Much improved Me 109K?

spicmart · Feb 28, 2019

Denniss said:
35 liter Jumo 213A with ~3200rpm vs 44.5 liter DB 603A with ~2700 rpm

I wonder if the higher stress on the Jumo also leads to a shorter engine life.

Ivan1GFP · Feb 28, 2019

XBe02Drvr said:
Don't know that much about monsieur Boyd, but 40 seconds of sustained high G turn in the lead sled sounds like a recipe for disaster to me.
Cheers,
Wes

soulezoo said:
Word is he "wrinkled" more than one bird. Caused one to have hydraulic failure in flight that led to a courts martial. He proved it was an engineering flaw and the case was dismissed.

Hello XBe02Drvr, soulezoo,
Basically Colonel Boyd figured out how to pull the F-100 into very high AoA very quickly and "Flat Plate" his aircraft and decelerate so fast that he would cause the F-100 pilot following him to overshoot and thus reverse positions in 40 seconds or less. Comments in his biography was that it only took about 10 seconds.

We had this discussion before in another thread and BiffF15 pointed out the evils of overstressing the aircraft and causing damage that might result in a structural failure on a subsequent flight even under lesser loads.
The F-100 also had a serious directional stability problem at high AoA, so this was not the kind of thing that was a useful maneuver to teach.

- Ivan.

XBe02Drvr · Feb 28, 2019

Ivan1GFP said:
The F-100 also had a serious directional stability problem at high AoA, so this was not the kind of thing that was a useful maneuver to teach.

Sounds like an airplane breaker to me.
Cheers,
Wes

spicmart · Mar 2, 2019

The streamlined machine might have looked a bit like this, minus the contra-rotating prop, with larger vertical stabilizer and oil cooler.

rinkol · Mar 3, 2019

XBe02Drvr said:
Sounds like an airplane breaker to me.
Cheers,
Wes

Some of the late 1940s and early 1950s aircraft were veritable death traps. Transonic aerodynamics was poorly understood at the time and some important engines were unreliable and unsatisfactory in various ways. Wikipedia includes the following on the F7U:
"the Cutlass suffered from numerous technical and handling problems throughout its short service career. The type was responsible for the deaths of four test pilots and 21 other U.S. Navy pilots.[1] Over one quarter of all Cutlasses built were destroyed in accidents.[2]" Generally improvements were made as the problems were identified and solutions devised, but not without grievous human costs.

XBe02Drvr · Mar 3, 2019

rinkol said:
the Cutlass suffered from numerous technical and handling problems throughout its short service career.

Ah, the infamous "gutless Cutlass"!

XBe02Drvr · Mar 3, 2019

rinkol said:
Some of the late 1940s and early 1950s aircraft were veritable death traps.

Starting with the ME262, ME163, Meteor, and P59, not to forget the P80.
Cheers,
Wes

Milosh · Mar 4, 2019

XBe02Drvr said:
Starting with the ME262, ME163, Meteor, and P59, not to forget the P80.
Cheers,
Wes

Reason(s) for them being so?

Ascent · Mar 4, 2019

The Meteor's single engine handling characteristics where notorious. It took them a while to figure out though that more pilots were being killed by practicing engine out procedures then were being killed by actual incidents.

XBe02Drvr · Mar 4, 2019

Milosh said:
Reason(s) for them being so?

Ascent said:
The Meteor's single engine handling characteristics where notorious.

And the ME262, while not as notorious, was no pussycat on one engine, though not as bloody a track record, since they were mostly flown by experten. All of these planes suffered from primitive fuel controls, which were prone to pilot induced flameouts if the non-intuitive, non-linear throttle schedules were not religiously adhered to. The ME163 had a rocket motor that was prone to unprovoked explosions, and like all of the others, lacked a truly effective escape system with a survival envelope including those airspeeds, altitudes, and circumstances where the pilot was most likely to get in trouble. These early jets were all underpowered, having been designed for more thrust than their engines ultimately produced, and were prone to getting into high-sink-rate, backside of the power curve situations on approach that their slow-spooling, anemic engines couldn't power them out of. On top of that, their primitive ejection seats couldn't provide a survivable escape in a high sink rate situation, or at low airspeeds, or on the ground at any speed. Designers hadn't figured out that jets needed to be provided with lots of quickly adjustable drag (BIG speed brakes) so they could fly approaches with the engines spooled up and have more thrust quickly available if needed.
These are a few of the reasons for the appalling carnage in the early jets, and failures of training, administration, and doctrine are fodder for another chapter.
Cheers,
Wes

