FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
That "Me 262 with dangerously unreliable and limited stress engines" managed to shoot down many fully functional allied aircraft. Additionally the early Meteor (or P-80) wasn't exactly "reliable" either.
Zyzygie’s Mumbles and Rambles
- Thread starter Zyzygie
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
They have and did - you don't need to dogfight to shoot down an opponent. Most of the time the aircraft shot down never saw their opponent. Too many people on here assume that the turning, twisting dogfight was the norm of all aerial combat during WW2.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
Many an F-5 or Mossie never saw the 262 come up from behind and if one takes the time to go through the Me262 experten list, they'll discover quite a few victories over Allied single-engined types.
Admiral Beez
Captain
Now, Gladiator vs. Me 262, that would be something.
The ME-262 would have been decidedly formidable if it had better engine materials. I know Blade/Vane modelling and manufacturing very well. Worked with Garret Engines developing a new generation of engines in Orlando in the mid 80's? Also later with ship/boat propeller modelling in the 90's. Stemming from a major panic for the US Navy. The Juno Jet Engines were a very sound compact design. The original Blade and Vane designs came out of the electric power generation industry.
The British Meteor IMHO were barely competitive against Propeller Aircraft. Plus took a while to get decent reliability but then again the Germans were not bombing British Petroleum, Mining and Processing Facilities. Aerodynamically both planes were sound designs. The slight swept wing Me 262 would have had a higher Mach Limit.
During the Korean War the Meteor did not do well against the Mig 15. Not much better than the F-80 or F-84. The flight characteristics were challenging because of spooling up or powering down for landing. Today's turbine engines do not have the response of a piston engine, unless a turbo prop.
Admiral Beez
Captain
For a jet pioneering country it is disappointing for the UK that the only Commonwealth fighter that could match the MiG-15 was the Canadair CL-13. Swept wing Sea Hawks should have made an earlier appearance.
- Thread starter
- #327
Make that a Gladiator with sidewinders...
Gloster Meteor
There's a few sweeping statements in this article that are not exactly true, such as the one that says the Me 262 was dangerous to fly. According to whom? Earlier in this thread I posted quotes by a British test pilot carrying out official performance trials who says nothing of the sort. Stating that the Meteor was the better airplane? Hm, highly subjective and not entirely accurate. The 262 had greater performance and a higher Mach Number than the Welland powered Meatboxes and yes, it was rushed into service and yes, its engines were less reliable, but it was by no means an inferior aircraft. It was an exceptionally well designed machine.
Also, the claim the centrifugal flow gas turbine is largely forgotten? tell that to Pratt & Whitney Canada and every aircraft operator that flies aircraft with PT-6, and PW100 series engines.
Then there's the statement that not one Meteor was lost to enemy action as an example of why the 262 was inferior because it was lost in action in larger numbers? In the following paragraphs the author then describes why the Meteor never saw action against enemy aircraft! Not the most inspired piece of writing. C Minus. Try harder to avoid hyperbole.
There's a few sweeping statements in this article that are not exactly true, such as the one that says the Me 262 was dangerous to fly. According to whom? Earlier in this thread I posted quotes by a British test pilot carrying out official performance trials who says nothing of the sort. Stating that the Meteor was the better airplane? Hm, highly subjective and not entirely accurate. The 262 had greater performance and a higher Mach Number than the Welland powered Meatboxes and yes, it was rushed into service and yes, its engines were less reliable, but it was by no means an inferior aircraft. It was an exceptionally well designed machine.
Also, the claim the centrifugal flow gas turbine is largely forgotten? tell that to Pratt & Whitney Canada and every aircraft operator that flies aircraft with PT-6, and PW100 series engines.
Then there's the statement that not one Meteor was lost to enemy action as an example of why the 262 was inferior because it was lost in action in larger numbers? In the following paragraphs the author then describes why the Meteor never saw action against enemy aircraft! Not the most inspired piece of writing. C Minus. Try harder to avoid hyperbole.
Kevin J
Banned
Absolutely, who needs swept wings when you've got sidewinders.Make that a Gladiator with sidewinders...
- Thread starter
- #330
It would be great to be able to go back to the air war over Belgium in 1940 with a Gladiator equipped with sidewinders...
But then again, maybe there is some limit placed by Nature on the amount of fun that any one person can have in a given time.
That's probably an argument against the possibility of time travel.
