KrazyKraut
Banned
- 337
- Apr 21, 2008
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
When would you have mass production of the F2/4 available? 1946?Thats a challenging point to support. In terms of the engines actually built, the Allied ones were better. Usually the point is made of the better thrust/unit area of the German axial types but the Metrovick F2 also exists. It offers more thrust, much lower fuel consumption, lower weight and greater lifetime. By 1945 you've got the F2/4 offering even more thrust with lower fuel consumption.
Because you are comparing apples and oranges. Turboprops and -jets. Besides that, turboprops are not all that practical for fighter aircraft.You've also got in 1945 the F3 and F5 turbofan and UDF running successfully offering 40% lower fuel consumption and 100% more thrust (4600lbf and 4800lbf respectively with sfc 0.66). The 004, 003 and 011 don't come anywhere close to competing on these technical issues - but are easier to produce with the limited resources available.
The main German advantage was choosing two engine categories early on, developing a set number for each and (more or less) killing all the other programs. If they chose the right ones is very debatable, but this way, they were able to actually field them. Imo British and German jet engine development was about on par in terms of being technically advanced. However the choices made by the Germans allowed them to field comparably cheap turbojets, which additionally could've been easily scaled up for more power. That never really came to pass though.The one German advantage, that they had been forced into studying air cooled turbine blades which eventually worked so lower amounts of specialised materials could be used. The German engines were suited to the type of war they were fighting and their restrictions. The Allied ones were better optimised for their war and peacetime postwar.
When would you have mass production of the F2/4 available? 1946?
Because you are comparing apples and oranges. Turboprops and -jets. Besides that, turboprops are not all that practical for fighter aircraft.
which additionally could've been easily scaled up for more power.
I'm sorry, I just noticed my mistake, I meant turbofan. The point remains the same though. Unless the bypass ratio is rather small, like for example with an EJ200, turbofans are not practical for a fighter. The decrease in specific fuel consumption you mentioned indicates a large bypass ratio and thus large frontal area. How large a frontal area and how much weight did the F3 have? I have no info at hand and don't know much about the MetroVicks.Which turboprops?. The F3 was a turbofan, the F5 an unducted fan. No gearbox involved. Both give large increases in thrust and large decreases in fuel consumption for this flight regime. Easiest to fit into the Meteor nacelles and a whole bunch of other designs used the F3, usually buried or semi-buried wing installations.
What's TET? turbine exit temperature (T4.5)? I assume spool is what we would call Welle in German? If so then many later jet engines, like J79, still did fine with a single spool and the 004H already would've had 2.Thats debateable. With a single spool you've got limited scaling options (even more so with the mixed flow compressor of the 011) besides building bigger, but its a lot more complicated than that. If more power is needed, increase rpm for greater mass flow (but not possible with the 004 due to vibration) or increase TET (which just happened before the end of war, up to 870°C). Increasing rpm means lower efficiency and higher stress but greater mass flow rate and higher pr and lower fuel consumption. Increasing TET means reduced life and higher fuel consumption but more thrust.
DD, don't think we disagree on this point, but by reading your post I see I might not've explained part of the focus for the LW with their fighter intercept.
I was thinking the escort would be broken down into four stages.
Short Range Inbound (Base to German Border) Penetration
Long Range Inbound (German Border to Target) Target
Long Range Outbound (Target to German Border) Target then Withdrawal
Short Range Outbound (German Border to Base) Withdrawal
My focus of the true destruction of the bombers would be from the German border to the target and back to the border. The fighters I am considering for interecept are fighters in that realm, not the fighters covering up to the German Border. To my mind, there really isn't much you can do about them.
To inflict more casualties on the bombers, IMO, you must attempt to force the hand of the Long Range Escort before the German Border is reached. For the Mustang that was critical point where the internal fuselage fuel tank was low and the drop tanks were initiated. It is at this point that the 51 has its highest vulnerability (climbing, 80+ % full internal fuel). Half the range is in the drop tank.
To my mind, the weakness of the Allies was the long range fighter. Even after the Mustang showed up, it was still a relatively small population of fighters for the most part. It grew quickly, but was not focused on by the LW. However, I may be mistaken in that the LW did recognize the weakness but just found themselves with a tactical problem that they could not solve.
I'm sorry, I just noticed my mistake, I meant turbofan. The point remains the same though. Unless the bypass ratio is rather small, like for example with an EJ200, turbofans are not practical for a fighter.
What's TET? turbine exit temperature (T4.5)? I assume spool is what we would call Welle in German? If so then many later jet engines, like J79, still did fine with a single spool and the 004H already would've had 2.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but with a radial compressor, if you want to increase surge, you sooner or later have to either add another impeller stage
The Jumo 004 could be (and was) relatively economically scaled up by simply adding a few compressor stages and scaling diameter up by a few cm.
