FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
"The Ne-20 was made possible by Imperial Japanese Navy engineer Eichi Iwaya obtaining photographs and a single cut-away drawing of the German BMW 003 engine."
Ishikawajima Ne-20 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Best strategy to avoid nuking Japan
- Thread starter wuzak
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
"The Ne-20 was made possible by Imperial Japanese Navy engineer Eichi Iwaya obtaining photographs and a single cut-away drawing of the German BMW 003 engine."
Ishikawajima Ne-20 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Along with photographs - YES!
GregP
Major
That's what we have heard from Japanese visitors to the museum, it was reverse engineered from simple drawings and worked quite well, even if not many were made and used. Given time, they could have flown a lot of jets, but time was not forthcoming.
They were also about 4 years behind the American jet effort, which was essentially started from copying the Whittle engine. The first American jet engine wasn't for several years after that, though we DID improve the Whittle engine several times before that and made very good thrust relative to the original Whittle engine.
Our Bell YP-59A Airacomet project is using GE I-16 engines, which were essentially the first American improvement to the original GE I-A engines that were a copy of the original Whittle engine we were given. The original Whittle engine made 1,200 pounds of thrust for takeoff and the I-16 makes 1,600 - 1,650 pounds for takeoff at only 16,500 rpm.
Later the I-16 was renamed the J-31 and made 2,000 pounds of thrust. It made as much as 2,200 pounds of thrust before being turned into a new model called the J-33.
They were also about 4 years behind the American jet effort, which was essentially started from copying the Whittle engine. The first American jet engine wasn't for several years after that, though we DID improve the Whittle engine several times before that and made very good thrust relative to the original Whittle engine.
Our Bell YP-59A Airacomet project is using GE I-16 engines, which were essentially the first American improvement to the original GE I-A engines that were a copy of the original Whittle engine we were given. The original Whittle engine made 1,200 pounds of thrust for takeoff and the I-16 makes 1,600 - 1,650 pounds for takeoff at only 16,500 rpm.
Later the I-16 was renamed the J-31 and made 2,000 pounds of thrust. It made as much as 2,200 pounds of thrust before being turned into a new model called the J-33.
Last edited:
They built a rocket powered interceptor with little more;
"The J8M1 was intended to be a licence-built copy of the Messerschmitt Me 163 Komet. Difficulties in shipping an example to Japan meant that the aircraft eventually had to be reverse-engineered from a flight operations manual and other limited documentation."
Mitsubishi J8M - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Japanese had already worked on both jets and rockets of there own. So what they did was take the German information and created there own version. That is not the same as copy it from a photo.
Here is some info.
The Minijets Website: Ishikawajima NE20
GregP
Major
Zjtins,
A 440 pound thrust jet engine with 50% efficiency is a far cry from something that can power an aircraft. Their jet engine that actually flew was developed separately and independently from the little 440 pound thrust model jet, and it was developed from the German data.
The engine that flew the Kikka made 990 - 1,000 pounds of thrusts and were unrelated to the TR-10 amd TR-12 except for being turbines.
Everybody had turbines if they had a Navy at the time. The Parsons turbine ensured that after 1894 and the Turbinia.
A 440 pound thrust jet engine with 50% efficiency is a far cry from something that can power an aircraft. Their jet engine that actually flew was developed separately and independently from the little 440 pound thrust model jet, and it was developed from the German data.
The engine that flew the Kikka made 990 - 1,000 pounds of thrusts and were unrelated to the TR-10 amd TR-12 except for being turbines.
Everybody had turbines if they had a Navy at the time. The Parsons turbine ensured that after 1894 and the Turbinia.
Last edited:
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
The Japanese were plagued with "bad luck" courtesy of the Allies...it seems that even though they purchased engines, plans and complete airframes from the Germans, very few ever made it to the Japanese homeland...a vast majority of thier bought goods are laying at the bottom of the ocean.
So they had to improvise the best they could.
So they had to improvise the best they could.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Based on data from the Germans.
A4K
Brigadier General
Best strategy to avoid nuking Japan
Common sense, and forbidding itchy fingered idiots from entering the control room.
Common sense, and forbidding itchy fingered idiots from entering the control room.
Procrastintor
Senior Airman
VBF,lol, that was pretty... PUNNY!
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
If you say so - when you have data, similar parts and functional components used as a template for maufacturing, sounds like things were copied to me - so tell me, how many jet engines have you taken apart to make a comparison of "like" components?
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Not true, plenty of aircraft parts, components and systems were copied and not interchangeable
Example: Machine gun interupter gear
See statement 1 - I'd still like to know your turbine engine experience to make this determination though....
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
I never said I could copy a jet engine from a photo - but it was shown to you it was done by others a hell of a lot more talented than me and definitely more versed and knowledgeable than you.
BTW - 35 years in aviation, A&P/ IA Commercial Pilot and Flight instructor. Look up "AMT of the Year 2011."
Anytime you want to compare aviation resumes, I'm all ears. So far you have just proven you're nothing more than an arm chair short on wit and knowlege. I suggest you quit while you're NOT ahead and recognize your limitations!
Last edited:
Pilots do not design engines, engineers do.
FYI if you read your pilots manual or CMM some of what I do is in those.
You have shown nothing... you claimed it was a copy with no proof. Even a reverse engineered version today is not a copy. They built what the could but it was not a copy, if it was it would have had the same power/performance weight etc, it did not.
FYI if you read your pilots manual or CMM some of what I do is in those.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Users who are viewing this thread
Similar threads
