Do you mean "engine off" training as in flying without power ( ie gliding) or with one engine out, and trying to fly on the remaining one? Sounds like it was disasterous.
Best WW2 Fighter TIMELINE
- Thread starter timmy
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
I meant one engine off, especiallythe landing part of that training was a killer.
Yes, that is exactly what I was talking about, the swept wings and axial engines mean the 262 is considered more advanced. However this is purely superficial and does not stand up to scrutiny. People forget Britains own work on axial engines with Metrovick F.2's powering a meteor as early as 1943 and it was this engine that was developed directly into the AS Sapphire and Wright J65 that powered several successful 50's generation jets.
The centrifugal engines were, at that time, delivering more thrust and greater reliability so it was sensible to go with them.
The centrifugal engines were, at that time, delivering more thrust and greater reliability so it was sensible to go with them.
I guess the RAF thought it was a good idea at the time, considering the infancy of jet engines, but it looks as though it took a terrible toll of pilots , and probably morale. I have read a number of incidents where Me 262's landed on one jet only as well, with the added difficulty of enemy aircraft following them home. The Jumo 004 engines were quite temperamental, and flame outs were common, but considering everything else that was happening around them, landing on one engine was the least of their problems. It did not sem to cause as much assymetrical problems as the Meteor in that respect.
Pattern, to my mind there is a difference between 'better' and 'more advanced'. Advanced, to me, were the Me P.1101, Ta 183, Junkers EF132, Miles M.52 etc etc.
The Me 262 and the Meteor were technological equals. But I don't claim they were equally matched. The leading edge slats you refer to used to be called Handley Page Slots and were developed in the 1920's. The wing of the F.86 was basically a Messerschmitt wing, but the P.1111, not the the Me 262.
The Me 262 and the Meteor were technological equals. But I don't claim they were equally matched. The leading edge slats you refer to used to be called Handley Page Slots and were developed in the 1920's. The wing of the F.86 was basically a Messerschmitt wing, but the P.1111, not the the Me 262.
Last edited:
Didn't the axial flow Metrovick planes' engines self destruct, killing the pilot? I can't remeber the exact details, but I have seen photo's of the underslung nacelle F.2, as well as an intriguing turbo prop version.
I don't know, sounds interesting. The turboprop was called the Trent, no relation to the current Trent of course.
A lot of people believe that axial engine development only came from Germany though and the 262 gets credit there, that it didn't was the point I was making
A lot of people believe that axial engine development only came from Germany though and the 262 gets credit there, that it didn't was the point I was making
Last edited:
I see what you mean when put like that. I'm sure I read that original Me 262 parts ( the slats) were use on the F86 prototypes, but of course I could be wrong. The Me p1101 was an advanced aircraft for sure, but the Ta 183, ultimately to see life as the Argentinian Pulqui, was something of a flop. I don't agree that the 262 and Meteor were equals, but that is simply my opinion. If the Nazi's had won the war I would not be entitled to have one, so I guess I can thank the Meteor for that!
I edited my post since you quoted me to make clear that I don't rate them as equally matched, for all the same reasons you mentioned, only that there was nothing more technologically advanced about the Me262, like I suppose, how you could call the F.86 and MiG 15 technological equals, whilst recognising the US type as the better aircraft overall.
This reminds me of another question I have long pondered. Thinking about the P.1101 and Ta.183, where exactly does the SAAB J29 fit?
This reminds me of another question I have long pondered. Thinking about the P.1101 and Ta.183, where exactly does the SAAB J29 fit?
Yes
You're absolutely right, Waynos. I agree with you completely, the Meteor was no less advanced than the '262 as a fighter, but that is how the '262 is perceived in hindsight by many. That the Meteor underwent less of a transformation between the prototype flying and in service in the F.I than the Me 262 did shows that the technology and the design was sound compared with the German aircraft, directional snaking aside.
Indeed the Germans do get credit as the very first axial flow gas turbine (intended for aircraft powerplant and not including those developed for shipboard use) was bench tested in Germany by Herbert Wagner prior to the outbreak of WW2, although the engine was intended to drive a propeller and not intended to produce thrust.
The Trent turboprop was a Derwent fitted with a special reduction gear box, which drove a Rotol propeller.
Last edited:
I'm inclined to think that a lot of accidents and mishaps with the Me 262 ( and other Luftwaffe aircraft) were simply overshadowed by the actual combat usage and attrition rates. A number of pilots were killed and injured by Jumo engines flaming out or disintegrating, particularly as the Luftwaffe pilots were given considerably less training time than their allied counterparts. And they had to train under constant threat of interception, in aircraft made of poor quality materials by semi skilled labour. Plus all the other restrictions that plagued the luftwaffe ( and Germany in general) in the closing months of WW2. Collapsing nose wheels accounted for about 1/3 of accidents as well. It's the rat catching and the desperate dog fights that get the attention, not shedding impellor fans and leaking hydraulics. There was no rotation for German pilots; you fought until you died or were too injured to fly. Considering the conditions that the Me 262 operated under, they punched above their weight.
Was the SAAB referred to as the 'Tunnan", or am I getting my planes mixed up ( I've been replying to this thread during my break on night shift, and my mind tends to wander at 0300)
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Exactly! And I think this is where the myth about it being so advanced came from. By 1946 jet fighters from both the UK and the US made great strides in performance and reliability and were done so at a "not-so-priority' pace. If you look at the 262 construction, systems and armament it was quite contemporary for it's time.
Last edited:
Shortround6
Major General
It wasn't just jets that self destructed. More than a few turbo charged planes had the turbo charger 'explode' and destroy or damage the plane enough for it to lost. Some planes with fitted with 'scatter shields' between the turbo and crew station/s to catch flying pieces should the turbo fail. Red hot turbine blades and well over 20,000rpm meant even with super alloys failure was only a small margin away even with things running right.
When I think back to the books and magazines I read as a teenager, which portrayed the Nazi wonder weapons as being light years ahead of everyone else, it is little wonder that there is such a persistant mythical status about aircraft like the 262. I'm not surpised that websites like Luft46 have such a die hard following. Some of the crap I've read borders on delusional ( have you ever heard the one about how the Nazi's discovered a crashed flying saucer and harnessed alien technology!!!!!) . I haven't read "Arrow to the Future" and stuff like that, but Smith and Creeks 4 vol. hardcovers are very objective and really strive for historical acurracy. Sadly, the amount of inaccurate information and plain urban myth is stubbornly persistant.
Yes I have read those and many others like it. All part of the post war ufo craze.
I also grew up reading about the German wonder weapons. Couldn't help wondering why they didn't win the war then.
But to be fair, Germany did have some good developers, many brought back to Allied countries.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Arrow to the Future is a decent book, Walter Boyne did a good job in documenting the 262 story from historical documents and eye witnesses.
They are still doing it! A movie came out only last year called "iron Sky", where the Nazi's escaped and set up a base on the moon, returning to earth with futuristic weapons!!! and of course the Red Skull in the "Captain America" movie, with his Gotha style jet bomber and VTOL Focke wulf. The tesla towers that produce the magnetic field to knock the allied bombers out of the sky etc etc. I guess if you need bad guys to play a role, they are a natural choice. Nothing like a mad German scientist laughing maniacally in his castle on a stormy night......
Users who are viewing this thread
Similar threads
