Me 262 deutsch marine prototype

[Waynos]

But we are talking aboutt the 'life' of the engine rather than simply 'going wrong' aren't we? If a Welland broke down after 20 or so hours running it may be fixed, but after that time the Jumo was only fit for scrap, if I have understood the various histories correctly.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

But we are talking aboutt the 'life' of the engine rather than simply 'going wrong' aren't we? If a Welland broke down after 20 or so hours running it may be fixed, but after that time the Jumo was only fit for scrap, if I have understood the various histories correctly.

But understand that when these early engines "broke down" they usually "blew up." Compressor or turbine bearing failure, blade failure or burnt burner cans meant a complete engine teardown.

 

[Waynos]

No luck so far on specifics but there are some interesting quotes in D N James 'Gloster Aircraft since 1915;

Regar.ding the E.28/39's early testing in 1941, it states following the successful first flight "during the next 13 days a further 10 hours flying were accumulated in 15 test flights without the need to remove the engine cover".

This was following the FIRST flight of the first allied jet. That at least strongly suggests a life of more than 20 hours overall.

As does the line, in relation to an uprated Derwent engine in 1945 "this engine successfully passed its 100 hr test before being flown in Meteor III EE260 by Eric Greenwood on 17th May".

I think the real proof would have to come from service records. But I am quietly confident, If I can find them

 

[Waynos]

Can you provide anything to support your statement that all early engines had a 20-25 hour service life? You see everything I've seen points to the early British service service engines having lives of between 100-160 hours at least. The only references to much shorter lives always refers to German engines and always refers to it being due to their lack of specialist alloys that allowed British engines to last much longer, I find it odd that no references to Meteors, Vampires or the XP-59A/XP-80 see fit to mention short engine lives it it was the case?

 

[FLYBOYJ]

No luck so far on specifics but there are some interesting quotes in D N James 'Gloster Aircraft since 1915;

Regar.ding the E.28/39's early testing in 1941, it states following the successful first flight "during the next 13 days a further 10 hours flying were accumulated in 15 test flights without the need to remove the engine cover".

This was following the FIRST flight of the first allied jet. That at least strongly suggests a life of more than 20 hours overall.

As does the line, in relation to an uprated Derwent engine in 1945 "this engine successfully passed its 100 hr test before being flown in Meteor III EE260 by Eric Greenwood on 17th May".

I think the real proof would have to come from service records. But I am quietly confident, If I can find them

Flight tests and flying the aircraft operationally are a bit different. many of the early engines (I-40, W2B did well in a test enviornment. It's when you started producing the engine and start gathering engine life trend data in operational aircraft is when you start seeing pre mature failure.

I think you're going to find that the Welland went away so quickly was because although advertised for a 180 hour TBO most of them rarely made that and the Derwent was a much better engine.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Can you provide anything to support your statement that all early engines had a 20-25 hour service life? You see everything I've seen points to the early British service service engines having lives of between 100-160 hours at least. The only references to much shorter lives always refers to German engines and always refers to it being due to their lack of specialist alloys that allowed British engines to last much longer, I find it odd that no references to Meteors, Vampires or the XP-59A/XP-80 see fit to mention short engine lives it it was the case?

I never said "all" in terms of TBO. The factory gave them a TBO of 160 hours, my point is they rarely made that time in operational service (or at least a good portion of them). I think 160 Wellands were built before production was stopped. Most of the on line literature mentiones the Derwent being a better and mre reliable engine.

 

[mikewint]

DaveB, again forgive the off topic but i'm not sure i understood all your figures. german tanks on a 1 to 1 basis far, far surpased anything the US could field especially after the germans faced the t-34 in russia. the panther like all german late war production was a compromise due to war shortages (much like the 262's engines) its final drive had been simplified to speed production, which it did, but that introduced flaws that were never fixed. its lighter weight made it faster and more nimble than the tigers but it lost side armour.
the 1347 tigers most of which were non-operational due to breakdowns faced a 73:1 enemy tank ratio. throw in the 6000 panthers (again many non-operational due to breakdown) and you still have a ratio of 13:1
the 262 faced the same problems, war shortages and compromise, breakdowns, no spare parts, no fuel, etc. if i remember correctly there were never more than 300 or so 262s operational and without a stabilized gun-sight you're not going to hit something like a p-51 very easily.
the He 280 never got beyond prototype the He engine design was never functional and He finally settled on the same 004 jumos that the 262 used and the me was better matched to them.
IF the high command had recog the value of jets and pushed their production the 262 and 280 could have been functional and protected production factories. the Ho 229 would have been invisible to the early radar and could have raided england with ease. we could all be speaking german now.

