one was the first real jet engine ever pruduced by beeing unable telling that the one of von Ohain
did push his plane one year earlyer into the air. An ordinary guard there is telling some hundreds of visitors each day that the German axial Jet engine was the better one. What a shame ! Did you people ever tryed to correct this lie - no way. You are still trying telling the world a wrong story.

So what for did I pay the cab driver for - for hearing such a lie ?

You people did deliver to the States your week Whittle one as it was proved within the Shooting Star.
By all of your comments where was the fully functional axial Jet engine you had in spare then - just non.

We havent seen any Shooting Star over Germany.
Germany produced 1400 Me 262. 800 were in service and 380 were in combat each day.
Thats why you are very pleased driving a German made automobile - no repairs anymore.

I am not a Nazi orientated one. I am restoring engines since 50 years including some RR ones. That`s why.


----------



## Marcel (Jan 5, 2018)

People, please calm down. No reason to get all worked up about this.
And yes, this is a warning, keep it civil guys!

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


----------



## pbehn (Jan 5, 2018)

Duske said:


> Germany produced 1400 Me 262. 800 were in service and 380 were in combat each day.
> Thats why you are very pleased driving a German made automobile - no repairs anymore.
> I am not a Nazi orientated one. I am restoring engines since 50 years including some RR ones. That`s why.



If you had 380 Me 262s in combat every day the war would have taken a different turn.


----------



## GregP (Jan 5, 2018)

Hey Shortround,

I went into your link on German Starfighter crashes. In Excel, I searched every record for "engine failure," "compressor stall," or "engine explosion."

There are 296 records and one of these phrases shows up 75 times, or 25.3% of the time. The term "nozzle failure" shows up another 12
times, and the term "caught on fire" shows up another 7 times, making for about 31% problems with the engine or nozzle or fire during a ground run. That leaves 70% of the time when the fault was not engine or fire.

There were 11 midair collisions, accounting for another 22 Starfighters.

Looks like spatial disorientation, running into each other, and collisions with the ground or water were, collectively, a big slice of the accidents.

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


----------



## fubar57 (Jan 5, 2018)

Duske said:


> Thats why you are very pleased driving a German made automobile - no repairs anymore.



Volkswagen - 2015

From what I've read..." More than 1,400 _Me_-_262s were_ built, but only 50 _were_ approved for combat, according to Galland. Of those 50, there _were_ never more than 25 operational at any given time"


----------



## GregP (Jan 5, 2018)

I looked for all the early jets I could find and, so far, have found a pretty good number of early jets that all flew before the end of the 1940s. Included were:

The Heinkel He 178 flew in 1939

The Gloster-Whittle E.28/39 Squirt flew in 1941

The Heinkel He 280 flew in 1941

The Messerschmitt Me 262 flew in 1941, but was delayed by politics until later

The Bell XP-59A flew on 1 Oct 1942

The de Havilland D.H. 100 Vampire flew in 1943

The Messerschmitt Me 328 flew in 1943, but did not get developed

The Douglas XB-43 jet bomber flew in 1946 (the piston version flew in 1944)

The Arado AR-234 flew in 1944

The Fieseler Fi 103 manned pulsejet flew in Sep 1944

The Junkers Ju-287 flew in 1944

The Gloster G.44 and F.Mk III Meteor flew in 1944 with the F. Mk. 8 coming in 1945

The McDonnell FD-1 Phantom flew on 26 Jan 1945

The Gotha Go.229 (Horten Ho.229?) flew on 2 Feb 1945

The Heinkel He 162 flew in 1945

The Lockheed P-80 flew in 1945

The Bell XP-83 flew in 1945

The Northrop XP-79 flew in 1945

The Henschel Hs 132 was supposed to fly in 1945, but the prototype was captured by the Russians before it was fully assembled

The Gloster NF.11 Meteor flew in 1946

The Lavochkin La-150/152/154/160 all flew in 1946

The North American FJ-1 flew in 1946

The Avia S92 flew in 1946 and was a close copy of the Me 262

The de Havilland D.H. 108 Swallow flew in 1946, was the 1st British aircraft to exceed the speed of sound

The MiG-9 flew in Apr 1946 and was faster than the Me 262 at 910 kph, entered service in 1947

The Yakovlev Yak-15 flew in 1946

The Junkers-Argus EF-126/127 Elly flew in 1946

The McDonnell F2H-3 Banshee flew on 11 Jan 1947

FMA in Argentina flew the I.Ae.27 in 1947

The Armstrong Whitworth Sea Hawk flew in 1947

The Armstrong Whitworth AW52 bomber flew in 1947

The Alekseev I-211 flew in 1947

The Curtiss XP-87 flew in 1947 (and was the last Curtiss aircraft)

The Soviet Alekseev 140 flew in 1947

The Lavochkin La-156 flew in 1947

The Ilyushin Il-22 flew in 1947 and was very similar to the 4-engine Arado AR 234 variant

The North American XF-86 flew on 1 Oct 1947

The North American B-45 flew in 1947

The Republic F-84 flew in 1947

The Northrop YB-49 flew in 1947

The Tuploev Tu-12 flew in 1947 and looks like a jet version of the North American B-25 Mitchell

The Tupolev Tu-14 flew in 1947

The Yakovlev Yak-17 flew in 1947

The Yakovlev Yak-19 flew in 1947

The Leduc 0.10 flew in 1947

The Convair XB-46 flew on 2 Apr 1947

The Saunders-Roe SR.A-1 flew on 16 Jul 1947

The I.Ae.27 Pulqui flew 9 Aug 1947

The Armstrong-Whitworth AW.52 flew on 13 Nov 1947

The Boeing B-47 Stratojet flew 17 Dec 1947

The Alekseev I-215 flew in 1948

The Alekseev Model 150 flew in 1948

The Leduc 0.16 flew in 1948

The SNCAC NC.1071 flew in 1948

The SNCAC NC 1080 flew in 1948

The SNCASO SO-6020 flew in 1948

The SNCASO SO-6025 flew on 28 Dec1948

The Gloster E.1/44 (or GA.2) flew in 1948

The French Arsenal VG-70 flew in 1948

The Lavochkin La-168/176 both flew in 1948

The Lockheed T-33A flew in 1948

The Lavochkin La-15 flew in 1948

The Vickers-Armstrong Nene-Viking flew on 6 Apr 1948

The Northrop XF-89 Scorpion flew in 1948

The Sud Ouest 6000 flew in 1948

The SAAB J29 in 1948 (a VERY good fighter)

