Maneuverability vs Speed

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

On the British jets, another one to mention is the De Havilland Vampire.

634px-Vampire_FB9s_213_Sqn_RAF_over_Egypt_1952.jpg


This was already flying by 1943, it was officially introduced in 1946. But I believe that was because De Havilland was being tasked to focus more on other highly successful designs, in particular the Mosquito for which the Germans had no answer. If the Germans had managed to make their jets more of a threat, it could have been prioritized and put into action earlier.

Vampire is worth noting because unlike the Meteor and Shooting Star, which were somewhat transitional designs, Vampire, though designed during the war (and using a British made jet with no assistance from any German engineers), went on to remain in service with England (both in the RAF, and with the navy as the Sea Vampire) well into the 1950s, leading into the Venom, a derivation with swept wings which was 100 mph faster, and served until replaced by the Canberra and the Hawker Hunter in the early 1960s.

It was about as fast as an Me 262, even though it used only one engine, was well armed (four 20mm cannon), was considered highly maneuverable particularly at higher speeds, having a good roll rate and a lower wing-loading (192 kg/m2) than most jets including Me 262 and He 162. It was 1,000 lighter than an Me 262. It also had twice the range of the 262 or He 162.

The 262 was a true 'boom and zoom' fighter, relying almost exclusively on speed, whereas the Vampire had good handling and could count on both maneuverability and speed. The 262 may look cooler (and it definitely gets WAY better press!!!), but the Vampire is a very good example of an excellent UK jet aircraft, made with British engineering which was at least as good as any of the German jets which actually flew.
 
GregP said:
It all boils down to Maneuverability versus Speed, huh?
Click to expand...
It's kind of like in fighting,
Wild_Bill_Kelso said:
The Italians and to some extent the Soviets also focused a great deal on maneuverability. So did this British and Americans - the Spitfire, Hurricane, P-36 and P-40 were all quite maneuverable fighters. It's just the Japanese surpassed them, and not at the expense of speed. The A6M wasn't the fastest fighter in the world in 1941 or 1942 but it was certainly not the slowest, it was about as fast as major fighter types like the Hurricane and Bf 110, and faster than the MC.200 and the I-16. The limited speed was due mainly to having a less powerful engine. The Japanese were indeed somewhat behind on aircraft engines compared to the British, Germans, and US.

But the A6M was certainly competitive with fighters anywhere in the world when it first arrived, and was the only major fighter type I know of with a 1,000 mile range at that time. The range really matters a lot because it confers an operational and a strategic flexibility which acts like a force multiplier, and not only if you are fighting in the Pacific or China.



I never said anything about a "12:1 kill ratio". But the Japanese forces did not just fight in China. They cleared out the British from Hong Kong, Singapore, and Malaya, the Dutch from the Netherlands East Indies, and the Americans from the Philippines, all in a matter of weeks. In the process decimating British, Dutch and American fighters, including P-40s, Hurricanes, F2As and others. I don't know what the exact ratio was, but it was very high, as in, all of the Western air forces on Philippines, Java and Malaya were wiped out in a short period of time, and even Darwin was soon being bombed. To wit, as late as 1943, the A6M proved quite formidable against Spitfire Mk Vs too. So there is no reason to assume they were inferior to the best fighters in the world at that time, in my opinion.



Duralumin and similar alloys were in wide use among the major aircraft manufacturing nations.



That is a matter of opinion, and that opinion was not shared by pilots facing them in 1942. And without meaning to be rude, you don't come across as highly informed on the subject of Japanese aviation. The capabilities of the A6M were extraordinary and world class, and they clearly enabled swift victories everywhere they were encountered. It was only after superior tactics and improved aircraft were developed that the US began to pull ahead of them.



I don't think you actually have good understanding of what the training skills of the Japanese were, or which factors contributed to their victories.



I call B.S. Inferior to whom? What battleship was superior to the Yamato?



And when did that happen precisely?



Obviously they were. The US, a much larger country with vastly more resources, spent an enormous amount of effort, money, and casualties for three years to defeat them.



I don't have any idea what "Random Media" slideshow you are referring to.
Click to expand...
While the Yamato certainly had the biggest guns, I think the New Jersey class was a better design overall. Better speed, better armor where it mattered, and the 16"/50 was a more efficient design.