 

[Waynos]

First off FBJ I 'd like to apologise for the almost confrontational tone of my question (that you quoted). It was just a question but my wording could have been better. I blame the fact that my wife was stood with her coat on demanding a lift to work, so I was rushing it. whats wrong with the bloody bus, lazy sod?

I think I have your point now, and I was also thinking of the Derwent among the 'early jet engines'. Yes, the first few would have had short operational lives, though I still think from the general sources available that they last far longer than the German engines of the same time, otherwise they would not have been accepted for service. Look at the quote where a Derwent completed a 100 hr test before it was flown. However I take your point on there being a difference between this and operational use, but I find it hard to believe the difference would be that great.

I wonder why specific figures seem to be so hard to come by though? Maybe a 'reliability myth' has grown around the early RR and DH engines but I would have to see something solid to accept that as fact.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

First off FBJ I 'd like to apologise for the almost confrontational tone of my question (that you quoted). It was just a question but my wording could have been better. I blame the fact that my wife was stood with her coat on demanding a lift to work, so I was rushing it. whats wrong with the bloody bus, lazy sod?

No worries!

I think I have your point now, and I was also thinking of the Derwent among the 'early jet engines'. Yes, the first few would have had short operational lives, though I still think from the general sources available that they last far longer than the German engines of the same time, otherwise they would not have been accepted for service. Look at the quote where a Derwent completed a 100 hr test before it was flown. However I take your point on there being a difference between this and operational use, but I find it hard to believe the difference would be that great.

Yes - in the test cell things are very controlled and uniformed. No changes in air temp, no g loads on the structure, gravity not working aganist the flow of fluids, etc.

I wonder why specific figures seem to be so hard to come by though? Maybe a 'reliability myth' has grown around the early RR and DH engines but I would have to see something solid to accept that as fact.

I think in the early development days premature failure was just considered norm. My guess is when the money train stopped, people responsible for fielding these things started tracking specifics on when and why failures occured.

I had to go to one of our vendors today but I found a link about 616 Sq and its first Meteor Mk 1 deployments. Do you know they lost 3 out of 11 aircraft the first month? I would bet dollars to donuts that engine failures had something to do with at least one if not all losses, and I bet they also happened on landing.

I believe the 3rd Meteor built had an axial flow engine and that aircraft crashed with just over 3 hours on it.

 

[mikewint]

any and all engineering is a compromise. what is an acceptable failure rate? if it's my engine make that zero. the military has always had a somewhat caviler attitude about lives. i guess its because men get killed no matter what you do.
the germans had few options due to war shortages. the British and Americans had no such restrictions but were working on the frontiers of knowledge. theories of metallic bonding, exotic alloys, etc were in their infancy. it was "seat-of-the pants" engineering. desperate times - desperate measures.
as to the test-bed times and real world times that really has not changed. look at the recent toyota fiasco or the famous pinto exploding gas tank. look at the "swiss-watch" zero clearance m-16. built for combat in the jungle. anybody at colt care when it goes click?

 

[FLYBOYJ]

any and all engineering is a compromise. what is an acceptable failure rate? if it's my engine make that zero. the military has always had a somewhat caviler attitude about lives. i guess its because men get killed no matter what you do.

You're 100% wrong. As early as WW2 the military (at least the US and Germany, some in the UK)kept pretty accurate records with regards to failure analysis in many of the weapons systems deployed. Eventually some of the methodologies used evolved into things like trend monitoring and risk mitigation and is a norm in today military.

as to the test-bed times and real world times that really has not changed. look at the recent toyota fiasco or the famous pinto exploding gas tank. look at the "swiss-watch" zero clearance m-16. built for combat in the jungle. anybody at colt care when it goes click?

Apples and oranges. The examples you bring were all ready developed items that suffered because of quality related to cost and profits. As far as the M-16, that was the result of not enough foresight into what type of environment the weapon would be subjected to and it also stems for a 1950s/60s mindset that the best weapon was the most technically advanced and it could do all. "MacNamara Thinking."