The McDonnel XF-88, which became the F-101 Voodoo, flew in 1948

The Vought F7U-1 Cutlass flew in 1948

The Sukhoi Su-10 was supposed to have flown in 1948

The Supermarine 510/517 flew in 1948, and became the Swift

The Chance-Vought F7U1 flew in 1948

The Avro Tudor 8 flew in 1948

The McDonnell XF-85 Goblin flew on 23 Aug 1948

The Convair XF-92 flew on 18 Sep 1948

The Hawker P.1052 flew on 27 Nov 1948

The Yakovlev Yak-23 flew in 1948

The Yakovlev Yak-25 (1st one) flew in 1948

The FFA EFE N-20.1 swept delta glider flew in 1949 leading to the Arbalette and Aiguillon (not really a jet, but the same airframe)

The Lavochkin La-200 flew in 1949

The Lavochkin La-15 UTI flew in 1949

The Arsenal VG-90 flew in 1949

The Republic XF-91 Thunderceptor flew in 1949

The Lockheed F-94 Starfire flew in 1949

The Hawker P.1040 flew in 1949

The de Havilland D.H. 106 Venom flew in 1949

The Yakovlev Yak-50 jet flew in 1949

The Yakovlev Yak-1000 flew in 1949

The Ilyushin Il-28 Beagle flew in 1949

The Martin XB-51 flew in 1949

The GrummanF9F-8 Panther flew in 1949

The Republic XF-91 flew 3 May 1949

The English Electric Canberra flew on 13 May 1949

The de Havilland Comet flew on 27 July 1949

The SAAB J21 RB flew in 1949

The French Nord (or SNCAN) 2200 flew in 1949

The Avro Canada C-102 Jetliner flew on 10 Aug 1949

The Avro Type 707 flew on 4 Sep 1949

The Lockheed XF-90 flew in 1949

The Sud Ouest M.2 flew in 1949

The Sukhoi Su-15 (1st one) flew in 1949

The Tupolev Tu-82/83 flew in 1949

The Chance-Vought F6U Pirate flew in 1949

So ... there were a LOT of early jets were out there! Cheers. If anyone find any more, please add to the list!

Reactions: Informative Informative:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Peter Gunn (Jan 5, 2018)

Duske said:


> *SNIP*
> 
> Thats why you are very pleased driving a German made automobile - no repairs anymore.
> 
> *SNIP*



Not really, I have two friends with late model high dollar Benz', you'd choke if you saw some of their repair bills. ( Thank God for warranties )

I think you're confusing German made cars with Japanese made cars when it comes to "no repairs anymore".

Toyota = bulletproof

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


----------



## pbehn (Jan 5, 2018)

buffnut453 said:


> I notice the OP has gone ominously silent. I'm tending to align with Biff15's thinking that this was just a trolling exercise. Still, at least I learned something from those who actually provided substantiated facts...so thank you, gents, for expanding my knowledge of early jet development.


Any discussion throws up useful information. I had briefly read about A.A. Griffith but only with regard to turbines, I didn't realise that his (and others) early work on metal fatigue and what is now the science of fracture mechanics changed the world as we know it. It was the knowledge of crack propagation and what caused it that saved the Liberty Ships programme. It is also the reason why we polish con rods in racing engines. The unfortunate by product of Mr Griffith's genius is that I spent weeks of my life witnessing C.T.O.D. tests, which are not only very complicated but also as mind numbingly boring as they are important.

Crack Tip Opening Displacement Testing (CTOD)

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 5, 2018)

Duske said:


> It is answered by just a few words. You are talking about what *you* had in construction but nothing really did work. By seeing all the send pictures
> it is just ridiculous how such an so called axial Jet engine could work right - as it showed and all of them were junk more ore less - unless you are telling
> which of does ones ever lift an airplane into the air - non did. As I reported my visit to the Hendon museum was a shocking one. Some arrogant militarian
> are still trying telling the world that the Whittle one was the first real jet engine ever pruduced by beeing unable telling that the one of von Ohain
> ...



Next time you're at Hendon, ask for Mr. Hendrix - a knowledgable man, has no bias, hi is from Leuven, Belgium. He rates German hardware pretty high. Once was very active in this forum, we even met once for real.
Nobody accused you for being Nazi oriented. BTW - who are 'you' that I've bolded in your post?
Japanese and Korean cars are every bit as good as German, if not a bit better these days.


----------



## buffnut453 (Jan 5, 2018)

Duske said:


> It is answered by just a few words. You are talking about what you had in construction but nothing really did work. By seeing all the send pictures
> it is just ridiculous how such an so called axial Jet engine could work right - as it showed and all of them were junk more ore less - unless you are telling
> which of does ones ever lift an airplane into the air - non did. As I reported my visit to the Hendon museum was a shocking one. Some arrogant militarian
> are still trying telling the world that the Whittle one was the first real jet engine ever pruduced by beeing unable telling that the one of von Ohain
> ...



I think you need to get over yourself...or at least get over some perceived slight that happened at Hendon some time ago. I'm not trying to tell any story at all, I'm simply disagreeing with you about your fundamental statements that seem to centre on the Whittle jet not really being a jet or that was somehow poorer than German-built jet engines.




Duske said:


> You people did deliver to the States your week Whittle one as it was proved within the Shooting Star.
> By all of your comments where was the fully functional axial Jet engine you had in spare then - just non.



You keep talking about the Whittle jet being "week" and yet it had more thrust than the Jumo 004. How is it possible that the engine you're decrying so much had better performance than the operational jet engine that powered the Me262?

As to the timing, the Metrovick F2 first ran in 1941 AFTER the Whittle jet was taken to the US. What you still haven't shared is how the F2 was influenced by German jet design. You keep saying that the UK had no axial jets and that all knowledge of axial jet technology came from Germany. How on earth did that happen in 1941 to enable the F2 to be bench run? Bench run = fully functional. No, it's not operational but it's up and running so how was it influenced by a German jet? Please answer that basic question that you've now been asked 4 (yes FOUR) times without a sensible response.




Duske said:


> We havent seen any Shooting Star over Germany.



What does that point have to do with anything? Meteors WERE operational and flying the same, largely defensive, mission that the Me262 was doing...and doing it rather well against the V-1 threat.




Duske said:


> Thats why you are very pleased driving a German made automobile - no repairs anymore.
> 
> I am not a Nazi orientated one. I am restoring engines since 50 years including some RR ones. That`s why.



I'm wondering if you can be any more jingoistic? Modern cars have NOTHING to do with the quality of jet engines produced in 1944-45 and, frankly, the Me262 engines were crap from a maintainability perspective.