Granted it was designed after the Yamato, but, by that time it is painfully obvious that battleships were no longer the most important ships.
 
GregP said:
It all boils down to Maneuverability versus Speed, huh?
Click to expand...

Wild_Bill_Kelso said:
On the British jets, another one to mention is the De Havilland Vampire.

View attachment 726099

This was already flying by 1943, it was officially introduced in 1946. But I believe that was because De Havilland was being tasked to focus more on other highly successful designs, in particular the Mosquito for which the Germans had no answer. If the Germans had managed to make their jets more of a threat, it could have been prioritized and put into action earlier.

Vampire is worth noting because unlike the Meteor and Shooting Star, which were somewhat transitional designs, Vampire, though designed during the war (and using a British made jet with no assistance from any German engineers), went on to remain in service with England (both in the RAF, and with the navy as the Sea Vampire) well into the 1950s, leading into the Venom, a derivation with swept wings which was 100 mph faster, and served until replaced by the Canberra and the Hawker Hunter in the early 1960s.

It was about as fast as an Me 262, even though it used only one engine, was well armed (four 20mm cannon), was considered highly maneuverable particularly at higher speeds, having a good roll rate and a lower wing-loading (192 kg/m2) than most jets including Me 262 and He 162. It was 1,000 lighter than an Me 262. It also had twice the range of the 262 or He 162.

The 262 was a true 'boom and zoom' fighter, relying almost exclusively on speed, whereas the Vampire had good handling and could count on both maneuverability and speed. The 262 may look cooler (and it definitely gets WAY better press!!!), but the Vampire is a very good example of an excellent UK jet aircraft, made with British engineering which was at least as good as any of the German jets which actually flew.
Click to expand...
The Vampire was delayed in favour of the Lockheed P-80.
from wiki (my bold)
With the Germans and British clearly far ahead in development, Lockheed was pressed to develop a comparable jet as quickly as possible. Kelly Johnson submitted a design proposal in mid-June and promised that the prototype would be ready for testing in 150 days.[6] The Skunk Works team, beginning 26 June 1943, produced the airframe in 143 days,[6] delivering it to Muroc Army Airfield on 16 November.[citation needed]

The project was so secret that only five of the more than 130 people working on it knew that they were developing a jet aircraft, and the British engineer who delivered the Goblin engine was detained by the police because Lockheed officials could not vouch for him.[6] After the engine had been mated to the airframe, foreign object damage during the first run-up destroyed the engine. The British engineer who had delivered the engine had warned Lockheed that the skin of the inlet ducts was too thin but the American engineers ignored this warning and both ducts collapsed and were sucked into the engine when at full throttle.[7] This delayed the first flight until a second engine (the only other existing)[8] could be delivered from Britain, de Havilland generously donating the engine intended for the prototype Vampire.[9][10]
 
pbehn said:
The Vampire was delayed in favour of the Lockheed P-80.
from wiki (my bold)
With the Germans and British clearly far ahead in development, Lockheed was pressed to develop a comparable jet as quickly as possible. Kelly Johnson submitted a design proposal in mid-June and promised that the prototype would be ready for testing in 150 days.[6] The Skunk Works team, beginning 26 June 1943, produced the airframe in 143 days,[6] delivering it to Muroc Army Airfield on 16 November.[citation needed]

The project was so secret that only five of the more than 130 people working on it knew that they were developing a jet aircraft, and the British engineer who delivered the Goblin engine was detained by the police because Lockheed officials could not vouch for him.[6] After the engine had been mated to the airframe, foreign object damage during the first run-up destroyed the engine. The British engineer who had delivered the engine had warned Lockheed that the skin of the inlet ducts was too thin but the American engineers ignored this warning and both ducts collapsed and were sucked into the engine when at full throttle.[7] This delayed the first flight until a second engine (the only other existing)[8] could be delivered from Britain, de Havilland generously donating the engine intended for the prototype Vampire.[9][10]
Click to expand...
That makes no sense at all. The Brits gave a jet engine to GE in 1941, and their first copy of that engine was delivered in 1942. It was used in the P-59 Airacomet, which was the first US jet.

And reading the wiki page it says the Brits failed to deliver the Goblin engine so Lockheed used the blueprints that had been provided to GE to make their own.

That whole passage is very confusing the way it is written.
 
