Mistakes in Aviation

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

I think one major mistake in WW2 was Heinkel NOT following Avro's example and replacing the coupled engines of the He 177 with 4 individual engines as in the Manchester - Lancaster.

This would have yielded a strategic bomber that actually worked for the Luftwaffe. Also, who's idea was it to make the He 177 a dive bomber anyway?
 
Heinkel did not have a choice. They were told to develop the aircraft as a dive bomber by the RLM.

If they had developed the aircraft with 4 single engines it would not have been capable of divebombing.
 
Interesting. How did the coupled engines affect this?

The He 177 and the Avro Manchester are quite similar in philosophy (there was a requirement for the Manchester to be capable of dive bombing too but this was 'relaxed' quite early on). When you look at how this evolved into the Lancaster it has to be said that Heinkel (ok then, the RLM really, Heinkel were no fools) missed a trick.
 
Never heard that before, but I'm no engineer. Thank you, something new for me to look into
 
Heinkel did make one with 4 seperate DB 603A engines - in secret. It was the He 277 and didn't advance beyond prototype stage. The RLM would have strung him up if they knew. The Japanese also considered building a 4 engine version under license but never happened.
 
Is the He 277 one that was completed and flown in France after the war? That idea just popped into my head from somewhere.
 
And the fire problem was exascerbated by constant overheating problrms. In addition to gear box problems.

The increased weight required for the divebombing capabilities also hampered performance.


There were similar issues that deteriated the Ju 88's performance and capabilities.
 
The RAF made a big mistake in not pursing the idea of jet aircraft with more interest. If they'd built more Meteors and committed more to the front line, it could have even helped shorten the air war, or at least helped reduce casualties
 
They did, and for a time thy were within weeks of developments in germany, the WU ran within days of the HeS-1, and futher developments went fairly smoothly, the war slowed things down a bit, but after the BoB things picked up again. The first Gloster E.28/39 was ready in early 1941, but by then there was another problem.

Powere Jets' team up with Rover was poor to say the least. These ongoing problems delayed the first flight of the test a/c somewhat but it stalled the entire Whittle jet development program, and the Metoer, by about 2 years. So much so that the Metoer first flew with Halford (Goblin) engines due to ongoing problems with Rover.

Once Rolls Royce picked up the Whittle designs progress was very rapid, and if this had been the initial arrangement instead of with rover, it would be conceivable that the Meteor could first fly by early '42. And the progress in development would have been much faster, initial operations possibly by early '43 and improvements in the design much quicker than hisorically.
 
Whittle's engine was first tested in 1937 and seeing as most of the development was during wartime you'd have thought they'd have rushed it through. Weren't the air minnsitry rather hostile to Whittle and his design?
 
On and off, and somewhat devided, quite similar in some ways to the RLM's reception of Heinkel's jets.

But by late 1940 things were looking fairly good for Whittle, but then they got teamed up with Rover and the whole thing came to a virtual standstill.

There were ongoing political problems with the Air Minisry tward the jets, but the biggest hindrance was Rover.

Here's somthing on Whittle: A TRIBUTE TO A CAMBRIDGE ENGINEERINGSTUDENT

I'll try to find the article that sheds more light on the Rover problems.
For an overview there's Frank Whittle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

also some here Frank Whittle and the P-59A American turbojet

red admiral should have some good info on this too.
 
Negative Creep said:
The RAF made a big mistake in not pursing the idea of jet aircraft with more interest. If they'd built more Meteors and committed more to the front line, it could have even helped shorten the air war, or at least helped reduce casualties
Click to expand...

America also...The jet was on its way to being ready pre war ...But they just dragged there feet on it..
 
The situatio in the US was a bit mixed, the NACA blew it in a pre war study.

But on the part of the Lockheed L-133 and L-1000 engine (if you were thinking that) it was way too complex to work, and even by 1950's standards impractical. And despite continual development as the XJ37 it never amounted to more than some testbed examples, and never worked in a practical fassion. (a contra-rotating twin spool 16-stage engine with 4 turbines)

They didn't get going again untill work was spurred bu the Arrival of the Whittle engine. (both developments of it, or original projects: ie GE TG-100 turboprop becoming TG-180/J35 jet, and the Westinghouse J30-first orignial us design to run- all being axial designs)

There were some earlier preliminary studies at GE of turbine engines based on their turbocharger experience though.

a good overview: ch3
 
For Whittle, the best source is "The Whittle Story" by John Golley.

Pairing up with RR or Bristol instead of Rover would result in saving about 2 years of develop and give better engines as well due to the available testing facilities. Power Jets had little space, equipment or money to properly test their components and improve their efficiency. Most of the early work went into trying to sovle the combustion problems. Past that stage and things really take off in the UK because the knowledge is made available to a number of companies. de Havilland take Whittle's basic design, change the arrangement slightly and scale it up to produce the H.1 which is powerful and works fine.

The least said about developments in the US the better. I doubt that the L-1000 would work even today. Theres more chance of Griffith's 32-spool contra-rotating double reverse flow turbofan working, mostly because RR actually got the core running during 42-43.
 
kool kitty89 and a good one [url=http://www.vectorsite.net/avmeteor.html said:
The Gloster Meteor[/url]
Click to expand...

Hello kk89,

I do not favor the 262 very much, but I think the Meteor MKI couldn't touch a 262 (with non flaming engines) at all.

Quote: For the production Meteor F.1, the engine was switched to the Whittle W.2 design, by then taken over by Rolls-Royce. The contemporary W.2B/23C turbojet engines produced 7.56 kN of thrust each, giving the aircraft a maximum speed of 417 mph (670 km/h) at 3,000 m.

According to the above quote it would had difficulties to cope with a Fw190D-9/11 or Ta152 or 109K. Probably it would have lost straight out to the above Lw fighters.

Are there any accounts of air victories, besides shooting down "helpless" V1's which a Spit, Typhoon or a Mossie could do just the same.

It was to become a very good a/c from the 50's onward but in 44 and 45?

Regards
Kruska
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

Z
Weather limitations in carrier aviation in the interwar and WWII eras
5 6 7
Replies
126
Views
9K
RCAFson
R
T
B24 use in ETO
Replies
3
Views
454
Geoffrey Sinclair
G
617th squadron and the bunkers in Ijmuiden.
2
Replies
23
Views
958
DerAdlerIstGelandet
M
Train in a PT-19
Replies
3
Views
518
MIflyer
M
K
Hard runways in WWII
2
Replies
31
Views
2K
Thumpalumpacus
Menu
Log in
Register