Germany goes for centrifugal flow turbojet engines?

[bf109xxl]

Again with the hostile response. Calm it down. You get defensive whenever anyone questions what you say, you don't provide what you expect others to do and you call everyone names when they counter your points or call them out. Play nice.

This is coming from a man who was constantly provoking me with his rudeness. ))) And as soon as he received the same coin in return, he immediately started talking about my hostility.
Stop preaching, better look for some numbers to argue your unsubstantiated statements.

 

[MIflyer]

It is a totally new independent design, having V-1710 at the initial design stage.

Nope! Nope! Nope! Read the definitive work on the P-47, Warren Bodie's extensively researched book, "Thunderbolt!" It was based on the P-43 which was based on the P-35 which was based on Seversky's two seat sportplane. After the P-43 showed promise Republic abandoned its initial P-47 concept, a lightweight fighter using a V-1710 and enlarged the P-43 with the same arrangement but a R-2800 instead of a R-1830, to make the P-47. FACTS!

 

[Shortround6]

Nope! Nope! Nope! Read the definitive work on the P-47, Warren Bodie's extensively researched book, "Thunderbolt!" It was based on the P-43 which was based on the P-35 which was based on Seversky's two seat sportplane. After the P-43 showed promise Republic abandoned its initial P-47 concept, a lightweight fighter using a V-1710 and enlarged the P-43 with the same arrangement but a R-2800 instead of a R-1830, to make the P-47. FACTS!

I guess it depends on what "enlarged with the same arrangement" means

So if I take a P-35 and scale it up 13.1% I get a P-47 I can drop a R-2800 into ?
Off course the gross weight clean about doubles but what the heck,
Wait a minute, if I multiply the wing span by 1.13 (difference in percentage of the wing span) then by 1.13 again (13% longer cord ) I only get 280 sq ft of wing area, not 300 sq ft.
Is my math wrong or did they 'tweak' the outline just a bit?
Of course the fuselage got about 33% longer (just under 27ft to just over 36ft)

I am so confused

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I'm sick of the constant bickering, insults, and childishness exhibited by some. It ruins the discussion.

I'm seeing a common denominator here, and in several threads.

Patience is wearing thin…

 

[z42]

The problem with the Germans was that while they sank money and resources into advanced projects like rockets and jets and missiles and cool stuff that everyone believes meant they were more advanced than everyone else, we forget that the Germans didn't get some of the basics right. Had they concentrated on these, perhaps they might have been able to have lasted longer - of course it is to our benefit that they didn't.

No objection there. Nazism needed to be utterly crushed, and it was good that it was. Not that Soviet communism was much better, but alas..

They never got a 2,000 hp plus engine into production and service, their advanced four engined heavy bomber programme Bomber A was a failure, resulting in one of the worst aircraft of the war, the He 177, their replacement fast bomber programme Bomber B was also a failure because they couldn't get their 2,000 hp plus engine to work, which meant that aircraft of pre-war vintage were kept on in service for far longer than they should have been. The He 111 was still in the Luftwaffe's frontline in 1945, equating to the RAF relying on the AW Whitley, or the USAAF relying on the B-18 Bolo in that time.

The Me 262 and He 162 were highlights, but were troubled because of their unreliable engines and the reliance on forced labour for their manufacture.

Yes, and no. I'm not sure a 2000 hp engine, per se, would have been that necessary. The Allied heavy bomber fleets that flattened Europe were using ~1200 hp engines, and the arguably best piston fighter of the war, the Mustang, didn't have a 2000 hp engine either. The Allied 2000 hp engine equipped planes certainly helped, but honestly I don't think the air war would have been lost without them either. But the goal of powerful next generation piston engines is perhaps instructive of the German engine development effort flailing in all kinds of directions instead of focusing on improving their basic engines (605/603/213), which still had plenty of potential left in them.

As for the jets, yes it was very early days for jet propulsion and they suffered from all kinds of problems. However, I'd also argue that jets represented one of the few ways that could have allowed the LW to face the onslaught of Allied air power from say late 1943 onwards. Incrementally better piston engine aircraft weren't going to cut it anymore.