Last edited:
Wild_Bill_Kelso said:
The 262 may look cooler (and it definitely gets WAY better press!!!), but the Vampire is a very good example of an excellent UK jet aircraft, made with British engineering which was at least as good as any of the German jets which actually flew.
Click to expand...
Yes and no.

Trying to fly a Vampire with a 1944 Turbo jet and getting Me 262 beating performance out of it would have been very hard.
The Prototypes had 2700lb thrust engines and the reliability was ?????
Performance in figures in Greens book are for the 3100lb Goblin II.
According to Greens book the 1st production Vampire I flew on April 20th 1945.
The 41st Production Vampire I got the 3100lb thrust engines.
The 51st Production plane (when in 1945?) had the internal fuel increased from 202imp gallons to 326imp gallons plus wing tanks.
The Summer of 1945 Vampires had the endurance of a bottle rocket.
 
Gary Cain said:
That makes no sense at all. The Brits gave a jet engine to GE in 1941, and their first copy of that engine was delivered in 1942. It was used in the P-59 Airacomet, which was the first US jet.
Click to expand...
That would have been a much earlier and less capable engine. The Airacomet was flown using a derivative of the Welland, not the Goblin.

The General Electric J31 only put out about 1,650 lbs thrust. The Goblin was, according to mark, well over 3000 lbs thrust. Presumably the P80 was designed about (and needed) an engine with some more poke?
 
pbehn said:
The Vampire was delayed in favour of the Lockheed P-80.
from wiki (my bold)
With the Germans and British clearly far ahead in development, Lockheed was pressed to develop a comparable jet as quickly as possible. Kelly Johnson submitted a design proposal in mid-June and promised that the prototype would be ready for testing in 150 days.[6] The Skunk Works team, beginning 26 June 1943, produced the airframe in 143 days,[6] delivering it to Muroc Army Airfield on 16 November.[citation needed]

The project was so secret that only five of the more than 130 people working on it knew that they were developing a jet aircraft, and the British engineer who delivered the Goblin engine was detained by the police because Lockheed officials could not vouch for him.[6] After the engine had been mated to the airframe, foreign object damage during the first run-up destroyed the engine. The British engineer who had delivered the engine had warned Lockheed that the skin of the inlet ducts was too thin but the American engineers ignored this warning and both ducts collapsed and were sucked into the engine when at full throttle.[7] This delayed the first flight until a second engine (the only other existing)[8] could be delivered from Britain, de Havilland generously donating the engine intended for the prototype Vampire.[9][10]
Click to expand...

Very interesting!

I have an OT story, which I will only touch on in the lightest manner. My dad was a reporter. When i was about 6 or 7, he took me with him on an endless road trip through Texas. My dad was a Navy veteran and loved planes, but he also was a reporter for Life magazine (among others) and Life was not in favor with a lot of military people at the time. He often went to interview pilots and they often played fairly rough pranks on him. Like once in Pensacola they took him up in a jet and made him puke intentionally (they were all laughing about it after). When we got to this old airfield which looked abandoned, we got out of the car in the blazing heat, and heard a plane flying. Then we got buzzed by an extremely loud airplane which I later learned was a Bearcat. It scared the crap out of us (especially me) because it looked like we were going to be chopped up by the propellers, it was so low.

But the super weird thing is, I looked up as it was going over, and it appeared that a gorilla was flying the plane. Later the plane landed, these people were all inside this old hangar or quonset hut and came out laughing at us. When we came closer we could see a bunch more airplanes on the other side of the hangar and inside of it. The pilot taxied the Bearcat in, and came out with a gorilla mask on, and a banana. Which he ate, looking right at me. This was around the time of the Planet of the Apes movies and I was not sure if he was a gorilla or a man, even after I saw the mask. I figured, he might have a human mask under his ape mask just to be extra sneaky.

Even though this is a pretty trippy story, I hardly ever told anybody, because either they didn't believe me, or had no idea what to make of it.

Fast forward ... 50 years. I am listening to a podcast interview with some pilots. One of them was a test pilot who said he flew the P-80. He said when they flew, they sometimes put on a gorilla mask. The purpose was to pre-emptively gaslight any potential witnesses who saw a plane flying with no propeller. So it was a real thing, and there was a reason for it.

I don't know if this guy in Texas was one of those test pilots, or just heard about it, but it made me feel less insane.
 