 

[Shortround6]

As far as the M-16, that was the result of not enough foresight into what type of environment the weapon would be subjected to and it also stems for a 1950s/60s mindset that the best weapon was the most technically advanced and it could do all. "MacNamara Thinking."

It was also the result the of changing the propellant type from a stick powder to which th eweapon was developed with to a ball powder with a heavier deterrent coating which had a much higher "soot" factor.
Colt had little or no control over ammo production.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

It was also the result the of changing the propellant type from a stick powder to which th eweapon was developed with to a ball powder with a heavier deterrent coating which had a much higher "soot" factor.
Colt had little or no control over ammo production.

that too...

 

[mikewint]

Guys, exactly my point. since nothing is or will ever be perfect development has to stop at some point and there are factors which cannot be controlled or even foreseen. the consumer (civilian/military) are always the ultimate beta testers. military contractors are out for the same profit as any other company. failure records are great but they are still failures and someone pays. we used to say: "remember, your weapon was made by the lowest bidder". I was a "ground pounder" so i'm more familiar with ground weapons but i do recall the F-104 which never shot down a single mig and had no way to carry ordinance on their wings, unarmed HUEYs that we had to hang machinegun by bungee cords, F4 phantoms that no one had thought to equip with cannon or machine guns, and when they were jury-rigged no gunsight, the good old M-113 with a 50cal mounted high on top with no protection or gun ports.
As WWII came to a close the US and Britain had more resources and were less desperate their standards were higher. the germans were desperate and standards were much lower and AH thought he was a military genius. machines that were essentially prototypes were put into combat in roles and places they were not designed for 'cause AH said so!
so if the best you can do is an engine that fails after 10-20 hours you use it, the price is your best pilots which are replaced by less well trained/experienced and the failures accelerate

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Guys, exactly my point. since nothing is or will ever be perfect development has to stop at some point and there are factors which cannot be controlled or even foreseen. the consumer (civilian/military) are always the ultimate beta testers. military contractors are out for the same profit as any other company. failure records are great but they are still failures and someone pays. we used to say: "remember, your weapon was made by the lowest bidder". I was a "ground pounder" so i'm more familiar with ground weapons but i do recall the F-104 which never shot down a single mig and had no way to carry ordinance on their wings, unarmed HUEYs that we had to hang machinegun by bungee cords, F4 phantoms that no one had thought to equip with cannon or machine guns, and when they were jury-rigged no gunsight, the good old M-113 with a 50cal mounted high on top with no protection or gun ports.

The fact that a F-104 never shot down a single Mig wasn't the fault of the airplane, but a matter or where and when it was operated. it served for almost 25 years through out NATO and did everything from interceptor to mini nuke bomber.

As far as mounting guns on Phantoms or Hueys - the "lowest bidder' contractor did exactly what the customer wanted. It was think tanks in the USAF that felt that air to air combat was a thing of the past and ommitted guns from F-4s.

 

[mikewint]

FBJ, i guessed that you were a pilot and you have my utmost respect. one of my main missions was to rescue downed pilots after SAR had failed. as i said not all failures can be foreseen or controlled espec in a combat situation. i was not blaming the planes or pilots, rather the military genius who decided that the f4 would only need to shoot down russian jets and therefore equipped it only with missile then decides to send it into a combat situation outside its design parameters. after the f4 was redesigned it became the deadliest fighter out there. the pilots used to claim that they were the world's largest supplier of used mig parts.
when we asked for close ground support the 7thAF sent high speed jets instead of the skyraiders we asked for, after all jets are so much cooler than cluncky old prop jobs. just like AH deciding that the 262 should be a bomber (though willy should bear the brunt of that since he lied) stopping production and recalling built planes to redesign them.
to me failure is failure to perform mission for whatever reason, machine or human

 

[FLYBOYJ]

FBJ, i guessed that you were a pilot and you have my utmost respect. one of my main missions was to rescue downed pilots after SAR had failed.

as i said not all failures can be foreseen or controlled espec in a combat situation. i was not blaming the planes or pilots, rather the military genius who decided that the f4 would only need to shoot down russian jets and therefore equipped it only with missile then decides to send it into a combat situation outside its design parameters. after the f4 was redesigned it became the deadliest fighter out there. the pilots used to claim that they were the world's largest supplier of used mig parts.