Sorry for the rant but you're simply throwing out vitriol because you got offended at Hendon one time. Please answer (for the 4th time) my basic question about how German jet technology influenced a British jet engine that was running in 1941....and PLEASE stick to a consistent timeline in your criticism of British jet development.

Over to you...

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 5, 2018)

GregP said:


> The Messerschmitt Me 262 flew in 1941, but was delayed by politics until later



A minor correction if I may to an extensive and impressive list. 

The First prototype did indeed fly in April of 1941 but under the power of a Jumo 210 piston engine as no jets were available.
The V3 didn't fly with jets until March of 1942 and they were BMW units. The V3 had kept the Jumo in the nose which came in handy when both Jets failed during the short flight. 

Politics may very well have played a part but the lack of airworthy engine units sure didn't help in 1942/43.


----------



## wuzak (Jan 5, 2018)

Greg's list mentions the Meteor F.III, but does not mention that the prototype flew in March 1943 with Halford H.1 engines, owing to delays in the manufacture of the W.2B by Rover.

The first flight by Whittle W.2B engines was in June 1943. Not sure if they were still Rovers or were Rolls-Royces by that stage.

Another prototype Meteor flew with Metrovicks F.2 axial flow jet engines in November 1943.


----------



## swampyankee (Jan 5, 2018)

The history of the gas turbine engine is quite well documented,


Duske said:


> The GE J 79 I catched from Wikipedia. But you are right it was the GE J 57 - constructed by the German Neumann as I said, the director of
> General Electric of does days. Well known in the States as Herrmann the German. He became director of GE because the J 57 he designed became so famous. Some air-museum museum in Germany are named after him. So the J 57 traced ist lineage to the German axial Jet engine as Neumann was one of the heads of BRAMO. Just ask Hanns to learn more about



The J57 was from Pratt&Whitney, not GE. Neumann emigrated from Germany well before WW2; he was Jewish, by the nazi definition; he certainly would not have been let anywhere near a drawing board; had he remained in Germany, he would either be murdered or enslaved. The history of the gas turbine (which far predates the jet engine) is well-documented. If you have a significant issue with actual, published history, start citing documents from archives. If you want to do so with any credibility, make sure that you get rather basic facts straight. One is that the first gas turbine to operate with an axial compressor was built by Brown-Boveri, a Swiss company, with turbomachinery designed by Aurel Stodola, who was ethnically a Slovak. See web.mit.edu/aeroastro/labs/gtl/early_GT_history.html. Another is that British jet engine development during WW2 was quite successful, in many ways more so than that of the Germans. The Jumo 004 had such poor reliability and serviceability that none of the Allied powers would have accepted it into service.

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


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 5, 2018)

Duske said:


> It is answered by just a few words. You are talking about what you had in construction but nothing really did work. By seeing all the send pictures
> it is just ridiculous how such an so called axial Jet engine could work right - as it showed and all of them were junk more ore less - unless you are telling
> which of does ones ever lift an airplane into the air - *non did*. As I reported my visit to the Hendon museum was a shocking one. Some arrogant militarian
> are still trying telling the world that the Whittle one was the first real jet engine ever pruduced by beeing unable telling that the one of von Ohain
> did push his plane one year earlyer into the air. An ordinary guard there is telling some hundreds of visitors each day that the German axial Jet engine was the better one. What a shame ! Did you people ever tryed to correct this lie - no way. You are still trying telling the world a wrong story.



The Metrovick axial flow engines did power an airplane into the air, please see early post. 
The little westinghouse did not, but it was never intended to power an airplane, it was intended as a booster engine or an engine for a missile/drone. 
And it's big brother, also an axial flow, did power an aircraft into the air in Jan 1945. MacDonald Phantom I 




First run in March of 1943, with the aid of the allied time machine that allowed allied engineers to travel to the future to copy German engines. 
Granted it started at 1200lbs thrust and only hit 1600lbs in later production versions but wait.......
it was only 19in (483mm) in diameter compared to the Jumo 004s 32in (810mm) and it weighed about 830lbs compared to the Jumos roughley 1600lbs (depending on exact version). so for it's size and weight it was doing pretty good. 

General Electric, in addition to building a _series _of centrifugal engines based on the imported Whittle example but diverging by greater amount with each new version, was tasked with building a turbo prop in 1941.
They started with a 14 stage axial compressor and the engine (while not a flow through ) first ran on the 15th of May 1943, experience with this compressor led to a contract for a jet engine using an axial compressor called the TG-180. initial design called for a 4:1 pressure ratio and a mass flow of 75lbs a second. Hoped for thrust was 4000lbs. It did give 3620lbs in early tests. 
While it lifted no aircraft into the air during WW II, over 14,000 built of post war versions (production lasted until 1955) certainly did.
Diameter was about 37.5 in (953mm) and while the weight was 2425lbs or better, thrust went from 3750lb for early versions to 5400lbs in the last versions.

What the GE and Allison engineers could have learned from the 8 stage low pressure ratio compressor on the Jumo 004 that helped with the 11 stage 33% higher pressure ratio compressor I have no idea.

BTW GE went on to design and build the J-47, the experimental XJ-53 and the J73 before work really started on the J-79. While there is no doubt that 
Gerhard Neumann made many valuable contributions to GE engines they were not based on anything the Germans had done in 1939-39.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jan 5, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> A minor correction if I may to an extensive and impressive list.
> 
> The First prototype did indeed fly in April of 1941 but under the power of a Jumo 210 piston engine as no jets were available.
> The V3 didn't fly with jets until March of 1942 and they were BMW units. The V3 had kept the Jumo in the nose which came in handy when both Jets failed during the short flight.
> ...


This is an issue I have with this discussion. The Metrovick V2 was not adopted because of unreliability however it was eventually developed into the Sapphire. When two engines fail on the same flight the engine is obviously unreliable. If the UK was under the same threat from escorted daylight raids they may well have gone ahead and designed a plane around the Metrovick V2 and its descendants and accepted the losses as part of the grim calculation. If the Jumo 004 was a huge leap forwards then it would have been copied like the V2 rocket was, the fact is it wasn't.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Jan 5, 2018)

pbehn said:


> This is an issue I have with this discussion. The Metrovick V2 was not adopted because of unreliability however it was eventually developed into the Sapphire. When two engines fail on the same flight the engine is obviously unreliable. If the UK was under the same threat from escorted daylight raids they may well have gone ahead and designed a plane around the Metrovick V2 and its descendants and accepted the losses as part of the grim calculation. If the Jumo 004 was a huge leap forwards then it would have been copied like the V2 rocket was, the fact is it wasn't.