Gary Cain said:
That makes no sense at all. The Brits gave a jet engine to GE in 1941, and their first copy of that engine was delivered in 1942. It was used in the P-59 Airacomet, which was the first US jet.
Click to expand...
The Brits had more than one jet engine. The P-59 used a Power Jets W1 and the Vampire and P-80 used the Goblin, we had other jets we gave to the Russians, but that is another story. The terms "gave" or "donated" should be viewed in the light of lease lend rights and obligations between the UK and USA. de Havilland would never donate anything to a competitor unless told to do so.
 
Last edited:
Gary Cain said:
That makes no sense at all. The Brits gave a jet engine to GE in 1941, and their first copy of that engine was delivered in 1942. It was used in the P-59 Airacomet, which was the first US jet.
Click to expand...
The US got more than one engine from the British. They spent quite a bit of time on test stands.


GE's "copy" of the Whittle engine of 1941 was the I-A (1300lbs thrust?)
Engines for the P-59 went through 1250lbs, 1-A2 (designed 1640lbs)
I-14B (1400lbs)
I-16 (1600lbs)

In early service the I-14 and I-16 were getting about 7 1/2 hours of engine life.
The engines were switched to GE J-31-GE-3s and J-31-GE-5s on the later P-59s.

However the P-80 was designed around a bigger more powerful engine, the GE I-40 (4000lbs designed thrust) later the J-33.
Because the I-40 wasn't ready yet the British loaned a used Goblin having flown in Meteors )to Lockheed and it was this engine that was wrecked.
The British sent the 2nd engine. The XP-80 first flew with the Goblin Engine on Jan 8th 1944, it flew with the GE I-40 engine on June 10th 1944.
 
Wild_Bill_Kelso said:
Just as an aside, and a stupid thread drift on my aprt, this is one of the kind of things you constantly read about in war, which is in part why I don't think zombie / ghoul armies would be so formidable as they are portrayed in that particular cinematic / computer game / literary genre. People adapt to warfare in such unbelievably cunning ways. I don't think mindlessness works. I suspect humans will find loopholes in AI / autonomous vehicle behavior which they will also be able to exploit.
Click to expand...
Then how do you explain Russian successes at Bakhmut?
 
Shortround6 said:
The US got more than one engine from the British. They spent quite a bit of time on test stands.


GE's "copy" of the Whittle engine of 1941 was the I-A (1300lbs thrust?)
Engines for the P-59 went through 1250lbs, 1-A2 (designed 1640lbs)
I-14B (1400lbs)
I-16 (1600lbs)

In early service the I-14 and I-16 were getting about 7 1/2 hours of engine life.
The engines were switched to GE J-31-GE-3s and J-31-GE-5s on the later P-59s.

However the P-80 was designed around a bigger more powerful engine, the GE I-40 (4000lbs designed thrust) later the J-33.
Because the I-40 wasn't ready yet the British loaned a used Goblin having flown in Meteors )to Lockheed and it was this engine that was wrecked.
The British sent the 2nd engine. The XP-80 first flew with the Goblin Engine on Jan 8th 1944, it flew with the GE I-40 engine on June 10th 1944.
Click to expand...
Interesting!

Was the GE I-40 derived from the Whittle engine?
 
Gary Cain said:
That makes no sense at all. The Brits gave a jet engine to GE in 1941, and their first copy of that engine was delivered in 1942. It was used in the P-59 Airacomet, which was the first US jet.

And reading the wiki page it says the Brits failed to deliver the Goblin engine so Lockheed used the blueprints that had been provided to GE to make their own.

That whole passage is very confusing the way it is written.
Click to expand...
The whole idea was that the USA make their own, and it is perfectly simple and normal. They were given design, blueprints and an example of a working engine, made to those designs and blueprints. There are two things you have to do, get the engine working, and some things are much easier when you have the actual thing there in front of you, not figuring it out from a drawing. The second is getting the aircraft working, which needs an engine, when you wreck the only engine you have doing tests you wait until your people figure out how to make them or request another. The delivery of a working engine is normal with license production, Rolls Royce delivered working engines to Packard, how else do you prove the thing works. Jet engines delivered to USA were not for licensed production, because the intention was for the USA to develop and make their own. That was the lend lease agreement.
 
Wild_Bill_Kelso said:
Interesting!

Was the GE I-40 derived from the Whittle engine?
Click to expand...
Sort of.

