Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
That was with the Meteor Mk.I, I believe that problem was resolved with the F Mk.3, though structural issues still limited allowable aileron response (and roll rate accordingly) and the problematic short-chord nacelles remained in use on all the Meteor 3s actually fielded. (the first few also continued to use 1600 lbf Welland engines, leaving them underpowered, while the 2000 lbf Derwent I would have only closed the gap for the Me 262)The meteor also suffered chronic problems with its armament when taking on V1s
from wiki
All other types combined added 158. The still-experimental jet-powered Gloster Meteor, which was rushed half-ready into service in July 1944 to fight the V-1s, had ample speed but suffered from unreliable armament and accounted for only 13.
The meteor also suffered chronic problems with its armament when taking on V1s
from wiki
All other types combined added 158. The still-experimental jet-powered Gloster Meteor, which was rushed half-ready into service in July 1944 to fight the V-1s, had ample speed but suffered from unreliable armament and accounted for only 13.
Because speed was the Me262's best defense. The jet engines were slow to spool up and deploying dive-brakes could put the 262 into a dangerous situation.What get me,is why the Garmans did put dive brakes on the 262,as couple years before,they were putting dive brakes on anything with wings.
That's the very reason you'd want dive breaks: don't throttle the engines, keep them at/near full RPM and use breaks to slow down if needed. Using them to shorten landing runs would be useful too. (and assist with high speed dive recovery)Because speed was the Me262's best defense. The jet engines were slow to spool up and deploying dive-brakes could put the 262 into a dangerous situation.
That's a technique that could be used on later turbine fighters. You could not operate first generation jet fighters at full RPM for no more than 5 minutes.That's the very reason you'd want dive breaks: don't throttle the engines, keep them at/near full RPM and use breaks to slow down if needed. Using them to shorten landing runs would be useful too. (and assist with high speed dive recovery)
The Me262 had a high stall speed, anything beyond the flaps provided would most certainly shorten it's landing run - by several hundred feet...That's the very reason you'd want dive breaks: don't throttle the engines, keep them at/near full RPM and use breaks to slow down if needed. Using them to shorten landing runs would be useful too. (and assist with high speed dive recovery)
When I flew the L29 (a centrifugal flow engine) I always came in a little hot and at a slightly highter rpm setting then the "recommended settings" just because of that. Shorter airfields could present a problem but most of my landings were on huge runways (Mojave, Point Mugu, El Centro, March) The speed brakes worked well as well as keeping the nose up during roll out for maximum aerodynamic braking.The T-37 used both speed brake and thrust attenuators (small speed brake extending into the engine exhaust flow) on final approach to keep RPMs higher allowing better performance for possible go around and touch and gos. Centrifugal flow engine accelerate poorly so if RPM on final was near idle, safe go arounds were problematic.
I'd like to know specific references for that. You cannot safely continually fly a turbine engine at 100%. The 262 had a limitation of 5 minutes at 100% for take off and had a "military' restriction of 10 minutes at 100% (8700 rpm). After that the aircraft was flown at 90%. These figures came straight from the original 262 operating instructions and were also transcribed in USAAF summary Report FSU-111-ND dated 15 July 1946. This document is basically the transcribed flight manual used by Wright Patterson AFB personnel to fly and test the Me 262.the me 262 could fly around all day long at full throttle, high command put a limit of 15 minutes for 2 reasons, one being engine life, and the other was fuel consumption, but as test pilots have said, they had flown for 20 minutes or more with no problems.
Yeah, you can find the pilots hand book document at zenos warbird videos page, the site also has a document called summary of debriefing of me 262 test pilot and flight instructor Hans Fay, he was told that 15 minutes was max, but had flown for 20 minutes with no problems, Fay mainly tested the 262 at very low altitudes, he never flew higher than 13000 ft, I think most testing took place at 3300 ft, and from my understanding, they didn't fill the aux fuel tanks for testing, so 20 min wouldn't be far off from max endurance in those conditions.
There are other documents that would take me fore ever to find. supposedly there is Russian info of the 262 flying at full throttle as long as the speed is kept above 320 or so mph, from my understanding, this has been incorporated into video games/flight sims, I don't play flight sims so I wouldn't know.
Early jets for me are from 1939 too 1946I don't know a lot about them past that date, I didn't know that about the p80c and Meteor mk VII.
When you run at maximum RPM you are allowing "overheating conditions" and WILL eventually over heat, regardless of the engine. What no one is touching on is when you're operating at 100% + you'll eventually see the EGT start to rise and there's usually a max limit there (710c sticks in my mind)From what I understand of the Jumo 004B (or at least the B-3 and B-4), running at max RPM wasn't nearly as damaging to the engine as allowing overheating conditions and/or making numerous rapid throttle movements.
Operating at maximum RPM limits is another turbine engine killer regardless of the make, as mentioned earlier, there are some engines that could be taken as high as 110% with no issues providing you don't exceed the manufacturer's limits.RPM wasn't limited by mechanical stress considerations, but by vibration problems at higher RPM (solving those on the 004D allowed nominal RPM to be increased to 9000 and substantial overrev to also be possible). Running the 003E at overrev settings continuously would likely be more destructive as that was actually possible, the 004B could not overrev and I was under the impression that 100% throttle was also maximum continuous power so long as temperature remained within limits.
Mass pressure and flow also varies with altitude, so there may have been additional temperature and stress limits present at low altitude than higher up. (I'd imagine between the low intake temperature and pressure, engine temps at given RPM would be lower higher up than down low)
Specific fuel consumption also improves as RPM (and pressure ratio) increases, so cruising at max continuous power is usually most efficient. (still drag dependent)
Between 80 - 90% is what you're normally operating at. You could go higher is you follow the indicated parameters, watching EGT and also watching your airspeed indicator insuring you're not over stressing the air frame.Regardless of that, my original point was that the ideal regime for Me 262 engine operation would be maintaining maximum continuous RPM and making as few throttle changes as possible, with maneuvers (or hypotehtical air brakes) used to bleed of speed rather than throttle changes. Lack of a propeller also makes using throttle changes to slow down or reduce dive acceleration rather poor. In a steep dive, something close to 80% of the thrust comes from aircraft weight alone, so throttle near full or idle won't make that dramatic a difference while application of air brakes would make a very substantial difference. Throttling down rapidly should not have been harmful, but throttling up too rapidly would cause excess fuel to be injected before mass flow could catch up to compensate, causing the normally extremely lean mixture to become closer to stoichiometric and increase the temperature in the combustion chambers, turbine section, and exhaust. (potentially weakening the combustion chambers and leading to rupture and/or overheating the turbine blades and causing distortion, accelerated creep or even failure)
It's interesting that the general consensus is that the Me262 "needed" divebrakes/airbrakes.I'd think dive recovery flaps that not only added drag but also corrected pitch-down (and could operate within critical mach conditions) would be most useful. Like the P-38 and P-47, the elevator remained effective well into critical mach but became extremely stiff and if trim was applied (something possible even if the elevator was blanked thanks to the variable incidence tailplane) overstressing the tail to structural failure was very possible (as with the P-38 and P-47), thus making air brakes or recovery flaps located well forward of that high-stress area far more useful. (breaks mounted to the tail section of the fusalage akin to the F-86 may have been a bad idea)