All true - the F-4 did do well without the gun, the Sparrow missiles were horrible and many MiGs "got away" because of a lack of a gun.

when we asked for close ground support the 7thAF sent high speed jets instead of the skyraiders we asked for, after all jets are so much cooler than cluncky old prop jobs. just like AH deciding that the 262 should be a bomber (though willy should bear the brunt of that since he lied) stopping production and recalling built planes to redesign them.
to me failure is failure to perform mission for whatever reason, machine or human

When were you in Nam - my brother was there in 68, Ashore Valley. He's called in airstrikes to have skyraiders show up.

 

[red admiral]

I wonder why specific figures seem to be so hard to come by though? Maybe a 'reliability myth' has grown around the early RR and DH engines but I would have to see something solid to accept that as fact.

I can't remember reading anything in particular about Meteors and engine failures. There were other issues with the engines, but not reliability. The only real problem I can remember was blanking of the engines during sharp manoeuvres at low speeds which would cause them to flameout. This wasn't a particular problem from the engines but rather from the Meteor's long nose disrupting the airflow over the nacelles when yawed.

I can remember reading of failures with Whittle's early engines, sometimes turbine related (still with stainless steel blades) and sometimes compressor related but have never seen mention of problems with the production engines.

Welland was discontinued in favour of the higher powered Derwent rather than anything else. Power Jets basically designed the Welland whilst the Derwent was RR's first engine. Power Jets improved the Welland design to the W2/700 which gave 2500lb+ but RR continued with the Derwent line.

From the lack of evidence its really quite difficult to conclude that the Welland or Derwent was unreliable.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

I can't remember reading anything in particular about Meteors and engine failures. There were other issues with the engines, but not reliability. The only real problem I can remember was blanking of the engines during sharp manoeuvres at low speeds which would cause them to flameout. This wasn't a particular problem from the engines but rather from the Meteor's long nose disrupting the airflow over the nacelles when yawed.

I can remember reading of failures with Whittle's early engines, sometimes turbine related (still with stainless steel blades) and sometimes compressor related but have never seen mention of problems with the production engines.

Welland was discontinued in favour of the higher powered Derwent rather than anything else. Power Jets basically designed the Welland whilst the Derwent was RR's first engine. Power Jets improved the Welland design to the W2/700 which gave 2500lb+ but RR continued with the Derwent line.

From the lack of evidence its really quite difficult to conclude that the Welland or Derwent was unreliable.

With just over 160 examples of the Welland buit, it was quickly phased out in favor of the more reliable Derwnet, this is mentioned in a number of sources. As mentioned, 616 Squadron deployed to the continent with 11 Welland powered Mk I Meteors and lost 3 of them within a month to non-combat operations. As soon as the Derwnet powered Mk IIIs became avaliable, the Welland powered Mk Is quickly disappeared.

The Gloster Meteor

"The Meteor I was underpowered"

Rolls-Royce Welland - Everything on Rolls-Royce Welland (information, latest news, articles,...)


From October 1943, a total of 167 Wellands, were dispatched from the Rolls-Royce facility at Barnoldswick. By this point Lombard's straight-through design, the Derwent, had proven to be both more reliable and somewhat more powerful, and production of the Welland ended.

 

[mikewint]

FBJ, i was in vietnam in '63 as an advisor setting up clinics in the northern highlands as part of the "hearts and minds" program. wounded and returned to the states i did not complete my 365 and was returned to vietnam. with the ending of that program we/i moved ito a more direct combat role mostly in cambodia and laos interdicting the ho trail and the two salients, fishook and parotts beak.
any mission required an ORPLAN which had to be sent to everyone to put their $.02 in. 7thAF decided what air assets we were going to get no matter what we asked for. in a combat airstrike you got whatever was on deck, AF, Navy, or ARVN.
prop or no the skyraider was tops in close air support. i also got a chance to ride in "Puff" call sign "spookey" another truly fantastic experience.
the Me 262 has always facinated me so i devoted at least some time to learning what i can about it as well as the more obscure planes like the arrow or the Ho 229 triggered by the movie "Raiders" though that was a spielburg fantasy plane