If you take the 004H (2 stage compressor, 2 stage turbine) plus air-cooled turbine blades you basically have the basic features of many engines that are still running.
I have been reading Eric Mombeeks, Defenders of the Reich. It is a history of JG1. It seems that at the beginning of 1944 the main problem facing the Lw was the heavy presence of allied fighters. The Geshwaders were outnumbered heavily. There were times when P-38's and P-51's would patrol right over the Lw airfields making takeoff almost impossible. As soon as a FW or Me would take off an allied fighter would swoop in and shoot it down. Much of the time a Luftwaffe fighter pilot would have to try to disengage from a melee being outnumbered 5-1. The Lw still had their victories but the good ol days were gone for good.
How could this be countered, or could it even be countered in 1944?
I have been reading Eric Mombeeks, Defenders of the Reich. It is a history of JG1. It seems that at the beginning of 1944 the main problem facing the Lw was the heavy presence of allied fighters. The Geshwaders were outnumbered heavily. There were times when P-38's and P-51's would patrol right over the Lw airfields making takeoff almost impossible. As soon as a FW or Me would take off an allied fighter would swoop in and shoot it down. Much of the time a Luftwaffe fighter pilot would have to try to disengage from a melee being outnumbered 5-1. The Lw still had their victories but the good ol days were gone for good.
How could this be countered, or could it even be countered in 1944?
Have to agree DG, its a very common misconception that the LW was outnumbered. It was not. Or not to the extent of 5:1 in fighters. When you look at the available LR escorts vs LW fighters I believe it was the Americans were actually heavily outnumbered
Right up to Mid January the LW could and did put up local superiority - but as you pointed out below the real issue was dramatic difference in numbers of skilled pilots remaining for LW by mid to late 1944
However to be fair, the US did possess vastly superior reserves to the germans. They could replace losses more or less immediately, the LW could not
I can only go by personal accounts of the superiority of the allied fighters and the heavy attrition of Lw fighters in 1944. If this is not true then please forgive my ignorance, I was reading personal accounts and sometimes the big picture is not there. From what I read from the pilots accounts in JG1; allied fighters vulched their fields, strafed their fields and sometimes outnumbered the Luftwaffe greatly. The heavy bombers were sometimes escorted by 800 plus fighters.
Have to agree DG, its a very common misconception that the LW was outnumbered. It was not. Or not to the extent of 5:1 in fighters. When you look at the available LR escorts vs LW fighters I believe it was the Americans were actually heavily outnumbered
Thing is most of those LW fighters had to engage the bombers only a few would engage the escorts.
If the strenght ratio was 1:1 or close to that (as you suggest), they stand a certain chance (up until d-day, from then on things change rapidly). Seeing as how as much as 35-45% of all Fw 190 pilots downed over France in 1942 managed to either crash land or eject, even a hypothetical superiority in quality (which I would agree on for maybe march/april 1944 onwards) could've been overcome.This is where I lose understanding of the situatio.....I think the Luftwaffe was being ordered to do that (go for the bombers) however, even if they had gone for thefighters, one wonders if they would come off okay.
Frontline strength doesn't really tell you an aweful lot though. The situation in the air at a certain time and point is where you are either outnumbered or not.The reason this is "sticky", is that is pretty strong opposition to that notion by many supporters of the LW....so that when asked "why then did they lose?" the manifestly incorrect notion that their frontline strength was overwhelmed is used as the reason....it kinda looks better on the LWs resume to say "we were overwhlemed by the decadent wests hordes of planes. I dont know why this is felt necessary, since the LW has a reputation that it can be rightly proud of anyway......
This is where I lose understanding of the situatio.....I think the Luftwaffe was being ordered to do that (go for the bombers) however, even if they had gone for thefighters, one wonders if they would come off okay. This is where it gets a bit sticky. I believe that even in early 1944, your average LW pilot was less well trained than your average USAAAF pilot. I base that on the number of flying hours being spent per pilot before joining a frontline squadron. For the US pilot, by early 1944 it was around 500 hours....whereas for the LW pilots I believe it was around 150 hours. The LW was being forced to throw pilots in early because of the very high wastage rates in the aircrew. They were being forced to put pilots into the air before they were ready. as the year 1944 wore on, this situation just got worse and worse
The allies from a very early part of the war had devoted massive amounts of energy into her training regimes. For example, the US trained about 233000 pilots I believe, to something like 65000 (I think....not sure) German pilots. There just was not the infrastructure, the fuel the trainers, for the Germans to be competitive in the training war.
The reason this is "sticky", is that is pretty strong opposition to that notion by many supporters of the LW....so that when asked "why then did they lose?" the manifestly incorrect notion that their frontline strength was overwhelmed is used as the reason....it kinda looks better on the LWs resume to say "we were overwhlemed by the decadent wests hordes of planes. I dont know why this is felt necessary, since the LW has a reputation that it can be rightly proud of anyway......