It wasn't just reliability that stopped the Metrovicks F.2 being adopted - the complexity of construction and manufacture was also a consideration.

The F.2 flew in the Meteor. The F.2 was improved as the F.2/2, F.2/3 and the F.2/4 Beryl, which flew in the Saunders-Roe SR.A/1 flying boat.

The F.3 was a an unducted fan version of the F.2/2, which was being worked on during the war. The F.5 was an unducted fan version of the F.2/4.

The F.2 gave more thrust and better specific fuel consumption than the contemporary centrifugal type jets engines in Britain.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 5, 2018)

I will freely grant that both German engines suffered from a lack of special alloys and the makeshift substitutes and workarounds significantly impacted reliability and longevity. 
I will also freely admit that the allied engines, even for 3-4 years after WW II were hardly paragons of virtue. 
The Germans may have had superior designs on the drawing boards compared to the Jumo 004 and BMW 003.
That does not mean that any western allied engines were copied, scaled up, scaled down or drawn in mirror image of any WW II German engines, The sole exception being the Early French Atar engine which was desinged by a fair number of ex-BMW engineers.
However the first run of the Atar 101 V1 was not made until March 26rd 1948. so again, it is hard to see where the supposed influence on British and American 1946-47-48 engines is supposed to have come from.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jan 5, 2018)

wuzak said:


> It wasn't just reliability that stopped the Metrovicks F.2 being adopted - the complexity of construction and manufacture was also a consideration.
> 
> The F.2 flew in the Meteor. The F.2 was improved as the F.2/2, F.2/3 and the F.2/4 Beryl, which flew in the Saunders-Roe SR.A/1 flying boat.
> 
> ...


I agree Wuzak, they were essentially research projects. If you can identify obvious faults then you propose solutions for the next generation. If your nation state is threatened you may well press on regardless. Compare the number of Jumo 004s, BMW 003 engines made plus Me 262s constructed to their number of claims/confirmed kills and losses and overall it was probably a loss to German industry.


----------



## parsifal (Jan 5, 2018)

Duske said:


> You are completly right ! England missed the Chance to create an axial Jet engine. Germany was forced to do so.
> The Germany of does days was a misled Nation and a Herr Hitler was an Idiot. But we have shown better by now.



Much as I cannot stand hitler, arguing in any form that Germany was a "misled nation" defeated by mismanagement is misconstruing the truth. 

it has been proven many times, in many places that the germans were fully aware of what they were doing, were fully complicit to the conduct of the war and there were many mistakes made not just by hitler. Blaming hitler solely for Germany's defeat is a half truth, which makes it a lie of the worst kind. hitler was a factor, but he was not the only factor in German defeat. 

German designs as a rule were excellent pieces of technology and nearly useless engines for war. never more true than in thir jet and rocket engine development programs.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Duske (Jan 6, 2018)

pbehn said:


> If you had 380 Me 262s in combat every day the war would have taken a different turn.




Messerschmitt Me 262 – Wikipedia

Sorry can`t find an English version of this page. At least it shows within the first/upper section that 800 Me 262 were in service. Due to the TBO of 2 hours
of the engines there were only 350 available for daily combat.


----------



## pbehn (Jan 6, 2018)

Duske said:


> Messerschmitt Me 262 – Wikipedia
> 
> Sorry can`t find an English version of this page. At least it shows within the first/upper section that 800 Me 262 were in service. Due to the TBO of 2 hours
> of the engines there were only 350 available for daily combat.


Google Translate gives this translation which is how I read it, I spent 9 years in Germany. The highest number ever used in a day was 55 of which 27 were lost.

On 18 March 1945, 37 Me 262 formations from 1221 bombers and 632 fighter planes attacked. Twelve bombers and two hunters were shot down on two of their own losses. The maximum number of flights of the Me 262 took place on April 10, 1945. At 55 stakes of the Me 262, ten bombers were shot down, but their own losses amounted to 27 fighter planes this time

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Marcel (Jan 6, 2018)

To help you guys translate:


> Zwischen 1943 und 1945 wurden 1433 Exemplare der zweistrahligen Maschinen gebaut, von denen im Zweiten Weltkrieg etwa 800 Stück bei der Luftwaffe der Wehrmacht zum Einsatz kamen.


= 1433 of the two-jet machines were build between 1943 and 1945, out of which about 800 were put into service with the Luftwaffe of the Wehrmacht.



> Insgesamt wurden 1433 Me 262 gebaut, davon waren aber meist nicht mehr als 100 Maschinen (oft auch weniger) gleichzeitig einsatzbereit.


Altogether 1433 ME262s were built, but usually there were not more than 100 machines (mostly less) combat ready at any time.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Jan 6, 2018)

Duske said:


> Thats why you are very pleased driving a German made automobile - no repairs anymore.



Obviously you've never owned a BMW! I love driving them, have driven a few, from M3s to 320s, 325s etc of different years, but I'd never own one, too much maintenance required and too expensive to run. Very cheap to buy, even low houred ones here, Audis and Mercs are the same. When they work, they go fine, but you know that eventually, they are gonna fail. Beaut cars though, when they do work. BMW = Battered Mitsubishi Wagon.

Oh, about the P-80 prototype, the engine was not a Whittle, it was a Halford H.1 (by Frank Halford working for de Havilland) and the failure was not the engine, but the jet's intake sidewalls were too weak, which caused the engine to suck them into itself. Again matey, you need to get your facts straight if you expect people to take you seriously.

As for the Me 262, let's not gloss over its reliability issues brought about by the fact that its engines were not made of good quality materials, such as those used in British and US engines, restricting the Me 262 to around 5 to 25 hours time between overhaul. Not very practicable when you are trying to stop from losing (because, let's face it, even by 1944, when Me 262s hit the front lines, victory was beyond the Germans' abilities, what with their industry being decimated by Allied bombing).

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Milosh (Jan 6, 2018)

The Smith/Creek 4 vol. tome is an excellent resource for the Me262. Part is day to day operations of the Me262.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Duske (Jan 6, 2018)

swampyankee said:


> The history of the gas turbine engine is quite well documented,
> 
> 
> The J57 was from Pratt&Whitney, not GE. Neumann emigrated from Germany well before WW2; he was Jewish, by the nazi definition; he certainly would not have been let anywhere near a drawing board; had he remained in Germany, he would either be murdered or enslaved. The history of the gas turbine (which far predates the jet engine) is well-documented. If you have a significant issue with actual, published history, start citing documents from archives. If you want to do so with any credibility, make sure that you get rather basic facts straight. One is that the first gas turbine to operate with an axial compressor was built by Brown-Boveri, a Swiss company, with turbomachinery designed by Aurel Stodola, who was ethnically a Slovak. See web.mit.edu/aeroastro/labs/gtl/early_GT_history.html. Another is that British jet engine development during WW2 was quite successful, in many ways more so than that of the Germans. The Jumo 004 had such poor reliability and serviceability that none of the Allied powers would have accepted it into service.