dedalos · Mar 4, 2019

XBe02Drvr said:
And the ME262, while not as notorious, was no pussycat on one engine, though not as bloody a track record, since they were mostly flown by experten. All of these planes suffered from primitive fuel controls, which were prone to pilot induced flameouts if the non-intuitive, non-linear throttle schedules were not religiously adhered to. The ME163 had a rocket motor that was prone to unprovoked explosions, and like all of the others, lacked a truly effective escape system with a survival envelope including those airspeeds, altitudes, and circumstances where the pilot was most likely to get in trouble. These early jets were all underpowered, having been designed for more thrust than their engines ultimately produced, and were prone to getting into high-sink-rate, backside of the power curve situations on approach that their slow-spooling, anemic engines couldn't power them out of. On top of that, their primitive ejection seats couldn't provide a survivable escape in a high sink rate situation, or at low airspeeds, or on the ground at any speed. Designers hadn't figured out that jets needed to be provided with lots of quickly adjustable drag (BIG speed brakes) so they could fly approaches with the engines spooled up and have more thrust quickly available if needed.
These are a few of the reasons for the appalling carnage in the early jets, and failures of training, administration, and doctrine are fodder for another chapter.
Cheers,
Wes

With respect to your opinion , the vast majority of me 262 s were not flown by experten. Anyway , no one was experte at flying jets. Steinhoff in his first battle could not figure out how to take advantage of the vast speed advantage.
Me 262 was not at all a death trap aerodynamicaly. It was a pleasant and quite agile aircraft, that only required gentle throttle movements and keep speed above 300 km/h . Yes it was underpowered and would be very helpful to have air brakes. But late in the war pilots of reasonable experience were converting to the type with 30 min instructions by the ground crew

Milosh · Mar 4, 2019

Tell me more about these rocket explosions in the Me163.

What twin engine prop job was easy to fly on one engine?

XBe02Drvr · Mar 4, 2019

Milosh said:
Tell me more about these rocket explosions in the Me163.

What twin engine prop job was easy to fly on one engine?

The two fuels that combined to propel the rocket would combust instantly if they, or even their vapors, came in contact. They were corrosive and tended to make most materials they came in contact with more brittle. A leaky fitting, a fatigue crack in a fuel or oxidizer line, or even a sloppy refueling job would set off a massive blast.

All multi engine planes (except Center Line Thrust) are less easy to fly on one engine than a single, but at least with recips, their behaviour was a known quantity, and most had assured takeoff capability with a worst-case engine failure. An ME262 low slow and dirty on one engine was described to me by Rudi Opitz as "a losing proposition". He repeated the old saw about the second engine taking you to the scene of the accident.
Cheers,
Wes

XBe02Drvr · Mar 4, 2019

dedalos said:
the vast majority of me 262 s were not flown by experten. Anyway , no one was experte at flying jets.

Perhaps experten (if taken to mean only top scoring aces) was not a good choice of words, but the intent was that they were mostly highly experienced pilots with sound aeronautical instincts and combat-honed confidence, the best equipped pilots to become experts in the new arena.
Cheers,
Wes

Much improved Me 109K?

More options

spicmart

Staff Sergeant

Ivan1GFP

Tech Sergeant

XBe02Drvr

2nd Lieutenant

spicmart

Staff Sergeant

rinkol

Airman 1st Class

XBe02Drvr

2nd Lieutenant

XBe02Drvr

2nd Lieutenant

Milosh

Senior Master Sergeant

Ascent

Senior Airman

XBe02Drvr

2nd Lieutenant

dedalos

Senior Airman

Milosh

Senior Master Sergeant

XBe02Drvr

2nd Lieutenant

XBe02Drvr

2nd Lieutenant

Users who are viewing this thread

Similar threads