Any good data on life of the Jumo 004?
- Thread starter tomo pauk
- Start date
This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
Tomo, I don't have my books out of storage yet, but one of them was an in-depth listing of all Me262s manufactured as well as data on the Jumo004 and BMW003 series engines.
Might be worth a look - the book's title is "Messerschmitt Me262: The Production Log 1941 - 1945" by Dan O'Connell
Might be worth a look - the book's title is "Messerschmitt Me262: The Production Log 1941 - 1945" by Dan O'Connell
IIRC The Americans were told and used an engine life of 24 hours.
Snowygrouch
Staff Sergeant
I dont think there is such a thing as reliable data for an engine which fails due to unreliability. Its difficult as its not a "normal" service life. However, as suggested above,
above 24hours is where its at.
This applies if the failure mode is the blades, however bearings or the combustor cans could also fail, at intervals which may or may not be 24hours....
Source:
CIOS-XI-6-XII-9-XIV-4
special ed
Senior Master Sergeant
- 3,584
- May 13, 2018
One of my books gave a German expected time between overhaul of 25 hours, but in actual service, averaged 17. A book on Russian aviation confirmed the time of 15-17 hrs before failure of The German 004B engines taken from Junkers. The Russian copies were of lessor quality which is why the early Russian jets used the German 004B (MiG-9, Yak-15). The Russian assembled 004B engines from German parts ran less than the German average of 17hrs. It would take a while to find the sources.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
I beleive it would also depend on which version of the 004B, as several modifications were done, the initial production version being the 004B-0.
B-1 and B-2 addressed vibration issues and saw improved thrust.
The B-4 had improved blades in the turbine.
The Czech's M-4 seemed to be the most reliable, the Soviet's RD-10 seemed to perform close to that of the 004B-0/1 for some reason.
B-1 and B-2 addressed vibration issues and saw improved thrust.
The B-4 had improved blades in the turbine.
The Czech's M-4 seemed to be the most reliable, the Soviet's RD-10 seemed to perform close to that of the 004B-0/1 for some reason.
For the 004A: The Development of the Junkers Jumo 004B", Journal of Engineering Gas Turbines Power, 1997 Vol. 119 pp 783-789
For the 004B: "The Junkers Jumo 004 Jet Engine", Aircraft Engineering, 1946. Vol. 18, pp 10-17
From "The Development of the Junkers Jumo 004B", Journal of Engineering Gas Turbines Power, 1997 Vol. 119 pp 783-789
For the 004B: "The Junkers Jumo 004 Jet Engine", Aircraft Engineering, 1946. Vol. 18, pp 10-17
From "The Development of the Junkers Jumo 004B", Journal of Engineering Gas Turbines Power, 1997 Vol. 119 pp 783-789
Around 40 hours - looking in context, not that bad at all - as it could look at the first sight !
According wikipedia, on J47 , General Electric J47 - Wikipedia
"Overhaul life for the J47 ranged from 15 hours (in 1948) to a theoretical 1,200 hours (625 achievable in practice) in 1956. For example, the J47-GE-23 was rated to run 225 hours time between overhauls. As installed on the F-86F, it experienced one in-flight shutdown every 33,000 hours in 1955 and 1956.[3]"
Jumo and J47 are engines with axial compressors and they should not be compared with centrifugal compressor engines - these are completely different sort of beast
According wikipedia, on J47 , General Electric J47 - Wikipedia
"Overhaul life for the J47 ranged from 15 hours (in 1948) to a theoretical 1,200 hours (625 achievable in practice) in 1956. For example, the J47-GE-23 was rated to run 225 hours time between overhauls. As installed on the F-86F, it experienced one in-flight shutdown every 33,000 hours in 1955 and 1956.[3]"
Jumo and J47 are engines with axial compressors and they should not be compared with centrifugal compressor engines - these are completely different sort of beast