The cost of the way in which the Third Reich was run was directly responsible for Germany's failures. The fostering of internal squabbling, currying favour, self-promotion and outright sabotage of competitors' plans was no way to run things during a war footing, but that's how they did it.

This is, generally, how dictatorships work. The strongman at the top stays at the top by playing the various factions against each other and have them compete in bootlicking. It's inherent in how the entire system works. Nazism, fascism, communism, it's all the same.

Democracies may seem weak and impotent, endlessly debating things in public. But once they decide to act, they are immensely powerful.

There might be a lesson here for the modern world as well..

 

[Marcel]

bf109xxl and nuuumannn can you both tone down the personal attacks? It's not helping and I might have to step in here which I don't want to do.

 

[bada]

Rubbish. The compressor blades were made of poor quality metals and flame outs caused by the engines shedding fan blades or blades disintegrating is widely recorded.

Must say this is the first time i ever read of poor compressor blades. Would be nice to add some official figures and quotes.

...they did have a foot in the past. The Riedel starter motor was one of these. Relying and small piston engines with their own fuel supply for starting means the engines cannot be started in the air and it seems like a bit of a waste of weight. Surely an electric or even cartridge starter, like the British engines would have been a better option. The Riedel was started by a ring pull starter that was done by guys on the ground standing in front of the engines, the rung protruded out of the bullet and had to be pulled to engage the starter for each engine.

Ok, this is like a comment by someone that totally missed the starter buttons inside the cockpit. The riedel could be fired-up from the cockpit, it wasn't done on the ground to not overload the batteries, just like the BWM801 were started with an APU and the Db's by cranks (or apu's) for the same reason.... The riedel was actually a very good idea as the 004's spool time at start sequence was high, meaning it needed to run for a long time before combustion was able to run the 004 by it's own power. An electric starter would burn out directly, not even commenting the "cardridge" part

Another peculiarity was the fuel management of these engines. Thrust and fuel flow was managed manually by the pilot based on instrument readings, which meant the pilot had to keep a keen eye on fuel flow and engine temp gauges to move the power levers and the zwiebel, the variable thrust cone located in the exhaust nozzle, which was driven mechanically by a long shaft that extended aft to the thrust chamber. By 1945 this was relatively simplistic because there were already mechanical and electric fuel control devices fitted to piston engined aircraft, not to mention constant speed propellers, which equated to varying thrust output, rather than controlling the zwiebel, whose operation should have been automatic and keyed into the fuel control system, rather than manually actuated by the pilot.

Love this part, comparing apples to patotoes (not even oranges).
Having such a remark done when the engines used in their airplanes were still "carburated" without any automatic engine management devices is very funny.
But yes, the 004 was fuel pressure sensitive (unlike the 003 that had a fuel auto-regulator) and it wasn't easy for the pilots to unlearn their reflexes gained on internal combustion engines (jerking the throttle).
The fuel flow management was indeed manual, like in any engine, it's called the throttle Some engines are more sensible than others, my old CR500 from 30 years ago was the perfect example of it, once you learned how to use it, there is no problem anymore.
The onion was automatic , auto regulated, no pilot input needed.

The germans redrew the 004A so it could be easily mass produced, that gave the 004B , that's the reason they were able to build more than 5000 of them, meanwhile the british built theirs in a small shack and for the same period, build 120 of them , all versions included.

Was the 004B a bad engine? 50/50 yes and no. it did it's job, not so badly as mainstream historians want to picture it, but it could be better, with better logistics especially.
it was a war-tool, build for a role and to be thrown away, could it be better, yes, the 004D would be much better, but it never came to operational status.

anyway, in42, the Hirth had much more potential and faster (easier) development curve than the 003/004, but stupid administration and oversized ego's got it put aside....


