Erich
the old Sage
excuse me my hands are crap today due to caperal tunnel.....
it should read Bf 110G-4 not the day fighter G-2.
it should read Bf 110G-4 not the day fighter G-2.
Best Jet of the War?
- Thread starter cheddar cheese
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
- Status
Interesting stuff Erich, I did not know that about the 30mm. Now for the cockpit of the Meteor, I would think it would make it better for ground attack roles.
the lancaster kicks ass
Major General
- 19,937
- Dec 20, 2003
she did do a bit of ground attack based from belgium later in the war.......
That is all she did in the War besides take out some V-1's.
the lancaster kicks ass
Major General
- 19,937
- Dec 20, 2003
hey, she...ummm...scared lot's of people that didn't know planes could fly without propellers!!
delcyros
Tech Sergeant
I always thought the MK-108 would blind a lot, esspeccially in case of the Me-262, since the angle of view between the nose mounted guns and the Revi / EZ-42 is very narrow. (e.g. the spacial difference between line of sight and line of fire) It doesn´t cost much flashing to disrupt the line of sight temporarly. If you take the gaz effects into consideration, it´s going to be even more worse.
Interesting, Erich!
Interesting, Erich!
Erich
the old Sage
if true then the K-4 would not have had the nose mounted unit nor some of the G-6 and G-10 variants either. it had been already proven at night also with sufficient jamming that the Mk 108 mechanisms had to be replaced or at least lubed almost every mission.
the overall increase in speed to target meant very few seconds, like 1-2 for a Me 262 to fire and bank through a B-17 formation so a cannon with blinding effect would not be tolerated in the least bit.
the overall increase in speed to target meant very few seconds, like 1-2 for a Me 262 to fire and bank through a B-17 formation so a cannon with blinding effect would not be tolerated in the least bit.
the lancaster kicks ass said:
By that point eneogh people had seen the Me-262 I think.
the lancaster kicks ass
Major General
- 19,937
- Dec 20, 2003
no i mean in britian, when the Gloster E.28/39 flew for the first time the air ministry actually recieved phone calls from locals that had seen her, reporting a plane that was flying without a propeller, it was like black magic to them!
Sort of like when people see wierd shit out in the middle of the desert of Nevada.
- Thread starter
- #471
cheddar cheese
Major General
the lancaster kicks ass said:
They were behind the times, the Germans and the Italians were used to that
The Campini-Caproni C.C.2 was the fist jet to make a public appearance.
Are you sure about the C.C.2. I am not saying you are wrong but I just would have thought that it would have been either the Heinkel He-178 or the Gloster E28.
delcyros
Tech Sergeant
Public appearence of the early jets was a worrisome experiance. I read reports of jet engines mounted under Bf-110 test planes late in 1938. At least one time those powerplants ended up in the fields, scaring the farmers a lot.
I personally have great respect for the Gloster E 28/39, It was so advanced for it´s time: air intake in the nose, landing gear with nose mounted gear, very flat wings, good visibility and so on.
With enleghtened fuselage, structural reinforcement and more powerful engines (I think of a Goblin I or Dervent I / IV) this design would have made an excellent jet fighter.
I personally have great respect for the Gloster E 28/39, It was so advanced for it´s time: air intake in the nose, landing gear with nose mounted gear, very flat wings, good visibility and so on.
With enleghtened fuselage, structural reinforcement and more powerful engines (I think of a Goblin I or Dervent I / IV) this design would have made an excellent jet fighter.
Wonder why they left it and went for the Meteor design.
- Thread starter
- #475
cheddar cheese
Major General
DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
Yep positive. The He-178 flew first, with the C.C.2 following just days afterwards. The C.C.2 made the first offical public appearance of a jet though, before the E.28/39 even flew.
Hmm that I did not know. Didn't the C.C.2 barely break 200mph. Again I may be wrong.
- Thread starter
- #477
cheddar cheese
Major General
Nah it only done about 250mph. Strictly speaking it wasnt a fully fledged jet though, it used a radial engine to drive the turbine.
Ah now that is something that I did not know. I did not know that it used a radial engine.
- Thread starter
- #479
cheddar cheese
Major General
Like a gun, which 'reacts' with a quick backward movement (i.e. the recoil) when a projectile is shot forward at high speed, a jet engine derives its thrust by reaction to its high-speed ejection of combustion products, and by the expansion of heated air, which is pushed out at a higher speed than when the air is drawn in. (After all, ordinary propellers work in a similar way. They accelerate backwards the air mass that moves through their rotating blades.) These introductory remarks are meant to help our visitors gain an insight into the workings of Ing. Campini's thermojet. It is, in effect, to be considered more as a hybrid than as a jet engine proper. An internal combustion engine characterized by reciprocating motion of pistons in its cylinder - in our case, a 900 hp Isotta Fraschini L. 121/R.C. 40 engine - drove a compressor incorporating 2 ducted propellers and a propeller designed to direct the flow and minimize the breakdown of the smooth airflow. A ring of injectors (i.e. the burners) introduced kerosine, whose combustion increased the volume of the thermojet and the exhaust velocity.
It was an interesting application, albeit structurally different from German turbojets - like those fitted to the Messerschmitt Me 262 aircraft - which, in place of the reciprocating engine, featured a turbine-driven air compressor. The turbine was to be found past the blast chamber, and the air under pressure was heated not through the injectors, but through several blast chambers that heated the air by conduction. Which was a more effective solution. What's more, the higher the altitude and speed, the better the performance of turbojets. On the other hand, endothermic reciprocating engines - like the one used by Ing. Campini - attain top efficiency at sea level, while they call for an extra compressor to operate at high altitude where the air is rarefied.
The engine designed by Ing. Campini had many other drawbacks. That is, it was heavy and bulky, the type of engine used to drive the compressor was rather complex, the efficiency of the burner was low - although it came close to the best possible performance of the day -, and maximum power was considerably limited. This is why the German design - which came into use when World War II was drawing to an end, and was partly due to the British research work carried out in parallel - is the forerunner of the modern jet engines, while the Italian version has a purely historical value.
It was an interesting application, albeit structurally different from German turbojets - like those fitted to the Messerschmitt Me 262 aircraft - which, in place of the reciprocating engine, featured a turbine-driven air compressor. The turbine was to be found past the blast chamber, and the air under pressure was heated not through the injectors, but through several blast chambers that heated the air by conduction. Which was a more effective solution. What's more, the higher the altitude and speed, the better the performance of turbojets. On the other hand, endothermic reciprocating engines - like the one used by Ing. Campini - attain top efficiency at sea level, while they call for an extra compressor to operate at high altitude where the air is rarefied.
The engine designed by Ing. Campini had many other drawbacks. That is, it was heavy and bulky, the type of engine used to drive the compressor was rather complex, the efficiency of the burner was low - although it came close to the best possible performance of the day -, and maximum power was considerably limited. This is why the German design - which came into use when World War II was drawing to an end, and was partly due to the British research work carried out in parallel - is the forerunner of the modern jet engines, while the Italian version has a purely historical value.
Attachments
Still great stuff. That truely is somethign that I never knew. Thanks.
- Status