Kurt Welter – Wikipedia

Pilot Kurt Welter was one of the most highly decorated jet pilots during WW 2. He reached 63 victorys during only 93 combats. 56 victorys at night runs and 25 with the Me 262. So there must be something wrong when telling a wrong story about the Jumo 004. At least after each TBO by changing compressor shovels the Jet was ready to go again. They worked 24 h a day in three shifts to get the overhauling done. The Jumo 004 did pruduce 5150 kW/7000 hp
at full throttle. This could only be reached by using a 12 stage compressor as an axial Jet engine. By showing only a single compressor the Whittle radial one could not compete. It`s your turn telling the max hp of a Whittle one. In my opinion a single compressor is unable feeding the engine with enough air at high rpm. That`s why the Shooting Star did show such a poor Performance - a wasted investment. With the first German Jet they captured the US copied it - as they stated ! This Statement can be seen at almost every US-Air Museeum - but impossible for Hendon. That makes the difference !

Why did the US took out everything they could grab - when you had everything better up front and that long before as you say.

Messerschmitt Me 262 – Wikipedia
Die Strahltriebwerke der *Me 262* lieferten bei niedriger Geschwindigkeit im Vergleich zu Propeller-Antrieben relativ wenig, bei hoher Geschwindigkeit dagegen vergleichsweise viel Schub (bei der *Me 262* rund 5150 kW / *7000 PS*); außerdem wies die Maschine wegen ihrer hohen Masse eine geringere Wendigkeit als die ...
*Stückzahl*‎: ‎1433
*Hersteller*‎: ‎Messerschmitt AG
*Erstflug*‎: ‎18. Juli 1942
*Typ*‎: ‎Strahlgetriebener‎ ‎Jagdbomber


----------



## pbehn (Jan 6, 2018)

This discussion has gone no where and is going no where, I give up now.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Jan 6, 2018)

Jumo 004B-1 (the major production version): 1,985lbf static thrust, 720kg weight, pressure ratio 3.0:1 to 3.5:1
Rolls-Royce Wellend (Whittle engine with reverse flow combustors, fitted to 20 Meteor F.Is and 15 Meteor F.IIIs): 1,600lb static thrust, 386kg,
Rolls-Royce Derwent I (main engine for Meteor F.III, straight through combustors): 2,000lbf static thrust, 442kg, 3.9: pressure ratio
Halford H.1/de Havilland Goblin I: 2,300lbf (prototype) - 2,700lbf (production) static thrust
Allison J33 (used on production P-80s): 4,600lbf (maximum), 3,900lbf (normal) static thrust, 825kg, 4.1:1 pressure ratio
Metropolitan Vickers F.2: 1,800lbf static thrust for initial testing, >2,000lbf static thrust during development
Metropolitan Vickers F.2/2: 2,400lbf static thrust, 680kg, 3.5:1 pressure ratio
Metropolitan Vickers F.3 (F.2/2 with unducted fan): 4,000lbf static thrust + 38% improvement in specific thrust (which was already better than those above)

EDIT:
Armstrong Siddeley ASX: 2,600lb static thrust, 862kg, pressure ratio 5:1.

According to Wiki, the ASX had a 14-stage axial reverse-flow compressor.
Armstrong Siddeley ASX - Wikipedia

EDIT 2:
The Jumo 004B only had an 8 stage compressor


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 6, 2018)

Duske said:


> . The Jumo 004 did pruduce 5150 kW/7000 hp
> at full throttle. This could only be reached by using a 12 stage compressor as an axial Jet engine. By showing only a single compressor the Whittle radial one could not compete. It`s your turn telling the max hp of a Whittle one. In my opinion a single compressor is unable feeding the engine with enough air at high rpm. That`s why the Shooting Star did show such a poor Performance - a wasted investment. With the first German Jet they captured the US copied it - as they stated ! This Statement can be seen at almost every US-Air Museeum - but impossible for Hendon. That makes the difference !
> 
> Messerschmitt Me 262 – Wikipedia
> ...



Translation by google so correction welcome.

The jet engines of the Me 262 delivered relatively little at low speed compared to propeller engines, but relatively high thrust at high speed (around 5150 kW / 7000 hp for the Me 262); In addition, the machine had a lower maneuverability because of its high mass than the ...


So here we are comparing an _estimated _hp of *TWO *engines to the _thrust _of a single engine to show the superiority of the German engine?

The P-80 did not use a "Whittle" engine. It did use a centrifugal compressor. They were General electric I-40s (later called J-33s)
the early P-80s used a 4,000lb thrust version (which weighed 1850lbs, a little over 200lbs more than the Jumo 004)
Please note that *each *Jumo 004 was making *less* that 2000lbs thrust. Both thrust ratings at sea level.

The Jumo engines used in the Me 262 used an eight stage compressor, not TWELVE.










converting thrust to HP is very tricky as it is dependent on aircraft speed. A jet sitting on the runway with brakes locked and/or wheels chocked is making zero horsepower regardless of how much thrust it is making because it is not moving.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 6, 2018)

Duske said:


> Why did the US took out everything they could grab - when you had everything better up front and that long before as you say.


The British and French did the same and there was a limited amount of aircraft "grabbed." Educate yourself, read about operation lusty. 

There is no doubt that there were many aspects of German aviation technology that surpassed what the allies had AT THAT TIME, but that superiority was being eclipsed and as we all know ultimately did not make a difference in the end.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 6, 2018)

I would note that communication in 1945 was nowhere near what it is today (could take guys at the front several days to communicate with officers/engineers at home even with the utmost priority.) 
I would also point out that secrecy was carried out to an absurd level (at least in the US) With the US Army not only prohibiting contact between companies/projects but prohibiting contact between different factories/programs within the same company. The General Electric teams developing the centrifugal engines not being allowed to communicate with the team developing the axial flow turbo-prop and jet engine for example, even on burner construction or power turbine design.
The idea that officers/engineers in Europe in the spring of 1945 were fully up to date on the latest developments in testlabs back in the US is absurd. 