Nice Vid of original 004 in action:

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FPazuFQZE3o

KR

 

[Zmauky]

Just one small addition.
Even today, it is a rule not to buy a car that is a new model for the first few years until the "childhood diseases" of a complicated technological system are sorted out.
And jet engines were also new as a technology (in serial production). We can argue whether the German engines worked for 20 or 25 hours, but the Allied side also had initial problems. The P-80 did not fly on engines that were good for 200 hours of operation - in fact, the first XP-80 ate itself and the tests in England were stopped because one crashed (due to the engine) and not to mention the death of R.Bong. So ....

 

[z42]

Just one small addition.
Even today, it is a rule not to buy a car that is a new model for the first few years until the "childhood diseases" of a complicated technological system are sorted out.
And jet engines were also new as a technology (in serial production). We can argue whether the German engines worked for 20 or 25 hours, but the Allied side also had initial problems. The P-80 did not fly on engines that were good for 200 hours of operation - in fact, the first XP-80 ate itself and the tests in England were stopped because one crashed (due to the engine) and not to mention the death of R.Bong. So ....

All the combatants rushed immature systems into service during WWII. Germany obviously much more than most, but the others had their fair share of botched introductions (*cough* Sabre *cough*).

 

[nuuumannn]

Must say this is the first time i ever read of poor compressor blades. Would be nice to add some official figures and quotes.

I'm not near my sources right now, but it is a known factor that compressors failed in the Jumo 004. When I'm near my info I'll dig it out.

Ok, this is like a comment by someone that totally missed the starter buttons inside the cockpit. The riedel could be fired-up from the cockpit, it wasn't done on the ground to not overload the batteries,

Looks like I missed that part of the rating course on the 262! Maybe I was asleep during that part... Ah, that is an interesting oversight, I wasn't aware the Riedel could be started from the cockpit. I was under the impression it was ground start only.

Love this part, comparing apples to patotoes (not even oranges).

Why? Power management between gas turbines and pistons is the same! Fuel flow is governed by mechanical fuel controls linked to the power levers in both types of engine. Automatic fuel management systems certainly existed, remember the Germans developed the Kommandogerat. As for the throttle, not the same role as automatic fuel control, fella, I think it's you getting mixed up here. Even modern electronic engine management systems in modern aircraft require power levers or throttles. A C-130J cockpit, note the four power levers.

_ADP8893

 

[nuuumannn]

Yes, and no. I'm not sure a 2000 hp engine, per se, would have been that necessary.

Hmm, that's a bit like saying, we don't need to develop gas turbines because piston engined aircraft are doing okay, thanks. Regardless of whether current aircraft were using lower power outputs, all the major powers including the Germans worked on 2,000 hp plus engines, but not all of them worked. Let's put it this way, the Germans hinged the next generation of their aircraft development on them, the Jumo 222 was to power the Bomber B but they couldn't get it to work successfully. If they had, do you think that they would have relied solely on lower powered engines? The Brits shoehorned a Griffon onto the Spitfire and that worked out pretty well for them, the Mk.XIV had terrific gains over its contemporaries.

As for the jets, yes it was very early days for jet propulsion and they suffered from all kinds of problems. However, I'd also argue that jets represented one of the few ways that could have allowed the LW to face the onslaught of Allied air power from say late 1943 onwards. Incrementally better piston engine aircraft weren't going to cut it anymore.

That's right and gas turbines kind of rendered engine developments redundant, but in wartime, you cannot simply end one production line and begin another without major disruption to supply lines and so forth.

This is, generally, how dictatorships work. The strongman at the top stays at the top by playing the various factions against each other and have them compete in bootlicking. It's inherent in how the entire system works. Nazism, fascism, communism, it's all the same.

Democracies may seem weak and impotent, endlessly debating things in public. But once they decide to act, they are immensely powerful.

There might be a lesson here for the modern world as well..

Now I agree with you on that. As you have pointed out, yes, that is how dictatorships work, which is why they don't work, just like Nazi Germany. You can't run a war like that. Germany proved it. As for the modern world, Yes, Yes, Yes...

bf109xxl and nuuumannn can you both tone down the personal attacks? It's not helping and I might have to step in here which I don't want to do.

Sorry Marcel. I will no longer engage in discussion with him. It's easier.

 

[bf109xxl]

Sapienti sat.