- Thread starter
- #331
The MiG 15 used a Rolls-Royce Nene knock-off. There's plenty of sources relating to how they managed that. After the end of the Cold War, Rolls-Royce asked for back payment of royalties, without any success.
Last edited:
swampyankee
Chief Master Sergeant
- 3,954
- Jun 25, 2013
Centrifugal compressors are used in most smaller engines, as a) their efficiency doesn't fall off as quickly with size, b) they tend to be more robust in smaller sizes and c) they reduce the parts count, as a centrifugal stage can pretty easily manage a stage pressure ratio of eight or so. (Prototype centrifugal stages have managed over 14).
Gas turbines with centrifugal compressors aren't dead; they're just limited to smaller sizes. Today's smaller sizes provide more thrust than, say, the most powerful jet engines in service in 1950.
Gas turbines with centrifugal compressors aren't dead; they're just limited to smaller sizes. Today's smaller sizes provide more thrust than, say, the most powerful jet engines in service in 1950.
Indeed, as did the MiG-17, which was, to all intents and purposes, highly successful. Britain kept the centrifugal engines for the Attacker and Sea Hawk, but pursued the axial Avon and Sapphire and aircraft that were powered by it with mixed results; the Hunter, whilst a fine fighter had issues initially because the early Avons had breathing problems, but finally appeared in reliable form when the supersonic F-100, Dassault Super Mystere and MiG-19 were established in service. The Supermarine Swift was not a happy fighter and only one unit used it and its awkward Fairey Fireflash AAMs before it became a dedicated recon platform. The Gloster Javelin, whilst a credible all-weather interceptor, with its sophisticated radar and Firestreak missile combination, was not nicknamed the 'Harmonious Dragmaster' because of its stirling performance and even during its evolution, Gloster realised its limitations and worked on a supersonic variant that eventually got shot down as a concept by a serious intent to buy Avro Canada's CF-105.
The decision to skip evolving the high powered Nene and go straight to the Avon and Sapphire (in its early incarnation was a more reliable powerplant than the RR product, but was not placed in the kind of airframe that could have taken advantage of this) meant that Britain lagged behind in airframe development and did not have a suitable indigenous superior match for the MiG-15 and 17 and had to borrow F-86 Sabres from the Canadians, because of the issues with the Hunter and Swift, and therefore was stuck with the Meatbox for too long. Not until the EE Lightning did the RAF finally have a fighter that could better its Soviet contemporaries in outright performance, after WW2's first generation jets.
Admiral Beez
Captain
Britain should have bought the Arrow, or collaborated with Canada to make something that worked for both the RAF and RCAF. Avro Canada was a wholly owned subsidiary of Britain's Hawker-Siddeley, after all.
Kevin J
Banned
The RAF needed a fast climbing interceptor, the Lightning, Canada a patrol interceptor, the FAA a patrol interceptor. So the Canadians get the Voodoo, we get the Phantom eventually, but back to the forties, we get the Meteor with two Derwents, which in its F8 form has as much thrust as the Avon in the early Hunters. In other words a fast climbing interceptor to shoot down enemy bombers as opposed to an air superiority fighter like the Sabre.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
It was more than a knock off, it was copied.
The UK did sell the Soviets a number of Nene engines. Although not given a license, the Soviets were able to figure out some metallurgical data by being allowed tours of RR. "Engineers" wore rubber soled shoes and made sure they walked by some of the lathes and milling machines picking up metal chips in their shoes. These chips were collected and brought back to the Soviet Union for evaluation.
Hm, the reason why it wasn't pursued was because the specification F.155T promised a higher performing aircraft than the CF-105. Obviously its cancellation put paid to any further development, but the decision not to continue with it was made well before threats of cancellation. This was before the 1957 Defence White Paper that cancelled F.155T.
- Thread starter
- #338
Britain was financially devastated by World War 2. The National Debt was about 250.% of GDP. Much worse than Greece during the GFC.
The supersonic Miles M52 research project had to be scrapped, and the first batch of 100 Meteor F4s went to Argentina to pay off a debt incurred by the purchase of beef during the War.
Miles M.52 - Wikipedia
Google Image Result for https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/81y6xLFqE6L.jpg
And then some. Argentina also received Avro Lancasters and Lincolns, DH Doves, Bristol Freighters, Percival Prentices and Vickers Vikings around that time, all going a long way to modernising the FAA as South America's most modern and capable air force.
- Thread starter
- #340
