FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
In a jet you only have about 5 minutes of max power...
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
difference being you would have to slow down to similar airspeeds to fight in these jets and thats going to be nowhere near stall speed!
F4 fought, won and lost to Mig 15's and 17's over Vietnam so jet combat is not about absolute V-Max any more than piston engined fighter is!
I would guess better reliability and 1200 lbs less weight. German engines were not very good in the thrust-to-weight category. I think that in WW2 plus a few years engine evolution had not reached the axial flow engines yet. I suspect centrifugal compressor engines were simpler to build and more rugged, and probably more reliable than early axial engines, and, apparently a lot lighter.
Also, he was probably flying a later meteor model with more powerful engines.
F4 fought, won and lost to Mig 15's and 17's over Vietnam so jet combat is not about absolute V-Max any more than piston engined fighter is!
Meteors were the equal of F-86s and MiG 15's below 10,000ft and actually outclimbed them by a significant margin. Above about that altitude the tables began to turn due to the Mach limmit issuse becoming more critical than thrust/weight issues.
In a jet you only have about 5 minutes of max power...
How long does it take to make a high speed attack?
On the other hand:
I think this is correct for engines with afterburner due the horrible fuel consumption when used.
Just checked the book "Flugmotoren und Strahltriebwerke von Kyrill von Gersdorff (ISBN 9783763761289)" The Jumo 004 did not have a general time limit for the max power setting. The pilot has to keep care of the exhaust temperature and the max. rpm must not be exceeded instead. Early jet engines running cooler at lean max power setting than throttled down and running rich.cimmex
I think you're going to find this is a norm. About 5 minutes max power. Depending on the engine you might have 10 minutes at 96% and unlimited time at 92%. "Lean max power setting?" You don't have a mixture control on turbine engines.
This setting isn't so much "rich" as compared to a recip engine but allows excess fuel into the burners and is basically typical for all turbine engines, even those of that period. During the start cycle "excess" fuel is dumped into the burners to aid during the ignition cycle. On many turbine engines during the start cycle you have a "fuel valve" or "fuel c0ck" (as the Brits call it) that can control fuel flow output into the burner. During the start cycle as EGT rises the fuel control is supposed to limit the excess fuel into the burners so you don't get an over temp during the start cycle. If during the start the EGT rises close to the caution area, you can limit fuel flow via the fuel valve until ignition is stabilizes and the engine begins to idle on its own (usually about 30%) and the fuel control begins to do its job. During this time the throttles are kept in one position (ground idle) and not touched until idle speeds and engine temps stabilize.Of course there is no mixture control on turbine engines. But due the poor fuel regulation the air to fuel ratio is not ideal at the Jumo 004 so you get a rich setting at lower power which can lead to engine overheating or even flame out.
cimmex
@davparl and @Kryten,
The first German Jet engines to run and fly were in fact centrifugal types. The HeS 003 and the HeS 008. Not only did they have radial outflow (centrifugal compressors) they had radial inflow turbines.
German preference for axial designs was due to the perception that the high frontal area of centrifugal designs would cause airframe integration issues. The Meteors did indeed have seriously delaying airframe-propulsion integration issues that required spars forged to go around the engine and repeated engine nacelle redesign.
However Heinkel Hirth did bench the reaction type axial compressor HeS 006 and in production form would have produced 860kg thrust for 390kg weight as opposed to 880kg thrust for 745kg weight for the Jumo 004 which used impulse type blades.
The HeS 008 compressor was 10% more efficient and could do in 5 stages what the Jumo compressor required 8 stages.
For the Germans radically efficient production was of extreme importance and ahead of most other things.
Bottom Line: Me 262 was much faster than Meteor and P-80A during the period of the hostillities. It could out accelerate and outclimbe the P-80A and likely the Meteor (especially as the Meteor approched its top speed) at around 25,000ft.
F-4s never fought MiG-15s in Vietnam
Significant? What models of F-86 and Meteor are you talking about?? I worked for a man who owned both aircraft types (he still owns an F-86F) and he would beg to differ with you. He owned a Meteor (TT20). The Meteor accelerated well but it wasn't an F-86 or Mig-15 equal below 10,000 feet. It came close in some performance aspects but was still outclassed.
I'm thinking of the Meteor F8 versus the F-86A, the F8 seems to have had a noticeably better thrust to weight ratio. The F-86 went through many, quite radical in engineering terms, modifications that eliminated this T/W ratio inferiority.
RAAF F8's did engage MiG 15's. The RAAF was significantly outnumbered and the losses were 4:2 in favour of the MiG's
The XP-80 was no combat plane. I found this definition:
("X" from eXperimental design and developmental pure research programs, with no operational mission intended or feasible)
Regards
Cimmex
PursuitWhat does the 'P' stand for?