Officers in the field in Germany in May on of 1945 having very little idea of what the engineers back home were doing or had accomplished, so they grabbed everything they could to sorted out later. 

I would also point out, that* until *you grab everything and sort it out you don't have any real idea how useful (or useless) it will be.


----------



## Duske (Jan 6, 2018)

FLYBOYJ said:


> The British and French did the same and there was a limited amount of aircraft "grabbed." Educate yourself, read about operation lusty.
> 
> There is no doubt that there were many aspects of German aviation technology that surpassed what the allies had AT THAT TIME, but that superiority was being eclipsed and as we all know ultimately did not make a difference in the end.




There was much more to grab than they could carry. I am talking about the thousands of Jet engines which went for overhauling each night by truck or train
between the airfields and factorys. Each Jet had to had two engines in spare for changing by knowing about the short TBO of 2 h. So Jet engines were stored all over Germany as some factories did the overhaul. 1400 Me 262 were build - times three = 4200 engines. This was a huge project as they had almost a complete underground production line installed for producing 1200 Me 262 a day !!! The short TBO only because they could not get Kobalt and Mangan for making the compressor blades heat resisting. But a flight time of two hours ment two combats. By sending down 3 or 4 bomber each time it was a very good result. The Me 262 was so dangerous because of it`s big cannons - 40mm. If one bullet did hit a wing spar the wing broke off. (explosiv bullets)


----------



## Airframes (Jan 6, 2018)

If the Me 262 was serviceable to get into the air to deliver the shell, first getting through the fighter escort, and if there was sufficient fuel to get the serviceable Me 262 into the air, after towing it across the field with horses or bullocks.
There is no doubt that the Me 262 was the first jet to see active service, and the basics of the aircraft were sound - but, at the time, it was NOT a wonder weapon and, under the circumstances in the dwindling Reich at the time, never would be, especially the engines. Given time (which was not an option), with development, funding, testing and more experience of jet fighter operation, it could have turned out to be a superb machine, but the *facts* and *figures* already presented here show that this didn't happen, regardless of personal opinion, revisionist bull sh*t merchants, Santa Claus or the tooth fairy, so please, do yourself a favour, and stop digging a bigger hole which is rapidly filling up with effluent !


----------



## pbehn (Jan 6, 2018)

For a while when I lived in Germany I stayed in a huge farm house with a family in the Giforn region. The old guy Otto who owned the place was in the quivailant of the RAF regiment, a soldier trained to protect airfields. For a while he was on a field with 262s operating. Whenever the name was mentioned he just looked whistfully in the distance and muttered "schönes Flugzeug".


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 6, 2018)

A short history (probably slightly flawed) of the GE centrifugal engines.


In March of 1941 a committee is formed to explore jet engine propulsion with representatives from Army, Navy, NACA, MIT, John Hopkins and three US turbine manufactures, including GE. General Arnold had excluded American aircraft engine manufacturers considering they already had enough work to do.
In May of 1941 General Arnold is shown the British jet engine and the Gloster E28/39.
All three companies (Allis-Chalmers, GE and Westinghouse) submitted proposals at about the same time, all using axial flow compressors.

General Arnold returns to Washington and requests that GE send an engineer to England to assess the British work. However GE already had an engineer in England doing turbocharger work who had become aware of the Whittle's jet engine work. Starting in July of 1941 details started to be worked out to transfer British Jet engine technology to the US and this was pretty much completed by autumn of 1941.
Early Sept has preliminary drawings of the Whittle W.1X engine in GE's hands and October sees the W.1x engine showup (it had been used for taxi tests of the E28/39) and Drawings of Rover W.2B engine along with 3 personnel from Power Jets. GE gets a contract for 15 engines. At the same time Bell gets a contract for the XP-59 jet fighter.
GE had not received a complete set of drawings for the W.1X engine and GEs initial engines were a combination of features from the W.1X and W.2B engine with some modifications to conform to GE design practices and the substitution of American alloy/s for British ones, most importantly the substitution of Hastelloy B for Nimonic 80.
The First GE engine was run on March 18th 1942 but suffered from compressor stall, first successful run was April 18th 1942.
IN June of 1942 Frank Whittle visits GE withdrawings of the W.2/500 engine and redesigns the compressor casing and diffuser of the GE 1-A engine.
At this point the engine made 1300lbs of thrust but was far from reliable. many engines blowing up on the test stand. It was found that the compressor blades were often cracked. A redesign with fillets where the blades joined the disc solved that problem.
First flight of the XP-59 was made Oct 1st 1942. Engines were rated at 1250lbs and were GE 1-A2s.

Now we get into an overlapping series of engines modifications.
The GE I-14B engine started work in May of 1942 using a new GE compressor housing and diffuser and the Whittle W.2/500 turbine. There was also a new combustion chamber design. It made it's first bench run in Feb 1943 but would not fly until Feb 1944 (?).
In the meantime GE had started work on the I-16 engine with small modifications to simplify production and raise thrust to 1600lbs. It makes it's first bench run April 24th 1943 and soon gives 1625lbs of thrust for a weight of 804lbs. one source says 241 were eventually made. First flight was Aug, 15th 1943 (I have no idea why the early I-14B is listed as flying later)
The I-18 followed with design starting in 25th of May 1943 and first run on Jan 18th 1944 and first flown Nov 1st 1944. thrust was 1800lbs.
The I-20 design started June 9th 1943 and was first run April 21st 1944. it was never test flown.
Probably (but I don't know) because GE was asked to build a 3000lb thrust engine in early 1943 and that was soon changed to a 4,000lb thrust target.
Design work started the same day as the I-20 engine.
This was the first GE engine to use straight through combustion chambers instead of reverse flow. First drawings were ready in Sept of 1943 and manufacture of parts began as soon as the drawings for each part were ready. The engine was ready for testing in Jan of 1944 but wouldn;t run for the first few days. They did get it to run on Jan 13th 1944 but the turbine needed redesign, a new one was built and installed and in Feb 1944 the engine made 4000 lbs thrust on the test stand. (already way ahead of the I-20 engine)
Early service engines were rated at 3850lbs thrust and it did take until June of 1945 to reach a 50 hour pre-flight rating test.
Nobodies early jet engines were very reliable of long lasting.
It took until May of 1946 for the I-40 (now known as the J-33) to pass a 100 hour test, but with the -23 version it was now making 4600lbs of thrust and with water injection 5,400lbs. in later versions the thrust went up even more and in the last version/s (-35) time between overhauls could reach 1,400 hours.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Duske (Jan 6, 2018)

pbehn said:


> For a while when I lived in Germany I stayed in a huge farm house with a family in the Giforn region. The old guy Otto who owned the place was in the quivailant of the RAF regiment, a soldier trained to protect airfields. For a while he was on a field with 262s operating. Whenever the name was mentioned he just looked whistfully in the distance and muttered "schönes Flugzeug".