It used the forged aluminum double sided compressor and a single turbine, but it used straight through combustion chambers instead of reverse flow, and a splined coupling between the compressor and turbine and different lubricating arrangement. Also different materials/construction on the turbine inlet/ turbine.
The first drawing were make in Sept 1943, parts were being made as soon as the drawing reached the workshops. Engine was first run Jan 13th 1944 but the turbine needed redesign and the new turbine was not installed until Feb 1944.

I like this part
"Development ................continued through 1944 and early 1945. Problems encountered and solved include exhaust cone buckling. carbon eccretion, fuel pump wear, sticking automatic controls and turbine wheel fracturing. By June of 1945 the I-40 had passed a fifty-hour Pre-Flight Rating Test (PFRT) and was showing signs of being a reliable turbo jet. "
My emphasis. ;)
 
Wild_Bill_Kelso said:
Interesting!

Was the GE I-40 derived from the Whittle engine?
Click to expand...
One of the great mysteries of aviation history is why the USA didnt develop a jet engine. They led the world in turbo design and production and the science is basically the same, it just leaves out the internal combustion engine part and puts in a combustion chamber with the exhaust driving a compressor. I read that on US turbo engineer had a "slap upside the head moment" seeing a jet engine design. He hadnt thought of it, but couldnt explain why he hadnt thought of it.
 
Wild_Bill_Kelso said:
Very interesting!

I have an OT story, which I will only touch on in the lightest manner. My dad was a reporter. When i was about 6 or 7, he took me with him on an endless road trip through Texas. My dad was a Navy veteran and loved planes, but he also was a reporter for Life magazine (among others) and Life was not in favor with a lot of military people at the time. He often went to interview pilots and they often played fairly rough pranks on him. Like once in Pensacola they took him up in a jet and made him puke intentionally (they were all laughing about it after). When we got to this old airfield which looked abandoned, we got out of the car in the blazing heat, and heard a plane flying. Then we got buzzed by an extremely loud airplane which I later learned was a Bearcat. It scared the crap out of us (especially me) because it looked like we were going to be chopped up by the propellers, it was so low.

But the super weird thing is, I looked up as it was going over, and it appeared that a gorilla was flying the plane. Later the plane landed, these people were all inside this old hangar or quonset hut and came out laughing at us. When we came closer we could see a bunch more airplanes on the other side of the hangar and inside of it. The pilot taxied the Bearcat in, and came out with a gorilla mask on, and a banana. Which he ate, looking right at me. This was around the time of the Planet of the Apes movies and I was not sure if he was a gorilla or a man, even after I saw the mask. I figured, he might have a human mask under his ape mask just to be extra sneaky.

Even though this is a pretty trippy story, I hardly ever told anybody, because either they didn't believe me, or had no idea what to make of it.

Fast forward ... 50 years. I am listening to a podcast interview with some pilots. One of them was a test pilot who said he flew the P-80. He said when they flew, they sometimes put on a gorilla mask. The purpose was to pre-emptively gaslight any potential witnesses who saw a plane flying with no propeller. So it was a real thing, and there was a reason for it.

I don't know if this guy in Texas was one of those test pilots, or just heard about it, but it made me feel less insane.
Click to expand...
This sounds like the kind of pranks the guys who eventually began the CAF (then Confederate Air Force) would pull. They. and many of the pilots had heard of the Lockheed test pilot pulling the Gorilla mask prank while flying the P-80. The accounts in the book, can' t remember if it was Milo Bircham or Tony LeVier, told of diving into a formation training flight of USMC F4Us supervised by an instructor, scattering the flight and flying close enough to be seen wearing his Gorilla mask, smoking a cigar, and wearing a derby hat. Apparently one of the students reported it to the newspapers and there was much laughing to be had.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

Domobran42
Spitfire vs Me-109
Replies
3
Views
718
PAT303
P
J
Yak-9U Vs Bf-109
Replies
0
Views
438
Jerrybandit67
J
S
Why did the Me 109 roll and turn so bad at speed?
5 6 7
Replies
134
Views
5K
GregP
GregP
A
Italy VS USA: Different ways to improve the P-35
Replies
3
Views
442
Airborne2001
A
J
Ki-84 vs P-51 engagemants 1945
Replies
13
Views
2K
CHen10
C
Back