So what`s wrong with that ?
By visiting a good friend in the UK almost every year with my plane he said: Beside all the British planes the Me 262 was a "Beauty".
Which means "schönes Flugzeug" He is a Flight Engineer


----------



## Airframes (Jan 6, 2018)

Are you, by any chance, Volke Teske ?


----------



## pbehn (Jan 6, 2018)

Duske said:


> So what`s wrong with that ?
> By visiting a good friend in the UK almost every year with my plane he said: Beside all the British planes the Me 262 was a "Beauty".
> Which means "schönes Flugzeug" He is a Flight Engineer


FFS nothing is wrong with that it is just an anecdote, now I see why you had an issue at Hendon, it is because you have an issue in general, especially with facts concerning WW2 jets. You choose to quote this post to start another aspect to your argument and ignore dozens of posts which show what you are saying is nonsense. I will now use the ignore facility because you are driving me NuuuttttttzzzzZZZZZZZ.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Duske (Jan 6, 2018)

Very good search !


----------



## Airframes (Jan 6, 2018)

To which post are you referring ?

I asked about your name out of interest. I had a friend, back in the 1980's and early 1990's, who came every year to the UK in his Jodel, and one of our mutual friends was a Flight Engineer.


----------



## Duske (Jan 6, 2018)

Airframes said:


> If the Me 262 was serviceable to get into the air to deliver the shell, first getting through the fighter escort, and if there was sufficient fuel to get the serviceable Me 262 into the air, after towing it across the field with horses or bullocks.
> There is no doubt that the Me 262 was the first jet to see active service, and the basics of the aircraft were sound - but, at the time, it was NOT a wonder weapon and, under the circumstances in the dwindling Reich at the time, never would be, especially the engines. Given time (which was not an option), with development, funding, testing and more experience of jet fighter operation, it could have turned out to be a superb machine, but the *facts* and *figures* already presented here show that this didn't happen, regardless of personal opinion, revisionist bull sh*t merchants, Santa Claus or the tooth fairy, so please, do yourself a favour, and stop digging a bigger hole which is rapidly filling up with effluent !






Airframes said:


> If the Me 262 was serviceable to get into the air to deliver the shell, first getting through the fighter escort, and if there was sufficient fuel to get the serviceable Me 262 into the air, after towing it across the field with horses or bullocks.
> There is no doubt that the Me 262 was the first jet to see active service, and the basics of the aircraft were sound - but, at the time, it was NOT a wonder weapon and, under the circumstances in the dwindling Reich at the time, never would be, especially the engines. Given time (which was not an option), with development, funding, testing and more experience of jet fighter operation, it could have turned out to be a superb machine, but the *facts* and *figures* already presented here show that this didn't happen, regardless of personal opinion, revisionist bull sh*t merchants, Santa Claus or the tooth fairy, so please, do yourself a favour, and stop digging a bigger hole which is rapidly filling up with effluent !




Do not touch the Empire - Hendon will strafing you


----------



## Marcel (Jan 6, 2018)

pbehn said:


> I will now use the ignore facility because you are driving me NuuuttttttzzzzZZZZZZZ.


Nothing new then 




Duske said:


> Do not touch the Empire - Hendon will strafing you



D
 Duske
stop making those idiotic posts that make no sense or you are out of here.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Duske (Jan 6, 2018)

Airframes said:


> To which post are you referring ?
> 
> I asked about your name out of interest. I had a friend, back in the 1980's and early 1990's, who came every year to the UK in his Jodel, and one of our mutual friends was a Flight Engineer.




Had some problems with my PC but now it works again. Due to data security I am not allowed to name any name.
At least that he is flying a "Arrow". Sorry to tell


----------



## buffnut453 (Jan 6, 2018)

Duske said:


> Do not touch the Empire - Hendon will strafing you



Oh good grief. I'm out of this thread. This eejit just won't take the hint and won't drop some long-held affront...and consistently fails to answer questions about the "facts" he's generating. 

I'm with pbehn and heading off to the Land of Nod because the alternative of participating in this thread is clearly a waste of my time.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Duske (Jan 6, 2018)

Marcel said:


> Nothing new then
> 
> 
> 
> ...






Marcel said:


> Nothing new then
> 
> 
> 
> ...





I have no problem with that. I better stick to the US as they undestand what they have received from us - instead of a lot of junk from the UK before.
A Wernherr von Braun, German, did shoot the world into space. Got it ? What a low minded community.


----------



## fubar57 (Jan 6, 2018)

buffnut453 said:


> Oh good grief. I'm out of this thread. This eejit just won't take the hint and won't drop some long-held affront...and consistently fails to answer questions about the "facts" he's generating.
> 
> I'm with pbehn and heading off to the Land of Nod because the alternative of participating in this thread is clearly a waste of my time.

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


----------



## Marcel (Jan 6, 2018)

Duske said:


> I have no problem with that. I better stick to the US as they undestand what they have received from us - instead of a lot of junk from the UK before.
> A Wernherr von Braun, German, did shoot the world into space. Got it ? What a low minded community.



Okay, you are out of here...

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


----------



## Gnomey (Jan 6, 2018)

Well that was entertaining...



Duske said:


> What a low minded community.



 if he thinks we're low minded he must be an ameoba...


----------



## Airframes (Jan 6, 2018)

I can think of a few better terms - opinionated, anglophobic pr*ck being one of the more polite ones !
And, given that he is German, how come he can't spell German names etc properly ?


----------



## pbehn (Jan 6, 2018)

Gents, the simple act of using the ignore facility once turns this into a very informative thread on jet development in the early years, no information is lost at all, quite remarkable really.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## fubar57 (Jan 6, 2018)

pbehn said:


> Gents, the simple act of using the ignore facility once turns this into a very informative thread on jet development in the early years, no information is lost at all, quite remarkable really.



I do that with the Zipper involved threads


----------



## Marcel (Jan 6, 2018)

pbehn said:


> Gents, the simple act of using the ignore facility once turns this into a very informative thread on jet development in the early years, no information is lost at all, quite remarkable really.


So I'll leave it open. By all means, please add to the information here. But gentlemen, please leave you national pride out of it.


----------



## fubar57 (Jan 6, 2018)

Marcel said:


> So I'll leave it open. By all means, please add to the information here. But gentlemen, please leave you national pride out of it.



I have yet to start on the Canadian side of this discussion

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


----------



## Marcel (Jan 6, 2018)

fubar57 said:


> I have yet to start on the Canadian side of this discussion
> 
> View attachment 478323​


And I on the Dutch side

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


----------



## pbehn (Jan 6, 2018)

fubar57 said:


> I have yet to start on the Canadian side of this discussion
> 
> View attachment 478323​


Who did you steal that off?


----------



## Graeme (Jan 6, 2018)

The Hortens stole from us.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Funny Funny:
4 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 6, 2018)

Duske said:


> There was much more to grab than they could carry. I am talking about the thousands of Jet engines which went for overhauling each night by truck or train
> between the airfields and factorys. Each Jet had to had two engines in spare for changing by knowing about the short TBO of 2 h. So Jet engines were stored all over Germany as some factories did the overhaul. 1400 Me 262 were build - times three = 4200 engines. This was a huge project as they had almost a complete underground production line installed for producing 1200 Me 262 a day !!! The short TBO only because they could not get Kobalt and Mangan for making the compressor blades heat resisting. But a flight time of two hours ment two combats. By sending down 3 or 4 bomber each time it was a very good result. The Me 262 was so dangerous because of it`s big cannons - 40mm. If one bullet did hit a wing spar the wing broke off. (explosiv bullets)



OK but I still don't know what you're trying to say. The allies evaluated captured German equipment but it wasn't by the thousands.

I think other posters showed the combat record for the -262. An innovative aircraft but too little too late.
EDIT
Ooops! Behind the power curve. I see the inevitable happened.


----------



## Wurger (Jan 6, 2018)

Duske said:


> ...A Wernherr von Braun, German, did shoot the world into space. Got it ? .

Reactions: Funny Funny:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Jan 6, 2018)

Duske said:


> Kurt Welter – Wikipedia
> 
> Pilot Kurt Welter was one of the most highly decorated jet pilots during WW 2. He reached 63 victorys during only 93 combats. 56 victorys at night runs and 25 with the Me 262. So there must be something wrong when telling a wrong story about the Jumo 004. At least after each TBO by changing compressor shovels the Jet was ready to go again. They worked 24 h a day in three shifts to get the overhauling done. The Jumo 004 did pruduce 5150 kW/7000 hp
> at full throttle. This could only be reached by using a 12 stage compressor as an axial Jet engine. By showing only a single compressor the Whittle radial one could not compete. It`s your turn telling the max hp of a Whittle one. In my opinion a single compressor is unable feeding the engine with enough air at high rpm. That`s why the Shooting Star did show such a poor Performance - a wasted investment. With the first German Jet they captured the US copied it - as they stated ! This Statement can be seen at almost every US-Air Museeum - but impossible for Hendon. That makes the difference !
> ...



WHat


Duske said:


> Kurt Welter – Wikipedia
> 
> Pilot Kurt Welter was one of the most highly decorated jet pilots during WW 2. He reached 63 victorys during only 93 combats. 56 victorys at night runs and 25 with the Me 262. So there must be something wrong when telling a wrong story about the Jumo 004. At least after each TBO by changing compressor shovels the Jet was ready to go again. They worked 24 h a day in three shifts to get the overhauling done. The Jumo 004 did pruduce 5150 kW/7000 hp
> at full throttle. This could only be reached by using a 12 stage compressor as an axial Jet engine. By showing only a single compressor the Whittle radial one could not compete. It`s your turn telling the max hp of a Whittle one. In my opinion a single compressor is unable feeding the engine with enough air at high rpm. That`s why the Shooting Star did show such a poor Performance - a wasted investment. With the first German Jet they captured the US copied it - as they stated ! This Statement can be seen at almost every US-Air Museeum - but impossible for Hendon. That makes the difference !
> ...



Good for Kurt Welter, but what does that have to do with the development of the jet engine? 

So far, you've told us about Gerhard Neumann, who left Germany before WW2 and had absolutely nothing to do with jet engine development in Germany (under the nazi racial laws, he was Jewish), a random fighter pilot, and attributed the manufacturer of the engines on many of the 1950s US military aircraft to the wrong company. 

I don't give a damn about some fighter pilot; he had no significant role in jet engine development. I want citations to primary documents with verified provenance, and since you're making claims in contradiction to the consensus position -- for which we can provide citations -- it's your responsibility to give us something other than your opinion and fables to back it up.

And if you're going to claim some sort of ethical failure on the part of the Allies for taking German stuff, read a bit of history that was published about WW2 in, say, Poland. Or Belgium, Slovakia, Czechia, ....


----------



## buffnut453 (Jan 6, 2018)

Swampyankee,

You're tilting at windmills, i'm afraid. Duske has been booted off the forum for his continued Anglophobic rhetoric and unwillingness to engage in reasoned conversation.

However, I agree with everything you wrote.

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


----------



## swampyankee (Jan 6, 2018)

buffnut453 said:


> Swampyankee,
> 
> You're tilting at windmills, i'm afraid. Duske has been booted off the forum for his continued Anglophobic rhetoric and unwillingness to engage in reasoned conversation.
> 
> However, I agree with everything you wrote.



Thanks.

I needed to rant a bit, though, and he gave me a good chance to do it

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Jan 7, 2018)

swampyankee said:


> I needed to rant a bit, though, and he gave me a good chance to do it



He tended to invoke those emotions!


----------



## parsifal (Jan 7, 2018)

Has he gone/ if he was gone wouldn't there be a "banned" m_ar_ker on his profile?


----------



## buffnut453 (Jan 7, 2018)

Marcel said:


> And I on the Dutch side
> View attachment 478324



Currywurst?


----------



## Marcel (Jan 7, 2018)

parsifal said:


> Has he gone/ if he was gone wouldn't there be a "banned" m_ar_ker on his profile?


You get a line through his nickname.


----------



## swampyankee (Jan 7, 2018)

parsifal said:


> Has he gone/ if he was gone wouldn't there be a "banned" m_ar_ker on his profile?


Well, there is, at least as I write this, the word "banned" under his name. Perhaps the moderators should close this thread before more people beat his dead horse.


----------



## fubar57 (Jan 7, 2018)

Dang, I miss Duske already

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Marcel (Jan 7, 2018)

I could give you his email address, but am not allowed to do so.


----------



## fubar57 (Jan 7, 2018)

Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, the fun that would be


----------



## Marcel (Jan 7, 2018)

Yup, that's why it is not allowed.

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


----------

